Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[Rusty100]

Nobody is arguing that the stream is the better way to watch the movie. It's highly flawed, but even so has a glimmer of what could have been. The compression sucks, I'm sure the stream is grotesque in that aspect. But it still reveals and underlying greater detail that's missing on the UHD. To be clear, UHD = less detail, much better compression. Stream = more fine detail, much much worse compression.

My screenshot being too black is easily fixed, I can just adjust the targeted nits in my conversion, it has no bearing on the actual quality on display. You are focusing on the wrong thing here, we are not comparing colour.

If andreas is able to post a daytime screenshot from the streaming version I would be happy to compare it, but I don't think that will prove anything different? I don't doubt the compression would still be worse, yeah. But it would still be capable of a finer detail around the awful compression.

Also "not a zoom-in" because it's not a daylight scene? Huh?

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Nobody is arguing that the stream is the better way to watch the movie. It's highly flawed, but even so has a glimmer of what could have been. The compression sucks, I'm sure the stream is grotesque in that aspect. But it still reveals and underlying greater detail that's missing on the UHD. To be clear, UHD = less detail, much better compression. Stream = more fine detail, much much worse compression.

My screenshot being too black is easily fixed, I can just adjust the targeted nits in my conversion, it has no bearing on the actual quality on display. You are focusing on the wrong thing here, we are not comparing colour.

If andreas is able to post a daytime screenshot from the streaming version I would be happy to compare it, but I don't think that will prove anything different? I don't doubt the compression would still be worse, yeah. But it would still be capable of a finer detail around the awful compression.

Also "not a zoom-in" because it's not a daylight scene? Huh?

Look I wish I could capture that shot an point red arrows to what I am speaking about. It has nothing to do with color, it is the the fact that you have fat pixels just randomly showing up where none exist.

The daylight shot shows actually more textured consistent grain on the UHD that looks natural. The stream while being devoid of that grain (which again is without question showing digital tinkering) also has those same pixels I speak of only more apparent. That is not "fine detail", that is garbage floating around in the sky where none existed before.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Look I wish I could capture that shot an point red arrows to what I am speaking about. It has nothing to do with color, it is the the fact that you have fat pixels just randomly showing up where none exist.

The daylight shot shows actually more textured consistent grain on the UHD that looks natural. The stream while being devoid of that grain (which again is without question showing digital tinkering) also has those same pixels I speak of only more apparent. That is not "fine detail", that is garbage floating around in the sky where none existed before.

I promise you, the grain in my UHD screenshot is an accurate representation of the disc. You're just not used to seeing it up this close at 100% scale on a monitor.

Re: your images, yes, the compression is awful and does nuke the grain in brighter areas leaving a garbled mess. Nobody is saying it doesn't do that. You are missing the point again and again. I wish I could show you a screenshot of the stream before it was compressed and then you might understand. But I can't do that sadly. My only hope is another release of lawrence on UHD will finally reveal this finer detail and have the compression to sustain it.

[slimjean]

Here is a screen shot with red arrows pointing out exactly what I am talking about. The same thing is evident throughout the hat if you zoom in far enough. The UHD has no such problem at all!

https://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/3882

(see attached using top of this link)

I have looked at every single screenshot and in every one the Stream version has loss of detail and anything popping out at all is riddled with noise. It brings up fake pixels where none existed before, and worse there is just wrong colored pixels in solid areas that shouldn't have any at all? Look at the edges, look at simple things like Lawrence face getting some weird darkened detail when his five o'clock shadow looks overall natural and yes MORE detail in the the UHD. I could point arrows all day and night, and in the end we will just have to disagree, but the attached shot is pretty hard to argue by anyone. Fine grain, no that is compression noise artifacts, whatever you want to call it.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Yes, really. It's unprofessional.

How so?
The studio put it on there.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Nobody is saying it doesn't do that. You are missing the point again and again. I wish I could show you a screenshot of the stream before it was compressed and then you might understand. But I can't do that sadly. My only hope is another release of lawrence on UHD will finally reveal this finer detail and have the compression to sustain it.

If you are right we can only hope, I guess. It looks pretty awesome for me though.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but there is no nuking going on with the UHD grain in the sky. It looks like film and very much in line with other great 4K's.

It is often said how 4K's look soft compared to bluray. I think this is the fact that it isn't sharpened, but show closer to what the human eye sees, and more importantly what the camera captures.

The digital sharpening of the stream shows false information without question, and that much is proved by that weird stuff in the sky. So if we are saying that there is all this great detail in between, how can you really appreciate it if you have what is essentially a window screen marring what is there?

Tit for tat, it is not something exponential and that is all I am saying. I am just glad I found a way to display it even with my primitive capturing. The stair stepping, and everything else that goes with this stream capture just destroys the argument.

The UHD is at least 3 times improved on the bluray and while it would be nice to have 6 times as much, I still am glad for what I got.

By the way, did you notice on this capture how the black lines in the guys head cover just magically goes away on the 4K Stream? If this is such fine detail, why does the UHD have the lines looking defined and actually present!

https://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/3882

On my attached examples you can easily tell the stream version because more of those weird splotches show up on the stripe right above the rope around his head (and with no lines!).

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Here is a screen shot with red arrows pointing out exactly what I am talking about. The same thing is evident throughout the hat if you zoom in far enough. The UHD has no such problem at all!

https://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/3882

(see attached using top of this link)

I have looked at every single screenshot and in every one the Stream version has loss of detail and anything popping out at all is riddled with noise. It brings up fake pixels where none existed before, and worse there is just wrong colored pixels in solid areas that shouldn't have any at all? Look at the edges, look at simple things like Lawrence face getting some weird darkened detail when his five o'clock shadow looks overall natural and yes MORE detail in the the UHD. I could point arrows all day and night, and in the end we will just have to disagree, but the attached shot is pretty hard to argue by anyone. Fine grain, no that is compression noise artifacts, whatever you want to call it.

Yes, what you are pointing out are compression artifacts on grain. Yes, the compression destroys the grain in many areas of the image. We agree that the artifacts suck and the stream is not a great way to watch it.
But, compression is not evenly distributed the same way across an entire image, that is the way it works, it proritises certain areas, and then affects other areas more. In that same comparison you linked, look at the increase in fine detail on the pattern of his clothes for example. Compression sucks, but it still shows a finer detail on the stream. The pattern becomes less blurry.

To clarify: in areas of the image where there is less colour varience, eg, a sky, the poor compression will wreak more havoc in an attempt to save more space. But in areas with more contrast and more colour varience, it will attempt to preserve more detail. It's there we can see the finer detail of the image.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Compression sucks, but it still shows a finer detail on the stream. The pattern becomes less blurry.

See the attached files that I put on after you replied, can you explain how you lost the lines? If this is "fine detail" where did the rope lines on his cloth covering go on the stream? They are there clearly on the UHD. Don't believe me, zoom in for yourself.

Look at the purple line above it. What is an even smooth cloth look turns into a jagged harsh mess on the stream. This isn't just artifacts, this is clear loss in detail paired with complete and utter fabrication of detail (sorry the pun worked so well with this example).

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by slimjean

See the attached files that I put on after you replied, can you explain how you lost the lines? If this is "fine detail" where did the rope lines on his cloth covering go on the stream? They are there clearly on the UHD. Don't believe me, zoom in for yourself.

Like I have said a few times, compression does nuke certain elements of the image. But this is not even, it has an algorithm, while it nukes some things, it preserves others. That is how it works to save space. It is not evenly distributed.

There is less colour variation on the blue headband, so it suffers more. But if you look at the colourful pattern directly around the headband, you will see an increase in clarity in many areas.

This is becoming a futile discussion and you are choosing to see only what you want to see. I feel if I am having to explain how compression works at this point, we are not going to get anywhere.

[jrcorwin3]

“...an upscale...”



What’s next? Bigfoot...maybe? The moon landing was faked? Flat earth theories, perhaps?

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

There is less colour variation on the blue headband, so it suffers more. But if you look at the colourful pattern directly to the right of the headband, you will see an increase in clarity.

This is becoming a futile discussion and you are choosing to see only what you want to see.

The loss of lines is irrefutable. The colorful patters don't look any more detailed to me, they looked riddled with artifacts. Worse, when I zoom in, nothing shows up on the stream that isn't on the UHD that actually makes sense.

This isn't about "color", this is about lines disappearing which you did not mention. Can you not see it? This is "fine detail"?

Yes I agree this has become futile. It would be interesting for others to explain what it is an obvious LOSS of detail, not gain in my example, and again I could point out hundreds of examples of this.

It is ok though. We hashed it out, you like what you like. I just tried to point out with an exact example (actually many) of where the stream falters.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

“...an upscale...”



What’s next? Bigfoot...maybe? The moon landing was faked? Flat earth theories, perhaps?

How is this beyond comprehension
what is going on here?

I'm not even saying it was upscaled. I'm saying whatever actually happened, the visible effect is the same as having been upscaled.
The Lawrence denial patrol is truly truly bizarre.

"It's perfect, it has no flaws, and there's not another version out there that shows the UHD could have more fine detail than it does", is that what you want to hear?

[professorwho]

I don’t think it’s upscaled, it’s just that it’s been filtered a bit to where it can look like an upscale. A more drastic example is the Akira UHD where Q-Tec's grain reduction and smoothing removed a ton of detail making the UHD essentially equal to the BD with regards to detail, adding none to my eyes.

Lawrence is obviously better than that, but it seems like some kind of filtering was applied, as evidenced by the additional detail on the 4K SDR downloads of it.

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

How so?
The studio put it on there.

I already said why. In putting his own credits with the theme music after the ending that should be silent, Mr. Harris acts like his production company in part made the movie and alters the mood. Their job is to restore and preserve. That's it. It's also unprofessional because almost no one does it, in spite of all the work and expenses that go into it.

[chewbabka]

Can’t wait for Sony to revise the disc to lessen the supposed filtering then listen to everyone here complain that grain is sharper and more distracting than it should be for a 70mm production.

[Noremac Mij]

That compression is not that bad if it’s revealing more detail. A lot of streams look better than UHDs these day. This being one. Blade Runner 2049 is another good example.

[Amano]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

A lot of streams look better than UHDs these day. This being one. Blade Runner 2049 is another good example.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jrcorwin3

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.

Is that the same RAH that couldn't spot the horrid DNR on the 2016 edition of American Werewolf?

Originally Posted by chewbabka

Can’t wait for Sony to revise the disc to lessen the supposed filtering then listen to everyone here complain that grain is sharper and more distracting than it should be for a 70mm production.

The grain is already far chunkier and noisier than it should be for 65mm, if it was as sharp as it could be - along with retaining the spatial information that's clearly being filtered off - then it would be finer and less of a distraction.

[birdztudio]

sorry that this post doesn't relate with the LOA i happened to watch Troy last night and Peter O'Toole was in it... hope one day we'll see Troy on 4K UHD...

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The grain is already far chunkier and noisier than it should be for 65mm, if it was as sharp as it could be - along with retaining the spatial information that's clearly being filtered off - then it would be finer and less of a distraction.

So what we are saying is the grain should be digitaly managed better to remove that "chunky" quality and bring forth computer interpolation of what should be there much like the algorithm that brings forth "fine detail" while not knowing how to separate lines in a rope with the example above.

I myself loves that grain because it is part of the film and has vital information. I do not find it distracting at all and that is why I like Sony releases. It is a preference not a fact.