Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[andreasy969]

Toy Story 3

A more constructive, yet rather short one with part 3. The discs are bright - not "Sony-bright", but it-often-looks-bad-@200-nits bright. BD is the new one this time.

(I might do a "proper", yet just as quick one with part 2 as well later...)

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 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. (#3 895 nits)

4.

5.

6.

7. (#3 342 nits)

8. (#3 613 nits)

9. (#3 569 nits)


On a personal note, my current, 3 years old drive appears to be dying (not only since today that is) and it's not getting better. I DID torture this drive for sure (not with BDs/these comparisons, but with CDs), so I'm actually not that surprised. And while I do have two new spare drives (which I had to modify myself), I don't intend to use those yet - not for doing these comparisons at any rate.

Moral of the story being that I will markedly reduce doing this. But it depends on the "mood" of my current drive as well (it's more "moody" when it's hot (outside, I mean) for example).

[andreasy969]

Toy Story 2

Still only a quick one... The BD is the old one again (2010 US Special Edition). And I did include the offensive ones again.

It's also as I thought: HarveyPete is simply missing - no additional outtakes on the UHD instead. (Didn't check how exactly they aligned the end credits.)

I don't own 1 yet, but 2 is a bigger improvement than 3 from I've seen so far IMO. (EDIT: mind you that I didn't compare 3 with the old BD/2 not with the new one)

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 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.

[Mandalorian]

You're doing the lord's work, andreasy.

[andreasy969]

The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then The Bigfoot

I'd like to reiterate that I thought the movie was wonderful (and that 5,6 on imdb is a joke IMO), but it might not be for everyone. And I got it right re. the HDR being a mix of both, which is also why I failed with my Panasonic...

Oh, and I really miss my imagebanana thumbs, but it still doesn't work...

On another personal note: This was my last one for the foreseeable future (with maybe the one or the other exception).

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 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. (#3 823 nits)

2. (#3 823 nits)

3.

4. (#3 933 nits)

5. (#3 840 nits)

6. (#3 823 nits)

7.

8. (#3 962 nits)

9.

10.

11. (#3 849 nits)

12.

13. (#3 806 nits)

14.

[Kaonashi]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

So maybe give me the proper timestamp, once you have the disc available again, so I can check. For now there's neither blocking nor the scene you described @27:38.

Ok I got my hands on the disc again and I am definitely seeing some crawling blocking from 27:37-27:40 in the bottom left hand corner of the frame.

[lgans316]

andreasy969 -> take it easy or change your id to andrhard969 as you are working too hard posting these useful comparison caps

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Kaonashi

Ok I got my hands on the disc again and I am definitely seeing some crawling blocking from 27:37-27:40 in the bottom left hand corner of the frame.

Thanks for checking again, but I checked again as well and I still really can't confirm any.

You know, I could actually post all frames, so you could point me to it, but nah... So others will have to chime in whether there's blocking or not. I don't see any, think there isn't any, so am happy.

Originally Posted by lgans316

andreasy969 -> take it easy or change your id to andrhard969 as you are working too hard posting these useful comparison caps

Thanks. But the bold part is actually reason #2 why I'm not doing this anymore (for now): I realized that I really spent too much time with this (when I should've relaxed after work instead for ex). Reason number #1 was the drive, but since it gave up almost completely even with BDs by now, I basically had to swap it for backup #1 earlier than I wanted to, bought and modified another backup to preserve the status quo of having two backup drives (I like being prepared - that's how I tick), so that reason is actually obsolete now. But I need a break and will do so (as in months).

But as I said: I might still do the one or the other mini one. And maybe others will do it as well.

[Geoff D]

Nobody does it better, Andreas. That's no lie.

[andreasy969]

Thanks as well and I really appretiate it, but I'll really pass until September or so. And you're doing it just as well with words and photos for ex (and would do this just as well if you had the means).

I'm also not gone for good, but I prescribed myself a break.

Funnily enough I forgot reason #3 here as well: My ****ing 6 MBit internet connection - so you can do the math with uploading the pngs (which I refuse to swap for jpgs). We're supposed to finally get proper bandwidth here (rural) towards the end of the year, but some things I only believe when I see them. But it would/will make this MUCH less annyoing for me.

[birdztudio]

always appreciated your hard work here andreasy

[andreasy969]

Cinderella

As was to be expected, the small exception I had in mind became a not so small one, but I like the movie (except for the IMHO poorly cast prince), opposed to Toy Story didn't expect caps to do it and therefore also put a little more effort into it again.

I did add some 100 nits caps to avoid "too dark" comments with this one - it looks just as sunny/lovely as the BD does in that regard and improves the colours while doing so (just take #3 for example where the BD looks BDish in comparison).

Got lucky not having to do many higher nits caps here, but/and the HDR improves the image throughout at lower nits already anyway (take #7 (window), #30 (stairs) or #32 (handrail) or #40 (hair) for example). There's more detail throughout (and as I said before that's even with CGI shots - take #35 or #37 for ex), I have a few comments below, as for the rest: just look for yourself. The BD still is a very good one, but the UHD bests it in every aspect.

Here's looking forward to the other live action Disneys.

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 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. don't forget to look at the water (#3 100 nits)

2.

3. (#3 100 nits)

4. (#3 100 nits)

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. markedly different framing

13. (#3 100 nits)

14.

15.

16. (#3 381 nits)

17. markedly different framing again

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24. don't miss this one

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36. I noticed some borderline banding earlier in this shot, but the BD has it as well (can't remember "taking offence" when watching the BD back then though)

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43. noticed some ringing at the black bars on the UHD here (only when looking at the cap that is)

44.

[andreasy969]

The Town

One more, but it's relly just an HDR quickie, which I had from just quickly comparing myself and I did remember someone asking for "The Town" caps once. Guess it's better than nothing and might actually be the most interesting aspect here anyway. Plus you can see the change of colour as well. With #6 I also wanted to compare the "noise".

The BD is the TC/EC one - would've used my Ultimate Cut BD for a "proper" one...

(I still prefer the ending of the Ultimate Cut btw, but the non-TC versions on the other hand introduced a minor continuity error which bugs me. So I'm somewhat undecided in regard to "best version" with this one.)

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 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. (#3 914 nits)

2. (#3 607 nits)

3. (#3 1103 nits)

4. /#3 858 nits)

5. (#3 1304 nits)

6. (#3 904 nits)

7. (#3 867 nits)

8. (#3 653 nits)

9. different framing (#3 1047 nits)

10. (#3 1103 nits)

11. (#3 1187 nits)

12. (#3 342 nits)

[andreasy969]

Waterworld

Some thoughts/findings and caps re. Waterworld. I didn't watch it yet (didn't even watch the Arrow yet...), but I did compare the 4K with the Universal Extended yesterday.

Just for the record: While using the keyword 'Arrow' for simplicity, the BD is the Universal encode! The Arrow will surely be better compression wise, but I didn't bother swapping the disc yesterday, because I wasn't interested in the compression, but general differences. So keep in mind that the Arrow most likely is better at least compression wise! (would've used the Arrow for a "proper" comparison)

For one thing, I do get where people are coming from when they consider the Extended Cut (i.e. the Arrow) to look better. I do prefer some of the colours as well and I'm not really a fan of the reddish look of the 4K - colour wise it often actually looks like a typical dated transfer to me. For another thing, some scenes really look very poor and they appear to look poorer than they do on the "Arrow" to my eyes. On closer inspection though, IMO, the Extended looks just as poor there - just different. There might be some additional smearing on the 4K, but I'll reserve judgement (there's some auto cleanup damage for sure though). Or as I put it elsewhere yesterday: IMO, whenever the UHD looks like crap, so basically does the Extended (from what I've seen).

An example is the scene from #9 onwards. Parts of it looked extremely poor to my eyes and the Extended looks better to me. On closer inspection I'm not sure if it's really worse objectively though. Reminds me of how Fury Road looks worse to my eyes texture wise in motion.

While I do prefer some of the Arrow colours (skin tones for ex), the (blue) water often looks just wrong to me in comparison. See #6, #10, #15 and #16 for ex.

Opposed to the caps @caps I found the different framing often to be a case of squeezing rather than simple cropping/zooming. You'll see this with basically all of my caps. AFAICT the 4K seems correct, but thoughts are welcome. I did NOT compare with my Arrow, but I expect it to be the same. EDIT: As mentioned by @cirik it's a feature of the Extended Cut.

I also included some caps where the UHD gets rid of the blown out backgrounds (#4, #5, #7, #8). The difference often is actually not as massive as I would've thought and white water often remains white for exampple, but it nevertheless markedly improves the image.

Oh, and the compression isn't perfect indeed IMO (think you can see it with some caps as well), but I didn't spot anything overly offensive (compression isn't my pet peeve anyway).

tl/tr: IMO the UHD is objectively clearly better (while having some issues) and/but some of the colour differences may be a matter of personal preference (if we ignore the 'accurate'). I'd go with the UHD for the TC, but I like the Arrow as well (and the Ulysses Cut anyway). As I said, I didn't watch the whole thing, so may have missed sth crucial, but I wanted to share some stuff I did notice and deemed more relevant/interesting than a partly missing plane.

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 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. whole scene (#1 and #2) looked rather poor to my eyes, but the Extended didn't really look any better (but different and therefore better IMO)

2.

3. I didn't check whether the Arrow resolves it properly, but on the Universal the pattern is basically gone (except for some artefacts) - therefore looks like paper instead of fabric and I noticed this in motion @1080p (I actually thought it was an encoding issue first since it reminded me of the "What Lies Beneath" BD lol)

4. (#3 496 nits)

5. (#3 653 nits)

6. the blue of the Extended looks just off to me in comparison

7. (#3 432 nits) looks markedly different not only HDR wise

8. (#3 442)

9. as stated initially this whole scene (#9 - #13 as examples) often looked extremely poor to me

10. Extended is way too blue here in comparison IMO

11. (#3 765) there are 3 caps of this scene because: initially I just thought that the UHD looks like crap and DNRd here (#13), then I wanted to show the HDR with the gun (#11) and then was looking for possible cleanup damage as well while I was at it (#12)

12.

13.

14. this scene (#14 - #20) is a great example for major (colour) differences; with the first one the UHD is destroying the Extended detail wise as well

15. IMO too blue

16. IMO WAAAYYY too blue

17. sth tells me that the UHD is more accurate here, but I won't make any claims (I think the next two speak for themselves as well)

18.

19.

20. another HDR improvement

21. another scene where the UHD often looked rather poor to me, but the Extended didn't really look any better to my eyes on closer inspection

22.

23. Extended looking extremely dull (and less detailed) in comparison

[cirik]

Thanks for comparison but IMO you shouldn't call Universal Extended Cut as Arrow, not only because of compression differences but also in framing (yes, they are not the same).

[andreasy969]

Thanks for pointing it out. As I said: I didn't check. I'll add an EDIT re. the framing, but will leave the "Arrow" - as I said initially I just did so for simplicity anyway (as in shortcut for "Universal Arrow transfer"). EDIT: New day, more time: Edited some of the "Arrows" as well to avoid confusion. Will check it out myself as well.

[andreasy969]

Just checked my Arrow discs and cirik got it right. Thanks again. In my "defense": Never bothered looking at the Extended before - neither at my Arrow disc nor at caps and didn't even when I noticed the squeezing on the Universal Extended Cut... So the squeezed framing is a feature of the Extended in general (Universal and Arrow).

Universal Extended | UHD | Arrow Extended | Arrow TC:

1. Arrow improves it, but doesn't resolve it properly either

2. colours are the same

3. and so is the at times dull look

[chip75]

Captain Marvel Blu-ray (top) to UHD @100 nits comparisons*

*I didn't manage to capture the exact frames due to my PC not liking 4K (I couldn't take 2160p captures of the BD either) content (and there's a different amount of frames with each video), so these are just for entertainment purposes!

[andreasy969]

Prospect

I just "had do" post this very quick comparison with this one after taking a very brief look at both discs... I didn't watch the movie yet, so won't look any further for now though.

There's a major difference with the black levels (and therefore colour/contrast) here. I think the UHD got it right, since the BD looks very/too milky to my eyes - I'd pick the UHD at any rate.

Other than that, from what I've seen so far, there's more detail and it actually looks 4Kish to me at times (#3 in particular). HDR wise the disc goes rather bright and adds more detail as well (#4 - mind you that I didn't know where to look for examples yet).

I did include 100 nits caps as well which should be used to compare/judge the black levels, which are the sole reason for posting this.

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 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 1767 nits, #4 100 nits)

2. (#3 100 nits)

3. (#3 100 nits)

4. (#3 1510 nits, #4 100 nits)

5. (#3 1804 nits, #4 100 nits)

[Sky_Captain]

Nice one!

I was worried that the elevated black levels would transfer across to the UHD.

Will add to trolley now.

[andreasy969]

Free Solo

I'll refer to my previous post for comments: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...40&postcount=8

The BD is the German one. The banding of the BD can be found on #28 and #37 (with the former the UHD has some very minor banding as well; with the latter there's none on the UHD AFAICT). Mind you that both are completely different scenes and there have to be more like this (didn't find/search for all of them), which is why the UK BD, which has it as well, annoyed me quite some.

The framing is different with #10 and #34. English vs. German titles can also be seen with #10.

There's some detail increase throughout, but it's very minor. It's been a while now, but I think #2 and #26 were two of the better examples.

#3 (his face) and #29 show the better compression with the noise quite well. With #30 the dark area is much better resolved. His red jacket looks much better throughout as well and so do the colours in general. The UHD caps are @100 nits, because it looked too crushed otherwise.

As I said, it's not WOW - it's one of those pq improvements. And, as I also said before, I think Capelight deserves some credit for releasing this on UHD.

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 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. (#3 164 nits)

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13. (#3 282 nits)

14. (#3 210 nits)

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28. banding

29.

30.

31. (#3 189 nits)

32. (#3 215 nits)

33. (#3 225 nits)

34.

35.

36. (#3 227 nits)

37. "bonus" banding on the BD #2, but I didn't bother with the frames here at all (and it doesn't matter)