Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[TravisTylerBlack]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yes.

Thoughts? I've been considering doing this for my re-watch vs straight Dolby Vision.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

Thoughts? I've been considering doing this for my re-watch vs straight Dolby Vision.

I'll go into it later.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'll go into it later.

I can't believe Geoff might be the man to inject some positivity in this thread.

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I can't believe Geoff might be the man to inject some positivity in this thread.

I'll pour myself a short one in anticipation!

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Pagey123

I'll pour myself a short one in anticipation!

[punisher]

Originally Posted by TravisTylerBlack

Thoughts? I've been considering doing this for my re-watch vs straight Dolby Vision.

I will try to do the same later on..I ripped the discs..no DV, so my hard drive and set can be played at the same time to go back and forth through the same HDMI input with the same settings.

[Geoff D]

So, after briefly experimenting with the 'reality creation' sharpening on my TV to give Lawrence a bit more of a characteristic large format zinginess - which didn't work because all it did was make the already mediocre compression of the grain look worse - I thought I'd try a different approach.

The HDR on Lawrence is one of my favourite things about the UHD, it could even be described as 'restrained' compared to some of the ridiculous levels of luminance that Sony push through their catalogue remasters, though it still goes very bright in places which is what really exposes the grain in those brighter areas. So I'm not after changing it because I don't like it, but I thought about using the HDR Optimiser on the Panasonic 820 player to tame those bright spots which would effectively 'roll off' the grain in those areas, and so when sharpening is subsequently applied it won't make the grain scream like it did before.

Player was set to 'Basic luminance' (500 nits) and Dolby Vision was set to off (which in this case is just a dynamic metadata layer on this UHD anyway, no enhanced picture information is present and the HDR10 is literally identical on my TV). With the Optimiser activated it did exactly what I thought it'd do, the grain in all those skies and similarly bright areas of the frame was tamped down significantly. Instead of using the TV's 'reality creation' I used the Panasonic player's own sharpening controls, taking my cue from what I do to give the blatantly filtered Oblivion UHD a kick up the arse: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...4#post16643184. But instead of maxing out both the luma sharpness modes for Lawrence I set the luma high to +6 and put luma mid to +4, again making sure to activate the Edge Correction to +1 to remove the gnarly ringing.

And....wow. The grain looks terrific, very sharp but not edgy and false looking, it doesn't set off the compression but instead seems to pick out the grain inbetween the grain, if that makes sense. Fine detail is improved, it's not resolving anything that isn't there already but it's making it stand out more and all without any signs of haloing, ringing or other sharpening artefacts. I'm offering this up without prejudice to the wider discussion/argument of the streaming version, but if people want to bend this post to fit whatever narrative then go right ahead.

I took a snap of O'Toole's face, PLEASE don't pay attention to the rather rosy looking colour or the posterisation on his face as that's the camera overdoing it, this is also zoomed in onto a TV screen so don't embiggen them too much or you'll see the panel structure of the TV. But look at the grain between the two images, it's much finer on the sharpened version. His facial features stand out more, especially his eyelashes on the right there, and the fine gold thread on his headdress seems to be so much more detailed. It's not, not really, as that information is there, it's just being brought up by the sharpened version. It may look rather 'gritty' but again, this is a zoomed in shot of the 2.20 widescreen frame so when viewed from the right distance it doesn't look as rough.

UHD untouched

[Show spoiler]

UHD sharpened

[Show spoiler]

[Scottishguy]

Exactly the results I expected Geoff. Cheers. I'd like to see this method tested on LG OLED. This might be the first DV I put into HDR 10 deliberately for viewing! Still up sampling of course in 4:4:4

[Noremac Mij]

Not trying to be disrespectful to Geoff, just stating my opinion. Everyone is of course absolutely free to view their movies in a way which makes it enjoyable to them. But that sharpened picture looks bad and not just a little, but very bad. Practically unwatchable. And unnatural. Even the shot with Reality Creation (and Panny) off looks sharpened. I have a feeling Sony uses that software during the mastering. It’s baked into all of their Blu-rays and UHDs. And looking at their TVs, it’s most likely running in the background to some extent which cannot be fully defeated. Some people don’t like compression issues, or NR, etc. For me it’s sharpening. That gritty look is why I no longer own Sony TVs and don’t enjoy watching Columbia movies.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Not trying to be disrespectful to Geoff, just stating my opinion. Everyone is of course absolutely free to view their movies in a way which makes it enjoyable to them. But that sharpened picture looks bad and not just a little, but very bad. Practically unwatchable. And unnatural. Even the shot with Reality Creation off looks sharpened. I have a feeling Sony uses that software during the mastering. It’s baked into all of their Blu-rays and UHDs. And looking at their TVs, it’s most likely running in the background to some extent which cannot be fully defeated. Some people don’t like compression issues, or NR, etc. For me it’s sharpening. That gritty look is why I no longer own Sony TVs and don’t enjoy watching Columbia movies.

I knew you'd love it

[Scottishguy]

I forgot Normac has a time machine. He can go back and view any release print for comparison.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I forgot Normac has a time machine. He can go back and view any release print for comparison.

I mean, I literally said that it's rougher than it looks because it's the camera zooming in on a TV and we're not looking at the image with the appropriate viewing distance, but he's not one to let the small print get in the way of his beliefs. Though what is it that they say about nutters, that "you're not paranoid if they're really after you"? There might be something in his sharpening rants re: Sony's UHDs after all, it's like they forgot to sharpen Lawrence or something.

[lgans316]

This is another proof this so-called FilmMaker mode is not fit for purpose on TVs

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by lgans316

This is another proof this so-called FilmMaker mode is not fit for purpose on TVs

How do you figure that?

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

How do you figure that?

Looking at your post which has quite a bit of tweaking to get LoA look better than intended.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I mean, I literally said that it's rougher than it looks because it's the camera zooming in on a TV and we're not looking at the image with the appropriate viewing distance, but he's not one to let the small print get in the way of his beliefs. Though what is it that they say about nutters, that "you're not paranoid if they're really after you"? There might be something in his sharpening rants re: Sony's UHDs after all, it's like they forgot to sharpen Lawrence or something.

Nah, Sony didn’t forget. LOA is sharpened and gritty looking without the additional Creative Engine or Panny. It’s just not to the extent of TFE. I get that it’s zoomed in, but that additional processing looks very bad. But it’s perfectly fine if you choose to watch it like that. From all of the major players in the market, Sony makes my least favorite transfers these days. Just my personal opinion. That Creative Engine is burned into all of their products, from movie masters, to software, and hardware like TVs and UHD players. Even picture cameras, etc. And there’s a foundation of it which is permanent and undefeatable. I cannot unsee it and it bothers me enough that I stay away from most of their products.

[slimjean]

If you prefer a digitally sharpened look then you are going to see magic where it didn't really exist.

There are all kinds of UHD's that people have complained about being softer and somehow equating that to not as accurate.

The second picture looks very harsh and proof is when you zoom in. I dislike the harsh screen door look. At this point it is hard to trust anything because all kinds of people do the aha! I caught you thing (not that I am saying Geoff would do that) and switch sources.

Regardless I don't see this as "fine detail". It is very much like Halloween III sharpening effect. Pleasing to some, obvious false information to others.

In the case of the stream it wasn't just poor compression it was literally computer error that created information where non existed. The compression error in my screen shot if the stream took out detail in black areas. The digital sharpening brought weird artifacts because not only did it over do it from the beginning it also brought forth junk trying to squeeze blood from the turnip that is the original restoration.

There is nothing "better" about either Geoffs IMHO look or the stream but thats ok just fiddle about. I appreciate the work put into it.

[Noremac Mij]

I personally almost always prefer a softer, more natural look. But not with heavy NR, or anything like that. Average projected (not actual) 35mm film has an equivalent resolution to only about 0.4K. We’re seeing way more detail at home these days and in a way, it’s taking away from the beauty of film. Any sharpening on top of that and things really become gritty and not what natural film looks like. Obviously 70mm projected prints of LOA would have more detail than 35mm, but there would be virtually no grain visible at the theater. It certainly wouldn’t look like Sony’s UHD, even before Geoff’s sharpening.

[jjlikesonions]

Is there a chance that they mastered it in a way that assumed that many average consumers keep their TVs calibrated with at least a moderate amount of sharpness added? Admittedly, I used to have my sharpness turned up a quite a bit when watching modern digitally captured movies. It's only when I started buying movies that were shot on film did I realize that the additional sharpness caused the film grain to appear in an undesirable way. Just a thought.

[David M]

Originally Posted by jjlikesonions

Is there a chance that they mastered it in a way that assumed that many average consumers keep their TVs calibrated with at least a moderate amount of sharpness added? Admittedly, I used to have my sharpness turned up a quite a bit when watching modern digitally captured movies. It's only when I started buying movies that were shot on film did I realize that the addition sharpness caused the film grain to appear in an undesirable way. Just a thought.

Very unlikely. It's more likely they just lowpassed it to reduce compression artefacts. Ingest to streaming platforms works in a much more automated way so doesn't get that kind of manual intervention.