Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[A1i7]

please compare Suspiria (2018) 2160p vs 1080p

[andreasy969]

I think I'll do Suspiria (2018) for sure (if no one else does it), but I pre-ordered the Ultimate which has been pushed back to April 18th, so I don't have it yet.

I'm also still debating whether I should just go with the standard edition though since I can't stand such big boxes. If only I knew how much of an improvement the 1977 UHD will be over the Italian one and if this will remain the only chance to get it. Decisions.

[Geoff D]

If this UHD is anything more than a slightly better encode than the Uk/Italian one I'd be amazed.

[andreasy969]

Yes, yes. Do I expect it/the compression to be better? Yes. Really noticeably, let alone markedly? No. Do I still want the best version? Maybe. By my math it's basically a question of ~40 € and I'm sure it'll sell as well (not that I sell my stuff anyway ). Two weeks left to decide/cancel.

[andreasy969]

Dredd (Lionsgate vs. Universum)

Received the Universum disc yesterday. Saw that it was basically the same immediately. Guess that saves at least others some money.

back cover has a very well hidden "DV". I'd have to rip the whole disc to confirm it, but don't care enough...

(Same old caps because I initially wanted to re-use my old Lionsgate caps, but "had to" redo those anyway then due to new madVR version and changed settings which resulted in differences that are not actually there...)

Pixel peeping, I'd say the Lionsgate is better - in HDR10 that is.

Lionsgate | Universum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Dredd (Lionsgate vs. Universum)

Received the Universum disc yesterday. Saw that it was basically the same immediately. Guess that saves at least others some money.

back cover has a very well hidden "DV". I'd have to rip the whole disc to confirm it, but don't care enough...

(Same old caps because I initially wanted to re-use my old Lionsgate caps, but "had to" redo those anyway then due to new madVR version and changed settings which resulted in differences that are not actually there...)

Pixel peeping, I'd say the Lionsgate is better - in HDR10 that is.

Lionsgate | Universum

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

So the fifth element again, not shocked

[andreasy969]

Straight Outta Compton

I did include some exemplary 100 nits caps (4, 9, 10, 23, 29, 32) because of the blacks (the blacks ARE rather black here, but not as black as those 200 nits caps might indicate). Didn't want to switch to 100, especially since the disc is somewhat "difficult" in either direction.

EDIT: I initially forgot the now #9.

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 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. (#3 471 nits)

3.

4. (#3 100 nits)

5.

6. (#3 481 nits)

7.

8.

9. (#3 100 nits)

10. (#3 100 nits)

11. (#3 1004 nits)

12. (#3 507 nits)

13. (#3 823 nits)

14.

15. (#3 849 nits)

16. (#3 983 nits)

17. (#3 914 nits)

18.

19.

20. (#3 914 nits)

21.

22. (#3 832 nits)

23. (#3 100 nits)

24.

25.

26.

27. (#3 1004 nits)

28. (#3 904 nits)

29. (#3 100 nits)

30.

31.

32. (#3 100 nits)

33.

34.

35. (#3 823 nits)

36. (#3 741 nits)

37.

38.

39.

40.

[Geoff D]

Still hate it ^. The liver failure colour grading is straight up nasty (makes the red beamer look like it's been parked out in the sun for two years) and look at the black crush!! Jesus. HDR highlights are marginal, they may be a lot brighter but they only show a trace more information. Yeah, it's got a very nice increase in fine detail and has been de-noised a fair bit but it's so ugly otherwise.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by sentinel-fine

Uh, Blu-rays have always been like that. It's a mixture of chroma subsampling and low bitrate.

It's also one of the scenarios where 4K UHDs look better than BDs even if downscaled to 1080p.

Scenes like that can also be found in Skull Island, Last Jedi, Ex-Machina and practically any movie with a strong presence of bright primary colors.

Are you sure? I've watched plenty of BD's with scenes of bright colors and they don't look like that. That shot looks like a DVD. That's encoding and bad compression issue to me. Maybe the upscaled image is making it look worse than it is.

As i've said ad nauseam, i really don't expect studios like Sony to put any effort like they use to into their blurays. That image isn't the normal for bluray. Standards on what constitutes a baseline bluray picture have dropped it seems.

[andreasy969]

Mary Poppins Returns

Don't miss #19 (not because of the lamp artefacts, but the red dress).

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 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.

8.

9.

10.

11. (#3 725 nits)

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

[andreasy969]

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

The Blu-ray is really very poor throughout IMO. I actually think the only time I thought it does a good job is #33.

To name a few where I found the BD to be particularly bad: #1, #2, #3, #5, #17, #18, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #29, #30, #31, #34, #38 (meh, a pointless list and I think you get the idea).

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 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. (#3 858 nits)

2.

3.

4.

5. (#3 1187 nits)

6.

7.

8. (#3 1036 nits)

9. (#3 552 nits)

10.

11.

12.

13. (#3 963 nits)

14. (#3 1479 nits)

15.

16.

17. (#3 3319 nits)

18.

19. (#3 710 nits)

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27. (#3 1058 nits)

28. (#3 2249 nits)

29.

30.

31.

32. (#3 1127 nits)

33. (#3 1448 nits)

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

[Show spoiler]

[Geoff D]

Re: the red dress in Poppins, I noticed something very similar in another moment later on in the film, she's wearing a red scarf with her blue coat and the little dots on the scarf almost disappear in the SDR rendition. The chroma resolution has taken quite a big hit on the Blu.

[andreasy969]

The Mule

The titles (#2 and #29) do fade on the UHD as well, but not in sync, which is the sole reason for the different transparency within the same frame.

The BD does a very good job here, but (apart from the HDR) the difference between the two is more pronounced in motion due the much more refined noise on the UHD.

I'd advise against taking a look at #34 if you haven't watched the movie yet.

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 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. (#3 1264 nits)

2.

3. (#3 749 nits)

4. (#3 607 nits)

5.

6.

7. (#3 973 nits)

8. (#3 639 nits)

9. (#3 whatever nits - lost the number)

10.

11.

12. (#3 895 nits)

13. (# 456 nits)

14.

15.

16.

17. (#3 914 nits)

18. (#3 933 nits)

19.

20.

21. (#3 1069 nits)

22. (#3 749 nits)

23. (#3 1163 nits)

24. (#3 1025 nits)

25. (#3 1139 nits)

26. (#3 674 nits)

27. (#3 867 nits)

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

[Show spoiler]

[andreasy969]

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

This ended up WAY more extensive than I'd like to - even by my standards. One reason being that I really like the movie though. But I did add some (by no means complete) comments (the HDR thumbs speak for themselves anyway). I included certain, previously posted caps as well and also really tried to balance the good and the bad here (I didn't count though).

I said it before, I'll say it again: This, more often than I'd like to, looks too smooth to me now (in motion that is) and I really wish they would've just left it alone. All thing considered, I'd still pick the UHD over the BD.

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 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. the water in particular looked better resolved to me right away here

2. more detail

3. looking fine

4. looking a tad too smooth

5. fine

6.

7.

8. mainly included because of the title

9. too smooth

10. heavy DNR

11. heavy DNR

12.

13. I love how Cap snaps this guy overboard, so had to be included

14.

15. (#3 523 nits)

16. just a tad too smooth

17. (#3 512 nits)

18.

19. another wide shot that is noticably more detailed (it's not much, but it's noticeably there); the small windows at the top look much better as well

20. good example of both looking rather smooth to begin with (and the UHD looking better to my eyes)

21. too smooth now, but IMO the BD looks smooth/odd already as well

22. retro stuff being untouched

23. too smooth, but nice HDR (#3 512 nits)

24. display looking much better

25. looking fine

26. UHD looking much better here (next two) (both detail and blown out wise)

27. (#3 523 nits)

28. looking fine

29. another example of the BD being much noisier (actually went back to the UHD here because of it), but the UHD still looks fine here

30. while often actually not adding that much more actual detail, the UHD more often than not still tends render everything so much better (here for ex. the wiper or the hood above the right headlight - both re. the white car)

31.

32. much more detail on the HUD

33.

34.

35. HDR doing what HDR does (#3 502 nits)

36. the next two are there because of the metal gate/grid on the left (still) coming with some odd "flickering" in motion, because it switches between sharp and fuzzy; and IMO it's actually even more noticable now, because the sharp frames are sharper now (which isn't the UHD's fault of course)
fuzzy:

sharp:

37. UHD looking much better in this nightime shot

38. more noise on the BD again, but UHD still looking fine

39. more detail in the background (take the monitor in the middle for example)

40. Cap looking too smooth now

41.

42. (#3 546 nits)

43. even here the UHD is less blown out (wing) (and detail wise it's a tad sharper as well)

44.

45.

46. too smooth

47. fine

48. both the lights and stuff on the floor (gutter on the left in particular) being more detailed

49. much more noise on the BD resp. DNR on the UHD (#3 529 nits)

50.

51. UHD being much better resolved

52. the green monitor stuff in particular struck me as much better looking

53. more detailed

54. (#3 540 nits)

55.

56. more detail (shirt collar, badge) despite being more smooth (but still fine with me)

57. perfectly fine

58. just look at the fence (#3 466 nits)

59. IMO distractingly smooth now

60. and perfectly fine (as in even better than the BD) again

61. there are so many caps from the following scene, because the BD looks so badly blown out and therefore flat here the whole time

62. (#3 523 nits)

63. particularly bad here (#3 512 nits)

64. and here as well (#3 507 nits)

65.

66. just look at the yellow lamp in the background - almost completely blown out (as if it wasn't even on) on the BD (#3 507 nits)

67. (#3 607 nits)

68.

69. UHD looking so much better here again - colour, contrast, detail (even though seemingly not much) and HDR (#3 428 nits)

70. and again (#3 569 nits)

71. (#3 437 nits)

72. this might have been smoothed as well, but still looks way better to my eyes at any rate (the car in particular)

73.

74. HDR improving the effects as usual

75. smoothed, yet improved as well

76. as mentioned before, Bucky on the chair really looks too smooth to me now (next two)

77.

78. blown out BD strikes again (#3 582 nits)

79. and it does so even here

80.

81. the next two speak for themselves again

82. and this one looks particularly bad on the BD once more (it almost looks The-Meg-SDR-converted-to-200-nits-like bad IMO) (#3 496 nits)

83. IMO too smooth now and yet has its benefits detail wise

84.

85. blown out BD blah blah blah (#3 558 nits)

86. same as with the similar cap I did post before, detail is much improved with this stuff

87. (#3 529 nits)

88.

89. the title actually loses the slightly different shade with the font on the BD

90. smoothed but still fine with me

[StingingVelvet]

You're doing god's work sir. And yes I agree overall, just a bit too smooth sometimes which causes distraction, similar to Martian and kind of like Batman Begins without the super bad melting butler stuff. Overall the better version still though, probably.

[Geoff D]

Super stuff as always Andreas. The detail, the HDR, I can't get enough of Winter Soldier in UHD.

[OutOfBoose]

Yeah, I'm not loving DNR job on MCU. Why can't they let it be like Cloverfield?

[Geoff D]

Cloverfield 1, you mean? Cloverfield 2 had the the grain removal treatment and no-one batted an eyelid...

[OutOfBoose]

CF1, yeah. For me it's benchmark release when it comes to 2K digital upscales. There's very tight texture through the whole thing. I really wanted to see the same in case of MCU, but when Avengers films arrived... And they continue to do that to other films as well. Shame. What could've been.

[lgans316]

Awesome work Andreas. I am still scratching my head as to why the tools at Disney didn't leave the Caps untouched for the UHD release. Really a missed opportunity. Hoping they don't screw up IM1.