Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'd still like to see an exact frame comparison though...

Obviously.

Scorpion posted have barely a gnat's todger between them in terms of sheer spatial resolution.

I'd say non at all.

[pawel86ck]

Here is what I can do in a few seconds in Paint.NET (Freeware PhotoShop):
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/164717
A more extreme one:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/164726
It's the same photo with some gamma and range tweaking.

I can see differences in contrast and grading, but colors in all included pictures looks washed out like in every bluray I have ever seen.

Your chroma comparison pictures from AVSfoum explain what I mean by "washed out colors"



None of these UHD screenshots share similar washed out look like bluray screencaps. In fact colors in these UHD screenshots looks so great, that now I could easly confuse UHD screencap with real photos shot with compact camera.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Obviously.

What are the rolleyes for? Am I not allowed to want an exact frame comparison?

[James Freeman]

I'm with you on this.
The rolleyes are for THIS comparison which has not the same frame.
It should be so obvious that a comparison of a different frame is flawed to begin with.
Therefor your point deserves a reinforcement and a rolleyes icon for those whom it is not so obvious.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'd still like to see an exact frame comparison though, just to be sure, as the other UHD to BD comparisons for Martian which Scorpion posted have barely a gnat's todger between them in terms of sheer spatial resolution.

It seems like the spatial resolution varies from scene to scene, not necessarily movie to movie. Some scenes you can see the bump, others you cant. To me this is because of the fluctuations of cameras used throughout a movie.

But yes I'd like to see more as well.

[James Freeman]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

I can see differences in contrast and grading, but colors in all included pictures looks washed out like in every bluray I have ever seen.

Your chroma comparison pictures from AVSfoum explain what I mean by "washed out colors"

My chroma comparison is made of pure Chroma channels of Blue and Red in 320x240 which makes the degradation very obvious.
HD movies will have little chroma degradation because of high resolution, and will be obvious only on the tiniest red or blue detail.
The example on the AVS Forum was to show how first upscaling and only then chroma sub-sampling retains the original 4:4:4 chroma of the not upscaled content, nothing more.

What you say you see is less saturated and less contrasty HD picture in comparison to the UHD version on your monitor.
It has nothing to do with chroma sub-sampling.

Besides, the upscaled 2K master you see with The Martian may be a little sharpened by the studio, don't exclude that.

[pawel86ck]

James Freeman@ I dont own The Martian bluray, so I cant post exact frames like "scorpiontail60" posted in his comparison. If someone can post exact frame, it would be great

But thanks to "scorpiontail60" comparison I can really see, that UHD version have problems with compression unlike BD version
https://someimage.com/09d8zHs
https://someimage.com/S8ZlmWC
On fullHD monitor, UHD version looks better, but as soon as I will zoom to 100%, artifacts are obvious, and I would even say that BD screenshot is more detailed thanks to better compression (if almost look, like UHD version was DNR'ed or something).

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

Playing a 2020 color space on a 709 monitor without any conversion will look extremely desaturated.

First one is in 709, second is 2020.
The 709 look good on your 709 monitor, but the 2020 looks desaturated.
The 2020 picture when viewed on a 2020 screen should look exactly the same as the 709 on a 709 screen.
Makes sense?

2020 in 2020 CM
2020 in P3 CM


If you have color management in your computer (example: Safari, Preview, Photoshop, Firefox <this one has to have it turned on in a setting, etc) (Chrome don't work at all) with your correct monitor profile (most are (or were til now!) close to sRGB/HDTV/rec.709) it is possible to view pictures done in other color spaces with their colors correctly, to the limits of your monitor's gamut. (So if you have a sRGB/HDTV/rec.709 gamut monitor both the 709 and 2020 in 2020 CM would look similar, just that the 2020 CM pic wouldn't show the extra gamut colors because the sRGB/HDTV/rec.709 monitor can't show them) But at least the in-gamut colors would be correct.

And if you did have a wider gamut monitor, like one with AdobeRGB, or the newer UHDTV ones with around P3 gamut, or even a true rec.2020 monitor, then, the 709 pic would still look the same as before AND the 2020 in 2020 CM pic would now display the extra colors, up to the limit of the Wide Gamut monitor.

For example, on my sRGB/HDTV/rec.709 gamut computer monitor the 2020 on James' post looks desaturated because the 2020 colors are being displayed straight into the less saturated 709 "phosphors" (actually tiny LCD color filters ) , but the 2020 in 2020 color managed picture looks as saturated as the James' 709. because the CM makes the transformation of color space.

And if anyone within the sound of my voice has a wide gamut monitor and CM, let's say for example one of those fancy new retina iMacs with P3 color gamut, the 2020 in 2020 CM should look to have some more dazzling colors than the 709 (But still not as dazzling as if someone had a true 2020 monitor )

I've also included the 2020 in P3 CM which looks in between James' 2020 and the 709 in my CM web browser
as P3 is wider than 709 but isn't as wide as 2020, so telling the CM that it's a "P3" picture it displays it a little less saturated that with the correct display as 2020 CM instruction. (Look at the reds for example)

(If my 2 pictures look the same (unsaturated) as James' 2020 compared to James' 709, your browser is not using CM or it's off.)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ray0414

It seems like the spatial resolution varies from scene to scene, not necessarily movie to movie. Some scenes you can see the bump, others you cant. To me this is because of the fluctuations of cameras used throughout a movie.

But yes I'd like to see more as well.

Of course, but the exact comparisons which scorpion put up showed a variety of differently lit scenes and I found it extremely hard to glean any more spatial resolution in the UHD versions of all of them.

[James Freeman]

@pawel86ck
In these images it is very obvious that the UHD version destroys the fine grain which is visible on the HD version and instead creates blocks.
HD=fine grain.
UHD=micro blocks.

It is already a known fact that the Samsung Player always applies DNR (digital noise reduction), so it can destroy the fine grain on the UHD content.
Another theory might be that the HEVC codec destroyed the grain on the UHD version.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by James Freeman

@pawel86ck
In these images it is very obvious that the UHD version destroys the fine grain which is visible on the HD version and instead creates blocks.
HD=fine grain.
UHD=micro blocks.

It is already a known fact that the Samsung Player always applies DNR (digital noise reduction), so it can destroy the fine grain on the UHD content.
Another theory might be that the HEVC codec destroyed the grain on the UHD version.

Speaking of dnr...

I also found that watching a 1080p movie with the resolution set to 4k output (auto also chooses 4k), the picture becomes very smeared looking and details are lost and it's not a small difference. I'm curious if the 4k output on the player smears the picture with not only 1080p material bit also 4k material. Not all 4k movies though have a texture loss of details but once in a while.

[Geoff D]

Yeah, I've gotta say that there's something a lil' bit hinky going on with some of those shots, this one in particular:



The clouds in the sky look much more finely dithered on the Blu than on the UHD so it's no wonder people reported banding on the UHD, if what we're seeing is in any way accurate.

And while some details on his spacesuit are definitely slightly cleaner in UHD (you can also see aliasing in the red channel around his visor on the Blu) you can actually see MORE detail on the Blu, like on the inside of his right bicep. You can clearly see the ridges of his suit in the grey material on the Blu but they're smoothed away on the UHD!

Whether any of this is a result of the encode or the Samsung's supposed baked in DNR is unclear...but those differences are definitely there. Curiouser and curiouser.

[infiniteCR]

When I see screenshots comparing a bluray that's recently receieved a new improved 4k master I see what are simply obvious differences between it and what came before it, and that's just comparing the same format. On all of the UHD screenshots it is no where near as clear.

[42041]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

I have no idea why none of these reviewers are providing screenshots of UHD Blu-rays, but anyways, I'll provide some.
[snip]

So I'm pretty out of the loop on this whole UHD business, but why do all of these look like shit? I heard The Martian was supposed to see some sort of 4K reconstruction, but it looks almost identical Salt is supposedly a 4K DI but it looks barely distinguishable from what I assume a 2K upscale would be... What is the deal here How were these captured?

[pawel86ck]

Originally Posted by 42041

So I'm pretty out of the loop on this whole UHD business, but why do all of these look like shit? I heard The Martian was supposed to see some sort of 4K reconstruction, but it looks almost identical Salt is supposedly a 4K DI but it looks barely distinguishable from what I assume a 2K upscale would be... What is the deal here How were these captured?

When it comes to "Salt" UHD screenshots, I think 4K HDTV version looks sharper.

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by Derb

The 4th picture in "Salt" take a close look at Angie's face. That's what most of the transfer looks like throughout.

Not sure what you mean, but the shot has extremelly shallow depth of field, so it's really bound to disappoint people expecting "Better call Saul" clarity.

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Blu-Ray looks better to me. More resolved fine detail.

I think the opposite, as someone else pointed out, there is more detail on the UDH, plus it looks very smooth and natural, whereas the BD looks so "electronic", harsh, almost EEd. (Blu-21's post was about the one shot 4kstream/BD "Salt" comparison)

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There are advantages to having the extra chroma resolution of 4:2:0 2160p as opposed to 4:2:0 1080p as I've just pointed out above, but would that extremely slender advantage be enough to spend upwards of £400 on for a UHD player on an SDR 4K TV? Hmmm.

But now aren't you forgetting about HDR and the wider color space? Haven't those always been like half the appeal of UHD anyway? (at least for me). And you're missing them on these screenshots, so, when it comes to decide whether to get into the format or not, looking at them is only so much good.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And while some details on his spacesuit are definitely slightly cleaner in UHD (you can also see aliasing in the red channel around his visor on the Blu) you can actually see MORE detail on the Blu, like on the inside of his right bicep. You can clearly see the ridges of his suit in the grey material on the Blu but they're smoothed away on the UHD!

Whether any of this is a result of the encode or the Samsung's supposed baked in DNR is unclear...but those differences are definitely there. Curiouser and curiouser.

I can see the ridges on the UHD, but it seems to me like the suit looks less contrasty on the UHD.... Talking about contrast, isn't it very likely that in an HDR monitor (as this UHD was intended to be seen, after all) the HDR information would make the ridges pop out again? (as the contrast range of the image is adjusted). Maybe that should be taken in consideration when looking at these screenshots. But you tech guys would know about that a lot more than me.

[42041]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

When it comes to "Salt" UHD screenshots, I think 4K HDTV version looks sharper.

Marginally... what I don't get is that it doesn't look like native 4K. The texture of a 4K 35mm scan should have some nice crisp grain, like a good 16mm blu-ray, but those caps have a scaled, blurry look. Not sure if this is some capture issue or is that really how the disc looks?

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by 42041

So I'm pretty out of the loop on this whole UHD business, but why do all of these look like shit? I heard The Martian was supposed to see some sort of 4K reconstruction, but it looks almost identical Salt is supposedly a 4K DI but it looks barely distinguishable from what I assume a 2K upscale would be... What is the deal here How were these captured?

At this point I rather trust the eyes of some reviewers/forum people than screenshots.
Because the people are seeing the UHD discs on HDR screens, but with the screenshots even your pc monitor affects the potentially incorrect way you see them, and that's besides the fact that you can't see HDR on a non-HDR screen, and that's one of the points of UHD.
I have read enough people describing how "The martian" on UHD looks way better than the BD, on an HDR tv set, to know that I'll be pleased with it and prefer the format to BD.
But there are several things to take into consideration, the format has its warts, and it's up to you to decide for yourself.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by 42041

So I'm pretty out of the loop on this whole UHD business, but why do all of these look like shit? I heard The Martian was supposed to see some sort of 4K reconstruction, but it looks almost identical

I think with The Martian it depends on what frame you're looing at, a lot of the shots have effects and are upscaled from 2K. I do wonder what percentage of 5K footage actually remained effects free by the end of post-production?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

But now aren't you forgetting about HDR and the wider color space? Haven't those always been like half the appeal of UHD anyway? (at least for me). And you're missing them on these screenshots, so, when it comes to decide whether to get into the format or not, looking at them is only so much good.

I think you missed the bit you quoted where I mentioned it's going into an SDR 4K TV in my case, which should answer your question above. That's why I'm digging these SDR UHD caps on the basis of the spatial resolution comparison alone, because that's about all I've got coming to me and I've already made that aspect of this screen-cappery perfectly clear.

I can see the ridges on the UHD, but it seems to me like the suit looks less contrasty on the UHD.... Talking about contrast, isn't it very likely that in an HDR monitor (as this UHD was intended to be seen, after all) the HDR information would make the ridges pop out again? (as the contrast range of the image is adjusted). Maybe that should be taken in consideration when looking at these screenshots. But you tech guys would know about that a lot more than me.

I honestly can't see the ridges on his right bicep (screen left as we look at it) in the UHD but they're right there on the BD. And yet other details on his suit are slightly better defined in UHD, like the mission badge, so if the HDR is supposed to make the missing ridges 'pop' then why is this other detail better and not worse? I don't buy that HDR will make the ridges suddenly appear, there are certain parts of the shot where the HEVC encoding looks very fragile IMO, and lets not forget the mutliple reports of banding from people who do own The Martian on UHD Blu. Looking at that shot I picked out, I'm not surprised.

Still, these are early days for the format and the encoding can only get better.