Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Goddamn, the colour's got that typical forced BT.2020 look on the German one too, there's so much more green/teal. Still, it's no wonder matey loved it in the Outpost thread: it's all about that "pop" (ugh).

Yeah, possible. Totally different colours anyway, and I'm also somewhat sceptical re. a different grade on a German release.

Having said that, I don't think it's horrible by any means. And if we rule out a potential error, there's plenty of such HDR releases after all. Not only German ones, but also major labels, I mean.

[andreasy969]

Wrath of Man (aka Cash Truck)

Just compared my StudioCanal 4K with the according BD to decide on whether or not to get my hands on a proper English BD release (instead), because of stuff like #5 and #17 (I'm totally fine with the English working title, which is also properly animated). That's because I could tell that the HDR isn't will-blow-your-mind territory at any rate, but rather subtle - this runs along at well below 200. It gets brighter only during the opening credits (#4), which are rather obviously just boosted. The reported MaxCLL 7xx (forgot the exact number) has to be either the SC intro or said credits.

Anyway, the most prominent difference are the skin tones. As for the rest, the difference, while not mind blowing, is still clearly there, it's actually HDR done right, so I think I'll just live with the German titles.

Damn you, both Warner and SC...

EDIT: Warner BD added and some toughts here.

SC BD (upscaled) | Warner BD (upscaled) | SC UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits)

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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 (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), 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. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3. the title of the German one has the same animation, but it's not in sync

4. #4 733 nits

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Wrath of Man (aka Cash Truck)

HD-Numérique covered the French Metropolitan edition, which is the only other 4K release available for this movie.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

HD-Numérique covered the French Metropolitan edition, which is the only other 4K release available for this movie.

Yeah, which is a pity. But the French one would've been even worse for me. I actually also changed my mind and ordered the US BD now - I'm afraid I'll pick the proper version over the slightly better pq here (and don't see another physical 4K release).

Hitman's Wife is another candidate for BD downgrade for me btw. The French UHD is light cannon galore (MaxCLL 26xxx and I did spot 23xx at any rate) while bringing not that much detail back. I.e. the BD looks like a proper SDR grade to me, while the 4K has pop written all over it... (the 4K of the first one isn't that hot) Don't know if the US 4K is different, but it's only the short version anyway.

[Streetlight]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Wrath of Man (aka Cash Truck)

Just compared my StudioCanal 4K with the according BD to decide on whether or not to get my hands on a proper English BD release (instead), because of stuff like #5 and #17 (I'm totally fine with the English working title, which is also properly animated). That's because I could tell that the HDR isn't will-blow-your-mind territory at any rate, but rather subtle - this runs along at well below 200. It gets brighter only during the opening credits (#4), which are rather obviously just boosted. The reported MaxCLL 7xx (forgot the exact number) has to be either the SC intro or said credits.

Anyway, the most prominent difference are the skin tones. As for the rest, the difference, while not mind blowing, is still clearly there, it's actually HDR done right, so I think I'll just live with the German titles.

Damn you, both Warner and SC...

BD (upscaled) | UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits)

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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 (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), 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. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3.

4. #3 733 nits

...

Can you transfer your old comparisons from s1.imagebanana.com to more stable sites?

[andreasy969]

Ghostbusters

Did some random ones now, because there still are none, so one can compare the compression. I also tried slowpic for this one, because it suits this one, but discarded again anyway due to personal preference. Might add part 2 tomorrow.

2019 MaxCLL/MaxFALL: 9633/2273
2022 MaxCLL/MaxFALL: 9978/2283

UK UHD-BD (2019) | US UHD-BD (2022) (both madVR/SDR/200 nits)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

[Warm Gun]

So, some people here complained that Ghostbusters was too bright (light cannon™) and now it's even brighter? Lol.

[Geoff D]

Re: GBII

From “manually” comparing the two the new one is also brighter than the old disc and seems to have a *fractionally* pinkier tint. Comparisons would be awesome if you can do them Andreas.

[andreasy969]

I received the "Wrath Of Man" US Warner BD yesterday (with slip from ebay ) and right away thought that it looked more milky than I remembered from the StudioCanal discs. I got that right and when I was at it, found more interesting things and therefore added Warner BD caps now.

The SC has slightly better blacks, the Warner BD is a clear upgrade over the SC BD detail wise, but also clearly sharpened (which I find rather unusual for Warner)*, the skin tones of the Warner BD are closer to the SC 4K now (opposed to the SC BD) and other than my dislike for localized titles, the German ones, to my surprise, are actually nicer IMHO (I'm referring to #17).

As per the usual, I'll keep both, but I'd pick the Warner BD here overall. (without having watched the whole disc yet mind you) * The Warner BD catching up detail wise despite the sharpening is actually very welcome in this case, since it kinda closes the gap for me in that regard.

GB II will be next - carpe diem.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

The SC has slightly better blacks, the Warner BD is a clear upgrade over the SC BD detail wise, but also clearly sharpened (which I find rather unusual for Warner)*, the skin tones of the Warner BD are closer to the SC 4K now (opposed to the SC BD) and other than my dislike for localized titles, the German ones, to my surprise, are actually nicer IMHO (I'm referring to #17).

The english ones on the WB disc have aliasing, they look really amateurish. Might be because of the sharpening.

[andreasy969]

Ghostbusters II

You know that I don't trust the MaxCLL/MaxFALL, because more often than not I find MaxCLL to be wrong anyway, but I looked both up now and both 2022 releases are even a tad brighter going by the numbers at any rate (didn't check actual values at all mind you, because I consider it rather pointless here). Added them with I as well.

2019 MaxCLL/MaxFALL: 9887/785
2022 MaxCLL/MaxFALL: 9978/812

Anyway, even more for II, maybe also because I actually love II more than I. Also saw it first and grew up listening to this :

[Show spoiler]

(photo isn't mine, but I also still have it and opposed to VHS can still play it)

The "problem" I have with slowpic is that it lacks thumbs (which doesn't work well with many caps IMHO) and I find it to be literally slow.

UK UHD-BD (2019) | US UHD-BD (2022) (both madVR/SDR/200 nits)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35. Vigo der Penner

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

The english ones on the WB disc have aliasing, they look really amateurish. Might be because of the sharpening.

I don't think (opinion) the aliasing is actually caused by the sharpening, but it certainly won't help either for sure. But I'll take the proper English ones here anyway.

[Ben_UK]

Why is it on some of these comparisons (like caps a holic) the Blu Ray looks brighter and on others the 4K looks brighter?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Why is it on some of these comparisons (like caps a holic) the Blu Ray looks brighter and on others the 4K looks brighter?

It depends on the mastering levels (and source), everything needs to be mapped to SDR. Caps-a-holic also very their mapping to SDR between 80 and 150/200 nits.

[Geoff D]

Aye. SDR conversion is not an exact science, everyone's doing it differently.

[andreasy969]

Midsommar

That's a promise kept. I couldn't tell them apart (even when pixel peeping some), which is actually also why I didn't bother for so long. Didn't bother with a BD - the BDs are just worse (both detail and HDR wise).

So the most interesting ones here are #3, #4, #21, #26 and #29 in regard to the Italian one. The Italian one (without the English subs) still has its own charm though IMO.

I kept it as spoiler free as I could - the thumbs at any rate.

Japan TC | Italy TC | US Extended (all madVR/SDR/200 nits)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27. (#2 JAP 588 nits; #4 IT 588 nits; #6 US 575 nits)

28.

29.

[andreasy969]

Warm Bodies

That was money well spent and has to be the biggest (HDR) sleeper I remember since Planet of the Apes. Go grab it while you can. The movie isn't that great IMO (been a while), but worth watching. The 4K destroys the BD in every aspect, but I was focussing on the HDR. Other than the 4K being a major upgrade in general, a concrete prominent difference is a often blanket green tint being gone.

I switched to my US BD basically immediately after clicking on the timeline for #2 with the UK BD, but I did include the first 2 UK BD caps anyway (for laughs in case of #2 - jeez...).

US BD (upscaled) | UK UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits)

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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 (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), 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. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1. (#3 575 nits; #4 UK BD)

2. (#3 UK BD for lolz - and yes, it's every single ****ing frame and it looks shitty throughout)

3.

4.

5. (#3 428 nits)

6. (#3 385 nits)

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. (#3 1015 nits)

15. (#3 646 nits)

16. (#3 797 nits)

17. (#3 895 nits)

18. (#3 1080 nits)

19. (#3 797 nits)

20. (#3 765 nits)

21. (#3 840 nits)

22. (#3 757 nits)

23.

24.

25.

26.

27. (#3 335 nits)

28. (#3 558 nits)

29. (#3 486 nits)

30. (#3 471 nits)

31. (#3 397 nits)

32. (#3 1115 nits)

[andreasy969]

Flesh for Frankenstein

Took a look at the replacement disc only now... Much better.

first pressing | replacement disc (both madVR/SDR/200 nits with the exact same settings)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.


PS/EDIT: I could make the first one (first pressing I mean) look similar, but not identical, by forcing 2020 btw:

[andreasy969]

La La Land (Eagle vs. Lionsgate)

I was looking for it (which isn't what I like to do to begin with), but I, for one, really cannot find any (relevant) fault with the Eagle, i.e. I have to go pixel peeping to find any. And the minor faults that might be there, might be totally gone with DV anyway.

Some white speckles, mentioned by someone else, that are present on the Eagle, are gone on the Lionsgate, but I'll take the clearly source related white speckles (noticed some mainly only during the beginning anyway) over the Lionsgate, since the Lionsgate is filtered and most likely just lost them in the process. The Eagle looks "clearly" (as in I can see the difference downscaled in motion) better to my eyes: It simply looks a tad more filmic/crisper and you will see why that is with many, but not all, of the caps (take #5 or #20 for ex).

The Eagle also fixes the brightness shifts first reported by Phil and someone else (would have to look the other person up again, but am too lazy ) and I just happened to spot #2 myself as well now. Anyway, both, that I'm aware of now, are gone on the Eagle and/so it's clearly a mastering error on the Lionsgate. (With the title (#1) looking clearly darker on the Lionsgate, I actually wouldn't be surprised if it's faulty as well - forgot to check the nits there...)

I actually hate upgrading 4Ks, but it was well worth it for the brightness shifts being gone alone - once you know it, it's the kind of stuff that bugs the hell out of me.

https://slow.pics/c/0FwxAVKz (the numbers don't match, since omitted the two brightness shifts there)

Eagle | Lionsgate (both madVR/SDR/200 nits)

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim and please ignore any off-looking colours:

[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 colour bit depth aka precision has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colours (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 (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), 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. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=589

1. white speckle gone on Lionsgate

2. same

3. brightness shift #1 gone on the Eagle (Eagle has 353 nits with both; Lionsgate switches from 175 to 349 nits)


4.

5.

6.

7.

8. (this looked poor to me, but same)

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. noticed a speckle here with the Eagle, but was the same with the Lionsgate

20. took this one for the difference with the grain and...

21. ...happened to spot brightness shift #2 gone on the Eagle without looking up Phil's timestamp (Eagle is 1251 followed by 1163 nits; Lionsgate switches from 523 to 1139 nits)

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Thanks for that.

Doesn't look as bad as I feared. Just a shame the chroma has gotten away from them slightly in HDR10. Best illustrated by the final comparison there, with faint green blobs manifesting on light surfaces (like the door). Which is what I clocked in motion - no 'peepin required. It's that bloody FEL. I bet it looks tip-top in DV.