Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[Deciazulado]

This could be partly from a difference from studio monitor calibration for each format, BT.1886 (γ2.4) for SDR and 2084 (PQ) for UHD both on a dark surround, vs a UHDTV's calibration/rendering for SDR vs HDR at home which on top also may include room ambient light/surround.


At first look, on my computer monitor when I render Andreas (100 nit) BD shot in BT.1886 (γ2.4), and compare to his 100 nit UHD shot (so both @100nits) most of the contrast difference is gone.

Click and switch in tabs:

Image 25.
Andreas (100nit) BD:


Andreas BD in BT.1886 (γ2.4) :


Andreas 100 nit UHD:




Adjusted settings for a TV or computer set up for both formats should theoreticaly converge.


(Note: BD screenshots are are almost always rendered on the computer in the default Tone Rendering Curve of the system for untagged images, usually sRGB)

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I posted a lot in the Galveston thread but real quick: that UHD is completely borked IMO. Black crush to the point of it being unwatchable. There's no debate that the standard Blu is better in my mind. I did notice if you crank brightness some of that BD detail comes back on the UHD though, which is interesting. Maybe someone smarter than me can do something with that, but on "calibrated" settings the UHD is a coaster.

I do appretiate the feedback.

Reg. the movie: I'm glad I'm not the only one who liked it even though "like" may be an odd term.

Reg. the dark image: You're not the first one with your opinion and you may very well be correct that the disc is just borked. I just tend to be very careful with such statements. There are discs where I would make such statements as well though: Example: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...84903&i=11&l=0 (I own the IT release and that one is unwatchable indeed while the JP is just effin dark; but Galveston doesn't look like the IT - not on my setup)

Some thoughts: For one I am watching in a completely darkened room, with front projection and in SDR. As I said, I had to raise the HDR slider of my Panasonic because with my usual -3 setting it was unwatchable for me as well. But I had to raise it only to the default setting 0. It was still very dark then, but watchable. The rest are calibrated default settings - nothing changed (if anything my settings are slightly (!) crushing the blacks to compensate a little bit for my projector's black levels, brightness is actually slightly lowered for ex).

On my setup it looks as it does on the 100 nits caps (both via player/projector and PC/monitor) and those are watchable imho (with calibrated settings).

The black crush remained of course and there's no setting whatsoever to do sth about it since it crushes to plain 0,0,0 which will remain 0,0,0 whatever you do.

To me it looked "Last Of The Mohicans" dark - maybe a tad darker plus black crush. I do remember people calling that one unwatchable as well for ex. Which is why I am very careful before I call a disc too dark as in botched. And I have to be careful because of the SDR in the first place.

My take (which may very well be bs) on the mentioned scene: I had no idea what was going on there anyway and I thought the darkness did support this and just came across very realistic (like the whole movie). On the BD I don't really get what's going on there either tbh.

But as I said: The disc may very well be (completely) borked. There's no doubt that the black crush cannot be right which doesn't really support the UHD.



I also just finished watching "The Meg" BD and I thought it looked odd - didn't try my luck with the UHD at all.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Thank you!! There we go then, it's exactly as I said. It's not like the 3000/4000 caps don't contain moar HDRs because they do, but when you need to resolve 2000 nits worth of HDR just to retain more or less the same highlight detail as the 100 nit version then you need some seriously good mapping to get anything like a decent image out of it, e.g.

BD



UHD @ 2000

I forced Apple TV into HDR10 mode and checked some shots from The Meg on my LG B8 OLED. It looks EXTREMELY blown out and clipped, but turning on dynamic tone mapping brings back all the details from 4000 nits screenshots.

[andreasy969]

I was looking for more Galveston opinions this morning, found a useless one on avforums (stating there's no black crush), but also this one incl. BD and UHD caps:
http://doblu.com/2018/12/16/galvesto...lu-ray-review/

And just looking at these two caps there (the BD cap in particular):
https://i2.wp.com/doblu.com/wp-conte...alveston28.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/doblu.com/wp-conte...eston11740.jpg

I'm really not convinced that the BD is supposed to be correct reg. the darkness (it also depends on where you're coming from: UHD cap or BD cap first). The BD looks elevated to my eyes (let alone the poor compression). As I said initially, something in between may be correct though since the UHD IS ****ing dark.

I also took a look at the UHD caps on my OLED phone and it is unwatchable there indeed. But my phone is basically unusable in regard to (judging) black levels.

I'd really love to see the iTunes HDR version mentioned in the Galveston thread ...

EDIT:

For what it's worth ...

Same cap @100 nits (above is >100) plus the native cap:



So AFAICT the 0,0,0 black crush is definitely inherent to the source and not just caused by the SDR conversion. I took the HDR cap with a setting that (with the help of Deciazulado) proved to provide the truest to the source caps that I am able to offer (doing proper HDR caps appears to be another science on its own ...). There may still be crush due to the 8 bit conversion though (I for one didn't figure out a way to grab 10 bit yet).

tl/tr: The UHD is botched at any rate imo.

[StingingVelvet]

I mean, I'm wondering if we're seeing different things because for me there's like zero debate. Even on the main menu for Galveston the UHD is practically broken. The menu starts with a two-shot of Foster and Fanning dancing and on the UHD they're covered in shadow to the point it's hard to make out their faces and there's nothing around them, while on the BD you can see their entire faces and expressions (which are story critical) and you can see the red-lit bar area around them.

In scenes like where Foster meets his partner in the opening I can't see his partner's face under the car at all, so when you see his partner later at the house you have zero idea who that is. I already mentioned the scene where he's holding the gun while the cops are outside, I can't see he's got it at all on the UHD. There are tons of examples like this and they're all story critical. If the HDR grade is intentional then it was done by someone who really screwed it up.

That said, if I raise brightness to an insane degree a lot of that detail is there, so it's possible different tone-maps and whatnot are seeing different things. I might play around with it more later, using brightness/gamma settings and maybe the X800's SDR conversion, see what I see.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I mean, I'm wondering if we're seeing different things because for me there's like zero debate.

I do believe we're seeing the same things, with you most likely experiencing the disc even darker than I am - be that due do some ambient light, projector vs TV, eyes etc.

The only reason I am "debating" is this

so it's possible different tone-maps and whatnot are seeing different things.

the fact that I cannot watch it properly, don't consider it unwatchable and that the BD doesn't fully convince me either. It's just very, very dark. Also no doubt about the black crush at all.

All things considered, I think you're right and the movie isn't supposed to be that dark. But:

dancing: If we're talking about the same scene (would've have to start my projector to look at the menu - EDIT: it's the one) I could see the faces/expressions in the dancing scene (near the end). Yes, they are very dark though.

gun: I could also clearly see him playing with his gun on the table. But basically/properly only every time the light of the police cars hits the table.

partner: I also knew who the other guy was resp. that it was his partner - they leave the car together for ex IIRC. I had no idea who the other (2?) guys in the house were though. I'd have to check the BD for the face under car thing, but I'm sure you're right.

I just didn't feel like I was missing anything critical.


I actually found "Ghost In The Shell" to be more unwatchable in certain scenes than Galveston. Really. And I've been told that one isn't dark at all when viewed properly. So maybe you can understand where I am coming from. I'm really not "debating", I'm just careful, because I have to be. You'd have to debate with the guy that wrote this HDR review: https://www.avforums.com/review/galv...y-review.15646

rendering such supreme darkness with blacks so utterly devoid of crush, with HDR and WCG working overtime to resolve everything in the dead of night, or in the world's worst-lit bar, where streaks of colour should bleed but are instead perfectly intact.

Facial close-ups are also impressive, lapping up the textures on Foster and Fanning, in all their most raw moments, and it's certainly a memorably-lensed noir-esque feature, which arguably - and much like The Meg with it's blinding brightness - deserves a demo rating for its technical handling of deep black levels, even if many will be scratching their heads over just why it's so damn dark.

[andreasy969]

Final comment on Galveston: I just gave both the UHD and the BD a spin via projector again (the latter for the first time), compared some scenes properly and I agree that the UHD is botched in general, if it looks like that in HDR as well (which I assume) - it's not only the black crush, it is way too dark in general which really becomes rather obvious when watching the BD.

So I was wrong reg. the dark look.

I also have to adjust my "poison EDIT" though: It is pick your poison. I spotted terrible banding in places where I wouldn't really expect it and awful compression on top of it.

[Geoff D]

Doesn't surprise me at all re: the AVF review. How can the blacks smash the shit out of everything but be so "utterly devoid of crush" at the same time? Derp

[andreasy969]

I lied and will end the year with one more Galveston comment ...

I did spot this oddity (black spots) when watching the UHD again earlier on (missed it when watching the movie):



The BD has it as well (but extremely softened). Looks like a digital camera source issue to my eyes, affects several frames and happens at least twice.

(Also, coming from the UHD (resp. eyes being adopted), the BD still looks slightly milky to my eyes. But as I said before: The UHD is too dark. Really no doubts here anymore.)


PS: I'll pick a less complicated disc next (year) for sure.

[chip75]

I generally find that once I've seen something with the levels screwed up (like Fury's BD), the correct version looks milky in comparison. I think it's how our brains work.

[Geoff D]

Yeah not really. Fury isn't a great comparison because that really IS milky as **** owing to how David Ayer does things, see also: Suicide Squad. I can see what a good solid black level looks like with or without a comparison and those BD caps are nowhere near it. Same with the UHD's crush to be honest, I kinda wish I'd gotten there first just so's I could've called it out for the black crushed piece of shit that it clearly is, and then watch people like Velvet say "it doesn't look like that to me!!"

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by chip75

I generally find that once I've seen something with the levels screwed up (like Fury's BD), the correct version looks milky in comparison. I think it's how our brains work.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah not really.

I really think that's actually part of what happened though - only human. (But I sure as hell am glad that I at least said black crush first!)

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

I actually found "Ghost In The Shell" to be more unwatchable in certain scenes than Galveston. Really. And I've been told that one isn't dark at all when viewed properly. So maybe you can understand where I am coming from. I'm really not "debating", I'm just careful, because I have to be.

I know you already revised your thoughts and moved on, but just wanted to say that while Ghost in the Shell's UHD is dark as all get out I never felt like I couldn't see stuff. It was much darker than the BD, but not detail removing dark, just dark. On Galveston it's so much darker I can't see stuff I'm supposed to be able to see.

Anyway, I'll post in the Galveston thread again if I discover anything interesting in SDR or whatever, but it sounds like we all agree the BD wins. Unfortunately, since it has its own issues.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah not really. Fury isn't a great comparison because that really IS milky as **** owing to how David Ayer does things, see also: Suicide Squad. I can see what a good solid black level looks like with or without a comparison and those BD caps are nowhere near it. Same with the UHD's crush to be honest, I kinda wish I'd gotten there first just so's I could've called it out for the black crushed piece of shit that it clearly is, and then watch people like Velvet say "it doesn't look like that to me!!"

I call things like I see them man, I've never tried to be a contrarian to you if that's what you think.

Anyway eyes do work in comparison and I'm sure that has an effect. But also some people just really dislike that grey milky look, and you're one of them, so I'm not surprised you're focused on that in the comparison shots. I'm not someone really bothered by it, so my only real issue with the BD is the banding and digital camera artifacts. In either case the BD looks like a modern cheaper digitally shot movie to me, and the UHD looks broken.

[Geoff D]

No bias light for me means that milky blacks have no place to hide, quite literally.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No bias light for me means that milky blacks have no place to hide, quite literally.

That's a good point and definitely has an effect. Star Trek Beyond didn't bother me at all the first go with bias light, but round two in the dark I was like "man this has really weak blacks in places." Eyes are funny things.

[Geoff D]

Put out its eyeses!!

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah not really. Fury isn't a great comparison because that really IS milky as **** owing to how David Ayer does things, see also: Suicide Squad. I can see what a good solid black level looks like with or without a comparison and those BD caps are nowhere near it. Same with the UHD's crush to be honest, I kinda wish I'd gotten there first just so's I could've called it out for the black crushed piece of shit that it clearly is, and then watch people like Velvet say "it doesn't look like that to me!!"

I was trying to think of something else as an example ... Fury is something that you watch both versions and none of them seem quite right, but as you said Ayer shoots like that. Something like The X-Files just looks wrong for the most part as that season is so dark anyway, so it's goes from not seeing anything to, "who turned on the lights?", but I still think our brains crave the darkness in the shadows for the most part and when they're elevated, things don't quite look right.

[Deciazulado]

Playing with Andreas' Galveston #25 100ntUHD image vs the BD-rendered-in-1886 one to make the UHD look equal I had to decrease gamma and raise the 0 black level. Maybe there could be very low levels available in the 10bitPQ image you could expand, but since that's not a normal thing to do with regular TV controls...

Edit: OK I gave it a second go in a better image editor and a couple more twists did manage to bring out more detail like in the shirt. But that of course is not ideal.

Click and switch in tabs:
Image 25.

Andreas (100nit) BD > < Andreas BD displayed in BT.1886 (γ2.4)
as seen on your computer gamma ^

Andreas 100 nit UHD > < Andreas 100 nit UHD enhanced copy

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I know you already revised your thoughts and moved on, but just wanted to say that while Ghost in the Shell's UHD is dark as all get out I never felt like I couldn't see stuff. It was much darker than the BD, but not detail removing dark, just dark. On Galveston it's so much darker I can't see stuff I'm supposed to be able to see.

I mentioned Ghost In The Shell because the bold part was kind of the case for me in SDR with that one in two scenes (Major submerged and tank battle). But I don't think Ghost In The Shell is botched of course - I was just having a tone mapping problem with that one and didn't bother playing the settings at that time yet.

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Edit: OK I gave it a second go in a better image editor and a couple more twists did manage to bring out more detail like in the shirt. But that of course is not ideal.

I think I'd pick what you did with the BD cap. UHD not so much though.

[Deciazulado]

Well on the BD cap is just the BT.1866γ2.4 tone reproduction curve applied, no "intervention" involved. On the UHD is PQ but then playing with the shadows etc to make it more like the BDγ2.4 and see if more detail (lighter tones) in the shirt/trees in shadow appeared (I can see her ear now on my 300nit computer screen), etc. without making 0 black be something like 2% grey. So is not real. An intervention.