King Kong 4K UHD (2005) (Ultimate Edition)

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

This one kind of shows me that the UHD is doing just the opposite of what it should be here. Link

The whole point of HDR is to bring out the detail of the image, but if this is accurate detail is being lost. Look at the reflections on the water. The reflections are being blown out in order to achieve a brighter image.

Dude, you're looking at screenshot converted to SDR, with clipped details above 200 nits.

It's a green screen shot and in HDR there aren't many extra details compared to Blu-ray (if any), but also there aren't any missing. I just checked actual disc.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Dude, you're looking at screenshot converted to SDR, with clipped details above 200 nits.

It's a green screen shot and in HDR there aren't many extra details compared to Blu-ray (if any), but also there aren't any missing. I just checked actual disc.

Thanks, I am well aware that I am looking at converted images. I'm not referring to that image as gospel to what the HDR image looks like.

If the detail above 200nits is clipped in this instance, I was not aware. Most times the conversion from HDR to SDR, at least as Andreasy or Geoff have been doing it, the images preserve highlights. So if this one is not, again then, I was not fully aware.

Regardless, it's been a while since I've spun the UHD of this movie and I just recall the average APL being quite a bit higher than the SDR.

[Geoff D]

I thought those sunset shots in particular looked FAR better on the UHD, I mentioned in my write-up (another one for Salty to find ) that if you're losing highlight detail in certain areas compared to the BD then that's your tone mapping's fault, plain and simple.

aether: the point with Andreas' caps is that if the 200 nit shot doesn't do the business then he provides another cap at 1000 or 2000 or 3000 nits or whatever to show that the highlight detail is there, but on capsaholic you get no such insight. Far too many of their UHD comparisons have badly blown out highlights and that's simply not the case for viewing in properly mapped HDR. Now I ain't saying that Kong don't look SUPER weird in HDR because it does look SUPER weird, but there's a point where the weirdness ends and the tone mapping takes over.

I took some photos of this before, I didn't post them because they weren't all that useful, the HDR brightness is so high that the camera just can't get the highlights even with the exposure knocked all the way down. But there was one image of the ship at sea that showed how the HDR is resolving more information than the SDR:

BD



UHD

[aetherhole]

I am not saying that the blown out highlights are what I saw in my viewing from months and months ago, all I am saying is that I thought that average APL of the UHD was higher. And again, if the highlights are being blown out because of the clipping above 200 nits, then that's not something my original comment took into account.

Apparently I need to revisit this title again.

[andreasy969]

I don't doubt that the highlight detail is still there, but he still has a point, since it's gimmick HDR.

My main issue is the completely fake look though. Yes, part of it is baked in the DI for sure, part of it is most likely exaggerated by the SDR conversion (as a result of the gimmick HDR), part of it is the BD hiding it better (the BD has some chroma issues for ex, seen on Kong for ex), but for the most part the UHD imo looks like crap because of some additional form of DNR treatment. Some caps look like a painting to my eyes.

I don't like the color grading either. The sad thing is, that there actually is more detail sometimes, but imho Universal ****ed it up with its HDR treatment.

@Geoff: I wrote this before your comment resp. it's not related.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

I don't doubt that the highlight detail is still there, but he still has a point, since it's gimmick HDR.

My main issue is the completely fake look though. Yes, part of it is baked in the DI for sure, part of it is most likely exaggerated by the SDR conversion (as a result of the gimmick HDR), part of it is the BD hiding it better (the BD has some chroma issues for ex, seen on Kong for ex), but for the most part the UHD imo looks like crap because of some additional form of DNR treatment. Some caps look like a painting to my eyes.

I don't like the color grading either. The sad think is, that there actually is more detail sometimes, but imho Universal ****ed it up with its HDR treatment.

@Geoff: I wrote this before your comment resp. it's not related.

Thank you Andreasy, this was more of what I was getting at.

The average APL made this look more gimmicky and fake.

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I thought those sunset shots in particular looked FAR better on the UHD, I mentioned in my write-up (another one for Salty to find ) that if you're losing highlight detail in certain areas compared to the BD then that's your tone mapping's fault, plain and simple.

aether: the point with Andreas' caps is that if the 200 nit shot doesn't do the business then he provides another cap at 1000 or 2000 or 3000 nits or whatever to show that the highlight detail is there, but on capsaholic you get no such insight. Far too many of their UHD comparisons have badly blown out highlights and that's simply not the case for viewing in properly mapped HDR. Now I ain't saying that Kong don't look SUPER weird in HDR because it does look SUPER weird, but there's a point where the weirdness ends and the tone mapping takes over.

I took some photos of this before, I didn't post them because they weren't all that useful, the HDR brightness is so high that the camera just can't get the highlights even with the exposure knocked all the way down. But there was one image of the ship at sea that showed how the HDR is resolving more information than the SDR:

BD



UHD

Thanks, Geoff. I guess I had a lapse in sense when I responded because I am getting so used to your comparison photos and andreasy's photos where highlights are completely preserved. It's been a long time since I've seen comparisons on capsaholics (and probably for very good reason).

My original comment goes back to exactly what you said and andreasy pointed out -- the HDR is super weird and super gimmicky.

[Geoff D]

We're all agreed that it looks weird, that's the main thing!

[andreasy969]

@aetherhole

I really think there was nothing really wrong with your initial comment. If it looks like that in comparison @200 nits (and it is noteworthy that the caps guy even went 200 here), there's just sth wrong imho (even if, as clearly shown by Geoff, there really is a little more highlight detail when viewed properly at full HDR brightness).

I think one can "accept" sth like that as intentional/correct with a new movie like The Meg, but not with Kong IMO.

[Schwartzy]

This and T2 are for me the titles i would like to know what the directors think of them...

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Schwartzy

This and T2 are for me the titles i would like to know what the directors think of them...

IMO, both of them look shi*e.

King Kong is way better than claymation T2 overall but it is still a mess as parts of it can look stunning and some parts ruined by contrast boosting, Edge enhancement and blown out specular highlights.

KK Blu-ray has a more organic look.

[lateralspin]

super contrast boosting and selective waxing of Naomi Watt's face.

Enough said

[levcore]

I thought King Kong looked great on UHD

[gwsat]

Originally Posted by lgans316

IMO, both of them look shi*e.

King Kong is way better than claymation T2 overall but it is still a mess as parts of it can look stunning and some parts ruined by contrast boosting, Edge enhancement and blown out specular highlights.

KK Blu-ray has a more organic look.

Originally Posted by lateralspin

super contrast boosting and selective waxing of Naomi Watt's face.

Enough said

Originally Posted by levcore

I thought King Kong looked great on UHD

I concur in part and dissent in part to the opinions expressed above. I thought the quality of the UHD HDR treatment for King Kong was wildly uneven. The softening of focus on closeups of Naomi Watts and the resultant waxy appearance it gave her was hard to take. Also, I thought everything on the island looked mediocre at best. The scenes back in Manhattan during the film's last third, however, were thrillingly beautiful, to my eyes at least. The segment with King Kong atop the Empire State Building, with the sun rising over the East River, was as good as any HDR I have seen anywhere. Bottom line, it was a mixed bag, ranging from the horrible to the sublime.

[aetherhole]

As weird and inconsistent as it looks, the UHD is still going to be my default viewing method.

[horroru]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

As weird and inconsistent as it looks, the UHD is still going to be my default viewing method.

I'm still on the fence about picking this up; if it's so uneven then why in your opinion does it still edge out the blu-ray, would appreciate your thoughts!

[bradnoyes]

I was not impressed by this UHD but it would still be my preferred method of watching the movie if I ever wanted to watch it again. Which I do not.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by lateralspin

super contrast boosting and selective waxing of Naomi Watt's face.

Enough said

The BD is contrast ahoy as well, and Watt's is smoothed in the DI. In other words those are issues with the film, IMO. Now, Universal could have kept the HDR in check because of that super contrast inherent to the movie, I grant you that.

[ROSS.T.G.]

I still haven’t watched mine

[punisher]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I still haven’t watched mine

watch and enjoy....