Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by freinhar

Compared to the HDR10 UHD screengrabs, my impression was that the Dolby Vision version on Vudu did have better detail levels and visibility, but it was a minor difference, not a major one.

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.

The only negative lighting related observation I had was actually during the daytime scenes - it seemed to happen a few times that when shots changed during the same scene (e.g. showing one actor from one angle, then a different actor from a different angle) there would be quite a noticeable and jarring change in brightness. For those that have watched the UHD Blu-ray, I'd be curious whether you noticed this too or whether this quirk is specific to the Dolby Vision version.

I mentioned that before as well, but thought it might have been something tricking my active LEDs to shut off. Sounds like it's baked into the master if you saw it too.

[GasmaskAvenger]

There was only one scene where I thought it got a bit too dark for its own good, but otherwise, I thought the dark look helped enhanced the film's gloomy atmosphere.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by freinhar

So somewhere around 10 pages ago I promised to rent the Vudu UHD version, which uses Dolby Vision, and report back on how it compares to people's observations on the UHD Blu-ray. Only just got around to it tonight!

Before I touch on the look of the film, I should note that I'd (somehow!) never seen Unforgiven before, and thought it was absolutely fantastic. I'll be picking up the UHD BD for sure, as I'll want it in my collection permanently.

The TV I watched this on is a 79" LG Super UHD TV (so not an OLED), using the Dolby Vision Movie Bright setting (self-calibrated).

Overall, given the source material (and keeping in mind I was streaming it, not watching from a disc) I was very impressed with the picture quality. I'm no expert but the transfer looked great to me. Landscape shots in particular looked stunning, and there was a good level of close-up detail as well (e.g. Eastwood's grizzled face). I thought the use of HDR was good throughout - subtle, but giving the movie a very naturalistic and life-like look.

Coming to the question that seems to have dominated the thread, being whether the movie is too dark, in my case that was definitely not the case. Is it darker than most movies, especially during the night time scenes? For sure - but that seems appropriate given the time period it's set in. I never struggled to make out anything that was going on during the night scenes, if anything I got the feeling that I was seeing exactly what the filmmakers were intending for me to see. Some on prior pages have commented that they found it so dark that they had trouble making out people's faces during instances like the "I'll see you in hell" scene. I encountered no such issues. I was not watching in a particularly dark room, and could easily see not just what was going on, but make out the details of people's faces, etc.

Now, to the more specific questions of whether it's darker than the normal Blu-ray, and whether the Dolby Vision version I watched is less dark than the HDR10 version. I was hoping to post some photos so you could draw your own conclusions, but there was no way of taking a shot of my screen that came out in any way representative of what I was seeing in person. So the best I can do is describe any differences I saw versus the screengrabs others have posted from the normal Blu-ray and the HDR10 UHD version earlier in the thread.

In comparison to the normal Blu-Ray screengrabs others have posted, I'd say the UHD version has a definite uptick in detail levels in the night time scenes. I'm not sure whether it's actually less dark (definitely not more dark), but I could make out a lot more detail. Compared to the HDR10 UHD screengrabs, my impression was that the Dolby Vision version on Vudu did have better detail levels and visibility, but it was a minor difference, not a major one.

The only negative lighting related observation I had was actually during the daytime scenes - it seemed to happen a few times that when shots changed during the same scene (e.g. showing one actor from one angle, then a different actor from a different angle) there would be quite a noticeable and jarring change in brightness. For those that have watched the UHD Blu-ray, I'd be curious whether you noticed this too or whether this quirk is specific to the Dolby Vision version.

If anyone has any other questions about my admittedly very amateurish opinion, please feel free to ask!

I'll end this rather lengthy post by saying I cannot wait to re-watch this movie.

Thanks for your thoughts! Your last paragraph is intriguing because I noticed no changes in brightness during the daylight scenes on the HDR10 Blu-ray viewed on a Sony ZD9, they were consistent throughout.

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.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

FWIW, you can count me amongst those who find this disc to be just far, FAR too dark. I'm watching on a calibrated E6, and good grief are the blacks oppressive. Maybe there's a bad batch of these, because no one watching what I watched last night could possibly think this was the way the film was intended to look. Most irritating, I actuallly preferred the look of the new blu-ray. Take the "we all have it comin', kid" scene. The sky is so white and blown out behind Clint in close-ups, and he so lost in shadow, that you lose virtually all detail on him. Maybe not technically, but practically and at a normal viewing distance. The blu looks fine. And there are SO many more instances of things like this. The "I'll see you in hell, William Munny" scene is SO black that I struggled to see FACES between the two men, and this was in a COMPLETELY dark room. It's borderline unwatchable. I should note that this is not an issue with my OLED panel or a case of having brightness set too low. *Nothing* else I've watched has looked remotely like this. So disappointed.

I'm evidently in the vast minority on this disc. But just know that YMMV.

Interesting. Reminds me very much of when Goodfellas first popped up on UHD, there was a slew of complaints that it was just too dark. And yet, as people upgraded their TVs and/or the tone mapping of their weapon of choice was improved, those complaints gradually fell away to nothing.

HDTVtest posted a rather excellent video a few days ago describing the main variances in the tone mapping algorithms that are out there, and the 2017 OLED is clearly the darkest of the bunch owing to reduced APL when tone mapping a 4000-nit image, they try to keep the entire range instead of reproducing the range the TV can handle and clipping the rest, say.

Now, obviously there are also very happy OLED owners in this thread who've loved Unforgiven on UHD so I'm not seeking to tar all OLEDs with the same dimly-lit brush, but this might just provide an explanation for your situation.

Vid is here:

HDR Tone-Mapping Explained: Sony A1, LG C7 vs Panasonic OLED TV - YouTube

[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?)

[Geoff D]

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?)

You know what the crazy thing is? To mine eyes the colour on the UHD looks more like the original DVD as the skin tones have a marked red push on the new Blu-ray. The stuff lit by lamplight also has a less bronzed appearance on the UHD, e.g. the cap with Little Bill and English Bob's 'biographer'. Everyone looks like they've had a few too many in the remastered BD. And that William Munny don't even drink, no sir!

Shame they didn't get a shot of the 'force field', hint hint if mr capsaholic is reading this...

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You know what the crazy thing is? To mine eyes the colour on the UHD looks more like the original DVD as the skin tones have a marked red push on the new Blu-ray. The stuff lit by lamplight also has a less bronzed appearance on the UHD, e.g. the cap with Little Bill and English Bob's 'biographer'. Everyone looks like they've had a few too many in the remastered BD. And that William Munny don't even drink, no sir!

Shame they didn't get a shot of the 'force field', hint hint if mr capsaholic is reading this...

Yeah I noticed the red cast but it's hard to understand what's the intended look with grading off a negative scan. MPI Warner is one of the best in the business in doing these things. If they chose this "cast" for the "SDR" grading I think they can be trusted... Still, I have no idea what Eastwood actually wanted.

I think the main reason for this remaster is a "SDR" 4K DCP, so probably that's the version Eastwood checked... I think they showed it at Cannes Festival this week...

[Geoff D]

It'd be interesting to see the new "SDR" DCP in action, yeah.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It'd be interesting to see the new "SDR" DCP in action, yeah.

Unless the red cast is caused by the P3-> Rec.709 conversion but Warner has been doing a stellar job with Blu-rays for years, I don't think they could make a huge error like that...

[Geoff D]

I think the Blu has genuinely been graded like that, for better or worse. Perhaps it's not so much a downconversion error but more along the lines of when the 4K HDR gamut was trimmed down to 709 it just looked too pale, if that makes sense, so it was boosted a bit to compensate? Dunno.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the Blu has genuinely been graded like that, for better or worse. Perhaps it's not so much a downconversion error but more along the lines of when the 4K HDR gamut was trimmed down to 709 it just looked too pale, if that makes sense, so it was boosted a bit to compensate? Dunno.

The review on this site said the HDR and SDR gradings were done separately, right?

"MPI scanned Unforgiven's original camera negative at 4K, followed by extensive and meticulous color correction in both SDR and HDR by two of the facility's senior colorists"

[Geoff D]

A trim pass still counts as a separate SDR grading.

What puzzles me is that the review implies that both were matched to a minty-fresh answer print but how can two different gradings by two different colourists both be accurate to that intent? Not having a pop at Michael, I'm just saying that I don't quite understand.

[Shalashaska]

As someone who's been a bit jaded on UHD BD since it was first revealed (at least in terms of what it would do to these old classics), I'm starting to feel a bit more optimistic lately after reading reviews on here for Unforgiven, Goodfellas and Ghostbusters.

The HDR "enhancements" seem to be very tame on these releases, if even noticeable at all.

I'd love if everything pre-2015 was given a wider colour gamut, a boost in resolution and nothing else, but HDR, as long as it's done subtly, is pretty acceptable, and possibly great for newer films which our produced with HDR in mind.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

As someone who's been a bit jaded on UHD BD since it was first revealed (at least in terms of what it would do to these old classics), I'm starting to feel a bit more optimistic lately after reading reviews on here for Unforgiven, Goodfellas and Ghostbusters.

The HDR "enhancements" seem to be very tame on these releases, if even noticeable at all.

I'd love if everything pre-2015 was given a wider colour gamut, a boost in resolution and nothing else, but HDR, as long as it's done subtly, is pretty acceptable, and possibly great for newer films which our produced with HDR in mind.

Yeah, it seems to be that stuff actually finished on film is given very respectful treatment in terms of HDR expansion. The only problem is that such releases are few and far between. Sony will add two more to the roster with Fifth Elephant and Leon though.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

As someone who's been a bit jaded on UHD BD since it was first revealed (at least in terms of what it would do to these old classics), I'm starting to feel a bit more optimistic lately after reading reviews on here for Unforgiven, Goodfellas and Ghostbusters.

The HDR "enhancements" seem to be very tame on these releases, if even noticeable at all.

My understanding is that film had a higher dynamic range than DVD or BD, so some use of HDR makes sense even from a purist point of view. Studios have mostly been using it in a very restrained way on older titles, which is probably best. With Unforgiven the HDR adds a nice bit of definition to the lighting, but isn't super obvious.

I think the only older-than-2010 title I have which really pumps the HDR is the Mummy trilogy. They look amazing, but one does wonder how revisionist they are.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

My understanding is that film had a higher dynamic range than DVD or BD, so some use of HDR makes sense even from a purist point of view. Studios have mostly been using it in a very restrained way on older titles, which is probably best. With Unforgiven the HDR adds a nice bit of definition to the lighting, but isn't super obvious.

I think the only older-than-2010 title I have which really pumps the HDR is the Mummy trilogy. They look amazing, but one does wonder how revisionist they are.

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.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, it seems to be that stuff actually finished on film is given very respectful treatment in terms of HDR expansion. The only problem is that such releases are few and far between. Sony will add two more to the roster with Fifth Elephant and Leon though.

I'm hoping it's the people in charge wanting to remain faithful to the original intent, and not just film stocks having too much inherent fade to add a proper noticeable HDR "pop".

[StingingVelvet]

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".

They don't capture HDR I don't think, no, but the HDR can be used to mimic what a film print would look like projected, right? That's my understanding of it. And while HDR "pop" is nice I find the more impressive use of it is usually enriching scenes with darker edges and depth, which is subtle and doesn't feel revisionist. When I went back and forth on Unforgiven it was that subtly richer image that struck me most, HDR-wise. It has zero "pop" at all, even in flames and whatnot.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I'm hoping it's the people in charge wanting to remain faithful to the original intent, and not just film stocks having too much inherent fade to add a proper noticeable HDR "pop".

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 [edit] which was done to dial in specific corrections e.g. timing out green fluorescents, correcting any 'day for night' sequences and smoothing out colour inconsistencies from shot to shot, rather than ultimately changing the look as was lit and exposed for.

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.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

They don't capture HDR I don't think, no, but the HDR can be used to mimic what a film print would look like projected, right? That's my understanding of it. And while HDR "pop" is nice I find the more impressive use of it is usually enriching scenes with darker edges and depth, which is subtle and doesn't feel revisionist. When I went back and forth on Unforgiven it was that subtly richer image that struck me most, HDR-wise. It has zero "pop" at all, even in flames and whatnot.

Yeah, it'll probably be done differently with each release. As the problem of DNR seems to be behind us, a new problem arises.

If it's done subtly just to add more depth and detail in high-contrast areas, it could be more a lot more film-like than any home media format we've had before (though I might need confirmation from an expert/insider on that).

(inb4 Paramount releases all the old Star Trek films with eye-piercing amounts of pop and glamour).