Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[andreasy969]

Yes, I saw that the beaver caps have it as well and that's what led to my "either the caps or the Arrow have an aliasing problem" comment. (and I also thought it must be the Arrow since I saw it twice on separate caps - not a Fidelity In Motion disc I suppose)

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I see the "force fields" you mean, but it looks like the animation to me, not EE.

Looked like EE in motion to me

[andreasy969]

A Star Is Born

Some favourites for detail: #3, #14, #17, #18 and last but not least #27. I also didn't have to look for HDR here.

Oh, and hue wise it's (obviously) Bohemian the other way round again.

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colors:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. (#3 696 nits)

6. (#3 620 nits)

7. (#3 620 nits)

8. (#3 757 nits)

9.

10. (#3 667 nits)

11.

12. (#3 647 nits)

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18. (#3 696 nits)

19.

20. (#3 667 nits)

21. (#3 733 nits)

22.

23.

24.

25. (#3 741 nits)

26. (#3 674 nits)

27.

[Geoff D]

Oh, that's a super increase in fine detail. I really should watch this disc at some point!

[Fendergopher]

HDR doing a great job retaining highlights in those shots.

[TpFox]

A Star is Born is definitely underrated in the PQ of the 4K disc. HDR really shines in this disc imo.

[andreasy969]

Dog Soldiers

(Please forgive me for just recyling my previous BD caps.)

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Dog Soldiers

(Please forgive me for just recyling my previous BD caps.)

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

I am needing this

[andreasy969]

The Girl in the Spider's Web

With #4 the UHD didn't really impress me first, but all was forgiven once I saw the BD. If you're busy you might want to try #6 (close-up) and #19 (wide shot) and move on.

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits)

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colors:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. (#3 983 nits)

8.

9.

10. (#3 1418 nits)

11.

12.

13.

14. (#3 886 nits)

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26. (#3 943 nits)

[Fendergopher]

The BD has nasty aliasing here and there, and it just looks very filtered in general. The UHD should be a no-brainer for this one.


Shot #4 looks horrendous on the BD, what the hell happened there?

[andreasy969]

Yes, lots of aliasing on the BD. Not a very good one IMO.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Fendergopher

The BD has nasty aliasing here and there, and it just looks very filtered in general. The UHD should be a no-brainer for this one.


Shot #4 looks horrendous on the BD, what the hell happened there?

You are now offered a alias spotter role in HighDefDigest team. Good luck with your new job.

[Fendergopher]

Going by the shots you can also tell that the DP/director went for a slightly softer look (shot #10, 14, 17, 24) though most shots resolve nicely overall. They have that nice and low-noise Alexa look for sure, which is a good thing in my book.

[Geoff D]

In motion the detail is flat-out stunning.

[BrownianMotion]

andreasy - you should do The Mule next. I don't watch the BDs that come with the 4K + BD combos anymore, but the UHD is superb, and it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

In motion the detail is flat-out stunning.

Yeah. I didn't care that much for the movie but the UHD presentation is exquisite.

[Geoff D]

Aye, the chroma rez of BD was something that crossed my mind re: #4. Strong reds and blues in particular are going to be very low-rez on 1080p 4:2:0 Blu.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

andreasy - you should do The Mule next. I don't watch the BDs that come with the 4K + BD combos anymore, but the UHD is superb, and it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison.

Sorry, but I don't own The Mule (yet) and will most likely buy the German release which is due only in June. I might do it then though.

[andreasy969]

Lord of War

Just a HDR quickie, but I felt "obliged" to provide some additional caps after only briefly skipping through the disc. caps' 100 nits caps just don't do it justice.

I didn't use my German Fox BD for the comparison, since I had the Lionsgate BD handy and it doesn't matter in regard to what I want to show anyway.

#5 and #6 are maybe not so much about the HDR, but still interesting IMO (#6 in particular). There are also more examples like #1 and #7 to be found here.

tl/tr: Really solid upgrade over the Fox BD as well.

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits)

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colors:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1. (#3 943 nits)

2. (#3 914 nits)

3. (#3 953 nits)

4. (#3 773 nits)

5. (#3 876 nits)

6.

7.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

caps' 100 nits caps just don't do it justice.

They rarely do. Nice work as always Andreas.