Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[smackrabbit]

I had more time today to finish watching Unforgiven, but then I was also able to compare the Blu-ray to the UHD version side by side using a Sony OLED and X900E. I rotated discs between the two to try to make the display neutral, but came away with more overall thoughts on the disc.

- Shot quality really varies from scene to scene. Sometimes you get an image that looks identical on both displays, sometimes you get one that looks very different on the two.
- Color timing on the UHD version is much different. I find myself preferring the rich tones of the SDR version in some cases, but at a few points the UHD version has benefits over it.
- Shadow details are completely hit and miss. Some UHD scenes have far more shadow details, some have less, and it's just a toss-up as to which it will be.
- The transfer has some issues. One scene has significant ringing around every object, on both discs, and it is really obnoxious. It's the kind of thing you might expect to see a decade ago with broken equipment, but on a 2017 release it is really odd.
- Sometimes you get more fine detail on the UHD version, sometimes you just get more/different noise from the master it seems. It's completely hit and miss here as well.

Overall I'd put the image at around 3/5. That might be bit high, it might be a 2.5, but it's just maddeningly inconsistent. Shadow details and black levels fluctuate, detail changes, color grading seems to change, it's just odd. Maybe it's the best version out there, it probably is, but it certainly can't be the best this film can possibly look today. If I was a fan of the film I'd consider getting it, but wait until it was $20 or something as well since the overall quality isn't worth what they are charging today.

Here's a couple links for examples of ringing present on the UHD and Blu-ray:
http://i.imgur.com/sZPTSCc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FcFOBYz.jpg

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

I wouldn't count on it. Typically, BB won't pricematch unless Amazon has the title in stock, which they currently do not.

Well it's worth a shot anyway. I didn't know that, so I guess I got lucky with my BB.

[Filmmaker]

(*sigh*) Well, the UHD doomsayer hyperbole train just pulled into the station again. The UHD, like usual, simply offers a more detailed image (by a commendable margin, actually, IMO), heavier grain, and a more naturalistic grading of coloring. As far as I'm concerned, everyone who is stating that the BD is clearly brighter than the UHD is either mad or lying. To be sure, during nighttime footage, this film is DARK--oppressively so, in fact--but the BD is every bit as buried in blackness as the UHD. I took some quick-and-dirty iPhone comparison shots of daylight footage (title frame excepted) to give an idea of the coloration variance (as always, some will vote that the BD's saturation is more eye catching, while the rest of us will opine that it's too "neon" and less realistic). Top shots are BD, bottom are UHD; don't be concerned about minor differences in framing--that's a result of my image cropping, not the discs (also, I had to cut off the sides of the final frame to lower the file size enough for it to upload). I'm getting too much screen glare at the present hour to properly capture dark scenes, so I'll try to upload some of those later. For me, the increased detail is the big win for this UHD over the BD, with the more realistic color grading taking the follow-up spot. Whether you go BD or UHD, though, you'll want to view this in a pitch black room.

[brainofj72]

Argh. I feel like I'm going to wind up caving and buying this before a price drop.

[Chaotic]

$32 is still an outrageous price. I will wait if it drops.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by smackrabbit

I had more time today to finish watching Unforgiven, but then I was also able to compare the Blu-ray to the UHD version side by side using a Sony OLED and X900E. I rotated discs between the two to try to make the display neutral, but came away with more overall thoughts on the disc.

- Shot quality really varies from scene to scene. Sometimes you get an image that looks identical on both displays, sometimes you get one that looks very different on the two.
- Color timing on the UHD version is much different. I find myself preferring the rich tones of the SDR version in some cases, but at a few points the UHD version has benefits over it.
- Shadow details are completely hit and miss. Some UHD scenes have far more shadow details, some have less, and it's just a toss-up as to which it will be.
- The transfer has some issues. One scene has significant ringing around every object, on both discs, and it is really obnoxious. It's the kind of thing you might expect to see a decade ago with broken equipment, but on a 2017 release it is really odd.
- Sometimes you get more fine detail on the UHD version, sometimes you just get more/different noise from the master it seems. It's completely hit and miss here as well.

Overall I'd put the image at around 3/5. That might be bit high, it might be a 2.5, but it's just maddeningly inconsistent. Shadow details and black levels fluctuate, detail changes, color grading seems to change, it's just odd. Maybe it's the best version out there, it probably is, but it certainly can't be the best this film can possibly look today. If I was a fan of the film I'd consider getting it, but wait until it was $20 or something as well since the overall quality isn't worth what they are charging today.

Here's a couple links for examples of ringing present on the UHD and Blu-ray:
http://i.imgur.com/sZPTSCc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FcFOBYz.jpg

Dafuq is going on in them pictures? I know we joking call EE 'force fields' but that literally looks like a cloaking device is playing up on the wind vane thingy:

[smackrabbit]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dafuq is going on in them pictures? I know we joking call EE 'force fields' but that literally looks like a cloaking device is playing up on the wind vane thingy:

That scene was by far the worst I can recall, but it's there on both the UHD and Blu-ray versions. I think it's just a good example of how inconsistent this whole disc is. Some scenes look good, some look like this.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by smackrabbit

That scene was by far the worst I can recall, but it's there on both the UHD and Blu-ray versions.

Do you mind providing me a time-stamp for that shot?

[TwistedAmnesia]

Not gonna lie this sounds a little disappointing in the same vein as 3:10 to Yuma...especially at that price point. At the very least would you guys say the included remastered BD is a marked improvement over the original?

[nonametofame]

Originally Posted by smackrabbit

I had more time today to finish watching Unforgiven, but then I was also able to compare the Blu-ray to the UHD version side by side using a Sony OLED and X900E. I rotated discs between the two to try to make the display neutral, but came away with more overall thoughts on the disc.

- Shot quality really varies from scene to scene. Sometimes you get an image that looks identical on both displays, sometimes you get one that looks very different on the two.
- Color timing on the UHD version is much different. I find myself preferring the rich tones of the SDR version in some cases, but at a few points the UHD version has benefits over it.
- Shadow details are completely hit and miss. Some UHD scenes have far more shadow details, some have less, and it's just a toss-up as to which it will be.
- The transfer has some issues. One scene has significant ringing around every object, on both discs, and it is really obnoxious. It's the kind of thing you might expect to see a decade ago with broken equipment, but on a 2017 release it is really odd.
- Sometimes you get more fine detail on the UHD version, sometimes you just get more/different noise from the master it seems. It's completely hit and miss here as well.

Overall I'd put the image at around 3/5. That might be bit high, it might be a 2.5, but it's just maddeningly inconsistent. Shadow details and black levels fluctuate, detail changes, color grading seems to change, it's just odd. Maybe it's the best version out there, it probably is, but it certainly can't be the best this film can possibly look today. If I was a fan of the film I'd consider getting it, but wait until it was $20 or something as well since the overall quality isn't worth what they are charging today.

Here's a couple links for examples of ringing present on the UHD and Blu-ray:
http://i.imgur.com/sZPTSCc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FcFOBYz.jpg

WB is one if not the only studio mastering 4k titles at 4000 nits. So if your set is not around that ballpark, or at least 1000 nits, the image will suffer. Perhaps that, coupled with inconsistent HDR application, are the main culprits.

[Patsfan123]

Originally Posted by nonametofame

WB is one if not the only studio mastering 4k titles at 4000 nits. So if your set is not around that ballpark, or at least 1000 nits, the image will suffer. Perhaps that, coupled with inconsistent HDR application, are the main culprits.

Every Sony disc is 4000 nits as well

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[smackrabbit]

Originally Posted by nonametofame

WB is one if not the only studio mastering 4k titles at 4000 nits. So if your set is not around that ballpark, or at least 1000 nits, the image will suffer. Perhaps that, coupled with inconsistent HDR application, are the main culprits.

4000 nits is just the metadata on there, it doesn't mean there is content at that level or above it. Both the A1E and the X900E track just fine up to 700 nits or higher, and there is very little if anything above that level that would need to be tone mapped. Anything below that should look identical.

[ncraft]

I'm about halfway through the movie and my impressions so far is that the transfer has great shadow detail and a nice layer of grain. Picture is "crisp", for lack of a better term. Now, is it The Revenant? No. But I like the look of it so far. Reminds me of the 4K version of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon but with a lesser amount of grain.

This is much better PQ than 3:10 to Yuma. 3:10 to Yuma is one of the worst transfers I've ever seen. This is much more consistent in quality and just better quality overall.

[StingingVelvet]

Didn't see anything like those halos earlier but I just jumped around. Would love to get a timecode so I could look at that scene directly. I agree this is nothing like 3:10 to Yuma really, even though I compared it before. 3:10 had all the vibrancy and color timing sucked out of it for UHD. It didn't look like a refinement, it looked like a different film. Unforgiven looked mostly the same, just a bit darker and with more restrained color in some scenes. I should refrain from saying more until I watch it though.

P.S. My Best Buy price-matched Amazon no problem. Unless you get a register jockey who actually cares about their job you should be good to go.

[smackrabbit]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Didn't see anything like those halos earlier but I just jumped around. Would love to get a timecode so I could look at that scene directly. I agree this is nothing like 3:10 to Yuma really, even though I compared it before. 3:10 had all the vibrancy and color timing sucked out of it for UHD. It didn't look like a refinement, it looked like a different film. Unforgiven looked mostly the same, just a bit darker and with more restrained color in some scenes. I should refrain from saying more until I watch it though.

P.S. My Best Buy price-matched Amazon no problem. Unless you get a register jockey who actually cares about their job you should be good to go.

The start of Chapter 17 is where this happens, so it's really easy to skip ahead to.

[vincentric]

Originally Posted by smackrabbit

[Show spoiler]I had more time today to finish watching Unforgiven, but then I was also able to compare the Blu-ray to the UHD version side by side using a Sony OLED and X900E. I rotated discs between the two to try to make the display neutral, but came away with more overall thoughts on the disc.

- Shot quality really varies from scene to scene. Sometimes you get an image that looks identical on both displays, sometimes you get one that looks very different on the two.
- Color timing on the UHD version is much different. I find myself preferring the rich tones of the SDR version in some cases, but at a few points the UHD version has benefits over it.
- Shadow details are completely hit and miss. Some UHD scenes have far more shadow details, some have less, and it's just a toss-up as to which it will be.
- The transfer has some issues. One scene has significant ringing around every object, on both discs, and it is really obnoxious. It's the kind of thing you might expect to see a decade ago with broken equipment, but on a 2017 release it is really odd.
- Sometimes you get more fine detail on the UHD version, sometimes you just get more/different noise from the master it seems. It's completely hit and miss here as well.

Overall I'd put the image at around 3/5. That might be bit high, it might be a 2.5, but it's just maddeningly inconsistent. Shadow details and black levels fluctuate, detail changes, color grading seems to change, it's just odd. Maybe it's the best version out there, it probably is, but it certainly can't be the best this film can possibly look today. If I was a fan of the film I'd consider getting it, but wait until it was $20 or something as well since the overall quality isn't worth what they are charging today.

Here's a couple links for examples of ringing present on the UHD and Blu-ray:
http://i.imgur.com/sZPTSCc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FcFOBYz.jpg

That is some terrible assed ringing, if that isn't an isolated defection and others start reporting the same thing, that is enough of a dealbreaker for me.

[smackrabbit]

Originally Posted by vincentric

That is some terrible assed ringing, if that isn't an isolated defection and others start reporting the same thing, that is enough of a dealbreaker for me.

I can't tell you how many other scenes it happens in if any, just that it is there in that scene on both discs. I'm not going to watch it again to search for more cases, either.

[Filmmaker]

I'll have to look at that tomorrow, but this nighttime scene tears it. The BD is on top, the UHD on bottom. Clearly, the UHD is leagues more detailed and actually LESS dark than the BD. On the second comparison, I cranked the brightness on my pics to maximum so you can see how much more imagery is present on the UHD. This argument is squashed as far as I'm concerned. The BD has nothing to be ashamed of but the UHD flattens it.

[imsounoriginal]

Thankfully didn't see any copies of this at my BB when I went to pick up xXx so I didn't even have to get tempted to buy it.

[brian9229]

The hdr just feels weird. Besides being extremely dark, the cold tone is just seemingly at odds with the whole film. These pics definitely are not proper screenshots, just hi-rez pics with no doctoring of any kind. Just to show a very generalized difference. Which isn't hard to see. Should I have to keep shutting down the hdr to enjoy these uhd discs? More times than not, it just looks totally off. I'm certainly loving the new transfer though, minus the hdr, for now anyway.


W/hdr

[Show spoiler]

Hdr metadata stripped.

[Show spoiler]