Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

I ask because at no point in this thread do you actually speak to the experience of purchasing and screening the release at home, only screenshots of the UHD

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=5847

I'm afraid I care more about the content rather than the experience of purchasing though.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

I'm afraid I care more about the content rather than the experience of purchasing though.

That all depends on how you define 'content,' doesn't it?

The experience of the actual film, i.e., the direction, the cinematography, the screenplay, the performances, the score, or something else?

Because you don't actually reference screening the UHD, and then screening the digital. As well, you don't reference your set-up. For all I know, you are projecting to a 100" screen, or are viewing on your computer.

The only reference in your analysis is screenshots.

I'm still waiting for someone to post that they screened the UHD disc, and cite their set-up, then screened the digital, citing the source, and definitely state the experience of screening the digital is superior to the UHD disc.

Because I have. Not a few minutes, not a few scenes, the entire film.

If someone wants to accept the above challenge, and then tell me the digital is superior, please, be my guest.

No need to post screenshots. Just state your opinion.

Then I'll know what that person's opinion is worth on the subject of 'content,' or anything else, for that matter.

[sonicyogurt]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

I'm still waiting for someone to post that they screened the UHD disc, and cite their set-up, then screened the digital, citing the source, and definitely state the experience of screening the digital is superior to the UHD disc.

You've completely missed the point of the discussion.

The argument isn't "the experience of screening the digital is superior to the UHD disc"; it's that the digital version at times exhibits more fine detail than the presentation on the UHD disc. It's not "digital > disc"; it's "the discs could look better than they do".

I'm not making this argument -- I haven't watched nor will I ever watch the digital SDR version, and I haven't screened the UHD BD quite yet -- but it's not difficult to follow.

[50strat54]

I received my replacement disc yesterday in a bluray amray case.

I keep the wrong disc and the bonus disc inside the book.

[punisher]

I just watched disc one and I am very impressed. I thought the digital was great.it is actually..but the disc is better. I had to go back and check that I had identical settings for the streaming from VUDU and the HDMI input on my LG E8 from my OPPPO 203. Both provide Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos and the disc also has a mono soundtrack but the Atmos is the way to go. I want to send a thanks out to member here who sold me the set

If you see one for sale here on the forum..grab it..it may be a while b4 it gets a separate from the box set release.

if not grab the VUDU for 7.99

both are excellent IMO and will have you glued to your tv.If I didn't see the disc, I could live with the VUDU stream.Does the disc blow away the stream..NO..but you will see an up tic that only physical media can provide and that makes it worth getting. Is the presentation flawed..of course..that goes without saying being an older"film" converted to "digital" Having seen it as a kid in a super large theater in Manhattan when it was first released all I remember is how big it looked and BRIGHT that my eyes were watering. Yup, it's true, it was flawed back then too..lol.

LOA, we wanted it on 4K UHD, we got it..

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Because you don't actually reference screening the UHD, and then screening the digital. As well, you don't reference your set-up. For all I know, you are projecting to a 100" screen, or are viewing on your computer.

My setup Z9D 65 inch, Denon AVRX4500H. Is the MA anywhere digital redeemed the same as the Apple TV version and what we are actually comparing in the screenshots?

Originally Posted by punisher

I just watched disc one and I am very impressed. I thought the digital was great.it is actually..but the disc is better. I had to go back and check that I had identical settings for the streaming from VUDU and the HDMI input on my LG E8 from my OPPPO 203. Both provide Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos and the disc also has a mono soundtrack but the Atmos is the way to go.

I gotta agree, the Atmos track was just heavenly. Those explosions felt real around this 4th of July. I thought people were starting early. lol

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by sonicyogurt

You've completely missed the point of the discussion.

It's not that I've 'missed' the point of the discussion, it's that I reject it. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by sonicyogurt

The argument isn't "the experience of screening the digital is superior to the UHD disc"; it's that the digital version at times exhibits more fine detail than the presentation on the UHD disc. It's not "digital > disc"; it's "the discs could look better than they do".

Once again, it's not that I've 'missed' the point of the above statement, it's that I reject it. And once again, there's a difference.

If you don't understand that the statement, "...the discs could look better than they do," uttered by those who have zero insight specific to the process, challenges and the compromises of bringing LoA to UHD disc, and then employ screenshots to support their opinion, well, that is nothing more than a combination of wishful thinking, unreasonable expectations and utter nonsense.

For anyone who appreciates LoA as a film, screening the UHD disc is terrific experience, fully independent and without comparison to any other potential source.

For those who are unwilling or incapable of appreciating LoA as a film for whatever reason, I guess there's always a comparison of screenshots and other useless numbers.

Don't get me wrong, posters are free to prefer any version they choose, let's just not get silly about it and begin making absolute statements about disc, restoration and mastering quality.

To distill and diminish the experience one of cinema's greatest achievements in its finest home media expression to date to a meaningless pixel comparison, not to mention one without merit, speaks volumes.

[sonicyogurt]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

It's not that I've 'missed' the point of the discussion, it's that I reject it. There's a difference.

You said that you're still waiting for extensive documented evidence about an argument that no one's making. You've completely misrepresented what other people are discussing to puff out your own chest. Yes, you're missing the point.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by sonicyogurt

You said that you're still waiting for extensive documented evidence about an argument that no one's making. You've completely misrepresented what other people are discussing to puff out your own chest. Yes, you're missing the point.

I didn't see any puffing of chest at all. But there is the argument spread around quite a bit in these posts that the UHD is not even worth purchasing (one must back over 5 pages or so to see the way it was going).

That is the misrepresentation if there is any at all.

When someone poses a strong argument at times it is assumed that there is a label on what another person says. While there can be misunderstandings, that is a far cry from putting words in someone's mouth.

I can see someone dismissing the point that there is any difference between some flaws and some improvement vs the whole thing is flawed because the improvement is marred by terrible compression problems.

I for one am a person that fits in that category. I got it from the first post that I saw criticizing, and yet it is assumed that a point is being misrepresented because I don't bend to that first way of thinking. That fits the mold of chest puffing to me.

There are instances of "fine detail" (supposedly) on the digital stream, but lets ignore the "fine detail" that is on the UHD because it isn't screwed up by poor compression? Talk about a new form of nitpick.

p.s. Didn't he say that he just wanted to know what one watched and the equipment used (assumed TV and player??). That is extensive documentation???

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by slimjean

I didn't see any puffing of chest at all. But there is the argument spread around quite a bit in these posts that the UHD is not even worth purchasing (one must back over 5 pages or so to see the way it was going).

That is the misrepresentation if there is any at all.

When someone poses a strong argument at times it is assumed that there is a label on what another person says. While there can be misunderstandings, that is a far cry from putting words in someone's mouth.

I can see someone dismissing the point that there is any difference between some flaws and some improvement vs the whole thing is flawed because the improvement is marred by terrible compression problems.

I for one am a person that fits in that category. I got it from the first post that I saw criticizing, and yet it is assumed that a point is being misrepresented because I don't bend to that first way of thinking. That fits the mold of chest puffing to me.

There are instances of "fine detail" (supposedly) on the digital stream, but lets ignore the "fine detail" that is on the UHD because it isn't screwed up by poor compression? Talk about a new form of nitpick.

p.s. Didn't he say that he just wanted to know what one watched and the equipment used (assumed TV and player??). That is extensive documentation???

A couple knuckleheads claiming the UHD is worse than streaming seems hardly like much of an argument to me.

[gooseygander2001]

I think I can settle this comparison once and for all....

IMO when watched in a dark, preferably very dark room, the HDR version wins....detail, colour, resolution....the works.

During the day or in a bright room, the 4k SDR version seems to have more detail but this is only because you can alter the backlight level of your TV to match the ambient light levels in your viewing environment without any negative impact on the image quality when watching SDR.

I've A/B'd them in both light and dark viewing conditions and pixel peeped.

FWIW, the blu ray IMO still holds up but definitely falls some way behind in detail stakes.

Try comparing as I have and tell me I'm wrong....

[zen007]

A blu-ray (not 4K SDR) vs UHD video from YT:

YouTube

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by slimjean

I think how I stated about how I feel is pretty concise and didn't need bolded highlights. As for you stating your opinion as a fact that has me scratching my head (though I still respect it).

The UHD is what it is. It doesn't have to be anymore for those of us that enjoy it.

Can something be better absolutely also it can be worse. Example look at the streaming version. Would you agree that the streaming version should have looked better given that it supposedly came from a different source or was encoded so much better? What is the excuse there? Perhaps the stream got its own license that makes it what it is. Are we to punish Sony for not obtaining it?

I see lots of people picking up pitch forks and going after companies because one place has a few bit rates higher than another.

I think we are in a time where pushing physical product out of existance is so important that one would literally point to a flawed stream as a reason not to buy the UHD.

Anyone who thinks there are somehow TWO full 4K restorations of a film that are different like this just blew any argument they had. There's ONE source (that's what source means), and there's never been more than one.

And he wasn't stating an opinion, since what he said can be provable as a fact. What you said cannot be. Hence, opinion.

[Scottishguy]

Has anyone tried with a UB820/9000 playing it in HDR 10 with optimizer set to basic luminance?

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

And he wasn't stating an opinion, since what he said can be provable as a fact. What you said cannot be. Hence, opinion.

What is proveable as a fact that there is more "fine detail"? Again for the umpteenth time can there not also be less? Are we seeing how silly this is yet?

I was posing a question to get people to think. We all know there is one 4K restoration.

Perhaps we now want to say that there are limiting right too!

The pixel police want to create a line in the sand on which details are important. Again has anyone thought this through at all or are we touting "facts" as if they are no other finite choices. The pictures I posted are real problems with the stream, of course immediately those fine details are explained away as not counting like the "fine detail" over in this pixel region over here. Yeah sure that mskes sense.

What Sony has done or not done is only guesswork but I see a heck of a 4K bluray and that is awesome. No one is forcing you ir anyone else to enjoy it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Has anyone tried with a UB820/9000 playing it in HDR 10 with optimizer set to basic luminance?

Yes.

[ROSS.T.G.]

I still haven’t watched mine.

[LiveTransmission]

I don’t post or follow the forums too much but are there any rumblings about a stand-alone release of this?

[mjk-94]

Originally Posted by LiveTransmission

I don’t post or follow the forums too much but are there any rumblings about a stand-alone release of this?

Until now nothing is announced. So no

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by zen007

A blu-ray (not 4K SDR) vs UHD video from YT:

YouTube

Oh no... Not him again!