Samsung 4K UHD Blu-ray Player UBD-K8500

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by saprano

You would still have the wider color space and 10bit color depth. HDR'ing everything is not needed to bring out more colors.

Yup, fanboys on here acting like 4k is vhs without HDR

[tyrok]

4K Blu-ray featured in the 2/28 Best Buy Ad:

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by JJ

Ok, let's say I accept this for old movies.

What about for new ones, from this point on? We're simply gonna deny filmmakers the wider color gamut and additional color detail available with HDR/Rec. XXXX/etc, etc in the future - just so we can stick to the past? Blu-ray, as amazing as it looks, will never capture all the colors the eye can see. Neither does 4K, but hell, it captures MORE. So why not use it?

And if we're gonna kill off HDR now, simply to placate those worried about the past, how will move forward with the future?

That doesn't make sense.

Contrary to a common home theater enthusiastic view, motion pictures are not made for the home, they're made for movie theaters. Television is made for the home! I'd be surprised if directors started applying techniques like HDR just because UHD with 4K was out there - any more than they've suddenly started making all of their movies in 16 x 9 ratio (because black bars on TVs are "annoying" to many typical viewers)

Home video - whether UHD or BD or DVD or VHS or streaming - is a byproduct of the theatrical intent.

If camera technology is there, and theaters can show it, and then that image is carried across to home video then excellent. But if HDR is applied retrospectively - purely for the home video experience - then I'd be very concerned.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Contrary to a common home theater enthusiastic view, motion pictures are not made for the home, they're made for movie theaters. Television is made for the home! I'd be surprised if directors started applying techniques like HDR just because UHD with 4K was out there - any more than they've suddenly started making all of their movies in 16 x 9 ratio (because black bars on TVs are "annoying" to many typical viewers)

Home video - whether UHD or BD or DVD or VHS or streaming - is a byproduct of the theatrical intent.

If camera technology is there, and theaters can show it, and then that image is carried across to home video then excellent. But if HDR is applied retrospectively - purely for the home video experience - then I'd be very concerned.

Dolby Cinema (HDR, Dolby Vision, what have you) is a movie theater technology though.

I think we can find a middle ground to agree on. I too, would be concerned about retroactively applying HDR to older films - the image data is either there on the old masters, or it isn't. That's what I'd love to know. How much of what's on the masters, in terms of color/detail - are we getting on our current blurays?

If we can squeeze more data/detail - from what's already on the masters, but what blu-ray has been unable to show - then I'm all for it.

But I dont know what blu-ray has been unable to show under its current standards and specs.

Go crazy in future films, though, give me all the HDR!

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by JJ

Dolby Cinema (HDR, Dolby Vision, what have you) is a movie theater technology though.

But (and this is a genuine question because, to my knowledge, we don't have any of those screens here in the UK), does re-grading occur between the original theatrical presentation and the Dolby Cinema presentation? Because that, in itself, is tinkering for the sake of gimmicky technology. Sort of like converting a film into 3-D during post-production, rather than filming in native 3-D.

I'm open to watching movies filmed in 3-D. I'd be open to watching movies filmed with HDR. But adding either process after the fact, doesn't interest me particularly.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

But (and this is a genuine question because, to my knowledge, we don't have any of those screens here in the UK), does re-grading occur between the original theatrical presentation and the Dolby Cinema presentation? Because that, in itself, is tinkering for the sake of gimmicky technology. Sort of like converting a film into 3-D during post-production, rather than filming in native 3-D.

I'm open to watching movies filmed in 3-D. I'd be open to watching movies filmed with HDR. But adding either process after the fact, doesn't interest me particularly.

Well digital grading is always post-production anyway. Of course the main grading is done for the DCI specs so not HDR. But if the movie has a Dolby Cinema release, they have to do a specific grading for HDR Dolby Vision at the same time.

If the movie DOESN'T have a Dolby Cinema release, then you are right, it should be considered a "conversion" for home video...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Contrary to a common home theater enthusiastic view, motion pictures are not made for the home, they're made for movie theaters. Television is made for the home! I'd be surprised if directors started applying techniques like HDR just because UHD with 4K was out there - any more than they've suddenly started making all of their movies in 16 x 9 ratio (because black bars on TVs are "annoying" to many typical viewers)

Home video - whether UHD or BD or DVD or VHS or streaming - is a byproduct of the theatrical intent.

If camera technology is there, and theaters can show it, and then that image is carried across to home video then excellent. But if HDR is applied retrospectively - purely for the home video experience - then I'd be very concerned.

That's pretty much exactly what's happening, rocklands. There *are* theatrical HDR grades too, yes, but we've just been told that it's "irrelevant" if we can't get to an HDR theater to actually see this stuff in the wild (remind me how many DV venues there are in Europe again?) so I'm close to giving up on this whole damned side of the site, **** it.

I watched Kingsman earlier - the plain jane regular SDR 8-bit 100-nit Blu-ray that might as well have come from the goddamned Dark Ages - and I thought it looked absolutely stunning. Beautiful anamorphic photography with them Hawk lenses (they've got a different 'feel' than Panavision glass, they also breathe a bit more when racking focus) and the encode itself was peerless, it puts the likes of Lionsgate to shame. If the UHD is that much better, fine, but don't tell me I didn't just sit through an absolutely superbly handled Blu-ray.

I don't doubt that people are experiencing these incredible epiphanies when they watch HDR/UHD stuff but for me, where I'm at right now with my gear, I'm failing to comprehend just how much better it can get. Or maybe I've just got really low standards, after all I'm the loon who can quite happily watch a decently-encoded DVD on his 4K TV.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

But (and this is a genuine question because, to my knowledge, we don't have any of those screens here in the UK), does re-grading occur between the original theatrical presentation and the Dolby Cinema presentation? Because that, in itself, is tinkering for the sake of gimmicky technology. Sort of like converting a film into 3-D during post-production, rather than filming in native 3-D.

I'm open to watching movies filmed in 3-D. I'd be open to watching movies filmed with HDR. But adding either process after the fact, doesn't interest me particularly.

I actually don't have the slightest. Probably need to go ask one of the insiders. Or Google.

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Well digital grading is always post-production anyway. Of course the main grading is done for the DCI specs so not HDR. But if the movie has a Dolby Cinema release, they have to do a specific grading for HDR Dolby Vision at the same time.

If the movie DOESN'T have a Dolby Cinema release, then you are right, it should be considered a "conversion" for home video...

Agreed. Just like how it was for 3D.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's pretty much exactly what's happening, rocklands. There *are* theatrical HDR grades too, yes, but we've just been told that it's "irrelevant" if we can't get to an HDR theater to actually see this stuff in the wild (remind me how many DV venues there are in Europe again?) so I'm close to giving up on this whole damned side of the site, **** it.

I watched Kingsman earlier - the plain jane regular SDR 8-bit 100-nit Blu-ray that might as well have come from the goddamned Dark Ages - and I thought it looked absolutely stunning. Beautiful anamorphic photography with them Hawk lenses (they've got a different 'feel' than Panavision glass, they also breathe a bit more when racking focus) and the encode itself was peerless, it puts the likes of Lionsgate to shame. If the UHD is that much better, fine, but don't tell me I didn't just sit through an absolutely superbly handled Blu-ray.

I don't doubt that people are experiencing these incredible epiphanies when they watch HDR/UHD stuff but for me, where I'm at right now with my gear, I'm failing to comprehend just how much better it can get. Or maybe I've just got really low standards, after all I'm the loon who can quite happily watch a decently-encoded DVD on his 4K TV.

I will say I've never said that "bluray is now unwatchable to me" - it still looks amazing. Are they really saying that over on AVS? Good god, lemme go take a look.

I'm currently the loon who refuses to go Dolby Atmos despite sound being more important to me than video.

Refusal being probably money related. Like rocklands and his HDR.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's pretty much exactly what's happening, rocklands. There *are* theatrical HDR grades too, yes, but we've just been told that it's "irrelevant" if we can't get to an HDR theater to actually see this stuff in the wild (remind me how many DV venues there are in Europe again?) so I'm close to giving up on this whole damned side of the site, **** it.

I watched Kingsman earlier - the plain jane regular SDR 8-bit 100-nit Blu-ray that might as well have come from the goddamned Dark Ages - and I thought it looked absolutely stunning. Beautiful anamorphic photography with them Hawk lenses (they've got a different 'feel' than Panavision glass, they also breathe a bit more when racking focus) and the encode itself was peerless, it puts the likes of Lionsgate to shame. If the UHD is that much better, fine, but don't tell me I didn't just sit through an absolutely superbly handled Blu-ray.

I don't doubt that people are experiencing these incredible epiphanies when they watch HDR/UHD stuff but for me, where I'm at right now with my gear, I'm failing to comprehend just how much better it can get. Or maybe I've just got really low standards, after all I'm the loon who can quite happily watch a decently-encoded DVD on his 4K TV.

I totally agree, I would have written the same, but you are english so you write better....

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I watched Kingsman earlier - the plain jane regular SDR 8-bit 100-nit Blu-ray that might as well have come from the goddamned Dark Ages - and I thought it looked absolutely stunning. Beautiful anamorphic photography with them Hawk lenses (they've got a different 'feel' than Panavision glass, they also breathe a bit more when racking focus) and the encode itself was peerless, it puts the likes of Lionsgate to shame. If the UHD is that much better, fine, but don't tell me I didn't just sit through an absolutely superbly handled Blu-ray.

I don't doubt that people are experiencing these incredible epiphanies when they watch HDR/UHD stuff but for me, where I'm at right now with my gear, I'm failing to comprehend just how much better it can get. Or maybe I've just got really low standards, after all I'm the loon who can quite happily watch a decently-encoded DVD on his 4K TV.

I just had the same experience watching the crappy standard blu-ray of EVEREST. Gorgeous deep colours, amazing contrast, beautiful photography, awesome sound. And, you know, really old fashioned cool things like great acting, great direction and a powerful score. I am hanging my head in shame by being truly wowed by it.

I don't know the technical numbers. I couldn't give a monkeys about the colour "gamut", to be honest. But what a great film!

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by JJ

Refusal being probably money related. Like rocklands and his HDR.

I don't know why you persist with that theory. It simply isn't true!

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by JJ

I'm currently the loon who refuses to go Dolby Atmos despite sound being more important to me than video.

Sound is more important to me too, but 5.1 does the trick just fine. It provides the necessary sound field. Don't need Dolby Atmos. Don't even need 7.1.

Again, nothing to do with cost, it simply isn't necessary.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

I don't know why you persist with that theory. It simply isn't true!

Fine. I can't financially justify it.

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Sound is more important to me too, but 5.1 does the trick just fine. It provides the necessary sound field. Don't need Dolby Atmos. Don't even need 7.1.

Okay, now I know we'll never agree again.

We tried, at least.

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by JJ

Fine. I can't financially justify it.

Okay, now I know we'll never agree again.

We tried, at least.

Did those extra two (discrete) channels transform your enjoyment of the movie? Really? Okay, that's another discussion for another thread! :-)

[stantoine]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Contrary to a common home theater enthusiastic view, motion pictures are not made for the home, they're made for movie theaters. Television is made for the home! I'd be surprised if directors started applying techniques like HDR just because UHD with 4K was out there - any more than they've suddenly started making all of their movies in 16 x 9 ratio (because black bars on TVs are "annoying" to many typical viewers)

Home video - whether UHD or BD or DVD or VHS or streaming - is a byproduct of the theatrical intent.

If camera technology is there, and theaters can show it, and then that image is carried across to home video then excellent. But if HDR is applied retrospectively - purely for the home video experience - then I'd be very concerned.

I must not be typical. Love the no black bars on my Vizio 21x9 TV... I'm only annoyed that this format FAILED to catch on with people that love to watch movies at home!

I was planning to upgrade my 58" 21x9 to something huge but the format didnt gain any ground and failed. Now I will be forced to go to a projector...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

I totally agree, I would have written the same, but you are english so you write better....

Grazie.

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Did those extra two (discrete) channels transform your enjoyment of the movie? Really? Okay, that's another discussion for another thread! :-)

I do like 7.1 though.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Sound is more important to me too, but 5.1 does the trick just fine. It provides the necessary sound field. Don't need Dolby Atmos. Don't even need 7.1.

Again, nothing to do with cost, it simply isn't necessary.

Then by that measure 5.1 isn't necessary over stereo.

[whats4k]

Anyone notice that in the Best Buy ad posted above, the mention of "HDR" technology is completely absent.

Possibly to avoid mass confusion?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Then by that measure 5.1 isn't necessary over stereo.

I think the difference between 5.1 and stereo is a lot more significant than that between 7.1 and 5.1.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I think the difference between 5.1 and stereo is a lot more significant than that between 7.1 and 5.1.

We're talking Atmos vs. 5.1