Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not about "fade" with 35mm so much as people didn't simply open the shutter as wide as possible and soak up as much light as they could, most DPs had an intrinsic knowledge of film and where the shoulder and the toe of the exposure curve were, it was exposed for a certain look which includes how it would ultimately be affected by developing (pushing/pulling) and the subsequent analogue colour timing pass.

Not to denigrate what DPs have done in the modern DI era w/regard to the hard work that they put in on a daily basis, but something that I've come across in various American Cinematographer articles is DPs mentioning that they still like to shoot for a look, they don't like to capture a flat image with a broad stroke and leave the bulk of the work for the DI. Even someone as experienced as Robby Richardson said that going back to an analogue finish on Hateful Eight (as per Quentin's wishes) was kinda daunting because he became so used to the flexibility of the DI, there was more pressure on him to actually capture the precise look in-camera rather than dial it in later with a thousand little adjustments.

Interesting. Thanks for the insight.

Does this mean some films just won't be compatible with HDR? How does this work in practice?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Well for those with HDR problems, the remastered BD is still a huge upgrade:

https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?g...101419&i=1&l=0
http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a...101426&i=8&l=0

The old BD used a DVD master basically (1080p telecine?)

Yes, thank you. My Blu-ray version (DigiBook) looks like VHS.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

HDR, at least in this case, is added in post though. Like how 3D is done on a movie captured in 2D.

I'm not sure how HDR on UHD releases relate to the higher dynamic range of film, or if they have any relation (it confuses me, TBH), but I do know for sure that, in this case, HDR isn't something captured on camera, but something added in post. Like "hey, let's make the flames on the left there look really bright and orange".

Think of it as a more controlled version of the dynamic setting on your TV, without all the crushed highlights. Hence it having "dynamic" in its name.

EDIT: If I were to guess, I'd say dynamic range, in the case of film, refers more to contrast and shadow detail.

Whereas HDR in this case refers to brightness and colour. Though I could be wrong.

Though yes, like you said, it could be done nicely if it's only added to improve things like shadow detail in high-contrast areas, and not to make parts of the image "pop" with an explosion of colour and brightness. It might be even more faithful to the original intent than SDR in that case.

I see your points. Dynamic range as a concept has always existed, very broadly it's the difference between the darkest point and the brightest point of a given image, but naturally it wasn't qualified into the response of the Perceptual Quantizer EOTF which is a very recent HDR display function and not a camera function as you say.

One could argue that even now things aren't being shot with this specific HDR function in mind, that it's being applied after the fact, although the latitude of modern digital cameras is so large that it's capturing this stuff anyway, e.g. when Tim Miller graded Deadpool in HDR10 he actually said that they were seeing things they'd never caught before, especially highlight detail in clouds and whatnot. Even stuff finished out in theatrical Dolby Vision is being graded for 100-nit viewing, vs the 4000-nit ceiling of the home DV grades (and plenty of HDR10 discs too for that matter).

So at this point I've put the revisionism that's inherent to 'home' HDR to one side because if it's not the grading that's different, it's the display implentation which is all over the place! I wrestled with these same questions as to intent and accuracy a good three or four years ago when 4K was just starting out as a consumer display system, but having drunk deeply from the well of UHD Kool-Aid over this past year I'm now a dyed-in-the-wool believer.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Yes, thank you. My Blu-ray version (DigiBook) looks like VHS.

I wouldn't go that far! It was good for its time

But yes the original Blu-ray came out in 2006, it's very dated.

Probably the master they used was the same as the 2002 10th Anniversary DVD, a 1080p telecine not even a scan...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

Interesting. Thanks for the insight.

Does this mean some films just won't be compatible with HDR? How does this work in practice?

According to Steve Withers at AVF, when they went on a PR junket for UHD discs they were told that some content providers had flat-out declined to grade their stuff in HDR. Who and what, we don't know.

I'm not sure that "compatible" is the right word though, this might sound like I'm moving the goalposts but just because something was shot for a specific look doesn't mean that the limited range and gamut of current 8-bit SDR 709 video is automatically accurate to that intention, seeing as most DIs and modern digital remasters are 10-bit P3 (or custom gamut) at the minimum.

What an HDR grade can do is allow as much of the intended range and gamut through as possible, so even if it's not a retina-scorching rainbow delight of HDR goodness it's still capable of getting you closer to the original look than not. Still, given that some directors treat the look of their work as a moving target e.g. Fincher, Scott, Mann (another reason why accuracy to source isn't quite as important to me as it once was) then they may yet go crazy with the HDR grade of whatever cherished 35mm production.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

I wouldn't go that far! It was good for it's time

But yes the original Blu-ray came out in 2006, it's very dated.

Probably the master they used was the same as the 2002 10th Anniversary DVD, a 1080p telecine not even a scan...

Well well well, when you mentioned DVD I didn't want to mention HD DVD so I just used VHS. But yes, I re-watched it not long ago, awesome replay value, but it is in need of an upgrade, and this new 25th Anniversary release* is welcome...when the price come down in this part of our planet. ...I need more Bitcoins.

* Twice on DVD, once on HD DVD, and now three times on Blu-ray...four with the 4K BR.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Well well well, when you mentioned DVD I didn't want to mention HD DVD so I just used VHS. But yes, I re-watched it not long ago, awesome replay value, but it is in need of an upgrade, and this new 25th Anniversary release* is welcome...when the price come down in this part of our planet. ...I need more Bitcoins.

* Twice on DVD, once on HD DVD, and now three times on Blu-ray...four with the 4K BR.

Wait, you basically bought the same disc 3 times?

HD-DVD and BD were identical prior to this 25th anniversary edition

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

According to Steve Withers at AVF, when they went on a PR junket for UHD discs they were told that some content providers had flat-out declined to grade their stuff in HDR. Who and what, we don't know.

I'm not sure that "compatible" is the right word though, this might sound like I'm moving the goalposts but just because something was shot for a specific look doesn't mean that the limited range and gamut of current 8-bit SDR 709 video is automatically accurate to that intention, seeing as most DIs and modern digital remasters are 10-bit P3 (or custom gamut) at the minimum.

What an HDR grade can do is allow as much of the intended range and gamut through as possible, so even if it's not a retina-scorching rainbow delight of HDR goodness it's still capable of getting you closer to the original look than not. Still, given that some directors treat the look of their work as a moving target e.g. Fincher, Scott, Mann (another reason why accuracy to source isn't quite as important to me as it once was) then they may yet go crazy with the HDR grade of whatever cherished 35mm production.

It almost sounds like HDR is more suitable for older films than newer ones after reading this, lol.

[Geoff D]

It's a tool like any other. It can be open to abuse but as long as it's used with taste then older movies can still benefit, not unlike the modern trend of grain removal/replacement.

And with newer movies the question of them being a moving target also extends to the theatrical finish. They have to grade separately for things like 2D, 4.5 fL 3D, 7 fL 3D, Dolby Vision 2D & 3D, IMAX digital 2D & 3D, IMAX film, IMAX Laser 2D & 3D etc.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Wait, you basically bought the same disc 3 times?

HD-DVD and BD were identical prior to this 25th anniversary edition

Yes, once on DVD, once on HD DVD and last on Blu-ray. I also got it on VHS.
I bet some people have one more or two versions than I. It is funny, we're funny. Don't tell others they might smile too.

Imagine, just for a quick moment, the people who have never seen 'Unforgiven' ... ever.

* I gave the VHS to my son who gave it to his son.
I gave the DVD to my brother who gave it to his son.
I kept the red HD DVD and Blu, for player's diversification.
Tomorrow, sometime, someone will inherit my Blu, because my Red nobody's playing that color anymore in my ancestral family. It will become a rare relic, and eventually end up on eBay.

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Perhaps, just perhaps, the fears that some people had about how dynamic metadata adjust the image on a shot-by-shot basis - thereby making the TV's own processing play catch-up e.g. the backlighting on an LCD - had some merit after all.

If this is indeed the case, is it something that will be overcome in the future as technology advances?

[freinhar]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

There are no HDR 10 screengrabs. Not possible yet. For what it's worth your description sounds pretty much how the disc looks on my KS8000. I think people who see it too dark have a settings or equipment issue. These Warner HDR grades are tricky beasts.

Good point, and I should have chosen my words more accurately. Screengrabs is the wrong term, somewhere earlier in the thread someone had posted some photos they'd taken of the UHD disc and BR disc presentation in a perfectly dark room. Compared to those photos, the Dolby Vision stream I watched seemed to have slightly more detail visible in the dark scenes. I'm mindful that this is probably more likely related to the inherent difficulty of taking an accurate photo of a TV screen, than a meaningful difference between DV and HDR10 in this case.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Staying Salty

If this is indeed the case, is it something that will be overcome in the future as technology advances?

It may well be the case that backlit LCDs or the dynamic iris on projectors will have this kind of trouble keeping up with how the scene is being dynamically adjusted. Heck, even on the almighty ZD9 which has best-in-class full array dimming there's obvious blooming on quick transitions between brightly lit highlights and darker shots in HDR10, it just can't dim down fast enough when dealing with a very bright kind of specular highlight against a darker scene, like the oil lamps in the dimly-lit opening scene of Unforgiven. Not even Dolby Vision could fix that.

But I'm not saying the sky is falling, I'm saying this may prove to be an issue as this is only one user's feedback after all. It just struck a chord with me given that I remembered someone worrying about how these quick dynamic adjustments could affect the display. Time will tell.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It may well be the case that backlit LCDs or the dynamic iris on projectors will have this kind of trouble keeping up with how the scene is being dynamically adjusted. Heck, even on the almighty ZD9 which has best-in-class full array dimming there's obvious blooming on quick transitions between brightly lit highlights and darker shots in HDR10, it just can't dim down fast enough when dealing with a very bright kind of specular highlight against a darker scene, like the oil lamps in the dimly-lit opening scene of Unforgiven. Not even Dolby Vision could fix that.

You know what, THIS is what I was seeing. It was always a dark scene right after the transition, so I bet it was all bright scenes before that. Good call, good lookin' out, etc. So I guess that's just a hazard of HDR no matter the display or method. Bummer.

It was very rare though, and Unforgiven was the first time I saw it at all that I can think of. So I don't think it will be a consistent quibble.

[Geoff D]

It's a drawback of LCD backlighting in general, but from what I've seen on the ZD9 so far the lighting is absolutely sumptuous in 120-nit SDR output. Basically, the relative brightness of the SDR grade means that there will always be quite a limited distance between darkest dark and brightest bright. So while you get glorious blacks (and they are astonishing on the ZD9, I've never seen anything like it on an LCD) the brightest highlight isn't THAT bright in comparison, so the full array dimming isn't having to boost itself to stupid levels for the specular details, whereas in >1500-nit HDR the light simply can't decay fast enough on the quickest transitions from light to dark which leaves behind a patch of blooming for a split-second. I've spotted it several times thus far in Unforgiven, Fantastic Beasts and Hacksaw Ridge.

[edit] And just to reiterate the above, Johnny Archer says exactly the same thing re: the backlight blooming being virtually invisible in SDR viewing in this review: http://www.trustedreviews.com/sony-k...clusion-page-2

[Portista]

Quick question - is the UV download that comes with this in 4k or 'normal' HD?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's a drawback of LCD backlighting in general, but from what I've seen on the ZD9 so far the lighting is absolutely sumptuous in 120-nit SDR output. Basically, the relative brightness of the SDR grade means that there will always be quite a limited distance between darkest dark and brightest bright. So while you get glorious blacks (and they are astonishing on the ZD9, I've never seen anything like it on an LCD) the brightest highlight isn't THAT bright in comparison, so the full array dimming isn't having to boost itself to stupid levels for the specular details, whereas in >1500-nit HDR the light simply can't decay fast enough on the quickest transitions from light to dark which leaves behind a patch of blooming for a split-second. I've spotted it several times thus far in Unforgiven, Fantastic Beasts and Hacksaw Ridge.

I thought you were returning that sucker?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I thought you were returning that sucker?

The refurb I bought has gone back, I've since ponied up for a new one, it's coming on Tuesday.

[LordoftheRings]

Regarding the newly remastered 1080p Blu-ray that comes included in this 4K/HDR BR package:

"The included Blu-ray is the same as the remastered Blu-ray release from 2012. It isn't the original Blu-ray release." - someone

I thought that both the original (2006) and DigiBook (20th Anniversary - 2012) Blu-rays were the same Blu-ray version...with the same video and audio.
According to the experts here @ blu-ray.com

So, if the new 25th Anniversary 1080p Blu-ray is the same as the 2012 BR version (20th Anniversary), it's not worth it for people who want only to upgrade their DigiBook 2012 BR version for this new 1080p remastered one?

It's not important, what is is the new 4K Blu-ray.
Still, it's nice to know exactly which regular Blu-ray is the best for picture and sound.
Because my 2012 BR version looks like DVD, with the exact same video encoding and same compressed (lossy) audio (DD 5.1) as the 2006 original BR version.

This 25th anniversary Blu-ray (regular 1080p) is supposedly a brand new remastered one with twice the metadata video encoding as compared to the 2012 version (a 4K scan from the UHD version) and a new hi-res (lossless) audio (DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1) mastering.
And I believe it is, so then it's worth the upgrade. IMO

Like I said, it's not important; it's only a movie with picture and sound...it's 'Unforgiven' with Clint and gang.
_____

[Show spoiler] http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-of...l#post53280498

[Geoff D]

That's wrong on so many levels: there has never been a remastered Unforgiven disc, only the same 2006 effort doled out over and over in different packaging, and the BD included with the UHD is 100% a brand-new 1080p reduction of the brand-new 4K remaster.

Do people still wonder why I don't place much stock in reviewers any more?