The Fifth Element 4K UHD (1997) (20th Anniversary Edition)

[WhiskeyGnome]

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...&l=1&i=16&go=1

It's crazy how much they botched the color on the US release.

Bitrate is also such a massive difference my god. Basically 50 vs 80, and you can see that shit.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...&l=1&i=16&go=1

It's crazy how much they botched the color on the US release.

Bitrate is also such a massive difference my god. Basically 50 vs 80, and you can see that shit.

Bitrate has very little to do with it, in fact if you compare the US disc to the German one (which has an even lower bitrate) you'll see it actually looks better despite being the same ugly master.

[Telemachus]

I stopped tripping over bitrate awhile ago, even on Blu when some Disney Miyazaki discs had high teens/low 20s bitrates for some animated films but still looked better han the GKids ones in the mid 30s. Plus Sony and FiM discs I'll take over someone else no matter the bitrate usually, it's funny in this case the Sony disc looks worse clearly because the master was already compromised from before imo, if they did it with the same materials Studio Canal used there would be no difference in motion I think even with the bitrate difference.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Telemachus

Plus Sony and FiM discs I'll take over someone else no matter the bitrate usually, it's funny in this case the Sony disc looks worse clearly because the master was already compromised from before imo, if they did it with the same materials Studio Canal used there would be no difference in motion I think even with the bitrate difference.

Well Sony's is also from 2017, so it was an earlier title. If they were to give it a fresh 2024 encode I'm sure the grain structure would look a lot better, regardless of how bad the master is.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

Bitrate has very little to do with it, in fact if you compare the US disc to the German one (which has an even lower bitrate) you'll see it actually looks better despite being the same ugly master.

Wow, yeah, it looks a lot betterer on ze German one. Bit more chroma noise mixed in but the grain itself is much finer and it makes all the difference IMO, that Sony one is really showing its age.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Wow, yeah, it looks a lot betterer on ze German one. Bit more chroma noise mixed in but the grain itself is much finer and it makes all the difference IMO, that Sony one is really showing its age.

Weirdly enough there's also slightly less sharpening on the German one, so unless they somehow softened the master it may not be as baked in as we thought.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by Telemachus

I stopped tripping over bitrate awhile ago, even on Blu when some Disney Miyazaki discs had high teens/low 20s bitrates for some animated films but still looked better han the GKids ones in the mid 30s. Plus Sony and FiM discs I'll take over someone else no matter the bitrate usually, it's funny in this case the Sony disc looks worse clearly because the master was already compromised from before imo, if they did it with the same materials Studio Canal used there would be no difference in motion I think even with the bitrate difference.

That's absolutely just wrong. That's 28Mbps added onto the previous film at 51ish. We aren't anywhere near the point of diminishing returns with bitrates and video encodes.

Whether YOU can see it is something to debate, but adding all that data... uh yeah that data has to go somewhere lol. It's going to make a huge difference in places when subjected to deeper analysis. You will very much see a better grain field with that huge amount of bitrate increase. It would literally be impossible not to when you zoom into the grain and do analysis in motion. Where exactly do you think all of this extra data goes?

Also, this is a bunk comparison that was made here. The German vs US is literally a 4Mbps difference LMAO. That's in the range where no you aren't going to be able to predict a single thing about the encode. It all depends on the algorithm, the master, and the compressionist.

SC vs US is a whopping 28Mbps. That's over half the entire film of the US version added on again.

Yeah, you are going to see that in motion at some point. And that's in part why it looks a lot better in motion.

But is everyone going to see that? No. But I think it will actually be viewable on larger screens at least. Depends on how good of a job they could actually do with just 50. It might be close, but will depend on the scene. Some would fare better or worse depending on the peaks. 50 vs 80 will have vastly different peaks and valleys.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

That's absolutely just wrong. That's 28Mbps added onto the previous film at 51ish. We aren't anywhere near the point of diminishing returns with bitrates and video encodes.

Whether YOU can see it is something to debate, but adding all that data... uh yeah that data has to go somewhere lol. It's going to make a huge difference in places when subjected to deeper analysis. You will very much see a better grain field with that huge amount of bitrate increase. It would literally be impossible not to when you zoom into the grain and do analysis in motion. Where exactly do you think all of this extra data goes?

Also, this is a bunk comparison that was made here. The German vs US is literally a 4Mbps difference LMAO. That's in the range where no you aren't going to be able to predict a single thing about the encode. It all depends on the algorithm, the master, and the compressionist.

SC vs US is a whopping 28Mbps. That's over half the entire film of the US version added on again.

Yeah, you are going to see that in motion at some point. And that's in part why it looks a lot better in motion.

But is everyone going to see that? No. But I think it will actually be viewable on larger screens at least. Depends on how good of a job they could actually do with just 50. It might be close, but will depend on the scene. Some would fare better or worse depending on the peaks. 50 vs 80 will have vastly different peaks and valleys.

Oh good, another bitrate fetishist. No-one's saying it doesn't matter at all, yet if you compare ze German one to the StudioCanal then it's much closer despite ze German one having a LOWER average bitrate than even the Sony! It's not just about bitrate bitrate bitrate bitrate bitraaaaaaaaaate; as someone rightly said, it's more about the algorithm, the master and the compressionist. One of the worst UHD encodes I've ever seen (Shout's Halloween) has an average rate of 71 Mb/s but it looks like Mr Magoo did the compression on it.

Sony just screwed the pooch with Fifth Elephant like they keep on doing, they've gotta sharpen it and do all these screwy things so when it got given an early UHD encode the results were not all the way favourable, making the grain look much too chunky and clunky for what was supposed to be a negative scan. Then again, ze German one came out the same year (2017) and yet look at these two, the difference in the grain is staggering IMO, looking so much finer and less noisy on the Teutonic UHD rendition: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...96103&i=16&l=0

I still prefer the colour grade of the SC despite the blown highlights but darn it, Imma have to buy ze German UHD now. Ooh, I've still got a €5 off voucher at Amazon.de! Sorted.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh good, another bitrate fetishist. No-one's saying it doesn't matter at all, yet if you compare ze German one to the StudioCanal then it's much closer despite ze German one having a LOWER average bitrate than even the Sony! It's not just about bitrate bitrate bitrate bitrate bitraaaaaaaaaate; as someone rightly said, it's more about the algorithm, the master and the compressionist. One of the worst UHD encodes I've ever seen (Shout's Halloween) has an average rate of 71 Mb/s but it looks like Mr Magoo did the compression on it.

Sony just screwed the pooch with Fifth Elephant like they keep on doing, they've gotta sharpen it and do all these screwy things so when it got given an early UHD encode the results were not all the way favourable, making the grain look much too chunky and clunky for what was supposed to be a negative scan. Then again, ze German one came out the same year (2017) and yet look at these two, the difference in the grain is staggering IMO, looking so much finer and less noisy on the Teutonic UHD rendition: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...96103&i=16&l=0

I still prefer the colour grade of the SC despite the blown highlights but darn it, Imma have to buy ze German UHD now. Ooh, I've still got a €5 off voucher at Amazon.de! Sorted.

"as someone rightly said, it's more about the algorithm, the master and the compressionist."

That was me who said that in the very post you quoted. I am very aware that those things matter even more, and that's why I said that.

Fact is though is that the encode has over 50% more data to play with. At these bitrates, knowing lossless video and hypothesizing about diminishing returns, that's a super hefty chunk of data to play with.

As I also said, YOU might not see it, I might not see it, but in motion with deeper analysis you will always 100% see a difference that big at these bitrate figures on 4K. We've already seen a general struggle for 4K discs in the 30-40 range. They can look from absolutely awful to okay but not anything more. 50 is where you see less problems, but they may or may not be apparent based all the things we are talking about. Master is obviously most important, and from there probably the algorithm for encoding everything. Obviously bitrate is probably hand in hand with the compressionist. But 50% gains at this level are huge, no getting around that.

It's my logical guess that you would be able to see this in motion as well, but 50 is usually enough to get you over the hump on 4K. Still, it's going to be obvious with a deep scan of the image. 50 to me personally is almost never what I want to see on these 4K releases, though, it's usually perfectly watchable most of the time.

LOOK at the graphs there guy. The German one is bottoming out in the teens all over the place. I could post a thousand images of this one in the teens vs the SC one with 70Mbps. It's not even going to be close as to which one is better.

I won't be getting the German one. The SC looks about perfect for this film, and it's the superior encode too. People can't just rely on these images lol. I have no idea why some people here act like 12 images on Capsaholic are definitive evidence of how the entire film looks. In the second image below you can clearly see the German one bottoming out already with grain. It's not even close to the SC. And that will repeat all over the place in the encode. At times they will be equal, but that's not going to be normal for many scenes.

Also, where are you seeing blown out highlights:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...3&l=1&i=6&go=1

The contrast here looks overgraded on the German one slightly, will be to preference. I prefer everything about the SC version basically. It's almost perfect. It's exactly what a top tier 4K disc looks like. And you can't judge these things totally from caps anyway.

Look at how much better the grain is preserved here on the SC:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...7&l=1&i=2&go=1

This is a desert in the day. The SC one looks basically perfect to my eyes. There are no "blown out" highlights per se. These look properly graded for the screen, and a nice HDR grade with proper luminance. The German one looks drab just like the US with a much inferior encode.


If you are talking about the spark image here then I disagree as well:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...1&l=1&i=8&go=1

This is a well done image focusing on the sparks, but retaining most of the detail as well. It's a brighter, better image all around on this film. The HDR is stunning.

[53Fatman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sony just screwed the pooch with Fifth Elephant like they keep on doing, they've gotta sharpen it and do all these screwy things so when it got given an early UHD encode the results were not all the way favourable, making the grain look much too chunky and clunky for what was supposed to be a negative scan. Then again, ze German one came out the same year (2017) and yet look at these two, the difference in the grain is staggering IMO, looking so much finer and less noisy on the Teutonic UHD rendition: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...96103&i=16&l=0

I still prefer the colour grade of the SC despite the blown highlights but darn it, Imma have to buy ze German UHD now. Ooh, I've still got a €5 off voucher at Amazon.de! Sorted.

Never had the Sony Version, but no need for the german UHD. Watched the german one before the SC was even released and wasnt impressed. The SC Version is so much better, much more filmic in motion

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

"as someone rightly said, it's more about the algorithm, the master and the compressionist." SNIP

Oh it was you, who'da thunk it?

Yes, blown highlights abound on the SC, I see you missed this one which is odd because it's so incredibly blatant: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...96099&i=20&l=1 and I'm not just basing this on a single still image. I directly compared the Sony and SC UHDs here https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...8#post18006908 and the former retains a lot more information in the most extreme highlights.

That's not enough to recommend it however as the SC is by far and away my visual preference vs the Sony, but the highlight clipping of the SC is a fact nonetheless.The Sony just isn't a great disc full stop. Swooning over all that bitrate bitrate bitrate is fine and all but it's not just about that, it's about expert compressionists Fidelity in Motion using a different mastering in general vs quite a poorly mastered image (odd difference in highlights aside) coupled with a typically mediocre early format encode (which I said was 'excellent' in my review, egads!). It's like putting a Rolls Royce up against a Robin Reliant.

Originally Posted by 53Fatman

Never had the Sony Version, but no need for the german UHD. Watched the german one before the SC was even released and wasnt impressed. The SC Version is so much better, much more filmic in motion

Too late, ordered, but I still wants to see it anyways AND it'd be nice to have some extras as the SC edition is totally bare, not even a fookin trailer.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh it was you, who'da thunk it?

Yes, blown highlights abound on the SC, I see you missed this one which is odd because it's so incredibly blatant: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...96099&i=20&l=1 and I'm not just basing this on a single still image. I directly compared the Sony and SC UHDs here https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...8#post18006908 and the former retains a lot more information in the most extreme highlights.

That's not enough to recommend it however as the SC is by far and away my visual preference vs the Sony, but the highlight clipping of the SC is a fact nonetheless.The Sony just isn't a great disc full stop. Swooning over all that bitrate bitrate bitrate is fine and all but it's not just about that, it's about expert compressionists Fidelity in Motion using a different mastering in general vs quite a poorly mastered image (odd difference in highlights aside) coupled with a typically mediocre early format encode (which I said was 'excellent' in my review, egads!). It's like putting a Rolls Royce up against a Robin Reliant.


Too late, ordered, but I still wants to see it anyways AND it'd be nice to have some extras as the SC edition is totally bare, not even a fookin trailer.

Yeah, that one is a little blown, but I can almost guarantee you they did this for personal preference over the entire film. You might get a couple images like this, but they aren't going to affect anything negatively while watching. If anything the explosion looks more realistic in motion as do the sparks, which are just a tad less overblown in the images I showed. The other images do not go overboard IMO.

And I showed the other images to prove that they obviously tuned the image to be bright yet still detailed. If the highlights were generally overblown, you would see this all over the film everywhere, which you don't. The other one just has weaker HDR and a different gamma. I don't like the look of it. This is just HDR in effect as far as I am concerned. They are making an explosion as bright as possible.

The desert scene looks way more realistic with this certain contrast, gamma, and HDR setting to me. The other one looks dull and lifeless. So to get this grade consistent they probably have to sacrifice some detail here and there. It's always gonna be push and pull with HDR on things like explosions and skies.

But there is always room for preference.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

Yeah, that one is a little blown, but I can almost guarantee you they did this for personal preference over the entire film. You might get a couple images like this, but they aren't going to affect anything negatively while watching. If anything the explosion looks more realistic in motion as do the sparks, which are just a tad less overblown in the images I showed. The other images do not go overboard IMO.

And I showed the other images to prove that they obviously tuned the image to be bright yet still detailed. If the highlights were generally overblown, you would see this all over the film everywhere, which you don't. The other one just has weaker HDR and a different gamma. I don't like the look of it. This is just HDR in effect as far as I am concerned. They are making an explosion as bright as possible.

The desert scene looks way more realistic with this certain contrast, gamma, and HDR setting to me. The other one looks dull and lifeless. So to get this grade consistent they probably have to sacrifice some detail here and there. It's always gonna be push and pull with HDR on things like explosions and skies.

But there is always room for preference.

You can still put brightness into highlights without clipping them when grading, that's basically the entire point of HDR. But they *are* clipped in various spots (again, I compared both for myself) on the SC and no amount of bogus technical rationalisation should be used to excuse it, but quite simply it's how they wanted it to look and isn't the first time, as the previous Gaumont HD transfer was similarly yellow-tinged with totally nuked highlights* vs the duller, dowdier Sony transfer. But, as with the UHDs, despite all that the Gaumont looked so much more finely filmic than the ugly sharpening of the Sony.

*I'm not saying or equivocating that they're nuked on the UHD, so don't go off on that tangent, but they really were obliterated on the French Blu

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

[Show spoiler]"as someone rightly said, it's more about the algorithm, the master and the compressionist."

That was me who said that in the very post you quoted. I am very aware that those things matter even more, and that's why I said that.

Fact is though is that the encode has over 50% more data to play with. At these bitrates, knowing lossless video and hypothesizing about diminishing returns, that's a super hefty chunk of data to play with.

As I also said, YOU might not see it, I might not see it, but in motion with deeper analysis you will always 100% see a difference that big at these bitrate figures on 4K. We've already seen a general struggle for 4K discs in the 30-40 range. They can look from absolutely awful to okay but not anything more. 50 is where you see less problems, but they may or may not be apparent based all the things we are talking about. Master is obviously most important, and from there probably the algorithm for encoding everything. Obviously bitrate is probably hand in hand with the compressionist. But 50% gains at this level are huge, no getting around that.

It's my logical guess that you would be able to see this in motion as well, but 50 is usually enough to get you over the hump on 4K. Still, it's going to be obvious with a deep scan of the image. 50 to me personally is almost never what I want to see on these 4K releases, though, it's usually perfectly watchable most of the time.

LOOK at the graphs there guy. The German one is bottoming out in the teens all over the place. I could post a thousand images of this one in the teens vs the SC one with 70Mbps. It's not even going to be close as to which one is better.

I won't be getting the German one. The SC looks about perfect for this film, and it's the superior encode too. People can't just rely on these images lol. I have no idea why some people here act like 12 images on Capsaholic are definitive evidence of how the entire film looks. In the second image below you can clearly see the German one bottoming out already with grain. It's not even close to the SC. And that will repeat all over the place in the encode. At times they will be equal, but that's not going to be normal for many scenes.

Also, where are you seeing blown out highlights:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...3&l=1&i=6&go=1

[Show spoiler]The contrast here looks overgraded on the German one slightly, will be to preference. I prefer everything about the SC version basically. It's almost perfect. It's exactly what a top tier 4K disc looks like. And you can't judge these things totally from caps anyway.

Look at how much better the grain is preserved here on the SC:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...7&l=1&i=2&go=1

This is a desert in the day. The SC one looks basically perfect to my eyes. There are no "blown out" highlights per se. These look properly graded for the screen, and a nice HDR grade with proper luminance. The German one looks drab just like the US with a much inferior encode.


If you are talking about the spark image here then I disagree as well:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...1&l=1&i=8&go=1

This is a well done image focusing on the sparks, but retaining most of the detail as well. It's a brighter, better image all around on this film. The HDR is stunning.

That first one you have shows the blown-out whites pretty clearly. Just move the focus down to her chest. (ahem) The UK version is nearly a single mass of white with no detail while the DE disk has more textural definition. The other images you linked have a give-and-take aspect (and I agree that the UK second image has better grain, but it doesn't have any bright highlights there anyway), but that first one works against the point you're trying to make. I'm not in support of either disk over the other, just noting that the overbright, blown-out aspect of the SC is obvious (if only slight) and not worth arguing against.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by sojrner

That first one you have shows the blown-out whites pretty clearly. Just move the focus down to her chest. (ahem) The UK version is nearly a single mass of white with no detail while the DE disk has more textural definition. The other images you linked have a give-and-take aspect (and I agree that the UK second image has better grain, but it doesn't have any bright highlights there anyway), but that first one works against the point you're trying to make. I'm not in support of either disk over the other, just noting that the overbright, blown-out aspect of the SC is obvious (if only slight) and not worth arguing against.

It is worth arguing against lol. You clearly don't grade films. The HDR grade, going for more luminance and brighter detail, definitely has the option of filling out the space. It just takes a special touch not to do it too much. The entire film is brighter. It's not just these highlights lol. The entire film has a different HDR grade with higher luminace and peak brightness values as well a different gamma and contrast.

Also, how many times have people on here preached about not taking Caps on the site and making definite conclusions? Geoff here already has been caught jumping to massive conclusions quoting my post and then trying to use my own words against me like they were uttered by somebody else. How many times have I heard you people here crying and whining about how people are viewing these converted caps and making assumptions?

Anyway, what you are seeing is the overall grade of the HDR and film. This is why the desert sequence looks much more realistic. Because the grade is more realistic. To get higher luminance values you will have to sacrifice some part of the highlight. Now you might say it's too much. I disagree. The person doing the transfer probably says it's more realistic. The chest is not overblown. Gamma, color temp, saturation, and contrast come together here. I prefer the SC version on her chest as well. I don't like the look of the others.

And I'm only viewing this film on a humble C1 with 800 nits absolutely max. What was the film graded to? What is your set at? Did you watch the film with these highlights on your set? How deficient is your set in approaching the peak luminance values of the master? These are all questions one should ask when looking at highlights from a picture on capsaholic.

An explosion in real life you aren't going to see that detail. It is actually going to blend together and blind you. It's only on a basically SDR grade luminance chart where you are going to see low level detail in an explosion lol. The whole point of HDR is bringing out the brightest whites and the darkest darks. Just putting some tiny highlight onto an explosion doesn't get you an HDR grade that is going to pop, nor is it realistic.

Many other films have taken HDR grades and done the same thing. It's the differences in gamma and contrast that you are seeing with peak brightness levels that are very different.

Colorists have options. Saying one is blown out is literally just your opinion. They could break it down too and keep even more detail than the Sony.

This is exactly how people grade films. This is why you are seeing more black crush in films. It's crush, but it's literally there because the colorist wants it there. That's how they are grading the film. You can't honestly think that a colorist went through all the trouble to grade this film like this without understanding what is going on lmao?

Maybe you should all get jobs coloring films?

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...1&l=1&i=8&go=1

That's a perfect example. The colorist has a massively different luminance curve. You might call it overblown, but it's not. It's more realistic with proper brightness approaching real world values.

Now we can argue until the moon goes down over if the values are too bright for you or your neighbor, but I happen to think they fit right in with the film and look amazing. It's a great HDR grade, way ahead of the other ones. It properly does HDR if you ask me.

It's the kind of film where I don't need to turn on DTM on my LG. Because they graded it well enough. Now DTM is one of those things that some people hate too because of slight midrange clipping, but when a film is basically SDR luminance values with .05% HDR, it tends to look a bit ridiculous, mediocre, or drab a lot of the time. That's when I use DTM, because it looks better to me even though it's clipping a few midtones and what not.

Again, all preference as I said in the first post before the babbling began.

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

It is worth arguing against lol.

[Show spoiler]You clearly don't grade films.

The HDR grade, going for more luminance and brighter detail, definitely has the option of filling out the space. It just takes a special touch not to do it too much.

[Show spoiler]

What you are seeing is the overall grade of the HDR and film. This is why the desert sequence looks much more realistic. Because the grade is more realistic.

To get higher luminance values you will have to sacrifice some part of the highlight.

[Show spoiler] Now you might say it's too much. I disagree. The person doing the transfer probably says it's more realistic. The chest is not overblown. Gamma, color temp, saturation, and contrast come together here. I prefer the SC version on her chest as well. I don't like the look of the others.

An explosion in real life you aren't going to see that detail. It is actually going to blend together and blind you. It's only on a basically SDR grade luminance chart where you are going to see low level detail in an explosion lol. The whole point of HDR is bringing out the brightest whites and the darkest darks. Just putting some tiny highlight onto an explosion doesn't get you an HDR grade that is going to pop, nor is it realistic.

Many other films have taken HDR grades and done the same thing. It's the differences in gamma and contrast that you are seeing with peak brightness levels that are very different.

Colorists have options. Saying one is blown out is literally just your opinion. They could break it down too and keep even more detail than the Sony.

This is exactly how people grade films. This is why you are seeing more black crush in films. It's crush, but it's literally there because the colorist wants it there. That's how they are grading the film. You can't honestly think that a colorist went through all the trouble to grade this film like this without understanding what is going on lmao?

Maybe you should all get jobs coloring films?

lol, so sifting through the noise and misdirection you have there, which ironically serves a similar logical effect to the blown-out highlights on the disk, but I digress... nobody said it was wrong per se. (however implied) Even you are saying the same thing above, that detail is sacrificed in the highlight.

Look, Geoff said he preferred the color on the SC despite the blown highlights... I simply added you arguing against that (obvious) opinion when the detail is clearly being obfuscated on very bright elements seemed futile. I too don't hate the SC in those screenshots, even when I too can easily see lost detail from the, ahem, blown-out highlights, regardless of why it was done.

Silly me. The pile was obviously smelly and I knew it would probably stick to my shoes, but I steps ins it anyways...

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by sojrner

lol, so sifting through the noise and misdirection you have there, which ironically serves a similar logical effect to the blown-out highlights on the disk, but I digress... nobody said it was wrong. Even you are saying the same thing above, that detail is sacrificed in the highlight.

Look, Geoff said he preferred the color on the SC despite the blown highlights... I simply added you arguing against that (obvious) opinion when the detail is clearly being obfuscated on very bright elements seemed futile. I too don't hate the SC in those screenshots, even when I too can easily see lost detail from the, ahem, blown-out highlights, regardless of why it was done.

Silly me. The pile was obviously smelly and I knew it would probably stick to my shoes, but I steps ins it anyways...

Yes because you are trying to argue that the highlights are basically factually wrong or something. And that is just not the case. And again how many times have people here preached over and over again about overall nits values, converted caps, and the lack of an OLED even matching most masters peak luminance values? How do you know what you are even seeing is what the master is graded to? You are just viewing a converted cap on a TV that probably can't even match the master.

Regardless we have the lower luminance and quite drab HDR grade of the Sony and German disc. If that is your preference there it is. You do get some slight more detail because of the low luminance, but to me it looks pretty nasty. I for one am glad this mastering house did what they did. I think they made all the right choices here.

[sojrner]

[jvonl]

All just fascinating. Oh wait, not so much. But I could at least go quickly past the last page or two. I have the Sony and the SC. The second is much better to my poor old eyes. Had a great time watching it, good enough for me.

By the way, who won?

[iaragorn1]

I must have wondered into the Kong thread....