Pacific Rim 4K UHD (2013)

[JustThatPenguin]

Originally Posted by azmodeous

I've been trying to stick to a no rebuy policy with UHD blu-ray but I'm going to have to break that for this one.

After everyone's input, I had to do the same. So glad I did. My sister came by last night. She thought I had gone insane paying over $5k for a TV. Especially when she paid around $1k for hers and she thought it was just as good. She sat down to watch this and said "okay, maybe this is was worth the money." Lol

[JustThatPenguin]

Originally Posted by film11

The 1080p image.shows clearer detail on her outfit and the platform she's standing on. I'm now even happier with the more immersive 3D edition.

I wouldn't judge that from screenshots. You'd have to be looking at the screenshots from a 4k hdr monitor to even fully notice what it's capturing.

[film11]

Originally Posted by JustThatPenguin

I wouldn't judge that from screenshots. You'd have to be looking at the screenshots from a 4k hdr monitor to even fully notice what it's capturing.

Oh I've seen plenty of UHD movies directly.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by x43x

Dolby Vision is the way to watch, and is much better than the HDR disc. The Disc voucher unlocks the Dolby Vision UHD version on Vudu. Some screen shots from Vudu on an LGE6.

Dolby Vision VUDU may be the better way to watch if you're stuck with an underpowered HDR TV, but I'm sure the HDR disc destroys the bitrate-starved VUDU version when played on a TV that will not clip the highlights.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by JustThatPenguin

I wouldn't judge that from screenshots. You'd have to be looking at the screenshots from a 4k hdr monitor to even fully notice what it's capturing.

Not only that, but the UHD screenshot is darker, so naturally less detail will be visible in the darker areas. And mind you this is from viewing them on a non-HDR monitor. The only way to really compare detail is from an HDR-capable display (don't think they make HDR monitors yet, don't they?)

I'm sure, if anything, there is more detail in the UHD version. My curiosity though is piqued so I might check out this shot when I get home (along with some others).

[x43x]

The DV vs HDR vs 1080 shots were meant to show the difference in colors and contrast, not resolution. The path the photo takes from TV to internet will not do justice to resolution, but you can get an idea about the differences in color grading between them.

In my view, Dolby Vision had the better color pallet between the three. The HDR disc was close, but it tended to blow out the highlights more than Dolby Vision. The 1080p disc wasn't nearly as colorful but still looks great from a resolution standpoint.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by x43x

In my view, Dolby Vision had the better color pallet between the three. The HDR disc was close, but it tended to blow out the highlights more than Dolby Vision. The 1080p disc wasn't nearly as colorful but still looks great from a resolution standpoint.

That's due to the luminosity limitations of the HDR TV, not the disc itself. If the TV were capable of, say, 1200 nits peak brightness, then it would be a different story. Both versions would show similar color palettes, while the highlights would be more spectacular on the UHD disc.

[x43x]

Actually, it's due to the limitations of HDR10 not being dynamic on a frame by frame basis. There is a reason why the HDR folks are trying to develop dynamic HDR so they can compete with Dolby Vision. The only people that think HDR10 is better than Dolby Vision, are those who bought a TV that doesn't have it, so they resort to "my TV is brighter that yours". The 670 nits on my set are blinding.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by x43x

Actually, it's due to the limitations of HDR10 not being dynamic on a frame by frame basis. There is a reason why the HDR folks are trying to develop dynamic HDR so they can compete with Dolby Vision. The only people that think HDR10 is better than Dolby Vision, are those who bought a TV that doesn't have it, so they resort to "my TV is brighter that yours". The 670 nits on my set are blinding.

It is on a TV that handles less than 1000 nits, yes. Bruce's point is that a TV which can at least get up to the 1000 nit mark is nominally capable of handling the extremes of HDR10 without the aid of dynamic metadata, i.e. there's no need for dynamic mapping because the TV can accommodate the full signal that's being thrown at it, whereas something less well endowed nit-wise benefits far more from dynamic DV because the signal is being properly mapped rather than being badly clipped like HDR10 is on some manufacturers' sets.

This is something that HDTVTest proved in a recent article: HDR10 on an OLED had noticeably clipped highlights compared to the equivalent DV source material, but an LCD TV showing the same HDR10 source had far more nuance and was essentially equivalent to the DV version on the OLED for what could be seen in the specular highlights.

And I don't have a TV with HDR10 or Dolby Vision so I've got no skin in either game, just telling it like I sees it instead of throwing unwarranted shade at other folks.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by x43x

Actually, it's due to the limitations of HDR10 not being dynamic on a frame by frame basis. There is a reason why the HDR folks are trying to develop dynamic HDR so they can compete with Dolby Vision. The only people that think HDR10 is better than Dolby Vision, are those who bought a TV that doesn't have it, so they resort to "my TV is brighter that yours". The 670 nits on my set are blinding.

Sorry but this is incorrect. It's been proven. By hdtvtest what and why tvs clip. The oleds clip very early, like 400 nits, anything after that turns out bright white which is why it "appears" too bright.

[x43x]

Got a link? I would be interested in reading that article. I could only find the glowing review of Dolby Vision.

Sounds like having a display capable of 1000+ nits and Dolby Vision would be the bees knees. Hopefully more manufactures support it in the future. Or maybe OLEDs will close the nit gap. Guess we'll see in a few months

[Geoff D]

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/dolby...1606214303.htm

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by bruceames

Dolby Vision VUDU may be the better way to watch if you're stuck with an underpowered HDR TV, but I'm sure the HDR disc destroys the bitrate-starved VUDU version when played on a TV that will not clip the highlights.

Yep. On OLED with only 650 nits, the DV version maybe OK. But if you have a 1000 nits plus LCD, HDR 10 rules. The brights would be so bright that you have to avert your eyes. But the lack of DV is the reason that I did not pickup a KS9800 and got a 9500 instead. I figure I'll give it another year for all the support to settle down, then I'll get another set and move the 9500 to the family room.

[Mr. Joshua]

The film looks fabulous but the aspect ratio is wrong it's not 1.85:1 like del Toro shot it so you're losing some picture. And I've not seen WB do this before. Only with this movie. Yes I'm picky I like OAR. I guess we will just have to get used to stretched pictures because someone doesn't like black bars and the screen is not full of picture. For those that don't like my opinion on this I say 👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻!

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

The film looks fabulous but the aspect ratio is wrong it's not 1.85:1 like del Toro shot it so you're losing some picture. And I've not seen WB do this before. Only with this movie. Yes I'm picky I like OAR. I guess we will just have to get used to stretched pictures because someone doesn't like black bars and the screen is not full of picture. For those that don't like my opinion on this I say ������������!

It's a minuscule difference with 16:9, Just a few pixel... No reason to obsess over it

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

Yep. On OLED with only 650 nits, the DV version maybe OK. But if you have a 1000 nits plus LCD, HDR 10 rules..

I have 1000 nits LCD but it's only for a few seconds. Read tests and you'll see.

[Bodyslide]

Watched this last night, even on my Samsung 6700, which doesn't have the full blown HDR, it looked Amazing.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

The film looks fabulous but the aspect ratio is wrong it's not 1.85:1 like del Toro shot it so you're losing some picture. And I've not seen WB do this before. Only with this movie. Yes I'm picky I like OAR. I guess we will just have to get used to stretched pictures because someone doesn't like black bars and the screen is not full of picture. For those that don't like my opinion on this I say ������������!

Are you ****ing kidding? Warners have been doing this since the DVD days, I cannot remember the last time I saw a Warners disc that had a true 1.85 ratio. (Bear in mind that they put 1.85 on the cover ALL the time but it's still 1.78 on the disc.) And more often than not they don't crop it, they open up the mattes top and bottom so you don't "lose" anything.

[bbwiscfan]

Because it sounds like this would be an amazing upgrade from the blu-ray I currently own. So glad to hear they did a great job and that the HDR on this just brings it to a whole new level.

[Rich1631]

Originally Posted by bbwiscfan

Because it sounds like this would be an amazing upgrade from the blu-ray I currently own. So glad to hear they did a great job and that the HDR on this just brings it to a whole new level.

Yea watch out for it on Black Friday. It's an amazing disc. I don't kno why it is 31.99 everywhere now. That is crazy for a catalogue title and it doesn't even carry over the extra disc from the original bluray set. So hang on to that disc.