The Elephant Man (1980)

[LMFAObros]

I reckon criterion should do a 4K release of The Silence of the Lambs and The Night of the living dead which I think would sell well on the format.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eyeballing? No, using a Colormunki Photo to profile the TV to my Colormunki Display colourimeter and HCFR software to measure the results for greyscale, colour temp etc. I read the article a while ago, no need to do it again. As I said, we don't have specific granular controls over the HDR EOTF (and still don't on most sets) but that doesn't mean that a TV's controls don't affect it at all, so by using those and measuring what happens you can still "calibrate" using them. Why on earth would Ryan include multiple greyscale sweeps, some designed just for OLEDs, if not for calibrating? You only need RGBW to profile a meter. My TV is a Sony 65ZD9.

The tone mapping issue is something entirely separate and is the real fustercluck here.

As I said, at best, one can do a WB calibration, that's really it though. I like how you keep separating tone mapping from HDR, as if they are different things. What are you doing to "calibrate" DV? I suppose one can break it down 4K UHD into 3 main categories:

1. Resolution - 4K is great, nobody will argue that because there's nothing to argue.

2. Color space/gamut - P3 in a Rec.2020 container. How many displays can display this properly and fully? How can one calibrate the colorspace properly?

3. HDR - the largest problem, as I pointed out already, and you have has well with tone mapping.

So yeah, work to be done. I do think things will improve, and the tech will catch up with the specs. It's just not there yet.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by tama

Display that list then. I want to see this list of "Many 4K releases" that are outdone by there Blu-ray counterparts.

It depends on your display device, type. If you let that sink in, you will then understand why it's a problem. One that doesn't exist with Blu-rays or DVDs and their colorspaces, gammas, etc.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Cost reasons? If all the little indies that could, well, could then there's no reason whatsoever for the grand old lady of indies to plead poverty. Of coursh UHD costs more money to master, author and replicate, the costs are several times that of BD, but if there's one label that could afford to give it a go without putting a massive hole in their finances then it's Criterion. If the sales numbers don't work out for their bean counters then at least they could say "we're not doing any more UHDs but hey, we tried".

So why do you think they haven't gotten into it? You seem to think it's not economics, so what is it? Maybe they will at some point, maybe they won't.

[starman15317]

I enjoy 4K UHD, but quite frankly, I don't really care that Criterion hasn't released any 4K titles. Their Blu-Rays generally look fantastic.

Even if they decided to test run the format, they would probably only release one or two titles and then give up on the format based on sales.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

As I’ve learned this year, some people will never change their ways or admit they are wrong.

Is it really a question of right or wrong, or is it a case of where what some people want, i.e., Criterion to begin releasing UHD discs, is not aligned what Criterion appears to believe is the future, i.e., Blu-ray for physical media and a streaming channel.

As a fan of Criterion and UHD, I would prefer if they could find a way to release UHD discs, maintain their existing customer base/sales for non-UHD discs, and grow their streaming channel with 4K HDR availability.

Objectively, I don't believe that's possible.

Once they open the door to UHD, it creates all types of problems for their customer base. Some, who are completists and have stuck with DVD and/or Blu, may simply stop buying.

Others, who are charter subscribers of CC, may question continuing with the channel if Criterion begins releasing UHD discs and not matching CC with 4K HDR content.

Is 4K UHD possible with Criterion physical/on CC given present licenses? Will some licensor's refuse to license 4K HDR and keep those titles for their proprietary streaming channel?

The above is just the tip of the iceberg.

What we do know is that as far as UHD is concerned, there's no money in it for the overwhelming number of titles. Don't believe me? Take a peek at what most UHDs are selling for and tell me if they command a premium over Blu-ray.

One should never conflate what one wants from what is right for all concerned, especially for those who are taking the risk.

[Gargus]

Originally Posted by starman15317

I enjoy 4K UHD, but quite frankly, I don't really care that Criterion hasn't released any 4K titles. Their Blu-Rays generally look fantastic.

Even if they decided to test run the format, they would probably only release one or two titles and then give up on the format based on sales.

I don't care if they aren't 4k either because they release a great product. All 4k would do is increase the already bit high price of their movies.

It also makes no sense for them to put out 4k. 4k isn't real mainstream far as discs go, hell DVD is still a fairly big seller, not to mention criterion doesn't release movies intended for mass sales so their need for 4k is even less.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by urbo73

As I said, at best, one can do a WB calibration, that's really it though. I like how you keep separating tone mapping from HDR, as if they are different things. What are you doing to "calibrate" DV? I suppose one can break it down 4K UHD into 3 main categories:

1. Resolution - 4K is great, nobody will argue that because there's nothing to argue.

2. Color space/gamut - P3 in a Rec.2020 container. How many displays can display this properly and fully? How can one calibrate the colorspace properly?

3. HDR - the largest problem, as I pointed out already, and you have has well with tone mapping.

So yeah, work to be done. I do think things will improve, and the tech will catch up with the specs. It's just not there yet.

DV uses the same D65 white point as HDR10 and indeed SDR, so the white balance settings are the same as those. Sony TVs can just transpose these figures and, if you'd read the article you keep bringing up, you'd note that some other brands of TV also set a calibration for DV by doing it in SDR 2.2 space and then it just maps it across.

As for colour space, how does one calibrate for 709 gamut on any given TV? If they have a CMS (and not all TVs do) then the same controls are transposed across to the HDR, and by using separate 2020 and P3 inside 2020 patterns we can check how the TV is assigning those primaries and secondaries. Most higher end displays will resolve most if not all of P3 and as that's what content is still being mastered in (with the occasional bleed outwards into the 2020 gamut) then displaying it 'fully' isn't a problem.

Lesser sets will struggle for sure, and as they struggle with the peak brightness too (often having just frame dimming, or even no dynamic dimming at all) then they're not very well suited for HDR, not merely on a calibration level but on a fundamental technical one. You may well take that as your cue to celebrate the awfulness of HDR as an industry-wide implementation and I wouldn't disagree, but if you can find a path through it then you'll be greatly rewarded. The people who don't will continue to remain deeply frustrated with it. But I dare say that much of Criterion's clientele are people who've got a 1080p supermarket special that they're watching from 15ft away and don't have any idea what HDR is anyway, so releasing a 4K HDR disc is not gonna affect them.

In a way, that leads into your next question...

Originally Posted by urbo73

So why do you think they haven't gotten into it? You seem to think it's not economics, so what is it? Maybe they will at some point, maybe they won't.

I think it's partly FUD about what 4K HDR is and does (though I still think that the HDR implementation issue means **** all to Lee Kline et al, he seems to think that HDR makes little difference and that 4K is about resolution only?), partly a notion that if they produce a disc that's only for the niche of the niche then they're somehow betraying their fanbase and their mission statement. Arrow's restoration supervisor James White literally said this in a 2017 interview, that by producing a UHD you're admitting that the next version down isn't the best any more and that may well alienate some people - but as people still buy Criterion DVDs in droves and ignore the BD offerings then I don't think that core fanbase give two shits about another even betterer version.

Hell, I think even the staunchest anti-4K members on here would actually prefer that Criterion did start doing 4Ks if only to shut down these kinds of tedious discussions that get played out in every new Criterion thread (with the irony being that in this case I'm very glad that The Elephant Man is being released on BD in the US, even if it's not 4K it's about goddamned time).

[tama]

Originally Posted by urbo73

It depends on your display device, type. If you let that sink in, you will then understand why it's a problem. One that doesn't exist with Blu-rays or DVDs and their colorspaces, gammas, etc.

That's not what you claim and it's not what I asked.

The answer is you don't have a list because it's a false claim.

[sonicyogurt]

Originally Posted by urbo73

So why do you think they haven't gotten into it? You seem to think it's not economics, so what is it?

My suspicion is because the status quo is easier.

Is there a viable percentage of the Criterion audience that would buy the occasional UHD release? I believe there is. Would most of that audience buy those same titles on BD from Criterion if that's all that were available (at least without importing)? Yes, I believe that's the case too.

If their existing audience isn't being turned away in large numbers by Criterion remaining DVD/BD only, and if they aren't enticing new/lapsed customers by introducing UHD, then is it worth the hassle for them?

I recognize that it's a more challenging situation for Criterion because they inspire more of a collector's mindset than other labels. Whatever they do for their first UHD release will presumably be the way they'd want to handle UHD from that point on, so they'll have to come up with some visual identity -- more complicated than most labels, who can get away with a black case and a stripe across the top of a slipcover. If they release UHD/BD combos, there'll be an outcry. If they have individual UHD and BD releases, there'll probably be an outcry too. They'll have to deal with complaints from longtime collectors who, once a single UHD is released, will believe their entire collection to be worthless, or moan that Criterion is using UHD's presumably higher price point to wring more cash out of their audience. There'll be gripes from people complaining that some lackluster film like _______ is getting the UHD treatment while the far more worthy _______ isn't. Customers who are on the fence about a title might pass on a BD-only release in the remote chance that a UHD will at some point follow. Others might use this as a jumping off point for Criterion altogether. And even if those individual buckets of disgruntled customers are small, collectively they could very well make this more trouble than it's worth.

I'm of the mind that if Criterion releases a title on Ultra HD Blu-ray, it'll be because they have to, not because they want to -- not out of any drive to deliver the highest quality presentation possible to their audience. Perhaps sales will start to slip over time, and supporting UHD BD would be seen as one way of shoring that up. A filmmaker they really want to work with might insist upon it. Comparable labels overseas may embrace UHD BD and siphon off enough of Criterion's sales for them to feel the sting, compelling them to keep up with the Joneses.

I'd love to be surprised, as I was with Arrow's announcement a few weeks back, but I don't really expect that Criterion will ever issue anything on UHD...at least not physically, when it'd be so much easier to use that as a selling point for the Criterion Channel if that time were ever to come. I have no expectation that Ultra HD Blu-ray would ever become the standard for Criterion. Even my best case scenario would really just be a handful of releases a year at most. Still, it's just a shame to see how many labels have entered the fray in the past 18 months and yet the largest boutique with the most resources and such a spectacular library is shrugging indifferently.

Speaking for myself, if a label overseas offered War of the Worlds in UHD/HDR (as is available digitally) or Portrait of a Lady on Fire, I'd buy those without hesitation, but that's not the case, and I'm happy to buy the Criterion editions. On the other hand, I'm planning on importing The Elephant Man since an Ultra HD Blu-ray release isn't in the cards for the U.S. anytime soon.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by tama

That's not what you claim and it's not what I asked.

The answer is you don't have a list because it's a false claim.

Actually if you read my posts, is exactly what I claim. 4K UHDs look different on different display devices, while Blu-rays don't. Even the cheapest display can properly show Rec.709, Gamma 2.4, and 100nits. Some OLEDs have issues with black crush still on many 4K discs, not so with the Blu-rays. Projectors have issues with most 4K discs due to HDR and tone mapping. LCD have their own issues. It goes on and on.

[smithb]

As was already stated, Criterion was releasing non-anamorphic DVD releases when everyone else had already switched, so they have a history of moving slowly.

Criterion has a large backlog of movies that they are still working to move from DVD to blu-ray. My guess is that they still see the primary market as blu-ray and DVD and would rather continue that route as long as possible, then move to 4K/blu-ray releases. New technologies, better scans continue being produced. Why take movies they last released on DVD directly to 4K when they can further milk blu-ray and release on 4K later. Criterion has name recognition and a following. As long as that is true they can maintain status quo and move at their own pace, why not?

Is that frustrating to new 4K adopters? Sure, but it probably isn't where the bulk of the current money is coming from. Will 4K adopters re-buy from Criterion in five years if they release from a newer scan? Probably, because they want to buy the best, whenever that time is.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

DV uses the same D65 white point as HDR10 and indeed SDR, so the white balance settings are the same as those. Sony TVs can just transpose these figures and, if you'd read the article you keep bringing up, you'd note that some other brands of TV also set a calibration for DV by doing it in SDR 2.2 space and then it just maps it across.

As for colour space, how does one calibrate for 709 gamut on any given TV? If they have a CMS (and not all TVs do) then the same controls are transposed across to the HDR, and by using separate 2020 and P3 inside 2020 patterns we can check how the TV is assigning those primaries and secondaries. Most higher end displays will resolve most if not all of P3 and as that's what content is still being mastered in (with the occasional bleed outwards into the 2020 gamut) then displaying it 'fully' isn't a problem.

Lesser sets will struggle for sure, and as they struggle with the peak brightness too (often having just frame dimming, or even no dynamic dimming at all) then they're not very well suited for HDR, not merely on a calibration level but on a fundamental technical one. You may well take that as your cue to celebrate the awfulness of HDR as an industry-wide implementation and I wouldn't disagree, but if you can find a path through it then you'll be greatly rewarded. The people who don't will continue to remain deeply frustrated with it. But I dare say that much of Criterion's clientele are people who've got a 1080p supermarket special that they're watching from 15ft away and don't have any idea what HDR is anyway, so releasing a 4K HDR disc is not gonna affect them.

709 is easy to calibrate, as every display can properly show that colorspace. Not the case with P3/2020. Also a good calibration, an accurate calibration, involves using a 3DLUT (which I have for SDR/709), and which you can't do for HDR (Calman 1DLUT is an expensive joke for example). And as you say, CMS controls are limited, if they even exist. Yes you can muck around, but you will never have any accuracy like you do with SDR/709. P3 in the greens is bad on most displays for example. If you know what a proper 3DLUT calibration/65pt cube looks like, you will see the large shortcomings of calibrating HDR/P3/2020. Yeah it's frustrating if you care about image quality.

Contrary to what you think, I'm not "celebrating" anything. I wish things were better, and I've said I believe they will improve. I've tuned my set more than most people care to spend time on, but it's still not as good as SDR/709. With the latter I know for sure I'm seeing what the content creators intended. With 4K UHD I have no clue - it varies disc to disc. I buy most, and can see the issues. Sometimes they don't outweigh the benefits, but sometimes they do. So to me it's not clear cut that any 4K UHD disc is better than a BD as many proclaim. 4K is, no debate there, but HDR isn't necessarily a given.

I don't know what Criterion's clientele is, and I don't want to make those assumptions.

In a way, that leads into your next question...


I think it's partly FUD about what 4K HDR is and does (though I still think that the HDR implementation issue means **** all to Lee Kline et al, he seems to think that HDR makes little difference and that 4K is about resolution only?), partly a notion that if they produce a disc that's only for the niche of the niche then they're somehow betraying their fanbase and their mission statement. Arrow's restoration supervisor James White literally said this in a 2017 interview, that by producing a UHD you're admitting that the next version down isn't the best any more and that may well alienate some people - but as people still buy Criterion DVDs in droves and ignore the BD offerings then I don't think that core fanbase give two shits about another even betterer version.

Hell, I think even the staunchest anti-4K members on here would actually prefer that Criterion did start doing 4Ks if only to shut down these kinds of tedious discussions that get played out in every new Criterion thread (with the irony being that in this case I'm very glad that The Elephant Man is being released on BD in the US, even if it's not 4K it's about goddamned time).

I don't know about that, and doubt it's so simple for Criterion. I also don't know that there are "anti-4K" people. I'm not anti-4K, but just pointing out some shortcomings. I guess people don't like that. Every film that I like that comes out in 4K, I get and evaluate. But for me, it's literally 50/50 with the "hit rate".

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by smithb

As was already stated, Criterion was releasing non-anamorphic DVD releases when everyone else had already switched, so they have a history of moving slowly.

Criterion has a large backlog of movies that they are still working to move from DVD to blu-ray. My guess is that they still see the primary market as blu-ray and DVD and would rather continue that route as long as possible, then move to 4K/blu-ray releases. New technologies, better scans continue being produced. Why take movies they last released on DVD directly to 4K when they can further milk blu-ray and release on 4K later. Criterion has name recognition and a following. As long as that is true they can maintain status quo and move at their own pace, why not?

Is that frustrating to new 4K adopters? Sure, but it probably isn't where the bulk of the current money is coming from. Will 4K adopters re-buy from Criterion in five years if they release from a newer scan? Probably, because they want to buy the best, whenever that time is.

Good things come to those who wait. I think Criterion will do the right thing. Whatever that is, when that is, and not because people are crying on forums. As physical media is dying, it's perhaps companies like Criterion that will maybe carry the torch for the ultra-niche market it will become. So then, they need to take their time and figure things out. It's OK to wait

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Actually if you read my posts, is exactly what I claim. 4K UHDs look different on different display devices, while Blu-rays don't. Even the cheapest display can properly show Rec.709, Gamma 2.4, and 100nits. Some OLEDs have issues with black crush still on many 4K discs, not so with the Blu-rays. Projectors have issues with most 4K discs due to HDR and tone mapping. LCD have their own issues. It goes on and on.

Personally I’d say there’s a pretty big difference between saying “There are many 4K UHD releases where the Blu-ray looks better” and saying there are problematic variances in results depending on a person’s setup. Two different assertions.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by urbo73

709 is easy to calibrate, as every display can properly show that colorspace. Not the case with P3/2020. Also a good calibration, an accurate calibration, involves using a 3DLUT (which I have for SDR/709), and which you can't do for HDR (Calman 1DLUT is an expensive joke for example). And as you say, CMS controls are limited, if they even exist. Yes you can muck around, but you will never have any accuracy like you do with SDR/709. P3 in the greens is bad on most displays for example. If you know what a proper 3DLUT calibration/65pt cube looks like, you will see the large shortcomings of calibrating HDR/P3/2020. Yeah it's frustrating if you care about image quality.

Contrary to what you think, I'm not "celebrating" anything. I wish things were better, and I've said I believe they will improve. I've tuned my set more than most people care to spend time on, but it's still not as good as SDR/709. With the latter I know for sure I'm seeing what the content creators intended. With 4K UHD I have no clue - it varies disc to disc. I buy most, and can see the issues. Sometimes they don't outweigh the benefits, but sometimes they do. So to me it's not clear cut that any 4K UHD disc is better than a BD as many proclaim. 4K is, no debate there, but HDR isn't necessarily a given.

I don't know what Criterion's clientele is, and I don't want to make those assumptions.



I don't know about that, and doubt it's so simple for Criterion. I also don't know that there are "anti-4K" people. I'm not anti-4K, but just pointing out some shortcomings. I guess people don't like that. Every film that I like that comes out in 4K, I get and evaluate. But for me, it's literally 50/50 with the "hit rate".

And yet I wonder how many people out there actually care for having the proper colour, gamma and white point for SDR? Not to deflect the issue from how horrible HDR is, but most people would run screaming from a D65 white point.

I didn't say you were anti-4K, it's a shout-out to all my homies out there who'd rather that these threads didn't devolve into the usual Criterion hit piece.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Personally I’d say there’s a pretty big difference between saying “There are many 4K UHD releases where the Blu-ray looks better” and saying there are problematic variances in results depending on a person’s setup. Two different assertions.

That's why a list is pointless. The two are related, intertwined. A comparison is not theoretical, but practical, and done on a display.

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yet I wonder how many people out there actually care for having the proper colour, gamma and white point for SDR? Not to deflect the issue from how horrible HDR is, but most people would run screaming from a D65 white point.

I didn't say you were anti-4K, it's a shout-out to all my homies out there who'd rather that these threads didn't devolve into the usual Criterion hit piece.

Most people don't care, but I would think people on these forums do. I'm sorry if I took the thread in another direction, that was not the intention. I've already said I will get the Criterion and the 4K SC form the UK. I love this film, and am happy to see how both look on my displays.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by urbo73

Most people don't care, but I would think people on these forums do. I'm sorry if I took the thread in another direction, that was not the intention. I've already said I will get the Criterion and the 4K SC form the UK. I love this film, and am happy to see how both look on my displays.

Even most people on this forum just take the settings from rtings or another forums review, that's if they even go that far as plenty of people just set their TVs to how they like them, leaving it on Cool colour temp and cranking up contrast and sharpness etc. Some even adjust it on a film by film basis! So again, not to deflect from HDR's multiple woes but if you think that everyone here is seeing the same SDR 709 image then that's rather hopeful at best. HDR just sent that 'never twice the same colour' notion into overdrive.

And one thing I will say re: HDR calibration is that when I've got two sets of the same content, one in SDR and one that's literally SDR in an HDR container (because the filmmakers hate HDR) and the HDR's gamma, colour, white balance, contrast etc is damned near identical to my calibrated SDR 709 output then I know I've got it nailed. Not that I have "eyeballed" these HDR settings, but they've been set beforehand according to my so-called calibration. Hell of a coincidence, no? Have a look at my Knives Out UHD write up https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...2#post17486112 and see what you think.

[anthonyls]

Ummmm, what does are this technical discussion have to do with The Elephant Man?