|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best 4K Blu-ray Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $9.62 1 hr ago
| ![]() $49.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $36.69 | ![]() $34.96 1 day ago
| ![]() $31.99 | ![]() $32.99 | ![]() $35.99 2 hrs ago
| ![]() $29.96 18 hrs ago
| ![]() $14.44 21 hrs ago
| ![]() $39.99 | ![]() $37.99 | ![]() $32.99 |
![]() |
#1301 | |
Junior Member
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#1304 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
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] 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. ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thanks given by: | aphid (02-17-2019), chip75 (02-16-2019), Geoff D (02-16-2019), juanbauty@yahoo.es (02-20-2019), lgans316 (02-16-2019) |
![]() |
#1305 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
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] 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. ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thanks given by: |
![]() |
#1306 |
Blu-ray Emperor
|
![]()
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? ![]() |
![]() |
Thanks given by: | andreasy969 (02-23-2019) |
![]() |
#1307 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
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. ![]() PS: Liked the movie as well despite the "fake news" btw. (despite beeing a Queen "fan" if you want - just not the obsessive kind ![]() |
![]() |
Thanks given by: | Geoff D (02-23-2019) |
![]() |
#1308 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
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] 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. ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thanks given by: |
![]() |
#1309 | |
Banned
|
![]() Quote:
It's their second worse release so any disc will more than likely look better |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#1310 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#1313 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
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] 1. ![]() ![]() 2. ![]() ![]() 3. ![]() ![]() 4. ![]() ![]() 5. ![]() ![]() 6. (#3 923 nits) ![]() ![]() ![]() 7. ![]() ![]() 8. (#3 377 nits) ![]() ![]() ![]() 9. ![]() ![]() 10. ![]() ![]() 11. ![]() ![]() Last edited by andreasy969; 03-07-2019 at 07:48 PM. Reason: added missing nits with #8 |
![]() |
Thanks given by: | *manics* (03-08-2019), chip75 (03-07-2019), Geoff D (03-07-2019), juanbauty@yahoo.es (03-17-2019), lgans316 (03-07-2019), OutOfBoose (03-07-2019), UpsetSmiley (03-07-2019) |
![]() |
#1315 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
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. ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thanks given by: | lgans316 (04-03-2019) |
![]() |
#1316 |
Blu-ray Knight
|
![]()
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. ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thanks given by: | juanbauty@yahoo.es (03-17-2019), lgans316 (04-03-2019) |
![]() |
#1317 |
Banned
|
![]() Quote:
Not bought any classic 2d Disney as they all look like crap with their instance on DNR |
![]() |
Thanks given by: | juanbauty@yahoo.es (03-17-2019) |
![]() |
#1320 |
Blu-ray Samurai
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|