4K HDR Blu Ray - Is it worth it?

[xnamkcor]

I watched this video in 360p.

[jlyash]

Hi! What are good setting for that? LG TV? Im using  LG 55UH7700. thanks 

[The Ran]

6 hours ago, zMeul said:

I call bull

why? there are couple of examples in Linus' video where the BluRay image is quite notably blurrierrier - to me it indicates that either the master is not the same or the people that processed the BluRay version are total fucktards

the Life of Pi side by side is the most telling

Isn't the one labelled Blu-Ray 1080p? The HDR one is 4k.

6 hours ago, Ciccioo said:

I don't really understand why i can see the difference between non-HDR and HDR content... on my non-HDR monitor. Can somebody explain that to me?

Because the camera that they recorded the screen with has enough dynamic range to see the difference, but that dynamic range is then compressed so it can be seen on displays that don't have as much range. Also there are other differences than just the dynamic range that you're seeing in certain shots.

 

I wonder if perhaps converting the footage to greyscale (or converting it on the TV if there's such an option) would better show the difference.

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, The Ran said:

Isn't the one labelled Blu-Ray 1080p? The HDR one is 4k.

if I recall, he said the master was a 2k format!?

 

Quote

I wonder if perhaps converting the footage to greyscale (or converting it on the TV if there's such an option) would better show the difference.

no it won't - the number of gray tones is identical, the color spectrum does not change

[The Ran]

Just now, zMeul said:

if I recall, he said the master was a 2k format!?

Same thing pretty much, that's still a great difference in resolution.

 

 

Anyone know how I can delete my duplicate posts? I was on the first page of this thread whilst posting and there was no indication that my post was going through.

[zMeul]

15 minutes ago, The Ran said:

Same thing pretty much, that's still a great difference in resolution.

you don't understand

the master is the same 2k in both cases

 

there are two UHD versions of this BluRay:

[The Ran]

11 minutes ago, zMeul said:

no it won't - the number of gray tones is identical, the color spectrum does not change

I imagine it would still show the difference in the dynamic range whilst eliminating (or at least limiting) the differences in the colourspace.

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

you don't understand

the master is the same 2k in both cases

 

there are two UHD versions of this BluRay, well .. there are more, but these are the ones we're talking about:

So you meant 4k, not 2k? Are you sure that copy on the left isn't HDR? If both the copies they were playing were 4k then the difference would either be down to the camera (missed focus on one recording perhaps), crappy processing as you said (perhaps a marketing tactic to make the HDR copy seem even better), or if they're different formats (someone mentioned BDXL earlier) then maybe the HDR version has a higher bitrate or some shit.

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, The Ran said:

I imagine it would still show the difference in the dynamic range whilst eliminating (or at least limiting) the differences in the colourspace.

So you meant 4k, not 2k? Are you sure that copy on the left isn't HDR? If both the copies they were playing were 4k then the difference would either be down to the camera (missed focus on one recording perhaps), crappy processing as you said (perhaps a marketing tactic to make the HDR copy seem even better), or if they're different formats (someone mentioned BDXL earlier) then maybe the HDR version has a higher bitrate or some shit.

that's not how color space works - if you are in the same color space you have the same amount of gray tones no matter if the image is B&W or color

 

no, the master, the original source was 2k and was upscaled to UHD in both cases

no, the one on the left is plain UHD - HDR BluRays are very specifically marked HDR and/or UltraHD Premium (HDR10) or Dolby Vision (12bit HDR)

[The Ran]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

that's not how color space works - if you are in the same color space you have the same amount of gray tones no matter if the image is B&W or color

 

no, the master, the original source was 2k and was upscaled to UHD in both cases

no, the one on the left is plain UHD - HDR BluRays are very specifically marked HDR and/or UltraHD Premium (HDR10) or Dolby Vision (12bit HDR)

But they're different colourspaces, one is Rec709 or whatever and the other is Rec2020. Personally I'm more interested in the dynamic range difference, light to dark, as that's something more noticeable to me than more colours. As long as the dynamic range of that TV is less than that of the recording camera then the difference can be captured.

[zMeul]

17 minutes ago, The Ran said:

But they're different colourspaces, one is Rec709 or whatever and the other is Rec2020. Personally I'm more interested in the dynamic range difference, light to dark, as that's something more noticeable to me than more colours. As long as the dynamic range of that TV is less than that of the recording camera then the difference can be captured.

but you are displaying it on a standard PC monitor that has 8bit per channel with 256 tone maps /  channel - you are not going to have more graytones

isn't what we're talking about, or is it something else?

 

ps: Rec709 is identical to sRGB

[The Ran]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

but you are displaying it on a standard PC monitor that has 8bit per channel with 256 tone maps /  channel - you are not going to have more graytones

isn't what we're talking about, or is it something else?

It would only be a representation of the difference between HDR and non-HDR's dynamic range. Of course you aren't going to see the actual entire dynamic range but it could give an idea of how large or small the difference is.

 

Another way to think of it is to imagine we wanted to show the difference between UHD and HD on a 1920x1080 display. We'd have to show the UHD as 1920x1080 and then show HD as 960x540.

[zMeul]

14 minutes ago, The Ran said:

It would only be a representation of the difference between HDR and non-HDR's dynamic range. Of course you aren't going to see the actual entire dynamic range but it could give an idea of how large or small the difference is.

 

Another way to think of it is to imagine we wanted to show the difference between UHD and HD on a 1920x1080 display. We'd have to show the UHD as 1920x1080 and then show HD as 960x540.

as I said, if the color space does not change you cannot have more graytones - period

even if you record the screen with a camera capable of Adobe RGB you are still going to have the same number of graytones

 

but you need the same god damn master without any post-process bullshit and color gradients

for example, the Revenant uses a diff color gradient in couple of scenes

 

someone here pointed out that even Sicario has different BluRay versions - regarding to Linus pointing out the color banding

[The Ran]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

as I said, if the color space does not change you cannot have more graytones - period

even if you record the screen with a camera capable of Adobe RGB you are still going to have the same number of graytones

 

but you need the same god damn master without any post-process bullshit and color gradients

for example, the Revenant uses a diff color gradient in couple of scenes

But the colourspace for the two sources is different. The camera should be able to see that difference and compress it down to something that is visible on a non-HDR display.

 

Let's simplify things and say non-HDR would be 8bit greyscale, HDR is 10bit greyscale, and the camera can record 10bit and we wanted to see it on an 8bit display. The camera would show us HDR as 8bit and the non-HDR as something less than that.

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, The Ran said:

the camera would show us HDR as 8bit and the non-HDR as something less than that.

actually it won't - both will be 8bit 

[The Ran]

Just now, zMeul said:

actually it won't - both will be 8bit 

Why would they? The camera can see the difference. Yes if you viewed the raw 10bit footage on an 8bit display then they'd be identical but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about compressing the dynamic range so that the 10bit scales to 8bit.

[zMeul]

12 minutes ago, The Ran said:

Yes if you viewed the raw 10bit footage on an 8bit display

if you view the 10bit content on a 8bit panel, the experience will be absolutely horrible - worse than the actual 8bit BluRay

you will have a lot of color shift because the display will try to close approximate the color instead of matching it

it will be similar to displaying Adobe RGB content on a sRGB monitor

[7850OC]

On 27/12/2016 at 6:19 PM, nicklmg said:

Buy 4K HDR Blu Rays on Amazon: http://geni.us/05cCs

 

Is the latest "upgrade" from the entertainment industry truly a step in the right direction, or is it another half-baked semi-upgrade solely designed to outdate your current home theater setup?

 

 

HDR is the new King  (scorpio have HDR ?)

[Daniel644]

learning ATMOS support is coming is beginning to make me consider a One S, I also need a wireless controller for my PC gaming (I hate keyboard and mouse playing in general and it's even worse on the couch), might be time to grab one.

[dalekphalm]

On 2016-12-28 at 0:40 PM, The Ran said:

Same thing pretty much, that's still a great difference in resolution.

 

 

Anyone know how I can delete my duplicate posts? I was on the first page of this thread whilst posting and there was no indication that my post was going through.

Just so you know, 2K is near identical to 1080p. DCI Cinema 2K = 2048 x 1080, whereas 1080p = 1920 x 1080p. Realistically, both are considered "2K" resolutions.

[LAwLz]

On 12/28/2016 at 2:07 AM, The Ran said:

So, how would Rec2020 compare to a decent 10bit IPS monitor (what I have, P2415Q)? Would it ever be possible in the future for such a monitor to display these HDR films as they were intended to be?

I made a post about HDR that I recommend you read. It also explains the difference between color space and color depth.

Hopefully it should explain what HDR is and why it wouldn't work on a regular monitor.

 

 

On 12/28/2016 at 11:38 AM, zMeul said:

I call bull

why? there are couple of examples in Linus' video where the BluRay image is quite notably blurrierrier - to me it indicates that either the master is not the same or the people that processed the BluRay version are total fucktards

the Life of Pi side by side is the most telling:

<picture>

 

in PC gaming analogy is like they used blur to mask off lower res textures

I can think of two reasons.

1) It's not the exact same frame.

2) The picture from the video was taken with a camera, so if the focus on the 1080p version shot was slightly better, then that version will end up looking sharper. On top of that, the video encoding might have been more harsh on the 4K photo for whatever reason.

 

You really shouldn't use the comparison shots in the video to judge SDR vs HDR. You should never, ever judge a display's image quality by looking at a picture of the display, on your own computer monitor. It's just fluff to make the video more visually interesting, but don't use it as fact.

It's like if you tried to judge the taste of a meal, by looking at a picture of it... After your friend had already chewed it and spat it out.

 

 

That also explains why you are seeing a difference between the two pictures even though your monitor is limited to standard dynamic range. Because the final image you're seeing, has been processed to death by your own monitor, the youtube encoding, the premier encoding, the color correction they have applied to the video, the camera's sensor which doesn't capture everything perfectly, and possibly even different camera settings. Not to mention that mapping from HDR to SDR is not always flawless. All those steps add their own small variances which build up to becoming a big difference.

 

Like Ciccioo showed in his post, the video looks way different on his computer than it does in Linus' video. That's because his screenshot has not been butchered by all the steps I mentioned earlier.

[xnamkcor]

23 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Just so you know, 2K is near identical to 1080p. DCI Cinema 2K = 2048 x 1080, whereas 1080p = 1920 x 1080p. Realistically, both are considered "2K" resolutions.

 1080p

UltraWide 1080p and 2k are the same because one measures horizontal lines, and one measures vertical lines.

 

Probably a combination of "4k" sounding more impressive than "2k", and 1080p being from an era when interlacing was more prevalent and counting scanlines was more reasonable a measure of resolution.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, xnamkcor said:

 1080p

UltraWide 1080p and 2k are the same because one measures horizontal lines, and one measures vertical lines.

 

Probably a combination of "4k" sounding more impressive than "2k", and 1080p being from an era when interlacing was more prevalent and counting scanlines was more reasonable a measure of resolution.

Err what? When you refer to a resolution as "xK", such as 2K, it always refers to the horizontal resolution.

 

Ultrawide 1080p is an odd one, but it's not 2K. You could call it 2.5K at best (Same as 1440p). Though I know that some people incorrectly call 1440p "2K" as well, but those people are wrong and are spreading incorrect terminology.

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

You really shouldn't use the comparison shots in the video to judge SDR vs HDR. You should never, ever judge a display's image quality by looking at a picture of the display, on your own computer monitor. It's just fluff to make the video more visually interesting, but don't use it as fact.

It's like if you tried to judge the taste of a meal, by looking at a picture of it... After your friend had already chewed it and spat it out.

 

That also explains why you are seeing a difference between the two pictures even though your monitor is limited to standard dynamic range. Because the final image you're seeing, has been processed to death by your own monitor, the youtube encoding, the premier encoding, the color correction they have applied to the video, the camera's sensor which doesn't capture everything perfectly, and possibly even different camera settings. Not to mention that mapping from HDR to SDR is not always flawless. All those steps add their own small variances which build up to becoming a big difference.

what you didn't understand is that I'm not complaining about the HDR images, but about the standard ones - they are blurry

my standard display has zero issues with reproducing 8bit content

 

the comparison is skewed from the start if the same master wasn't used to produce the standard and HDR BluRays - that's what I'm debating

and it's very clear it wasn't

 

they are still images where YT's compression alg is minimum

if this was a single case, yes, I would say you're right .. but it's in every example

[zMeul]

20 minutes ago, xnamkcor said:

 1080p

UltraWide 1080p and 2k are the same because one measures horizontal lines, and one measures vertical lines.

 

Probably a combination of "4k" sounding more impressive than "2k", and 1080p being from an era when interlacing was more prevalent and counting scanlines was more reasonable a measure of resolution.

+ @dalekphalm

 

1080p always stands for 1920 x 1080 16:9 format

 

1440p, same 16:9 format

 

UHD or 2160p - same 16:9 format

 

---

 

2K and 4K - and we're talking about 2048 × 1080 and 4096 × 2160

are 1.9:1 aspect ratio

[xnamkcor]

40 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Err what? When you refer to a resolution as "xK", such as 2K, it always refers to the horizontal resolution.

 

Ultrawide 1080p is an odd one, but it's not 2K. You could call it 2.5K at best (Same as 1440p). Though I know that some people incorrectly call 1440p "2K" as well, but those people are wrong and are spreading incorrect terminology.

 

There is no such thing as 2k, so nothing anybody refers to it is correct terminology