Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Geoff D]

I'll compare this one for myself, ta. And even when RAH gets an OLED (albeit a Sony rather than an LG) I'm not sure that's going to be the ideal display for providing a definitive review of whatever UHD disc either.

[MisterXDTV]

"More interesting, is that the difference between the 4k image, as up-rezzed, and the 4k image as viewed from the 4k disc, are not much different, aside from HDR.

There simply doesn’t appear to be true 4k information in the original negative, which causes me to question whether a 4k release was warranted."

But people were telling me that a 8K master is necessary for 35mm to capture all the details.... LOL

[dunnbluray]

WhySoBlu rates almost every 4k release 4 1/2 or 5 stars. It's hard to gauge when every movie is basically receiving the same rating.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

No offense, but whenever I see posters (in plenty threads, not just here) all worked-up over some review (either positive or negative), I always think there must be a lot of naive people out there, or well, just unexperienced in home-video (after all not everyone is so old as I am...).

Judge with your own eyes, or someone you know you trust, people, and please don't panic (or rejoice) over the first review that gets on the net. Also, reading about how presumed issues on other releases have really worked out for actual fellow buyers will help you put things in context, learn about the technicalities. Things aren't the same for everyone and they aren't always what they seem at first glance.

I find PQ reviews fairly useful. I personally don't like it when a new remastered version is darker than what we are accustomed to with past releases. The last released remastered Blu-ray of Home Alone, taken from a new 4K scan, was too dark of a transfer, and I get really miffed by that. It's like a lump of coal in your stocking. Anyone who judges that Home Alone Blu-ray with their own eyes is going to accept the fact that it's darker than it should be, and darker than the older Blu-ray, even though it's more detailed PQ.

If the bright scenes in the film are appearing darker than they did in the theaters back in the 90's, and on the 1080p copy, its a bad idea in general. That goes for any film. I don't think that is subjective. What's it matter if the fine details are improved if the overall image is too dark to really enjoy it? Overly dark transfers are the kiss of death. I think most people prefer the older Blu-ray version of Home Alone to the 4K remaster, case in point.

I don't need to view these disks in person to know that I'd prefer the new 'properly bright' remastered 1080p Blu-Ray disk over the 'overly dark' UHD. Two reviews have labeled it as a dark transfer, I'll go ahead and take their word for it till I can see for myself. Because I fully understand the limitations of static metadata, I can take their word with some confidence. With static metadata, they have to set a single brightness level for the entire length of the encoded video content. So they either have to choose to make the darker scenes look better, and screw up the daytime scenes, or as in this case, improve the darker scenes at the expense of the brighter scenes.

If the overall luminescence level is set too low in the case of this UHD, and it's set higher on the standard remastered Blu-ray, per the initial reviews, then "Huston, we have a problem". I like a bright vibrant colorful image that pops, and 35mm is a capable source. I just hate to see it crippled by static metadata because dynamic metadata will really help present 35mm transfer UHD films in a far more visually pleasing, true to life way. For a best picture winning title with as much prestige as Unforgiven, I see this first UHD disk release as a stop gap until they decide to bring out the second release on UHD with 1 or 2 types of dynamic HDR for people with HDMI 2.1 setups, same goes for Goodfellas. I think if the UHD gets bad mainstream reviews, the version with Dolby Vision will come sooner rather than later and it will rectify any issues caused by static metadata.

[mzupeman]

Was Home Alone darker? Sure. Was it 'too dark to enjoy it'? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

But people were telling me that a 8K master is necessary for 35mm to capture all the details.... LOL

The only reason they scanned it at 4K instead of 8K is because it's a cheaper and easier process in 4K at this point in 2017. Only a handful of films have 8K transfers, but some are indeed 35mm. Wizard of Oz and Dr. Zhivago at least. No 8K scans of 35mm have come out yet on UHD Blu-ray, so we can't compare them to their 1080p blu-ray versions, so your argument is moot. I would have personally preferred for them to scan Unforgiven at 8K, I think it would've yielded better results. Then they could use that scan for the release on an eventual 8K format. Someday they'll scan it and remaster it again, no doubt, but I digress.

Everyone is going to agree that the UHD has better refined details vs 1080p, it's just that the overly dark transfer masks the benefits in many cases. It's not right to judge 4K resolution like that when it's been washed out and/or darkened where it shouldn't be due to the use of a static luminescence level throughout the film. Judge native 4K films that also have Dolby Vision vs 1080p and the bump in resolution will become more apparent. I'd wait till this disk is cheap and use it as a placeholder until something better comes along.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Was Home Alone darker? Sure. Was it 'too dark to enjoy it'? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

True, but I really do have OCD and I get miffed easily. I have to artificially brighten it in PowerDVD with TrueTheater lighting, and I shouldn't have to do that. As Five Finger Death Punch would say, "It could have been much worse, but it should've been better."

[philochs]

Originally Posted by reanimator

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation -- it's a 5/5 star review. Mr. Harris says, among other things, that the 4K version has harvested all of the possible detail in the source material -- but the source material itself only yields so much resolution. His main criticism is that the 4K version is too dark, but acknowledges this may be a result of his projector set up.

I just used excerpts of his review for a reason, I disagree with his assertions about the 35mm negative not having true 4K resolution, or that they harvested all of the possible detail in the source material. rotfl at those misconceptions, actually. He never even considered that static metadata could be hampering the true potential of a real 4K transfer from 35mm. Honestly, that should be 'day one' stuff if you are going to comment on the current crop of UHD blu-rays publicly.

Dynamic metadata won't be brighter or darker in a given scene than it should be, like the current crop of UHD disks suffer from. Many more fine details will be visible, especially on a quality projector with a screen size between 100-300 inches. He acknowledges his dark transfer issue 'could be' caused by the projector, but that's silly. I'm here to tell you, it's obviously the static metadata that is at fault, not the guy's projector. Do you honestly think that if his projector had Dolby Vision capability and the disk did as well, he would not be noticing a huge difference in fine details vs HDR10? Brush up on dynamic metadata.

[brainofj72]

Hey, philochs, I'm curious: how do you feel about static metadata?

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by philochs

The only reason they scanned it at 4K instead of 8K is because it's a cheaper and easier process in 4K at this point in 2017. Only a handful of films have 8K transfers, but some are indeed 35mm. Wizard of Oz and Dr. Zhivago at least. No 8K scans of 35mm have come out yet on UHD Blu-ray, so we can't compare them to their 1080p blu-ray versions, so your argument is moot. I would have personally preferred for them to scan Unforgiven at 8K, I think it would've yielded better results. Then they could use that scan for the release on an eventual 8K format. Someday they'll scan it and remaster it again, no doubt, but I digress.

Everyone is going to agree that the UHD has better refined details vs 1080p, it's just that the overly dark transfer masks the benefits in many cases. It's not right to judge 4K resolution like that when it's been washed out and/or darkened where it shouldn't be due to the use of a static luminescence level throughout the film. Judge native 4K films that also have Dolby Vision vs 1080p and the bump in resolution will become more apparent. I'd wait till this disk is cheap and use it as a placeholder until something better comes along.

My argument is that you are wrong in every possible way, every professional knows that a 8K scan for 35mm makes no sense.

You are the only one who thinks otherwise, but believe what you want...

[philochs]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Hey, philochs, I'm curious: how do you feel about static metadata?

I don't like it.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

My argument is that you are wrong in every possible way, every professional knows that a 8K scan for 35mm makes no sense.

You are the only one who thinks otherwise, but believe what you want...

Sure, and that's why it was done in the instances I mentioned previously. That's why some Star Wars film preservation website is calling for the original 35mm to be scanned at 8K.. "Today, the negative would be scanned in 8K and original shots could be pulled from storage and scanned likewise... From there, a new 8K DI could (someday) be made, and a new 35mm negative printed out using an ArriLaser for future preservation and duplication for theatrical exhibition. Not rocket science. Pretty much the norm for restoration of classic films"

http://savestarwars.com/filmpreservation.html


According to B&H's 'Guide to Scanning Motion Picture Film'... "Many argue that 35mm can resolve up to 8K"

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...n-picture-film


Not to mention companies such as FotoKem, who actually are the professionals...

"We use the best film scanners on the market for digitizing film at the highest resolution and dynamic range available. FotoKem currently has the highest resolution scanner in the world for capturing 65mm negative at 11K, used for many high end features shooting for giant screen cinema applications, as well as specialty shots in feature production.

Recording film from digital images is enhanced by a closed-loop calibration with our own film laboratory, allowing an advanced degree of control over seamless conversion from digital intermediate images to film, from 35mm to 65mm at 8K resolution."

Now what were you sayin'? 'Wrong in every possible way?' 'I am the only one who believes it, or thinks otherwise?' 'Every professional knows' pfff. that's a laugh. Bazooka Joe called, he says you're hired. Start Monday.

[elwaylite]

To me this may just be like Underworld Blood wars. It was a "dark" movie, and it did have a less than stellar use of HDR compared to other titles, BUT, on my OLED in a pitch black room, it looked gorgeous and the "dark" image did not equal black crush or loss of detail.

I don't even watch HDR shows on Netflix like Luke Cage in a lit room.

[benhoppel]

The reason for scanning 35mm at 8K is not that there is relevant 8K detail on the negative (8K detail is irrelevant grain detail as far as actual image content is concerned) but it makes for a better quality 4K master when downsampling to 4K. Same approach as in audio when sampling at 96Khz for a CD master. 35mm does not resolve 8K when used for cinema (e.g. with restrictions for exposure, depth of field and a moving camera).

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by philochs

This is specifically due to the static metadata. I wonder how long it will take for a second UHD release to come out with some type of dynamic metadata HDR. If they add HDR10+, Technicolor HDR, or Dolby Vision to a "special edition", the bright scenes will no longer be darker than on the regular Blu-ray.

UHD with static metadata is like two steps forward, one step back. They really need to update the BDA spec to require dynamic metadata (HDR10+) moving forward via HDMI 2.1. They probably should've waited for HDMI 2.1 to launch the format. Static metadata actually hurts picture quality, especially compared with dynamic metadata, but sometimes even compared to no metadata at all.

Well, first off from my understanding and reading the core appeal of dynamic metadata seems to be dealing with varying capabilities of HDR hardware. As someone with an HDR Premium set, with good tone mapping and color volume, I don't think it's the end-all-be-all some of you act like it is. A lot of reviewers use OLEDs and projectors with lower peak brightness, and all the LCDs differ, and that makes reviews even more untrustworthy than they already are by default. So I'll have to see how it looks on my set before I pass judgment.

Secondly it is not my experience at all that UHDs are always darker because of static metadata. I would actually say that usually daytime scenes look brighter in HDR, not darker, but it depends on the movie. HDR does add more dark areas to a bright scene, making daytime scenes look more textured and real, the same as it does on HDR youtube videos of "real life." That's not the same as an overall darker image. The discs that look darker overall in daytime scenes are only a few off the top of my head, and usually it's scene dependent and not the whole movie. X-Men First Class' end battle, The Expendables 2's opening battle, etc. etc. It is not a consistent HDR issue, and surely is more about choices the technician makes when doing the HDR grading.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Well, first off from my understanding and reading the core appeal of dynamic metadata seems to be dealing with varying capabilities of HDR hardware. As someone with an HDR Premium set, with good tone mapping and color volume, I don't think it's the end-all-be-all some of you act like it is. A lot of reviewers use OLEDs and projectors with lower peak brightness, and all the LCDs differ, and that makes reviews even more untrustworthy than they already are by default. So I'll have to see how it looks on my set before I pass judgment.

Secondly it is not my experience at all that UHDs are always darker because of static metadata. I would actually say that usually daytime scenes look brighter in HDR, not darker, but it depends on the movie. HDR does add more dark areas to a bright scene, making daytime scenes look more textured and real, the same as it does on HDR youtube videos of "real life." That's not the same as an overall darker image. The discs that look darker overall in daytime scenes are only a few off the top of my head, and usually it's scene dependent and not the whole movie. X-Men First Class' end battle, The Expendables 2's opening battle, etc. etc. It is not a consistent HDR issue, and surely is more about choices the technician makes when doing the HDR grading.

I never said it always causes a darker image. It depends what they choose to set brightness level to. If you study the HDR formats as much as I have, at least it's my personal opinion that dynamic metadata hdr is always going to lead to a superior encode on UHD disks. Those new HDR formats should fix any instance where a scene on a UHD Blu-Ray would appear inaccurately brighter or darker than a scene on a regular blu-ray disk. The white papers on HDR10 (ST 2084) and ST 2094 formats make it very clear that static metadata (HDR10) has innate limitations and must sacrifice certain aspects of PQ, as it can only be optimized for the brightest scenes in a film or the dark scenes, but it cannot be individually calibrated for both, and everything in between. I don't believe the SMPTE white papers would be wrong...

https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/...V2-Handout.pdf

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by philochs

I never said it always causes a darker image. It depends what they choose to set brightness level to. If you study the HDR formats as much as I have, at least it's my personal opinion that dynamic metadata hdr is always going to lead to a superior encode on UHD disks. Those new HDR formats should fix any instance where a scene on a UHD Blu-Ray would appear inaccurately brighter or darker than a scene on a regular blu-ray disk. The white papers on HDR10 (ST 2084) and ST 2094 formats make it very clear that static metadata (HDR10) has innate limitations and must sacrifice certain aspects of PQ, as it can only be optimized for the brightest scenes in a film or the dark scenes, but it cannot be individually calibrated for both, and everything in between. I don't believe the SMPTE white papers would be wrong...

I'm not saying dynamic metadata isn't better. What I'm saying is you leaped to the conclusion that WhySoBlu thinks the UHD is too dark because it has static metadata, without seeing the disc. I don't think that necessarily the cause, since many discs have no such issue, nor is the disc even necessarily dark on all equipment. We shall see when more people have a look at it.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I'm not saying dynamic metadata isn't better. What I'm saying is you leaped to the conclusion that WhySoBlu thinks the UHD is too dark because it has static metadata, without seeing the disc. I don't think that necessarily the cause, since many discs have no such issue, nor is the disc even necessarily dark on all equipment. We shall see when more people have a look at it.

Most UHD disks are optimized for the very brightest scenes, not the darker scenes, so they went with an odd choice here. I think the UHD disk will prove overly dark on all equipment, I hope I'm wrong but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by benhoppel

The reason for scanning 35mm at 8K is not that there is relevant 8K detail on the negative (8K detail is irrelevant grain detail as far as actual image content is concerned) but it makes for a better quality 4K master when downsampling to 4K. Same approach as in audio when sampling at 96Khz for a CD master. 35mm does not resolve 8K when used for cinema (e.g. with restrictions for exposure, depth of field and a moving camera).

Some industry experts claim that even 3-perf Super 35 has potential to resolve up to 6K. It's certainly a fact that 35mm can resolve at least up to 6K, arguably up to 8K and yes it does make for a better 4K master, that much is true. 35mm resolves 6K, or more, in well lit scenes. It isn't therefore 'irrelevant grain', because that 8K scan is gleaming more than double the quality pixels that a 4K scan would. UHD is 8 million pixels, true 4K is 8.8 megapixels, 6K is 19 million quality pixels 35mm resolves at least that high. Then 8K is 33 megapixels. Like I said, once technology is there, they'll scan 35mm at 12K-16K in some cases, and downsample it to 8K. The technology to do so will be around in ten years.

Once it's feasible to scan all flagship titles at 8K, studios will do so. I don't know why people think they'd know more than FotoKem, FotoKem is the largest independently owned post production facility in California, the work on many big Hollywood films. They used to scan 35mm at 6K now they advertise that they want to scan it at 8K. Eventually, they'll scan it at 16K. As technology continues to improve, so does the theoretical 'best quality' of 35mm scans.

[StingingVelvet]

Scanning at 6 or 8k is one thing, but it doesn't mean you have to master the final DI at 8k, which is much more expensive and difficult for little actual benefit. We've all had this debate before though.