Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Darev]

This will be the first format I've bought this movie on. As such, I don't mind the $30 price tag.

I'm curious about what you are all talking about when you say something is "lighter" or "darker" in the UHD version...compared to what?
Is there some "reference" quality version out there that you're comparing the UHD version to?

[philochs]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Scanning at 6 or 8k is one thing, but it doesn't mean you have to master the final DI at 8k, which is much more expensive and difficult for little actual benefit. We've all had this debate before though.

Yep, the uptick from 2K to 4K is slight, the upgrade from 4K to 8K DI might be subtle as well. In 15 years, it'll still be an upgrade on my 8K projector and 8K OLED, and I won't care if the boost in resolution is subtle as long as it's there, alon with enough other upgrades to make it worth the trouble. I will buy into 8K as a format one day, but people can stop with 4K if they want. I wasn't trying to have the conversation again, all I said at first was that I would have preferred if Unforgiven was scanned at 8K for the UHD disk and 1080p remaster.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Darev

This will be the first format I've bought this movie on. As such, I don't mind the $30 price tag.

I'm curious about what you are all talking about when you say something is "lighter" or "darker" in the UHD version...compared to what?
Is there some "reference" quality version out there that you're comparing the UHD version to?

Yes, the "reference" quality version to me is generally a 35mm print, memories of theatrical releases. I want them to grade it like the theatrical experience, or better. The brightest scenes in the film shouldn't appear any darker than it did in the theater. I went to most big movies in the late 80's and early 90's. 35mm isn't the cause of a dark transfer, it's how they grade it for the release.

In this case though, the new UHD disk is also competing directly against the new 2017 remastered 1080p Blu-ray disk that comes with the UHD disk as an extra. That new 1080p disk is said to be significantly brighter than the UHD disk. That would mean the UHD is too dark in the brighter scenes, as the new 1080p Blu-ray is not too bright, and it is brighter than the UHD. Sounds to me like the new 1080p version has brighter, therefore punchier, more vibrant bright scenes. A lot of the film is supposed to be bright, if it's darker than the new 1080p version in the bright scenes, that is definitely bad.

[Darev]

Originally Posted by philochs

Yes, the "reference" quality version to me is generally a 35mm print, memories of theatrical releases. I want them to grade it like the theatrical experience, or better. The brightest scenes in the film shouldn't appear any darker than it did in the theater. I went to most big movies in the late 80's and early 90's. 35mm isn't the cause of a dark transfer, it's how they grade it for the release.

In this case though, the new UHD disk is also competing directly against te new 2017 remastered 1080p Blu-ray disk that comes with the UHD disk as an extra. That new 1080p disk is said to be significantly brighter than the UHD disk. That would mean the UHD is too dark in the brighter scenes, as the regular Blu-ray is not too bright. Sounds like the new 1080p version has brighter, therefore punchier, more vibrant bright scenes.

I was curious, thanks for answering.
However, while I do agree in principal, the reality of it is that (as a former theater projectionist) there are/were many variables with movies on film that can drastically alter the image you see on the screen.
The bulb could have been dim, or too bright. The changeover plate could have been out of position during a show making things darker.
Memories could be faulty.
Projectionists at the theater I worked at were often high school kids, or maybe even early college age people.

"Does it look ok?"
"Yeah"
"Is anyone complaining?"
"No"

90% of the time that's what was involved in playing the movie.

[brainofj72]

How do we know the BD isn't too bright? Why are we assuming the UHD is the one that's "incorrect?" Especially when we haven't seen either one yet?

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Darev

I was curious, thanks for answering.
However, while I do agree in principal, the reality of it is that (as a former theater projectionist) there are/were many variables with movies on film that can drastically alter the image you see on the screen.
The bulb could have been dim, or too bright. The changeover plate could have been out of position during a show making things darker.
Memories could be faulty.
Projectionists at the theater I worked at were often high school kids, or maybe even early college age people.

"Does it look ok?"
"Yeah"
"Is anyone complaining?"
"No"

90% of the time that's what was involved in playing the movie.

Well, most important is the film's negative. Since the actual film negative has about twice the stops of dynamic range as what a 1080p Blu-ray can show,it is pathetic for any studio to release a UHD disk packaged with a new 1080p remastered disk that could outshine it in even the slightest way. There's no legitimate explanation why it would be darker than the 1080p copy in the same package. The only reason is that they have to optimize it for light or dark scenes, and they went dark on UHD, and bright on the 1080p copy. I'll wait for more reviews to confirm it's a darker overall transfer, but this is my initial assumption per the early reviews.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

How do we know the BD isn't too bright? Why are we assuming the UHD is the one that's "incorrect?" Especially when we haven't seen either one yet?

Because I've seen dark transfers before, and because they currently have to optimize a disk for either the brightest scenes or else the darkest scenes, it's a known limitation. They can't optimize scene by scene without dynamic metadata. Isn't that common knowledge? I don't have to see the disks, I feel I've heard enough to understand that the new Blu-ray isn't too bright, it's likely reference quality in the brighter scenes and likely not as good as the UHD is the darker scenes. The UHD disk is, in fact, too dark in the brightest scenes. Early adopter issues with the bda spec. It'll all be different next year with HDMI 2.1 tvs and UHD players, I'm betting.

[brainofj72]

I'll reserve judgment until I see it for myself. Sure, I've come across some dark UHD transfers that seemed TOO dark, but I've also seen dark transfers that I think are beautiful and accurate (especially compared to their too-bright BD counterparts) despite others complaining about how dark they are (*COUGH*Assassin's Creed*COUGH*).

[bruceames]

There are a few discs that look too dark on displays that don't have enough nit power to tone map properly. Goodfellas is a prime example. It looks fine on my display and just as bright as the BD. I'll reserve judgement on Unforgiven until I see it for myself and not jump to conclusions based on a few reviews from sources that IMO are not very reliable (although Mr. Harris is very knowledgeable the HDR display he's using to judge brightness with is not adequate).

And I agree with a poster above that we should not assume that the BD brightness levels are always correct.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

I'll reserve judgment until I see it for myself. Sure, I've come across some dark UHD transfers that seemed TOO dark, but I've also seen dark transfers that I think are beautiful and accurate (especially compared to their too-bright BD counterparts) despite others complaining about how dark they are (*COUGH*Assassin's Creed*COUGH*).

Searching for "dark transfers on UHD Blu-ray" I just came across an old review for "Arrival" from HighDefDigest and it is very pertinent to this discussion. Michael S. Palmer really knows his stuff, because he wrote...

"even with HDR10 grading, the film doesn't really pop visually. In fact, I'd say this version comes off darker, with less shadow detail than the Blu-ray. Noticeably so. My bet is that we're dealing with a limitation of HDR10's static metadata. That said, getting to see the film in the theatrical color space is dramatic at times, especially anytime you see the vividly orange hazmat suits or a day-lit flashback with Louise's daughter.

At the end of the day, this Ultra HD Blu-ray is never going to be a demo disc -- it's bland at times with grey black levels -- but that's okay... The overall darkness and loss of shadow detail are a bigger concern; I look forward to revisiting this disc to see how it appears on different display technologies."

I'm telling you guys everything he wrote about Arrival is gonna be 100% true about Unforgiven, too. But denial ain't just a river in Egypt. I'm not Michael S. Palmer, but that guy really has his head on straight. I think it's clear he and I are on the same page when it comes to the limitations of HDR10... 'This isn't Barney, but I hear that guy's awesome.'

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by philochs

Some industry experts claim that even 3-perf Super 35 has potential to resolve up to 6K. It's certainly a fact that 35mm can resolve at least up to 6K, arguably up to 8K ...

Films are not shot with a static camera on a tripod pointing at an optimally focused test chart with the sharpest lenses around and the finest grain stock used. Those ideal resolution numbers somewhere between 4K and 6K (also based on where you put the cut off on the MTF) do not apply to feature films as shot in the real world. 4K is plenty enough when optimally derived from an oversampled scan.
See also http://www.arri.com/?eID=registration&file_uid=3525

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by philochs

I'm telling you guys everything he wrote about Arrival is gonna be 100% true about Unforgiven, too. But denial ain't just a river in Egypt. I'm not Michael S. Palmer, but that guy really has his head on straight. I think it's clear he and I are on the same page when it comes to the limitations of HDR10... 'This isn't Barney, but I hear that guy's awesome.'

If the data looked correct on the reference monitor they mastered this on there is no way all the darker content is suddenly screwed up just because another monitor is used with less nits than the reference monitor unless that monitor gets for its capabilities poorly tone mapped data to display.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by bruceames

There are a few discs that look too dark on displays that don't have enough nit power to tone map properly. Goodfellas is a prime example. It looks fine on my display and just as bright as the BD. I'll reserve judgement on Unforgiven until I see it for myself and not jump to conclusions based on a few reviews from sources that IMO are not very reliable (although Mr. Harris is very knowledgeable the HDR display he's using to judge brightness with is not adequate).

And I agree with a poster above that we should not assume that the BD brightness levels are always correct.

Forget tvs that may or may not have 1500-2000nits, I want the bright scenes on the UHD disk to pop as well as they do on the new Blu-ray, but they aren't going to. Two reviews confirmed it is a darker overall transfer when compared to the 1080p grading. It has "Arrival Syndrome", ie, it's been optimized for dark scenes, dragging the overall presentation to a darker point, while the 1080p version was optimized for to be punchy and vibrant in the bright scenes. What display your using doesn't effect how a film was graded or encoded for the UHD disk, only on how it plays back the encoded content.

It's as simple as Goldilocks and the Three Bears... "This 1080p disk was graded to optimize bright scenes."... "This UHD disk was optimized for the dark scenes." ... Not meaning to spoil it, but in the end Goldilocks would prefer a special edition release with some type of HDR with dynamic metadata because it is "just right."

Hopefully Warner Bros. doesn't make us have to wait too long after HDMI 2.1 to start getting some double-dip disks, that only need to add Dolby Vision, HDR10+, or Technicolor HDR. Within 5 years, I'd prefer for them to have put out newer versions of most of the somewhat faulty first and second year disk releases. 3rd year will be the charm for UHD Blu-ray, with HDMI 2.1 and all.

Sorry I sound like a broken record but people don't seem to want to know the truth in this case, so i respond. It's like "I bought into 4K UHD. I don't want my tv and player to be largely obsolete next year". It's understandable, I'm sorry. I won't get my first 4K tv or UHD Blu-ray player till the 2018 models, cause at least I can reassess HDR compatibility with every forthcoming format. There's nothing wrong with buying into HDMI 2.0a, I've personally skipped it for the next standard though, let's see what's behind door number two.

[Geoff D]

So you're passing all this judgement on UHD without having lived with it day-to-day? That explains a hell of a lot.

Oh, and HDD are one of the worst reviewing sites out there, and that's saying something given all the competition they're up against. The UHD of Arrival DESTROYS the packaged BD in terms of low-light detail retention, the two are leagues apart and that review is a joke.

[mzupeman]

At this point I consider philochs a troll. He's hijacked this thread in an attempt to school us on static metadata, and is basically saying the entire format isn't up to snuff, and then tells us he doesn't even have UHD equipment.

That's like saying you've never picked up and read a Stephen King book, and then rant about how you think he's a terrible writer anyway. It's absurd.

My display certainly isn't up there in nits, but I haven't had any problem with how discs look. The only movie that I felt was dimmer than it probably should have been was the new Underworld movie. Black levels have generally been pretty damn good, and almost always better than what Blu-ray has.

If he keeps this up I'm going to have little choice but to report him to a moderator. Come back when you have a stake in the conversation pal.

[OI8T12]

I don't know how someone can judge a disc without having seen it? I hope nobody's buying whatever he's selling.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So you're passing all this judgement on UHD without having lived with it day-to-day? That explains a hell of a lot.

Oh, and HDD are one of the worst reviewing sites out there, and that's saying something given all the competition they're up against.

Your comment is very opinionated, and yet amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy. I've seen UHD, I've poured over the white papers on ST 2094. I know what I'm talking about, and you didn't point to a single flaw in the argument made by myself and also separately by HDD. Since you didn't think of a flaw, you instinctively responded bitterly towards me and HDD, lashing out just a little. Likely, you have the Unforgiven UHD on pre-order and anything but sheer praise makes you feel defensive at this point.

I love the film Unforgiven as much as anyone, but that was a textbook ad hominem response, in case anyone didn't know what that meant until now. Take note.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh, and HDD are one of the worst reviewing sites out there, and that's saying something given all the competition they're up against.

Amen, brother. I don't feel like it used to be that way, but yeah, they're really lost in space these days. It's rather embarrassing.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by OI8T12

I don't know how someone can judge a disc without having seen it? I hope nobody's buying whatever he's selling.

No, I have not 'judged the disk', I've merely accepted the idea that the UHD transfer is overall darker than the new 1080p transfer, and I've based that off of two early reviews. That is all. I think it's funny how little most of you know about ST 2094.

[bruceames]

Reminds of a poster in another forum, having a know-it-all attitude based solely on pedantic knowledge. The major difference is that the guy here is very condescending and that's what makes him come across (to me) as trolling.