Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[UnbelievableMontages]

Originally Posted by punisher

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.

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

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by UnbelievableMontages

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

Even though I'll go to my grave opining that "the stream of Lawrence has better detail although it's not the optimal way to watch the movie at all and I wish some people would be able to split one argument from the other", I don't for a second believe that the the digital 4K of T2 is anything but the same shit sandwich served up on a bed of streaming ones and zeroes. In all the years I've been at this hobby I've heard it one too many times from random sources that "x version is betterer!" only to get it and find out it's the same thing, or worse. Then again, I was very sceptical that the 2015 BD re-issue was anything but a port of the SKynet BD and look how that turned out

Was it a facebook group or some other font of knowledge that ye got this T2 info from?

[UnbelievableMontages]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even though I'll go to my grave opining that "the stream of Lawrence has better detail although it's not the optimal way to watch the movie at all and I wish some people would be able to split one argument from the other", I don't for a second believe that the the digital 4K of T2 is anything but the same shit sandwich served up on a bed of streaming ones and zeroes. In all the years I've been at this hobby I've heard it one too many times from random sources that "x version is betterer!" only to get it and find out it's the same thing, or worse. Then again, I was very sceptical that the 2015 BD re-issue was anything but a port of the SKynet BD and look how that turned out

Was it a facebook group or some other font of knowledge that ye got this T2 info from?

I just remember someone saying the digital version looks better cause you can see less. I remember giving it a try and I thought it looked atrocious, so it's very possible it just looks as bad or almost as bad as the 4K. I've never own the 4K disc and I don't plan on doing so ever unless they give re-release that takes away all the digital alterations.

[rachaeldeckard]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

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.

This needs to be stickied at the top of every blu-ray forum. There are too many people making judgements on 4K HDR by looking at screenshots. The only thing you can compare in screenshots is level of detail.

[DragonMovieCollector]

I tried emailing Sony about the replacement disk but for some reason the email provided in the announcement wasn’t working for me? What email did you guys use? Thanks.

[UnbelievableMontages]

Originally Posted by DragonMovieCollector

I tried emailing Sony about the replacement disk but for some reason the email provided in the announcement wasn’t working for me? What email did you guys use? Thanks.

consumer@sphecustomersupport.sony.com

[UnbelievableMontages]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even though I'll go to my grave opining that "the stream of Lawrence has better detail although it's not the optimal way to watch the movie at all and I wish some people would be able to split one argument from the other", I don't for a second believe that the the digital 4K of T2 is anything but the same shit sandwich served up on a bed of streaming ones and zeroes. In all the years I've been at this hobby I've heard it one too many times from random sources that "x version is betterer!" only to get it and find out it's the same thing, or worse. Then again, I was very sceptical that the 2015 BD re-issue was anything but a port of the SKynet BD and look how that turned out

Was it a facebook group or some other font of knowledge that ye got this T2 info from?

For Lawrence of Arabia btw, are you talking about the previous digital stream without HDR/Dolby Vision update or is it this new HDR/Dolby Vision one on the digital stream?

[Geoff D]

The previous one.

[UnbelievableMontages]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The previous one.

So looks like you can't even access that version anymore.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

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.

I agree that the images are not necessarily a 100% representation. However, will not dismiss them as a rough guide to serve the purpose of a casual discussion.

[zen007]

Originally Posted by UnbelievableMontages

So looks like you can't even access that version anymore.

I guess you still can on platforms such as Amazon - Link .... Amazon has listed the title as UHD without mentioning HDR or something to that order in addition to 4K UHD, so it is probably the 4K SDR version

[UnbelievableMontages]

Originally Posted by zen007

I guess you still can on platforms such as Amazon - Link .... Amazon has listed the title as UHD without mentioning HDR or something to that order in addition to 4K UHD, so it is probably the 4K SDR version

Has anyone checked this yet?

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by zen007

I agree that the images are not necessarily a 100% representation. However, will not dismiss them as a rough guide to serve the purpose of a casual discussion.

But you're judging the HDR in SDR. This is like having someone sleep on a bed, then having them sleep on a dining table, and then when they say the bed was better declaring that beds are the ideal surface for serving and consuming meals.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even though I'll go to my grave opining that "the stream of Lawrence has better detail although it's not the optimal way to watch the movie at all and I wish some people would be able to split one argument from the other"

There is nothing to split it is an oxymoron. It has more detail, yeah and in the troubled areas it also has less. The UHD is more consistent and is the preferred way to watch if you care about this kind of thing as far as I see it.

Woulda shoulda until the day arrives that the supposed better source comes about, it is all theory at this point.

I personally see zero evidence other than digital manipulation poses as eye candy. That is my opinion and I have never claimed it as a fact just like me not preferring to split a viewpoint that I feel is one and the same.

When I see a lie like digital manipulation in a big way I cannot comb through glimmers and pretend it is diamonds.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by slimjean

There is nothing to split it is an oxymoron. It has more detail, yeah and in the troubled areas it also has less. The UHD is more consistent and is the preferred way to watch if you care about this kind of thing as far as I see it.

Woulda shoulda until the day arrives that the supposed better source comes about, it is all theory at this point.

I personally see zero evidence other than digital manipulation poses as eye candy. That is my opinion and I have never claimed it as a fact just like me not preferring to split a viewpoint that I feel is one and the same.

When I see a lie like digital manipulation in a big way I cannot comb through glimmers and pretend it is diamonds.

I guess your viewpoint won't be perceived as being the same as long as you keep using terms like "zero evidence", "supposed", "digital manipulation", "theory" and "lie" in regard to detail that's obviously there/clearly missing. And I for one see "digital manipulation" on the UHD (both on caps and in motion) and poor compression (on caps) on the stream. It's actually quite simple and there's nothing woulda/shoulda/supposed about it except for the fact that the UHD shoulda looked better.

[jrcorwin3]

Originally Posted by Rusty100

I think I actually like Jim, especially compared to these guys. He doesn't post garbage like this

So...did you get your refund yet? #Justice4Rusty

[ThulsaMike88]

Maybe I'm just ignorant about what I should be looking for when it comes to compression or encoding issues, and what flaws may manifest from any issues, and I wish I knew more about the technical side of things, but alas...my eyes aren't trained for such things, like some of the folks here that know what to look for and are really knowledgeable. I'd have to agree with most of the early impressions/reviews: it looks really good to me.

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by rachaeldeckard

This needs to be stickied at the top of every blu-ray forum. There are too many people making judgements on 4K HDR by looking at screenshots. The only thing you can compare in screenshots is level of detail.

And sharpening artifacts and aliasing.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

I guess your viewpoint won't be perceived as being the same as long as you keep using terms like "zero evidence", "supposed", "digital manipulation", "theory" and "lie" in regard to detail that's obviously there/clearly missing. And I for one see "digital manipulation" on the UHD (both on caps and in motion) and poor compression (on caps) on the stream. It's actually quite simple and there's nothing woulda/shoulda/supposed about it except for the fact that the UHD shoulda looked better.

I think how I stated about how I feel is pretty concise and didn't need bolded highlights. As for you stating your opinion as a fact that has me scratching my head (though I still respect it).

The UHD is what it is. It doesn't have to be anymore for those of us that enjoy it.

Can something be better absolutely also it can be worse. Example look at the streaming version. Would you agree that the streaming version should have looked better given that it supposedly came from a different source or was encoded so much better? What is the excuse there? Perhaps the stream got its own license that makes it what it is. Are we to punish Sony for not obtaining it?

I see lots of people picking up pitch forks and going after companies because one place has a few bit rates higher than another.

I think we are in a time where pushing physical product out of existance is so important that one would literally point to a flawed stream as a reason not to buy the UHD.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

And I for one see "digital manipulation" on the UHD (both on caps and in motion) and poor compression (on caps) on the stream. It's actually quite simple and there's nothing woulda/shoulda/supposed about it except for the fact that the UHD shoulda looked better.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you actually own this set?

I ask because at no point in this thread do you actually speak to the experience of purchasing and screening the release at home, only screenshots of the UHD, which are highly problematic when used for comparative purposes as I've noted in prior posts.

The same is true of the streaming screenshots, as all services employ an adaptive bitrate streaming technology to adjust the video and audio quality to match a customer's broadband connection speed and realtime network conditions by market.

If posters are drawing definitive conclusions with absolute certainty, I'm sure you would agree that it's important that we're being honest and respectful of the community's time and simply be clear about the basis for their conclusions.

For example, my impression of the LoA UHD is based on the disc with the setup listed within my sig, and my impression of the digital is via Apple Movies/AppleTV with a hardwired GigE connection.

Simple. Not screenshots.