Reservoir Dogs 4K UHD (1992)

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Pulp Fiction's UHD would be the clincher, if that's also dim AF then that would confirm it as that's QT approved.

The BD doesn't look dim and I believe it was director approved. Hoping the 4K is done right.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by lgans316

The BD doesn't look dim and I believe it was director approved. Hoping the 4K is done right.

That was a good long while ago, we'll see what the HDR version brings. Lol @ "done right" tho

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

What is APL?

These

Originally Posted by wright96d

And here's the light levels.

Maximum Content Light Level : 136 cd/m2
Maximum Frame-Average Light Level : 29 cd/m2

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

What is APL?

Formally: https://en.termwiki.com/EN/average_p...APL)_%E2%82%82

But not really ideal terminology to use for 4K BD. Better parameters would be Maximum Content Light Level (MaxCLL) and Maximum Frame-Average Light Level (MaxFALL).

The definition of those parameters is:

MaxFALL: Static HDR metadata that corresponds to the highest frame average brightness per frame in the entire stream. The MaxFALL metadata value is represented in nits, a unit of luminance.

MaxCLL: Static HDR metadata that corresponds to the brightest pixel in the entire stream. The MaxCLL metadata is represented in nits.

wright96d gave an example below for this movie (Reservoir Dogs):

Originally Posted by wright96d

And here's the light levels.

Maximum Content Light Level : 136 cd/m2
Maximum Frame-Average Light Level : 29 cd/m2

However that's just an example, not the definition of the terms. But it's of use for judging the brightness of this particular movie.

In essence all of this means that both the peak and average brightness is very low for the Reservoir Dogs 4K BD.

[Macatouille]

Originally Posted by wright96d

And here's the light levels.

Maximum Content Light Level : 136 cd/m2
Maximum Frame-Average Light Level : 29 cd/m2

Why even put this in an HDR container? Same story with Heat. I think people would have been happy with an SDR version, so they could adjust the backlight if it was too dim for them, even if it's technically inaccurate.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

Formally: https://en.termwiki.com/EN/average_p...APL)_%E2%82%82

But not really ideal terminology to use for 4K BD. Better parameters would be Maximum Content Light Level (MaxCLL) and Maximum Frame-Average Light Level (MaxFALL).

The definition of those parameters is:

MaxFALL: Static HDR metadata that corresponds to the highest frame average brightness per frame in the entire stream. The MaxFALL metadata value is represented in nits, a unit of luminance.

MaxCLL: Static HDR metadata that corresponds to the brightest pixel in the entire stream. The MaxCLL metadata is represented in nits.

wright96d gave an example below for this movie (Reservoir Dogs):



However that's just an example, not the definition of the terms. But it's of use for judging the brightness of this particular movie.

In essence all of this means that both the peak and average brightness is very low for the Reservoir Dogs 4K BD.

Nah. APL is perfectly cromulent for usage in this situation because average brightness can be expressed as part of any signal be it SDR or HDR. MaxFALL is just the expression of this as metadata, and for only the single brightest average frame in the entire stream at that (which can be misleading if there is one frame that's significantly brighter than the rest), whereas APL is the working description of this phenom as seen in any given shot.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nah. APL is perfectly cromulent for usage in this situation because average brightness can be expressed as part of any signal be it SDR or HDR. MaxFALL is just the expression of this as metadata, and for only the single brightest average frame in the entire stream at that (which can be misleading if there is one frame that's significantly brighter than the rest), whereas APL is the working description of this phenom as seen in any given shot.

Sure, it summarizes brightness info in a generic way. But MaxFALL and MaxCLL provides better and more specific info about brightness than APL.

E.g. APL does not say anything about use of specular highlights, which MaxCLL does.

Also, 4K BD discs do not provide any metadata value for APL, so there's nothing that can be compared exactly. It'll just be a subjective value judged by the viewer (unless calculated by some off-disc mechanism not based on metadata from the disc). I.e. someone just "thinks" the APL is high or low, but there's no exact number that can be compared.

[cheez avenger]

Why not invest $4.99 for the digital 4K and see for yourselves?

[lgans316]

Think I paid $13.99 for 5 film QT collection on iTunes long time ago. This one has turned 4K DV. Hoping Pulp Fiction is upgraded next.

[PonyoBellanote]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Why not invest $4.99 for the digital 4K and see for yourselves?

What do you think we're talking from? Some of us have bought it and are talking on the base of that.

[teddyballgame]

Originally Posted by Macatouille

Why even put this in an HDR container? Same story with Heat. I think people would have been happy with an SDR version, so they could adjust the backlight if it was too dim for them, even if it's technically inaccurate.

Well because it's a system based on absolute values (and more of them) there's greater precision and range to get closer to the reference image. Some people just don't respect that and still try to "fix" the image when there may be nothing technically wrong. A dark room with tone mapping disabled or if truly necessary a sane mapper from the likes of Panasonic or Sony is usually the best approach

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

What do you think we're talking from? Some of us have bought it and are talking on the base of that.

It was an overall question for those still going by shitty screencaps.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by Macatouille

Why even put this in an HDR container? Same story with Heat. I think people would have been happy with an SDR version, so they could adjust the backlight if it was too dim for them, even if it's technically inaccurate.

To take advantage of the WCG Rec. 2020 color space vs. the more limited Rec. 709 spec, perhaps?

Chris

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

Sure, it summarizes brightness info in a generic way. But MaxFALL and MaxCLL provides better and more specific info about brightness than APL.

E.g. APL does not say anything about use of specular highlights, which MaxCLL does.

Also, 4K BD discs do not provide any metadata value for APL, so there's nothing that can be compared exactly. It'll just be a subjective value judged by the viewer (unless calculated by some off-disc mechanism not based on metadata from the disc). I.e. someone just "thinks" the APL is high or low, but there's no exact number that can be compared.

But if we’re discussing average brightness then we’re not discussing specular highlights, so MaxCLL has nothing to do with it. Odd segue.

And yes, APL is a subjective assessment - unless someone has some waveforms built into a monitor or a program like Resolve - but as MaxFALL can be wrong/misleading in itself then I would caution against taking that to be the objective truth of the matter each and every time. Something eyeballed can’t be codified and quantified which is what your mind thirsts for in all circumstances, but for other folks it works just fine. Right now I feel like I’m Obi-Wan telling Luke to turn off his targeting computer

[wright96d]

Alright everyone, you know the drill. This grade wouldn't know HDR if it dropped a brick on it's head, so these are SDR extractions in Davinci Resolve, not tone mapping. Didn't really feel like doing a comparison with the BD, sorry. I'm pretty sure the awful look of that BD is seared into our heads well enough as is.



There certainly is some weirdness going on in the shadows, most evident in the fourth screenshot. But overall it's great. Though I do have to agree with Butch as far as the grain goes. I understand the stock itself is not grainy, but it's very rare to see spherical 35mm with grain this tiny, so it feels wrong, even though I understand it is not.

[Bostonyte]

Looks pretty good to me, thanks for the caps!

[Geoff D]

Yeah, that thar detail is stunningly sharp. The focus doesn't always catch it mind you. Still, it's as I said: it's the glossiest S35 show I've ever seen. Ever. The Kodak EXR stocks of the time caught the sweet spot between grain and resolving power, but in the late '90s/'00s the emulsions got noisier and quite frankly uglier.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, that thar detail is stunningly sharp. The focus doesn't always catch it mind you. Still, it's as I said: it's the glossiest S35 show I've ever seen. Ever. The Kodak EXR stocks of the time caught the sweet spot between grain and resolving power, but in the late '90s/'00s the emulsions got noisier and quite frankly uglier.

Which is the height of the Super35 "craze", before thankfully the industry swung back to true anamorphic.

These days I'm more surprised if I see something at 2.35 and it's flat.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, that thar detail is stunningly sharp. The focus doesn't always catch it mind you. Still, it's as I said: it's the glossiest S35 show I've ever seen. Ever. The Kodak EXR stocks of the time caught the sweet spot between grain and resolving power, but in the late '90s/'00s the emulsions got noisier and quite frankly uglier.

Glossiest S35 sums up the almost grain less and reasonably sharp look.

I just wish they went bold on HDR grading.

[spiltmilk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Pulp Fiction's UHD would be the clincher, if that's also dim AF then that would confirm it as that's QT approved.

So Inglorious Basterds wasn’t approved by QT? (Since that wasn’t “dim AF”.)