Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Does Geoffy Vision cause grey bars also?

He probably already went to see Dr. Chew to have his retinal firmware updated.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

He probably already went to see Dr. Chew to have his retinal firmware updated.

I went to see him but he was frozen like a popsicle.

[andreasy969]

Blade Runner 2049 - Sony (borrowed from and thx @caps-a-holic) vs Warner

I did a Gladiator again and just took some matching caps of my US disc. Again, take it with a pinch of salt. I used 150 nits as well, any differences in color may or may not be due to a different SDR conversion though!

So, as we settled before, the Sony is a tad sharper (sometimes more, sometimes less noticably so) and (which I didn't notice before) it's also consistently slightly cropped at the top.

I was actually waiting/hoping for caps to do one with the Sony, so I could compare it "properly" with my Warner without "having to" buy the Sony and I'll ultimately just stick with my Warner now (still mainly because of the Warner intro).

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/115119

Sony UHD-BD (caps-a-holic) left, Warner UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/150 nits) right:

[chip75]

Originally Posted by ray0414

U sure the Sony isn't on the right? All the pictures on the left look noticeably soft compared to the right version.

They've got the caps-a-holic logo on the top left. They're usually pretty good.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by chip75

They've got the caps-a-holic logo on the top left. They're usually pretty good.

For some reason the thumbnail is very soft for the Sony. opened them up and it was better.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by ray0414

For some reason the thumbnail is very soft for the Sony. opened them up and it was better.

The same happened with the thumbs of my Gladiator uploads of caps' original, unaltered images. Must be because of their pngs (I noticed their pngs being 64 bit for ex (mine are 24), which may or may not be a reason for the soft thumbs). Anyway, just ignore the thumbs - Sony/left is sharper.


I can also make the Warner look as sharp as the Sony by applying some very gentle sharpening without introducing any negative side effects btw (and I'm not even a "photoshop expert" at all) . So there really isn't any more detail as far as I can tell - it's just sharper.

[TheSweetieMan]

Yeah, I can't see myself importing the Sony version of Blade Runner 2049 after all.

If it had made a significant enough of a difference, to that it improved upon Warner's filtering, to the point that it looked as razor sharp as 'Sicario', then I would've pulled the trigger on the Sony version.

But I think from a normal viewing distance, it would be hard to distinguish the sharpness of the picture between the two.

I'm happy enough with the Warner version as it is, anyway.

[Geoff D]

I could see the difference on my TV from my normal viewing distance. But that's just me being me, as usual.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

If it had made a significant enough of a difference, to that it improved upon Warner's filtering

But I think from a normal viewing distance, it would be hard to distinguish the sharpness of the picture between the two.

Agreed. Me being me, it did bug me a little bit (which is why I looked into it), but I'm really fine now.

If you look at my previous comment, I think one should also be able to simply adjust a "good" sharpening setting by a notch or so and the Warner should basically look the same without introducing any ringing or the likes (if one wishes a sharper image).

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I could see the difference on my TV from my normal viewing distance. But that's just me being me, as usual.

I don't doubt that you see a difference. It is Sony, after all.

But I'm afraid I wouldn't see a significant enough of a difference to pay for the disc and the import. Especially since neither version is likely to look as good as 'Sicario' did. I could justify the purchase if it did--but alas, based on the caps, it just appears to be incremental improvements at best.

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Agreed. Me being me, it did bug me a little bit (which is why I looked into it), but I'm really fine now.

If you look at my previous comment, I think one should also be able to simply adjust a "good" sharpening setting by a notch or so and the Warner should basically look the same without introducing any ringing or the likes (if one wishes a sharper image).

Yeah. And like I said, it's not like the Warner encode really leaves anything to be desired. It looks as close as I can recall it looking when I went and saw it two times in Dolby Cinema last October.

While I don't doubt that people see improvement in banding and sharpness in some shots, I don't see enough faults in the Warner encode, to really see myself going after the Sony version.

[andreasy969]

The Magnificent Seven

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/115314

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








#3 1000 nits












#3 1500 nits










#3 1000 nits

[Geoff D]

Ridiculous how much HF detail is being filtered off in the regular BD. This may be "only" an upscale in 4K but it murderises the Blu-ray.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Those Darkest Hour screenshot does confirm my thoughts on being a 4K DI. Even both downscaled to 1080p, I still see higher resolution back.

Had another look at them and I don't think that's native 4K at all, the ultimate clarity just isn't there, there's also some aliasing indicative of an upscale in some shots. Yes, it SMOKES the Blu-ray but when you look at how badly the grain is handled on that disc - all that RGB noise, yikes - it doesn't inspire confidence that the 1080p treatment in general was the absolute best it could be. And you only have to look at the Magnifici Sette comparison to see a similar example of an upscale creaming the regular Blu in terms of detail despite a mere 2K origination.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ridiculous how much HF detail is being filtered off in the regular BD. This may be "only" an upscale in 4K but it murderises the Blu-ray.

But how can that be, Geoff? I've read many times that 2k upscales are "not real 4k" and that only suckers buy them.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ridiculous how much HF detail is being filtered off in the regular BD.

Indeed. Magnificent Seven is one of those early discs/buys I still had to watch in form of the BD (and thought it looked very nice), but yesterday I thought that it's oviously a rather poor Sony BD job.

I think I also do remember (I may be wrong and didn't check back!) comments stating that the UHD wasn't that big of an improvement. Well, if I am not mistaken (and I very well may be!), those comments were rather mistaken.

[Geoff D]

Well, I never liked the look of the film in general (those "black" levels, ugh) but I said from the start that the 4K clearly had more detail than the BD, when I did my own A/B comparisons the difference was not subtle.

[andreasy969]

American Made

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/115378

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

[Spartan21]

Thanks for the American Made pics andreasy. The UHD is much better. Better contrast, colors pop more, and there's an uptick in detail. The Blu looks dull in comparison.

[gnj1958]

Looks identical. 4K is a little darker that's all.

[BluRayHiDef]

The UHD pics on the right look significantly better than the FHD pics on the left; the colors are much bolder and the contrast is higher.