Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[andreasy969]

Shadow In The Cloud

For thoughts I'll just refer to my earlier comment: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...5&postcount=16

I did add some 100 nits caps, since it's relatively dark, especially during the first half, so one can compare some caps better directly APL wise. (i.e. it's darker, but not too/that dark when compared properly)

There's a certain lack of variety with the caps, but that's due to the movie. The movie is fun IMO and meh re. certain complaints for my part. My only complaint with the disc, as said before, is #6.

I always try to avoid spoilers, but it's always hard to avoid some general plot spoilers without spoiler tagging everything, but the sole flat out spoiler is #27 (which I therefore tagged accordingly - so don't click, if you haven't seen the movie).

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 colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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. even this looks flat on the BD

5. also interesting in regard to how the mapping affects the colour (#3 653 nits)

6. the only localized title

7. the 4K is handling the dark stuff much better

8. example for the spot highlights (#3 4101 nits)

9. very flat looking BD again

10. blown out jacket on the left

11.

12.

13. (#3 100 nits)

14. (#3 100 nits)

15. another exmaple for the 4K handling dark stuff much better plus very bright spot highlights again; I did include 100 as well to give you the full range here (# 4015 nits, #4 100 nits)

16. also look at the (red) left of his head and the jacket on the left in particular

17. (#3 100 nits)

18. another spot highlight and much more depth (#3 1694 nits)

19.

20.

21. very noisy scene

22.

23.

24. dark scenes look less flat as well; this one's also surprisingly bright due to spots again (no additional cap)

25. speaks for itself (#3 2321 nits)

26.

27. MAJOR SPOILER!!!

[Show spoiler]

28.

29. (#3 840 nits)

30.

31. the bright part at the bottom of his shirt is rather bright, but no additional cap/detail - but one can (hopefully) see the increased depth already

32.

33. very waxy, but on both

34. other than the general flatness also the blown out hair in particular (#3 1591 nits)

35. (#3 1404 nits)

36.

37. the second/third part of the movie looks very blown out throughout on the BD

38.

39. (#3 923 nits)

40. brightest spot I did spot (and MaxCLL being wrong once again) (#3 5524 nits)

41. (#3 904 nits)

42. (#3 3650 nits)

43. (#3 963 nits)

44. (#3 1862 nits)

45.

45. (#3 2249 nits)

46. (#3 2833 nits)

47. (#3 1843 nits)

[ToEhrIsHuman]

Thanks for posting those 'Shadow in the Cloud' caps. I get to watch my copy tonight finally.

[andreasy969]

Prospect (Capelight vs. Gunpowder & Sky)

Same blacks, same HDR, virtually identical. (If you think the caps actually are the same, you should find a difference with the compression with #18).

Capelight | Gunpowder & Sky (both: madVR/SDR/100 nits)

1. (#3 Capelight 1542 nits, #4 G&S 1558 nits)

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

[andreasy969]

Christine (Sony vs. Carlotta)

Almost virtually identical, but FiM wins, is a tad better compression/grain wise (on occasion even detail wise) and constistently so (i.e. I did not cherry pick frames). (grabbed it myself when it was cheap, because I was curious)

Needless to say, that this is pixel peeping, but I'd buy the Carlotta one.

Sony | Carlotta (both: madVR/SDR/200 nits)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

[Streetlight]

What is the quickest way to archive Screenshot Comparison's comparisons?

[andreasy969]

Greenland

Just watched this (movie is pretty good IMO) and the trailer afterwards (I knew again why...), which looked very blown out compared to what I just saw, and just quickly compared some selected scenes with the BD.

I disagree on the HDR being rather meh and think this a solid upgrade 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 colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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. #3 725 nits

2. #3 933 nits

3. #3 1025 nits

4. #3 994 nits

5. #3 858 nits

6. #3 626 nits

7. #3 575 nits

8. #3 471 nits

9. #3 373 nits

[andreasy969]

Die Unendliche Geschichte

Basically HDR only.

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 colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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. (#3 406 nits)

2.

3.

4. (#3 461 nits)

5. (#3 481 nits)

6. (#3 633 nits)

7. (#3 575 nits)

8. (#3 397 nits)

9. (#3 575 nits)

10. (#3 886 nits)

11. (#3 741 nits)

12. (#3 773 nits)

13. (#3 797 nits)

14. (#3 923 nits)

15. (#3 914 nits)

16. (#3 540 nits)

17. (#3 620 nits)

18. (#3 437 nits)

19. (#3 419 nits)

20. (#3 914 nits)

[andreasy969]

Looper

For general impressions, I'll refer to this: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=236

The BD is my US Sony BD (the different framing is the same, but the eOne BD doesn't have the black lines left and right you'll find on the Sony). I did add some exemplary comments.

YMMV, but other than the obvious fake HDR something is rotten in the state of Denmark here IMHO.

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 colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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. I see no real benefits with the titles (#3 471 nits)

2. minor HDR improvement (next 3), yet by no means requires this brightness (#3 749 nits)

3. (#3 749 nits)

4. (#3 1015 nits)

5. can't really say that there's more actual detail

6. this here looks clearly better to me

7.

8. (#3 943 nits)

9. (#3 594 nits)

10. doesn't look right

11. weird grain/sharp look (#3 867 nits)

12. you'll find additional detail here (yet looks not natural to me) (#3 1139 nits)

13. (#3 886 nits)

14. (#3 607 nits)

15. same scene as the next cap, but only Jeff is as bright (and weird sharp grain)

16. (#3 1047 nits)

17. (#3 1015 nits)

18. totally fake and looks weirdly sharpened (#3 1127 nits)

19. weird sun (#3 858 nits)

20. weird sharp look/grain (#3 1025 nits)

21. (#3 983 nits)

22. (#3 428 nits)

23.

24. (#3 534 nits)

25. weirrrrrrd digital look (#3 953 nits)

26. odd/extremely sharp grain (#3 688 nits)

27.

28.

29.

30. (#3 1025 nits)

31.

32.

33. (no #3, because this one was for the grain - same as with the others applies re. the HDR)

34. no weird grain and the BD actually looks better in that regard (when there isn't the sharp grain)

35. another example for the extremely sharp grain, which doesn't look natural to me (#3 973 nits)

36. looks digital to me (#3 943 nits)

37. (#3 1069 nits)

38. ultra sharp grain again (#3 1200 nits)

39. more detail (shirt), yet looks not right to me (#3 1025 nits)

40. (#3 725 nits)

41. (#3 886 nits)

42. digital look (#3 1277 nits)

43. weird grain (#3 1251 nits)

44. (#3 1200 nits)

45. no weird grain (#3 626 nits)

46.

47. (#3 886 nits)

48. weird grain again (#3 1080 nits)

49. no weird grain, but halos (#3 1163 nits)

50. totally weird grain again (#3 741 nits)

51. (#3 994 nits)

[andreasy969]

Inglorious Basterds

I took a look at the HDR: Overly bright light cannon and fake, but also not totally fake. The subs are actually also still orange when tone mapped to higher nits. The HDR often brings back colour, yet no need for being that bright (max. I did spot is #23 at 1200 nits - MaxCLL, as per the usual, is wrong...). #5 is a good example for what you'll find with the rest.

I can also confirm the raised black levels, which are obvious right from the start with the Universal logo for ex (not included). #29 I also compared for the blacks.

Anyway, I don't hate it, but it's a somewhat questionable release at any rate, which was obvious before already.

PS: Sorry for the small thumbs and no hotlinks, but my preferred option is dying the COVID-death I'm afraid... (and the reason for many dead comparisons)

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 colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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. (#3 227 nits)

2.

3. (#3 1127 nits)

4. (#3 933 nits)

5. (#3 963 nits)

6. (#3 876 nits)

7. (#3 876 nits)

8. (#3 1058 nits)

9. (#3 923 nits)

10. (#3 1115 nits)

11. (#3 1127 nits)

12. (#3 1047 nits)

13. (#3 914 nits)

14. (#3 1080 nits)

15. (#3 1175 nits)

16. (#3 858 nits)

17. (#3 1024 nits)

18. (#3 1127 nits)

19. (#3 1015 nits)

20. (#3 1092 nits)

21. (#3 1103 nits)

22. (#3 1058 nits)

23. (#3 1200 nits)

24. (#3 1047 nits)

25. (#3 970 nits)

26. (#3 840 nits)

27. (#3 943 nits)

28. (#3 1004 nits)

29. 100 nits

30. (#3 1004 nits)

31. (#3 1187 nits)

32. (#3 973 nits)

33. (#3 725 nits)

34. (#3 381 nits)

[andreasy969]

Cliffhanger (Sony DNR vs. Eagle)

Had some time to kill and did a Sony DNR one (vs. Eagle this time), mostly because all of my DNR caps being dead (maybe for good), which kinda annoyed me.

I started with Sony to pick the DNR ones. And you'll often find non-cherry-picked poor compression Eagle ones as a result. Thing is the Sony DNR (still) sticks out like a sore thumb to me, while I don't really notice the poor compression in motion.

Also included the old HDR example again, which doesn't work in favour of the Sony either. I'll still give the Sony the better blacks, but thats's it and the DNR totally ruins it for me.

The DNR is not equally offensive, but you'll know when it is. I often did more than one cap not to exaggerate the issue, but to make it clear that it's whole shots and scenes (with sometimes good intermissions, which I didn't include though).

Sony (madVR/SDR/200 nits) | Eagle (madVR/SDR/100 nits)

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

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21. Sony light cannon with less highlight detail (#2 1251 nits, #4 414 nits)

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71. happened to take a look at this noisy vs. grainy with poor compression one

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

[andreasy969]

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Spent some time with both the 4K and the BD in two smaller sessions today (which is also why some caps are still in the wrong order).

Summary is that this is the worst UHD I think I'll still watch over the (poor) BD at least once anyway and Disney should be ashamed of themselves. There's just no excuse, especially since it would've looked decent, if they hadn't hit it with the DNR stick resp. would've just left it alone ffs...

But as I said before, the BD looks rather poor as well by today's standards. It also has DNR plus often a very unpleasent, harsh, sharpened, garish look while at times also looking clearly better. "filmic" is often not what I'd call the BD either though - it's really a total victim of its age. The 4K, despite being shit, often looks more pleasent to me overall - mostly because of the better colours, the extremely blown out stuff being gone and the BD showing its age in basically every department.

I for one, and other than the obvious smear job in general, notice the smearing mostly with faces, which can look really awful in motion.

The 4K, despite being a piece of shit (I know that I said it before), has clear benefits as well though, hence pick your poison. Its' TOTALLY unworthy of the format, but has its benefits.

The disc comes with 0 MaxCLL/MaxFALL btw (, which might be the cause for some sunny complaints).

Mind you that with the caps I am focusing on the benefits of the 4K. We all know about the DNR by now. Almost no additional caps, since the 4K is often way better @100 already.

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 colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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. garish hat etc.

4. no comment required (not only is the BD extremely blown out, this is also presented extremely poorly/posterized)

5.

6.

7.

8. blown out, garish BD not only with backgrounds

9. scenes like this (faces) often really look awful in motion due to the smearing on the 4K, but the BD doesn't look too good in motion (not only) in this particular scene either

10. came from the BD here, which looks just awful in this scene - the BD really struggles with dark scenes (#19 is another/different example)

11. garish

12. poor fire and ugly colours on the BD

13.

14. BD extremely clipped

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. looks really bad on the BD

20. improved fire

21. green tinted gold (next two)

22.

23. more examples of fire looking better on the 4K

24.

25.

26.

27. #3 270 nits

28. I can often live with these kinds of "beauty pass" (despite detail being gone and the 4K being a piece of shit)

29. #3 242 nits

[Hedrox]

If you're curious, you can take a look at the Polish disc for Black Pearl, also Disney but a newer encode(2009 vs the US 2007). I took some caps.

Originally Posted by Hedrox

[Show spoiler]So... I noticed the Polish disc for Curse of the Black Pearl has the aspect ratio listed as 2.35, whereas the US one is 2.40, so I got curios and sure enough it is a different encode and a different framing(slightly).

I can't really tell if one is better than the other, for detail they seem more or less the same, but the US one has a bit of a yellow tint(which may be intentional) while the PL one doesn't; you also get slightly more image on the PL one while the US is zoomed in.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
US - AVC 2.40:1 20055 kbps, LPCM 5.1 6912 kbps, 24-bit, English SDH subs (Region free) Best AQ
CZ/GR/HU/PL/TR - VC-1 2.35:1 21282 kbps, DTS-HD MA 5.1 4067 kbps 24-bit, English regular & SDH subs (Region free)

The 2.35 disc is also Disney BTW, just that it was pressed in 2009, while the US one in 2007.

1. (US on the left)

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

[Trekkie313]

I'm thoroughly confused what I'm looking at and why the SONY has DNR. I've seen screencaps of Cliffhanger 4K and they looked grainy.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

I'm thoroughly confused what I'm looking at and why the SONY has DNR. I've seen screencaps of Cliffhanger 4K and they looked grainy.

Only some scenes have it. About 20% of the movie, I think.

Otherwise it's better than the ugly Studio Canal master, IMO.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

I'm thoroughly confused what I'm looking at and why the SONY has DNR. I've seen screencaps of Cliffhanger 4K and they looked grainy.

It's sporadically applied, with little apparent logic. Sometimes switching from grainy to smooth within the same scene. The reason why is one of life's many mysteries.

[captainjoe]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

It's sporadically applied, with little apparent logic. Sometimes switching from grainy to smooth within the same scene. The reason why is one of life's many mysteries.

Hungover/drunk technician

[nick4Knight]

Some of your links to photos aren't showing lately? Always loved the spirit of this thread. Hate to see it reduced to broken.

p.s I think with Disney its safe to speculate that there is some automatic processes setup for the batch of masters dumped their first year of Disney+ content. Their TV shows HDR and DV grades are hit and miss. As to movies many have made the link the 2K DI stuff really suffers the most. Could be simple as some tech in that dept. advised them that this content needed to be filtered to help compress the files very small for streaming?

They were in a hurry to populate the servers with stuff that would please streaming folk. Average joes who don't care for PQ standards. Unfortunately for us, they also put that work on discs unlike the quality standard that more recently mastered 4K discs seems to be.

None of this explain the pisspoor colour grading so often. The fact their DV is similarly rather weak and smacking of a conversion for the sake of triggering your DV badge on D+. Having it on disc wouldn't help the underlying crappery that we're seeing far too often.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

Some of your links to photos aren't showing lately?

Expired SSL certs. If you temporarily ignore it with Firefox for example, the pics are still there. The imagebanana ones at any rate (another one I used extremely rarely is completely gone I believe). imagebanana apparently doesn't maintain the certs anymore since COVID AFAICT. They used to fix it, but don't seem to anymore. C'est la vie.

At least they survived longer than they would've elsewhere.

[andreasy969]

The Outpost

Did a quick blind one with this one now and my brief initial impression didn't change one bit.

The German one is totally fake HDR, I see no real problem with the (raised) blacks of the US release (it actually improves over the US BD in that regard), the HDR releaese actually loses detail over the SDR release and intensifies the noise. You know it's fake HDR when the mapped-to-the-max version basically looks as it (IMHO) should. The US SDR release looks right to my eyes.

Had one more, I deemed interesting, but wasn't present on the German one...

I'd actually pick the US one for the proper titles alone (in case of the main title properly animated). Still didn't watch either, so that's all I have to say (also re. the audio in particular), just a general impression/for consideration.

US BD (upscaled) | US UHD-BD (SDR release) | DE UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits unless stated otherwise)

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

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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. DE 100 nits

3. (#4 DE 1058 nits)

4. (#4 DE 529 nits)

5. (#4 DE 781 nits)

6. (#4 DE 914 nits)

7. DE 100 nits

8. DE 100 nits

9. (#4 DE 1115 nits)

10. DE 100 nits

11. DE 100 nits (#4 DE 973 nits)

12. DE 100 nits (#4 DE 1080 nits)

13. (#4 DE 933 nits)

14. DE 100 nits (#4 DE 486 nits)

[Geoff D]

Goddamn, the colour's got that typical forced BT.2020 look on the German one too, there's so much more green/teal. Still, it's no wonder matey loved it in the Outpost thread: it's all about that "pop" (ugh).