Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[andreasy969]

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.

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.

Yes, there is. That's called being ignorant, which is worse.

[Show spoiler]

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by mjk-94

Until now nothing is announced. So no

That's not entirely true, what has been announced is that they have no plans for individual releases.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Yes, there is. That's called being ignorant, which is worse.

Ok, I'll bite. Ignorant of what, exactly?

[Scottishguy]

Who ever thought the Lawrence thread would turn so bad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOM...ature=youtu.be

[cgpublic]

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.

Since when did asking about a source and related setup translate to extensive documented evidence?

Why so serious? Afraid to accept the inconvenient truth about screenshots and so-called experts who propegate this nonsense?

Let's assume the 'point' is that the digital stream contains greater 'fine detail' in comparison to the UHD disc, drawing the conclusion that the UHD "...could be better."

Please correct me if I have misinterpreted and/or misrepresented the intent of the post.

First, if that statement is a determination based on screening both the disc and the stream, we would need to first determine the respective source of the stream, and second, the set-up.

Simple and straightforward.

Do we have this information? No.

Second, a poster can state whatever opinion they choose as far as preference or superiority. However, in this instance, a poster states here is the proof, referencing a screenshot. Well, if you want to provide support for your argument, please share how the screenshot was sourced.

Once again, simple and straightforward.

Do we have this information? No.

Third, a poster states there is greater fine detail in the digital stream compared to the UHD disc. Assuming the poster is correct, what is the 'real world' relevance of this statement, supported by a screenshot of a single frame, when viewing both stream and disc on the same setup?

Is this a difference that can be measured other than by a single individual's subjective perception?

Is this a difference that can be determined by the viewing the film from a typical viewing distance in motion by 100 viewers?

If the statement is the digital version has greater fine detail than the UHD disc, that determining fine detail can be conclusively determined by a screenshot of a few single frames, that if such difference did in fact exist, that it is of relevance to a viewer when seated at a normal seating distance, and that it can be measured and/or identified by the human eye when sampled over 100 viewers to provide statistical relevance...

Well, I reject all of the above.

And miss nothing.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by zen007

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

YouTube

Everytime I see one of these videos.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by slimjean

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.

You're arguing just to argue now, knowing you're wrong. Again, one is provable, the other is your "opinion." If you don't get it by now, you're choosing not to.

But hey, its great you ignored all the points I called you out on, like your claim that there were 2 sources. And glad you enjoy it, but the FACT remains that it COULD look better, since the stream DOES. Weird that people are happy and defending a product that isn't as good as it could be, just to crusade for... well, what, I have no idea. Die on that hill of being average, I guess.

[brian9229]

No wonder this shit just perpetuates.

[Dunemoon]

Originally Posted by UnbelievableMontages

I've heard the 4K digital version for Terminator 2 is much better than the 4K disc.

Glad to read that. Content with LOA 4K digital as well.

[zen007]

The positives are that we have solid transfers of the film in Blu-ray, 4K SDR, and UHD wrt their relative technology. With the release of UHD esp. since it was expected to build on the strengths of the previous transfers and utilize the latest tech, overcoming limitations faced by previous transfers, the pertinent questions are how much better it would be esp. for those who want the UHD format to attain its full potential for a film like LoA.

The UHD is the better all-rounder in terms of viewing experience - improving upon the blu-ray and competing with 4K SDR in detail and color (based upon your milage) while adding dynamic range and better compression (whether the transfer utilized the space available on the two discs is another question).

However, to experience the marginal benefits of the UHD, there are a few obstacles (many created by Sony):

a) Availability: The title is currently only available in the box set and bundled with many of the films with much less repeat value relatively speaking (no matter how good they look on UHD). The 4K SDR version is providing similar experience without the baggage of the box since a long time
b) Price: If you are only interested in 1 or 2 titles, the cost of the box is high. The 4K SDR can be available from $0 to a fraction of the cost of the box set
c) Viewing conditions: UHD requires a dark environment to fully enjoy the marginal benefits
d) Equipment: Again to experience the marginal benefits, you would ideally want a high end 75" or larger TV or a good projector set up
e) Quality of UHD: Could have been better through the preservation of detail and improved compression. Sony also messed up with the extras

Because of the above - providing only a better marginal viewing experience with the barriers, the LoA UHD is not necessarily the universal smart choice at the moment. Many can get similar/close experience with other formats. Knowing the barriers it created, Sony's marketing probably worked overtime to have the box set praised.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

You're arguing just to argue now, knowing you're wrong. Again, one is provable, the other is your "opinion." If you don't get it by now, you're choosing not to.

But hey, its great you ignored all the points I called you out on, like your claim that there were 2 sources. And glad you enjoy it, but the FACT remains that it COULD look better, since the stream DOES. Weird that people are happy and defending a product that isn't as good as it could be, just to crusade for... well, what, I have no idea. Die on that hill of being average, I guess.

I mean I think it was inevitable something digital would beat out the best physical has to offer. If indeed Lawrence is one such example, we just have to accept it.
I'm not counting Kaleidescape.

This is more a case of accident rather than design though. Eventually the studios will get their act together, and something will take shape for enthusiasts. Then, in the blink of an eye, discs will face obsolescent. As thousands upon thousands of films will just be their for download in higher quality, no compression issues.

Will I still collect and watch Blu-ray media? Aye, I think I'm going to turn into something like a Laserdisc collector...

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Ok, I'll bite. Ignorant of what, exactly?

The things you reject with extremely far fetched arguments and via requesting irrelevant, ridiculously detailed capturing information (which seems extremely defensive). Like the fact that you're basically dismissing screenshots completely. While not (and at times far from) perfect in regard to colour, they are still the most tangible, opinion-free thing there is and that goes for detail in particular.

Originally Posted by cgpublic

[Show spoiler]Since when did asking about a source and related setup translate to extensive documented evidence?

Why so serious? Afraid to accept the inconvenient truth about screenshots and so-called experts who propegate this nonsense?

Let's assume the 'point' is that the digital stream contains greater 'fine detail' in comparison to the UHD disc, drawing the conclusion that the UHD "...could be better."

Please correct me if I have misinterpreted and/or misrepresented the intent of the post.

First, if that statement is a determination based on screening both the disc and the stream, we would need to first determine the respective source of the stream, and second, the set-up.

Simple and straightforward.

Do we have this information? No.

Second, a poster can state whatever opinion they choose as far as preference or superiority. However, in this instance, a poster states here is the proof, referencing a screenshot. Well, if you want to provide support for your argument, please share how the screenshot was sourced.

Once again, simple and straightforward.

Do we have this information? No.

Third, a poster states there is greater fine detail in the digital stream compared to the UHD disc. Assuming the poster is correct, what is the 'real world' relevance of this statement, supported by a screenshot of a single frame, when viewing both stream and disc on the same setup?

Is this a difference that can be measured other than by a single individual's subjective perception?

Is this a difference that can be determined by the viewing the film from a typical viewing distance in motion by 100 viewers?

If the statement is the digital version has greater fine detail than the UHD disc, that determining fine detail can be conclusively determined by a screenshot of a few single frames, that if such difference did in fact exist, that it is of relevance to a viewer when seated at a normal seating distance, and that it can be measured and/or identified by the human eye when sampled over 100 viewers to provide statistical relevance...

Well, I reject all of the above.

And miss nothing.

First/Second: I took one of those caps directly from the disc myself (all of my caps are from discs I own btw) and the detail matched an according cap taken by someone else. So a) I could actually give you the required information if I thought it relevant at all and b) the disc caps are pretty damn accurate detail wise. The only thing not native about (the) screenshots affecting (to a very little degree) the "detail" here is the chroma upscaling method, which must be done - be that on the PC, your player or your display (you requesting monitor specific information indicates a total lack of knowledge how they are done btw.).

Speaking of which, what chroma upscaling algorithm do you use with your setup? I really need/we have to establish this information or I'm afraid we'll have to completely reject your opinion based on screening the disc - we don't want to share opinions with the community that are based on a hazy premise, do we? (I don't really care, but hopefully you'll get the idea)

re. the web caps, I'm sure we could also find out where those are coming from, but since they show only poor compression, but no sharpening (along with more fine detail), it's completely irrelevant - the relevant thing here is that such caps exists. (so you'll have to bother yourself)

Third: The 'real world' relevance is that the UHD could look noticeably sharper/more detailed. What happens to be exactly what certain nitpicky/established/reliable/competent people are nitpicking about in regard to the disc (not even talking about myself). Such opinions were based on a) several caps (not one), all showing the same, which, going by statistics and the perceived softness of the disc itself (both on caps and in motion), indicates a general increase/lack of fine detail and b) several people (myself included) expressing the opinion that the discs looks rather soft (considering 65 mm source and native 4k in particular) independent of and/or BEFORE even seeing the comparison with the web caps.

So coming to the conclusion that the disc actually is a tad too soft/filtered/whatsoever seems like a very reasonable conclusion and even a fact by now, don't you think? Rejecting it on the other hand, is completely ignorant IMHO.

And the most annoying thing is that those being ignorant towards the UHD being a tad too soft are stating utter nonsense like this now:
"A couple knuckleheads claiming the UHD is worse than streaming seems hardly like much of an argument to me. "

I mean, WTF. No one said anything like that. What people are saying is that the UHD should've been (or 'it would've been nice' if you want) web detail plus proper compression and HDR, i.e that it should've surpassed/destroyed any stream in all aspects.

PS: Since I have to translate on top of doing this pointless discussion in the first place, don't expect another response. Everything that needs to be said has been said by others already anyway (and I just should've kept my mouth shut).

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

The things you reject with extremely far fetched arguments and via requesting irrelevant, ridiculously detailed capturing information (which seems extremely defensive). Like the fact that you're basically dismissing screenshots completely. While not (and at times far from) perfect in regard to colour, they are still the most tangible, opinion-free thing there is and that goes for detail in particular.

Whether or not you realize the implications of your reply, thank you for validating my opinion that the screenshots in question are worthless for a comparative analysis specific to the same restoration of LoA, UHD disc vs. streaming.

I perfectly understand that posters such as yourself enjoy posting screenshots and sharing your opinions about disc quality, and wholeheartedly agree there exists a high entertainment value when comparing discs from different vendors and/or different restorations. Does it have directional value for comparative purposes, well, I don't base purchasing decisions on screenshots, but for others, be my guest.

However, that's not the case here. It is the same restoration from two different sources, UHD vs. a stream, and in my opinion, screenshots are of no value due to the number of variables which are present.

You can characterize my requests however you choose, but if you and others make statements along the line that the stream provides a more detailed viewing experience than the UHD disc, completely contrary to my own experience and related conclusions, who wouldn't question such a far-fetched conclusion, especially for a film that is held in the highest regard as a cinematic masterpiece?

As far as being defensive, there's no need for me to be defensive, I'm not one of those making this claim.

Actually, I would characterize my statements as being on the offensive. I'm calling out those who in my opinion make spurious claims based on quackery to serve their own dubious agenda.

As I've previously shared, you don't have to take my word for it, take your opinions and post them over at any respected professional journal and see how far you get.

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Speaking of which, what chroma upscaling algorithm do you use with your setup? I really need/we have to establish this information or I'm afraid we'll have to completely reject your opinion based on screening the disc - we don't want to share opinions with the community that are based on a hazy premise, do we? (I don't really care, but hopefully you'll get the idea).

My set-up is shared in my sig, and for the LoA UHD disc I used the the Panasonic 820 with default settings across the board, and for the digital, Apple Movies streamed via an AppleTV 4K.

Originally Posted by andreasy969

So coming to the conclusion that the disc actually is a tad too soft/filtered/whatsoever seems like a very reasonable conclusion and even a fact by now, don't you think? Rejecting it on the other hand, is completely ignorant IMHO.

So rejecting your poorly constructed argument and related conclusion represents ignorance? Let's chalk it up to a translation faux pas and, as suggested, go our separate paths.

In my opinion, the UHD disc of LoA not only provides a viewing experience head and shoulders above the already excellent Blu-ray and more than acceptable 4k digital stream, but represents one of the very best UHD experiences (200+ UHD discs) presently available.

But by all means, for all those who prefer to zooming in on screenshots to find the 'fine detail' as opposed to actually watching the film, be my guest and get out your magnifying glass.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

But hey, its great you ignored all the points I called you out on, like your claim that there were 2 sources. And glad you enjoy it, but the FACT remains that it COULD look better, since the stream DOES. Weird that people are happy and defending a product that isn't as good as it could be, just to crusade for... well, what, I have no idea. Die on that hill of being average, I guess.

Wait, so I asked a rhetorical question and now that is calling me out?

I and other feel that the UHD is superior to the stream because it is painfully obvious. You have stated your opinion as fact and there is no two ways about it.

As "good as it could be" pertains to lots of releases. I judge based on what I see, not what a few extra spaces of bluray plastic shows. Like the former poster, I avoided nothing, I just choose not to focus on it because it is unimportant to me.

What I see is a bunch of people claiming superiority over what is obviously digital sharpening. Deductive reasoning tells us this is one source. While some would claim softer on Sony, I claim no, not as digital harsh. When you have details being completely destroyed on the stream as the screenshots I pointed out demonstrated and was noticed from even my detractors, that is not a win.

Speaking of avoiding, how come you haven't commented on that? Is there no proof there? Or is proving only when it fits an agenda?

Lots of questions asked, but none seem to ever get answered. Not that it matters, because I still respect someone having a preference of their own.

Stream has never beat physical unless like Breaking Bad 4K, it is not an apples to apples relationship or it is not a complete cluster F like certain high profile release are like Terminator 2 4K vs say the 3D version that wasn't as screwed up.

People proclaiming some kind of victory with the stream with this release are something to behold for sure, but it doesn't mean it is right.

[zen007]

For those who liked the cinematography in LoA, below is a good looking Uzbekistan:

YouTube

[slimjean]

Just finished Gandhi, and yes I had never seen it. Good movie, but not as good as Lawrence by a long shot.

[albertbj]

FedEx delivered my replacement disc this morning. They left it inside the front door, which faces east, to bake in the morning sun. Fortunately, it got brought in right away.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Just finished Gandhi, and yes I had never seen it. Good movie, but not as good as Lawrence by a long shot.

I agree, Gandhi drags a bit at the end.

[lincat]

I received my replacement disc also.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

I agree, Gandhi drags a bit at the end.

Attenboroughs hallmark as a director was being uncompromising with run time. He liked his detail, no matter how redundant it might be to the overall narrative and pace of a film. He was all or nothing. And that's the kind of mindset people should have going into watching one of his flicks.

Chaplain however manages to save it self from getting bogged now by how well the passage of time flows. And is there really any part of Chaplains life that would outstay it's welcome anyway? Nope.