Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[andreasy969]

In this case because it's a SDR UHD-BD.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

Genuine question: What is the point of posting comparisons between the BD and UHD versions of the same film...if you're degrading them by converting to SDR?

Some people find SDR converted caps useful as a general "idea" of how the UHD looks. I do think overall it does more harm than good though, personally (sorry andreasy!).

This doesn't apply to Puppet Master though, which I believe is not HDR.

[Geoff D]

SDR converted caps - done competently - do have some uses for sure, but aren't the last word in BD to UHD comparisons purely because of the HDR factor.

I tell you what though, there's a nice increase in detail in some of those Puppet Master caps! You gotta look close but it's definitely there, and it's an upscale at that? Damn.

[UpsetSmiley]

These caps are very useful for me as my set isn't HDR ready so to speak. As Geoff said the detail increase is subtle, but man Lionsgate are offering up some wallet friendly UHDs. If you liked the film, it's a no-brainer purchase really.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Some people find SDR converted caps useful as a general "idea" of how the UHD looks. I do think overall it does more harm than good though, personally (sorry andreasy!).

And I respect that even if I don't agree.

See, I honestly think that many reviews and questionable opinions do more harm than SDR converted caps do - those that celebrate basically every UHD release. And on a personal note (not referring to you, mind you) reading the same comments reg. "pointless caps" again and again doesn't exactly add to the motivation (I know you don't care anyway). I totally get why caps turned off the comments back then. I said it before: This is actually work. Most people don't seem to get that more often than not you have to "search" for the matching frames manually for example because the timestamps are off (sometimes by a large margin and not even with a constant offset).

I had more reason to point out to a lot of people/reviewers that their "reviews" are pointless (I do value your opinion), but still don't do it (most of the time). I just ignore. Some people are ignorant anyway and only see what they want to see - it's called confirmation bias. I have no intentions whatsoever to convince people of anything. I just like to point out stuff (and sometimes tend to to piss people off by doing so).

The problem with even proper reviews is that a "is more detailed" doesn't do it for me (and sometimes isn't even the case). OK, there's more detail? But how much? Is it worth it to me? Even if one adds a little/slight/big, it still doesn't give me a proper idea. One just cannot describe it. I have to see it for myself. And caps can do that. Same goes for general difference in color. I also think it's quite telling that lots of people always remain rather vague until some caps are out. (I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing)

Speaking of color, I think the one real issue (and it is a big issue indeed!) is the HDR. But not so much the WCG reg. the color space itself (I know both are intertwined). Truth is that the majority of difference in color between BD and UHD has nothing to do with Rec.709 vs. Rec.2020 for several reasons. First of all most UHDs aim for DCI-P3 anyway and DCI-P3 and Rec.709 are not that different to begin with. I can't remember leaving the cinema (having watched P3) and seeing off colors on the according proper BD release later on. In regard to precision most people can't even distinguish 8 bit properly because they don't have perfect color vision anyway - 8 bit isn't called TrueColor for no reason. Another aspect is the fact that the major expansion isn't in areas that affect the majority of the image. It expands on stuff like man-made light sources, deep greens and reds (which may indeed affect certain fruit colors for ex), yet people keep attributing stuff like better skin tones and basically every color difference they are seeing to WCG vs. Rec.709 (which is just utter bullshit).

Truth is that most colors translate rather well to Rec.709. As can be seen by lots of SDR conversions looking rather good - SDR converted caps often "destroy" the BD despite Rec.709 resp. sRGB. The main problem is the HDR and sometimes it only is a problem because of crayons (Universal catalogue comes to mind here for ex). I watched Halloween the other day and it looked just great even in SDR and I'm sure the SDR converted caps on caps are not far from the truth. Or take 'Source Code' for example. IMHO the difference in color has nothing to do with Rec.2020 vs. Rec.709. They obviously just graded it differently (I prefer Source Code in teal btw) and I don't believe for one second that the teal wasn't intentional or a problem of Rec.709 (neither the color space itself nor the process in this case).

I honestly don't get most of the pointless HDR discussions and those really exhibit the worst in human behavior. There's also so much Dunning-Kruger on both sides, it's sad. The crayons thread is pure poison imo for example. Of course there are some crayons releases out there. With catalogue releases you actually can often tell quite well by off-looking SDR conversions. But luckily of course most UHDs still are great and an improvement. But some BDs are also just poorly done - wheather that is sometimes on purpose I'll leave for discussion in one of the other threads. Because I don't care.

I buy all movies I'm interested in on UHD anyway but/and sometimes I'm still interested in comparing it with the BD for detail alone. And I might even be more interested in comparing 2K upscales to see the detail increase. But I don't judge obviously off-looking colors at all.

I actually really don't know what all the fuzz is about and am somewhat tired of the HDR discussions. Yes, SDR conversion is a problem which should be common knowledge by now. But so are reviews and opinions.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I tell you what though, there's a nice increase in detail in some of those Puppet Master caps! You gotta look close but it's definitely there, and it's an upscale at that? Damn.

Yes, there is. Shirt pattern on #3, shirt print on #5 or the red car on #6 come to mind. The titles really stood out though.

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

As Geoff said the detail increase is subtle, but man Lionsgate are offering up some wallet friendly UHDs. If you liked the film, it's a no-brainer purchase really.

Not a Lionsgate release.

[Geoff D]

Just look at the face of the blonde woman too, more pores on her check and detail on her eyes.

[andreasy969]

Hereditary

Another quick one.

#4 and #12 (the title) may not be the exact same frame since the times were way off, but I tried to get the best match (and it doesn't really matter anyway).

I put #11 within spoiler tags since it might be considered a spoiler, if you haven't watched the movie yet. (having said that, there are more spoilerish caps out there imho, but you've been warned)

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/122014

BD (upscaled) left, UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and why you should ignore any off-looking colors:

[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; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 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:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. (#3 1000 nits)

6.

7.

8. (#3 1000 nits)

9.

10.

11.

[Show spoiler]

12.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Just look at the face of the blonde woman too, more pores on her check and detail on her eyes.

Yes, I didn't recite all.

[Geoff D]

I know you didn't, just wanted to point that one out in particular.

[Geoff D]

BTW I do agree with some of your sentiments re: 709 vs WCG, that converting WCG into 709 clearly doesn't blow out the colours or add a blanket tint, so that in itself shows that 709 isn't completely gimped at source. I hinted as much in the "poison" thread when addressing how SDR restorations from indies don't generally have those kinds of appearances, but I think the point is that if 709 trim passes are relegated to a 'set and forget' kinda mentality then they invariably end up with those typical radioactive greens and yellowy tints on more neutral shades because that's what the gamut will skew towards if it's not being monitored properly. Don't take my word for it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2018-0...edding-uhd-hdr

So yeah. 709 is capable of looking more subtle and nuanced than we give it credit for but it takes a bit more effort to do so at the source level, and not "they're gimping it to make us buy 4K" or some other silly shit like that because this sort of blanket look has been a part of (studio-based) SDR mastering for well over a decade, and still is.

[andreasy969]

Yes, this. And I never doubted the conversion problems when not properly taken care of. It's only the "Rec.709 == bad, WCG == so much better" that's bothersome/not true. What studios sometimes appear to be doing with the former is the actual issue imo. (and I also agree that it's not so much "on purpose" resp. just "to sell us 4K") Anyway, the less conversion, the better at any rate.

[StingingVelvet]

Good stuff guys.

I like Geoff's idea that 709 just takes more care, care that studios aren't giving it much anymore. I watched Raising Arizona the other night and hot damn that might as well be a UHD, it looks stunning. However I also watched the modern Godzilla the other day and every daytime scene looked like it had a beige blanket on it, which was super distracting. It's really hit or miss. All I know is that UHD has largely eliminated that, and I welcome it with open arms.

[andreasy969]

Sicario 2

The title shot (#20) may not be exactly the same frame (but it's my best guess and doesn't matter anyway). The relatively poor quality aerial shot in #6 that was mentioned before is the source imo. Very pronounced different framing in #16. Burnt-in subs only on the BD (example in #13). Lots and lots of HDR. (both discs are Lionsgate UK)

EDIT: 18 and 19 might be considered spoilers (which I try to avoid)

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/124089

BD (upscaled) left, UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colors:

[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; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 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:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1.

2. (#3 1264 nits)

3. (#3 1127 nits)

4. (#3 710 nits)

5. (#3 1047 nits)

6. (#3 520 nits)

7. (#3 1251 nits)

8. (#3 512 nits)

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. (#3 1251 nits)

15.

16.

17. (#3 1360 nits)

18.

[Show spoiler]

19. (#3 469 nits)

[Show spoiler]

20.

[Geoff D]

Good to know that the Lions 4K seems to be a clone of the Sony encode, I don't have to bother importing now though I'm gonna wait for this to hit a 2for30 offer. But if it appears on decluttr's ebay store for peanuts then I'll grab it there. (Already bought like £100 worth of stuff from them over the last couple of weeks!)

PS

I miss your cap comparisons. Best game in town IMO.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I miss your cap comparisons. Best game in town IMO.

Thanks, Geoff. I also won't stop completely, but I did actually decide to slow it down a bit.

caps doing bascially every major release lately anyway is another reason and like I said initially: I won't complain (even though I'd like to see some additional (HDR) caps there myself sometimes). I might still take a closer look at 2001 for example though - received my washing machine edition only today ... And I'm sure I'll still be doing some that caps won't resp. might not be doing.

And if someone is interested in a certain title: Shoot - I'll just be doing less on my own account (and it's hard to judge what people might be interested in).

[andreasy969]

EDIT: Just forget about it - I compared the wrong frame (too early) when checking via player ...

[aetherhole]

Andreasy, more screen caps or less screen caps, more often or less often, whenever we can get them, there plenty of us who appreciate them.

[andreasy969]

The Peanuts Movie

That's one I had on my list for a while and really wanted to do and see for myself. I really thought the BD looked great back then, but it really looks BAD in capital letters in comparison (even in SDR/1080p): detail (which is the biggest surprise), color, improved highlights (#18 or #35 - #18 looking so much better in general), contrast and better resolved grain (#29 ). Whether the BD is just a relatively poor one (despite looking very good on its own) or the UHD is great (or maybe just different - #13 comes to mind) is up for debate.

I noticed an addional star in #1, aliasing becomes sharper (#25 for ex), animation glitch in #26 is the same and I noticed something that looks like a mix of poor compression and banding in the scene of cap #21 (, but the BD has it as well).

I also took three caps (#9, #12 and #33) where people mentioned banding back then (and even provided photos) and I really can't see any (nothing distracting at any rate, but that's in SDR mind you and there might be things that I won't see). Would be interesting, if people are having the same problems after having switched TVs for ex though (?).

As always, I don't expect anyone to look at all of them, but didn't want to discard any - you'll find the same imo big improvements you'll see in the first caps throughout though.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/124372

BD (upscaled) left, UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colors:

[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; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 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:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. (#3 613 nits)

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23. (#3 1080 nits)

24. (#3 349 nits)

25.

26.

27. (#3 840 nits)

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34. (#3 806 nits)

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

[Geoff D]

Oh look, animation does benefit from 4K UHD. 4x chroma resolution FTW

[andreasy969]

In case anyone missed it: Just added the mouse-over (since online again).