HDR heatmaps and torch mode UHDs

[Pyoko]

Now this is more like it. Though I probably need to get a TV that can handle grainy highlights better. One thing to note is that it is unfortunately not perfect greyscale. I don't now if it's the master or the compression, but the red channel in particular differs here and there, leading to a subtle cyan tint and faint reddish compression blocks.

UHD color | UHD luminance | BD luminance | UHD tonemap | BD upscale

With a similar highlight roll-off the HDR version would on average be equivalent to the SDR version with peak white at 164 nits (Gamma at 2.40), based on 20 samples. (Min: 91, Max: 253, Median: 158)

[Pyoko]

Superb. Not too hot and much better highlights without the clipping seen on the Blu-ray.

UHD color | UHD luminance | BD luminance | UHD tonemap | BD upscale

With a similar highlight roll-off the HDR version would on average be equivalent to the SDR version with peak white at 147 nits (Gamma at 2.40), based on 20 samples. (Min: 140, Max: 164, Median: 148)

[Pyoko]

I had not even heard of this movie before the Columbia Classics set, but the quality is excellent, and the HDR does wonders for the sunny afternoon baseball fields.

UHD color | UHD luminance | BD luminance | UHD tonemap | BD upscale

With a similar highlight roll-off the HDR version would on average be equivalent to the SDR version with peak white at 163 nits (Gamma at 2.40), based on 20 samples. (Min: 110, Max: 205, Median: 172)

[Pyoko]

The only movie in the Columbia Classics set that uses a different source than the included Blu-ray. A League of Their Own is from a new scan and they created a new BD from that master. Gandhi is also a brand-new restoration, however the BD included is the old one.

Except for being too bright it looks absolutely gorgeous and is a massive upgrade in every way: detail, grain, dynamic range, film damage and color grading—skintones especially look much more proper. If I were to nitpick I would say that despite being split up on two discs the grain still isn't 100% perfect and appears slightly mushy in the highlights. The luminance part of the grain kind of pulsates in those areas, as if it's there on keyframes and inbetween you see mostly the saturation/dye blob parts of the grain.

UHD color | UHD luminance | BD luminance | UHD tonemap | BD upscale

With a similar highlight roll-off the HDR version would on average be equivalent to the SDR version with peak white at 221 nits (Gamma at 2.40), based on 20 samples. (Min: 89, Max: 317, Median: 216)

[andreasy969]

Sony putting Disney (and their SW crap) to shame. And you're uploading those faster than I can look.

[Poya]

Bring on Lawrence of Arabia!

[Xorp]

Do the Star Wars original trilogy UHD Blu-rays have the same very flat HDR presentation as the Disney+ versions? As demonstrated here:

YouTube

Would it be possible to compare the two head-to-head?

[IXOYE1989]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Haven't watched it yet, just a quick sampling.

Although an improvement with better grain and so on, the restoration is definitely showing its age here along with the quality of the source. The biggest issue the BD had was with gradation/banding and abrupt changes in values that became even more noticeable in motion with the heavy grain. The 10bit on the UHD helps a lot with this. The fact that it's now stretched to HDR and is so bright means I still get gradation issues with grain popping in the brightest parts, but that's probably just the processing on my set.

Shot 7 appears to have a boom mic that's just about visible in the top of the frame on the BD, but it's quite noticeable on the UHD with the different framing.

UHD color | UHD luminance | BD luminance | UHD tonemap | BD upscale

[Show spoiler]

Sorry for the novice question, but what is the typical reason for different framing? I've seen quite a bit of these from different movies when comparing 4K blu-ray vs SDR blu-ray from caps-a-holic, but never understood why some frames appear to be shifted or zoomed in/out.

[Pyoko]

Finishing off the Columbia Classics set. It does look great (and not insanely bright!) but it is also a decade old scan/restoration of a thoroughly worn-out source, so it is neither pristine in its digital film/grain reproduction nor its restored condition, with the 4K and HDR revealing more source problems as well as more restoration artifacts.

On a random particular note I will say that the scene by the shore with the sunset reflecting in the sea waves (shot 16) is incredibly beautiful in HDR.

UHD color | UHD luminance | BD luminance | UHD tonemap | BD upscale

With a similar highlight roll-off the HDR version would on average be equivalent to the SDR version with peak white at 162 nits (Gamma at 2.40), based on 20 samples. (Min: 108, Max: 190, Median: 164)

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by IXOYE1989

Sorry for the novice question, but what is the typical reason for different framing? I've seen quite a bit of these from different movies when comparing 4K blu-ray vs SDR blu-ray from caps-a-holic, but never understood why some frames appear to be shifted or zoomed in/out.

Analog film typically captures a bit more than what was intended to be seen, and the full image often has those characteristic rounded corners, so when creating a digital version you always have to crop the edges at least a bit and choose your framing. For example 1.85:1 widescreen movies were usually shot 1.33:1 and then cropped quite a bit on the top and bottom so you need to decide where your framing window should be height-wise.

In the case a new film scan was done, the framing will never line up 100% with what was done previously. If the framing varies a lot, it can mean that the previous version was incorrect, or they made a mistake on the new version, or they were simply winging it a bit both times.

In the case of digitally shot movies and BD/UHDs from the same existing digital master, these generally match in terms of framing much more often, but it can still vary small amounts for any number of reasons. Just how different applications do transformations, or whether someone entered in 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 for the aspect ratio, or the HD and UHD masters may have been exported at different times, by different people, doing things slightly differently. Things like that.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Finishing off the Columbia Classics set. It does look great (and not insanely bright!) but it is also a decade old scan/restoration of a thoroughly worn-out source, so it is neither pristine in its digital film/grain reproduction nor its restored condition, with the 4K and HDR revealing more source problems as well as more restoration artifacts.

On a random particular note I will say that the scene by the shore with the sunset reflecting in the sea waves (shot 16) is incredibly beautiful in HDR.

UHD color | UHD luminance | BD luminance | UHD tonemap | BD upscale

Do you have the 100+gb SDR rip from the sony FMP player to compare?

[whitestang06]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Do you have the 100+gb SDR rip from the sony FMP player to compare?

I do, but I only have time to grab a couple shots.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by whitestang06

I do, but I only have time to grab a couple shots.

****ing hell, dat compression in the download!

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by whitestang06

I do, but I only have time to grab a couple shots.

Huh, that's interesting to say the least. The compression is of course horrendous but it actually looks like the UHD might be slightly low-pass filtered compared to that download.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Huh, that's interesting to say the least. The compression is of course horrendous but it actually looks like the UHD might be slightly low-pass filtered compared to that download.

Holy high frequency detail, Batman! You're right, it's definitely shaving off some detail in the second comparison, though we get a far more natural looking grain field in return.

Makes zero sense to do that when you've got 166GB to play with, but perhaps the HDR isn't being too kind to it (as they're at pains to say in the restoration notes) so they've reined in the detail a touch? Dunno. As monstermidget said, if they didn't blast thousands of nits through these then they wouldn't have to worry so much about it.

[Pyoko]

Out of the four color pictures (with the possible exception for Jerry Maguire, because it looks a tad sharpened) Lawrence typically has the least fine grain on display. I chalked that up to the age and condition of the restoration, but looks like there might be something else going on as well.


Lawrence Gandhi
League Maguire

[Geoff D]

Look at that lovely 'squashed' anamorphic grain in League. Total subject change but that's something that I love about the JAWS UHD, that the grain has that 'squashed' look back again so it's the real deal rather than the fake shite they lathered over the 2012 master. Some shots do still have more of a generic grain applied to them in JAWS as you pointed out Pyoko, 'specially in the last reel or two, but much of it is legit.

[monstermidget]

When Sony say "listen guys, HDR has more detail and we therefore have to do some extra work that isn't neccesary for SDR" it can be safely translated as "because we've blasted these older titles to shite with our light cannon grades we have to do some extra processing, but you want that pop right guys? who cares if we have to trim off some detail or ruin the balance of the image to get there."

Even though i kind of expected it, the more we dig deeper, the more dishearted with how hit and miss this set is I become; mostly because this is (probably) the last hurrah on physical media for these films and its a missed opportunity...but also because i have to wonder on which side of the light cannon films like it happened on night, on the waterfront, or taxi driver might fall if/when they turn up in Vol 2.

[Xorp]

I always found the grain on LoA a bit mushy for a 65mm/8K scan, even on the 1080p Blu-ray. The grain on the Sound of Music, for example, seemed to have an extra level of crispness. I chalked it up to the 1080p downrezzing filter at the time, so it's kinda disappointing there isn't ultra-fine grain on the 4K Blu-ray this time around.

[Geoff D]

And yet Sound of Music was transferred from a new IP, you'd think the grain would be slightly less well defined anyway but I guess if it wasn't filtered then it would still look sharper than that of Lawrence with a bit of HF taken off the top.