Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

Either UHD capture is poorly made, or hair detail is destroyed on the shot with the young Clark. Or look at the close-up of Jor-El. Neck is gone.

I'm seriously worried about The Matrix. If the same plonkers, who worked on Nolan's collection and MoS, did the encoding, we're ****ed...

The gamma's been raised on MoS for sure, but would I go back to the Blu-ray? Would I heck.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

Either UHD capture is poorly made, or hair detail is destroyed on the shot with the young Clark. Or look at the close-up of Jor-El. Neck is gone.

I'm seriously worried about The Matrix. If the same plonkers, who worked on Nolan's collection and MoS, did the encoding, we're ****ed...

I do have feelings as well, you know?

Having said that, 200 nits caps do of course crush blacks and may erase some shadow detail. With 200 nits caps you're putting twice as much information as fits into SDR into it. But I use it anyway, because most of the time the highlights would be much morse otherwise imo. And it really was the case with several shots with this disc (I often switch while doing the caps).

Anyway, I did both again with 100 nits and it does (of course) get a little better, but other than that I guess it's just like Geoff said and you're in fact losing some detail there:






But imo the pros still far outweigh the cons here.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Exactly what people have been saying about MoS's UHD all along: it takes the digital mush that's supposed to be "grain" on the BD and actually renders it as grain, it's got a beautifully textured image and the HDR is excellent. Are you doing BvS soon? The compression on that UHD is, IMO, a bit more suspect however.

As for Prestige, something of interest to me is that I can see the same blocky colour artefacting therein as on Blade Runner's UHD, like on Bale's white collar in that last cap, however it's nowhere near as chunky as it is on Blade Runner and simply wasn't an issue in motion. Looks like they've managed to iron out the bugs.

I think one could say that I am procrastinating BvS. I only have the UHD and therefore don't have the Extended Cut BD, so doing BvS will be a rather annoying endeavour for me ...

I always tend to have several discs on my "to-do list", but I'll happily do discs others are more interested in first. Here are some I had in mind next: Sicaro, Gatsby, Fantastic Beasts, Bourne Legacy, Jason Bourne (don't own the others), Logan and Blade Runner. Also thought about doing Dark Knight and Inception "again" even though there were plenty of caps already. (I own 183 and have 28 pre-orderd, so, as you can see, I do have a little time problem here though ...)

My "problem" is that I don't like comparisons with only 3 or so shots even though I could do way more that way. Luckily, caps is doing more and more as well though - they "spared" me ID4, Apollo 13 and Fifth Element lately for ex.

Anyway, if you'd like to see BvS, I will prepone that one. I only watched the UHD so far and since I almost never compare discs on my projector, most of them are interesting to me anyway. So which one is next, most of the time doesn't really matter to me.

[OutOfBoose]

Nope. Crushed. **** this.

[juanbauty@yahoo.es]

I don't understand why those caps looks much better in the BD than the UHD.... it's me?

I think the UHD caps are darker and lifeless....

i like more this than this...

[OutOfBoose]

It's SDR conversion. It's not a true representation of how it looks on a HDR screen. UHD looks better in general, but it's truly baffling when they can't manage black levels with HDR at their disposal. Incompetence.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by juanbauty@yahoo.es

I don't understand why those caps looks much better in the BD than the UHD.... it's me?

I think the UHD caps are darker and lifeless....

i like more this than this...

They are only "too dark" because of the SDR conversion, in particular due to the 200 nits SDR conversion.

Let me show you sth to maybe make you understand it a little bit better. Here's your example again with 100 nits next to the previous BD cap:

UHD-BD (100 nits) left, previous BD cap right



As you can see, it's still slightly darker than the BD, but it's not that dark anymore. With the SDR conversion you always have to settle with compromises. On a proper HDR display the original HDR image won't be too dark!


Now let me also show why I don't just do 100 nits caps in general:

UHD-BD (100 nits) left, previous UHD-BD (200 nits) cap right







IMO 200 nits works way better in regard to the highlights (the best example being the first cap). The 100 nits caps just give me the same blown-out highlights as on the BD. 200 nits also gives a better idea of the increased dynamic range and since I know that the image will (of course) be "too dark" using 200 nits (that is unless I bump up the brightness of my monitor, which should reach 350 or so nits), I, for one, very much prefer it that way.

That's my very personal opinion of course and others may beg to differ, but with my caps that's what you get.

So please just ignore "too dark" UHD-BD caps and focus on the spatial detail, the better compression and improved highlight detail.

You might also want to check out this ealier post of mine, where I tried to show/explain this before: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3609 (lowest nits setting was 120 back then, it's 80 by now btw)

[andreasy969]

The Last Jedi

Some quick comments ... I think 100 nits would've worked better with this disc, since the HDR appears to really be a rather subtle one, but it is what it is now. I can't confirm any compression problems with the reds for now. If you want me to check any concrete timestamps, please let me know.

Lots of caps because Star Wars and I was looking for reds and highlights.

UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) left, BD (upscaled) right

Disclaimer:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark, may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate.

[Rathbone]

With Screenshotscomparison not working I have built a little comparison website on my own to upload my comparisons. Check it out:

http://4kcompare.bplaced.net/

[juanbauty@yahoo.es]

thanks andreasy969 for the explanation and those great screencaps!

Rathbone, great website too! in 'favorites' right now hehehe

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

The Last Jedi

Some quick comments ... I think 100 nits would've worked better with this disc, since the HDR appears to really be a rather subtle one, but it is what it is now. I can't confirm any compression problems with the reds for now. If you want me to check any concrete timestamps, please let me know.

Lots of caps because Star Wars and I was looking for reds and highlights.

UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) left, BD (upscaled) right

Disclaimer:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark, may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate.

No compression problems in the reds, eh? From all of 10 seconds looking at the UHD cap - and just the preview at that, not even the embiggened full-rez version - I can see some gnarly blocking around the lower half of red guards over to the right. There's a very strange kind of purple 'blotchiness' mixed in there too, across the whole image, separate from whatever the grain itself is doing. I keep telling you people, Geoffy Vision™ doesn't lie...

[OutOfBoose]

Compression artifacts or HDR>SDR anomalities? I mean, I saw something like that on some Deadpool screens, but on TV it looked perfectly fine.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

IMO 200 nits works way better in regard to the highlights (the best example being the first cap). The 100 nits caps just give me the same blown-out highlights as on the BD. 200 nits also gives a better idea of the increased dynamic range and since I know that the image will (of course) be "too dark" using 200 nits (that is unless I bump up the brightness of my monitor, which should reach 350 or so nits), I, for one, very much prefer it that way.

That's my very personal opinion of course and others may beg to differ, but with my caps that's what you get.

So please just ignore "too dark" UHD-BD caps and focus on the spatial detail, the better compression and improved highlight detail.

You might also want to check out this ealier post of mine, where I tried to show/explain this before: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=3609 (lowest nits setting was 120 back then, it's 80 by now btw)

Yes, this is the key dilemma with SDR converted screencaps (and indeed my photos, more often than not). Mr capsaholic prefers to keep the brightness level high so the highlights in his caps are often blown out to shit. But if you want to preserve a decent amount of the extended highlight information then the caps will often be noticeably dimmer when stood next to the actual SDR Blu-ray. The casual viewer can't however be blamed for coming to the conclusion that HDR is either too brightly blown out (as one crusader recently did in the Starship Troopers thread over at AVF, all on the basis of capsaholic's grabs) or much too dim, hence the need for disclaimers. To that end I wish you'd put a line explaining what your disclaimer actually refers to andreas before the spoiler, rather than hiding the whole thing under the spoiler, e.g. Disclaimer as to why these images may appear to be too dim. Still, Mr capsaholic offers no disclaimers at all so you're still ahead of him in that respect.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

Compression artifacts or HDR>SDR anomalities? I mean, I saw something like that on some Deadpool screens, but on TV it looked perfectly fine.

I can plainly see the artefacting in the reds when watching the HDR10 layer of TLJ, which is what prompted andreas to refer to the reds in the first place...

[OutOfBoose]

I see. I don't own the disc, so I can't really check it out. But if you say it's there, then it's there. Oh well. Because otherwise UHD looks rather lovely.

[Geoff D]

@ andreas: There's a shot in the throne room later on that I'd like to see a cap of, will try and get the timestamp later.

[robgmun]

I'm struggling to see the difference on any of the LJ screenshots at all!

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No compression problems in the reds, eh? From all of 10 seconds looking at the UHD cap - and just the preview at that, not even the embiggened full-rez version - I can see some gnarly blocking around the lower half of red guards over to the right. There's a very strange kind of purple 'blotchiness' mixed in there too, across the whole image, separate from whatever the grain itself is doing. I keep telling you people, Geoffy Vision™ doesn't lie...

reg. bold part: Seems as if you're actually looking longer at them than I do.

reg. reds: I really don't see a problem there. Good for me at an any rate I guess.

Having said that, some further thoughts whether there is a problem or not: I got terrible artefacts in the reds when I looked at that cap (and the one before that) with the standard Windows 10 photo viewer - in particular when scaled! They (imo) look perfectly fine in my browser though (scaled or not). So it's still possible that the people seeing problems with the reds are just having a problem when displaying those reds with their setup (red has always been a problem ...). With the Snoke cap before that, the stupid Windows photo viewer even gives me banding like stripes at the bottom, while it looks perfectly fine/smooth in my browser (Firefox) for example.

Again: I'm still not saying that there isn't a problem, but I really can't confirm it, because I really don't see one. At least nothing I'd consider a problem. To me the BD looks much worse/blocky in the reds in that shot (and on the one before that).

The one thing I just did notice while staring at that shot though, is ringing on both the left and the right side of the frame. (which, as I just noticed, happens to be present in all UHD frames, but appears to be absent on the BD)

Originally Posted by Geoff D

@ andreas: There's a shot in the throne room later on that I'd like to see a cap of, will try and get the timestamp later.

Yes, please do so.


I'll also think about adopting your disclaimer suggestion.

[UpsetSmiley]

Originally Posted by robgmun

I'm struggling to see the difference on any of the LJ screenshots at all!

If you zoom in you can see the BD is softer and not as detailed, however I doubt it will be noticeable on any sub 75" TV.

[andreasy969]

I don't even have to zoom in with Last Jedi to see some major detail increase and that's right from the first cap which gives me sharper/better resolved stars. I'm not kidding you.

Best upgrade in detail I've seen lately.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

reg. bold part: Seems as if you're actually looking longer at them than I do.

reg. reds: I really don't see a problem there. Good for me at an any rate I guess.

Having said that, some further thoughts whether there is a problem or not: I got terrible artefacts in the reds when I looked at that cap (and the one before that) with the standard Windows 10 photo viewer - in particular when scaled! They (imo) look perfectly fine in my browser though (scaled or not). So it's still possible that the people seeing problems with the reds are just having a problem when displaying those reds with their setup (red has always been a problem ...). With the Snoke cap before that, the stupid Windows photo viewer even gives me banding like stripes at the bottom, while it looks perfectly fine/smooth in my browser (Firefox) for example.

Again: I'm still not saying that there isn't a problem, but I really can't confirm it, because I really don't see one. At least nothing I'd consider a problem. To me the BD looks much worse/blocky in the reds in that shot (and on the one before that).

The one thing I just did notice while staring at that shot though, is ringing on both the left and the right side of the frame. (which, as I just noticed, happens to be present in all UHD frames, but appears to be absent on the BD)



Yes, please do so.


I'll also think about adopting your disclaimer suggestion.

Fun fact: I was already looking at the pics in my browser - which also happens to be Firefox - and I didn't use the photo viewer at all. I made sure to embiggen them to the proper 4K resolution as well as look at the preview size

Try one of the frames from 1h37m24s into Last Jedi, when Snoke is sitting on his throne. Thanks.

Originally Posted by andreasy969

I don't even have to zoom in with Last Jedi to see some major detail increase and that's right from the first cap which gives me sharper/better resolved stars. I'm not kidding you.

Best upgrade in detail I've seen lately.

It's good, but after Thor 3 and Coco one wonders how much of that difference is proper 4K amazingness and how much of it is Disney gimping their 1080p Blu-rays (either directly or indirectly).