Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yup, verified on my UHD, whether stripped of metadata or not. Very weird. Though it obviously has associations with the look of edge enhancement, this is something unique, like nothing I've seen before.

[Geoff D]

Cheers FM. Anyone have the previous BD or even DVD, see if it's something inherent to the source rather than to this new 4K transfer specifically?

[Vertizontal]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Anyone have the previous BD or even DVD, see if it's something inherent to the source rather than to this new 4K transfer specifically?

This. I asked the same thing a page or two back as well, curious to know. I gave my digibook edition to a friend once I convinced myself the UHD was worth upgrading, no way to check myself now.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Cheers FM. Anyone have the previous BD or even DVD, see if it's something inherent to the source rather than to this new 4K transfer specifically?

Original BD--no weird force field effect.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Original BD--no weird force field effect.

You mean the original BD that came out like 10 years ago? Because it's on the included BD in the UHD BD package.

edit: Yeah I see it's not on the HD DVD. Wow they sure screwed that one up.

[Staying Salty]

A Dolby Vision Disk, plus a Dolby Vision Player, plus a calibrated Dolby Vison Display = Peace of mind that you are seeing the best picture for the money spent on your equipment.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by bruceames

You mean the original BD that came out like 10 years ago?

Yes, my picture is from the very first BD release.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by bruceames

It's been shown a few times (for example by HDTVtest) that a high nit TV with good tone mapping can render HDR10 just as good as DV. Feel free to disagree with the experts, but if the display's capabilities are => then the metadata being fed to it, then the dynamic portion really isn't necessary.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But if a TV can display the full mastering intent (gamut + nits) or near enough of the static source then it has no need for mapping scene by scene or frame by frame, that's the point. Just because the mastering display metadata is static - telling the target display what the white point, colour primaries, average frame brightness and maximum brightness is - doesn't mean that the HDR10 itself hasn't been graded from scene to scene like any conventional video grade (theatrical, SDR) would otherwise be.

This 'full volume' ideal is much more difficult to realise at the consumer level when dealing with 4000-nit HDR10 sources (Lionsgate, Sony, Warners UHDs) than 1000-nit ones (Fox, Para, Uni), true enough, but 1400+ nits with good tone mapping for the rest seems to be an ideal fit for the trickier 4000-nit grades that Warners in particular have been doing from the start. And even though the container itself may be 4000 nit there's no guarantee that the highlights will even reach that high, e.g. The Lego Movie tops out at 2150 nits MaxCLL at its brightest point.

It really is the case that underpowered HDR sets and botched mapping on other 'Premium' displays have given HDR10 a very bad name - so much the better for the people who are hawking their wares I guess e.g. Dolby with DV, Samsung with HDR10+. Some form of dynamic mapping or at the very least a generic tone mapper should've been in use from the start, I'll always stand by that, but by the same token it's not the HDR10 format itself that's damaged, it's the display implementation.

I'm not really one for arguing nits and the strengths/weakness of particular sets or technologies.

What it really boils down to is that Dolby Vision is an industry standard. It's now one of the few things on the consumer market that isn't just a buzz word (i.e. 'QLED', 'Ultra Black Premium' 'XLED' etc.)--and even with HDR10+ eventually coming, it still doesn't replicate what the filmmaker or content creator is intending to show you.

And, to me, that's much more of a big deal to me than just "good enough."

HDR10 is basically HDR vanilla, whereas Dolby Vision is the mint chocolate chip. In all honesty, the only other alternative HDR format I'm curious about is Technicolor's. Again, because it's an official industry standard.

Anyway, my intent really wasn't to stir up a debate or an argument. Really just wanted to find out if the HDR BD release for this is at least more than 'adequate.' Because as I've admitted, until DV Blu-Rays become available, I'd still rather purchase the physical media, due to it being uncompressed.

[vincentric]

''HDR vanilla ... Dolby Vision mint chocolate chip'' - TheSweetieMan

I like it.

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by vincentric

''... Dolby Vision mint chocolate chip''

Not only the flavor that will titillate your taste buds, but it’s the Premium Brand also.

[Trekkie313]

Those look great, except for the sharpening and the jail scene being de-saturated.

[WVbkelley]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Those look great, except for the sharpening and the jail scene being de-saturated.

The jail scene was very dark and captured while the movie was playing.

[ArnoldLayne56]

Originally Posted by WVbkelley

My thought here:

http://hamptonroads.com/blog/779109/...me-4k-ultra-hd

Halos in the last frame- I guess they are thinner at 4K, but still grotesque.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Zavvi just charged me $27 USD for the UK release.

A good $11 less than what Best Buy is asking for.

[WVbkelley]

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne56

Halos in the last frame- I guess they are thinner at 4K, but still grotesque.

It was captured while playing at 24 fps and my camera setup at 1/25 of second, so some ghosting could have happened while shooting the silhouette of Eastwood and Freeman riding.

[nonametofame]

Originally Posted by elwaylite

LOL, OK, keep telling yourself Vudu's version is better than the disc. People been saying this since HDX, and it wasnt true then either...

And god forbid someone actually cares about audio too.

I purchased the vudu DV edition as a stop gap until the 4k disc price drops. It looked fantastic and better than I expected despite the compression. I expect the differences to be minor between this version and the disk as i also own fantastic beasts on both formats and found the images to be nearly identical after numerous scene comparisons, at least on my set.

I still purchase discs to support the format and for the uncompressed audio tracks, but the DD+ was more than serviceable for this type of content, though I'd take atmos any day of the week. Buit really does boil down to which specific set you own and how it processes hdr-10 and DV.

[Dreamliner330]

I don't typically like westerns but really like 3:10 to Yuma, True Grit (2010) and a few others.

I had never seen this movie before and just watched it tonight for the first time. What a snorefest! Who wrote this thing? A guy gets kicked like 3 times and he might die...what?! The whole town tries to protect a the guy that cut up that woman....what?! Nothing makes any sense. Agh.

100% reminded me of the horrible movies that played on Saturday afternoons when I was bored out of my mind.



I haven't seen The Man with No Name trilogy yet either...but I own it!

[waff]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

I don't typically like westerns but really like 3:10 to Yuma, True Grit (2010) and a few others.

I had never seen this movie before and just watched it tonight for the first time. What a snorefest! Who wrote this thing? A guy gets kicked like 3 times and he might die...what?! The whole town tries to protect a the guy that cut up that woman....what?! Nothing makes any sense. Agh.

100% reminded me of the horrible movies that played on Saturday afternoons when I was bored out of my mind.



I haven't seen The Man with No Name trilogy yet either...but I own it!

Certainly to each his/her own. I like a lot of westerns for the most part and this is easily one of the best ones (my second favorite) made in the the last 30 years.

I'm not sure what you'd think of the Man with No Name trilogy, those get get slow at times.

Either way, I'm excited for this release once the price drops a bit. Maybe you can sell me yours at a discount

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I'm not really one for arguing nits and the strengths/weakness of particular sets or technologies.

What it really boils down to is that Dolby Vision is an industry standard. It's now one of the few things on the consumer market that isn't just a buzz word (i.e. 'QLED', 'Ultra Black Premium' 'XLED' etc.)--and even with HDR10+ eventually coming, it still doesn't replicate what the filmmaker or content creator is intending to show you.

And, to me, that's much more of a big deal to me than just "good enough."

HDR10 is basically HDR vanilla, whereas Dolby Vision is the mint chocolate chip. In all honesty, the only other alternative HDR format I'm curious about is Technicolor's. Again, because it's an official industry standard.

Anyway, my intent really wasn't to stir up a debate or an argument. Really just wanted to find out if the HDR BD release for this is at least more than 'adequate.' Because as I've admitted, until DV Blu-Rays become available, I'd still rather purchase the physical media, due to it being uncompressed.

I don't think "industry standard" means what you think it means. By definition Dolby Vision on UHD disc is an optional HDR format whereas HDR10 - the open source system that requires no royalties - is mandatory for all UHD discs and TVs that contain HDR, now and into the future. You won't find DV on Samsung or Panasonic TVs either.

But you're missing the point with all my tech jargon in the post you quoted, as well as the follow-up: if the HDR10 grade has been supervised by the filmmaker and your TV is capable of realising that image in its entirety (or near enough) then you ARE still seeing it as intended. Even Dolby Vision will reduce mapping to a minimum if the TV can actually 'do' the image that it's been presented with. Don't just take my word for it:

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by waff

Certainly to each his/her own.

I'm going to spin through the special features and see if there something I missed. Also a second watch may not hurt. Such accolades I expected more, personally.

I dunno though, my taste if movies is all over the map. I was bored to tears in Lawrence of Arabia, found exactly two funny moments in Monty Python/Grail, hated Princess Bride and Birdman, yet loved Gold, The Founder, and others.

If I decide to part ways with Unforgiven, I'll let you know....my slip is extra crispy.