Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

#workingeyeballsmatter

#retinarights

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BitRate

There is no more detail whatsoever. I'm looking at the two images on a 4K TV. Whatever difference you see is the result of the two pictures not being the exact same frame. I'll post another pair of pics and make sure that they're the exact same frame this time. Also, you guys are way too sensitive about people not being as crazy about 2K DIs as you all are.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by BitRate

There is no more detail whatsoever. I'm looking at the two images on a 4K TV. Whatever difference you see is the result of the two pictures not being the exact same frame. I'll post another pair of pics and make sure that they're the exact same frame this time. Also, you guys are way too sensitive about people not being as crazy about 2K DIs as you all are.

As Geoff has been saying a lot as of late, "you on crack m8?"

Really?! How good is your eyesight? "LITERALLY" everyone who has posted in response to that picture has seen a difference.

If you cannot see a difference on a 4K TV, you might be wasting your money on the format. How big are your two 4K TVs? And how far away are you viewing them from? On a small 19" monitor I can see a difference, both on enlarged image and even on the smaller "forum-friendly" image.

Also, we may be more irritated by the obsession on 2K DI's because the 4K good/2K bad is a nonsensical argument. So many factors go into an image being "good" that the 2K or 4K DI is one of the least contributing factors in an amazing image.

If a title has a 2K DI and gets rave reviews everywhere, no one bats an eye. If a title has a 2K DI and looks mediocre, all the 2K naysayers come out of the wood work and say, "Tsk. Shame looks like another 2K DI fail." Where are those same people when a 4K DI fails or looks lackluster? They are finding other excuses as to why the image failed.

[MEB]

Originally Posted by BitRate

Literally no increase in detail in the 4K transfer (2K DI) and the 1080p transfer. Wow, I never bothered to compare the transfers of 2K DIs across the two formats; without HDR, 2K DIs on UHD Blu-ray are ripoffs.

From FHD Blu-ray:


From UHD Blu-ray:


I know that the colors are muted in the second UHD, but that's due to the HDR being converted to SDR. Don't mind it.

You need glasses if you can't see the difference in detail in those two images.

Mark

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BitRate

There is no more detail whatsoever.

Buddy, the difference is not a small one.

[Geoff D]

@ Bitrate

In all seriousness, please match the BD frame to the UHD one up there, not the other way around. The fine detailing on his shirt will be a good point of comparison if the BD shot is losing temporal information due to there being a camera move or whatever.

[BitRate]

The first image of each pair is from the 1080p BD and the second is from the "4K" BD.

[Geoff D]

Still seeing more consistently resolved detail on Dwayne's head and neck in the UHD shot, and it's doing so without the effect of contrast which fools the eye into seeing a 'sharper' image anyway.

[cynatnite]

Is the washed out look of the UHD due to the HDR/SDR conversion? Because ugh. I've sampled my UHD here at home and it looks nothing like that at all. In fact, it looks pretty dang good by my estimation.

[BitRate]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Still seeing more consistently resolved detail on Dwayne's head and neck in the UHD shot, and it's doing so without the placebo of contrast which fools the eye into seeing a 'sharper' image anyway.

Bull. Looking at both screens side by side on my TV, I see no difference between the images in terms of detail. Point out a detail that is supposedly in one of the "4K" frames but not in its corresponding 1080p frame. I dare you.

[Geoff D]

Look at his eyebrow, there are individual wisps of hair there whereas on the BD it's smooshed into a bunch of blocks.

[BitRate]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Look at his eyebrow, there are individual wisps of hair there whereas on the BD it's smooshed into a bunch of blocks.

No, just no. You're seeing things.

[cynatnite]

Originally Posted by BitRate

No, just no. You're seeing things.

I do think the lines in the nose on the wolf in the UHD are more defined than the BD. Plus, the UHD caps seem too light to my eyes and that's where detail gets lost. Just my two cents.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BitRate

No, just no. You're seeing things.

I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not trolling. If not, I’m sorry, but your TV sucks. Do you notice that you’re the only one not seeing the resolution difference? Again, it ain’t subtle.

[Pyoko]

Same old song and dance, someone says 2K DIs aren't worth it on UHD, and in response you get a heap of hyperbolic reactions saying there's a very clear difference and people need glasses. The difference is there, appreciable to the enthusiasts, but claiming that it's anything but small at best is in my opinion delusional (especially if you take into consideration a normal person's screen size/distance ratio.) But going for the Blu-ray of a new movie just to save a few bucks when you've already paid for a 4K/UHD setup is worse. HDR + better compression + WCG + subpar BDs together all makes it worthwhile. Upgrading older movies is another beast though.

Regarding the screenshots imgur recompresses images pretty badly sometimes, 300KB is not really enough for a high-quality, transparent 2160p screenshot. Also still not the same frame, and also convert it to SDR for a more sensible comparison.

[aetherhole]

I’m reminded of the old adage- You can lead a horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink.

You can point out the differences and extra details, but you can’t make a person see it.

The difference in detail is still noticeable.

Would a 4K DI resolve even more? Probably, but that doesn’t mean there’s not a difference still from the 2K DI UHD to the BD. The difference is quite noticeable to me, still.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Same old song and dance, someone says 2K DIs aren't worth it on UHD, and in response you get a heap of hyperbolic reactions saying there's a very clear difference and people need glasses. The difference is there, appreciable to the enthusiasts, but claiming that it's anything but small at best is in my opinion delusional (especially if you take into consideration a normal person's screen size/distance ratio.) But going for the Blu-ray of a new movie just to save a few bucks when you've already paid for a 4K/UHD setup is worse. HDR + better compression + WCG + subpar BDs together all makes it worthwhile. Upgrading older movies is another beast though.

Regarding the screenshots imgur recompresses images pretty badly sometimes, 300KB is not really enough for a high-quality, transparent 2160p screenshot. Also still not the same frame, and also convert it to SDR for a more sensible comparison.

The difference in this case is that Bitrate is saying there is NO difference. There is a difference and people have said so in multiple threads. Doesn’t matter how subtle the difference might be, people can see it and have pointed out examples in the very pictures he posted.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by MEB

You need glasses if you can't see the difference in detail in those two images.

Mark

I don't need glasses and I can't see the so-called differences. Care to exemplify them, please?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

I don't need glasses and I can't see the so-called differences. Care to exemplify them, please?

A few examples have already been pointed out in this thread.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Nice work!

Thanks.

I prefer the look of the TLE overall but the lack of blue is puzzling. I specifically remember this barbed wire scene being very dark and very blue in 35mm, not this weak teal (but not as bright/boosted as the synapse either).

I really don't want to enter the accuracy discussion, but I asked Torsten specifically about two differences in color (one being the lack of blue in a specific scene) and the answer was that it does or does not register like that on the print. And I chose to trust/believe him.

Anyway regarding the UHD is there any reason not to import the Italian one? Cult Films isn't releasing a standard version, and it's the same disc anyway? What was the rumored German edition supposed to do better?

Originally Posted by barrett75

IT UHD disc and UK UHD disc use the exact same ecoding reg: PQ... Torsten claimed that the forthcoming DE UHD disc will use a better encoding (with a BD-100 instead a BD-66) but as of today there is no street date yet...

This. He also said that the UHD encode is basically in existence already and that Videa/CultFilms would've used that one had they known. I also expect it to be better, but I also expect the difference to be really really minor. I have no issues with the encoding of the IT UHD-BD whatsoever and think that any difference in encoding will be even more subtle than the difference between the "good" BDs and the UHD-BD is often already (and I think will therefore not be worth it).

I also expect a German '84 release (should it see the light of day) to be rather expensive. So I would really recommend the single disc Italian release (I would've bought that one myself over the 3 disc set had they released it initially).