Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by zen007

If it were to get an HDR treatment, I would want it to be enhanced not diminished

And again you are blaming a mastering error vs the process?

There are lots of nasayers that wan't to discredit the technology. That doesn't make it so.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by slimjean

And again you are blaming a mastering error vs the process?

There are lots of nasayers that wan't to discredit the technology. That doesn't make it so.

The end product is what is being discussed. One of the reasons that titles are reviewed and their quality discussed is because the quality of the products vary. Theoretically, a perfect SDR transfer esp. in 4K resolution can be good too.

Since HDR products, much like any other such products, can be inconsistent, I have turned off setting such as dynamic contrast, which I used to like, on my TV for now.

[chewbabka]

I love watching my favorite movies in heatmap mode

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by zen007

Theoretically, a perfect SDR transfer esp. in 4K resolution can be good too.

If "good" is defined as less dynamic range and decreased contrast etc.. sure.

Since HDR products, much like any other such products, can be inconsistent, I have turned off setting such as dynamic contrast, which I used to like, on my TV for now.

What you have is essentially an auto setting on your TV that has nothing to do with the source. Obviously you are going to get varied results because a proper HDR process is going to render such things obsolete/useless (I edited because I shouldn't call a setting that someone enjoys foolish. It just isn't something that I appreciate that is all).

Of course you will get varying results based on competence of the mastering process. Again, this has nothing to do with my original criticism.

HDR being a "gimmick" lost all credit to me the moment the youtube voice uttered it.

Anyway, I choose to get back to Lawrence of Arabia talk and the fantastic 4K bluray that is superior to all formats before or since. Once again Sony has done an awesome job and while there are theories that there is some super duper version out there yet to be had, it still hasn't been been put out digital or physical save for some awful compressed mess.

I look forward to the next box set for sure! What a truly nice purchase.

[Vangeli]

Received my replacement bonus disc today. I replied to the initial tracking number email they sent with my concerns over the UHDs for this movie. Received a response this morning with the boilerplate but gracious “I’ll pass this on, thank you for your support” message.

[IndyMLVC]

Got my 3 copies this morning. If anyone is having problems getting a replacement copy that lives in another country, please let me know. I have no use for them.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by slimjean

If "good" is defined as less dynamic range and decreased contrast etc.. sure.

Theoretical concepts don't always translate into meaningful results in the real world - for e.g., a good SDR implementation can be better than a bad or avg HDR implementation and vice versa.

Of course you will get varying results based on competence of the mastering process. Again, this has nothing to do with my original criticism.

HDR being a "gimmick" lost all credit to me the moment the youtube voice uttered it.

If the tech is not utilized properly, it would appear as a gimmick for those applications. Where it shines, it would be seen as a value add.

Talking about colors - there is also a case of capturing the director's intent. For e.g. say a photographer/cinematographer has captured a shot in the golden hour, however, the guys in post-processing match the image to how it would look most of the time in say daylight. Now the processed image may be more "truer" but does it still carry the same artistic value is another question.

Below are a couple of shots posted by one of the members on a thread here:

a) Blu-ray



b) UHD




The first image is a lot warmer, while the second appears washed out even though it may reflect true colors. Was the artistic intent of appearing warmer lost, we do not know. Being more color-accurate does not necessarily equate to being correct in terms of capturing director's (or artistic) intent.

Btw, I asked a couple of folks, who do care for HDR or SDR on which one is better, and they picked image a (Blu-ray one) without knowing which one is which.

Anyway, I choose to get back to Lawrence of Arabia talk and the fantastic 4K bluray that is superior to all formats before or since. Once again Sony has done an awesome job and while there are theories that there is some super duper version out there yet to be had, it still hasn't been been put out digital or physical save for some awful compressed mess.

I look forward to the next box set for sure! What a truly nice purchase.

Good to know that you enjoyed the disc! .... However, enjoying the UHD does not mean that an optimal job was performed on it

[tylergfoster]

Got an email that said my disc is in the mail too, haven't received the disc itself yet.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by zen007

Good to know that you enjoyed the disc! .... However, enjoying the UHD does not mean that an optimal job was performed on it

There are all kinds of places where the UHD whoops the butt of the bluray. Not just color but detail. You holding up something that you like does not make it so.

My reference was not just one facet. Though screenshots don't do this film justice. Watching it in motion with an A/B comparison is key.

When I judge, I go with a collective, not just one part. When you watch the UHD and then pop in the bluray the difference is so apparent, I literally could throw the old disc in the trash and not feel bad about it. I wouldn't, but still if it happened I wouldn't cry.

On the original bluray it looks boosted and you see no grain in a sky blue scene. There were parts of the original bluray that took on an almost purple look. What this essentially does is make the reds different from what they should be.

Hey but if you like that go for it. Though the loss in detail is a huge price for me. I have never had a big problem with the original bluray. It was a decent release even if a little data starved.

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by zen007

Theoretical concepts don't always translate into meaningful results in the real world - for e.g., a good SDR implementation can be better than a bad or avg HDR implementation and vice versa.




If the tech is not utilized properly, it would appear as a gimmick for those applications. Where it shines, it would be seen as a value add.

Talking about colors - there is also a case of capturing the director's intent. For e.g. say a photographer/cinematographer has captured a shot in the golden hour, however, the guys in post-processing match the image to how it would look most of the time in say daylight. Now the processed image may be more "truer" but does it still carry the same artistic value is another question.

Below are a couple of shots posted by one of the members on a thread here:

a) Blu-ray

[Show spoiler]

b) UHD

The first image is a lot warmer, while the second appears washed out even though it may reflect true colors. Was the artistic intent of appearing warmer lost, we do not know. Being more color-accurate does not necessarily equate to being correct in terms of capturing director's (or artistic) intent.

Btw, I asked a couple of folks, who do care for HDR or SDR on which one is better, and they picked image a (Blu-ray one) without knowing which one is which.





Good to know that you enjoyed the disc! .... However, enjoying the UHD does not mean that an optimal job was performed on it

Of course it does.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by slimjean

There are all kinds of places where the UHD whoops the butt of the bluray. Not just color but detail. You holding up something that you like does not make it so.

My reference was not just one facet. Though screenshots don't do this film justice. Watching it in motion with an A/B comparison is key.

When I judge, I go with a collective, not just one part. When you watch the UHD and then pop in the bluray the difference is so apparent, I literally could throw the old disc in the trash and not feel bad about it. I wouldn't, but still if it happened I wouldn't cry.

On the original bluray it looks boosted and you see no grain in a sky blue scene. There were parts of the original bluray that took on an almost purple look. What this essentially does is make the reds different from what they should be.

Hey but if you like that go for it. Though the loss in detail is a huge price for me. I have never had a big problem with the original bluray. It was a decent release even if a little data starved.

Note UHD needs to be better as it is done recently using the current tech. Resolution can be increased with or without HDR. However, the particular point was wrt colors and warmth. Also if a more optimal job could have been done with the UHD when HDR is marketed as something like below:



but people notice the opposite at times

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by zen007

Resolution can be increased with or without HDR.

Resolution can be upscaled, but that is not the same as true HDR which is hardware dependent. I will let you have last word on this because lets face it, you are trying to convince me or anyone else that HDR is some kind of gimmick which is just not true.

The same as trying to convince someone such as myself that Laurence of Arabia on 4K is somehow inferior to its lower data count (in every way imaginable) bluray.

I know what I have seen because I own the copies and I know what my Sony 4K television does.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by zen007

Theoretical concepts don't always translate into meaningful results in the real world - for e.g., a good SDR implementation can be better than a bad or avg HDR implementation and vice versa.




If the tech is not utilized properly, it would appear as a gimmick for those applications. Where it shines, it would be seen as a value add.

Talking about colors - there is also a case of capturing the director's intent. For e.g. say a photographer/cinematographer has captured a shot in the golden hour, however, the guys in post-processing match the image to how it would look most of the time in say daylight. Now the processed image may be more "truer" but does it still carry the same artistic value is another question.

Below are a couple of shots posted by one of the members on a thread here:

a) Blu-ray



b) UHD




The first image is a lot warmer, while the second appears washed out even though it may reflect true colors. Was the artistic intent of appearing warmer lost, we do not know. Being more color-accurate does not necessarily equate to being correct in terms of capturing director's (or artistic) intent.

Btw, I asked a couple of folks, who do care for HDR or SDR on which one is better, and they picked image a (Blu-ray one) without knowing which one is which.





Good to know that you enjoyed the disc! .... However, enjoying the UHD does not mean that an optimal job was performed on it

The UHD image looks the way it does because it's converted to SDR.

As releases of other films have shown, converting HDR to SDR can cause major problems with colour, brightness and contrast etc.

The UHD will look a lot better on a properly calibrated HDR compatible TV.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Resolution can be upscaled, but that is not the same as true HDR which is hardware dependent. I will let you have last word on this because lets face it, you are trying to convince me or anyone else that HDR is some kind of gimmick which is just not true.

The same as trying to convince someone such as myself that Laurence of Arabia on 4K is somehow inferior to its lower data count (in every way imaginable) bluray.

I know what I have seen because I own the copies and I know what my Sony 4K television does.

I do not think HDR is a gimmick but improper application can make it appear as one. As for the UHD, it could be the preferred version for many but the discussion was whether it is done optimally.

From a layman's perspective, the summary of the discussion:

a) Detail: 4K SDR version as many have noted (though can be a tie with UHD)
b) Color: SDR (both Blu-ray and 4K SDR version)
c) Dynamic range: UHD
d) Compression: UHD but it could have utilized the 2 discs better


Many expected the UHD to be 4/4

[UnbelievableMontages]

Received the replacement special features disc from Sony today. The replacement disc number is 5086740.

[punisher]

just received my 4K set so I hope to watch some later. What's the deal with the bonus disc..is there a problem I should look for?

[UnbelievableMontages]

Originally Posted by punisher

just received my 4K set so I hope to watch some later. What's the deal with the bonus disc..is there a problem I should look for?

They didn't have time to replace the discs, so the special features disc is missing special features. You have to contact support through email or by phone to get a replacement disc in the mail.

[punisher]

thanks....

[lgans316]

HDR is great when done right. Its a power sucker too lol.

There are many movies where the 1080p version looks as good the 4K minus HDR.

[UnbelievableMontages]

Originally Posted by lgans316

https://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/3977

Ouch. That's not looking good at all.

Maybe Sony screwed up like the special features disc and there are probably 4K discs out there that look different than the 4K discs that came with the set?