Still not convinced

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

There's a simple, practical difference:

If you want to watch a too-resolute disc at a lower resolution, you can just set your player to output a lower resolution.

If you want to watch an SDR movie in its proper color grade from an HDR disc, you're just out of luck.

I experimented with changing the resolution. Not only does it drop the resolution, but the colors and depth change too. Looks more muted with it on 1080p.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

That's an interesting theory- the "looks ok to me" test.

It's not a theory, it's an opinion. At least I'm based my opinion on something that I've seen. Or am I to have someone else who hasn't seen it decide for me if it passes the test?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Well heck, we may as well go back to mono and forget about Atmos. It's not real life anyway. What's the point in having a fire look more real if it's only a movie.

Never have I ever read such a stupid statement in my life.
Just no, just ignore list bait

[MisterXDTV]

When I watched my first Blu-ray in 2007, a copy of Casino Royale that Sony sent me as a gift for my PS3, in that moment I became a movie collector.
I couldn't believe what I was watching....

I had a fair number of DVDs but Blu-ray changed the way I considered video quality and movie quality forever....

So the theory "it was the same for DVDs to Blu-ray" is just hilarious

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

There's a simple, practical difference:

If you want to watch a too-resolute disc at a lower resolution, you can just set your player to output a lower resolution.

Who watches a Blu-ray at 480p on purpose?

If you want to watch an SDR movie in its proper color grade from an HDR disc, you're just out of luck.

Well what is proper? Has any of these movies so far had a filmmaker say they were wrong or not approved by them?

Failing that, you can always watch the BD included in the disc. And when DV comes along it's supposed to convert HDR quite well.

Or you can always just buy only those UHD movies which fall within your rigid boundaries of acceptability. Everyone has a choice and shouldn't be putting down the choices of others that are different.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Never have I ever read such a stupid statement in my life.
Just no, just ignore list bait

Really I thought your remark was pretty dumb as well, which deserved a like response. You knew the point I was making, that a more diverse range in video can create a greater realism and immersion just like a better sound system can. But whatever put me on ignore. I need to step back from all this negativity in this thread as it's rubbing off on me and I'm normally not like this.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Well heck, we may as well go back to mono and forget about Atmos. It's not real life anyway. What's the point in having a fire look more real if it's only a movie.

I think his point is that "realism" isn't necessarily the intent. It's visual storytelling and individual elements are often stylized to serve a story function. We can't just assume that a more (subjectively) realistic look is closer to the filmmakers' intent.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by ray0414

I experimented with changing the resolution. Not only does it drop the resolution, but the colors and depth change too. Looks more muted with it on 1080p.

That's another funky issue with UHD playback (so far). I was actually referring to playing back conventional Blu-ray at sub-HD resolutions.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

It's not a theory, it's an opinion. At least I'm based my opinion on something that I've seen. Or am I to have someone else who hasn't seen it decide for me if it passes the test?

It's not a legitimate "test" because the question isn't "Does it look 'right' to me?" The question is "Is it accurate to the filmmakers' intended look?"

[42041]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Well heck, we may as well go back to mono and forget about Atmos. It's not real life anyway. What's the point in having a fire look more real if it's only a movie.

If the format is capable of delivering more life-like images, great. But if it is incapable of delivering mono if the film is supposed to be mono, that for me is a big problem.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I think his point is that "realism" isn't necessarily the intent. It's visual storytelling and individual elements are often stylized to serve a story function. We can't just assume that a more (subjectively) realistic look is a closer to the filmmakers' intent.

Please refer to the comparison pics above to see the type of "realism" I was referring to.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It's not a legitimate "test" because the question isn't "Does it look 'right' to me?" The question is "Is it accurate to the filmmakers' intended look?"

Well in the absence of a definitive answer I'll have to give the benefit of the doubt. It's presumptuous to make assumptions about that otherwise.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Who watches a Blu-ray at 480p on purpose?

A theoretical person who would be bothered by fx shots being more detailed than originally intended. I don't know if such a person exists, but it doesn't matter because Blu-ray has an easy solution for that concern.

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Well what is proper?

The original (SDR) theatrical grade, which UHD, as a format, is more than capable of accurately presenting.

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Has any of these movies so far had a filmmaker say they were wrong or not approved by them?

We don't need them to say it- it says so right on the box.

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Failing that, you can always watch the BD included in the disc.

How is that a solution? The UHD is made poorly, so watch the BD? How about... demanding a UHD that isn't made poorly? I don't want to miss out on an awesome format because they're mis-authoring it.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by 42041

If the format is capable of delivering more life-like images, great. But if it is incapable of delivering mono if the film is supposed to be mono, that for me is a big problem.

Thanks, you expressed it better than I did.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

How is that a solution? The UHD is made poorly, so watch the BD? How about... demanding a UHD that isn't made poorly? I don't want to miss out on an awesome format because they're mis-authoring it.

Well then just wait for reviews, what can I say?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by 42041

If the format is capable of delivering more life-like images, great. But if it is incapable of delivering mono if the film is supposed to be mono, that for me is a big problem.

Exactly. HDR is the same issue. I love that UHD can provide an awesome HDR image- it's fantastic for reproducing HDR movies, of which a handful exist. The problem is when I can't watch an SDR movie on it the way it's supposed to be because they've converted that SDR movie into HDR.

Mono movies are mono movies, SDR movies are SDR movies.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Well in the absence of a definitive answer I'll have to give the benefit of the doubt. It's presumptuous to make assumptions about that otherwise.

You don't have to make a single assumption. Look on the box at the "HDR" sticker. If that movie didn't have an HDR theatrical release, you already know for a STONE FACT that the version on the disc is not accurate. It's that simple.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

You don't have to make a single assumption. Look on the box at the "HDR" sticker. If that movie didn't have an HDR theatrical release, you already know for a STONE FACT that the version on the disc is not accurate. It's that simple.

Is it? I thought you were on board if the filmmaker approved it? If not then I'm afraid you might have to limit your choices to brand new movies or anything that comes out in SDR.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Who watches a Blu-ray at 480p on purpose?

I have. I tried it with the Trek movie Blu-rays, not because of the VFX but because of the pervasive DNR. It may sound strange but 480p essentially cuts off the higher frequency response where the shitty noise reduction has done the most damage. Switching to 480p smoothes out that sharp but chronically plastic-faced image left behind by the DNR into something softer that's far more palatable to my eyes. But then I am the lone kook who still enjoys watching a well-mastered DVD on his TV in the year 2016 AD.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Is it? I thought you were on board if the filmmaker approved it?

I am, and so part of the difficulty is in finding the information about who approved the new grade.

Unfortunately, I can't default to a friendly assumption that the right people approved it until I hear otherwise because I already know that they've done at least one movie that can't possibly have been approved by the right people (because those people are deceased).

Originally Posted by bruceames.

If not then I'm afraid you might have to limit your choices to brand new movies or anything that comes out in SDR.

Unfortunately, that's indeed the situation I'm stuck with for now. I'm hoping this can get resolved/corrected quickly so that I'll be able to buy good copies of favorite movies, confidently, rather than not buy copies I don't know if are good or bad. I want my favorite movies to be released right the first time in 4K, not on the second or third attempt.