Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[asacmurr]

Originally Posted by nissling

I prefer tone mapping in Davinci Resolve (which is free). Add your screenshots on a timeline, create a node in the color tab with the Color Management effect and choose your settings. Input color space should be BT.2100 and gamma ST.2084 (either with no brightness cap or 4000, 1000, 800 etc nits, try around and see what you like). Output color space is BT.709 and Gamma 2.4.

You can also use ACES which has a stronger roll off both in highlights and shadows but can sometimes look better for darker films. Basically try around and see what fits.

Then you can just create screenshots directly in Resolve and export (right click on the color viewer and select "Grab all stills - From first/middle frame" and then export them from the gallery. Keep in mind tho that the resolution of the screenshots will be that of the timeline, so set it to 3840x2160 in the project settings.

EDIT: I did analyze the old Blu-Ray of Zodiac just last week. It had very, very few instances of heavy clipping. Subjectively speaking I'm not a big fan of the green tint in some scenes but it looks really solid to this day. A lazy SDR to HDR conversion is not really that impressive by comparison so I'll keep the Blu-Ray for now.

Thanks! And yeah, I'm sure the details will be limited by the 2K DI, probably a similar result to The Social Network. The baked in EE / DNR seems to also be here. The edges of the branches and trees in the lake scene seem to look a bit better in the comparisons, though. Better encode (unlikely since Paramount lol) and good HDR grade are the only things that'd make this worth the upgrade - I'll throw the full file on eventually to see how the grade is

[Mierzwiak]

So the UHD might be on the way? Bring it, Paramount, and don't forget to put it on BD66 with macroblocking in each scene!

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

The geometry in The Social Network is also mostly the same.
Details? The Social Network also looks basically identical as the BD.
The grain patterns? Why would they differ? It's a 2K DI of mostly digitally shot movie.

I feel like there should be a more noticeable bump in quality if they actually went back to the DI. Social Network has a clean and digital look, while this one has a more filmic aesthetic (even if it is mostly digital).

Hard to really judge based on raw HDR screenshots, without tonemapping.

[asacmurr]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

So the UHD might be on the way? Bring it, Paramount, and don't forget to put it on BD66 with macroblocking in each scene!

I was saying they'd put both cuts on one disc with no branching haha. Unfortunately not a Miramax title to save us from the Paramount slop. Definitely likely the UHD is coming as this basically JUST got upgraded. Only the theatrical cut is 4K on digital though - I'd be surprised if the Directors Cut wasn't also on the 4k

[asacmurr]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

I feel like there should be a more noticeable bump in quality if they actually went back to the DI. Social Network has a clean and digital look, while this one has a more filmic aesthetic (even if it is mostly digital).

Hard to really judge based on raw HDR screenshots, without tonemapping.

https://ibb.co/XW4TF0t

This shot has a bit of grain

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by asacmurr

https://ibb.co/XW4TF0t

This shot has a bit of grain

I guess after the numerous tweaks he touted on Se7en, I didn't expect Fincher to just let this one as is.

But to be fair, as Mierzwiak pointed out, Social Network was mostly the same as the BD. It took quite a while until people started noticing the digital alterations.

[Mierzwiak]

I don't care about the details, they're quite limited by the source and early digital capture, but I love the Dolby Vision grade on The Social Network (I finally watched it last weekend) and would be great if Zodiac looked similar. But there's the Paramount issue... :|

[asacmurr]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

I guess after the numerous tweaks he touted on Se7en, I didn't expect Fincher to just let this one as is.

But to be fair, as Mierzwiak pointed out, Social Network was mostly the same as the BD. It took quite a while until people started noticing the digital alterations.

Perhaps he’s just artistically satisfied with the look of his movies with DIs, as he had more control over how they look? Is there a list of the Social Network changes btw? Heard about this and I’d love to see how small they are lol

[asacmurr]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I don't care about the details, they're quite limited by the source and early digital capture, but I love the Dolby Vision grade on The Social Network (I finally watched it last weekend) and would be great if Zodiac looked similar. But there's the Paramount issue... :|

I mean, it might? Is Paramount known for bad DV grades?

[eChopper]

and a few other things

[asacmurr]

Originally Posted by eChopper

and a few other things

Oh of course

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

I feel like there should be a more noticeable bump in quality if they actually went back to the DI. Social Network has a clean and digital look, while this one has a more filmic aesthetic (even if it is mostly digital).

Hard to really judge based on raw HDR screenshots, without tonemapping.

As this movie was literally shot in 10-bit 1080p on the Viper then even the 2K DI isn't quite 2K, especially once Fincher nudged and nurdled and reframed every shot and spliced together 27 takes at once, as well as running the finished movie thru a Lowry pass to balance out the noise, remove other camera artefacts and sharpen it up. You said 'quality' (whatever that refers to) and not 'resolution', sure, but as a starting point this is quite a bit worse off for image capture than the 4K-shot (yes, 2K finished) Social Network. In the AmCin article they even say that it didn't really capture the highlights as they would've wanted.

[Pieter V]

Zodiac (2007) (digital)

Color range : Limited
Color primaries : BT.2020
Transfer characteristics : PQ
Matrix coefficients : BT.2020 non-constant
Mastering display color primaries : Display P3
Mastering display luminance : min: 0.0050 cd/m2, max: 4000 cd/m2
Maximum Content Light Level : 533 cd/m2
Maximum Frame-Average Light Level : 117 cd/m2

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As this movie was literally shot in 10-bit 1080p on the Viper then even the 2K DI isn't quite 2K, especially once Fincher nudged and nurdled and reframed every shot and spliced together 27 takes at once, as well as running the finished movie thru a Lowry pass to balance out the noise, remove other camera artefacts and sharpen it up. You said 'quality' (whatever that refers to) and not 'resolution', sure, but as a starting point this is quite a bit worse off for image capture than the 4K-shot (yes, 2K finished) Social Network. In the AmCin article they even say that it didn't really capture the highlights as they would've wanted.

I'll take the L on this one because I'll be honest I didn't look up how it was shot before running my mouth and just assumed Fincher hadn't gone all in on digital as early as 2006.

I need to go back and listen to his Panic Room commentary because apparently he talks about his decision to no longer shoot on film there.

[andreasy969]

Rango

As I said in the Rango thread already, the 4K simply destroys the BD and I didn't even bother comparing any details - the general impression is just so much better with the BD looking utterly flat and garish throughout. And the 4K even does so without actually resolving so much more highlight detail, it's just a huge general improvement colour and contrast wise. And I could've picked anything really. The thumbs also do the job already. As per the usual my definition of huge is utterly subjective of course, but the difference between the two discs really is in-your-face* and the 4K looks awesome (* which isn't always the case with animation and often is way more subtle). And now we ride.

https://slow.pics/c/mGfCeYu4

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

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Yeh the grain on the Scorpion isnt as well rendered, but the massive color difference is going to be far more noticable than the grain difference IMO - and the 84 color just looks off or less than ideal in most of those caps.

So probably i'd say (again without seeing in motion)
4K > Scorpion > 84

Isnt the Scorpion framing off?

[peppapigstan]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Rango

As I said in the Rango thread already, the 4K simply destroys the BD and I didn't even bother comparing any details - the general impression is just so much better with the BD looking utterly flat and garish throughout. And the 4K even does so without actually resolving so much more highlight detail, it's just a huge general improvement colour and contrast wise. And I could've picked anything really. The thumbs also do the job already. As per the usual my definition of huge is utterly subjective of course, but the difference between the two discs really is in-your-face* and the 4K looks awesome (* which isn't always the case with animation and often is way more subtle). And now we ride.

https://slow.pics/c/mGfCeYu4

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/200 nits)

3.

Holy moly, what an upgrade, this is a very good upscale, so I assume the master was a bit higher than 2K-ish? Whatever the case may be, Rango's UHD > BD from what I see

[UHDLoverForever]

Originally Posted by asacmurr

Zodiac Blu vs 4K stream caps, not tonemapped. If anyone can teach me how to tonemap these I'd appreciate it

How do you capture your non-tonemapped screenshots and ensure that they are lossless in comparison to the video, which is not the case for VLC?

[asacmurr]

Originally Posted by UHDLoverForever

How do you capture your non-tonemapped screenshots and ensure that they are lossless in comparison to the video, which is not the case for VLC?

I took the caps on VLC - if there is a better way let me know

[UHDLoverForever]

Originally Posted by asacmurr

I took the caps on VLC - if there is a better way let me know

Maybe I'm mistaken about VLC then.