Still not convinced

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

I'm sorry, I always think of Super35 in relation to 35mm anamorphic. Anamorphic (shot with proper lenses) would look sharper and less grainy because it uses all of the 35mm frame and for the audience it ends up "projected" onto the same sized screen (movie or tv) area. That's what I meant.
However I can agree that in this age of digital tinkering in post, maybe I overstated.

It really won't

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

Oh God. When people claim they're dying to get "Terminator 2" on UHD, I'm not sure they know what they're asking for.

And don't get me wrong, I want all of '90s movies on UHD. But I'm ready for whatever I'll get. I don't know if others are, is what I'm saying.

The movie was shot in Super35, which was a shi**y process (until they developed some stocks with DI-s in mind in the mid-'00s) that won't produce sharp images. Then you have the early cgi, and what may be worse, the early digital compositing itself (I assume they used).
I don't know the full dynamic range that the negative might have recorded (I'm talking of all the movie now, vfx free too), and how Cameron will choose to use it with HDR, but otherwise, I think people better not be expecting this mind-blowing uber-experience.

I've seen Titanic, shot on 4-perf Super 35, remastered in 4K and blown up to 15/70 IMAX...and it looked absolutely glorious. I keep seeing this bit repeated about Super 35 being such a poor relation but with a level digital playing field it really, really isn't.

Perhaps when theatrical Super 35 releases still had to be derived from neg-IP-IN (with an anamorphic squeeze baked in)-print it truly was the poor man's 'scope, but when going straight from the negative it's clear that the underlying quality of 35mm still shines through. Same goes for Techniscope. Hell, even Super 16 given a digital pass comes close to resembling 35mm on a bad day.

Yes, anamorphic uses more negative area BUT the roll off in sharpness and speed with the lenses impacts the measurable acuity in its own way. It's kinda ironic that modern glass really IS a lot sharper and cleaner and can give anamorphic a wonderfully crisp image...but several DPs who shoot it today prefer to use glass that's decades old which brings all the old issues back with a vengeance!

No need to worry about the stock either, as the Kodak EXR stocks with T-Grain from the start of the 1990s did their bit to reduce grain, especially when someone like Cameron shoots the shit out of it. I think T2 will look ****ing spectacular in UHD.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've seen Titanic, shot on 4-perf Super 35, remastered in 4K and blown up to 15/70 IMAX...and it looked absolutely glorious. I keep seeing this bit repeated about Super 35 being such a poor relation but with a level digital playing field it really, really isn't.

Perhaps when theatrical Super 35 releases still had to be derived from neg-IP-IN (with an anamorphic squeeze baked in)-print it truly was the poor man's 'scope, but when going straight from the negative it's clear that the underlying quality of 35mm still shines through. Same goes for Techniscope. Hell, even Super 16 given a digital pass comes close to resembling 35mm on a bad day.

Yes, anamorphic uses more negative area BUT the roll off in sharpness and speed with the lenses impacts the measurable acuity in its own way. It's kinda ironic that modern glass really IS a lot sharper and cleaner and can give anamorphic a wonderfully crisp image...but several DPs who shoot it today prefer to use glass that's decades old which brings all the old issues back with a vengeance!

No need to worry about the stock either, as the Kodak EXR stocks with T-Grain from the start of the 1990s did their bit to reduce grain, especially when someone like Cameron shoots the shit out of it. I think T2 will look ****ing spectacular in UHD.

Not true with the Zeiss Master Anamorphic Lens. They are the closest to spherical quality than the other lens of its type.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Poya

Not true with the Zeiss Master Anamorphic Lens. They are the closest to spherical quality than the other lens of its type.

Anamorphic will never be as sharp as super 35 especially modern super 35.
Just look at this means war, for all its many, many faults that film looks stunningly detailed

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Poya

Not true with the Zeiss Master Anamorphic Lens. They are the closest to spherical quality than the other lens of its type.

Sure, I just said that some anamorphic glass IS capable of wonderfully sharp & consistent imagery. I like Hawk's anamorphic lenses too, they breathe a bit more when racking focus but generally they seem to be so much sharper. But because filmmakers who use anamorphic tend to keep requesting such old glass (wanting that old-school halation or softness or whatever) it's setting the cause of anamorphic back a bit IMO.

Some of the lens elements used to build the glass on Ex_Machina stemmed from the 1930s and that movie is soft as shit, JJ requested the original lenses used on the first Star Wars movie which Panavision located, though they ended up building custom lenses from various elements, and Jo Willems used anamorphics from the '60s when shooting the Mockingjay movies. Nolan and his collaborators like Pfister and Hoytema also strive for a very soft look, again using custom lens packages made from extremely old optics.

[edit] Just to demonstrate this point, I watched the stunning Blu-ray of Ghostbusters II tonight and it looks so beautifully detailed and well resolved right to the periphery of the frame you'd hardly know it was shot anamorphic (it was, by the great Michael Chapman). Point being, when advances came along in the '80s like the Panavision E Series lenses filmmakers took advantage of them, resulting in 25 year old anamorphic shows that look so much sharper than the anamorphic stuff seen in, say, Chris Nolan's movies because the latter director uses such idiosyncratic glass to shoot with.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

Well, if you meant that, ok, how could anyone disagree with that. But that doesn't sound like what you were saying. But maybe I misunderstood. In any case, let's not make this about you.
So maybe I'm going crazy, but I feel like people in this forum usually name specifically the change from DVD to BD when comparing it to the present leap. And all I was saying is that in my opinion that's not such a clear-cut thing. There are people who don't see that leap. Maybe there are people who don't see the leap now. It's partly dependent on the eye of the beholder, so objective data (format specs) get mingled with subjetice perception, and it's not so black or white. I don't like such categorical statements because in practice they're sort of half-truths.

I don't see how completely changing a broadcast signal, aspect ratio and sizes of televisions wasn't a big deal. It really was. This time everything is pretty much the same. Get it? The resolution increase was also more significant. Hence why they have HDR to entice consumers.


(17:9 would of been cool and unique to get the full 4096 resolution. We have to change our displays anyway, why not go all the way)

I don't say this with hostility, but maybe you fell into some "reading comprehension" problem too , or I explained myself very badly. Those are not my arguments in favor of UHD. I was mimicking the argument you used against other people, that I quoted in my post, also starting with the exact same words of yours "Nobody wants to feel like...". I was providing alternative arguments to the one you used, and in my opinion just as wrong. If you care to read my post again, the last sentence after those "knee-jerk responses" was "Those are not valid reasons", which is what I was trying to tell you about yours.

I knew exactly what you meant. That wasn't directed at you.

I was answering to your post #173 in this thread. You wrote what you wrote there, and that's what I was answering to. Later, I read other posts of yours where you stated things along the lines of this last paragraph. If you notice, I haven't written back debating those other posts. That doesn't mean I agree 100% with them, of course.

Yeah again, i wasn't implying no improvement.

Again, the same thing: I might agree with you in that format specs tell us that the improvements of UHD over BD might fall more in the "diminishing returns" category than the improvements of BD over DVD. But then in practice that's quite a subjective experience. You should consider the possibility that for some people, added spatial resolution (and imagine when it's true 4k) + HDR (contrast is a powerful thing) can make just as big a difference as others felt going from DVD to BD.
Also, in my opinion, we still need more time to assess how big the current leap is going to be. When UHD is as good as it can be, maybe most everybody will be saying the leap from blu-ray to UHD is as big as the previous leap you were referring to.

And one more thing, let's see if I can clear up any misunderstanding that made me write my post to you. In your original post you wrote:
"Blurays like Lucy or JW don't all of a sudden become "inferior" in light of 4K versions."
As we agree that, obviously, UHD has the better specs, wouldn't you agree that a top-notch (according to your own understanding of that) UHD of one of those movies would be superior to the BD? What did you mean saying that the BD wouldn't be inferior? I believe statements like that, maybe misunderstood, caused some of the unfortunate controversy that followed your post.

I think i explained myself pretty clearly. Higher resolution (to a certain extent as we all know) better color, bitrate, compression, will make for a overall improvement to the picture. But those kinds of blurays are so well made i wouldn't call them inferior even with 4K versions available. It won't be so night and day. We aren't dealing with DVD's here. PQ for home media has reached such a high point.


So yeah, 4K blurays have the potential to be amazing, not to the detriment of bluray though. I don't see what's the problem with that statement. Even when i go all 4K i will still be watching 1080p blurays. I couldn't do that with DVD.

Yes, I guess BD has the capacity to be seen as reference for some (probably many) titles (until now, as the future brings HDR grading, apparently). Especially if the movie was graded with rec.709 in mind (or if it's an old b&w movie) and you're ok with the loss of some detail, and the mastering is great, BD being transparent to the master. It's all about what compromises you're willing to make. You know, if the BD is botched, the DVD can be better, but true, it doesn't have the capacity to be so transparent to the master.

And that's really the point. We're able to watch movies at home now at near quality of the theatrical versions. That was never the case with DVD. I welcome all the advancements of UHD (HDR...well.....uhh), but lets not exaggerate that bluray will become stone aged and stop putting out the quality it been doing.

All in all, I hope we can end up on good terms.

I don't see why not. I don't hate anybody here.


I think........

[saprano]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

Resolution wise yes, BD 1080p is still great picture.




But when it comes to HDR, I would see huge differences like that from every distance.

ISF day on my TV looks more like the HDR panel. I hope you know these manufacture demos are never accurate.

___________


I wonder what the average joe and sally is going to think about HDR when they already have their TV's on dynamic mode. Will they even notice the difference with HDR of showing proper bright highlights and more range between light and dark (lol try explaining that)? Why would they care? Dynamic looks wonderful to them even though it's clipping and crushing everything.

[peterraes]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Oh, there are many reasons:

1. The one player on the market appears to be riddled with problems and its delicate array of settings are beyond sensible! The Panasonic (my personal brand of choice) is going to be quite expensive (and right now I'd rather buy more movies!)
2. LCD and LED technologies are flawed and OLED is too expensive
3. HDR appears to alter the colour palette of the film from its theatrical presentation - at the whim of whoever masters the disc. Once upon a time this was considered heresy, since UHD it doesn't seem to matter.
4. The improvements provided by 4K appear dubious, especially on smaller displays. The best example so far is the grill on the back of a monitor in one shot of The Martian? (I realise photo images/captures are hard to do but... really?)
5. 4K screens instantly make older formats harder to watch. Still no first hand reports on how DVD looks. While, at the same time, a good percentage of transfers will be upscales. It's kind of a lose/lose scenario - on paper at least.
6. None of it is actually "necessary". In that, blu-ray doesn't *need* to be improved like VHS, laserdisc and DVD did.
7. The failure of 3D makes me wary of anything "new".

Trust me, I've thought about this long and hard and, genuinely, I can't justify it - either financially or artistically!

I was at a home cinema meeting yesterday to view the new 4K UHD blu rays on Samsungs player.
3 front projektors were lined up with 3 exactly the same screens (all gain 1.0)and all 3 proffesionally calibrated by certified people!
Sony vw 500 (non HDR) the 320 (HDR) and the JVC pixelshift 4K(HDR)
all 3 playing the same content within a fraction of a sec to compare and the results among the people were about the same and i quote:
Looks like they turned up the brightness and contrast way up (overkill!) with HDR.
Everyone loved the WCG,the expanded color palette is a dream and the 10 bit processing as it was clearly seen,no color banding!
None really liked the superbright vivid colors,my wife is no expert on these things and when i asked her wich picture she liked the most,she did not liked
the HDR (wich she doesnt even know about HDR)
Another really big problem is going to be director's intend,as stated above!
What would happen if they start fiddling about with movies like Cleopatra..Lawrence of..those are my worst fears right now!
And yes,seems like manny people here used to scream out it's heresy to alter the original look of a certain movie are dead silent now?
i understand that a early adopter just tries to block his mind and talking himself into "HDR" is a good thing cause i spent a bundle on it?
Another issue that is a "no" to talk about is how HDR demands HUGE amounts of light,it's silly tbh as this was proven at the meeting that with HDR a 100" wide screen,the dealers admittingly saw this as a huge problem not likely to be overcome in the near future,not even laserprojektion can solve it and this comes from professional certified ISF folks,thx goodness for their honesty!
TV wise a example is perhaps LG's 65" top of the line HDR one wich produces
a superb picture(not for me as i only watch movies on a 104" screen)but unfortenatly wont have a long life after calibration as it demands 98% contrast setting!
All tellies now with HDR are pushed nearly to the limit because the spec just demands it,there isnt a middle pad!
I been waiting so long for 4K and HDR and right now i'm dissapointed about the HDR aspect of it,why not just give us the WCG,10 bit processing,who came up with the idea to boost the picture with "vivid ultra bright high contrast" it is RUINING the whole 4K experience!
annyway..i'm with Rocklandboy on this issue a 100%,i'll wait and hope for the good,it's new and i hope they get it right.
I want to buy a new projektor,i had 4K HDR in my mind but im now thinking about 4K without HDR and stick to my blu ray collection,depends if all movies will have HDR or not...this is worst case scenario!
I'm a purist and cant watch a beefed up movie,simpel as that,to all early adopters who dont care about this i do wish you guys a lot of fun and enjoy it.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by peterraes

All tellies now with HDR are pushed nearly to the limit because the spec just demands it,there isnt a middle pad!
I been waiting so long for 4K and HDR and right now i'm dissapointed about the HDR aspect of it,why not just give us the WCG,10 bit processing,who came up with the idea to boost the picture with "vivid ultra bright high contrast" it is RUINING the whole 4K experience!

Actually the overall average brightness of HDR in most areas of the picture is the same (you can adjust that to you liking if you want). The difference that HDR offers a greater distribution of bright and dark levels. It's definitely not like looking at a picture in vivid mode. It doesn't work that way, and that misconception is behind most of the skepticism regarding HDR.

[pawel86ck]

Originally Posted by saprano

ISF day on my TV looks more like the HDR panel. I hope you know these manufacture demos are never accurate.

___________


I wonder what the average joe and sally is going to think about HDR when they already have their TV's on dynamic mode. Will they even notice the difference with HDR of showing proper bright highlights and more range between light and dark (lol try explaining that)? Why would they care? Dynamic looks wonderful to them even though it's clipping and crushing everything.

Picture on that SDR TV alone was really bright in real life (like HDR HDTV on the left), and that SDR HDTV looks dimmed only on that picture, because very bright HDR HDTV is put next to it. Something similar happen if you will want to use mobile phone LCD in sunny day, it will look dimmed, although is very bright without sunlight

? Dynamic looks wonderful to them even though it's clipping and crushing everything.

HDR is not some dynamic picture mode equivalent, so it's not clipping details (just the opposite). You cant archive similar look on your SDR tv with BT709 material, not even close. HDR material is bright just in specific places (for example sky, or fire, things that should be bright), while the other areas can remain dark and dimmed as in real life. Dynamic picture on SDR HDTV and BT709 material works different, beceuse entire picture is bright and vidid, not just certain areas/objects.

This is how picture will look, when you will use dynamic mode on SDR TV, entire picture will be bright, and details are cliped.


With HDR, picture is ultra bright only in specific places (sun reflected on the car mask), but other areas can remain dimmed. No details are cliped, and in fact more details are visible

[saprano]

I just explained the difference with HDR in my post. Don't know why you felt the need to go over it again.

My point was the average joe and sally only cares about brightness. Dynamic on their TV's looks bright and colorful to them. Will the accuracy of the bright and dark details matter to them? They seem fine with overblown brightness and crushed blacks.

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by pawel86ck

Picture on that SDR TV alone was really bright in real life (like HDR HDTV on the left), and that SDR HDTV looks dimmed only on that picture, because very bright HDR HDTV is put next to it. Something similar happen if you will want to use mobile phone LCD in sunny day, it will look dimmed, although is very bright without sunlight


HDR is not some dynamic picture mode equivalent, so it's not clipping details (just the opposite). You cant archive similar look on your SDR tv with BT709 material, not even close. HDR material is bright just in specific places (for example sky, or fire, things that should be bright), while the other areas can remain dark and dimmed as in real life. Dynamic picture on SDR HDTV and BT709 material works different, beceuse entire picture is bright and vidid, not just certain areas/objects.

This is how picture will look, when you will use dynamic mode on SDR TV, entire picture will be bright, and details are cliped.


With HDR, picture is ultra bright only in specific places (sun reflected on the car mask), but other areas can remain dimmed. No details are cliped, and in fact more details are visible

What if the top picture better represented the intended look?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Okay so I'm staring at my Amazon order page, poised to drop The Martian and Sicario into my basket. I put the BD editions in, removed them, put the UHD editions in (it's good to future proof right?), removed them, put the BD editions back in...

I'm just not sold on the concept/theory of 4K and, especially, of HDR...

It's a frequently discussed fact that most movies are native 2K or similar. Upscaling aaaaall of those movies doesn't feel right to me. Plus I have a lot of TV DVD titles and I don't much like the idea of them looking like crap (despite many questions in many threads nobody is keen to keen to answer what DVD looks like on a 4K display)

Where to start with HDR? Once you recover from threads that suggest no two films are the same and constant tinkering is required, you have to wonder how it changes the motion picture image. I've seen some comparison shots and the HDR images, while undeniably pretty, don't look like motion picture images. The format is still in its "wow" phase I guess, but when did it start to be okay to "treat" the image differently for home viewing?

Comments in the Samsung owners thread about the playing performing all sorts of automatic picture adjustments fills me with dread. AND I'm not a bit fan of LCD or LED screens (I hate clouding more than I hate banding) and OLED screens are just too darned expensive!

And then they announced a DE of The Martian. So buying the UHD now wouldn't be future-proofing at all! All in all a bit of a mess when, truly, regular old BD looks absolutely superb on my 42 inch Panasonic plasma!

BD had obvious advantages over DVD. The colour improvement was magnificent. The image stability striking. Hell, in the UK and Europe (PAL territories) it was the first time that movies were presented at the right speed! But this upgrade still feels loaded with fakery and gimmickery.

What a dilemma...

Well, you’ve certainly got me somewhere between frightened and depressed after reading that.

[marine92104]

You made me laugh out loud Penton-Man with your reply to that post.

It makes no sense. The UHD comes with the Blu-ray. I'd rather have a UHD & Blu-ray than a Blu-ray & DVD.

After reading that post it made me think of Chicken Little. The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

I love the phrase he keeps repeating with tinkering with a title. Even though it's been repeated time & time again that they're getting the director's involvement.

I was listening to the person that was over the new format development at Sony today talk about how they're trying not to add things in HDR that wasn't there before. They're just trying to improve the gap between light & dark along with a wider color gamut.

I remember when I first bought into Blu-ray how much better the color was than DVD but I don't remember anyone saying that Blu-ray was changing the intent of the director's vision.

The thing that worried me the most in that interview was when he was asked if Dolby Atmos would be on all of Sony's UHD title. His reply was does people really care or have people really asked that?

I think all of this will get worked out for people that are having a hard time with HDR in the future since films are being filmed in Dolby Vision with HDR.

As far as Samsung displays from what people are saying there are a lot of problems with HDR on them. Not all of their displays have the highest percentage of P3.

Sony is going their own way instead of going by the restrictions set for UHD premium. No one really knows what they are doing & by the interview he didn't really say what their criteria was for Sony's displays.

I'm glad I decided to do with the LG G6 that will do HDR10 & Dolby Vision. I'm trying to future proof myself for 10 years like I did the Pioneer Elite Kuro.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

What if the top picture better represented the intended look?

Thats a rediculous thought and you're obviously stretching because you're running out of excuses.

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by marine92104

I remember when I first bought into Blu-ray how much better the color was than DVD but I don't remember anyone saying that Blu-ray was changing the intent of the director's vision.

You don't know too much either on the subject. Once I researched the color back then I was surprised how mostly the same rec 709 was from 601(DVD).

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Thats a rediculous thought and you're obviously stretching because you're running out of excuses.

And this shows you have no idea what artistic intent is.

[Bryanc7982]

I am in the market to purchase a new 4k tv and player around October or November.

I know HDR 10 is implemented in the 2015 tvs. Will Dolby Vision be a firmware update or will this be implemented on the 2016 and beyond tvs? if you guys could help that would be great! I tried to start a new thread but since i am a new member it wouldn't let me.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Bryanc7982

I am in the market to purchase a new 4k tv and player around October or November.

I know HDR 10 is implemented in the 2015 tvs. Will Dolby Vision be a firmware update or will this be implemented on the 2016 and beyond tvs? if you guys could help that would be great! I tried to start a new thread but since i am a new member it wouldn't let me.

Nope you need to buy an actual Dolby Vision set, wait for the 2016 models

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Plus I have a lot of TV DVD titles and I don't much like the idea of them looking like crap (despite many questions in many threads nobody is keen to keen to answer what DVD looks like on a 4K display)

This subject has been broached several times Rocklands, you've been looking in the wrong places:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post11212075
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ghlight=dvd+4k
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...1#post11688701