Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by barrett75

JP is the same old 2011 master with the same old grading everybody hated. how's possible to say it's a decent one? just because it is a little bit less filtered? CGI scenes are definitely unwatchable....

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

I disabled "restore details in compressed highlights" a looong time a ago, because I didn't see any benefit, but noticed extremely minor tinkering once (which I guess might have been a result of the two (optional) filters coming with it).

For what it's worth ...

I received Gladiator (US) today and I'm just doing caps matching those of caps and I did notice a difference with that option today. I turned it back on when I noticed a difference with one of caps' caps. Whether that option should be on or off, I will leave for someone else to decide, but UHD caps are killing me at any rate ... (maybe it's less relevant with my usual 200 nits)

Some differences in color between different madVR users are just settings related as well (namely the "gamut mapping algorithm"), as I also suspected before. I don't think I will attempt to match them color wise, but I will turn "restore details in compressed highlights" back on for now to make the comparison as close as possible in that regard.

Long story short: Do whatever you want with the settings - there is no "right" here anyway ...

[barrett75]

Originally Posted by WorkShed

It's obviously not the same master

you say?

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...116777&i=6&l=0

ok i'm surely wrong...

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Long story short: Do whatever you want with the settings - there is no "right" here anyway ...

Pretty much. I think I use most of the default settings for SDR conversion, and for comparisons roughly try to match the brightness of the BD, so usually between 120-150 nits, and then just let the highlights fend for themselves.

It's also why I don't bother with .pngs and just use high-quality .jpgs at a level that I've inspected to be transparent to the eye. Since they're never going to be 100% accurate representations anyway I don't think it's worth it to be so meticulous.

[andreasy969]

Gladiator - mainly Paramount vs. Universal (borrowed by caps)

Title says it all ... I borrowed the Universal caps from caps (thx @caps) and took matching caps from my Paramount disc.

Please take this comparison with a big pinch of salt! A proper comparison has to be done by the same person with the same settings - different settings may result in minor differences. Please ignore any differences in color at any rate (with one cap I was playing around afterwards and think I actually made them look alike colorwise by changing a setting - the flags with #10 to be exact).

Don't let yourself be fooled by the difference in size either: I use pngs with max (still lossless of course) compression to save some bandwidth when uploading, while caps seems to be using a lower rate - I re-saved one myself and the size got rather close to mine (remaining differences most likely just due to the added info in caps' caps).

If there's one thing I'd like to show here, it's that both discs are basically identical - except for the title remaining black on the Paramount. If one enters pixel peeping territory (which imo is futile), I think one will be able to point out benefits with both.

No screenshotcomparison.com this time, because I don't want it up there without further comments and I also don't want to bother.



























Banding and title remaining black on the US UHD-BD:




Proximo scene - US BD left vs. US UHD-BD right:

[Geoff D]

Heh, my smudgy photos made the Proximo scene look far worse than it was, but it's definitely been filtered nonetheless. Cheers andreas!

[Dubstar]

^^ oddly, when comparing the two shots at the bottom of the page, the UHD is ever so lopping of a sliver of the bottom of the image.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by cleeve

It's a 25 year old film that marked the beginning of mainstream blockbuster CGI. It's not going to look like it was shot yesterday. I have no idea what you were expecting but this is about as good as this film is ever going to look.

It is this kind of low expectation that'll help Universal sell more subpar discs. You guys are really handing it over to them.

No, there are countless examples of catalogue titles from the 60s, 70s and 80s that look far superior to what Jurassic Park has ever looked in home video. Those films used older stocks and some were even damaged. Warner Bros restored many of such classics in a beautiful way, bringing back the colour and contrast of the original cinema prints.

Jurassic Park was shot with the latest ESTAR (polysester) film stock that began production in 1992-3. They were much more denser and robust than older stocks. Very durable. The film was also lit brightly. As for the VFX, there are only about 16 minutes of them in the final film. Most of bit is live action and it looks gorgeous on 35mm -

I've compiled some 35mm film frames from various sources which'll give you guys a very clear idea about how the colours and contrast of JP1 is supposed to be. And it's NOT like the UHD -

https://imgur.com/a/RtHd0iH

Some of the frames are courtesy Behind The gates in Facebook. Do look at that page if you don't believe me -

https://www.facebook.com/pg/behindth...50733521920805

[Riddhi2011]

Just compare these images and you'll see how the 3D Blu-ray is the closest to the colour timing in the 35mm prints. Keep in mind that the projected 35mm image would be slightly brighter -

1. 35mm

JP 35mm Grant sees Raptor_Rotunda lowrez.jpg

2. 3D BD

JP 3D Grant sees Raptor_Rotunda lowrez.jpg

3. 35mm

JP 35mm Explorer missing track lowrez.jpg

4. 3D BD

JP 3D Explorer missing track lowrez.jpg

It's almost the same (the contrast is a bit higher in the prints because the projection bulbs will reveal details hidden in those dark areas during an actual screening) There's a bit more cyan-green on the prints which the 3D version lacks. That's because digital grading and photochemical timing ain't the same thing. Yet people will say the 3D colours are not correct. It should look very warm, which the UHD colours aren't.

It is pretty obvious that every other home video is simply wrong in the colour department!

[Mierzwiak]

35 mm shots indeed looks great, but 3D ones are still awful, like someone vomited yellow/orange all over it.

[gnj1958]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

It might not be amazing as a UHD, but it really is leaps and bounds over the old BD. It's a completely different look without the digital harshness and massive wall of sharpened grain.

Nah

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

35 mm shots indeed looks great, but 3D ones are still awful, like someone vomited yellow/orange all over it.

But still the 3D colours are the closest you get to the saturation of the 35mm prints. Or would you say the UHD and 2DBD is closer?

Another interesting thing I noticed is the colour of the Jeep. On the 2D BD and the UHD, it looks almost pink. In reality, it is sand beige coloured. Below is a pic with a custom Jeep paint job on top and the 3D BD image brightened on bottom. See? They do not look pink like the UHD -

1.

JP Jeep colours.jpg

2. This is the colour from ILM -

JP_Jeep.jpg

3. This is the same Jeep used for Jurassic World. The colours are faded but they are still sand beige and not pink -

JP_1993 Jeep Wrangler Sahara lowrez.jpg

Remember, JP Jeeps were "SAND BEIGE" in colour? Yes. And this is sand beige -

JP sand Beige.jpg

If you need further proof, look at JPMotorPool. These guys are masters are nailing the perfect paint schemes of the JP cars -

http://www.jpmotorpool.com/reference...eep_guide.html

Lastly, the UHD below does not look sand beige -

JP UHD Jeep colour.jpg

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

3. 35mm

Attachment 200697

4. 3D BD

Attachment 200698

Your precious 3D shot there is nothing like the print at all. FAR too much orange which is corrupting the greens and turning them yellow, like the grass and the decal on the car. Much colder skin tones in the print too.

Look, I don't think anyone has actually said or argued that the UHD is "more accurate" to the original intent than any given home video presentation, but on the other hand the 3D BD when presented in 2D is much TOO warm and muddy brown with gamma that's way off. As someone said in the JP thread you seem to be carrying this argument on with yourself in your quest to prove something that not too many people are actually arguing against right now, that of the UHD not being accurate. We get it.

Seeing as the grain's been smooshed away in most of the brighter scenes then it's pretty inaccurate all round so there are very few people who are saying it's some amazing home run, you need to relax a bit before you blow a gasket or something.

[Riddhi2011]

@Geoff, when I am passionate about something, I don't take it lightly. I didn't start to provide these evidences just for the heck of it. I wanted to conclusively prove that the 3D version edges closer to the original warm look of the prints than any 2D home video does. Sure the 3D is more warm, bordering on orange at times. But if you brighten the image, the orange tint is reduced. The colours of the 3D do not look the same as the print because photochemical timing and DI grading aren't the same and exact results aren't going to be produced. But anybody with a good eye will compare the shots and see the 3D is closer. Not an exact match but closer to the warmth of the prints.
If you think the UHD looks closer to the prints then why not provide a screenshot from your TV?

[Geoff D]

Again, I never said that the UHD looks closer, so you are literally arguing with yourself. Carry on.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Again, I never said that the UHD looks closer, so you are literally arguing with yourself. Carry on.

No, I am asking you. From the comparisons between the 35mm and the 3D Blu-ray I provided, don't you think the 3D BD inches more to the colours of the print, if inaccurate and more orangey? How does the same shot fare on the UHD? Is it more closer to the print than the 3D? If it's even farther away, then is the benefit of a little bit more detail worth, when the film looks different? Many here are praising the UHD by pointing out its uptick in detail and contrast but I am in the vocal minority, pointing out the lack of the original colour tone.

[Harryhausen AF]

Not here too! The 4k has much more color range than those scans.

[Riddhi2011]

Wow! Some folks here actually prefer the home video colours to that of the original 1993 timing that Spielberg, Cundey worked on; that's present on the prints. Wow!
I give up!

[andreasy969]

The Matrix

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/114252

remastered BD (upscaled) left, UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) 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 (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits), 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

#3 1000 nits


#3 1000 nits

[Doctorossi]

Thems is pretty stunnin'.