Black Panther 4K UHD (2018)

[VonMagnum]

Sorry about the length of this response, but for those that want to understand a bit more about dynamic range, sound levels and how power and speaker sensitivity affect it all, read on.

Originally Posted by r9800pro

It started with Thor: The Dark World with the low volume but Avengers Age Of Ultron was so bad on many levels other than the low volume.

Since then, ALL Disney movies, Marvel or not, have had bad audio mixes.

I watched Black Panther 3D in a good cinema (Non-IMAX) and the audio was the exact same. Lacking in volume and in dynamic range.

These are examples of my findings:



I know it is not a scientific comparison per se, but both are taken from the loudest part of a song that should engage vocals, choir, LFE and surround channels. The Greatest Showman example is from the opening scene and Coco scene is "Remember Me" song in the first 6 minutes or so.



This is another comparison. Thor's part is the opening fight scene and Kingsmen's is from the opening chase scene.

Disney is pure audio crap compared to normal sounding releases.

I'm surprised Ragnarok has the output levels it does compared to Kingsman in the primary Left and Right channels. Beyond that, a simple level comparison taken from one spot in the movie doesn't say much. Surround channels don't have to be used for music, for example. They often just echo the front at a lesser volume. At higher volumes, it's like 7-channel stereo mode to some extent.

I'd have to watch Ragnarock again to really hear what's going on, but from what I remember, turning up the volume made the bass and dialogue somewhat OK, but it seemed to lack content in the surround channels or they were at lower volumes and thus less noticeable. It lacked the "WOW" factor compared to earlier Marvel releases (pre-Ultron).

The fact Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Men Tell No Tales didn't strike me as having bad audio (I'd have to watch it again to be sure) suggests that it may actually be the result of a particular sound mastering engineer. Maybe the guy has different tastes or he's going deaf or something. If you have ever talked to some of these guys (there's at least one over at AVS that does film soundtracks and I've talked to multiple mastering engineers over the years that work on music albums for various studios) you'll find they often have a few traits in common.

One is that they tend to be VERY arrogant about their work and if you don't like their soundtrack, YOU'RE the problem, not them (in other words, good luck convincing them they didn't do it "right" because it sounds crappy to you).

Two, IF you can get them to acknowledge there's some issues (I was able to get a few music sound engineers to admit this in the past), they'll often tell you point blank that they don't always get to make the decisions and someone above them listens to it and tells them to make it louder or more bass or whatever and they have to do it or risk losing their jobs. Someone like Alan Parsons or even David Gilmour know what really good sound is and they mix for it and because they're given huge latitudes with their record companies compared to most artists, they can put out a truly stunning high quality album. Sadly, this is NOT the case with most recording artists starting out or under their first contract. Some big whig makes the decisions for them and too bad if they don't like it.

I remember reading an interview with Tori Amos about her second album Under The Pink and how they HATED her use of a whistling of the opening harmony with the piano. They wanted another instrument. She said she had to argue until she was blue in the face to keep the whistle in there. Her husband is a sound engineer. The studio doesn't care about expertise with certain managers. They have the power and they push their weight around. Who cares what the artist wants? They don't manage multiple platinum selling artists! What do they know about what people want to hear! Yeah, that's why most music albums don't sound anywhere near as good as Dire Straits, Pink Floyd and others. As long as it's LOUD on the radio, that's all that matters.

Again, loud AVERAGE levels are not indicative of high dynamic range. It's just the opposite. Most people HATE high dynamic range! They can't comprehend why it's so damn quiet for most of the track and then suddenly gets loud in only a couple of places. That's because your'e supposed to turn it up until the average level is comfortable and the really loud bits are supposed to be VERY loud indeed. Classical music might have quiet sections you can barely hear with cannon blasts in the 1812 overture that make your want to cover your ears. Turn it up so the quiet parts are clearly audible and then cannon blasts are going to be THAT MUCH LOUDER still! THAT is dynamic range. Having average LOUD volume throughout a movie or song is LOW dynamic range.

Every time I read in this thread that someone had to turn up the movie 10dB to sound as loud as some other movie and then says it has LOW dynamic range, I have to cringe a bit because a given movie might only have a few brief really loud bits, but to keep that dynamic range, that movie MUST be lower overall in volume to accommodate the maximum volume of the loudest parts.

Digital is a negative volume based system. 0dB is the loudest possible signal on a digital receiver/pre-amp and how loud that is in the room depends on the speaker sensitivity and travel limits of the drivers plus the amount of amplification used. For those that do not know, every doubling of power is about a 3dB increase of sound output, so a 200 watt amplifier is only about 3dB louder than a 100 watt amplifier at maximum output. To get something to sound twice as loud, you need about 10dB or about 10x the amount of power. Thus, a 1000 watt amplifier sounds twice as loud on a given speaker as a 100 watt amplifier (assuming the drivers can handle that much power). So going from a 100 watt receiver output to an external amplifier that has 150 watts per channel is going to make hardly any audible difference AT ALL. A 1.5 dB increase in sound is pretty hard to hear.

Hence, why I said external amplifiers are typically only needed if you need considerably more power than today's receivers can offer. For example, my music 2-channel system has Carver ribbon speakers that are rated at 87dB per 1 watt @ 1 meter sensitivity. That's pretty insensitive and worse yet, they have a highly reactive load with their passive crossovers they came with at the factory. Short of using a Sunfire or Carver Lightstar type amplifier that pretty much ignore reactive loads, a "normal" amplifier will have trouble driving them to the amp's rated output. My custom active crossover corrects the reactive curve and makes it almost entirely resistive. This makes them much easier to drive and along with limiting frequency response with two amps, it represents about the equivalent of a 3dB increase in sensitivity. Combined with over 3x the power of a typical receiver, this increases the output level from a maximum of perhaps 104-107dB (depending on the amp and reactive curve) from a 100 watt receiver to approximately 115dB maximum CONTINUOUS output. That's nearly twice as loud as a typical receiver could drive them and well past Dolby's maximum requirements for PEAK loudness (peak would be around 3dB higher yet or 117 on the Carvers), but it's partly due to the active crossover as well. At 650 watts per driver with the active network, they would peak at 120dB (instant hearing damage) with the volume set to 0dB with a maximum signal on a CD or Blu-Ray.

Volume levels on receivers are typically shown these days in NEGATIVE decibels. -30dB is about 30x less physical output (air movement) and sounds to the logarithmic functions of the ear/brain about 1/8 the "loudness" of 0dB. Every 10dB represents a "doubling" of loudness to the ear. So 20db on a sound meter "sounds" twice as loud as 10dB. 30dB sounds twice as loud as 20dB or 4x as loud as 10dB and 40dB sounds twice as loud as 20dB or 8x louder than 10dB and so on. But doubling power only gets you about 3dB more output so you need close to 10x the power to get a mere doubling of perceived volume levels to your ear/brain since human hearing is logarithmic in nature as opposed to linear whereas power and air movement is linear. So 10x the power is 10x the air movement but only sounds twice as loud to your ear.

The BOTTOM of the output is limited by the number of bits used in the playback system and the relative noise floor of the entire system and ambient noise in a given room. Thus, a movie where you have to turn up the volume 10dB compared to another movie doesn't automatically mean it's an "inferior" mix. In fact, it may be the opposite. It depends on where the peak levels are at. If they are below 0dB, then you're just lowering the signal into the noise floor with no dynamic range gains. If the maximum output is near 0dB, you've actually got increased dynamic range, not less. Basically, this means that having to turn the volume up to get it to sound on average as loud as another movie isn't a "bad" indicator all by itself.

An example of MORE dynamic range that sounds quieter on average is Pink Floyd's album The Wall. I can guarantee you it's a LOT quieter during most of the album than say The Red Hot Chili Peppers Californication album where it's compressed so much and has so little dynamic range that the album is literally in distortion in some frequency ranges throughout the album. At say -10dB volume on the receiver it will sound WAY louder than The Wall. The peak levels of The Wall may not, in fact, even come all the way up near 0dB. The album STILL has oodles and oodles of more dynamic range than The Chili Pepper album. In fact, ignoring the distorted parts, there's probably 20dB AT MOST of dynamic range on that album. The Wall is probably closer to 50-60dB of dynamic range (near the limits of analogue turntables that it was meant to be played on at the time), possibly even 75dB off the master tapes (I'd have to do some measuring to find out for sure). Because of the overdriven digital distortion (i.e. CLIPPING), few are going to think the Californication album sounds "better quality" but I guarantee other albums that don't distort would get the "better" moniker despite low dynamic range. People don't associate MORE dynamic range with "better" sound for the most part. They want LOUDER average levels, not quieter ones. But dynamic range is the difference between the quietest sound on the album and the loudest one, not the average output.

I believe there's more going on in these newer Disney releases than a simple dynamic range difference. Turning up the volume doesn't bother me. It's when it's turned up and there's still something strange going on that you know it's not right. The fact you think it's actually "bad" at the theater too in some cases may mean it's more than just the home editing that's the problem. It means someone actually PREFERS that sound, even for the theater. There's no accounting for bad taste. It would be interesting to see who the sound mastering engineer is for the various films and see if it's the same person or few people (that may agree with each other) rather than some conspiracy from the higher ups in the Disney Corporation. I doubt the CEO sits in the movie theater thinking, I DON'T LIKE THIS! I"m going to tell them to turn down the surrounds and sound effects and lower the bass levels!

Really, if you think about it, if they were mixing for the "lowest common denominator", they'd probably want to INCREASE bass levels, not lower them since most TVs have really shoddy bass in them. Of course, the travel range of the woofers on flat TVs is so bad it would probably just cause the frame to vibrate like mad or the driver to blow at some point and THAT might be the reason they might consider altering the levels on the home mix. However, they certainly would not use that particular reason to limit a theatrical mix where most theaters these days have fairly decent sound systems (certainly miles better than a flat panel TV speaker or cheap sound bar).

[yanksno1]

Just watched this disc, and wow. Totally see what you guys were saying about the DV on this. A total hatchet job. You can specifically see it in the first part of the movie with the challenge scene with it keep panning back onto him. Granted I only own a few DV discs, but this is the first time I ever went to force it back to HDR10. After that, it looked as you'd expect. Went back and watched the challenge scene and sure enough that looked good too. I don't have the audio system you guys do (just regular 5.1) and I did have to turn it up a few more notches then normal. Def disappointed in this disc, didn't think it'd be this bad.

[jayman3]

Originally Posted by InuYashaCrusade

Did you actually think they would care? Most of the market doesn't either, hate to break it to you.

This.

Disney don't give a shit. As long as they're rolling in dough, the audio mixes will continue to be low.

[IXOYE1989]

Originally Posted by r9800pro

It started with Thor: The Dark World with the low volume but Avengers Age Of Ultron was so bad on many levels other than the low volume.

Since then, ALL Disney movies, Marvel or not, have had bad audio mixes.

I watched Black Panther 3D in a good cinema (Non-IMAX) and the audio was the exact same. Lacking in volume and in dynamic range.

These are examples of my findings:

[Show spoiler]

I know it is not a scientific comparison per se, but both are taken from the loudest part of a song that should engage vocals, choir, LFE and surround channels. The Greatest Showman example is from the opening scene and Coco scene is "Remember Me" song in the first 6 minutes or so.

[Show spoiler]

This is another comparison. Thor's part is the opening fight scene and Kingsmen's is from the opening chase scene.

Disney is pure audio crap compared to normal sounding releases.

Have you contacted Disney showing your results? This should be used to start a petition on change.org or something. What software do you use btw to gather such data? This is pretty cool!

[HiDefBer]

So with all this talk about audio issues on the Black Panther 4K, I was wondering what was going on with the Dolby Vision encode. During the first King Challenge, shots of the Wakandans against the cliff look just fine — but cuts to T'Challa suddenly darken to the point where it no longer looks like the sunlit sequence it's meant to. And yes, subsequent shots of the cliff side return to their previous levels, making the shift all the more noticeable. I've never encountered this with a Dolby Vision disc before.

What am I not understanding?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Elbie

The CGI is a lot more noticeable now.

I ain't trippin', but Marvel need to do better.

It's available on DVD. Separate, the Blu-ray is lonely, Disney gave up.
This is a great flick for kids, not too scary. ...No blood, no rap, no bass trap.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by HiDefBer

So with all this talk about audio issues on the Black Panther 4K, I was wondering what was going on with the Dolby Vision encode. During the first King Challenge, shots of the Wakandans against the cliff look just fine — but cuts to T'Challa suddenly darken to the point where it no longer looks like the sunlit sequence it's meant to. And yes, subsequent shots of the cliff side return to their previous levels, making the shift all the more noticeable. I've never encountered this with a Dolby Vision disc before.

What am I not understanding?

It's not just audio issues on this one disc. It's current Disney audio mastering practices almost across the board. They're neutering their soundtracks.

[RockyIII]

What did you guys think of the African accents as performed by American actors?

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by IXOYE1989

Have you contacted Disney showing your results? This should be used to start a petition on change.org or something. What software do you use btw to gather such data? This is pretty cool!

It's just some average levels during some music portion of each film. You can't really compare different movies by one snapshot of channel levels and draw conclusions, especially during music. Surrounds may or may not have content in a given scene, for example. Now a larger sampling might prove something, but you'd have to compensate for average level differences. If just turning up the volume shows similar corresponding levels, it's meaningless.

I'm still of the opinion someone at Disney LIKES these mixes. It's not an accident and it might have nothing to do with mixing for cheap speakers, especially if some are showing up at the theater like this. There's just no accounting for taste sometimes. Some people actually LIKE Michael Bay movies, for example.

I'm going to look up the sound guys for the worst of these films and see if any are in common.

[r9800pro]

Originally Posted by IXOYE1989

Have you contacted Disney showing your results? This should be used to start a petition on change.org or something. What software do you use btw to gather such data? This is pretty cool!

I wanted to contact them for long but didn't have the time and I was collecting data. I had to go through all my Disney BDs and check. Will email them when I have the time.

The software is LAV Audio decoder with Media Player Classic HC and it is in Properties, Status tab. It is pretty accurate in measuring channels levels but it is not a pro tool by any means.

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

It's just some average levels during some music portion of each film. You can't really compare different movies by one snapshot of channel levels and draw conclusions, especially during music. Surrounds may or may not have content in a given scene, for example. Now a larger sampling might prove something, but you'd have to compensate for average level differences. If just turning up the volume shows similar corresponding levels, it's meaningless.

I'm still of the opinion someone at Disney LIKES these mixes. It's not an accident and it might have nothing to do with mixing for cheap speakers, especially if some are showing up at the theater like this. There's just no accounting for taste sometimes. Some people actually LIKE Michael Bay movies, for example.

I'm going to look up the sound guys for the worst of these films and see if any are in common.

Your points are valid and I agree. But it always shows the exact same trend from parts of big action scenes. No music involved.

[gabeperkins]

I'm going to need this eventually to complete the collection. Are they going to reprint with better audio or do you just think I should buy it now?

[nugget2016]

does this look better than thor ragnarok? i thought that looked pretty good, but i have heard great things about this film for it's PQ.

[TheSweetieMan]

In a nutshell, yes.

One of the best things about 'Black Panther', is that it never features that 'dead' look that's usually associated with most MCU films.

Rachel Morrison's cinematography is one of the highlights of this UHD transfer.

[joenostalgia23]

The photography was definitely better than the last few Marvel films which I remember as looking sort of bland with splashes of bright color here and there. The production design of Black Panther helps make it more visually interesting and I think Rachel Morrison did the best job she could. It's still a movie with a lot of scenes shot on green screen, and that limits how good it can look because the backgrounds look sort of generic, in a pretty way, but still generic. And the CGI is really bad in some scenes, but if you didn't have issues with Thor 3 or Spider-Man: Homecoming, I don't think this film looked any worse than those in regards to special effects.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by gabeperkins

I'm going to need this eventually to complete the collection. Are they going to reprint with better audio or do you just think I should buy it now?

Disney will never admit that they made a mistake neutering their audio tracks for disc and streaming. I doubt these newer releases will sound good on home video ever again.

[Elbie]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

In a nutshell, yes.

One of the best things about 'Black Panther', is that it never features that 'dead' look that's usually associated with most MCU films.

Rachel Morrison's cinematography is one of the highlights of this UHD transfer.

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

The photography was definitely better than the last few Marvel films which I remember as looking sort of bland with splashes of bright color here and there. The production design of Black Panther helps make it more visually interesting and I think Rachel Morrison did the best job she could. It's still a movie with a lot of scenes shot on green screen, and that limits how good it can look because the backgrounds look sort of generic, in a pretty way, but still generic. And the CGI is really bad in some scenes, but if you didn't have issues with Thor 3 or Spider-Man: Homecoming, I don't think this film looked any worse than those in regards to special effects.

The cinematography is average to me and outside of the CGI is one of the low points. The production design is what makes it look better than what it is. Compare Black Panther in his movie to Civil War and Infinity War and you will see the difference. She's been getting too much praise for certain reasons I won't discuss.

[LordoftheRings]

Disney should have two audio mixes on their 4K discs; one subdued, reserved, no dynamics, no jolts, no stridency, no irritation, no noise, no sudden impact, no bass below 30Hz, no scary kids stuff...that's the version for the masses of kids and families who buy movie tickets and Marvel 4K Blu-rays and regular Blu-rays...the one they use now with Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Cars 3, Coco, ...their latest releases since Ultron. ...For the billions of people who made them billions of dollars.

The other audio mix they could add is like they used to.
They can rename it, "Audiophile" mix, for the hardcore people who love one Hertz impact, super ultra high dynamics, jolts of thunder, scary rain of arrows and knives, dynamite sticks, nuclear reactor explosions, extreme high decibel velocity, and sheer ecstasy of the movie experience @ home on the highest ultimate level. ...For the few thousands of people who aren't afraid to live in the shadows of volcanic eruptions and nuclear disasters.

Of course it's only my opinion. Remember when they used to have the home theater mix?
Disney I think is adapting with the culture, the society, the investors, the share prices, the movie tickets from kids and families @ both the public theaters and @ home.

And financially and advertisement wise they are adapting. 3D is dodo, DVD is just about dodo, 4K is in...fake and real, Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos, ...with the future in the hands of the profitable trends for the home entertainment industry and in movie theaters.

Black Panther 4K and Blu looks quite polished in many scenes, with an assortment of colored costumes that pop up almost like 3D. The overall feel is classy looking and classy acting between good and bad. It's great entertainment and the money and the critics agree. I enjoyed it. But it is true that Disney newer audio mixes are not like they used to be. And in this one too; some scenes lack the bass impacts and the dynamics, there is no question about it. I like the music score but it too could have been more impactful and emotionally higher revealing.
Yes we all add up 10 decibels or 15dB in comparison to older Disney flicks, no big deal with our remote controls. But the thing is still missing the high dynamics we are used too.
I think Disney knows it; it is deliberate to not scare the kids who are the ones putting billions of dollars in Disney's bank vaults.
It's just a calculated guess from my part; we'll just have to adjust and adapt to it...that's all.

I doubt it that we can make an impact with Disney's CEOs and the decision makers of 4K Blu-rays for the home...the disc replicators and audio mixers and all that Hollywood Dolby movie jazz.

But talk about it is our raison d'être in forums like these, our pain and joy.

[Elbie]

Originally Posted by InuYashaCrusade

I bet they half assed the CGI in this one because they didn't think it would be the success that it turned out to be. Thor Ragnarok had some iffy CGI at certain points as well.

Quite possible. I got issues with a lot of their Phase 3 movies CGI wise. Especially when they start jumping around.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Disney will never admit that they made a mistake neutering their audio tracks for disc and streaming. I doubt these newer releases will sound good on home video ever again.

Confucius say: it not mistake if they intended to do it.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Elbie

The cinematography is average to me and outside of the CGI is one of the low points. The production design is what makes it look better than what it is. Compare Black Panther in his movie to Civil War and Infinity War and you will see the difference. She's been getting too much praise for certain reasons I won't discuss.

Get out of here with this nonsense.

Trent Opaloch is a great DOP, but he's been wasted by the Russo Brothers. Nothing he's filmed with them comes even remotely close to touching the work he did on District 9, Elysium, and Chappie.

Even Infinity War had several moments of that sterilized/dead look (mainly the NY sequences); because the Russo's aren't particularly inventive when it comes to composing images in their films.

Rachel Morrison has no control on how the CG-renderings looked in 'Black Panther'; but the live action stuff, especially in Busan, looked absolutely spectacular.