Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Edit: OK I gave it a second go in a better image editor and a couple more twists did manage to bring out more detail like in the shirt. But that of course is not ideal.

Yeah, the detail is there (some of it anyway) but you have to completely screw up gamma and brightness to see it. It's weird.

[andreasy969]

Blade Runner 2049 (Warner vs. Sony)

I'm sure new comparisons are more interesting, but I wanted to do a "revised" version of that one anyway by using my own Sony caps. Main reason being that I'd like to provide a "proper" comparison as in I'd like to rule out differences introduced by the capturing process. So if there's sth wrong with the caps this time, it will affect both versions equally.

As you can probably tell by the caps, I was also looking for banding (resp. the lack thereof) in some imo challenging scenes on the Sony. That's also why I would've appretiated some time stamps the other day. AFAICT there really isn't any.

Other than that, there's really nothing new to report here: Sony being slightly sharper (imo less filtered) (you can tell by the file size alone most of the time - the last one is one exception I happened to notice) and the same very slight "squeezing" in regard to the framing seen before.

I did notice two major-minor differences and both versions are not exactly the same (besides the sharpness): One thing I noticed before already, but couldn't rule out the capturing: Joi is a tad more saturated/pink/whatsoever on the Warner (see #38 and #39). Another difference can be seen in #10 (it only affects this part of the scene). (I know it's converted, but if the PQ source is identical, both should translate the same way - I did both in parallel with (therefore) the exact same settings)

For sharpness I'd like to point to #4 (screen door), #9 (title), #17, #20 (Sony really resolves "deeper" into the room), #23, #25 (basically everything with titles - Sony opposed to Warner being knackscharf) and #32 in particular (K's silhouette). #32 (the whole shot/scene) really looks noticably better/sharper on the Sony to me eyes - that is in motion.

tl/tr: Sony wins. But I'll still also watch the Warner because of the lovely Warner intro.

No mouse-over.

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

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

[Geoff D]

Legend! Nice one Andreas.

[andreasy969]

As mentioned in the Galveston thread, I found this to look very watchable with my monitor set to MAC instead of PC Gamma (resp. with Gamma 1.8).

Just took some according caps with the player resp. renderer applying Gamma 1.8 (and changed the settings to also capture it) to show what it looks like:

Didn't bother with the frames at all, but where I had it, I did add the according BD cap for comparison.

UHD-BD (100 nits/Gamma 1.8) left, BD right (I switched!!!)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.


That's good enough for me now, basically is my 'something in between' and should work just as simple via the according projector setting. I know that this is far from perfect, but you have to work with what you have. And I really don't want to watch the BD next time.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

But I'll still also watch the Warner because of the lovely Warner intro.

What Warner intro?

I love Columbia Lady becoming this dark silhouette, it looks stunning on OLED.

[Geoff D]

US version leads with the Warners intro that transitions into the Sony one (via the Alcon logo), whereas the International version omits the Warners logo owing to it being distributed by Sony outright.

US

Opening Logos - Blade Runner 2049 (2017) (slightly different) - YouTube

Int'l

Sony / Columbia Pictures / Alcon Entertainment (Blade Runner 2049 Variant) - YouTube

[Mierzwiak]

That's indeed a nice Warner logo, thanks.

[andreasy969]

The Equalizer 2

The BD doesn't stand a chance, but is still a solid one and looks great as well quite often. Only the scene of #23 stood out as really ugly (blown out) to me when doing the BD caps, which is why I added that cap (I hope one can see what I mean). Titles are rather soft on the UHD as well imo.

I'm often also surprised where the peaks are - here namely #15 and #22 (from the ones I did spot). The traffic lights of #15 also looking particularly ugly to my eyes on the BD.

I also felt inspired (by both the blown out BD and the foregoing discussion) to include the Columbia Lady for a change.

Again no mouse-over. Sorry. This time because I just tried twice without success: It takes forever (as in minutes) only to end up with only a fraction of the images ... (which may even be broken - I delete the failed/broken attempts right away)

1. (#3 750 nits)

2.

3. (#3 600 nits)

4.

5.

6.

7. (#3 750 nits)

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15. (#3 2200 nits)

16.

17.

18.

19. (#3 1100 nits)

20. (#3 1100 nits)

21.

22. (#3 1800 nits)

23. (#3 1100 nits)

24.

25. (# 750 nits)

26. (#3 650 nits)

27. (#3 1100 nits)

28.

[andreasy969]

Cliffhanger (US) (the BD is the new, old Sony one)

You can see the aforementioned on/off (IMO) DNR in #26, [#29, #30, #31], [#35, #36, #37] and [#41, #42]. There are more examples on the disc.

Also, with #30, #29 is what I might still just call soft, but #30 I'll call DNR.

I'll have to find out now if both the SC UHD-BD and new SC BD have this as well.

Other than this letdown, just lovely. Some favorites are #3, #6, #10, #12, #22, #25 or #45 - meh, basically all except for the "soft" ones.

No mouse-over - not needed and too many caps.

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. (#3 933 nits)

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. (#3 895 nits)

14.

15.

16. (#3 800 nits)

17.

18.

19. (#3 1251 nits)

20. (#3 1000 nits)

21.

22.

23.

24. (#3 1700 nits)

25.

26.

27.

28. (#3 923 nits)

29.

30.

31.

32.

33. (#3 529 nits)

34.

35.

36.

37. (#3 963 nits)

38.

39. (#3 534 nits)

40.

41. (#3 1251 nits)

42. (#3 507 nits)

43. (#3 750 nits)

44.

45.

[juanbauty@yahoo.es]

Stunning upgrade in the 4K one.

[andreasy969]

Yes, but it would be even more stunning if they hadn't hit with the DNR stick at times.

[Fendergopher]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Yes, but it would be even more stunning if they hadn't hit with the DNR stick at times.

Such is the life of the resident screenshot guy, you witness some terrible sights now and then. Other times you can marvel at how good some films can look.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Blade Runner 2049 (Warner vs. Sony)

I'm sure new comparisons are more interesting, but I wanted to do a "revised" version of that one anyway by using my own Sony caps. Main reason being that I'd like to provide a "proper" comparison as in I'd like to rule out differences introduced by the capturing process. So if there's sth wrong with the caps this time, it will affect both versions equally.

As you can probably tell by the caps, I was also looking for banding (resp. the lack thereof) in some imo challenging scenes on the Sony. That's also why I would've appretiated some time stamps the other day. AFAICT there really isn't any.

Other than that, there's really nothing new to report here: Sony being slightly sharper (imo less filtered) (you can tell by the file size alone most of the time - the last one is one exception I happened to notice) and the same very slight "squeezing" in regard to the framing seen before.

I did notice two major-minor differences and both versions are not exactly the same (besides the sharpness): One thing I noticed before already, but couldn't rule out the capturing: Joi is a tad more saturated/pink/whatsoever on the Warner (see #38 and #39). Another difference can be seen in #10 (it only affects this part of the scene). (I know it's converted, but if the PQ source is identical, both should translate the same way - I did both in parallel with (therefore) the exact same settings)

For sharpness I'd like to point to #4 (screen door), #9 (title), #17, #20 (Sony really resolves "deeper" into the room), #23, #25 (basically everything with titles - Sony opposed to Warner being knackscharf) and #32 in particular (K's silhouette). #32 (the whole shot/scene) really looks noticably better/sharper on the Sony to me eyes - that is in motion.

tl/tr: Sony wins. But I'll still also watch the Warner because of the lovely Warner intro.

No mouse-over.

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

[Show spoiler]1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

Maybe I'm missing something but where is the squeezing in these caps? Do you mean the geometry? Comparing caps they appear absolutely identical in terms of geometry, switching back and forth between tabs. Nothing seems stretched or squeezed at all.

Wasn't some of the text at the beginning supposed to be smaller on one version? I can't remember the details now.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Yes, but it would be even more stunning if they hadn't hit with the DNR stick at times.

Looked at #30 a lot. Is it possible the much higher contrast is just "hiding" the grain and detail behind brightness? I really don't know, I'm just asking. Also is that edge enhancement on top of his head, or another side effect of contrast?

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Maybe I'm missing something but where is the squeezing in these caps? Do you mean the geometry? Comparing caps they appear absolutely identical in terms of geometry, switching back and forth between tabs. Nothing seems stretched or squeezed at all.

The Warner is showing the exact same tiny bit more information at the top throughout if you look properly. That's what I meant with my squeezing comment. (English isn't my first language and sometimes I might not hit the best terms. )

Wasn't some of the text at the beginning supposed to be smaller on one version? I can't remember the details now.

Yes, that was claimed by someone, but turned out to be bs early on.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Looked at #30 a lot. Is it possible the much higher contrast is just "hiding" the grain and detail behind brightness? I really don't know, I'm just asking. Also is that edge enhancement on top of his head, or another side effect of contrast?

As I always keep reminding you guys, the SDR conversion may indeed be worsening the effect by introducing off/boosted colors for ex (with bright colors the SDR conversion often just doesn't know where to go to and produces off-looking colors - what works quite well with white often doesn't with colors), which may increase the contrast as well which in in turn may worsen it even more. Existing gradations may get lost completely in bright areas as well. But there's really no doubt about the DNR. As I said, I could've provided even more examples, but I didn't want to focus on the bad.

It may look less bad in HDR though. And yes, I think the EE is a side effect. I'm no expert on recognizing greenscreen etc. and initially I also thought maybe those are effect shots, but the SC BD caps proved the shots/source not to be the problem at the latest.

[mar3o]

Oddly, looking closely now at those caps, I can see that tiny line of extra information at the top, but darned if I see it on the bottom. Weird.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Oddly, looking closely now at those caps, I can see that tiny line of extra information at the top, but darned if I see it on the bottom. Weird.

Well. There's a difference at the bottom as well though. Top: Warner showing a few pixels more information. Bottom: Warner showing maybe 1 or 2 pixels less information (I won't count the pixels, but it's less than at the top in any case) . Conclusion: Either Warner is slightly vertically squeezed or Sony stretched - it's not just a shift. (#30 is one where you can see it best)

And don't get me wrong: It's a non-issue, it's just clearly there.

[andreasy969]

Cliffhanger (StudioCanal vs Sony)

I have nothing new to report here anymore and expressed my preference already (as in I won't be watching the Sony ever again), but maybe/hopefully it'll be considered useful by some. If I had to add one thing, it's that Sony's HDR is even more gimmicky than I would've thought, which is both interesting and somewhat worrisome IMHO.

The caps are the exact same as before, so the comparison is really rather unbiased (none of the additional DNR shots added and no poor compression purposefully omitted - didn't even look myself yet ...).

SC first, Sony second, additional caps behind as stated. (With the SC those are a waste most of the time anyway and I did omit them right away when it peaked near 200 in the first place (or was even below for that matter).)

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. (#3 SC 373 nits, #4 Sony 933 nits)

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. (#3 SC 410 nits, #4 Sony 895 nits)

14.

15.

16. (#3 SC 261 nits, #4 Sony 800 nits)

17.

18.

19. (#3 SC 414 nits, #4 Sony 1251 nits)

20. (#3 353 SC, #4 Sony 1000 nits)

21.

22.

23.

24. (#3 SC 397, #4 Sony 1700 nits)

25.

26.

27.

28. (#3 Sony 923 nits)

29.

30.

31.

32.

33. (#3 Sony 529 nits)

34.

35.

36.

37. (#3 SC 357 nits, #4 Sony 963 nits)

38.

39. (#3 SC 231 nits, #4 Sony 534 nits)

40.

41. (#3 SC 285 nits, #4 Sony 1251 nits)

42. (#3 SC 245 nits, #4 Sony 507 nits)

43. (#3 SC 250 nits, #4 Sony 750 nits)

44.

45.

[gaeljet]

I really rather he sony version/look..

[StingingVelvet]

Yeah, when not DNR'd I much prefer the Sony. Some others disagree, that's fine. To me the Sony looks a bit bright, like some other Sony titles before (Starship Troopers is a good example, and P.S. everyone loved that disc). However for a sunny snow movie I think it looks pretty "right," and I'll take that over the SC's green tint and duller look (though I'm sure the green is less obvious without comparison).

I really don't see sharpening issues on either, sorry Sky Captain. There's a bit of it on the one henchmen's head in shot 30 but the SC has some issues in the same spot, so I think it's contrast with the sunlight causing a halo. That shot is interesting too as a DNR'd shot, where the SC has more grain, but neither really looks right to me. Make me wonder how much of the Sony's issues are DNR and how much is perhaps a weird shot made weirder by the hot contrast? Of course that doesn't apply to Rooker fighting the dud on the ledge, so who knows.