Sony Black Crush on late-2014 / early-2015 BDs

[filmmusic]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...ray/?p=4208594

[sjconstable]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...ray/?p=4208594

He probably means the film is a piece of crap and shouldn't be visible at all

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Okay, government health warning - I'm viewing these on my lapdog screen.

At first I thought there was a big problem with the Blu-ray version - his black shirt, jacket and the background all morph into one and it's like the floating faces on the front of With the Beatles.

But you know how laptop screens need to be viewed dead-on, limited viewing angle? Well, when I titled the screen to get it just right the Blu-ray Disc looked dark but very good - all of the detail was visible. But the other version was a mid-to-dark grey with no real black at all, and areas of awful blocking.

Maybe the Blu-ray is done 'more correctly', with the view that most people investing in a disc will be expecting a spot-on presentation, whilst those downloading will possibly be viewing on a tablet on the train?

As I say, that's just a quick view on a far from perfect display, in far from perfect conditions, but my current thoughts are that the Blu-ray is right and the download too bright.

This only applies to the caps of Whiplash.

Steve W

Yeah, the blu Whiplash cap looks correct. The UV code does not. The black shouldn't be washed out.

Watched Fury - well, slogged through it, really didn't like it much - and had no trouble seeing anything in the dark scenes. But I've only seen that 1 cap to compare, and the difference is minimal in that one, so... dunno. But Whiplash - at least from that 1 image - is correct.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Yeah, the blu Whiplash cap looks correct. The UV code does not. The black shouldn't be washed out.

Watched Fury - well, slogged through it, really didn't like it much - and had no trouble seeing anything in the dark scenes. But I've only seen that 1 cap to compare, and the difference is minimal in that one, so... dunno. But Whiplash - at least from that 1 image - is correct.

That's good. We need to pinpoint exactly which discs are problematic. Hopefully, it's just a handful of titles and not several of them.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Whiplash

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

What is the source of this digital copy and how is it being captured? It also appears the digital copy is an SD version of the film.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

That's good. We need to pinpoint exactly which discs are problematic. Hopefully, it's just a handful of titles and not several of them.

I mean, I could be wrong, but I asked my cinematographer to weigh in - who adored Whiplash and its cinematography - and she also agreed the caps so far look correct. The trailer, for comparison, is also very dark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d_j...ature=youtu.be

[jscoggins]

With regards to TASM1:

The movie looked drab in theaters, as if every day had overcast skies.

TASM2:

I didn't see it in theaters, but the UV file looks similar to the BD screengrabs here at BD.com.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

With regards to TASM1:

The movie looked drab in theaters, as if every day had overcast skies.

TASM2:

I didn't see it in theaters, but the UV file looks similar to the BD screengrabs here at BD.com.

TASM2, shot by the very talented Dan Mindel, looked gorgeous in theaters and looks equally gorgeous on blu. No complaints there.

The first film, while some complained that it was too dark, looked fine to me. But I have no definitive information since I saw it in 3D, which was brightened for use with the glasses. That may be the reason some people think the blu is too dark (if it's correct), when in fact that's how it was intended to look.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

This is like Vehicle 19. The movie is zoomed and cropped from 2.40:1 to 1.78:1. In the featurette on the BD, the clips are presented in their original 2.40:1 ratio.

Yep, I could not believe the difference. There are lots and lots of clips from THE INTERVIEW used in the various featurettes on the disc, and none of them are overly dark like the main feature. I literally flipped back and forth between a few, to compare, and the difference was startling, like someone poured black paint over the image on the BD, or like I was watching it with sunglasses on.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topi...ray/?p=4208594

He's known for having a very, very, very subtle and dry wit, so much so that his sarcasm is often misunderstood. He once jokingly talked about GoldenEye being shot on leftover ends of film stock, due to its low budget, as I remember, and loads of people misunderstood and thought he was serious. He only means he hated the movie, as many did. I loved it, but we're all entitled to our opinions.

[James Luckard]

MORE INTERVIEW CAPS

I had an hour or so free, so I did a bunch more caps to show how hideous the BD transfer is. This is an exceptionally dark film, so it just can't handle being made darker than intended. People's faces vanish, whites of eyes disappear, shadowy areas turn pitch black, black costumes turn to blobs of nothingness. Look at Kim Jong Un's eyes in the closeup on the helicopter - they're simply not there anymore, they've disappeared into a sea of shadows. There is no way that's how the DP intended that shot to look. The daylight scenes aren't disastrously dark, as shown in the final cap, but there are VERY few in this film, and they're still darker than intended.

UV:

BD:


UV:

[Show spoiler]

BD:

[Show spoiler]

UV:

[Show spoiler]

BD:

[Show spoiler]

UV:

[Show spoiler]

BD:

[Show spoiler]

UV:

[Show spoiler]

BD:

[Show spoiler]

UV:

[Show spoiler]

BD:

[Show spoiler]

[philip74]

Is the UV the standard definition version? I gotta say, besides being way too
dark the sharpness of the Bluray is so much better.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by philip74

Is the UV the standard definition version? I gotta say, besides being was too
dark the sharpness of the Bluray is so much better.

Yep, the UV caps are from SD, unfortunately. The caps are only for reference to black levels. I was unable to download or even view the HD UV version. The Vudu program told me this was for "copyright reasons" or some such nonsense. I've never used streaming before and hope never to again.

[jscoggins]

James, do you have a laptop by any chance? VUDU doesn't like desktops b/c many monitors still don't have HDMI connections, lol. Anyway, on a laptop, you'll be able to view the HDX options.

Having said that, the UV for The Interview is vastly superior to the BD, even in SD.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

James, do you have a laptop by any chance? VUDU doesn't like desktops b/c many monitors still don't have HDMI connections, lol. Anyway, on a laptop, you'll be able to view the HDX options.

Having said that, the UV for The Interview is vastly superior to the BD, even in SD.

No laptop, sadly. Still, the caps don't lie. Imperfect though they are, they prove the BD is seriously flawed.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

No laptop, sadly. Still, the caps don't lie. Imperfect though they are, they prove the BD is seriously flawed.

You are my co-OP of this thread.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

He's known for having a very, very, very subtle and dry wit, so much so that his sarcasm is often misunderstood. He once jokingly talked about GoldenEye being shot on leftover ends of film stock, due to its low budget, as I remember, and loads of people misunderstood and thought he was serious. He only means he hated the movie, as many did. I loved it, but we're all entitled to our opinions.

If you read the thread there, apparently noone (except one I think) agrees that there is a black crush problem in these Blurays.

[jscoggins]

Guys, just as a heads up, I'm going to copy James's pictures for The Interview into the OP. I think Fury is a foregone conclusion. Whiplash appears to be safe for now.

My Best Friend's Wedding is a little more complicated. The UV and BD appear to be taken from different masters, so it's tough to say what's okay and what's not.

Originally Posted by filmmusic

If you read the thread there, apparently noone (except one I think) agrees that there is a black crush problem in these Blurays.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

If you read the thread there, apparently noone (except one I think) agrees that there is a black crush problem in these Blurays.

Luckily, the question of whether the black levels on this disc are wrong or not isn't something that will be decided on by a majority vote of internet commenters, but by Sony's home video department, or by the directors, who I will gladly track down and contact if we don't start to get results by the end of next week.

As I said before, it isn't an idle threat. I did just that with Roman Polanski when Warners didn't take me seriously that the FRANTIC BD needed to be corrected, and I succeeded in getting a new version made. If a deep catalog title can be repressed to satisfy a director who hasn't worked for that studio in years, and might never again, then I think Sony will definitely want to satisfy two of their most important, highest-grossing directors.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Guys, just as a heads up, I'm going to copy James's pictures for The Interview into the OP. I think Fury is a foregone conclusion. Whiplash appears to be safe for now.

My Best Friend's Wedding is a little more complicated. The UV and BD appear to be taken from different masters, so it's tough to say what's okay and what's not.

Yep, MBFW is indeed more complicated, I think the UV master is very old, and the BD is in many ways superior, it's only the black areas that look wrong. I would bet anything that Sony's actual new 4K scan from the negative looks gorgeous and perfect, and something just went wrong in the actual BD mastering.