Still not convinced

[pawel86ck]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Whether they're "adding nonexistent details" isn't the question. The dynamic range may be present in the original photography, but that doesn't mean it was meant to be seen. There are plenty of boom mics, lighting baffles and cue cards in original photography that aren't meant to be seen either.

As I said before, resolution upgrade also brings out details, that aren't necessarily meant to be seen either like wires in old movies (later on they even removing these wires digitally!). To me HDR and resolution upgrade is the same thing, and if someone are not willing to admit that, then I quess Jaaquir was right in his conclusions.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

There is value in this thread. I hope it stays open.

The decision to upgrade, or not, to a new format comes down to more than money or opportunity. It comes down to questions like this:

If the hype over UHD and HDR is justified, does a person really want to have the experience of watching 1000-2000 gorgeous blu-rays (100 years of classic movies) tarnished just because they watched Smurfs 2 and it looks really pretty?

That's the curse of any "upgrade" and why one shouldn't become overwhelmed or obsessed by it.

Having said that, I absolutely do not buy into the hyperbole that blu-ray (of which 4K BD is an extension) suddenly looks "crap" or "destroyed". Hell even DVD doesn't look "destroyed".

Very good points. I guess the way to look at it is just buy the UHD versions for new movies that you know would really benefit from HDR and not worry about anything before that. Catalog movies, especially older ones, won't have near the visual upgrade as those created with HDR in mind. It's really a new release format and you won't already have those because they're just coming out.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

As I said before, resolution upgrade also brings out details, that aren't necessarily meant to be seen either like wires in old movies (later on they even removing these wires digitally!). To me HDR and resolution upgrade is the same thing, and if someone are not willing to admit that, then I quess Jaaquir was right in his conclusions.

To me, they are not the same thing at all because if your Blu-ray image is too resolute, you can lower the resolution output of your player and the problem is solved. However, if an HDR grade is applied to a non-HDR movie, there's no way to correct for it at home- you're simply stuck with incorrect colors.

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Is your Samsung an HDR set?

My model is UN65JU7500FXZA. I thought Samsung announced all 2015 sets would have HDR via firmware update. I have the latest firmware installed.

[42041]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

As I said before, resolution upgrade also brings out details, that aren't necessarily meant to be seen either like wires in old movies (later on they even removing these wires digitally!). To me HDR and resolution upgrade is the same thing, and if someone are not willing to admit that, then I quess Jaaquir was right in his conclusions.

But films were not shown on DVDs before blu-rays. While the average joe wasn't likely to see one in recent decades, 2nd generation 35mm prints have resolution superior to blu-ray (and even mass produced 4th generation ones usually have enough resolution to expose most fakery if you're looking for it).

[Adrian Wright]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

To me, they are not the same thing at all because if your Blu-ray image is too resolute, you can lower the resolution output of your player and the problem is solved. However, if an HDR grade is applied to a non-HDR movie, there's no way to correct for it at home- you're simply stuck with incorrect colors.

How are you stuck when you have choice. If you do not like what you are reading about, then do not buy it. This is not rocket science... No one is holding a gun to your head and demanding that you buy these discs.

Your disdain for UHD BD and the implied 'tinkering' thereof tells me that you really should stick with BD. At least that is ALWAYS mastered with full filmmaker approval, involvement and remains 100% true to that theatrical experience

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

There is value in this thread. I hope it stays open.

The decision to upgrade, or not, to a new format comes down to more than money or opportunity. It comes down to questions like this:

If the hype over UHD and HDR is justified, does a person really want to have the experience of watching 1000-2000 gorgeous blu-rays (100 years of classic movies) tarnished just because they watched Smurfs 2 and it looks really pretty?

That's the curse of any "upgrade" and why one shouldn't become overwhelmed or obsessed by it.

Having said that, I absolutely do not buy into the hyperbole that blu-ray (of which 4K BD is an extension) suddenly looks "crap" or "destroyed". Hell even DVD doesn't look "destroyed".

The decision to upgrade or not is always tangled in emotions, it's very difficult to walk away from a perfectly good working setup, and invest in something new It's not for everyone, DVD still outsells Blu-ray by a fair margin, UHD will not sway those people away, but it will eat into the blu-ray segment probably much like 3D does.

UHD-blu-ray is still in it's infancy and will get better, these are the first few titles, and first player, and I think it can only improve as they learn to cope with this new format, and work some of the bugs out.

If you don't want to jump on that merry-go-round right now there is nothing wrong with that, personally I'm very excited for what's coming.

[sptrout]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

My model is UN65JU7500FXZA. I thought Samsung announced all 2015 sets would have HDR via firmware update. I have the latest firmware installed.

I have a 2015 Samsung JU6700 Series that I bought the week before the Super Bowl (and according to the online registration information, was built in Mexico just 3 days earlier - I live in Houston), and it does not have HDR, or at least no mention of it. Maybe higher tier models will get a firmware upgrade?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Adrian Wright

How are you stuck when you have choice.

I don't have choice on the UHD format. There's one color grade on the disc and if it's the wrong one, there's nothing I can do about it.

Originally Posted by Adrian Wright

If you do not like what you are reading about, that do not buy it. This is not rocket science... No one is holding a gun to your head and demanding that you buy these discs.

"Just don't buy it" is not a satisfactory solution for me. I want to be able to get movies in 4K; I just want them to be correctly authored.

Originally Posted by Adrian Wright

Your disdain for UHD BD and the implied 'tinkering' thereof tells me that you really should stick with BD.

I have no disdain for UHD BD. It has the potential to be great and I would love for it to be.

Originally Posted by Adrian Wright

At least that is ALWAYS mastered with full filmmaker approval, involvement and remains 100% true to that theatrical experience

Ok... You seem to really need to throw sarcasm at me for some reason. I'm not sure how I can help you with that.

[Penton-Man]

Everyone take a few deep breaths, then….

CHARLES WRIGHT EXPRESS YOURSELF - YouTube

to your heart's content.

[AaronY]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

For enthusiasts improvements are always welcome. But for the average Joe they just see these improvements as a status symbol. In both cases you can watch the movie and enjoy it. You don't need a Rolls Royce to enjoy driving.

Most people on these forums that dissect every little bit of information on a disc are doing it "not" because they enjoy the movies, they are doing it because they have too much time on their hands and this hobby just happens to be moving in the 4k direction. Its something new.

I'm a packaging collector, so I will not buy any 4k material until the packaging matches that of blu ray at the very least. In 3 years time the Martian on UHD will be $3 in the bargain bin and I can just change the disk and put it in my steelbook.

One thing is for sure, if you don't adopt 4k straight away your life won't be affected. Its not the cure for cancer, its a way to watch movies.

Great post.

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by saprano

The change to 16:9 flat displays and bigger sizes was an upgrade itself is my point.

Well, if you meant that, ok, how could anyone disagree with that. But that doesn't sound like what you were saying. But maybe I misunderstood. In any case, let's not make this about you.
So maybe I'm going crazy, but I feel like people in this forum usually name specifically the change from DVD to BD when comparing it to the present leap. And all I was saying is that in my opinion that's not such a clear-cut thing. There are people who don't see that leap. Maybe there are people who don't see the leap now. It's partly dependent on the eye of the beholder, so objective data (format specs) get mingled with subjetice perception, and it's not so black or white. I don't like such categorical statements because in practice they're sort of half-truths.

Originally Posted by saprano

I've read more sound arguments about why one is waiting to upgrade, or might not want to upgrade, and honest thoughts about UHD in general, than these knee-jerk responses when someone questions UHD.

I don't say this with hostility, but maybe you fell into some "reading comprehension" problem too , or I explained myself very badly. Those are not my arguments in favor of UHD. I was mimicking the argument you used against other people, that I quoted in my post, also starting with the exact same words of yours "Nobody wants to feel like...". I was providing alternative arguments to the one you used, and in my opinion just as wrong. If you care to read my post again, the last sentence after those "knee-jerk responses" was "Those are not valid reasons", which is what I was trying to tell you about yours.

Originally Posted by saprano

This is the problem right here, reading comprehension. I never said there's no improvement, that wouldn't make any sense.

I was answering to your post #173 in this thread. You wrote what you wrote there, and that's what I was answering to. Later, I read other posts of yours where you stated things along the lines of this last paragraph. If you notice, I haven't written back debating those other posts. That doesn't mean I agree 100% with them, of course.

Originally Posted by saprano

I'm saying the leap in quality, and hardware, is not as huge as it was when we changed over to HDTV.

Again, the same thing: I might agree with you in that format specs tell us that the improvements of UHD over BD might fall more in the "diminishing returns" category than the improvements of BD over DVD. But then in practice that's quite a subjective experience. You should consider the possibility that for some people, added spatial resolution (and imagine when it's true 4k) + HDR (contrast is a powerful thing) can make just as big a difference as others felt going from DVD to BD.
Also, in my opinion, we still need more time to assess how big the current leap is going to be. When UHD is as good as it can be, maybe most everybody will be saying the leap from blu-ray to UHD is as big as the previous leap you were referring to.

And one more thing, let's see if I can clear up any misunderstanding that made me write my post to you. In your original post you wrote:
"Blurays like Lucy or JW don't all of a sudden become "inferior" in light of 4K versions."
As we agree that, obviously, UHD has the better specs, wouldn't you agree that a top-notch (according to your own understanding of that) UHD of one of those movies would be superior to the BD? What did you mean saying that the BD wouldn't be inferior? I believe statements like that, maybe misunderstood, caused some of the unfortunate controversy that followed your post.

Originally Posted by saprano

Even though UHD has better specs, bluray PQ will still be seen as reference (depending on the bluray of course). It won't be looked back on like DVD.

Yes, I guess BD has the capacity to be seen as reference for some (probably many) titles (until now, as the future brings HDR grading, apparently). Especially if the movie was graded with rec.709 in mind (or if it's an old b&w movie) and you're ok with the loss of some detail, and the mastering is great, BD being transparent to the master. It's all about what compromises you're willing to make. You know, if the BD is botched, the DVD can be better, but true, it doesn't have the capacity to be so transparent to the master.

All in all, I hope we can end up on good terms.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 42041

But films were not shown on DVDs before blu-rays. While the average joe wasn't likely to see one in recent decades, 2nd generation 35mm prints have resolution superior to blu-ray (and even mass produced 4th generation ones usually have enough resolution to expose most fakery if you're looking for it).

Not forgetting 70mm blow-ups back in the day, which were usually wetgated directly from the original negative.

While I do think that film presentations did more to smooth over the seams via the general instability of the film projection medium itself - as opposed to the ruthlessly clinical edge that rock solid digital scans & presentations have - it's a bit silly to think that only the powah of UHD would be enough to expose those old-school seams. It's more that the precision and repeatability of digital in general has shown up certain flaws for what they are, as even on DVD I could easily spot the generational loss whenever an optical was slugged in. That said, plenty of movies had their VFX done on VistaVision or 65mm to ameliorate the quality loss so the VFX isn't always quite so crude as one might think.

BUT with modern digital VFX I can appreciate why higher resolutions would be even less forgiving than with old-school VFX. For the classic stuff like T2 or Jurassic Park the CG comes and goes in such small doses that you can get away with it and they really did 'over engineer' it back in the day to look as film-like as possible, but nowadays almost everything's got that super-sharp digital sheen to it (whether it was shot on film or digital) and so the VFX has to match that aesthetic, making it look just that little bit more ersatz when bumped up to a higher resolution after the fact.

Personally I could see the CG a mile off in Fury Road on regular 2D Blu-ray, so it'll be interesting to see how I gauge the UHD version in that respect given what the reviews have said.

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

It's funny that until three months ago no home user even knew what DCI-P3 was, now it's the most important video quality in the world.

Blu-ray was just superb quality and not even once I heard someone say: "God, I wish we had DCI-P3 color space"

The impact of SDR->HDR is HUGE compared to the minor color space conversion DCI P3->rec709

I mostly agree with your point in paragraph 3, actually, but I have to take issue with paragraph 2.
Most people are never seriously dissatisfied by anything until they learn there is something better. This applies even to harsh living conditions. If we were born into it, we take it for granted (only a few think of changing things, and often change happens by chance or environmental changes).
People loved DVD too (even when they had access to better in movie theaters). So of course you never heard anyone say "this BD isn't colorful enough!". But after they watch certain UHD discs, it could happen. It's only natural.

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

I mostly agree with your point in paragraph 3, actually, but I have to take issue with paragraph 2.
Most people are never seriously dissatisfied by anything until they learn there is something better. This applies even to harsh living conditions. If we were born into it, we take it for granted (only a few think of changing things, and often change happens by chance or environmental changes).
People loved DVD too (even when they had access to better in movie theaters). So of course you never heard anyone say "this BD isn't colorful enough!". But after they watch certain UHD discs, it could happen. It's only natural.

I can't wait to see Schindler's List with an HDR filter over it. I always thought that move was too monochrone. I want more colour. I need more colour!

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

Oh God. When people claim they're dying to get "Terminator 2" on UHD, I'm not sure they know what they're asking for.

And don't get me wrong, I want all of '90s movies on UHD. But I'm ready for whatever I'll get. I don't know if others are, is what I'm saying.

The movie was shot in Super35, which was a shi**y process (until they developed some stocks with DI-s in mind in the mid-'00s) that won't produce sharp images. Then you have the early cgi, and what may be worse, the early digital compositing itself (I assume they used).
I don't know the full dynamic range that the negative might have recorded (I'm talking of all the movie now, vfx free too), and how Cameron will choose to use it with HDR, but otherwise, I think people better not be expecting this mind-blowing uber-experience.

Considering the lack of a fully restored T2 on blu-ray... and the total absence of The Abyss and True Lies... I wouldn't be holding my breath for any Cameron movies on UHD. Unless it's, like, Avatar!

[42041]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

Oh God. When people claim they're dying to get "Terminator 2" on UHD, I'm not sure they know what they're asking for.

And don't get me wrong, I want all of '90s movies on UHD. But I'm ready for whatever I'll get. I don't know if others are, is what I'm saying.

The movie was shot in Super35, which was a shi**y process (until they developed some stocks with DI-s in mind in the mid-'00s) that won't produce sharp images. Then you have the early cgi, and what may be worse, the early digital compositing itself (I assume they used).
I don't know the full dynamic range that the negative might have recorded (I'm talking of all the movie now, vfx free too), and how Cameron will choose to use it with HDR, but otherwise, I think people better not be expecting this mind-blowing uber-experience.

Super35 scanned from the negative is a perfectly good process perfectly capable of producing sharp images, at least as far as 35mm can go.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

I can't wait to see Schindler's List with an HDR filter over it. I always thought that move was too monochrone. I want more colour. I need more colour!

I know you're being facetious, but I have to say that I've always wanted Schindler's List to be more monochrome. That little girl in the red is just too OTT for me.

[42041]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

I'm sorry, I always think of Super35 in relation to 35mm anamorphic. Anamorphic (shot with proper lenses) would look sharper and less grainy because it uses all of the 35mm frame and for the audience it ends up "projected" onto the same sized screen (movie or tv) area. That's what I meant.
However I can agree that in this age of digital tinkering in post, maybe I overstated.

Super35's additional horizontal area and the sharpness of spherical lenses offset those shortcomings somewhat, and James Cameron is known to have worked pretty carefully with S35. Titanic is one of the more impressive-looking IMAX DMR blowups I've seen, and though T2 came a generation or two of high-speed film stock earlier I suspect it would also look pretty solid.

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

I can't wait to see Schindler's List with an HDR filter over it. I always thought that move was too monochrone. I want more colour. I need more colour!

I'm not so sure I want to see the red coat turn into an orange coat lol.