You know, I really think people are not grasping that the reason this initial wave of "Mastered in 4K" titles includes a bunch of useless titles that were already from 4K masters is because that's what Sony had on hand. The majority of these releases going forward should be of the Ghostbusters / Glory / Spider-Man variety.
You know, I really think people are not grasping that the reason this initial wave of "Mastered in 4K" titles includes a bunch of useless titles that were already from 4K masters is because that's what Sony had on hand. The majority of these releases going forward should be of the Ghostbusters / Glory / Spider-Man variety.
Absotruthly. Do it for the movies that could actually benefit from it (in terms of replacing older transfers) and Sony could have avoided the accusations of these releases being so much snake oil.
Still, Sony will still maintain that the discs' primary function is to give the best experience on a Sony 4K set irrespective of the source, thanks to the xv colour and the specific upscaling doohickey, so even the movies which already have excellent Blu-ray releases should look better on a 4K set. I say should, because people's experiences with playing these M4K discs on a 4K display haven't been great so far...
Doesn't matter because the older release has a seamless branching issue causing some players (particularly Sony players) to experience audio dropouts.
As far as I recall, that only happens if you bitstream the lossless track. If you have the player decode it as LPCM first, you don't have the dropout issue.
Sony is like a bad drug dealer. I like weed and just want to buy some weed, but they keep trying to sell me cocaine and heroin. If we all keep screaming "weed" at them, maybe they'll get some ****ing weed!
But. too many other customers are trying the coke and liking it, so they don't go back to what made them, but continue to sell the newer more expensive stuff.
I need a new dealer!
As far as I recall, that only happens if you bitstream the lossless track. If you have the player decode it as LPCM first, you don't have the dropout issue.
Well, not a lot of people like that option because it's always better for the receiver to do the decoding.
Well, not a lot of people like that option because it's always better for the receiver to do the decoding.
Nope.
Initially audio decoding of compressed codecs was only going to be done within the player. Bitstreaming capabilities came with HDMI version 1.3. Decoding in the player offers certain advantages, secondary audio for example. Nether is 100% the correct way, as its based on what features are supported and limitations.
But the audio quality difference between the two is none. Its down to which piece of equipment provides the best DAC stage that could be a factor to AQ, i.e. some players, Oppo 105 for example probably features better DAC's than most receivers.
But the audio quality difference between the two is none.
That is subjective. Some audiophiles swear that there is a difference. We may not notice it, but some people do.
My only gripe with bitstreaming is that when the BD has to switch audio codecs (i.e. when switching from DD to DTS-HD), the receiver cuts off a little bit of the audio in the beginning because there is a delay when the receiver has to load the new codec.
That is subjective. Some audiophiles swear that there is a difference. We may not notice it, but some people do.
My only gripe with bitstreaming is that when the BD has to switch audio codecs (i.e. when switching from DD to DTS-HD), the receiver cuts off a little bit of the audio in the beginning because there is a delay when the receiver has to load the new codec.
Volume difference perhaps, but am I talking about compressed codec decoding. A Dolby TrueHD decoder either within the player or receiver will produce the same sound, but as I said following that, feature set may differ i.e. no 7.1 support when decoding in a certain player. What happens after this is what produces a difference.
Well, not a lot of people like that option because it's always better for the receiver to do the decoding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech-UK
Nope.
Initially audio decoding of compressed codecs was only going to be done within the player. Bitstreaming capabilities came with HDMI version 1.3. Decoding in the player offers certain advantages, secondary audio for example. Nether is 100% the correct way, as its based on what features are supported and limitations.
But the audio quality difference between the two is none. Its down to which piece of equipment provides the best DAC stage that could be a factor to AQ, i.e. some players, Oppo 105 for example probably features better DAC's than most receivers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHT
That is subjective. Some audiophiles swear that there is a difference. We may not notice it, but some people do.
My only gripe with bitstreaming is that when the BD has to switch audio codecs (i.e. when switching from DD to DTS-HD), the receiver cuts off a little bit of the audio in the beginning because there is a delay when the receiver has to load the new codec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech-UK
Volume difference perhaps, but am I talking about compressed codec decoding. A Dolby TrueHD decoder either within the player or receiver will produce the same sound, but as I said following that, feature set may differ i.e. no 7.1 support when decoding in a certain player. What happens after this is what produces a difference.
All I know is that audio sounds brighter and noticeably more open when my Onkyo TX-NR5010 or Onkyo TX-SR705 do the decodicng instead of my PS3. However, for the sake of convenience, I always have the PS3 do the decoding.
If the sound is brighter and more open when doing the decoding on the Onkyo then the PS/3 then there is probably a misconfigured setting on the PS/3 or you are using a different sound field for multi-ch in vs Dolby TrueHD/ DTS Master. perhaps you have a soundfield like DTS neo engaged for multi-Ch.
Because there should be no discernable difference between the two. The same Digital Code is being sent the DAC either way for conversion to Analog signal which is amplified and sent to the Speakers.
If it sounds different you don't have to live with it, It is likely just a setting.
No they don't.. Get your TV calibrated, or your eyes checked if you think either of those were "really soft". There's barely any difference between the 4K and the standard release of Amazing Spider-man.
Yes, there's a difference. Maybe you need to get your eyes checked pal. I have 20/20 vision. Take a look at the comparison shots.
Also, I'm using the computer, where it's much easier to see sharpness as the pixels are smaller.
Also...I watch movies on my TV with Sharpness set at 0, like you're supposed to, for Sony TVs anyway.
The Amazing Spider-Man was shot on the Red and looks a bit soft overall because of the master used. Game of Thrones shot with the Alexa and looks sharp because of the master used. Sony just used a 2K master and it came out a bit soft. The original Taxi Driver looked great...I haven't seen the 4K Mastered, but I bet it looks a bit sharper. I was hoping they'd address the film being so dark, but whatever. I'll blame the guy who did the DI for that.
Last edited by AngelGraves13; 05-24-2013 at 10:31 PM.
Also, I'm using the computer, where it's much easier to see sharpness as the pixels are smaller.
Also...I watch movies on my TV with Sharpness set at 0, like you're supposed to, for Sony TVs anyway.
The Amazing Spider-Man was shot on the Red and looks a bit soft overall because of the master used. Game of Thrones shot with the Alexa and looks sharp because of the master used. Sony just used a 2K master and it came out a bit soft. The original Taxi Driver looked great...I haven't seen the 4K Mastered, but I bet it looks a bit sharper. I was hoping they'd address the film being so dark, but whatever. I'll blame the guy who did the DI for that.
I didn't say there was no difference, I said there's "barely" any difference. Please add learning how to read to your list of things to do. The movie does not look "really soft" as you said earlier, in fact the perfect 5/5 for PQ from this site's review says the complete opposite:
Quote:
The Amazing Spider-Man Blu-ray, Video Quality
The Amazing Spider-Man features a flawless 1080p transfer. The digital photography never features that glossy sheen, instead presenting crisp, rock-solid imagery that's superbly defined from top to bottom. The image is naturally detailed, very sharp, and nuanced in the tightest of shots. General attributes such as facial and clothing details completely satisfy, and the image picks up the intricacies of cityscape elements with ease, clearly showcasing the tactile craftsmanship down on the ground and up high even as Spider-Man swings from location to location. The image truly dazzles in the tightest close-up shots, revealing the smallest ridges and intimate details of the Spider-Man costume with astonishing accuracy and efficiency. Colors, on the other hand, aren't blindingly brilliant. In fact, one might even call the image slightly dim, but the palette is steady and offers the brightest and dullest shades alike with the same natural efficiency throughout the film. Black levels are superb; nighttime exteriors are brilliantly captured, with deep, accurate blacks and perfect shadow detail all around. Flesh tones are consistently true-to-life as well. The digital image features no negative anomalies; banding, noise, blockiness, and other unwanted attributes are completely absent from the picture. Though not always breathlessly beautiful, this is a rock-solid, all-around technically perfect transfer from Sony.
Also you do realize you posted pictures from a review that agrees with what I said right? High Def Digest said the two are nearly indistinguishable from one another, even going on to say they didn't even see any difference until they examined the screencaptures. I take it, you also read the part where he said the increased sharpness may have been done artificially?
Quote:
The Video: Sizing Up the Picture
Considering how strong the last release was (the 2D version received a 5-star video rating from us) I really wasn't expecting to see any kind of an improvement from this disc -- especially since it's my understanding that the previous version was already mastered in 4K. Though I was a little surprised to discover that the two transfers aren't quite identical looking, for most users, the differences here will be negligible. Yes, the bitrate is technically higher (most scenes hover around the 30s as opposed to the 20s in the last release), but in motion I really could not detect any kind of discernible improvement. With that said, as the included screenshots demonstrate, there actually is an increase in apparent clarity and contrast in this transfer (though it looks like this was likely accomplished through artificial sharpening). It's much more visible in these shots than it is under normal viewing conditions, however, and once again, I want to reiterate that I could not detect any major differences between the two as I switched from source to source on my HDTV (even in fast moving scenes which usually benefit the most from increased bitrates). In fact, it was only after capturing the screenshots that I noticed any differences at all.
With the exception of the small increase in sharpness and contrast and some slight differences in framing, this transfer is virtually identical to the last already reference quality disc. For those unfamiliar with the movie's appearance on Blu-ray, here's what Nate Boss had to say about the video in his original review:
Presented in 1080p (with an AVC MPEG-4 encode at 2.40:1), 'The Amazing Spider-Man' surprised me with its visuals. I was so used to the Raimi films, which featured candy coated bright colors and lots of daylight, that it took me some time to get comfortable with the constant gloom that lingers over this film, this isn't meant for Saturday morning viewing. Once I got my bearings with the change in visuals, though, I came to appreciate this as one of the best looking Blu-rays on the market, in a somewhat subliminal way, as the picture isn't at all "in your face" with how truly amazing it is. The credit goes to the RED camera system, but more specifically, the RED Epic, capable of filming 3D picture at 5K resolution.
The picture is stable and constant from start to finish, so you won't hear me say the opening half looked like this, but the closing half looked like that. This is wall to wall greatness. Textures are perfect, utterly perfect, as furniture, skin, clothing, hair, lizard scales (that one I don't get to use all that often!) are all so lifelike, so real, you can't help but rationalize the film as real, too. The depth of picture, naturally, is astonishing, from the top down looking at the floor or from standing level looking at the distance, even in 2D the picture is deep, deep, deep (no better way to say it than to say it three times). The amount of character and detail on display is amazing, even in the darker shots, like the grimy sewer sequences, which bring their own level of beauty to the picture in an icky kind of way. When the Spider-Man suit is finally unveiled, the texture, the detail, and the way it gets dirty and muffed up, it's a character of its own. What's really impressive, though, is the way special effects are seamless in the picture, as not a single moment stands out, not to emphasize "hey look what we can do!" or even in a negative light, where an effect fails and draws the eye.
Aliasing is never visible, not in the tightest checkered shirts, not in the sharp windows of the skyscrapers in the NYC sky, not in any of the Lizard's scales, Gwen's fine blonde hair, or the sharp ridges in the Spidey suit. There is no sign of artifacting or banding, edges are extremely crisp, white levels are enough to put Mr. Clean to shame, and there isn't any bit of information lost due to crushing, no matter how dark the picture gets. This isn't a glossy, shiny film, but it's still visual perfection and demo worthy from start to finish. A real master constructed this disc to make it look this good.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
