Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[dvdmike]

On the Sony sets the HDR mode has changeable settings like any mode, and 100% needs changing

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

From that article:

"Even then, with three competing optional HDR standards, there’s no guarantee that the HDR decoder built into any given Ultra HD Premium set will be able to decode the HDR format on a specific Ultra HD Blu-ray disc. What a disaster!"


I thought that wasn't true (I asked in this forum!). I thougt you only need to make sure your tv and player agree on the same kind of HDR, and somehow they'll get to the HDR 10 information (except for Dolby Vision). Is this is so, I guess someone should point out the mistake in the article.

It's best not to try and correct Josh Zyber. Usually causes more problems than it solves.

HDR10 is the mandatory HDR implementation for UHD Blu-ray so if you have a 'Premium' certified UHD set (along with certain 2015/2016 sets that pre-date the certification) then it will recognise that version of HDR, end of story.

Dolby Vision on UHD Blu uses HDR10 as the base layer with a DV enhancement layer so again, those discs will play back in HDR10 on a certified 'Premium' set and will play back in Dolby Vision with a suitable TV/player combination.

The other HDR standard in the UHD Blu spec is from Philips which is a bit more hazy at the moment as to the how and the why (though it'll probably be a single layer solution), but seeing as we're several months away from even getting Dolby Vision discs and players (never mind the Philips HDR!) I don't think it's worth worrying about.

[MisterXDTV]

The really scary part about this is: nobody said anything about the possibility of releasing a UHD Disc WITHOUT HDR!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

The really scary part about this is: nobody said anything about the possibility releasing a UHD Disc WITHOUT HDR!

I think we'll see some just as soon as the HDR OMG DIS IS AMAZEINGS hype dies down, especially on catalogue titles with older 4K masters.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think we'll see some just as soon as the HDR OMG DIS IS AMAZEINGS hype dies down, especially on catalogue titles with older 4K masters.

Highly doubt the hype will die too much.

As better quality movies hit, the raving will continue.

[vincentric]

Recently upgraded TVs today from the sony x810c to the x850c. Am seeing some very interesting results during UHD playback. This is not placebo, the picture quality from the 810c is still very fresh in my memory.

First and foremost, the brightness issue in Kingsman. I previously reported that it looked very overexposed when watching it on the 810c in SDR. On the 850c in HDR, the picture looks very good. The sunrays at the start of chapter 18 are visible again, and while the picture does look more vivid than the regular bluray, I didn't see any artifacts/clipping. It looks... different but in a good way to me, liked what I saw a lot.

Secondly, Martian, the compression blocking/banding in the sky at the start of the movie that was clearly visible before on the x810c in SDR is gone, am not sure how it happened but that same bit of sky looks flawless now on the 850c in HDR. Am also seeing more details in darker parts of the image. In particular near the start of chapter 3 when Damon wakes up, I can clearly see more detail in the shadows of his space suit. Again, didn't notice any artifacts from the HDR, it looked very good imo.

I don't quite meet the UHD premium spec but nonetheless, am pretty happy with what am seeing here even with this cut back version of hdr, it's looking nice to me.

Edit: I was watching with the HDR picture mode with settings at default values.

[Jason One]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

The really scary part about this is: nobody said anything about the possibility of releasing a UHD Disc WITHOUT HDR!

I'm very curious about that as well. Will the studios utilize this capability, and release UHD BDs in SDR when it's appropriate? Or will they feel they have to convert absolutely everything to HDR, just because it's available?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Highly doubt the hype will die too much.

As better quality movies hit, the raving will continue.

Well, the studios don't want to disappoint you boys right now, do they? But if/when we start getting into deep catalogue stuff with UHD Blu then they'll be able to release SDR grades (bearing in mind AVF were told by Panasonic that some content providers passed on HDR) without too much fear of the HDR fanbase crying foul.

Sony, for example, licences a lot of stuff out in the US (to Image, Twilight Time, Criterion etc) and in those cases they rarely provide full blown restorations, just good solid transfers and I can see the same happening with UHD Blu, there won't be Atmos remixes and HDR regrades done to every single little catalogue title. Again, that's IF it gets to that stage though.

[Geoff D]

^ And bear in mind that Panasonic aren't just about making tech gear, as they've had the Panasonic Hollywood Labs (PHL) in the heart of Tinseltown for over two decades now, partaking in film to tape transfers, post-production, compression, authoring (they do Fox's Blu-rays IIRC) and so on. So if they say some content was passed over for HDR then I believe them, it's just that we won't see it for a while yet given HDR's Next Big Thing™ status.

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, the studios don't want to disappoint you boys right now, do they? But if/when we start getting into deep catalogue stuff with UHD Blu then they'll be able to release SDR grades (bearing in mind AVF were told by Panasonic that some content providers passed on HDR) without too much fear of the HDR fanbase crying foul.

Gee, the "completist" in me expected that every UHD would feature HDR.
I expected HDR would be used as a gimmick (the "like you've never seen it before angle") by studios to milk their catalogue one last time (since everybody says HDR will wow the general public more than high-def, due to not being dependent on screen size nor sitting distance), even with better results than on blu-ray, which has been a disappointment for studios overall (I'm talking catalogue), I believe?
Although it has always baffled me how a couple of years algo suddently various small labels started releasing obscure stuff left and right when some studios started licencing. I hear big studios cannot do that themselves because they have big overhead costs and whatever.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sony, for example, licences a lot of stuff out in the US (to Image, Twilight Time, Criterion etc) and in those cases they rarely provide full blown restorations, just good solid transfers and I can see the same happening with UHD Blu, there won't be Atmos remixes and HDR regrades done to every single little catalogue title. Again, that's IF it gets to that stage though.

I think Sony has licenced out some of their newest 4k masters just the same. I don't know if all of them were expensive restorations, but they're deemed to be the definitive versions of those movies anyway.
But yes, it seems logical that HDR would not be paid for every single last catalogue item. Although I wish it was. They were showing off "Lawrence of Arabia" with HDR at CES this year, but of course that's supposed to be one of their gems. I wonder how well it sold on blu-ray, and how it'll do on UHD. They shouldn't release it too soon, obviously. Which is why we'll mostly get crap and day-and-date stuff for a couple of years? Well, I'm fine with certain crap...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

BD



UHD

To highlight the absurdity of taking photos of screens to reference more detail, I watched the plain old regular Blu-ray of Kingsman tonight and I see far more detail in that shot than what the UHD photo above contains. I ain't having a pop at you bruce, you say you're seeing more detail with the UHD and that's cool, I'm simply making the point that photos are utterly irrelevant in trying to get that point across IMO.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

To highlight the absurdity of taking photos of screens to reference more detail, I watched the plain old regular Blu-ray of Kingsman tonight and I see far more detail in that shot than what the UHD photo above contains. I ain't having a pop at you bruce, you say you're seeing more detail with the UHD and that's cool, I'm simply making the point that photos are utterly irrelevant in trying to get that point across IMO.

No Geoff, I wasn't using the screenshots as a proof of more detail. For one thing there isn't any, and another the uploaded pics are at a far lower resolution anyway.

I took the pics to show the difference in colors on an SDR 4k tv that resulted from the HDR--> SDR conversion. But after posting I noticed that the UHD actual does have more shadow detail (perhaps because it's from a better source, since Fox did say that went back to the elements for HDR and they graded for better shadow detail, I don't know).

But although the colors are a little different it seems like there are other comparison pics on HDR TVs where the colors are different as well. So I really don't know how "wrong" the colors are on my TV.

[Geoff D]

Fair enough bruce. But even so, because everyone's taking pictures with different cameras that have different exposures and different white balance on TVs that aren't all set up the same, even the colour differences mean diddly as any kind of objective comparison. I just don't see the point.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Fair enough bruce. But even so, because everyone's taking pictures with different cameras that have different exposures and different white balance on TVs that aren't all set up the same, even the colour differences mean diddly as any kind of objective comparison. I just don't see the point.

Hopefully we can get some real screenshots sooner rather than later. Someone already claimed he had the means so I nominate that person to get the ball rolling.

[Geoff D]

Dat screenshot science

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

BD



UHD

Thank you Mr Ames. Its good to finally see some comparisons from regular people as the in store demos are hard to really compare. I can see some of the improved details from HDR. I think the rooftop shadow detail looks a lot better on the HDR pic.

On the regular pic though it appears that the colors surrounding the central building and other areas are better and clearer than the HDR pics.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

Thank you Mr Ames. Its good to finally see some comparisons from regular people as the in store demos are hard to really compare. I can see some of the improved details from HDR. I think the rooftop shadow detail looks a lot better on the HDR pic.

On the regular pic though it appears that the colors surrounding the central building are better and clearer than the HDR pics.

Sure, NP. Regarding the colors, that's probably because my 4K TV can't handle HDR, so the HDR-->SDR conversion throws the colors a little off (although it could also be that the pics are not from the same frame and the lighting on that building changed, i'll have to check).

[infiniteCR]

Ok, maybe I'm confused, which is more than likely I admit. I thought your UHD picture was supposed to have HDR on it. So is the extra apparent detail just a brightness setting?

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

Ok, maybe I'm confused, which is more than likely I admit. I thought your UHD picture was supposed to have HDR on it. So is the extra apparent detail just a brightness setting?

No it's not the extra brightness, since you can see that the blacks if anything are darker on the UHD pic. It could be that the UHD version came from a better source (since Fox went back to the the source files for the HDR) and/or that they calibrated the picture to have more shadow detail. Or it could be the wider color gamut or 10 bit color that brings it out more. Or both. I don't really know for sure. I just know that although its SDR it still looks much better than the BD. The picture does look brighter but the blacks look darker at the same time and with more saturated colors. So more highs/lows basically.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

Ok, maybe I'm confused, which is more than likely I admit. I thought your UHD picture was supposed to have HDR on it. So is the extra apparent detail just a brightness setting?

the file itself is of much greater quality.

also keep in mind that the UHD player/discs are using a much higher bitrate. up to 110mb compared to around 40-45 for regular blu ray players.