Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by reanimator

Not long ago, the argument was "extra pixels don't matter because most people won't see a difference"... NOW the argument is suddenly "there aren't enough pixels!!!"

As I've said -- the most critical comments about UHD-BD are from the people who haven't actually seen it.

People are still saying the pixels don't make a difference, but dat HDR kool aid

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

People are still saying the pixels don't make a difference, but dat HDR kool aid

The combination of both is best. They're like peanut butter and jelly. I think people are going to learn real quick that resolution is easier to spot than previously thought.

[Adrian Wright]

Whilst I feel that ALL is a rather wide sweeping and encompassing statement, I can understand Pieter's frustrations. Will it stop me buying these on UHD BD when the Atmos soundtrack is absent, not a chance.

I do not have the capability or desire at the moment to add DTS X to my setup as I have the Marantz 7009 which only does upto Atmos. Until the number and quality of the software output equals or exceeds that of Atmos I am fine with keeping with my 7009 and just putting up with whichever soundtracks are on the UHD BD's I purchase. If or when this changes then I may have to approach my good lady and explain why I need to upgrade the 7009 to the 7010

Having made a financial commitment to this UHD format now, there is no way soundtrack choices are going to hamper my enjoyment

[Pieter V]

Thanks, Adrian. Even if you don't have a Dolby Atmos set up, I would always prefer that Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track over DTS-HD Master 7.1.

FOX just didn't kept their word:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...y-3061663.html

4K Ultra HD Features:
• Feature Film in 4K Ultra HD with HDR (High Dynamic Range)
• Immersive Audio
• Menus in HDR
• Plus, Blu-ray and Digital HD Copy of the Feature Film

http://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/life-of-.../6000195943015

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Thanks, Adrian. Even if you don't have a Dolby Atmos set up, I would always prefer that Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track over DTS-HD Master 7.1.

FOX just didn't kept their word:

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...y-3061663.html



http://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/life-of-.../6000195943015

I agree with you.

I don't have Dolby atmos, but the movies encoded with Atmos sound better than the DTS movies on my system. It won't change my buying habits, but it would be nice.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

People are still saying the pixels don't make a difference, but dat HDR kool aid

What's wrong with both? UHD with HDR lets us have our cake and eat it too. I'm loving this format so far. Yes, special care needs to be taken with classic films(I'm looking at you, Ghostbusters!), but the first wave of titles overall looks incredible.

[bruceames]

Mike doesn't like HDR unless that's how it was shown in theaters.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Mike doesn't like HDR unless that's how it was shown in theaters.

Serious question. Can theaters do HDR?

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

Serious question. Can theaters do HDR?

I should have said Mike doesn't want it unless they were specifically graded for HDR. Don't know either which theaters if any actually have it.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I should have said Mike doesn't want it unless they were specifically graded for HDR. Don't know either which theaters if any actually have it.

But grading for theaters and grading for home are two different things. One isn't necessarily justification for the other. I would lean more toward only wanting HDR if the project was conceptualized from the beginning with HDR in mind. Ultimately I think it will come down to how aggressive HDR is in any feature. I've only seen one film theatrically in HDR (The Martian) and the difference between it and the standard theatrical grade I saw was almost nil. If there were differences I didn't see anything that stuck out. I've also seen side by side fully calibrated comparisons of the same material with one being an SDR grade and the other a DV grade and the differences weren't so dramatic that I would expect a lot of people to call foul. It was mainly better color, less clipping and better details in highlights. Like anything else I'm sure we'll get products that abuse the technology, but hopefully those cases will be few and far between.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

Serious question. Can theaters do HDR?

Just a handful on the planet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_...h_Dolby_Cinema

DCI specs don't have HDR, so it's basically "out of standard"

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

Serious question. Can theaters do HDR?

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Just a handful on the planet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_...h_Dolby_Cinema

DCI specs don't have HDR, so it's basically "out of standard"

Don't forget Imax Laser theaters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IMAX_venues Search for laser.
That adds another handful.

[Adrian Wright]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Mike doesn't like HDR unless that's how it was shown in theaters.

I am sure he can speak for himself, but one of Mike's 'bones of contention' are also HDR regrades that may or not be done now the original film makers are no longer with us to advise on how the finished product should look. I also agree with him on this 100%.

The best way to show you are unhappy with the output, is refuse to pay for it if your really feel THAT strongly about it. Regardless of this being OTA, Streaming or Disc Based formats.

Vote with your wallets

[larrs]

How is this (UHD-BD) not a "cart before the horse" product right now? Aren't most directors shooting, editing and grading their film for regular projection equipment? If so, How is what you are getting at this point the Director's intent? If so, IMHO, this is no different than either adding a different color palette to a film, or putting your TV on "Vivid", turning frame interpolation on high and then talking about how great it looks.

Now, as HDR becomes more prevalent and the industry and most films are filmed, edited and graded for it, this may change. Right now, that is not the case- or, please tell me how this is different.

So, right now, I am leaning with others in that I want the 4K discs for the fact there is more data there, more bandwidth for a better representation now and in the future, but not necessarily for HDR which can change the film entirely.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by Adrian Wright

I am sure he can speak for himself, but one of Mike's 'bones of contention' are also HDR regrades that may or not be done now the original film makers are no longer with us to advise on how the finished product should look. I also agree with him on this 100%.

The best way to show you are unhappy with the output, is refuse to pay for it if your really feel THAT strongly about it. Regardless of this being OTA, Streaming or Disc Based formats.

Vote with your wallets

Can UHD discs or players have a "HDR disable" feature? So you can watch the movie in pure 4K without the HDR enhancement? If so, that would solve a lot of problems for purists(which I consider myself, BTW).

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Adrian Wright

I am sure he can speak for himself, but one of Mike's 'bones of contention' are also HDR regrades that may or not be done now the original film makers are no longer with us to advise on how the finished product should look. I also agree with him on this 100%.

Well we have:

1) movies "conceptualized" with HDR in mind. Probably movies newer than 2 years old.

2) catalog movies that still have the director/producer/cinematographer around to approve (or be involved with) HDR regrading

3) catalog movies where there are no living members in a capacity to approve HDR regrading.

I'm fine with 1 and 2, but not with 3. For example Lawrence has been regrading with HDR and will probably see a UHD BD release sooner rather than later, but that would fall under 3.

There's obviously going to be a lot of controversy about regrading movies with HDR, especially with older movies.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

Can UHD discs or players have a "HDR disable" feature? So you can watch the movie in pure 4K without the HDR enhancement? If so, that would solve a lot of problems for purists(which I consider myself, BTW).

That would be ideal. Failing that, instead of having a BD/UHD combo, have a UHD non-HDR/UHD HDR combo instead.

[tama]

I'll be on the fence for a while on this. But overall I'm not liking what I'm hearing. Went to a local BB to see some set ups but without proper calibrations at this point the 4K sets playing The Martian Demo didn't impress me one bit. The one OLED set that looked killer was because it was playing screen savers really. So???

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Adrian Wright

I am sure he can speak for himself, but one of Mike's 'bones of contention' are also HDR regrades that may or not be done now the original film makers are no longer with us to advise on how the finished product should look. I also agree with him on this 100%.

The best way to show you are unhappy with the output, is refuse to pay for it if your really feel THAT strongly about it. Regardless of this being OTA, Streaming or Disc Based formats.

Vote with your wallets

according to the review of hte martian on the digital bits, with the movie the martian, the color grading on the new version was done with the original colorist and was approved by the director himself.

Sorry for being overly optimistic, but im assuming that this method is the preferred way for every movie if it is possible.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Well we have:

1) movies "conceptualized" with HDR in mind. Probably movies newer than 2 years old.

2) catalog movies that still have the director/producer/cinematographer around to approve (or be involved with) HDR regrading

3) catalog movies where there are no living members in a capacity to approve HDR regrading.

I'm fine with 1 and 2, but not with 3. For example Lawrence has been regrading with HDR and will probably see a UHD BD release sooner rather than later, but that would fall under 3.

There's obviously going to be a lot of controversy about regrading movies with HDR, especially with older movies.

Good post! In category 1, you might change that to: "movies newer than 1 year old", first HDR movie was Tomorrowland released May 22, 2015....

Category 2 is very difficult to judge, and I would say that it might make sense only for movies shot digital and not on traditional 35mm/65mm film...

Category 3 is pure revisionism and it's a big no!