Reservoir Dogs 4K UHD (1992)

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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

Fair enough regarding that MaxCLL and MaxFALL does not indicate average brightness throughout the entire movie. But I thought we were discussing brightness in a wider scope, and then they are useful.

Also, MaxFALL will give us the Max Average Frame Light Level. So one knows that the average brightness for a frame will never go above that for any frame in the entire movie. And when it's a low as for Reservoir Dogs (29 cd/m2), one can quite safely assume that the average brightness throughout the movie is very low too. Because even if the Max FALL was also the Average FALL (i.e. the Average FALL stayed at Max FALL throughout the entire movie, which is totally unrealistic) it would be low.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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.

It would be nice if they included a metadata value for it on the discs, i.e. an Average FALL value. Technically it's possible to calculate by extracting all frames from the disc, calculating FALL for each frame, then summarizing the FALL values for all frames and dividing by the total number of frames. Sounds like a lot of work, but not for a PC. Far less CPU work than e.g. doing a transcoding.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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

The problem with a subjective eyeballed APL value is that it depends on the person, that person's TV setup, viewing conditions, preferences, etc. So it's very hard to compare accurately and by itself it leads to endless debates. That said, I still think such such user impressions can be useful, especially when it comes to e.g. comments about what brightness is suitable for a particular movie. But it's also good to have some "hard numbers" from e.g. metadata as reference.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

Because even if the Max FALL was also the Average FALL (i.e. the Average FALL stayed at Max FALL throughout the entire movie, which is totally unrealistic) it would be low.



It would be nice if they included a metadata value for it on the discs, i.e. an Average FALL value. Technically it's possible to calculate by extracting all frames from the disc, calculating FALL for each frame, then summarizing the FALL values for all frames and dividing by the total number of frames. Sounds like a lot of work, but not for a PC. Far less CPU work than e.g. doing a transcoding.

Do you know how this site is able to dig deep?

https://www.hdnumerique.com/dossiers...x-machina.html

n HDR10, the brightness level of the brightest pixel in the entire stream (MaxCLL) is 1537 nits. An average value of brightness peaks was measured at 272 nits. Similarly, across the entire feature film, 86.42% of the shots are made up of highlights (with a median measured at 139 nits). Regarding HEVC video compression, the average bitrate was measured at 84058 kbps.

[Fjodor2000]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Do you know how this site is able to dig deep?

https://www.hdnumerique.com/dossiers...x-machina.html

n HDR10, the brightness level of the brightest pixel in the entire stream (MaxCLL) is 1537 nits. An average value of brightness peaks was measured at 272 nits. Similarly, across the entire feature film, 86.42% of the shots are made up of highlights (with a median measured at 139 nits). Regarding HEVC video compression, the average bitrate was measured at 84058 kbps.

No I don't know how they do it. But since those values are not available in the metadata on the disc directly, they must use some similar mechanism like what I described to calculate it. Either it's done using some generally available tool that already exists, or it's a tool that they have created themselves.

Also, I'm not sure how to interpret it when they write "average value of brightness peaks". Do they find the brightness value of the brightest pixel in each frame for all frames on the disc, then summarize those brightness values and divide by the number of frames? If so, that would be different than an "AverageFALL" value. Sounds more like they are trying to evaluate the average use of specular highlights throughout the entire movie.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by spiltmilk

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

Not as far as I know. Looks nothing like these two in terms of its Light Cannon™️ application of HDR.

[xootoo]

OMG! The picture of this streaming UHD version is darker than dark.

Canceled my disc preorder. Waiting for reviews....

[Ben_UK]

My overall impression of this streaming colour grade is “red”.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by wright96d

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.

But the included BD is definitely the old master?

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

But the included BD is definitely the old master?

Huh?

[4K fanatic]

So I guess I'm canceling this from best buy. Hope pulp fiction is done really well. It's the only one that truly matters of his due to it's masterclass level of film making

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by 4K fanatic

So I guess I'm canceling this from best buy. Hope pulp fiction is done really well. It's the only one that truly matters of his due to it's masterclass level of film making

Have you all forgotten just how truly terrible that old BD is? SDR in an HDR container or not, it's a quintillion times better than that old garbage.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Have you all forgotten just how truly terrible that old BD is? SDR in an HDR container or not, it's a quintillion times better than that old garbage.

But the difference between a remastered BD and the 4K would be minimal.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by lgans316

But the difference between a remastered BD and the 4K would be minimal.

Something which is not being released separately. We don't even know whether or not the included BD will be remastered.

[Brian81]

Probably not, but wondering if the print/paint on these clear slips are removable without fogging the plastic. I plan to reuse the old SteelBook so for a spec sheet I can either use the clear plastic slip with the ear or the back of the slipcover of the standard edition. If I could use alcohol and elbow grease and remove that ear, the plastic slip might be preferable to me.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Huh?

Was asking whether the included BD uses the older master or the newer master but it looks like you already answered my question a few posts up. I'm assuming the caps you posted were from the stream.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Was asking whether the included BD uses the older master or the newer master but it looks like you already answered my question a few posts up. I'm assuming the caps you posted were from the stream.

Indeed

[thunder2020]

I checked the Stream after everyone complaining and thought it wasn't THAT Dark - im not sure why so many people complain about so many UHD's being dark. I guess i'm someone who doesn't like the artificial brighter blurays. This one looks like it would be a great transfer just looking at the stream. This is completely my opnion)))

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by thunder2020

I checked the Stream after everyone complaining and thought it wasn't THAT Dark - im not sure why so many people complain about so many UHD's being dark. I guess i'm someone who doesn't like the artificial brighter blurays. This one looks like it would be a great transfer just looking at the stream. This is completely my opnion)))

It's just a darker grade with low APL just few notches above Heat. Aforementioned, would be interesting to watch in SDR by turning off SDR as I don't remember seeing any standout highlights on the iTunes stream although I am yet to watch in full.

[Cboys13]

Pre orders are live on Amazon now. Showing delivery date of November 30th instead of the 15

[Markgway]

If the film had always been dark no one would complain now. But it seems maybe these transfers are being darkened to make them look more like recent movies which are on average way darker than they used to be.

[notops]

Originally Posted by Markgway

If the film had always been dark no one would complain now. But it seems maybe these transfers are being darkened to make them look more like recent movies which are on average way darker than they used to be.

But it has always been dark, at least upon original release. Every video transfer, from VHS to Blu-ray, have been brightened beyond recognition, so that's the look most people have become used to.

Tarantino's theater in Hollywood runs it in 35mm several times every year. So it is possible (although probably very inconvenient) for people to confirm this fact for themselves. I was floored the first time I saw it on film at how dark it actually was. I thought it might have been exclusive to the print they were showing, but then they started running a new print struck in 2017 and it looked exactly the same