Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[A1i7]

Originally Posted by A1i7

Climax
French vs GBR
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=129586

which one is better ?!

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by A1i7

which one is better ?!

If they are captured correctly weirdy the Arrow has worse compression

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

If they are captured correctly weirdy the Arrow has worse compression

If the Arrow wasn't done by David M but by them Engine House people then I can believe it.

[andreasy969]

The Nutcracker and the Four Realms

The movie is meh IMO, but the pq is just lovely. The BD is no slouch either (which wasn't to be expected with Disney).

You won't find me commenting on movies a lot, but in this case I will once again: Doing the caps, I again/still really liked the production design, but the pretty images unfortunately are somewhat misleading IMO. The movie did start really promising and had its moments later on as well, but it really fell apart more and more later into the movie: dialogue, acting (the nutcracker annoyed me in particular), editing etc. Also, and even going by Disney standards that is, the message was just too Captain Obvious for me here and transported without any Disney magic at all. Even the end credits annoyed me with one IMO stupid idea. I'd give this 6/10. Again: IMO.

I also had to crank up the volume again with Disney btw.

As stated before, the disc says HDR 183 which is also the actual peak I saw, so HDR is basically almost non-existent. The main purpose of most of the additional caps is to show that there really isn't much there (except for the better colors with the conversion).

PS: I've had enough with screenshotcomparison.com and won't try it again - it just failed again with some stupid "failed to copy/move" error message ... (all I'm doing is uploading the URLs there and, being a software guy in particular, I really don't get WTF they are doing there...)

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/100 nits)

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. (#3 148 nits)

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15. (#3 151 nits)

16. (#3 183 nits)

17.

18.

[andreasy969]

Bohemian Rhapsody

It's another perfect example of why I don't believe in WCG (without HDR that is!) and 'teal==SDR-issue'-"theories" - for the most part it really is all about the grading IMO. (just checked the review and found that it doesn't mention anything about a rather pronounced difference in hue but/and no, I don't think it's the conversion)

I'm also really not a Sony hater, but the fact that this (new, digitally shot movie) is coming with massive highlight detail improvements while staying below 800 nits (I did spot 750 or sth somewhere; disc says the typical Fox HDR1000), when Cliffhanger (catalogue, shot on film) comes without such improvements despite reaching 1700 nits is once again quite telling. This here is HDR done right IMO. Sorry, Sony.

I did include some 100 nits clipped caps for demonstration/"educational" purposes for a change (#1, #16, #18, #21, #23). That is both reg. the dark SC Cliffhanger cap looking serviceable that way and to show what a nice job madVR actually does (despite being not perfect and sometimes also a rather subpar compromise).

BD (upscaled) | 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. (#3 607 nits, #4 100 nits clipped)

2.

3.

4. (#3 600 nits)

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. (#3 575 nits)

10. (#3 600 nits)

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. (#3 646 nits, #4 100 nits clipped)

17.

18. (#3 594 nits, #4 100 nits clipped)

19.

20.

21. (#3 507 nits)

22.

23. (#3 613 nits, #4 100 nits clipped)

24.

25.

26.

27.

[Geoff D]

Yeah, I mean without wanting to rehash all that again it's not that standard range CAN'T inherently do these more neutral looks (though BBC R&D and colourists like Peter Doyle are on record saying that 709 does have a tendency to skew yellow reproduction in particular), it's that for whatever reasons the greeny/yellow wash is invariably how the SDR trims are graded, and still are e.g. Halloween 2018. But I say 'invariably' with the caveat of 'until now', where the paradigm has been turned completely on its head.

I saw this twice in das kino and it didn't have that teal drench at all, it looked very warm and golden in those early scenes. There's still some of that in the HDR, but the sunlight shining in from the windows didn't look ****ing green. Be interesting to see it in HDR though, not because it'll magically make the teal go away but having the proper brightness may help to give it more pep. I'll give this a viewing in both versions when it finally gets released over here, not just because I'll see which one I feel more comfortable with but because this movie is awesome.

As for reviews not mentioning this, would you really expect them to?

[andreasy969]

I watched this yesterday and it did look golden in those early scenes to me as well. That window shot looking rather green in particular, is sth I only noticed when comparing (which basically/obviously is my point reg. green snow btw). And I really could not tell today, if it looked green like that yesterday. Most of those (beautiful) golden scenes don't look green to my eyes on the PC either at any rate.

Will still look out for (your) according comments reg. the green.

reg. yellow/teal/SDR: I still really don't doubt that this can be a thing either - you did provide a proper source after all. I just think that most of the time, if there's a major difference, it's really just the grading.

PS: Liked the movie as well despite the "fake news" btw. (despite beeing a Queen "fan" if you want - just not the obsessive kind ).

[andreasy969]

Ralph Breaks the Internet

BD (upscaled) | 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. (# 1058 nits)

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. (#3 1015 nits)

10.

11. (#3 973 nits)

12.

13.

14.

15. (#1 782 nits)

16.

17.

18. (#3 765 nits)

19.

20.

21. (#3 1015 nits)

22. (#3 1103 nits)

23. (#3 963 nits)

24. (#3 1318 nits)

25.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

I watched this yesterday and it did look golden in those early scenes to me as well. That window shot looking rather green in particular, is sth I only noticed when comparing (which basically/obviously is my point reg. green snow btw). And I really could not tell today, if it looked green like that yesterday. Most of those (beautiful) golden scenes don't look green to my eyes on the PC either at any rate.

Will still look out for (your) according comments reg. the green.

reg. yellow/teal/SDR: I still really don't doubt that this can be a thing either - you did provide a proper source after all. I just think that most of the time, if there's a major difference, it's really just the grading.

PS: Liked the movie as well despite the "fake news" btw. (despite beeing a Queen "fan" if you want - just not the obsessive kind ).

But why bring up cliffhanger as an example of Sony.
It's their second worse release so any disc will more than likely look better

[andreasy969]

You had me confused with your quote for a moment, but I guess you're referring to my HDR comment in the Bohemian comparison...

reg. the question: Because Sony happened to be in recent memory, they do it all the time with their catalogue, they are the only ones where I could actually kinda "prove" it (it's actually been stated right from the start since Ghostbusters) and last not least because I'd expect better from Sony (than I do from Universal for example).

Having said that, I don't get why people appear to get so wound up about criticizing one single aspect of Sony's catalogue UHD releases - and a very valid and objective one at that. It's not that I'm doing a backwards jim (rip) here or anything.

[Agent Kay]

Wait what happened to mij

[Geoff D]

Let's just enjoy the peace and quiet while it lasts.

[andreasy969]

The Little Mermaid (fixed Diamond Edition BD vs. UHD)

Just did some dedicated, additional caps.

The disc is HDR1000 and I did spot >900 nits (#6).

The one issue I have with "The Little Mermaid" is exactly the same on the UHD - it's the "ghosting" and some IMO "odd" lines which can be seen on #1 and the couple #4/#5 (it's two caps to point out that it's really the same).

I included two examples to show what the HDR does here: #6 and #8.

I always prefer the look of the dog on the UHD (#7) - ignore the dark UHD cap, I'm talking about the dog looking somewhat "fuzzy" to me on the BD.

The fade is there as well (#3).

They also fixed the remaining "glitch" now (#9).

I also included my usual title caps.

IMO it's really a matter of taste. You lose the "nostalgic" look for sure and I do understand that some people hate it, but I for one will keep both for sure and actually couldn't really decide. Animation just is not live action in my book. I also don't see any offensive smearing. YMMV.

BD (upscaled) | 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. (#3 923 nits)

7.

8. (#3 377 nits)

9.

10.

11.

[Agent Kay]

The EE on the birds in the opening is a mess and I found movement so smeared

[andreasy969]

The opening doesn't look stellar indeed, but it doesn't look stellar on the BD either. Maybe you didn't/don't like the BD either?

But I really don't see anything there that I'd call EE. Movement looks fine to me as well

The DNR does take its toll with the background shown in #3 though and one single cap cannot really show it (the UHD has the "frozen grain" look here). The same goes for the ship breaking through the fog shortly after. But then again, the BD doesn't shine here either again and I won't judge the whole presentation by the opening.

I'm also really not trying to be a contrarian. If the movement looks smeared to you, so be it. Like I said: YMMV and some will hate it - I'm just posting caps and giving my opinion after all.

1.

2.

3.

[andreasy969]

Here are three more I'd like to show to the undecided, which IMO clearly show the benefits of the UHD - revisionist or not, I know what I prefer here.

I still won't part with my Diamond Edition, but with Little Mermaid being one of my favourite Disneys (maybe the one I guess), I just have to have both. Having said that, I still don't really approve of what Disney does with its classics.

1. (#3 353 nits)

2.

3.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

The opening doesn't look stellar indeed, but it doesn't look stellar on the BD either. Maybe you didn't/don't like the BD either?

But I really don't see anything there that I'd call EE. Movement looks fine to me as well

The DNR does take its toll with the background shown in #3 though and one single cap cannot really show it (the UHD has the "frozen grain" look here). The same goes for the ship breaking through the fog shortly after. But then again, the BD doesn't shine here either again and I won't judge the whole presentation by the opening.

I'm also really not trying to be a contrarian. If the movement looks smeared to you, so be it. Like I said: YMMV and some will hate it - I'm just posting caps and giving my opinion after all.

1.

2.

3.

Look at the first shot, they have forcefields round them!
Not bought any classic 2d Disney as they all look like crap with their instance on DNR

[StingingVelvet]

I see the "force fields" you mean, but it looks like the animation to me, not EE.

[andreasy969]

If we're talking about the massive blue force fields in particular, yes, that's just the animation for sure resp. intentional IMO.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Django (SE UHD vs Arrow BD):

[Show spoiler]
I borrowed the Arrow caps from this review (whether that was the best option I cannot know, but I didn't want to use beaver's):
http://www.rockshockpop.com/forums/c...Blu-ray-Review

The original BD caps were jpgs, but I at least went png with the upscales to avoid "double compression". Either the BD caps or the Arrow do have an aliasing problem (so I really don't know if those caps were the best choice...) - basically look at anything "red" (not only the title, also #9 for ex). The frames are all correct (even the annoying close-ups ).

Main reason I changed my mind reg. doing this comparison was the difference in color. The source is exactly the same at any rate - incl. specks and scratches - but if those BD caps are accurate, I for one prefer the warmer UHD.

I (obviously) would've picked different shots myself, but that's the best I can do (too many close-ups and not enough wide shots IMHO). But you could still compare some of my previous caps yourself with beaver's for ex even if the frames don't match.

Others are more qualified than I am in distinguishing noise/compression from actual grain, but AFAICT everything that might be "fishy" on the UHD is basically there on the BD as well resp. it's not better - the UHD looks like the digital RAW material to my eyes. And the source really seems to be a rather "rough" one.

tl/tr: I'd pick the UHD BD-R over the Arrow BD for sure. That is if I had the means to create a backup, since I really don't trust the lifespan of a BD-R - not for that money in particular - and was fine with the English dub only. (I qualify for both)

But please take the comparison with a grain of salt!

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

The Arrow BD really does have some jaggies, especially visible in the shot with the title. I thought that it might have been poor caps, but the ones on DVDbeaver show jaggies as well when you look close. Would've expected more from Arrow.

Sucks that the UHD is a BD-R, I'd rather spend my money on a solar powered flashlight than on a BD-R.