Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[HeavyHitter]

I post on some weight training/resistance training forums. Having done it for 30 years, it's always funny when an armchair expert comes on having never lifted a weight in his life try to tell people how to train because of some "study". Reminds me of the same here. Web forums have created a generation of self-appointed experts.

[StingingVelvet]

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.

Lots of win on this page but this is the post I think sums it up best. Some discs look too dark to some people because of equipment, some because of settings (i.e. they're used to torch mode), some because they actually are darker than the BD but should be, because the BD was pumped with brightness due to lack of range (Assassin's Creed). Then there are a few that are actually mastered a little too dark (Jupiter Ascending).

Which is Unforgiven? We'll see on Tuesday, but given it's a Warner disc and mastered for 4,000 nits, I'm betting equipment is a huge factor.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by 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.

I actually think it's an awesome format. I've seen UHD Blu-ray in action. I could easily buy a flagship 2017 model OLED but I'm waiting till next year for HDMI 2.1, how that prohibits me from the right of forming an opinion about the early reviews of the disk is very curious. No choice, huh? You could just choose not to be sore. Seems a few of you want to bash me directly and make it personal, simply because I have my own opinions that are just as valid as anyone else. If I was wrong, one of you surely could use some actual fact based points to show the error of my assumption, but instead you go for personal attacks and then say I need to be banned by a moderator.

For the record, I love UHD Blu-ray as a format, and I'm also not insulting anyone personally. I truly appreciate every early adopter. I'm happy to have a discussion and I respect the opinions of others, even when they're different to mine. I'm not a troll, 'pal', I am a tech junkie and a film buff. But whatever, I'm done responding until there are new reviews. "Look, let me just state for the record, I think you're both better than me!" - Jerry Seinfeld

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I post on some weight training/resistance training forums. Having done it for 30 years, it's always funny when an armchair expert comes on having never lifted a weight in his life try to tell people how to train because of some "study". Reminds me of the same here. Web forums have created a generation of self-appointed experts.

Yeah, and you know what? I'm one of them. But man, philochs is giving the Armchair Expert™ community a bad rep right about now.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

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.

I loved their HD DVD reviews, they were the first place I went to (and not just because they were one of the only ones doing HD DVD reviews) but it got really janky really fast and their UHD ones in particular seem to be way off base. Pro reviewing has become a lost art since everybody started doing it, as instead of all the well-known sites raising their game they seem to have dumbed it down instead. Why bother when you're still getting the clicks out of sheer habit? And UHD has thrown a huge wrench into the works thanks to the huge variances in mapping, calibration, peak display brightness and so on.

This site's Shout RoboCop 2 review is awesome though, so perhaps there's hope yet...

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, and you know what? I'm one of them. But man, philochs is giving the Armchair Expert™ community a bad rep right about now.

It's easy for you all to keep chiming in and slamming me, but so far no one has an actual counterargument to the argument in question, funnily enough. So let's just assume for one minute that I'm possibly right. I know what this is, it's just that you all are neurotypicals, and I'm on the autism spectrum and like wolves you can sniff that out, and then you instinctively move in for the kill. It's primal human biology. If we're not gonna be best friends, I don't take it personally.

Do not be deceived, for I am the last and final armchair expert... There can be only one.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by philochs

It's easy for you all to keep chiming in and slamming me, but so far no one has an actual counterargument to the argument in question, funnily enough. So let's just assume for one minute that I'm possibly right. I know what this is, it's just that you all are neurotypicals, and I'm on the autism spectrum and like wolves you can sniff that out, and then you instinctively move in for the kill. It's primal human biology. If we're not gonna be best friends, I don't take it personally.

People have given you counter-arguments based around equipment differences (nits), many discs not being darker and other such things. You ignore these arguments and repeat Dolby Vision talking points without owning a UHD setup. You can surely see how that would be intensely frustrating to people. Also your metadata focus seems extreme, it's not like HDR 10 can't do bright and dark scenes both.

I'm sure most will stop feeding the troll, and I will too, but there was one last polite explanation of why most just turned on you.

[philochs]

I've reached out to 'the Blu-Ray critic' in regards to the darker UHD transfer and here I am bringing you guys another scoop, he had this to say...

"Any issues with the darker transfer aren't really that noticeable. I think some people are being overly picky. People have to take into consideration that 4K has greater bit rate so at times things like this can happen since you get deeper blacks when compared to the Blu-ray. However, this isn't a perfect transfer, which is why I gave it a 4 1/2 out of a 5. But, I can assure you, that this is the best this film has ever looked."

Fair enough, right? I'm happy to bring you all a third opinion from someone who has the disks already. Made me feel a bit better, at least.

[Geoff D]

What the actual **** does "greater bit rate" have to do with getting deeper blacks or a darker transfer in general? That's one of the most inane things I've ever heard, and this thread was leading the way already.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

People have given you counter-arguments based around equipment differences (nits), many discs not being darker and other such things. You ignore these arguments and repeat Dolby Vision talking points without owning a UHD setup. You can surely see how that would be intensely frustrating to people. Also your metadata focus seems extreme, it's not like HDR 10 can't do bright and dark scenes both.

I'm sure most will stop feeding the troll, and I will too, but there was one last polite explanation of why most just turned on you.

Except I didn't ignore any of those points, I agree with you on almost every point, and yet none of it changes the crux of my argument. You are the one that conceded that at least a couple UHD disks are a little too dark. That's all I was pointing out. ST 2094 is going to fix such issues that we have with St 2084. It doesn't matter if your tv is 4000 nits, you still get a benefit moving to dynamic metadata. Please don't take my word for it...

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What the actual **** does "greater bit rate" have to do with getting deeper blacks or a darker transfer in general? That's one of the most inane things I've ever heard, and this thread was leading the way already.

I just added new feedback from the Blu-ray critic, I don't speak for him. I thought people would at least care to read his thoughts on the darker transfer as he hadn't mentioned it in the video review, and most people don't have this disk yet. Don't shoot the messenger, bullets have been whizzing past my head for the last hour. Those were his words, not mine. For me, the key take away is that he doesn't find the slightly darker transfer to be jarring, which is good news. Boy, it sure doesn't take much to ruffle feathers around here. I'm not a troll, I'm not trying to rile anyone up. It just happens naturally, it's 100% organic.

[The Great Owl]

I just dived into the pool, since I was able to use a $10 gift certificate to pre-order this Blu-ray today. Here's looking forward to a new transfer (although I'll be stuck watching the standard Blu-ray in the package until I acquire a 4K player.).

Robert Harris (Home Theater Forum) says that this purchase would be worth it alone for the standard Blu-ray, which can only be purchased through this combo.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by philochs

Except I didn't ignore any of those points, I agree with you on almost every point, and yet none of it changes the crux of my argument. You are the one that conceded that at least a couple UHD disks are a little too dark. That's all I was pointing out. ST 2094 is going to fix such issues that we have with St 2084. It doesn't matter if your tv is 4000 nits, you still get a benefit moving to dynamic metadata. Please don't take my word for it...

[Show spoiler]

Which, as I've already pointed out to someone else, is being demonstrated with a 500 nit mapping example. And, as I also said to that other person, in the SMPTE video which those stills are taken from it's actually explained that if a display system can reach 100% of the mastering intent then it has NO NEED for mapping whatsoever. Sure, you won't find consumer displays that do 4000 nits BUT anything that does 1000+ nits (which is fully 75% of the inherent 10,000-nit PQ signal) and can competently tone map the rest will be able to display the signal in a way that's much closer to the rendered intent than not e.g. the latest 2017 Sony's have no problem mapping down the 10,000-nit ramp on the Sony UHD test patterns.

This is the point: Dynamic HDR is not there to fix a broken EOTF, it's there to fix a botched display implementation and some companies have definitely fallen short in this area while others have done much better - but even so, it will provide ever-decreasing benefits as the nits-race gathers pace and companies like LG actually start to employ decent static tone mapping. ST 2094 (dynamic metadata) is the successor to ST 2086 (static mastering metadata), NOT the successor to ST 2084 (the PQ EOTF) because this will still be at the heart of HDR10, HDR10+ and even the saintly Dolby Vision.

And even with dynamic HDR we will still see things like overly dark UHD transfers IF they're intended to be and we will still get things like notable variances in user experience because all displays (as in, their physical properties) are not created equal. Dynamic HDR is about mapping the source to the display characteristics, not creating one uniformly-smooth rendition of the source across all displays and display types.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Which, as I've already pointed out to someone else, is being demonstrated with a 500 nit mapping example. And, as I also said to that other person, in the SMPTE video which those stills are taken from it's actually explained that if a display system can reach 100% of the mastering intent then it has NO NEED for mapping whatsoever. Sure, you won't find consumer displays that do 4000 nits BUT anything that does 1000+ nits (which is fully 75% of the inherent 10,000-nit PQ signal) and can competently tone map the rest will be able to display the signal in a way that's much closer to the rendered intent than not e.g. the latest 2017 Sony's have no problem mapping down the 10,000-nit ramp on the Sony UHD test patterns.

This is the point: Dynamic HDR is not there to fix a broken EOTF, it's there to fix a botched display implementation and some companies have definitely fallen short in this area while others have done much better - but even so, it will provide ever-decreasing benefits as the nits-race gathers pace and companies like LG actually start to employ decent static tone mapping. ST 2094 (dynamic metadata) is the successor to ST 2086 (static mastering metadata), NOT the successor to ST 2084 (the PQ EOTF) because this will still be at the heart of HDR10, HDR10+ and even the saintly Dolby Vision.

And even with dynamic HDR we will still see things like overly dark UHD transfers IF they're intended to be and we will still get things like notable variances in user experience because all displays (as in, their physical properties) are not created equal. Dynamic HDR is about mapping the source to the display characteristics, not creating one uniformly-smooth rendition of the source across all displays and display types.

I've watched the whole seminar before, it's on youtube. A lot of what you say is true. He does use a 500nit display example, but as he also uses a 4000nit reference monitor as part of that example, you've rightly conceded that no current tv models hit 4000 nits, and some titles are actually mastered at 4000nits. What Lars Borg actually says is that ST 2094 will give people the best PQ on the widest range of displays. Technicolor HDR and Dolby Vision both have other aspects besides just the tone mapping, such as chroma subsampling, or color bit depth. On the encoder's side, ST 2094 formats don't simply map the luminescence, they give the studios ability to boost saturation, or desaturate, they can make tweaks to the color and subtly enhance details on a scene by scene basis.

HDR10+ from Samsung and 20th Century Fox is the only ST 2094 format that is simply HDR10 adding dynamic metadata for luminescence, the other premium HDR formats do other extra things as well. Next year it's likely that tv models announced at CES will have HDMI 2.1, and some will be flagships, and yet still offer support for all of forthcoming HDR formats. I'd prefer to get a tv that supports all formats that media will soon be encoded in. I also prefer an OLED or an LCD with full FALD and 2000+nits. I remain thoroughly convinced that premium HDR formats based on ST 2094 will produce at least marginally better PQ, even on high nit flagship sets. What you're arguing doesn't really match what the people at SMPTE are saying.

In another video labeled "SMPTE Standards Webcast: Building Block Standards for HDR Imaging" Raymond Yeung of Dolby Laboratories is asked to give an example of when dynamic metadata would benefit, and he says point blank that whether a tv is 500nits or if it's 1500nits, that ST 2094 formats will 'transform and optimize the image', will improve the PQ, and 'you will observe the creative intent, and that will be a practical use case, thank you.' He talks about how st-2094 can be used to bring out more details in dark shadowy scenes, then could be used in another scene to make the color red look more vibrant on a neon sign. According to him, new HDR formats are a framework to give content creators better control of the image on it's way to the display, no matter what the nits are.

[imsounoriginal]

Really don't care if literally just one person (RAH) is saying the UHD is dark. All due respect and all, but even he admits that different hardware could yield different/better results. I'll just wait and see it for myself. If anything all this has done is make me consider going ahead and buying it right away instead of waiting for a price drop.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by philochs

I've watched the whole seminar before, it's on youtube. A lot of what you say is true. He does use a 500nit display example, but as he also uses a 4000nit reference monitor as part of that example, you've rightly conceded that no current tv models hit 4000 nits, and some titles are actually mastered at 4000nits. What Lars Borg actually says is that ST 2094 will give people the best PQ on the widest range of displays. Technicolor HDR and Dolby Vision both have other aspects besides just the tone mapping, such as chroma subsampling, or color bit depth. On the encoder's side, ST 2094 formats don't simply map the luminescence, they give the studios ability to boost saturation, or desaturate, they can make tweaks to the color and subtly enhance details on a scene by scene basis.

HDR10+ from Samsung and 20th Century Fox is the only ST 2094 format that is simply HDR10 adding dynamic metadata for luminescence, the other premium HDR formats do other extra things as well. Next year it's likely that tv models announced at CES will have HDMI 2.1, and some will be flagships, and yet still offer support for all of forthcoming HDR formats. I'd prefer to get a tv that supports all formats that media will soon be encoded in. I also prefer an OLED or an LCD with full FALD and 2000+nits. I remain thoroughly convinced that premium HDR formats based on ST 2094 will produce at least marginally better PQ, even on high nit flagship sets. What you're arguing doesn't really match what the people at SMPTE are saying.

In another video labeled "SMPTE Standards Webcast: Building Block Standards for HDR Imaging" Raymond Yeung of Dolby Laboratories is asked to give an example of when dynamic metadata would benefit, and he says point blank that whether a tv is 500nits or if it's 1500nits, that ST 2094 formats will 'transform and optimize the image', will improve the PQ, and 'you will observe the creative intent, and that will be a practical use case, thank you.' He talks about how st-2094 can be used to bring out more details in dark shadowy scenes, then could be used in another scene to make the color red look more vibrant on a neon sign. According to him, new HDR formats are a framework to give content creators better control of the image on it's way to the display, no matter what the nits are.

Fair points, but what's troubling me is that people keep coming out with language like the HDR10 grade is not actually optimised 'scene by scene' in the first place like any grade would normally be e.g. the theatrical DI finish and the trim pass for conventional SDR video, as if the insertion of the metadata itself is somehow key to 'finalising' what look they want for the movie, when shirley it should be the other way around? In an ideal world you'd lock in your primary 'look' during the mastering stage and then create your metadata using lesser intermediate versions e.g. the SDR grade, while the idea that the 'intent' is being rounded off by the mapping opens a MASSIVE can of worms because, as I said previously, not all displays are the same.

Sure, it's been said by certain authorities that deriving the HDR10 grade from a DV original is first mapped using that same dynamic metadata and can then be manually adjusted if need be, but what's unclear is whether all the studios currently using Dolby tech (Lionsgate, Sony, Warners, Universal) are just firing off a 'set and forget' HDR10 mapping for UHD discs or whether they're actually doing any manual adjustment. And with Fox not appearing to use Dolby tech at all then they must surely be doing 'scene-by-scene' colour grades for their HDR10 output already, these can't be just simple 'one-light' passes done via automation (we know that Deadpool and The Relevant were specifically overseen by the filmmakers, for example). So, for the Fox discs, while the metadata itself may be static the source itself already has all the 'creative intent' baked in, it's then up to the display to try and map it as best it can.

Alas, with almost everyone using 4000-nit grades - even though the BDA mandated that they do not go higher than 1000-nits MaxCLL for the first two years of the format licence - then the issue of tone mapping became a much hotter topic than it really should've been out of the gate. [edit] And it doesn't help that some discs apparently have the static metadata nulled out which then makes the TV's tone mapping truly 'blind' because it doesn't know what the source was mastered at! That in itself may have done static mapping a huge disservice on certain TVs.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

With Fox not appearing to use Dolby tech at all, then they must surely be doing 'scene-by-scene' colour grades for their HDR10 output already, these can't be just simple 'one-light' passes done via automation (we know that Deadpool and The Relevant were specifically overseen by the filmmakers, for example). So, for the Fox discs, while the metadata itself may be static the source itself already has all the 'creative intent' baked in, it's then up to the display to try and map it as best it can.

Well 20th Century Fox studios helped Samsung develop "HDR10 PLUS" of course, and so that's a pretty good sign they'll likely support that format as soon as they can author UHD disks with it, especially since it's free and would be a new base layer HDR format on an updated BDA spec.

While neither Fox, nor Paramount have announced any Dolby Vision titles yet, every other major Hollywood studio has now committed to releasing some Dolby Vision titles on disk, and I am confident both remaining studios will eventually announce some Dolby Vision disks. Even if they wait an extra year, they have theatrical Dolby Vision and also support on VUDU. I don't see them going through 2018 with zero support for DV on disk, could happen, but seems unlikely. Dolby Vision has successfully snowballed, and it's still going.

Technically, Disney also hasn't formally committed to Dolby Vision on disk yet, but that's because they haven't shared their plans for UHD publicly yet. Only high level Disney executives are likely to know when they'll release their first UHD disks. If James Gunn has anything to say about it though, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 will be the first Disney UHD disk Q3 2017 and it will have Dolby Vision. If that does happen, it would be my pick for the top tech story of 2017. Fingers are crossed.

I think as for as creative intent, he was just using that phrase to denote that extra tweaks content creators can do with the different formats. Not to say that we can't have creator's intent in a UHD or even a DVD, we can. I think he's talking about if the creator could give you his ideal 100% vision that wasn't at all limited by any technology, that would be the 'ideal creative intent' now, and how close can we get to that? He's saying it'll get us a bit closer to what they want, past HDR10 even.

Creative intent is different technically depending on the director, and seemingly what year it is. Part of James Cameron's intent currently is to almost always add teal tints to new color grades of his old films. Scenes that had grain, and no tints theatrically, suddenly have heavy teal tints and DNR to the max because they have since become popularized. So I feel like the lines of 'director's creative intent' are very blurred.

I like cases where they try to accurately grade the color to some type of theatrical standard for old catalog titles, rather than some revisionist color and HDR grade. Another example of odd cases of 'creative intent' are director's cut versions that take out the most violent scenes, something that Stallone does in some of his films. I will amass a huge collection of UHD and some disks will have static HDR10. I'm not saying I'll only buy disks if they came out in 2018 or later. Seems like both the UHD and 1080p remaster of Unforgiven are going to be awesome. I still focus a lot on the minutiae of PQ. I think a title of this pedigree warrants it. This isn't the UHD of "Camp Nowhere", it's a landmark, format defining, catalog release. I'm not disagreeing with you here.

[Trekkie313]

So the new Blu-ray version is better than the old disc and UHD?

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

So the new Blu-ray version is better than the old disc...?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

...and UHD?

I highly doubt it.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

So the new Blu-ray version is better than the old disc and UHD?

Anyone ever seen the original 2011 UK Bluray of "The Buddy Holly Story"? It's my pick for ugliest Blu-ray ever. I've never seen a worse one that I can recall. The PQ isn't even anywhere close to as nice as the DVD that came out in 1999 which had good color for DVD. That Blu-ray had really faded colors, must've been scanned from some print some guy had in his attic. Thank God 'Twilight Time' eventually released it on Blu-ray in USA, and the PQ there is awesome.

I think the UHD copy of Unforgiven is going to be better than the new 1080p version overall still. As people point out, flagship tvs and UHD players can probably be successfully calibrated to account for the UHD transfer being a bit darker than the new 1080p version, better than many projectors can account for anyway. Two reviewers have been bothered by the darker transfer enough to mention it so far though, at least one guy prefers the new 1080p grading to the new UHD HDR grading. While one other has said it wasn't a big deal to him at all. I'm going to be happy to find out more opinions soon, as more people get to test out these new disks. Definitely, they both will put the older 1080p BD copy to shame, I hope we all agree on that much, at least.