Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Thanks for that.

Doesn't look as bad as I feared. Just a shame the chroma has gotten away from them slightly in HDR10. Best illustrated by the final comparison there, with faint green blobs manifesting on light surfaces (like the door). Which is what I clocked in motion - no 'peepin required. It's that bloody FEL. I bet it looks tip-top in DV.

It's there on the plate and tablecloth in the same cap too, not the massive coloured blocks we've seen on other chroma-starved encodes but definitely there vs the Lionsgate, which is indeed slightly softer but has none of this added chroma noise. It may well be a non-issue in motion for some when mixed in with the typical yellow/blue dye clouds of the actual negative, but in 4K HDR you called it.

[Hedrox]

I don't expect anyone to get yet another release, BUT... I heard from someone who owns it that the Universal 4K edition from Spain is also better than the Lionsgate one.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Thanks for that.

Doesn't look as bad as I feared. Just a shame the chroma has gotten away from them slightly in HDR10. Best illustrated by the final comparison there, with faint green blobs manifesting on light surfaces (like the door). Which is what I clocked in motion - no 'peepin required. It's that bloody FEL. I bet it looks tip-top in DV.

Oh, I didn't doubt it and I also spotted some very faint pinks somewhere (only because I was looking for it), but I guess I expected worse and was therefore still looking for worse, but then didn't spot anything. As Geoff says, it might also be more noticeable in actual HDR.

Anyway, I'm happy and would recommend the Eagle now. Was happy with the Lionsgate as well, but the brightness shifts: Once you've seen it...

[andreasy969]

Le Cercle Rouge (StudioCanal vs. Criterion)

1-5 is just for the record for my fellow StudioCanal-HDR10-FEL-DV victims and I added some more/rather random ones while I was at it.

EDIT: Oh, and forgot to mention that I did spot some additional cleanup with the Criterion. Most prominent one being #8, but there were some more.

https://slow.pics/c/dSdV4Zvk

SC | Criterion (both 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.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

[Streetlight]

So how will the older comparisons be accessed?

[andreasy969]

re. the old comparisons, I guess I'll say it one last time: Some might want to pray, some might want to contact imagebanana, but other than that, if they don't come back on its own, they are lost in time...like tears in the rain. (Suspiria is the only one I still have.)

[andreasy969]

Drive (Sony BD vs. SecondSight 4K)

Just for the record: No #3s needed, since it doesn't go very bright (and stayed below 300 where I checked).

https://slow.pics/c/OQHO1AAn

Sony BD (upscaled) | SecondSight 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.

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.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

[Agent Kay]

Yup

[andreasy969]

Bram Stoker's Dracula (25th Anni vs. 30th Anni)

I did include some more of the good stuff and also a couple more of my beloved burnt-in titles.

1-13
https://slow.pics/c/TRFRK8EH
14-26
https://slow.pics/c/bhsXip3a
27-39
https://slow.pics/c/2WfHrTdO
40-52
https://slow.pics/c/ooT19Wrp
53-63
https://slow.pics/c/OHjWgVVh

25th Anni | 30th Anni (both 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.

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.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

[andreasy969]

The Bridge on the River Kwai (UK 60th Anni Mono re-issue vs. IT 65th Anni DV)

As with all the Sony DV re-releases, the DV is a tad punchier, but I cannot tell the two apart really.

both madVR/SDR/200 nits

https://slow.pics/c/VkrqXlBE

[andreasy969]

Oblivion

I eventually grabbed this cheap to form my own proper opinion, which I couldn't based on what I had.

If you were/are enthusiastic about HD resolution, I'd say stay away. This is like one step forward and three steps back and feels like DVD with HDR. Yes, the Blu-ray has some sharpening (whether that is baked into the master I can only guess), but the loss of actual detail often is just ridiculous and unacceptable in my book and no sharpening will bring it back. The HDR has its benefits, but here's not going back to DVD level of detail for HDR. I don't know what exactly Universal did here, but I'm getting filmout vibes watching this (not saying it is, that's just what it looks like to me). Don't like the colours either. Maybe it helps others still on the fence about this one - I say save your money, if you don't want Oblivion to look like "The Phantom Menace" detail wise. YMMV.

(I also included the #3s at slowpic and inserted blanks when there is no #3. Oh, and maybe 100 nits would've worked better re. the regular ones, but it is what it is now.)

1-10
https://slow.pics/c/bw6vFo2Q

11-20
https://slow.pics/c/5jADMJNf

21-30
https://slow.pics/c/lnVwucJw

31-42
https://slow.pics/c/YNhslFpV

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. (#3 765 nits)

5. (#3 765 nits)

6.

7.

8. (#3 781 nits)

9.

10.

11. (#3 710 nits)

12.

13.

14.

15. (#3 858 nits)

16. (#3 806 nits)

17.

18.

19.

20. (#3 789 nits)

21.

22.

23. (#3 749 nits)

24.

25.

26.

27. (#3 653 nits)

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33. (#3 710 nits)

34. (#3 696 nits)

35.

36.

37. (#3 552 nits)

38.

39. (#3 765 nits)

40. (#3 681 nits)

41. (#3 781 nits)

42. (#3 789 nits)

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Oblivion

I eventually grabbed this cheap to form my own proper opinion, which I couldn't based on what I had.

If you were/are enthusiastic about HD resolution, I'd say stay away. This is like one step forward and three steps back and feels like DVD with HDR. Yes, the Blu-ray has some sharpening (whether that is baked into the master I can only guess), but the loss of actual detail often is just ridiculous and unacceptable in my book and no sharpening will bring it back. The HDR has its benefits, but here's not going back to DVD level of detail for HDR. I don't know what exactly Universal did here, but I'm getting filmout vibes watching this (not saying it is, that's just what it looks like to me). Don't like the colours either. Maybe it helps others still on the fence about this one - I say save your money, if you don't want Oblivion to look like "The Phantom Menace" detail wise. YMMV.

That's definitely sharpening on the BD, and if it is indeed baked in then that kinda explains why Uni intentionally softened the image for the UHD. Not saying it looks good, but it could've probably looked worse blown to 4K and with the HDR making the imperfections more obvious.

Also, the 4K kinda looks like what the 1080p should've been if not for all the sharpening.

[SMD88]

Stupid me thought compression issues were a thing of the past, then I watched Total Recall. Jesus christ those red skies are bad. How can Studio Canal and US studios like WB be so bad at making UHD discs? Is a UHD BD-66 the equivalent of a BD-25? Are they just too cheap to put the movies on BD-100 and max out the bitrate?

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

That's definitely sharpening on the BD, and if it is indeed baked in then that kinda explains why Uni intentionally softened the image for the UHD. Not saying it looks good, but it could've probably looked worse blown to 4K and with the HDR making the imperfections more obvious.

Also, the 4K kinda looks like what the 1080p should've been if not for all the sharpening.

Yes, there's sharpening on the BD, but my problem with the 4K is that it doesn't only remove the sharpening, but actual detail (just look at the title - yes, there's sharpening on the BD, but there's also texture on the 4K completely gone). I also don't find the sharpening distracting (can't remember anyone complaining about sharpening on the BD either), so I pick the crisp image (that also comes with actual more detail) over utterly blurry with HDR. But as I said, YMMV, and everyone has to decide for themselves - I for one like my Oblivion crisp.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Oblivion

Great caps, thanks!

Funny enough your caps actually made me consider giving this a shot. On my rather large 4k monitor going back and forth I think the detail loss is perhaps less severe than I expected? I dunno. I kinda prefer the pure white almost antiseptic look of the BD, I think it fits the movie, but the HDR adds a lot of depth and shadow. You probably motivated me to finally watch it myself.

[andreasy969]

Opera (Scorpion BD vs. '84 BD vs. Plaion UHD-BD)

https://slow.pics/c/wzxhTPM2

I spoiler tagged #4 for titties, so I hopefully won't get into trouble here and also marked slowpic as NSFW for the same reason. I also spoiler tagged the last one for plot, i.e. better don't look, if you've never seen the movie - I would've picked different ones, but I had to go with caps-a-holic where I borrowed (thx!) the Scorpion caps.

With #4, #8 and the last one I also had a hard time picking the proper frames, but I think I got the right ones. But don't sue me otherwise (and also doesn't really matter).

I'd still pick '84 over Scorpion quality wise (going by caps re. the latter) and now I pick the 4K over the '84. (And I see colour discussions incoming already.)

Scorpion BD (upscaled) | '84 BD (upscaled) | Plaion UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits)

1.

2.

3.

4.

[Show spoiler]

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15. little auto cleanup fail on the '84 here

16.

[Show spoiler]

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Funny enough your caps actually made me consider giving this a shot. On my rather large 4k monitor going back and forth I think the detail loss is perhaps less severe than I expected? I dunno. I kinda prefer the pure white almost antiseptic look of the BD, I think it fits the movie, but the HDR adds a lot of depth and shadow. You probably motivated me to finally watch it myself.

It looks lovely in HDR and I'll take softer, less detailed image over AI upscaled sharp trash without a blink of an eye. (which shouldn't even be a choice in the first place )

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

La La Land (Eagle vs. Lionsgate)

The Eagle also fixes the brightness shifts first reported by Phil and someone else (would have to look the other person up again, but am too lazy ) and I just happened to spot #2 myself as well now. Anyway, both, that I'm aware of now, are gone on the Eagle and/so it's clearly a mastering error on the Lionsgate. (With the title (#1) looking clearly darker on the Lionsgate, I actually wouldn't be surprised if it's faulty as well - forgot to check the nits there...)

Originally Posted by Hedrox

I don't expect anyone to get yet another release, BUT... I heard from someone who owns it that the Universal 4K edition from Spain is also better than the Lionsgate one.

Just to follow up on this. Being a curious maniac, I purchased that (Spanish) Universal Studios release when it was dirt cheap. It has the same brightness shifts in the exact same places as the Lionsgate. I didn't dive too deep (doing disc scans etc), but it's likely just a port of the Lionsgate encode so that someone who told you it was better than the Lionsgate was talking absolute bollocks, Hedrox

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I kinda prefer the pure white almost antiseptic look of the BD, I think it fits the movie

Yes, I also like the look of the BD and think it suits the movie. Another thing I associate with Oblivion is plenty of close-ups with shallow DOF: I mean stuff like very sharp/crisp eye lids and soft backgrounds. And the former (the crisp) gets somewhat lost on the 4K and I don't like.

But I didn't post this to force my opinion on anyone - I wouldn't have bothered posting HDR examples, if that was my intention/if I had an agenda. But I'll still state what I prefer and it's the BD I am used to (and I really can't stand the texture of the 4K). But everyone's free to prefer the 4K instead and the comparison pushing anyone into either direction is completely fine with me.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Just to follow up on this. Being a curious maniac, I purchased that (Spanish) Universal Studios release when it was dirt cheap. It has the same brightness shifts in the exact same places as the Lionsgate. I didn't dive too deep (doing disc scans etc), but it's likely just a port of the Lionsgate encode so that someone who told you it was better than the Lionsgate was talking absolute bollocks, Hedrox

Welp... thanks for taking the hit then, you absolute madlad. I was going to order it myself until Eagle did theirs, at which point why bother.