Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[bga84]

Not confused but in terms of releases, has there been an example of WCG without it being tied in to HDR?

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

Yeah, people seem to confuse color space and dynamic range.

Yes they do, but both WCG and HDR are only used in UHD rather than standard HD (blu ray)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bga84

Not confused but in terms of releases, has there been an example of WCG without it being tied in to HDR?

Nope. SDR 2020 is part of the UHD Blu spec but all releases thus far have been SDR 709 or HDR 2020, nothing in-between.

[qw0aszx]

Originally Posted by Synchg

i understand 4k resolution of anime in 4k, but with HDR? not possible. keep it at 709/sdr

Here's the article about how they grade the HDR version of Mary And The Witch's Flower, they already considered HDR when making the film and I would say it's a native HDR title:
https://www.phileweb.com/news/d-av/201802/16/43275.html

[Geoff D]

Thanks for the link, but me no speaky Japanesy!

I did however note the letters MGVC, this is Panasonic's special-sauce extension of the regular Blu-ray spec to allow for greater bit depth i.e. less banding on animated titles which can struggle with Blu-ray's regular 8-bit depth. Not colour space related as they're two different things, but an interesting footnote nonetheless.

[andreasy969]

The Incredible Hulk

I only bought that one because I didn't own a BD of it yet. I also actually just redid all the UHD caps with 100 nits instead of 200 because of the blacks. At times it looks even more boosted because of that (aka 200 nits looked better at times imo), but the black crush was just too much with 200 nits with that one (there also wasn't any "real" HDR imo anyway).

UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/100 nits) left, BD (upscaled) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark, may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=589

[Geoff D]

I fundamentally disagree with there being no "real" HDR as there's some very handy expansion of the highlights throughout this movie, but naturally a 100 or 200 conversion will nuke that stuff.

[andreasy969]

Fair enough. And I said imo. But I still hate Universal.

[Geoff D]

That's fair enough as well.

But the mild crush seems to fit this movie rather well, it doesn't result in that 'hard' transition from grey to black that annoyed me so much on Compton and there isn't some horrendous amount of shadow detail that's being lost.

As I noted in my review there's a slightly 'hollow' look to the blacks on the Blu-ray, like on that shot of Betty, the dude from Modern Family and the old pizza geezer, look at the areas of shadow on their laps: although it's lighter on the BD it's not actually revealing anything and even has a couple of weird little artefacts in there.

[andreasy969]

I also had the Martian TC in the mail today btw, but that one will take more time (maybe this weekend). I just gave it a very brief spin and there is some heavy noise at times indeed that (I think) is absent on the other release. Other scenes appear to look just as "bad" as I remember it though (I never liked the look of some of the outdoor Mars scenes in this movie). But it will be interesting if there are (at least slight) differences as well.

[andreasy969]

The Martian

It is done (and I think I should find myself another hobby and/or start to care less about picture quality ). I did so many caps, because I basically had to with that one (and not as an end in itself). That is mainly because the differences are very inconsistent and plenty of caps were required to "get to the bottom" of it. Had I stopped after the first couple of caps or grabbed the "wrong" ones I would've come to the (false) conclusion that both UHDs are identical for ex.

The review is wrong and the image of the first and the second release is not (always) the same (as also pointed out and shown by others before). Sometimes both UHDs are basically indentical, but in certain scenes the first release is much noisier (often also more detailed), at times there's no doubt about the extended release and the BD being filtered at all and at times imo even the BD is the least filtered/smeared one of the bunch. The noise reduction thing is also not consistent - it's an on/off thing during the movie, but it tends to be consistent within scenes.

Nice upticks in detail over the BD as well. The issue I had with The Martian's pq at times remains with all releases though - cap #4 would be such an example.

I took extra care not to interconvert any of the images, so please assume that all of them are properly mapped (but of course please tell me, if you think I made a mistake).

I also added some comments to point to certain caps and to hopefully guide a little bit through the many caps. (I ended up being more interested in the differences between the two UHD releases btw) I also tried spoiler tags, but it doesn't work well with clicking on the image links, so please forgive me for the wall of thumbs ...

For the record: I used the UK Extended Cut UHD-BD, the initial US UHD-BD and the BD that comes with the latter.


order of the caps: initial UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) / extended cut UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) / BD (upscaled)

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark, may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=589

TC and EC UHD being basically identical first:



















BD imo being the least filtered in the next two:











more detail on the BD (I don't think it's just due to the SDR conversion) and interesting change of color (at any rate with the SDR conversion):













BD and Extended Cut UHD release being less smeared:





good example for nice uptick in detail over the BD in that one:





first time I noticed the noise kicking in on the TC UHD-BD resp. the lack thereof on the other discs (and, as you can see, consistently so within that scene):









TC UHD being less smeared:



the noise is back (next 3 caps) (and again, consistently so):







more of the green pixelation/noise at the top left corner on the TC UHD and it also being more detailed:



more noise on the TC UHD again:



both BD and Extended UHD looking noticably more smeared than the TC UHD (note the smeared-away detail on the forehead):



and all 3 looking the same again noise-wise:



seems as if someone forgot to hit the DNR-button here:



nice little uptick in detail (always wanted to see that one with aligned frames):



and the noise is back (that whole scene may very well be the noisiest one):





TC UHD being less filtered and actually smeared-away detail at the bottom on the extended UHD:



and no difference < 20 secs later despite basically still being the same scene:







extremely heavy noise on the TC UHD again, which, again, affects the whole montage incl. close-ups:



3 more caps, with (again) way more noise and/or detail on the TC UHD:

[Geoff D]

Awesome. Simply awesome. Thanks andreas!

[juanbauty@yahoo.es]

Amazing work, andreasy969

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I fundamentally disagree with there being no "real" HDR as there's some very handy expansion of the highlights throughout this movie, but naturally a 100 or 200 conversion will nuke that stuff.

I just watched this and I really do believe you (as I did already anyway) - I think I wasn't very lucky reg. highlights when doing the caps. The SDR colors were also much better with Panasonic@projector once again (#4, #5 and #6 for example being much closer to the BD caps). Last Jedi was better with madVR though. SDR conversion remains a b**** and I can totally see why you had enough of it.

[Geoff D]

It drove me around the bend is what it did. HDR itself is no less mercurial of course, but if you can get a decent curve(s) dialled in for what your display can handle then you can get a pretty good idea of what each disc is about, and don't have to go changing lots of settings all the time just to get one disc looking right.

[Jim Collins]

Anyone has screenshot comparisons of the Harry Potter franchise?

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Jim Collins

Anyone has screenshot comparisons of the Harry Potter franchise?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3602

Didn't do the first one since the review has caps of it (and am currently also not that interested in doing the others).

[Maverick1776]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

From AVSForum:

Top: BD




Bottom: UHD HDR




Both pictures look very good, but HDR still feels too artificial to me... Maybe I don't get it, I don't know

I'm noticing a slight green tint to the BD version. The UHD HDR looks more natural in terms of lighting and better colors.

I noticed this myself with Blade Runner 2049. The BD version has some slight green tint to it. The UHD does not.

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by Maverick1776

I'm noticing a slight green tint to the BD version. The UHD HDR looks more natural in terms of lighting and better colors.

I noticed this myself with Blade Runner 2049. The BD version has some slight green tint to it. The UHD does not.

Both stills have a texture not on the disc. This is not direct digital but from some screen so worthless for comparison.

[Ben_UK]

I do think we are venturing into the law of diminishing returns here with UHD. When you get a brand new film with modern mastering, the difference between BD and UHD is pretty negligible.

Of course the big difference comes when you have say a BD from 2008, and that film then gets a modern 4K scan, I think then you get big improvements.

I find it hard to justify the costs of UHD discs, particuarly when the BD of a said film will be in the £6 bargain bin within 3-6 months. The asking price of £25 for a new release is too much.