Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Something I have always feared about UHD BD. HDR is not meant to be used on 25-years old movies.. No matter how you try to spin it

If it's a deliberate change then it is what it is, an aesthetic decision and not some sort of limitation of spinning 35mm into HDR gold.

[Jumpman]

Be very curious to see what others say who have a 4K set about this one.

Having said that, if you have the older releases, you can at least dump those because the remastered Blu Ray disc is wonderful.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by javy

If they've done it once, seems likely they would do it again. Like i said, they'll do any thing to sell us the same movies again. And we do buy them again, or at least I do, sometimes.

The Martian was pretty easy to re-build because a good portion of the footage required no digital effects (a lot of indoor shots or landscapes with only digital color timing manipulation of real locations), plus they had principal photography files in 4k and 6k to work with. The biggest thing was uprezzing the 2k effects to 4k and re-comping.

Fox also had Ridley Scott breathing down their necks. He has industry clout.

This is the exception and not the rule.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Be very curious to see what others say who have a 4K set.

Remind me of what you're watching on?

[brian9229]

I just watched the UHD disc and I kept the HDR on for the entire film, only switching back and forth a couple times from hdr to strip metadata. I don't know what happened, but the color timing on the uhd is cold, steely, cold! I love the warmer tone of the BD, but these are like two completely different transfers, color-wise. I'm going to give this another watch, in hdr, but I have a feeling that ultimately, I'm going to keep the hdr off on this one.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If it's a deliberate change then it is what it is, an aesthetic decision and not some sort of limitation of spinning 35mm into HDR gold.

Yes but that aesthetic decision is made BECAUSE of HDR, so my point still stands..

Before mid 2015 HDR wasn't even a thing for movies, now they try to apply it on everything shot in the last 100 years. Sometimes they use it mildly but sometimes they force the issue..

In any case, it's completely unnecessary and risky

[Kris Deering]

I've seen a lot of comments lately about some movies being darker in UHD vs Blu-ray. There are a lot of variables at work when you compare movies this way, or even when one person talks about what they are seeing vs another.

Blu-ray movies SHOULD be mastered with a gamma of 2.4 (BT1886). This has been the standard for a little while, but we know that it has not always been the case and some older Blu-ray titles are 2.2 or 2.4 or BT1886 (2.4 with black level taken into account). But most people's setups have gamma all over the place, or they use a gamma that their display can't actually achieve properly (2.4 comes to mind, as this requires a pretty high contrast ratio to not hurt shadow detail). HDR's EOTF is a completely different animal and requires a fixed brightness level for each point along the EOTF and then you apply a tone map for the levels you can't achieve. But as 99% of the HDR displays on the market have zero calibration options for HDR other than simple RGB adjustments, if your EOTF is off, you're stuck with it.

So people saying one thing looks darker than another (especially two different formats that are graded in completely different ways) is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. It is also really hard to tell if the reason the HDR grade looks dark is because of limitations in the calibration of the display (EXTREMELY POSSIBLE given the status of HDR today). And then trying to compare it to your playback of HD material which may be using a completely different playback gamma than it was encoded in or another user on this forum is using.

This is all just FYI, but it is something that needs to be considered when people talk about titles looking dark or when comparing to older Blu-ray titles.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by brian9229

I just watched the UHD disc and I kept the HDR on for the entire film, only switching back and forth a couple times from hdr to strip metadata. I don't know what happened, but the color timing on the uhd is cold, steely, cold! I love the warmer tone of the BD, but these are like two completely different transfers, color-wise. I'm going to give this another watch, in hdr, but I have a feeling that ultimately, I'm going to keep the hdr off on this one.

So, it wasn't just me. Yeah, these two discs are different.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I've seen a lot of comments lately about some movies being darker in UHD vs Blu-ray. There are a lot of variables at work when you compare movies this way, or even when one person talks about what they are seeing vs another.

Blu-ray movies SHOULD be mastered with a gamma of 2.4 (BT1886). This has been the standard for a little while, but we know that it has not always been the case and some older Blu-ray titles are 2.2 or 2.4 or BT1886 (2.4 with black level taken into account). But most people's setups have gamma all over the place, or they use a gamma that their display can't actually achieve properly (2.4 comes to mind, as this requires a pretty high contrast ratio to not hurt shadow detail). HDR's EOTF is a completely different animal and requires a fixed brightness level for each point along the EOTF and then you apply a tone map for the levels you can't achieve. But as 99% of the HDR displays on the market have zero calibration options for HDR other than simple RGB adjustments, if your EOTF is off, you're stuck with it.

So people saying one thing looks darker than another (especially two different formats that are graded in completely different ways) is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. It is also really hard to tell if the reason the HDR grade looks dark is because of limitations in the calibration of the display (EXTREMELY POSSIBLE given the status of HDR today). And then trying to compare it to your playback of HD material which may be using a completely different playback gamma than it was encoded in or another user on this forum is using.

This is all just FYI, but it is something that needs to be considered when people talk about titles looking dark or when comparing to older Blu-ray titles.

Thanks for the education on this.

I won't really know the difference until I finally get a 4K set so maybe it's not fair for me to judge the two discs on my 1080p set.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Remind me of what you're watching on?

Samsung 55'' 6001 1080p set.

[javy]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

The Martian was pretty easy to re-build because a good portion of the footage required no digital effects (a lot of indoor shots or landscapes with only digital color timing manipulation of real locations), plus they had principal photography files in 4k and 6k to work with. The biggest thing was uprezzing the 2k effects to 4k and re-comping.
Right on. My main point was that future proofing is pointless. They'll always find a way to make it "better". But hey, they hook me too.
Fox also had Ridley Scott breathing down their necks. He has industry clout.

This is the exception and not the rule.

My main point was that future proofing is pointless. They'll always find a way to make it "better". They hook me too.

[brainofj72]

Had this in my hand, but just couldn't justify at the current price, especially since I was already buying xXx and the Mummy set. I'll wait for some more impressions and a price drop.

[monkeybrow]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Had this in my hand, but just couldn't justify at the current price, especially since I was already buying xXx and the Mummy set. I'll wait for some more impressions and a price drop.

Where did you find it?

[DJJez]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Robert Harris wasn't lying in my quick estimation, even on my 1080p set.

For reference, I watched most of the 2011 release yesterday.
I just sampled moments from the new remastered Blu Ray disc and the UHD disc and there's no doubt about it; the UHD is just darker. Funny thing is, between the remastered Blu Ray and the UHD, I'm not sure which one I like the best.

The Blu Ray tends to have more pop in terms of the overall color palette yet I find the UHD color palette is more naturalistic. The crux between the two are the dark scenes. On the UHD, objects are just hard to make out. Not so on the Blu Ray. Still dark but not swallowed whole by the darkness.

I don't know fellas...is it possible to like both?!

didnt u say u dont have a 4k tv?

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by DJJez

didnt u say u dont have a 4k tv?

Not yet no...but I still wanted to at least look at the two discs. Even at a lower resolution.

[MisterXDTV]

The point is not just the dark scenes: the point is whether they changed the color grading specifically for the UHD disc just to make HDR shine more...

And the previous users basically said that...

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by monkeybrow

Where did you find it?

Best Buy

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

It will be veeeeery interesting to see these upcoming DV discs.

It'll also be interesting to see if people see a difference between the HDR10 "Unforgiven" disc and the DV copy on VUDU.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

This is the exception and not the rule.

It doesn't have to be the rule to turn a "this will never happen!" into a "this has already happened and may happen again sometimes".

[ncraft]

Amazon just sent me an email telling me that my order is delayed until June 13th. Going to take a lunch and try my chances with Best Buy.