Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by smackrabbit

This is the biggest issue with HDR, and is a problem the TV vendors created for themselves. The KU6300 (and many other TVs) come labeled as HDR because they can read HDR metadata, but they can't display it. They aren't wide gamut, they don't have local dimming, and they don't have the ability to show a true HDR highlight because of this. The UHD discs will show better resolution, but the other benefits can't be displayed by the KU6300 and lots of other "HDR" TVs. Drives me crazy with how they're marketing it.

Yep. It works too, my wife was suckered by it. She knew I wanted a "4k HDR" TV so she got me one for Christmas, not knowing it wasn't really what I needed. They do it because it works I guess, but they're only hurting the format in the long run. People watching on sets that aren't HDR Premium go around saying it looks dark, or washed out, or not a big upgrade, and then less people want to buy in because they heard it sucks. Check out the normal BD thread for this movie, tons of people saying the UHD is worse than the BD.

Warner movies are especially bad on limited sets in my experience, because they seem to be mastered with no compromises. You better have high nits, good color volume and excellent tone mapping, or it's not gonna look right. Hence the divisive comments in this thread and all my complaints about Warner titles when I had the 6300.

[smackrabbit]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yep. It works too, my wife was suckered by it. She knew I wanted a "4k HDR" TV so she got me one for Christmas, not knowing it wasn't really what I needed. They do it because it works I guess, but they're only hurting the format in the long run. People watching on sets that aren't HDR Premium go around saying it looks dark, or washed out, or not a big upgrade, and then less people want to buy in because they heard it sucks. Check out the normal BD thread for this movie, tons of people saying the UHD is worse than the BD.

Warner movies are especially bad on limited sets in my experience, because they seem to be mastered with no compromises. You better have high nits, good color volume and excellent tone mapping, or it's not gonna look right. Hence the divisive comments in this thread and all my complaints about Warner titles when I had the 6300.

Lots of this will also depend on the content. Unforgiven has very few elements that are excessively bright, so even though it's mastered with a MaxCLL of 4000 nits, I'm sure the peak is way, way below that. It's more important how well the display tracks the EOTF up to the tone mapping section, since that content will then display correctly. The LG seems to track it wrong for 4000 nits, while the Sony tracks it well with 1000 and 4000. Even though the A1E has a cap of 730 nits, everything below 600 or so will display perfectly and only the content above 600 will be tone mapped.

The KU6300 had large issues with tone mapping when I tested it. You had to reduce the contrast to defeat clipping in channels, which reduced the light output for HDR, which made everything look no better than the Blu-ray version. Marketing displays as HDR that can't display HDR, like the KU6300, will just anger consumers when they buy a display and HDR looks no better. UltraHD Premium certification was an attempt to solve this, but you had to pay to join, and the testing methodology was kept secret, so we don't know how accurate it truly is. Sony and Vizio never bought in, though, so most people never cared.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Maybe they remastered Cowboys vs. Aliens instead?

I had a CvA gag ready to go in my original post, thought it might've been too sarky though

[OI8T12]

Originally Posted by smackrabbit

[Show spoiler]Lots of this will also depend on the content. Unforgiven has very few elements that are excessively bright, so even though it's mastered with a MaxCLL of 4000 nits, I'm sure the peak is way, way below that. It's more important how well the display tracks the EOTF up to the tone mapping section, since that content will then display correctly. The LG seems to track it wrong for 4000 nits, while the Sony tracks it well with 1000 and 4000. Even though the A1E has a cap of 730 nits, everything below 600 or so will display perfectly and only the content above 600 will be tone mapped.

The KU6300 had large issues with tone mapping when I tested it. You had to reduce the contrast to defeat clipping in channels, which reduced the light output for HDR, which made everything look no better than the Blu-ray version. Marketing displays as HDR that can't display HDR, like the KU6300, will just anger consumers when they buy a display and HDR looks no better. UltraHD Premium certification was an attempt to solve this, but you had to pay to join, and the testing methodology was kept secret, so we don't know how accurate it truly is. Sony and Vizio never bought in, though, so most people never cared.

If you don't mind my asking, who are you, and how do you know so much about the 6300? I ask this because your posting history indicates that you have not been very active on the forum since you joined in 2012. It's not that I don't believe you, it's because there are so many armchair experts around here it's not even funny.

I own the 6300, but I knew going in that it was not a premium HDR TV. I do see a difference on most of the movies that I have watched in HDR, and I am quite happy about my set up at the moment. But I knew I would have to upgrade in a few years to get the full effect of HDR.

[smackrabbit]

Originally Posted by OI8T12

If you don't mind my asking, who are you, and how do you know so much about the 6300? I ask this because your posting history indicates that you have not been very active on the forum since you joined in 2012. It's not that I don't believe you, it's because there are so many armchair experts around here it's not even funny.

I own the 6300, but I knew going in that it was not a premium HDR TV. I do see a difference on most of the movies that I have watched in HDR, and I am quite happy about my set up at the moment. But I knew I would have to upgrade in a few years to get the full effect of HDR.

I'm Chris Heinonen, I write all the TV and Projector reviews for The Wirecutter, and run Reference Home Theater in my spare time. The KU6300 was our alternate pick for affordable 4K TVs last year at Wirecutter, but hands-on testing indicated that there was no real benefit to the HDR metadata handling. It was tone mapping highlights very poorly with the Contrast set to max (the default behavior), and while reducing the contrast down fixed that, then you'd given up the brightness that you were supposed to get. And since it doesn't have any sort of local dimming, HDR is still only going to offer 5000:1 contrast on it, the same as SDR can.

Samsung might have pushed an update later to improve the tone mapping, that's entirely possible, but it couldn't change the lack of local dimming or absence of wide color gamut support. It's a nice TV for the price, I'd just prefer they don't try to market it as an HDR TV when it doesn't really do that.

[StingingVelvet]

The 6300 was a great TV and made blu-rays look amazing. It also handled a lot of UHDs well, especially Fox titles. OI8T12 knows I never mean to mock that TV, it blew the pants of my old Vizio. However when discussing why some discs are very divisive, like Unforgivem Goodfellas and The Arrival, I think it's important we discuss tone mapping, wide color and nits differences that are the likely the cause of those varying reactions.

UHD would have more consistent praise if wide color, 1,000 nits and some percentage of color volume were considered requirements, rather than vague standards.

[OI8T12]

Originally Posted by smackrabbit

I'm Chris Heinonen, I write all the TV and Projector reviews for The Wirecutter, and run Reference Home Theater in my spare time. The KU6300 was our alternate pick for affordable 4K TVs last year at Wirecutter, but hands-on testing indicated that there was no real benefit to the HDR metadata handling. It was tone mapping highlights very poorly with the Contrast set to max (the default behavior), and while reducing the contrast down fixed that, then you'd given up the brightness that you were supposed to get. And since it doesn't have any sort of local dimming, HDR is still only going to offer 5000:1 contrast on it, the same as SDR can.

Samsung might have pushed an update later to improve the tone mapping, that's entirely possible, but it couldn't change the lack of local dimming or absence of wide color gamut support. It's a nice TV for the price, I'd just prefer they don't try to market it as an HDR TV when it doesn't really do that.

Ok, that settles that. Nice to meet you Chris. I'm not familiar with The Wirecutter, but that's ok. What you're saying is pretty much what I read when I was doing my research on what TV to buy. I didn't know much about HDR, and all that other crap but I'm slowly learning quite a bit from reading this forum, and some other forums. I do feel better knowing more about where you're coming from. There are some very smart people on this forum, Geoff, Velvet, and a few others that I trust very much. Thank you for your response.

[TheSweetieMan]

I bought the Dolby Vision version on Vudu.

Even with inherent compression due to streaming, it looks fantastic.

I can't see myself going out of my way to buy the 4K Blu-Ray since the HDR10 version probably won't be as good.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I bought the Dolby Vision version on Vudu.

Even with inherent compression due to streaming, it looks fantastic.

I can't see myself going out of my way to buy the 4K Blu-Ray since the HDR10 version probably won't be as good.

It depends on the TV you have. A good HDR10 TV will render an HDR10 movie practically as good as a DV grade, especially a movie like this one which doesn't have a lot of HDR to begin with.

But this movie is in native 4k and as most people know, low bit rate streaming crushes detail. The main upgrade here is the detail and not the HDR. The only thing I'm curious about with the streaming version is if the color is as saturated as the BD or is like the 4K BD.

[elwaylite]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I bought the Dolby Vision version on Vudu.

Even with inherent compression due to streaming, it looks fantastic.

I can't see myself going out of my way to buy the 4K Blu-Ray since the HDR10 version probably won't be as good.

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.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by bruceames

It depends on the TV you have. A good HDR10 TV will render an HDR10 movie practically as good as a DV grade, especially a movie like this one which doesn't have a lot of HDR to begin with.

But this movie is in native 4k and as most people know, low bit rate streaming crushes detail. The main upgrade here is the detail and not the HDR. The only thing I'm curious about with the streaming version is if the color is as saturated as the BD or is like the 4K BD.

This isn't true at all.

HDR10 relies on static metadata, whereas Dolby Vision can determine the HDR scene by scene or even frame by frame.

I do agree, however, that streaming does compress even the best images, which brings me to the next poster...

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.

It's not that Vudu's stream is better. It's that Dolby Vision is inherently better.

If the UHD Blu-Ray received a great transfer, then I'll buy it. Because it will undoubtedly look better as far as an encode goes since it isn't compressed.

The context of my statement was that Dolby Vision is better than HDR10. So unless the Blu-Ray received a strong transfer, I'd just stick with the Vudu version.

That's all.

[Talal86]

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:

for real, what is this?

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

This isn't true at all.

HDR10 relies on static metadata, whereas Dolby Vision can determine the HDR scene by scene or even frame by frame.

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.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

This isn't true at all.

HDR10 relies on static metadata, whereas Dolby Vision can determine the HDR scene by scene or even frame by frame.

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.

[Geoff D]

Just gonna pinch this from Penton's post in the HDR discussion thread:

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^ Conversely, for those Dolby enthusiasts among you, just last week Dolby was at a summit in HLG territory (the UK) promoting the value of dynamic metadata with a supplemental teaser as to its usefulness also for live content….

Yes, we know all about how dynamic metadata optimises this and that which is awesome etc etc BUUUUUUUUT...look at the point that says "minimizes mapping": when the content in x scene is able to be accurately rendered by the target display then the mapping is reduced to a minimum because there is no need for it, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make above.

Dynamic is gonna be great for low-powered low-contrast LCD displays (although most sold to date won't be able to use DV or HDR10+) or high-contrast but reduced peak brightness tech like OLED and projection (note the reference to "intermediate brightness levels" above) but will it really matter on high-powered LCD sets? Hopefully I won't have to wait long to put it to the test.

[StingingVelvet]

Since the hardware guys are pushing the "all over the map" sets, and since one assumes someday laptops, phones and whatever else will use HDR, you can see why dynamic metadata is seen as a big deal. It will allow HDR to work on everything, as that slide highlights.

If you have a solid high brightness LCD with good color volume and tone mapping though, I really don't think you need to be drooling with anticipation (or jealousy).

[L'armée des ombres]

Amazon really fuc... this release up.
I pre-ordered this 2 months ago and now they tell me it's out of stock
Why even bother to pre-order if they can't even get that right !!!

[TM2-Megatron]

Given the difficulties faced by some in getting this in the US, I was kind of shocked yesterday to walk into Best Buy and actually see a number of copies on the shelf.

Oddly, the Best Buy Canada price for this one is $32.99 (~ $24.28 USD); probably one of the few times a new release has had a lower price in Canada than the US.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by TM2-Megatron

Given the difficulties faced by some in getting this in the US, I was kind of shocked yesterday to walk into Best Buy and actually see a number of copies on the shelf.

Oddly, the Best Buy Canada price for this one is $32.99 (~ $24.28 USD); probably one of the few times a new release has had a lower price in Canada than the US.

Copies are still there because they are $37.99.

[TM2-Megatron]

Originally Posted by bruceames

Copies are still there because they are $37.99.

They're not $37.99 in Canada, which is where I'm located. I just didn't expect Best Buy up here to actually have any in stock when I walked in yesterday after reading about the supply issues happening with Amazon in the US. Generally, if there aren't enough to go around for American retailers on release week, Canada will have supply issues as well.