Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Yes but your 6year old Panasonic was adjusting an SDR image within an SDR space so that's no problem. If you put an HDR image within an SDR space you either have to dim it (darken it so whites look grey), flatten it (make 20 stops fit into 10, making it grey), bend it (change it's curve, in this case flattening the highlights seems more appropiate, like the "knee" function in a camera, but that's what most colorist would have done on the Blu too) or just chop off it's "head" (discard most everything above white if you want whites to still be whites). Hopefully the players' adjustments and the automatic curve they have are good enough to make a presentable enjoyable image. But if auto-algos were that good, you wouldn't need much out of a colorist. Or HDR.

But that's what I'm trying to say: that the same functions on the Samsung and indeed the Panasonic aren't adjusting the curve re: SDR conversion, they're simply raising/lowering those settings in the same linear fashion as they always do. Why would the Panasonic even have an adjustable SDR conversion feature if the regular brightness, contrast, gamma controls could do the same thing in the same way?

[Deciazulado]

The reason why, I can speculate, would be because the PQ curve is not equal to the straight line a gamma curve does (in deci f/stops, it's straight you know. ) (While the PQ is not) So one would think to be accurate there would be some non linear transformation at the very basic, before doing any brightness/contrast manipulation, or peak limiting or whatever additional adjustments a player might or might not do. Otherwise you could take a HDR (PQ) image and just watch it in lets say gamma 3 or 4-5, (just by using the contrast and brightness you can if they give you enough range), getting the end to end contrasts, but the PQ distributes tones different along the way (the tone/bit/perceptual difference distribution optimization). Looks like a very long tall and skinny inverted S more like an inverted ƒ boosting the highlights up up and away to 25,000 candles per meter squared if they allowed it. HDR is the new Orange.

[peterraes]

Originally Posted by freedomland

I burried the idea of getting 4K-Discs to watch on my 1080p projector and to be prepared for a new uhd-projector with UHD-content, just for now. There are too many things that could go wrong. Why REC.2020 instead of DCI without any kind of conversion?(Bluray-authors could do a lot of things wrong.) Why HDR without correctly beeing able to deactivate it.(I want old movies like there be projected then without "colouring"(HDR) it).

This is all so mean from the studios and the industry, they are offering us things what not really exist today(rec2020). What are they think we are gonna do? Buy every month new stuff? C´mon we are not that stupid.

Yesterday I watched "all quiet on the western front", and would you like to know what I missed much? The clarity of a non DNRed and sharpened Bluray with well resolved grain like Casablancas recent transfer. When studios like Universal stops thinking featurs have to be tweaked like "pimp my ride", we start watching movies and not think about if its a Bluray or a UHD.
I think 4K could be good opportunity for filmlike images, but if the industry and studios wants to much milk from us and make us changing gears like pants, then it could be SACD-trash.

None here has reacted to your post ,because what you say is the truth and people (early adopters) here just dont wanna admitt HDR is a mess cause it "pimps" and "alters" the movie as is.
Those people called it blasphemy in the past to change the original content and now think it's oke?
Small example..the sun issue in Mad Max ,they just changed it completely and this has nothing to do with brightness or contrast!
To the industry...paws of our movies please..just give us 4K + WCG + 10 Bit ,purists hate the ultra bright high contrast pictures as this is just overkill and ruins the experience!
Let's hope that the "bad" part of HDR will die out so we can have our "filmlook" back!

[pawel86ck]

Originally Posted by peterraes

purists hate the ultra bright high contrast pictures as this is just overkill and ruins the experience!

As HDTVtestcouk article concluded, this is popular misconception

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-vs-201604104279.htm

Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of HDR (high dynamic range) mastering is to expand the available luminance range rather than elevate the overall brightness of HDR videos. What this means is that for most scenes, 4K Blu-ray’s Average Picture Level (APL) in HDR should not deviate drastically from that of a regular 1080p Bluray in SDR (standard dynamic range). Indeed, that’s what we found in our own 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray vs Blu-ray comparisons.

http://www.lightillusion.com/uhdtv.html

This EOTF (ST2084) is intended to enable the creation of video images with an increased luminance range; not for creation of video images with overall higher luminance levels. For consistency of presentation across devices with different output brightness, average picture levels in content would likely remain similar to current luminance levels; i.e. mid-range scene exposures would produce currently expected luminance levels appropriate to video or cinema.

And even photos shows that BD vs UHD APL (Average Picture Level) looks similar on calibrated displays.




And in fact it's much easier to make BD picture ultra bright (because UHD is already using max backlight settings)


Only certain details (that should be indeed bright) use max peak white. For example that light in "The Lego Movie" scene use 1200cd/m2 (it was measured on DX900 panasonic), while the rest of the picture remain dark.

people (early adopters) here just dont wanna admitt HDR is a mess cause it "pimps" and "alters" the movie as is.

Maybe it's the other way around, and you are the one, who dont want to admit HDR benefits.

.the sun issue in Mad Max ,they just changed it completely and this has nothing to do with brightness or contrast!

as I wrote before, to make sun visible on this particular scene entire sky had to be unnaturally dimm (because of 709 limit), so they had to grade it as it is on BD. Only HDR allowed them to have both, bright sky, and sun visible at the same time.

[dvdmike]

[pawel86ck]

dvdmike@ Good , 7 pages of notes should suffice... for now, but at the end of the day another person will cry, and repeat the same misconceptions when it comes to HDR.

[peterraes]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

As HDTVtestcouk article concluded, this is popular misconception

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-vs-201604104279.htm


http://www.lightillusion.com/uhdtv.html


And even photos shows that BD vs UHD APL (Average Picture Level) looks similar on calibrated displays.




And in fact it's much easier to make BD picture ultra bright (because UHD is already using max backlight settings)


Only certain details (that should be indeed bright) use max peak white. For example that light in "The Lego Movie" scene use 1200cd/m2 (it was measured on DX900 panasonic), while the rest of the picture remain dark.



Maybe it's the other way around, and you are the one, who dont want to admit HDR benefits.


as I wrote before, to make sun visible on this particular scene entire sky had to be unnaturally dimm (because of 709 limit), so they had to grade it as it is on BD. Only HDR allowed them to have both, bright sky, and sun visible at the same time.

Thx for the pics and the informative explanation and yes..i do understand how HDR "works" and it can have benefits.
The problem is...will they not abuse it to "pimp" it as seen on several occasions allready.
I mean,not only the bright and dark parts of the picture give more detail but as a result of going over the top on this the whole picture seems overkill!
And i do have a big problem with that as it is verry tempting for the person doing the grading to go over the top to "impress" us.
Even novices that dont know annything about how HDR works found the picture overly bright and colors that jumped out of the screen ,i heard plenty remarks like this from people that attended a viewing on calibrated displays.
What seems to be happening is like 3D...they made lots of 3D movies that were plain awfull ,just to bring out 3D as they assumed we would "swallow" the whole thing without thinking about it.
Maybe it's to early and i'm getting wind up for nothing and all will be sorted out soon?
I do hope so as otherwise there will be a camp with people that love HDR and a no love camp ,and that will not help the industry wanting to sell us their software and elektronics.
Soon there will be Dolby Vision..more confusion and room for getting it wrong and trying to do "different" (altering) then HDR10.

[pawel86ck]

And i do have a big problem with that as it is verry tempting for the person doing the grading to go over the top to "impress" us.

In essence HDR it's just more space for picture information, and it's not some technology supposed to "blind you" with artificaly boosted highlights. People from movie studio dont need to adjust anything in order to "impress" average viewer, but now they finaly can encode video file from original material without so much compromises (without cliped details). For example do you think they made that sun in mad max?? That sun, clouds, or even details in dark areas were already there in original materials, and it's not like they made them for UHD .

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by freedomland

Why REC.2020 instead of DCI without any kind of conversion?(Bluray-authors could do a lot of things wrong.) Why HDR without correctly beeing able to deactivate it.(I want old movies like there be projected then without "colouring"(HDR) it).

This is all so mean from the studios and the industry, they are offering us things what not really exist today(rec2020). What are they think we are gonna do? Buy every month new stuff? C´mon we are not that stupid.

I understand this is bewildering but in the end something like UHD is a bigger transition change than from NTSC/SMPTE "C" 480i or PAL 576i to rec.709 1080p HDTV

Actually using rec.2020 as the container, therefore as the maximum gamut encodable in the disc, altho not without implementation perils, I think is a good idea if they do it right (which would mean some synergetic cooperation between monitor manufacturing (color adjustment range), calibration software, and the studio standard)

We've had this situation for years in NTSC: Even tho the color signal was encoded in NTSC (a much wider gamut, similar to AdobeRGB and P3), after ~ the 60's, content was mastered (and expected to be seen) in SMPTE "C" primaries (a much narrower gamut, similar to sRGB/rec.709). And you couldn't do much about it. So theoretically the signal ("container") was wrong for the TVs but it looked kind of right if the TVs had the narrow primaries. (And if you saw it on a true NTSC primaries TV, the colors would be off). Because they adjusted it to look right on SMPTE "C"

Now we have the capability of color management, and calibration and calibrators for the Home Theater enthusiast, and many TVs come with enhanced range of color adjustments: 20 point, 6 color hue saturation and value settings Ability to choose between wide gamut and narrower gamut. etc. In NTSC days you had to open the back of the CRT and use a plastic screwdriver and put your left hand behind your back and play with the bias (blacks) and gain (whites) pots and you were lucky you got them for more than 2 colors and that was for just getting the thing to look grey and have real blacks with whatever colors the 3 TV phosphorus gave you. (Which wasn't really SMPTE "C" anyway on many TVs.)


If I get my colors straight from all this HDR calibrators discussions, rec.2020 container becomes the equivalent of the NTSC container, and P3 the equivalent of a narrower SMPTE "C" primaries achievable now, but with a difference: the addition of all the color adjustment on TVs now to do that better. If I undertand the procedure correctly, you have the big wide rec.2020 container but you have a P3 or so tv in mastering. You'd put the "encoded in 2020" signal patterns and if you do nothing the 2020 green would go to the P3 green skewing the colors. But you put on a P3 color (remember encoded within in 2020), and adjust the TV so P3 green falls on the P3 green of the TV. "Correcting" the color. You have the P3 colors in the signal (container) correctly and you still have the 2020 green in there, tho it now falls outside the gamut of the TV. But it's still there (or the capability to encode it is still there, even if you don't use an image that saturated, and will be there for the time you have a monitor with 2020 green. Or right now if you have an Adobe RGB capable monitor with it's slightly better greens and cyans it could display that 2020 green a little better. The thing is to get all the in-gamut colors of the monitor to display correctly/as most accurate you can. Any out of the specific monitor gamut colors are still there or can be encoded in the container, for future advancements in expanding TV's gamuts, And of course they would display within the current display's saturation limits if encoded. It's a much better situation that NTSC/SMPTE "C", where the color is forever limited to SMPTE "C" viewing.

I would imagine simple TV's would display the out of it's bounds color simply brighter, while more advanced ones might remap them better. "Features". Just like 15+ f/stops of contrasts will be fitted/remapped some way into narrower contrast displays. But the look-ahead gamut encoding has the ability to "grow" with display technology.

Technology will always advance and today faster.

_____________________________
Warning: The cannons in this Compact Disc have been recorded at very high levels using the full range of the Compact Disc's 16bit S/N ratio. Use caution when playing back in your equipment.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by peterraes

None here has reacted to your post ,because what you say is the truth and people (early adopters) here just dont wanna admitt HDR is a mess cause it "pimps" and "alters" the movie as is.
Those people called it blasphemy in the past to change the original content and now think it's oke?
Small example..the sun issue in Mad Max ,they just changed it completely and this has nothing to do with brightness or contrast!
To the industry...paws of our movies please..just give us 4K + WCG + 10 Bit ,purists hate the ultra bright high contrast pictures as this is just overkill and ruins the experience!
Let's hope that the "bad" part of HDR will die out so we can have our "filmlook" back!

I am also surprised how a significantly different look is Ok for almost all movies as long as it is created or approved by somebody close enough to the production.

Clearly it is possible to get what basically amounts to the DCP converted to 3840x2160, complete with DCI P3 gamut and 10 bits but then there does not seem to be much of a demand for that. Judging by what can be read on this and other forums it is now OK to alter movies from how they looked in 2D in theaters and people who still want to emulate that look will have to stick with Blu-ray.

I would be happy to get the original AND the altered look but I doubt this will happen very often. It will be mostly HDR even for movies that never were intended to look that way.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

dvdmike@ Good , 7 pages of notes should suffice... for now, but at the end of the day another person will cry, and repeat the same misconceptions when it comes to HDR.

Misconception or opinions?
People not agreeing with you is not crying

Oh and you can't for one second prove this is what that looked like on the Dcp

[pawel86ck]

Misconception or opinions?
People not agreeing with you is not crying

Oh and you can't for one second prove this is what that looked like on the Dcp

Original materials had these details for sure, and how cinema DCP looked I dont care. Most likely it wasnt graded with expanded range potential in mind.

And when it comes to my posts, at least I can provide links to the articles with photos that basically proves, that what I'm saying is true.

To be fair, I can agree that HDR alter movie look, because it shows information not visible before (but still movie studio can erase or dimm these details if they only want to), but all the rest that you guys are saying about HDR is pure nonsense. All you guys doing is misleading people to belive that HDR is some kind of dynamic mode equivalent, that supposed to blind people with fake highlights, ultra brightness and image pop, but if that would be the case, HDR would look like picture on the left.



And here's explanation what HDR actually does
http://www.lightillusion.com/uhdtv.html

HDR should just ADD to the existing brightness range of existing displays, meaning that more detail can be seen in the brighter areas of the image, where existing displays simply clip the image detail.

And so average Picture Level on HDR display will not be significantly different to a SDR display, and this is also what photos from my previous posts shows.

And here's great HDR simulation from that article (of course clouds in SDR picture are intentionaly cliped in order to show that difference on SDR monitor)

SDR
http://www.lightillusion.com/img_li/...normalised.jpg

HDR
http://www.lightillusion.com/img_li/...normalised.jpg
Average picture levels still looks the same, but more details can be seen in the brighter areas of the image, and this is not just my opinion as you suggested, because as anyonce can see I'm quoting articless that include proofs.

People not agreeing with you is not crying

it was just a sarcasm, I thought people on this site should realize that.

[dvdmike]

Done

[Pieter V]

Blu-ray.com started uploading 4K screenshots for their reviews.

Some examples:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-M...lu-ray/147430/

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-L...lu-ray/147732/

More will follow.

[dvdmike]

Hmmmmm

[pawel86ck]

Thanks PieterV, It looks like even HDR screenshots are included , not only SDR.

BTW- I think that blu-ray.com watermark should be on the bottom, not in the centre, but one way or another, at least we can see actual screenshots now

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Blu-ray.com started uploading 4K screenshots for their reviews.

Some examples:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-M...lu-ray/147430/

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-L...lu-ray/147732/

More will follow.

So they're showing SDR ones and then HDR ones? The bottom set look very dull and washed out, presumably because I'm not able to apply the correct HDR EOTF to them on my monitor.

If those are legit then that's not exactly the greatest upscale I've ever seen on The Martian, there's some obvious aliasing on fine details here and there, and those compression artefacts are not pretty.

Last Witch Hunter is a bit more like it, though. Love the detail in that shot of Vin at the top. (The distortion that can otherwise be seen in some of them LWH shots is probably due to the movie having been shot anamorphic which is an educated guess, I haven't checked the tech spec for it).

[pawel86ck]

If those are legit then that's not exactly the greatest upscale I've ever seen on The Martian, there's some obvious aliasing on fine details here and there, and those compression artefacts are not pretty.

GeoffD@ Something is not right with these SDR screenshots, colors and contrast looks too strong compared to UHD SDR screenshots from samsung UHD player. It looks like samsung UHD player converts HDR into SDR better compared to whetever algoritm they use here on blu-ray.com

On the left picture from review, on the right picture from samsung UHD player.

it almost as if blu-ray.com screenshots use some kind contrast auto enhancement, and propably that's why there's more artifacts and ringing visible now

[Geoff D]

But which ones are SDR in the reviews? The top or the bottom?

[pawel86ck]

On top you have SDR screenshots, HDR ones are on bottom (and should be washed out on SDR monitor)