Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[don3663]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

The cost of entry isn't free, but the payoff is far more valuable than a pointless argument about screenshots and other useless numbers.

Not really pointless though is it when there are clearly 2 different looking versions of this movie available for the 1st time in 4k and as someone who would like to own this, I find it incredibly valuable to see which version will give me the best viewing pleasure especially since I'm not someone who automatically gets a semi anytime i look at a black amaray case with a 4K ULTA HD on the top as it seems to be the case with 90% of people in these 4k threads, so keep it up users like rusty100 and geoff d.

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Nonsense. The studio put them on there. If they didn't want they didn't have to.
Other restorations he's done don't have a credit. He worked with Sir David Lean directly on this title in particular and took the initiative to restore it back in 1986. Your "complaint" is not only invalid, it's wrong. You should be thanking him.

Read and learn:
https://www.in70mm.com/news/2008/lawrence/index.htm

Another title he did it on was The Godfather, where it was just as distracting. Don't know why you're getting so defensive or what I'm wrong about. "Don't change the original movie" or "leave your additional credits silent" aren't big requests at all, and after everything you've told me I still see no good reason for him to be doing this. I was already well aware he restored Lawrence three decades ago.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by don3663

Not really pointless though is it when there are clearly 2 different looking versions of this movie available for the 1st time in 4k and as someone who would like to own this, I find it incredibly valuable to see which version will give me the best viewing pleasure especially since I'm not someone who automatically gets a semi anytime i look at a black amaray case with a 4K ULTA HD on the top as it seems to be the case with 90% of people in these 4k threads, so keep it up users like rusty100 and geoff d.

As far as the ability of a screenshot to indicate the respective technical quality of the film in various formats, yes, it is pointless.

That's the point.

As far as finding reasons to not purchase the set, who says you need one?

You're either in or out.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by don3663

I'm not someone who automatically gets a semi anytime i look at a black amaray case with a 4K ULTA HD on the top as it seems to be the case with 90% of people in these 4k threads, so keep it up users like rusty100 and geoff d.

Not just any semi, but a Sony semi. And even with my detractors both have admitted that it is the best one to get.

Apple steeam high is 41 mbps with average bit rate of 29 mbps. Netflix less than 20. Amazon worse as well. Quarantine numbers, around 7mbps. Any contest?

[hoejunter]

Originally Posted by don3663

Not really pointless though is it when there are clearly 2 different looking versions of this movie available for the 1st time in 4k and as someone who would like to own this, I find it incredibly valuable to see which version will give me the best viewing pleasure especially since I'm not someone who automatically gets a semi anytime i look at a black amaray case with a 4K ULTA HD on the top as it seems to be the case with 90% of people in these 4k threads, so keep it up users like rusty100 and geoff d.

It’s really not that serious...

[punisher]

Originally Posted by jh901

The opposite of you what you believe is nearly always correct. Why anyone would bother streaming either of these when we have the consumer reference UHD is beyond me. Enjoy continuing to do home theater wrong this Summer.

well in the case of LOA..we don't have the UHD readily available unless you buy a box set of Sony movies and the LOA stream just may be a reference streamer if there ever was one.

[TravisTylerBlack]

Originally Posted by lgans316

https://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/3977

Ouch. That's not looking good at all.

Oh cripes. Can't unsee that. Now you've got me closing the curtains and firing up the projector at 4:30 in the afternoon to compare for myself.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Well, you have two distinct sources with screen captures from two distinct monitors and related hardware and software configurations. We have absolutely no idea of how the two distinct sources were sourced, and if they may have been compromised in the process.

Second, everyone that is viewing the files is doing so on a plethora of different monitors, platforms and devices with distinct resolution, pixels per inch (PPI), never mind color, which is completely off the charts as far variables, etc., when you factor FRC, 6-bit vs. 8-bit vs. 10-bit, etc. It's easy to say resolution and color are distinct, but for the viewer it is easier said than done.

Now, ask yourself how many viewers of this thread are viewing the screenshots on a 4K monitor? Just for myself, I browse this site with an Apple MacBook Pro with a 13" Retina display (2560 x 1600), an Apple Mac mini with an LG 24' UltraFine 4K monitor (3840-by-2160) and an Apple 11" iPad Pro (2388-by-1668), all with distinct pixels per inch.

Exclusively from a resolution perspective, a screenshot will appear different for each device when used for comparative purposes. Now factor that by thousands of impressions.

In my opinion, it's worthless for comparative purposes, never mind making definitive statements about the original source(s).

Listen, we all get the entertainment factor. Plenty of posters want to chime with their two cents and join the pixel poodle parade party. Why not, when the cost of entry is zero?

My advice, if you haven't already purchased the set and are waiting for the single release, is a spend a few bucks via Apple as they have the best platform for streaming to your TV.

The cost of entry isn't free, but the payoff is far more valuable than a pointless argument about screenshots and other useless numbers.

That is now how (properly taken) screenshots work. The monitor they are being viewed on has no bearing on the file that's output. Neither me or andreas is just hitting 'print screen', they are being captured directly from the source, not from the PC's desktop. And if two images are being compared on the same monitor, then there is a clear point of comparison, you can still see the difference between the two.

But thank you for trying to obfuscate the point once again.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

That is now how (properly taken) screenshots work. The monitor they are being viewed on has no bearing on the file that's output. Neither me or andreas is just hitting 'print screen', they are being captured directly from the source, not from the PC's desktop. And if two images are being compared on the same monitor, then there is a clear point of comparison, you can still see the difference between the two.

But thank you for trying to obfuscate the point once again.

Actually screen caps are never and can’t ever be captured directly from “source.” No such process exists. All screen caps will be hardware and software dependent. 10 people can take the same screen cap and all 10 will look different, unless all 10 people used an identical chain of hardware and software.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bn43

Another title he did it on was The Godfather, where it was just as distracting. Don't know why you're getting so defensive or what I'm wrong about. "Don't change the original movie" or "leave your additional credits silent" aren't big requests at all, and after everything you've told me I still see no good reason for him to be doing this. I was already well aware he restored Lawrence three decades ago.

And he also worked with Francis Ford Coppola and Gordon Willis on that restoration as well. Seems to me the original filmmakers were ok with putting his credit on the restorations - which doesn't affect the films themselves. They showed gratitude you seem unwilling to give.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

That is now how (properly taken) screenshots work.

I know how screenshots are taken, but how screenshots are taken has nothing to do with original source from which the screenshot is derived. All you have to state is how two source files were acquired, the OS platform and related HW/SW configuration, how the files were saved and if subsequently altered, and we're golden. If the respective screenshots did not follow the same workflow, well then, it speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Rusty100

And if two images are being compared on the same monitor, then there is a clear point of comparison, you can still see the difference between the two.

But it's not the same monitor/viewing environment for everyone other than yourself, where viewers have countless different platforms, OS, and display configurations.

Originally Posted by Rusty100

But thank you for trying to obfuscate the point once again.

Nice try, but it is you who is trying to obfuscate the point, which is simply that your screenshots are worthless for comparative purposes for the reasons I outlined in my prior post.

But even if we were to set aside the entirety of the above, where did you get the idea that a static screenshot is an accurate reflection of the appearance and experience of viewing a film, in motion, on a television screen? On point, who uses screenshots to determine the quality of a film when you have your own eyes to view the original work?

It's like asking someone would you like to take a car for spin and get a feel for the cockpit and the person responds, no, it's OK, I'd rather take a picture of it and imagine how it would feel.

Here's what we can do resolve this question. Let's contact the restoration team at Sony, share your concerns, explain to them your workflow and the basis for your opinion.

That the LoA file submitted for streaming is not only superior to the file employed for the LoA UHD disc, but that it is substantially superior when viewed in a typical viewing environment, so much so, consumers should be informed of the difference before considering a purchase.

You can submit your files along with supporting documentation, perhaps have a few of your supporters sign their names, and let them respond.

Are you in?

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Actually screen caps are never and can’t ever be captured directly from “source.” No such process exists. All screen caps will be hardware and software dependent. 10 people can take the same screen cap and all 10 will look different, unless all 10 people used an identical chain of hardware and software.

Why would that be true? Digital is digital. A screencap might look a certain way because of the monitor etc but the file is the file.

He also has a point in regards to a point of comparison.

I don't know who ever started the mumbo jumbo that a screencsp can't reveal limitations and shouldn't be judged, but throwing out data and saying it is useless just doesn't make sense. This is as bad as trusting a source to not lie to us when like the stream version it is lying to us quite a bit with digital errors.

Now all that said there is crappy software and crappy DAC but even then this is splitting hairs.

[Bn43]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And he also worked with Francis Ford Coppola and Gordon Willis on that restoration as well. Seems to me the original filmmakers were ok with putting his credit on the restorations - which doesn't affect the films themselves. They showed gratitude you seem unwilling to give.

Guessing. I mean, if I was the director and he remastered my work, I would accept his bad credits too. Besides, I really don't care what the director wants, because they've been wrong plenty of times. I expressed gratitude pages ago. You're not paying attention. Just because I'm grateful to him and his company doesn't mean I have to approve of his bad credits. You're the one making a big deal about this. I just felt like pointing it out, but I don't even find it as horrible as you're now making it seem.

[Rusty100]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Actually screen caps are never and can’t ever be captured directly from “source.” No such process exists. All screen caps will be hardware and software dependent. 10 people can take the same screen cap and all 10 will look different, unless all 10 people used an identical chain of hardware and software.

I'm pretty sure Andreas and I are using the same method, that's what I meant, which is also as accurate as it's possible to take the screenshot right now. And that the monitor it's being viewed on has no bearing on the file produced.

Originally Posted by cgpublic

I know how screenshots are taken, but how screenshots are taken has nothing to do with original source from which the screenshot is derived. All you have to state is how two source files were acquired, the OS platform and related HW/SW configuration, how the files were saved and if subsequently altered, and we're golden. If the respective screenshots did not follow the same workflow, well then, it speaks for itself, doesn't it?

This is so pedantic. It won't change anything, the difference between the two screenshots you're comparing will be the same.
No matter how different our hardware setups are, if andreas and I both take a screenshot from MPC via MadVR, and saved it at a relatively high quality JPEG or a PNG, any other differences will be so negligable they won't be perceptable. I know how images work, man.
Yeah maybe if one of us was taking the image on a potato, with vastly different software, and saving it out at jpeg quality 1, ya got me. But we aren't. This is so dumb. It's like you're wasting my time on purpose. Forum filibustering.

[Pans]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

Forum filibustering.

I love this term

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Pans

I love this term

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

This is so dumb. It's like you're wasting my time on purpose. Forum filibustering.

Get used to it; he takes longer to say less than has any senator in history.

[Scottishguy]

Anyone played Detriot: Become Human? The number of times Normac comes back, i swear he's Connor.

[Vilya]

At least Mij is succinct. He doesn't need nine paragraphs to say next to nothing.

[jrcorwin3]

...I’m still waiting to hear word of the replacement program for Rusty’s upscale fiasco. It should be any day now. #Justice4Rusty