Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Yeah, was gonna say, the added clarity is nice, but the main bonus is that it is much better colored than the Blu-ray. But he said he prefers it in SDR, so whatever.

Hey we can all have our preferences. But anyone preferring that stream with all the weird compression artifacts searching for that last piece of detail is wading through a lot of junk to get there. That kind of stuff is just hard to ignore for me.

What do I know though. What I am seeing is getting to the point of just beyond caring. Paramount color job to Grease and detail smearing is just abysmal, a few added highlights on hairs with Sony, I so go on with it. I understand wanting more, just lets bring it back to reasonable just a bit.

Ok I am out of this for now. I am just glad I am not crazy and not the only ones seeing what I pointed out. Sorry if I mssed this earlier.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Minor? Not from what I have seen at all! The bluray is completely smoked. All the things that are apparent in dark scenes, color, grain, I don't even know where to begin.

The 4K SDR version, which was available on streaming (could have been replaced with the new DV transfer now), is the one many are comparing the UHD with (not necessarily the blu-ray). The UHD was expected to build upon its strengths while also benefitting from the transfer spread over 2 discs.

People understand that the addition of WCG/HDR will have certain benefits for most transfers.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Is there a streaming version of any of the other films that show this kind of "improvement"? It is still gold, just not gold to their gold. I think it is worth criticizing, but compared to other films in 4K it is still jaw dropping. I would put this film right up there with Apocalypse Now and The Shining which are 2 of my favorites. Lawrence has lofty standards and I get that. To even imply this is just an upscale is ignoring the jump in quality that I think is darn hard to miss.

Even upscales from master-grade sources can show a surprising amount of detail improvement vs an extant 1080p consumer video version, for we don't know what's been done to the latter without a similarly unfiltered frame of reference, and colour grading/HDR is not resolution dependent, as I'm sure you know. And the big difference in chroma resolution - like the far better detail in saturated reds, which can suffer badly in 4:2:0 subsampling the lower down you go in resolution - is something that even upscales can gain a distinct advantage from because they're still being encoded with 4x the chroma resolution of regular BD.

Declaring it to be an upscale is on the extreme end of things admittedly, it doesn't fit with what we know of Sony's superb (if rather heavy on the HDR) UHD output thus far, but if something's been filtered so much that it could almost be an upscale then questions are going to be aksed by the nerdly minded.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by punisher

If UHD, BD and dvd has taught me anything it's no disc is perfect nor will ever be perfect. As good as they are there is always someone who insists on tearing every little thing about them apart like Sheldon Cooper. ..lol. I am so glad I am able to sit back and enjoy a movie no matter the format.

I still think the big part of the issue is the title was designed to fit the needs for the world market. Sure there was space left over on the discs but approximately 15-17Mbps of the available bandwidth is dedicated to the multiple language audio tracks. Add that to the 55Mbps average for the video part of the stream and now your getting closer to the maximum available bandwidth of the format. There’s no reason they needed to include two lossless versions of the English track. Personally I think only the native language track should be in lossless. The dubs can be in lower bitrate lossy tracks.

Even there was approximately 30GB left over on the discs I think the bandwidth wasn’t available in the hardware to take advantage of it. Remember those extra audio tracks are always being read off the disc regardless of whether you have selected them or not.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Did you like, look at the screenshots? Look at my converted to 1080p then back to 4k screenshot. It's the same. Then compare that to the iTunes 4k. There has very, very, very clearly been a mistake on the UHD.

No. Why? Because your screenshots are worthless. I view the actual content, in motion, on a calibrated display. Not some dumbed down HDR->SDR screenshots on my phone, tablet or computer. I have the 1080p BD, the 4K SDR digital file and the UHD BD. The conspiracy theory floated in the post I responded to is incredibly moronic.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Tok

I still think the big part of the issue is the title was designed to fit the needs for the world market. Sure there was space left over on the discs but approximately 15-17Mbps of the available bandwidth is dedicated to the multiple language audio tracks. Add that to the 55Mbps average for the video part of the stream and now your getting closer to the maximum available bandwidth of the format. There’s no reason they needed to include two lossless versions of the English track. Personally I think only the native language track should be in lossless. The dubs can be in lower bitrate lossy tracks.

Even there was approximately 30GB left over on the discs I think the bandwidth wasn’t available in the hardware to take advantage of it. Remember those extra audio tracks are always being read off the disc regardless of whether you have selected them or not.

Closer to the maximum bandwidth? Hmmph. The main transport stream maxes out at 128 Mb/s (with buffer overruns allowing for even higher momentary peaks) on UHD so even with 17 Mb/s of audio there's no reason at all to reduce the average rate for the main feature to 55 Mb/s, especially when you've got 100GB to play with.

Look at A League of Their Own: similar running time to part 1 of Lawrence (which has several minutes of blank screen at the beginning anyway), almost 10 Mb/s worth of audio tracks, yet it's got an average rate of 70 Mb/s for the video. That one doesn't fill the disc either but if the encode is transparent enough then that's fine by me, it's when I can actually see compression artefacts that I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder what might've been had they used the extra space.

Bad Boys is another example, it's a shorter movie but it's got just under 20 Mb/s of combined audio bitrate and yet the main video encode is still afforded an average rate of 64 Mb/s, so even with all that audio we know for a fact that the bandwidth can take it. Bad Boys II is lower admittedly at 50 Mb/s, but as that's half an hour longer and has a staggering 24 Mb/s (!) worth of audio then I'm not surprised. The audio tracks on those two laugh at Lawrence's.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Closer to the maximum bandwidth? Hmmph. The main transport stream maxes out at 128 Mb/s (with buffer overruns allowing for even higher momentary peaks) on UHD so even with 17 Mb/s of audio there's no reason at all to reduce the average rate for the main feature to 55 Mb/s, especially when you've got 100GB to play with.

Look at A League of Their Own: similar running time to part 1 of Lawrence (which has several minutes of blank screen at the beginning anyway), almost 10 Mb/s worth of audio tracks, yet it's got an average rate of 70 Mb/s for the video. That one doesn't fill the disc either but if the encode is transparent enough then that's fine by me, it's when I can actually see compression artefacts that I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder what might've been had they used the extra space.

Bad Boys is another example, it's a shorter movie but it's got just under 20 Mb/s of combined audio bitrate and yet the main video encode is still afforded an average rate of 64 Mb/s, so even with all that audio we know for a fact that the bandwidth can take it. Bad Boys II is lower admittedly at 50 Mb/s, but as that's half an hour longer and has a staggering 24 Mb/s (!) worth of audio then I'm not surprised. The audio tracks on those two laugh at Lawrence's.

Though I did a cursory look, the bit rate of Lawrence on disc 2 seemed to hover at around 70mbps. Considering the original bluray was in the 20's I don't see a problem.

Transport theoretical is one thing, but throttled bit rates of locals is another thing all together.

I admit I really don't ponder such things, but compression has improved and talking in huge bit rates is not apples to apples.

What I couldn't help but notice is the awesome quality of the Atmos track. Man them are some marvelous explosions. There is a fullness to the whole thing that just makes me a kid again.

For fun I threw in the original bluray, wait, that wasn't fun at all. I don't think that is going to happen every again. When some say this is a minor upgrade when I am seeing three times the quality jump in sound and visual all together, I ask myself, what more do I really need? I have a marvelous physical copy that cannot be taken away by the studio. This is a great time to enjoy film.

Sony is not the first company to not fill up a disc, and they certainly won't be the last.

So Lawrence has 50 mbps. Only twice the bit rate vs the 3 times of the second half. Oh the horror.

I am slightly annoyed only getting 30's mbps on Apocalypse Now Theatrical because it has to share with an even more inferior Redux. But my annoyance is very very small. It still looks outstanding as does Lawrence. Just had to comment more since I just finished this Sony golden masterpiece.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Though I did a cursory look, the bit rate of Lawrence on disc 2 seemed to hover at around 70mbps. Considering the original bluray was in the 20's I don't see a problem.

Transport theoretical is one thing, but throttled bit rates of locals is another thing all together.

I admit I really don't ponder such things, but compression has improved and talking in huge bit rates is not apples to apples.

What I couldn't help but notice is the awesome quality of the Atmos track. Man them are some marvelous explosions. There is a fullness to the whole thing that just makes me a kid again.

For fun I threw in the original bluray, wait, that wasn't fun at all. I don't think that is going to happen every again. When some say this is a minor upgrade when I am seeing three times the quality jump in sound and visual all together, I ask myself, what more do I really need? I have a marvelous physical copy that cannot be taken away by the studio. This is a great time to enjoy film.

Sony is not the first company to not fill up a disc, and they certainly won't be the last.

So Lawrence has 50 mbps. Only twice the bit rate vs the 3 times of the second half. Oh the horror.

I am slightly annoyed only getting 30's mbps on Apocalypse Now Theatrical because it has to share with an even more inferior Redux. But my annoyance is very very small. It still looks outstanding as does Lawrence. Just had to comment more since I just finished this Sony golden masterpiece.

The average rate on part 2 still clocks in at ~55 Mb/s. But this isn't about pining for more space just because it's not been used, that's reductive in the extreme. No, I'd have liked them to fill the discs because I can SEE compression artefacts therein. If I couldn't see them, I wouldn't be mentioning the compression as a drawback. You're not the first person not to see iffy compression, and you won't be the last.

But even though it's having to shuttle comparatively much more data the rate doesn't really matter just because the Blu-ray was so low? Just wanna make sure I've got that right.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But even though it's having to shuttle comparatively much more data the rate doesn't really matter just because the Blu-ray was so low? Just wanna make sure I've got that right.

My gauge on a new format/release is if it is a significant improvement. I didn't consider the first bluray to be really low, just not he highest of the high. Actually I thought the original bluray looked really good. I am not alone on this. If getting that right is what I just typed then yes I agree with a whole heart.

So when something is 3 times what has come before in many instances, and the average bitrate is still very respectable, I cannot quibble.

Heck I need to scratch what I say. Any improvement for great films is a must buy for me. If they came out with another Kubrick version that showed me there is a slightly more information I would still buy it. Guess that makes me a bad person, but I just love his work that much and I take any scrap that I get.

I gotta admit that after I finished Lawrence I thought, the book is closed on this one if not another version came out EVER, now bring on Patton! Amazing is amazing, and could be better is not in my vocabulary when such a good job has been done. So many companies release total garbage, this is not it by a long shot.

I saw the difference in Apocalypse Now Theatrical vs Redux. Obviously the same would be true if we were given another disc of Lawrence in another region with that kind of similar uptick in data starving. When I see the stream and all those artifacts, I don't get jealous at all. Surely all you see with the UHD would have to bee seen with stream. I say more so, but to each his own.

That and I just love the watching the movie in so much better quality. Though Lawrence was not high on my list, 2001 for instance is one that yes could be better (I said it), but for what I grew up with in the LD era, oh man like Eddie Money didn't say, I don't wanna go back.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by slimjean

My gauge on a new format/release is if it is a significant improvement. I didn't consider the first bluray to be really low, just not he highest of the high. Actually I thought the original bluray looked really good. I am not alone on this. If getting that right is what I just typed then yes I agree with a whole heart.

So when something is 3 times what has come before in many instances, and the average bitrate is still very respectable, I cannot quibble.

Heck I need to scratch what I say. Any improvement for great films is a must buy for me. If they came out with another Kubrick version that showed me there is a slightly more information I would still buy it. Guess that makes me a bad person, but I just love his work that much and I take any scrap that I get.

I gotta admit that after I finished Lawrence I thought, the book is closed on this one if not another version came out EVER, now bring on Patton! Amazing is amazing, and could be better is not in my vocabulary when such a good job has been done. So many companies release total garbage, this is not it by a long shot.

I saw the difference in Apocalypse Now Theatrical vs Redux. Obviously the same would be true if we were given another disc of Lawrence in another region with that kind of similar uptick in data starving. When I see the stream and all those artifacts, I don't get jealous at all. Surely all you see with the UHD would have to bee seen with stream. I say more so, but to each his own.

That and I just love the watching the movie in so much better quality. Though Lawrence was not high on my list, 2001 for instance is one that yes could be better (I said it), but for what I grew up with in the LD era, oh man like Eddie Money didn't say, I don't wanna go back.

Again: no-one said this was "total garbage". I don't wanna go back to the olden days either but that argument - which I'm having with someone else in another thread right this moment, funnily enough - just doesn't wash with me. I am eternally grateful for how far home video has come compared to the trashy quality of the VHS era but I don't trade on nostalgia, I trade on what I see here and now and if it has quantifiable, visible technical shortcomings - ones that can be entirely avoided - alongside quantifiable, visible improvements then both are going to be called out.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

No. Why? Because your screenshots are worthless. I view the actual content, in motion, on a calibrated display. Not some dumbed down HDR->SDR screenshots on my phone, tablet or computer. I have the 1080p BD, the 4K SDR digital file and the UHD BD. The conspiracy theory floated in the post I responded to is incredibly moronic.

I watched it in motion too, on a proper HDR display. The detail seen on the 4k streaming version still isn't on the UHD. Yes, a tonemapped screenshot does not indicate the true colour of the HDR version, but the DETAIL, the size of the grain, etc, will not change. I think you are missing the point of the comparison.

Forget colour, it's about the size of the grain, the fine high frequency detail, etc. This does not magically appear when viewed in it's full HDR. It's still missing on the UHD where it exists on the streaming version, no matter how bad the compression on the latter may be.

Screenshots are not worthless when comparing detail. To say so shows you do not know what you're talking about.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

I watched it in motion too, on a proper HDR display. The detail seen on the 4k streaming version still isn't on the UHD. Yes, a tonemapped screenshot does not indicate the true colour of the HDR version, but the DETAIL, the size of the grain, etc, will not change. I think you are missing the point of the comparison.

Forget colour, it's about the size of the grain, the fine high frequency detail, etc. This does not magically appear when viewed in it's full HDR. It's still missing on the UHD where it exists on the streaming version, no matter how bad the compression on the latter may be.

Screenshots are not worthless when comparing detail. To say so shows you do not know what you're talking about.

Myself and others are busy laughing at your ridiculous claims elsewhere

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...367261/page-12

You, quite clearly, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

Myself and others are busy laughing at your ridiculous claims elsewhere

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...367261/page-12

You, quite clearly, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You can laugh all you want, I'm right. The images are clear as day. HDR doesn't bring out fine detail that doesn't exist. An SDR tonemapped image would bring out the same detail, albiet without true HDR colour.

Also half of the guys there seem to agree and half don't? What are you babbling about.
The stream has more, finer, true 4k detail. The UHD has almost no increase in detail beyond an upscaled 1080p resolution. I have proven it.
I'm not saying it's for certain an upscale, just that the detail beyond it is missing for whatever reason. Maybe it has been filtered, I have no idea.

Even Geoffy agrees.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Forget colour, it's about the size of the grain, the fine high frequency detail, etc. This does not magically appear when viewed in it's full HDR. It's still missing on the UHD where it exists on the streaming version, no matter how bad the compression on the latter may be.

Screenshots are not worthless when comparing detail. To say so shows you do not know what you're talking about.

Can someone zoom in and show me this "fine detail" because I am not seeing it. It isn't just bad compression on the stream, there is some things in that sky that really look so odd and random that it makes the UHD even more consistent in comparison.

We can all talk about what we see with a big picture but lets move in and do a true magnifying glass approach and see what is so special. Lets start with the edges and give us all something to really talk about.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

What are you babbling about

Your incompetence. You would have us take your uninformed, miseducated assumptions over the word of Robert Harris. Please excuse me while I die from laughter.

[cgpublic]

Just popped in to share that we screened LoA over the weekend, and it was simply a transformative experience.

The uptick in resolution, HDR pass and Atmos processing delivers an experience that is distinctly new, something that unfortunately Lean himself never had the opportunity to see/hear.

I screened the Blu six months ago on the same setup (see signature), and it's mind-blowing just how different the overall impression registers for so many of the scenes. From a visual perspective, the early scene at a well where

[Show spoiler]Tafas is killed by Sherif Ali

was an eye-opener, as if I had never seen the film many times and it was a new scene. Likewise, when the Turkish airplanes

[Show spoiler]raid Prince Faisal's camp,

I was hearing the scene for the first time.

On balance, I'll add that certain aspects, e.g., inconsistencies within the original film source, are more prominent and noticeable to the casual viewer, but that is to be expected with the greater degree of detail, which is simply outstanding.

To be clear, I screened the film, not screenshots.

Personally, this UHD ranks as one of the very best, if not the best, major catalog releases to date.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Can someone zoom in and show me this "fine detail" because I am not seeing it. It isn't just bad compression on the stream, there is some things in that sky that really look so odd and random that it makes the UHD even more consistent in comparison.

We can all talk about what we see with a big picture but lets move in and do a true magnifying glass approach and see what is so special. Lets start with the edges and give us all something to really talk about.

Here you go.
Zoomed in.

https://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/3977

It hasn't been sharpened, or had digital noise added. You would be able to tell if this was the case. Yes, the compression is worse, but you can see the underlying finer detail even still.

Look at his hat, look at his hairs. His eyes especially, you can see the details of his iris come out! The compression is awful but the extra detail is there undearneath. No amount of sharpening can do this.

Funny side note: When I put a gaussian blur of 2px over the streaming version, the detail becomes extremely comperable to the UHD.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Here you go.

Since I don't do screen screenshots, do you mind if I ask you a question?

It appears that the site you linked allows anyone to post images, yes or no?

From a technical perspective, where is the supporting information regarding the source, the software, the pixel density and other tech details of the screen, and so on? Are they listed somewhere?

I ask because the UHD of LoA is a completely different viewing experience than the Blu. If someone doesn't like it, that's one thing. To suggest that there are minor differences, well, someone really must be commenting on their setup, and not the disc.

UHD vs. Blu was night and day on my set-up.

How do you know how the original sources were captured, and whether or not they were altered?

How do you confirm what codecs were employed, and whether or not any mis-steps in the workflow may have compromised the final image?

In my opinion, the bottom line is simply when it comes to capturing the experience of actually screening a film on a setup capable of taking advantage of new technologies and/or master/restoration, screenshots, and numbers, lie.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Since I don't do screen screenshots, do you mind if I ask you a question?

It appears that the site you linked allows anyone to post images, yes or no?

From a technical perspective, where is the supporting information regarding the source, the software, the pixel density and other tech details of the screen, and so on? Are they listed somewhere?

I ask because the UHD of LoA is a completely different viewing experience than the Blu. If someone doesn't like it, that's one thing. To suggest that there are minor differences, well, someone really must be commenting on their setup, and not the disc.

UHD vs. Blu was night and day on my set-up.

How do you know how the original sources were captured, and whether or not they were altered?

How do you confirm what codecs were employed, and whether or not any mis-steps in the workflow may have compromised the final image?

In my opinion, the bottom line is simply when it comes to capturing the experience of actually screening a film on a setup capable of taking advantage of new technologies and/or master/restoration, screenshots, and numbers, lie.

The UHD screenshot is one I took myself.
I'm sure it's better than the Blu-ray, I'm not arguing that. Even if it was an upscale, it would be better than the bluray for a number of reasons, such as chroma resolution.

I don't know how the streaming version was captured, but I trust Andreas' screenshot.
And I also trust my UHD screenshot I took from the full file myself. The big boy 100gb version. It has been tonemapped via Madvr to 150nits in that screenshot. The detail I can see on my monitor (not colour) accurately reflects the detail when displayed in HDR on my Sony X900F.

I take screenshots this way all the time and they've always been as accurate as can be. This is the first time people have so vehemently denied them as being accurate (as far as detail goes, not colour). Once again, an SDR tonemapped image will not represent the full HDR colour, we all agree. But detail wise, what you see here is what's on the disc. I can even disable the tonemapping and show you the raw file before the HDR metadata and you'll see no difference in detail, only colour.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Here you go.
Zoomed in.

https://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/3977

It hasn't been sharpened, or had digital noise added. You would be able to tell if this was the case. Yes, the compression is worse, but you can see the underlying finer detail even still.

Look at his hat, look at his hairs. His eyes especially, you can see the details of his iris come out! The compression is awful but the extra detail is there undearneath. No amount of sharpening can do this.

Funny side note: When I put a gaussian blur of 2px over the streaming version, the detail becomes extremely comperable to the UHD.

That is not a zoom in. I am talking about a day light scene. Anomolies are harder to see in pure black. You can do it easily with a computer or phone but it would be nice to see it displayed here to put some of this "fine detail" to rest i would love to do it myself. If you havent done it you should. The stream is grotesque. I don't see any of this superior look on your screenshot at all, just more of the same.

The screen shot posted is too far back.

Looking again at your screenshot can you not see the black splotches that come out on his cloth head cover that look completely unnatural? This is without question digital sharpening not detail. The supposed softer image of the UHD has an authentic look as opposed to an uneven mess. I am actually suprised after I zoomed in how easily I could see it.