Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by useless watcher

I know the answer to this is probably already in this thread somewhere, but what are these settings that should be changed? I assume this is something specifically for this Blade Runner encode.. or are you talking about ideal settings for HDR content in general? Thanks for any clarification!

I just mean that HDR settings were a case of trial and error very early on until I calibrated my set (with a colourimeter and software) and dialled in the proper HDR brightness tracking.

[jurid]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No, I've been banging on about the shite compression on this for years, literally. You're the one saying that it's compressed badly because of "mistakes" made during the DI process, empowered by John Archer's speculative nonsense, but I'll keep on contending that one has nothing to do with the other.

Well, I cannot corroborate Archers points. I haven't seen the scan or DI. Have you?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jurid

Well, I cannot corroborate Archers points. I haven't seen the scan or DI. Have you?

Ah, that old strawman. No I haven't, but then neither has Archer and he has proven himself to be technically incompetent when it comes to film and filmmaking on more than one occasion, so I take anything he says with a rather large helping of salt. He's literally talking about the presence of the grain as being an objectionable feature compared to the cleanliness of the 65mm VFX, not having a clue that that's pretty much what 35mm grain of this "smaller format" vintage looks like in 4K (he must've ran screaming from CE3K's UHD).

Aside from literally three or four sharpened shots to counteract the missed focus pulls I don't have a problem with the overall handling of the grain itself in BR's UHD and haven't framed my comments as such which is why I found your linkage to Archer's review to be somewhat random, as it's supporting your suppositions, not mine. If you don't like the grain and believe him to be correct then fine, but I do like the grain and don't find it overpowering, I just want to see the COMPRESSION of that exact same master resolved betterer.

[Surge92]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Same.

What Dally said.

[jurid]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Aside from literally three or four sharpened shots to counteract the missed focus pulls I don't have a problem with the overall handling of the grain itself in BR's UHD and haven't framed my comments as such which is why I found your linkage to Archer's review to be somewhat random, as it's supporting your suppositions, not mine. If you don't like the grain and believe him to be correct then fine, but I do like the grain and don't find it overpowering, I just want to see the COMPRESSION of that exact same master resolved betterer.

well, the guy might as well be an idiot, I don't care. What's interesting however is that three of us agree on the final result being somewhat shi*ty. I also found interesting his assertion that " It’s been suggested ... by someone who works in the film industry, too, that the film’s negative is unusually thin, and that mistakes were made with the exposure of the original negative." Which could contribute to the aforementioned quality of the final product I have no idea how reliable his source is, of course.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jurid

well, the guy might as well be an idiot, I don't care. What's interesting however is that three of us agree on the final result being somewhat shi*ty. I also found interesting his assertion that " It’s been suggested ... by someone who works in the film industry, too, that the film’s negative is unusually thin, and that mistakes were made with the exposure of the original negative." Which could contribute to the aforementioned quality of the final product I have no idea how reliable his source is, of course.

And yet if it is a "problem" with the negative - as an underexposed i.e. thin negative will be grainier than a thick, well exposed one - then what does that have to do with the supposed poor handling of the 4K master itself? If it's baked into the source then it is what it is, I'd rather they leave it alone than smack it with a load of DNR and I'd go so far as to say that that's why BR looks as grainy (to some) as it does in 4K: there's not a lot of modern "grain management" going on with it, whereas the old Final Cut Blu-ray (itself a port of the HD DVD I think?) was filtered a fair bit, though not for the cause and effect you're looking for. Warners tended to filter their HD transfers in general by rolling off the HF detail to make them easier to compress.

If you look at just the luminance channel of the BR UHD the grain is encoded rather nicely for the most part, very sharp, very high frequency, but the chroma channels are shot to shit, blocky as hell. It's that specific aspect that I'd like to see tightened up on any possible re-release.

[VIDEOgameDROME]

Originally Posted by MonolithicErik

Seeing the 4K UHD in Atmos for the first time was tantamount to a religious experience. I wept with joy...

I felt that way about 2049 with our new Atmos speakers and subs.

[unberechenbar]

Originally Posted by VIDEOgameDROME

I felt that way about 2049 with our new Atmos speakers and subs.

I need to rewatch 2049 then. When I first watched it I only used TV speakers.

[VIDEOgameDROME]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

I need to rewatch 2049 then. When I first watched it I only used TV speakers.

The LFE track is INSANE. Shakes my whole house at the beginning.

[Warm Gun]

As an apartment renter, I found the LFE in 2049 unusually annoying.

[jurid]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yet if it is a "problem" with the negative - as an underexposed i.e. thin negative will be grainier than a thick, well exposed one - then what does that have to do with the supposed poor handling of the 4K master itself? If it's baked into the source then it is what it is, I'd rather they leave it alone than smack it with a load of DNR and I'd go so far as to say that that's why BR looks as grainy (to some) as it does in 4K: there's not a lot of modern "grain management" going on with it, whereas the old Final Cut Blu-ray (itself a port of the HD DVD I think?) was filtered a fair bit.

I actually just rewatched bits and pieces of 4k BD, 2k BD FC and 2k DC (off HD-DVD, but the encode is identical to BD). I must admit I actually prefer 2k DC. It's softer but tolerates some sharpening. (Reon processor in XA2 might have helped here). It's more even in quality. Also I could see more detail in shadows than in 4k BD. [Probably related to that messy scan that 4k is based on]. I like the DC color scheme too. i must say I do watch pretty close to the screen (about 60° angle of view). Watching 4k I had to blur the picture somewhat (negative sharpen in PANA 420) to get a tolerable PQ.

[cybersoga]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yet if it is a "problem" with the negative - as an underexposed i.e. thin negative will be grainier than a thick, well exposed one - then what does that have to do with the supposed poor handling of the 4K master itself? If it's baked into the source then it is what it is, I'd rather they leave it alone than smack it with a load of DNR and I'd go so far as to say that that's why BR looks as grainy (to some) as it does in 4K: there's not a lot of modern "grain management" going on with it, whereas the old Final Cut Blu-ray (itself a port of the HD DVD I think?) was filtered a fair bit, though not for the cause and effect you're looking for. Warners tended to filter their HD transfers in general by rolling off the HF detail to make them easier to compress.

If you look at just the luminance channel of the BR UHD the grain is encoded rather nicely for the most part, very sharp, very high frequency, but the chroma channels are shot to shit, blocky as hell. It's that specific aspect that I'd like to see tightened up on any possible re-release.

I wonder if a player with better chroma upsampling might improve this? How does the chroma upsampling of Panasonic players compare with Sony players which don't have that capability? Are there players that do AI chroma upsampling?

[nick4Knight]

Panasonic players, and specifically 820 and above models are the most compotent if not the pinnacle of chroma handling. IMO and in many.

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

As an apartment renter, I found the LFE in 2049 unusually annoying.

I can't specifically remember my last viewing for audio, and I admittedly only have stereo speakers capable of 35hz or w/e; but being an apartment renter to me is the annoying part I do sometimes miss being able to carefree blast a deep bass scene, or entire movie with good LFE 'n' subwoofer output.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

As an apartment renter, I found the LFE in 2049 unusually annoying.

Because the film was meant to be viewed in an apartment where LFE output has to be limited...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jurid

I actually just rewatched bits and pieces of 4k BD, 2k BD FC and 2k DC (off HD-DVD, but the encode is identical to BD). I must admit I actually prefer 2k DC. It's softer but tolerates some sharpening. (Reon processor in XA2 might have helped here). It's more even in quality. Also I could see more detail in shadows than in 4k BD. [Probably related to that messy scan that 4k is based on]. I like the DC color scheme too. i must say I do watch pretty close to the screen (about 60° angle of view). Watching 4k I had to blur the picture somewhat (negative sharpen in PANA 420) to get a tolerable PQ.

And yet the blacks are graded very differently between the Final Cut BD and UHD despite coming from the same 4K master. Scenes which crush shadow detail on the BD are lighter on the UHD and vice versa. Weird how such a “messy scan” can do that. I know you’re talking about the DC BD there (which came off an IP) for shadow detail but even so, this is related to aesthetic grading decisions and not underlying problems with the source.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by cybersoga

I wonder if a player with better chroma upsampling might improve this? How does the chroma upsampling of Panasonic players compare with Sony players which don't have that capability? Are there players that do AI chroma upsampling?

Every player does chroma upsampling, it’s just not as aggressively sharpened like it is on the Pannysonic 4K players. From what I’ve seen the Pannys do make this chroma noise look a fraction tidier but when it’s as badly encoded as BR is there’s only so much that can be done.

[jurid]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yet the blacks are graded very differently between the Final Cut BD and UHD despite coming from the same 4K master.

FC BD comes from 2007 master, UHD has a new scan and master... De Lauzirika says that in 2007 they went to the original negative for 4k scan, and for VFX it was 8k scan.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by jurid

FC BD comes from 2007 master, UHD has a new scan and master...

Same scan.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jurid

FC BD comes from 2007 master, UHD has a new scan and master... De Lauzirika says that in 2007 they went to the original negative for 4k scan, and for VFX it was 8k scan.

UHD is from the 2007 4K master. No new scan of the film elements was performed.

[jurid]

Originally Posted by cybersoga

I wonder if a player with better chroma upsampling might improve this? How does the chroma upsampling of Panasonic players compare with Sony players which don't have that capability? Are there players that do AI chroma upsampling?

I did compare Sony and Pana with BR 4k disc. There was not much difference. Pana allows more control though.