What do you think about this 'fake' HDR business? Should the blu-ray companies be clearer in their messaging regarding HDR? Let me know in the comments below!
I love 4K UHD but it is for a small market, for enthusiasts really and Disney already look to be dropping back catalogue releases on the format. Which is a shame because they own the entire fox studios library. Anyway my point is the format is in a delicate position and the last thing it needs is people complaining about a transfer because it didn’t hurt their eyes to view it. Physical releases have had more issues than low hit numbers. Anyone remember perfect picture and sound thrown around in Bluray marketing?
How is this even a question? If they say it's HDR, then it should be HDR. This is why governments get involved in industries and regulate. Left on their own, companies will happily commit fraud. You're not going to convince me they don't know what they're doing. They know full well. It's dishonest, anti-consumer, and fraudulent. If they believed such a claim makes no difference, they'd not make it.
JG Ballard fraudulent? That’s a laugh how about you start with the TV manufacturers, most televisions that state the do HDR but can’t reach 600 nits then alone get near perfect black ( except for oled).
@@corporalhicks86 Oh dear, you've been triggered. How about you stop deflecting and stay with the topic at hand? The disc claims HDR, it is not HDR, how about you explain how that is not fraudulent? If you want to talk about TV manufacturers, start another topic. Although I will say, every single TV I've ever researched has published how many NITS is can achieve.
I thought HDR stood for a high dynamic RANGE, so from black in a ton of scales up to very white. I never was assuming that every bright scene in a movie should shine like a flashlight in my face. The dark scene's in Blade Runner have so much detail because of all those different shades that would band together on for instance a DVD. So yes the range is high but it doesn't mean that every disk should be high nits numbers to be shown the excellence of the format. I even think it would over-bloom the darker parts making them less visible. Is that a way natural light works in the real world, yes, but a movie is an artistic presentation of a created reality so it doesn't need to go all bright when there is sunlight, narrowing your pupils after a dark scene and push you into darkness after the so called "bright" seen is over. It wouldn't support the story.
The movie is set in a neon cyberpunk city, so in my opinion it would be the perfect choice for it. I think it's uncharitable to say that it's like having a flashlight shone in your eye. For many people, Mad Max Fury Road is a reference grade disc, for audio and visuals, and that hits 10k nits at some points.
XO RNW being 10,000 nits isn’t what makes Mad Max a refence disc ( find a display that can display above 4,000), it does have some excellent bright highlights but I thought it was more due to the 10bit color and detail.
There are much more to HDR than specular highlights, but that is also true with the "ton of scales up to very white" (the stops). The problem is that the original Blade Runner has a much better HDR presentation, proving the sequel would benefit from the extra nits. Not a problem if that lack of luminance was a creative choice in Blade Runner 2049, but I agree with Vincent and Elliot that the issue is transparency, so the people can know that you don't need a premium consumer TV to see the full capability of this disks, you only need a 10bit 4K tv, the kind that is around since mid 2010's.
Very frustrating to spend the extra money, sometimes more than double the price of a standard BluRay, just to get something that's only a slight improvement if at all. Studios need to be held to a higher standard with their releases.
Indeed. That's part of the issue with 4K not growing as perhaps it could. The benefits of the format are shrouded in technical jargon and sometimes it feels like the companies are saying 'trust us, it's gonna be better than plain ol' blu-ray' while charging twice the price.
Michael Leslie no, R Brooks is right. Upscaled 4K isn't the same thing as Native 4K. Not even close. They are creating 4x the resolution but they are doing it by filling pixels in places where they aren't when it was shot and finished at 2K. It's an elaborate "stretching" of the image. However, if the image is true Native 4K then yes. Quadruple the pixel count, in every sense of the word.
Hi Elliot, I just found your channel and am not in the habit of commenting on RUclips. However, I appreciate the nuance you are looking for and wanted to share my opinion. Also, I'm amazed at how many civilised and intelligent comments there already are under this video. Congrats! You might be on to something. I am a professional colorist myself and am aware that not everyone has the same level of knowledge on the topics of HDR and WCG. Hearing your surprise to the brightness levels in Blade Runner emphasises the need to separate tech specs from marketing. If Roger Deakens wants BR2049 to not exceed 200nits than that's it. It actually makes this disc more valuable for me knowing that I'm watching the film as the artist intended it. Now for the studio to add the HDR label to the box I find unacceptable. I agree that a film doesn't always need to use the maximum brightness that is available within the medium, you can use it creatively in certain scenes or choose to not use it at all. But don't apply the label. If the film features a wider color gamut but ot dynamic range, communicate that its WCG. The industry, my industry, is dependent on you passionate collectors to contribute money to physical media development. There exists a fine level of trust. 4k disc collectors trust that they will get a premium product and agree to pay more then a subscriber to a streaming platform. When that trust fades, it is the beginning of the end for the medium. That leaves me with 2 closing points. 1. We need better technical information for collectors. Not just its a 2k DI upscale or a 4K DI. At what brightness is it mastered? What color gamut was used? What resolution are the VFX? Most important, was the cinematographer or director involved with the HDR grade? 2. Blade Runner 2049 is a work of art. Roger Deakens is an artist. He wants you to see this film this way. That's why its perfect. My disc will be delivered this week. Just my 2cts. Keep up the great content!
Hello Remco! Thank you so much for the wonderfully detailed comment. I agree with both of your closing points - more info for collectors and Deakins is one of the greatest cinematographers working today. Thanks for watching, my friend :)
I think we all have to be cautious which 4k discs we invest in... I’ve seen some awful examples recently, colours that look overly saturated and unnatural and HDR cranked right up without any good reason... the recent Hitchcock 4k set is a good example - specifically, Rear Window - one of the worst cases I’ve seen. Also, Arrows king of New York looks to be pretty poor compared to the Blu. It just means we have to do extra research, which is a good thing for Movie nerds like us. In the case of Blade runner 4049 - I think it looks and sounds awesome, although HDR is misleading... but just as in photography, high levels of HDR isn’t always welcome.
Wow .. Spot On Remco on all points.. but there is always the catch 22. If we do not buy 4K discs then less money for the physical media dept. If we buy any ole 4k they "give us" then they wont uptick quality. Thats why i wait for 4k reviews. And I'm getting more and more hesitant to buy 4k unless there is also Audio upgrades to Dolby Atmos &/or DTS-X
>If Roger Deakens wants BR2049 to not exceed 200nits than that's it. If you look at recent James bond films on the dark scenes, you would know Roger Deakens' "artistic" intent here is to be lazy on the shoots, With higher nits, the nit resolution would expose shoddy lightings, costumes, and environment and editing them out would be actual work. Its less Roger Deakens, more of an intent of the production to cut costs.
@@1Aquadon Exactly if the movie is going to be capped at 200nits then sell it as SDR, do not advertise or sell as if it is some special bluray edition of the movie.
I mentioned this on Vincent's channel differently than I will here more time perhaps better solution... Monitor makers as well as TV makers have a standard for performance disclosure ex: HDR 10, HDR 400, HDR 600... Film distributors for the sake of transparency need to adopt this model and can say remastered to HDR 400 or HDR 200 or HDR 1000 as per the creators intent. Simple really
Better dark levels and shadow detail are also important not just nits, disney releases are not that impressive on 4k especially last jedi! great detailed video!
I agree. I did watch the new Mulan movie that can only be seen with the Premiere Access of Disney+ for now before I realized how this movie is actually being boycotted because of comments made by the female star of the movie. The movie itself is ok but the HDR and colors of this movie are great. Vincent did a review of this movie and I think the highest nits he saw on the movie was 700 nits. Definitely watch the video Vincent made in regards to this movie.
I am sorry but HDR is not only about peak levels of brightness, its about Having more levels of details, shades between black and max bright on a display. I also see the same thing about 2k DI, with 1080p 4:2:0 for bluray compared to 2k 4:4:4 you have more than twice the resolution.
@@lawrence-yx1ew The chroma downsampling was just another example of commonly misunderstood concept, same like every movie must hit 1000 nits for it to take advantage of HDR.
@@lawlorie24 Having 1000nits is not mandatory for a high quality production but it is a must for HIGH Dynamic Range... Truth to be told no one needs 1000nits or more but thats the selling point!! My suggestion would be to develop a new certification which rates anything having luminance fluctuations between 300nits to 600nits as Enhanced Dynamic Range.
@@4rzaluz That is incorrect, for example pure grey in 8 bits gives you exactly 256 shades from peek white to black, in 10 bits you get 16348 shades, many of them well below 1000nits.Tthats why you can see things in the dark with HDR, no need for a encoding to reach 1000 nits to have benefits, look at Game of thrones season 8 episode 3 long night, almost unwatchable in SDR banding and just large blobs of black, look at it in HDR very different.
@@lawlorie24 As a Network Engineer im perfectly aware of how BIT 'depth' creates a particular volume of data. What you are failing to realize is that environment dictates performance.. Hardly anyone is watching the display at an underground media room.. display calibration varies even in a per-home basis.. You are making the assumption that every single panel has the same amount of microsteps to modulate luminance output.
I think the problem with Vincent's blanket "Fake HDR" label on BR2049 and SW TLJ is he isn't considering the fact that HDR isn't just a designation for a UHD disc with nits higher than 200. It indicates a wider color gamut than SDR blu-ray as well. And it needs to be remembered that it's well within the director and DP's artistic intent. If Roger Deakins doesn't like his CLL above 200 nits in his films, but the disc is native 4k and has a wider color gamut than SDR discs, then it just becomes tricky to label and market the disc when the industry has these standards in place. Should WB alter the film and boost the CLL just to meet an arbitrary standard, despite Roger Deakins's intent? Absolutely NOT. Does not having a CLL above 200 nits disqualify BR2049 as a reference UHD disc? Definitely not. It's still a reference disc with insane levels of detail, depth and gorgeous colors. Not to mention a reference Atmos track. I appreciate your commentary on the nuance of the topic Elliot!
I have got the US Warner 4K edition. It's Rec.2020 and is in a 10k nits container. The max CLL is 181 and Max FALL is 73. Vincent needs to look at that version as it might be the more authentic Roger Deakins intent of the movie. The movie is
WCG and HDR are different things. True HDR10 is a format that require both but it is advertised as HDR on the box and in the end this is just plain lying to customer.
Vincent is a good reviewer. But, his stances on hdr and what should be a standard is just his feelings. There is no real standard for what hdr should be
In this subject there seems to be a lot of interchangeability between HDR (the variance between the darkest part of the image and the lightest) and peak brightness. The image can still have high dynamic range, many stops of exposure between the darkest and lightest colours, without having a very high peak brightness. I don't think its really any kind of an issue, in most movies there are only usually a few spots in a few scenes that have very high peak brightness that you would notice. I think past a certain point you get the desired effect and having even brighter highlights doesn't really add anything to the enjoyment of the movie, and can actually look artificial if its overly brighter than real life. I think Wide Colour Gamut, black levels, accurate colour, higher resolution, Atmos / DTS:X uncompressed audio are more useful/valuable for the 4K format. I think "HDR" is also generally used as a blanket term for WCG, high dynamic range, and peak brightness. Vincent picked on BR 2049 having low peak brightness, but I think that movie (one of my favorite) looks superb in 4K regardless of its peak brightness and has a pretty muted colour scheme in line with the theme of the movie and doesn't really suit having super bright effects. SDR technically is 120 nits brightness so even so it is "proper" HDR as it is higher peak brightness than the blu-ray, even though its not super bright peak brightness.
I do agree with you when you say that WCG, black levels, accurate colors, higher resolution and the better audio options also play a role in selecting a 4K movie but don't think you are accurate about 120+ nits being HDR. I can't remember which video Vincent was talking about the HDR whitelist papers mentioning that HDR should be 203+ nits at a minimum. Vincent doesn't have that many videos about HDR and the specific nits of the 4K movie he is testing so I would definitely watch all of his videos about the topic. Very informative.
@@toddharrington1582 HDR has no standardization. You ''can'' reach 1000 nits, but it does not mean that you should. Movies are still graded at DCI-P3 SDR color profile for movie screenings. Dolby Cinema can reach around 108 nits...
If the picture's max brightness is always within the SDR, how can it be considered HDR? I'm genuinely trying to learn more about it, so if you can explain, that would be great
@@ElliotCoen High dynamic range doesn't mean high brightness or luminosity, it means that the shadow or colour range within the picture contains more detail or more nuance. For example, you can say that black and white is low dynamic range (just to shades/colours, and even if the white is bright as heck), but from black to white with all the shades of grey (hundreds) in between means high dynamic range. I've been a photographer for more than 40 years, and in that world this it what it means to have high dynamic range. Brighter whites is a very strange way of measuring the dynamic range.
@@ElliotCoen what he said^ There's a lot more info in other comments, but it's as simple as brightness being but one factor when deciding if something is "fake" HDR. There's no standardisation, and nor should there be. If a particular film never goes above 200 bits, but takes advantage of the much wider colour gamut available, it's still clearly not SDR. I think this issue is less about whether these studios are lying to you or trying to pass "fake" discs, and more them not properly defining what the HDR badge means in a way that the average consumer can easily understand
@@ElliotCoen Easy take 8 bit RGB, it only gives you 256 shades of pure grey, increase that to 12 bit you have 4096 shades of pure grey, many of those greys would be under 1000 nits
The reason 3d failed is every major studio had their own version of 3d and you had to wear their glasses to watch their film, not all 3d glasses and films were the same, so you had to make sure that your 3d glasses suited the 3d film you want to watch, that’s what I was told by somebody who sells TVs, blurays etc
Hi everyone, I think it still is a reference disc for that film specifically. See, Roger Deakins was the Cinematographer. He scaled the film prints, digital masters and the 4k Blu Ray to have the exact measures of HDR applied as you see on the disc. He personally doesn't use too much high level of HDR whites and brightness because they level out detail eventually. However the main reason, is to maintain the scope and look of traditional celluloid. So its all an artistic choice, therefore reference quality (of this film not the 4k BluRay format). Other films do make use of the full capabilities of the format. So Not Fake
My understanding was that HDR discs were able to take advantage of your television's ability to generate a range of brightness per pixel to allow the viewer to see more natural and realistic colours. Even though some discs might not go above a certain brightness, it doesn't mean that the same technology being used is not presenting the viewer with a colour that could not be achieved on a SDR Blu-ray. Once again, that's just my understanding, I'm not too sure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This happened in the 3D market also... Many films were not shot in 3D, but converted... Most of the converted films looked poorer to native 3D! (Titanic was a rare exception here) YET, the cinemas still charged an extra £2.00 to watch the 3D version!! The differences Elliot talks about are more subtle, and ultimate brightness of nits can't be the only benchmark!!
The conclusion should be that you shouldn't care whether it actually has high dynamic range range or not, but to watch the movies and enjoy them. If they look good to your eyes, that's what matters. You can't go back and say, even though I previously said this specific movie was good, now I'm saying that because of these scientific tests that the movie isn't good after all.
The biggest pro of 4K UHD is that it can bring "old" 35mm film on a disc, on your big flatscreen and look as good as it did in the theater. I am far more sceptical on a lot of modern, digital movies. They are mastered, somtimes even shot at 1080p. 4K UHD is little more then a glorified upscale job to this movie. And it is here that HDR has to play its marketing role: "Look this is so much better then the standard blu-ray, it has HDR!" With the current big price gap between standard and UHD Blu-ray, you should be sceptical towards what you are buying. LOTR, shot on 35mm = 4K UHD will bring the theater version in your living room The Avengers = digital 1080p, let your 4K player upscale the standard Blu-ray and you will get close to the UHD Blu-ray, for far les money...
So, if the whole film was set in a coal mine lit by candles you'd think the presentation was faulty because the candles don't blind you? What part of a well lit movie is going to pummel your eyes with +200 NITS? I'm with Roger Deakins on this. Surely it's about finding the right level to BALANCE the colours and contrast, no? I thought Blade Runner 2049 looked absolutely stunning (and so did you), and happily I never once felt that I needed sunglasses. I think the people who light films at the level of something like Blade Runner would know their craft. The fact that you consider it to be a reference work should tell you all you need to know. It IS a reference work. It does look amazing. It does NOT use HDR. Ergo - HDR is not necessary to make a reference quality film. I strongly suspect that you don't actually understand that more NITS does not equal better. The best film is one that's balanced to represent the whole range of colours and brightnesses available WITHIN THE PHOTOGRAPHY. You can't ask for more brightness than was included in the making of the image. Nor would it make sense to balance the brightest part of the Blu-ray image at 400 NITS, because then the darks way too bright. The only way to fix that would be to completely rebalance the look of the film. To do that JUST to get the numbers some people want would be a big mistake, and it would look awful. [In a way this whole discussion seems like the visual equivalent of the volume wars in music production. Exactly the same issue, exactly the same range of misunderstandings.]
Glad to see you uploaded this! I genuinely think people trying to argue that it's an artistic choice is such a cope, you're really telling me that having a lower nit grade for lightsabers is come kind of creative masterstroke? Another thing that you didn't touch on is the colour gamut, HDR discs are meant to have WCG, they don't have that either.
Vincent just reviewed The Matrix 4k BD and it is what 4k movies should be. Color reaches the edges of rec 2020 and up to 1000 nits. This is what i would consider a reference 4k HDR movie should be.
@@MrIagainsti120 Of course this movie is bright and green. That's a creative intent which utilise the whole HDR palette. But do all the film utilise that much the HDR palette? NO. Do a content need to be graded with high values? NO Do all movies should looks like Matrix to be validated as HDR movies? HDR is complex and so much more than nit values. Those videos are misleading people. Focussing on a incomplete analyse. Color grading is an art and each film deserve a special treatment wich may not use all HDR palette. Again an 4K HDR blu ray does not only offers High Dynamic range. There is no plot, no conspiracy no fake HDR, only Fake drama
@@LELABODEJAY if it does not use luminesce passed SDR range then it is not HDR and should not be advertised as such and should just be labeled as just a 4k blu ray. I'm fine with them using HDR10 as a container but it's still just SDR in a HDR format. WCG is not HDR and HDR is not WCG. If you want to have low standards and are ok with movie studios lying to you that's your problem not mine.
I still haven't adopted 4K but I don't like the idea of this extreme brightness. Couldn't a disc peak at 200 NITS but then have a perfect black level that only HDR can achieve? I like the idea of proper black levels, but the idea of eye scorching brightness kind of puts me off. I guess I need to get a proper demonstration of a good HDR disc to see it for myself. Or is the extreme brightness a trick to make the black level look comparitvely more impressive?
since the release of 4K, regular blu ray authoring has declined incredibly ! la la land blu ray is so veiled and blurry that I thought my projector lamp was failing. the same thing happened when I played the Whiplash blu ray. disgusting !
This was a very interesting video! Thank you for your insights! I’ve been thinking a lot about HDR and I compared my Blu-rays and 4K Blu-Rays side by side and I didn’t really see the HDR. In most cases the Blu-ray disc was more vibrant than the 4K. I thought maybe my TV wasn’t good enough to display it correctly, because it’s not an OLED or QLED TV.
Really great commentary on the subject! If the film looks sharper and I can see more detail and the colour is more vibrant than its blu ray counterpart, I'm more than happy with my purchase and not really bothered if its HDR or not. However it shouldn't be labelled as such as a selling point, although that's never why I've bought 4K discs in the first place. Great video pal
Bit late a comment perhaps, but just now stumbled upon this video. Appreciate the nuance. The trouble with 4K is that there's really no consumer-level equipment that can show all aspects of it, apart from the resolution. And at the same time, the resolution part is often where the discs themselves are effectively limited, as many films have 2K intermediates and were upscaled. Or the films were scanned from noisy analogue films, in which case 4K makes this very apparent. In any case, the resolution is not necessarily the thing that makes 4K shine against Blu-rays. If we talk about dynamic RANGE, I think that Vincent (of HDTVTest) is completely right. This is about brightness levels. If a movie does not employ this high range, it should not have the HDR sticker. Filmmakers intent or not, I find it a bit silly to say that you're against high dynamic range. This is not about blinding people with an overly bright image. You are not going to leave anyone in the dark that has a TV that cannot handle the complete range possible. This is about specular highlights, and about being able to see details in a dark room AND through the bright windows. If a TV cannot handle those highlights, you'll basically be left with what you got with SDR in the first place, so you don't really loose anything. But if companies don't maintain those highlights themselves everybody looses, also the ones that bought those expensive TVs that can handle it. It also find it silly to say that lightsabers, lamps, and the sun are not that bright. That it is creative intent to display those in a muted fashion. Well, you can, but I think that would be rather exceptional for a movie if that needs to convey a realistic image. Especially sci-fi filmmakers go at great lengths to show a 'realistic' image, so why not use the tools you have? Then colour gamut. Many modern TV's can display a wider gamut than Rec709, although I think Rec2020 is still out of reach. It could be that Blade Runner 2049 looks better than the Blu-ray because of that, in combination with the higher resolution. So it might still be a good disc to buy. Unfortunately colour gamut is probably the thing that you'll notice the least while watching the movie. The human eye is quite capable of compensating for colour in a less than optimal situation and these wider gamuts are all in a range where the perceived colour difference becomes very small. It seems to me that the advantage of 4K in this area is rather that companies have taken the time and effort to actually correct the colours on the disc, and not so much that Blu-ray wouldn't be able to show better colours either. Or maybe they just changed the colours a bit in a way that we think is more pleasing. All in the name of creative intent. I mean: if resolution and HDR are not really apparent, you have to do something to make the 4K stand out..... I myself probably won't buy the 4K version of Blade Runner 2049. I have the 3D version and I am not going to shell out again. I am looking for a device that supports my 3D discs since my old TV died. I hate the lack of options in that area. Yes, I tried some beamers. But that's a different story,
Well this is a tricky one. Firstly let's clarify we aren't talking about fake 4K... The resolution is not what we are questioning here but purely the HDR component of what a 4K CAN offer. I'm a bit torn here because like some of the cinematographers I don't necessarily think a disc HAS to have a massive bright and vibrant HDR .... And although I have not received it yet I'm wondering if the Ghost In The Shell 4K will end up in that category for me once I see it given some of the reviews out there saying it's over the top and not true to the source material and gritty dystopian vision. I've compared the Blade Runner 2049 Blu ray and 4K and to me the latter looks far more detailed and even brighter/colourful to MY eyes but it's certainly not over the top so maybe yeah, they did artistically dial it down or just not include HDR at all. Though my HDR light comes on when I play it in my 4K player. The real question is whether the studios are being purposely disingenuous to make 4K discs sound sexier than they may actually be in some cases. Its obviously not across the board as for example if you compare Bram Stokers Dracula on Blu ray to 4K it's night and day improved on the 4K disc. Perhaps the labels should be forced to put a HDR rating on their discs.... Standard or High (or none?) and also the NIT rating should perhaps be included to back it up. Like Jeff from films at home for me it's more about if I think it looks fantastic and/or improved or not via the eye test. I'd never get as technical as some people do on this but at the same time it does concern me that these HDR claims are made so broadly but now we have some technical evidence that this is perhaps a little bit sneaky and not true in some cases where they claim otherwise. So THAT I do have an issue with. In the meantime though most of the 4k / Blu ray side by side eye tests I've done have been heavily in favour of the 4K (with some exceptions of course such as overuse of DNR). At the end of the day as long as it looks filmic and true to the source that is my main concern and overuse of DNR concerns me more than lack of HDR. However I also think the studios should not BS their consumers and should be clearer on their discs from now on with some extra technical detail around the HDR applied, not just about the source for the film and what res it was scanned etc.
The RANGE is high. That doesn't mean the nits have to be high. This isn't a "gotcha" moment so much as it's an opportunity for people to learn what HDR even means.
WCG is different from HDR. HDR10 and DV require HDR and WCG together. Video with WCG with SDR packed into a HDR10/DV shell is just false advertising. HDR strictly concerns the luminance of the video. In the HDR10 this is between 0-10000 nits and DV 0-20000 nits. As long as the values fall between these and exceed 200 nits it is HDR. If the values only fall between 0-200 nits it is SDR. If the Video is SDR it should not be advertised as HDR but as Wide Color Gamut. Its fine if they have it in a HDR10 shell but but again should not be advertised as HDR. If you search for High-Dynamic-Range Video on Wikipedia you can get more information on it. I just dont like false advertising and being lied too.
Dude you have a great conversation going on in the comments!! This is what we need, to all talk about how we feel about 4k! Dont be sorry if you recommend 2049, if it looked great to you thats all that matters brother!
Yes at least if we are not agree people here are well educated and not aggressive... But those video are to my point of view toxic. They are base on uncomplete analysis and everybody takes what he says for the absolute truth... Unfortunaltly his point of view is quite oriented and for me and lots of pros not accurate
I usually check reviews from blu-ray dot com before I make purchasing decisions. They usually include technical information and also reference previous blu ray releases in their section on 4K video quality. But I agree, if we're not being told the whole truth then something needs to change.
About The Last Jedi, when they re-released the 4K Blu Ray for The Skywalker Saga box set, they dropped Dolby Vision, so they changed it up. Is it an improvement?
No my 4K discs are not fake. Blade Runner 2049s DP Roger Deakins intended for the 4K and HDR transfer to look exactly the way it does. It is an amazing transfer and proves that high nits are not required. The 10bit colour, 3.4K DI and high bit rate give this transfer a stable, detailed and vibrant appearance. Sadly Vincent has no appreciation for Intent and compares a excellent transfer like this to turning the lights off.
I have a lot of respect for Vincent and I truly trust and believe berthing he say... So if he said they not true hdr blueray... Then it's not.... He has equipment that clearly show that don't... There isn't nothing to argue about
Great video, mate. I look at the topic this way: 4K, with its higher bitrate and storage capacity, will always mean, at the very least, less compression and better visuals in motion. Regarding HDR, I have no issue if Roger Deakins decides not to colour grade with an HDR spec in mind. The benefits of the format extend beyond HDR. However, Warner Bros. should absolutely not slap the HDR sticker on the disc if that is the case. If everything is on the up and up, I can decide my actions in good faith as a consumer. If I'm lied to, then that choice has been taken away from me. And that is absolutely wrong.
@@ElliotCoen don t want to be disrespectfull but followers does not means quality. he has a point of view. Does not mean he is right and that there is no other explanations
@@LELABODEJAY Vicent is a calibrator, he is not a director of photography... He is setting up displays and his point of view in regards of artistic choices means nothing.
I wouldn't feel embarrassed by recommending Blade Runner 2049 as a reference disk. No matter what nits it hits, the movie is absolutely beautiful to look at and really shows off what 4k is capable of in the hands of professionals. With all due respect for Vincent and the work he does, at the end of the day, all I'm looking for is an excellent picture and great sound. If they can provide those things over and above the Blu-Ray version, then I'm willing to hand them my money. Having said that, I do feel it's unethical to advertise a feature that isn't actually available on the disk. This may all come down to a lack of communication between the marketing and technical departments, who knows? However, now that this issue has been brought out into the open for discussion and debate, the film studios should re-evaluate and try to come up with an industry-standard for a disk to be listed as 4K (4k scans only, no upscaling please) and HDR features.
They aren’t “fake 4K discs”. The resolution is 4K. It just lies about HDR. It advertises HDR, but has SDR in an HDR container. Btw- HOW did you not notice the lack of HDR? It’s pretty obvious.
Hi nice content💪👑 but anyway curious ive been buying blu ray over 4k starting to regret it think im making a mistake by doing this feel like i might be wasting my money since there's the 4k discs is 4k really that much better looking then regular blu ray? thanks buddy
I was under the impression that HDR wasn’t as much about the brightest moments of the film and more about the difference in level between the brightest areas of a shot and the darkest areas. So the bright parts look bright and the dark parts look dark, even on the same frame.
This whole issue is a byproduct of the fetishisation of what is essentially a gimmick. HDR is something that can be taken advantage of, if the DP wants to... but many 4k reviewers, especially on RUclips, fetishise HDR as if it's a must have feature... and that is probably because it has been marketed as such. And the more it's marketed as a feature, the more pressure studios are under to implement it... irrespective of whether the DP intended to employ it. And so films are being re-graded, sometimes contrary to the cinematographer's intentions. Revealing shadow detail that was never meant to be revealed, for example. This is what happens, when these technologies are fetishised by tech-heads. For me, 4k is about increased resolution and detail, and the real scandal isn't lack of HDR... it's 4k discs that aren't *actually* 4k at all! Many 4k discs are 2k. And yet even RUclips reviewers seem to that's all cool. Many 4k discs with 2k DIs are reviewed as looking GREAT by RUclips reviewers. This boggles my mind. Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Shutter Island. on and on, films that were finished in essentially 1080p resolution, are sold as 4k discs, and they have practically zero increased resolution. That's the con
All of this is so confusing. 4K UHD HDR. What's what, and which is which? I thought the resolution was the point, then that color deepness, which is caused by a darker picture, which is what HDR mode on tvs do. But I've now been told it's the brightness of the brighter highlights...? I suppose darkening the image should make the brighter areas shine, but this takes away detail in the shadows known as black crush... I don't know anything, and I'm trying to educate myself, but I seem to be hitting barriers every time I find something new, the old is claimed to be irrelevant.
There are a number of technical aspects about 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays to understand, and I encourage you to research and understand more about them before jumping to conclusions. 4K resolution is the number of pixels used to represent a rectangular image: 3,840 wide x 2,160 high. 4K Blu-ray Discs are using that 4K resolution for whatever the source image was created in...whether the source was greater than 4K (like shot in 5K or 8K or on film) or less than 4K (shot in 2K or 1080HD). But the quality of each of those 8,294,400 pixels is influenced by a host of factors from the color space and its dynamic range capability, to the bitrate and compression algorithm for the video codec. 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays are built around the new H265 video codec which has a number of benefits over the H264 video codec standard of 1080 Blu-ray Discs and the internet/RUclips. The codec can be understood somewhat as the “philosophy” for which information in a particular pixel is thrown out or how it is interpreted when it is compressed so that the film can be fit on a Blu-ray Disc. All videos we are watching at home on discs or on streaming are compressed, whereas the master of a film is not as compressed and has a lot more original information. So an uncompressed 2K DI for a film is interpreted in different ways for the final compressed video on a 4K or 1080 blu-ray. So the newer H265 codec of the 4K discs can provide at times a better quality pixel than the H264 codec on a 1080 disc. this is just one example of many of why a 4K version of a 2K/1080 film can still be seen as better than a blu-ray version. Even if both are coming from the same original 2K DI master source.
@@BSwenson I'll ignore the underlying condescension of your reply, and take it at face value. The fact is that there might be a tiny marginal improvement in quality in representing a 2k DI with a new codec... however, the underlying reality is that the source is still 2k, and convoluted incantations you intone to explain away the increase in quality is largely bollocks. Yes; the 2k has a tiny improvement in terms of colour space and sharpness, but, it's a 2k source, and therefore not native 4k, and therefore a total, and borderline dishonest misrepresentation of the resolution of the content. And people are catching on. They're comparing Blu-Rays with UHD discs and noticing a tiny resolution increase when a 2k DI is used. It's a ripoff. No amount of technical convolutions will persuade me otherwise.
Buy or don’t buy 4K discs. As someone who makes a living in editing and producing video, I was just trying to explain a fuller picture of 4K beyond just the 4K resolution. But if you take knowledge as condescending, ok. There are multiple reasons one might want a 4K disc, from resolution to color to HDR to a new sound mix like Atmos or DTS:X. Also, the upscaling algorithm onto a 4K disc is different and can be higher quality than the live on-the-fly upscaling by a 4K TV of a1080 Blu-ray Disc. The original Source is important, but it’s not just about resolution.
@@BSwenson It is about resolution. That's what 4K means. Your attempts to obfuscate this by dressing up upscales as somehow a valid presentation of 4K discs doesn't wash. 4K discs are marketed as having 4K resolution, and upscales are simply put, a totally dishonest misrepresentation of the inherent benefit of that disc. Yeah, you might buy a 4k disc for HDR only, you might also buy it as a coffee mug coaster - why someone buys something is totally irrelevant. It is being marketed as one thing, when in actual fact, it's another. it really is that simple. I'm an editor, so you can pretty much stick your condescending "As someone who makes a living..." bullshit up your arse.
I don't believe in letting other people change your mind about your own viewing experiences. To me, if it looks fantastic, it looks fantastic, I don't care for the technical details behind it. I've done many comparisons between the blu ray and 4K versions of films I own and I can 100% say that the 4K versions look better, blacks are deeper, whites are brighter, sound is often upgraded, colours are brighter and pop off the screen more. Obviously some 4Ks are not well made but even poorly made ones are often better than their blu ray counterparts. All I know is what I see, and what I see is that 4K is the ultimate format and it's a fantastic viewing experience, especially if you have a surround sound system.
Looking at some comparisons and such, it does look to me like the 4K of Blade Runner 2049 still looks nicer than the Blu Ray (and there is more to HDR than just purely the Nits number, such as black levels, color range, etc. that make it look really nice) so I do think the 4K is still better. However, I do think that in advertising they should be more honest/clear but of course their goal is to sell the product and they want to say whatever they can say that makes their product look/sound better, but if that means giving blatantly false or deliberately misleading information then that is not right (though unfortunately deliberately misleading information has been rampant in advertising for decades). I haven't seen those "test" videos you mentioned though so I don't know what kind of tests he did or if anyone else has done similar tests on these discs, so I'm going to have to look up some more information about that.
All this being said though, I'm not sure if completely "boycotting" 4K discs is the best way to go about this. We need to continue supporting physical media and get our movies in the highest quality we can before it's all shoved into streaming where it's overly compressed, lower bitrate, spread across a million different expensive subscription services, you don't actually OWN a copy of it and it can be taken away at any time, etc.
I thought the whole "real vs. fake" 4K was whether the source material was a 4K+ source or a 4K upscale from a 2K source. I didn't think the nits thing mattered because some movies are darker than others. I'm a data snob and want reference quality with all my stuff so that's what I'm concerned about.
Even though I do not think studios should miss label products I have to say it would not affect my buying decision whatsoever as long as they did a great job on the transfer as a whole
I can see a clear difference. The shadow detail, dark scenes textures and colour pop look far better than the blu ray. Maybe my oled and settings enhance this?
Why would a movie like blade runner need to hit 1000 nits, its all in a very dark neo noir type environment, its not like a movie where someone is traveling to the sun.
We are still at a fairly early stage with 4K. If you look back at the DVD and Bluray era, a lot of the early discs aren't that great compared to what followed in quality. How many discs that you bought early did you rebuy in these formats. HDR of course makes great promises but any experienced buyer will recognize we are at the beginning of a generation, that the best of now isn't near what the peak will be in a few years. Dolby vision and HDR10 are already pushing the format beyond HDR, which feels tame compared to them. NITS might be important to ensure good colour brightness but a balanced colour palate is more important. The balanced of colour and shadow shot to shot so the film is not unbalanced are really the main factors. There are 4k's like the meg which pushed the colours so high that it was distracting to the film. Many Disney films meanwhile seem undercooked. (Star Wars in $K is all over the place for quality). But you have some great transfers from Kubrick films such as 2001, and The Shining, you have the new Flash Gordon remaster, Jaws, the new Crash 4K remaster, 1917, which show a range of terrific transfers of different styles of films. Battle Angel Alita is dull on HDR but its HDR 10 is gorgeous if you have that capability with your tech. I didn't spend a fortune but managed to get some decent equipment. You are gonna gets duds like terminator 2 4K as well as the peaks. There's also gonna be a lot of middle ground 4k's that are fine but based on films that were never shot with the greatest care. 4K can't perform miracles. MY advice to any friend that asks about 4K is that you don't need it but its nice to have. Don't treat it like a miracle but as a nice addition to viewing.
This is why tvs native contrast ratio is so vastly more important than disk mastering. This is why my Plasma, my zt60 looks better playing back 4k disk than my high end Sony x930c. The biggest contributing factor in picture quality will always be your panels native contrast. True black levels vs brights. Oled and plasma will look better with all content. Your screen will always matter more than your disk. Invest in quality tvs.
That's strange, because I own both 'Blade Runner 2049' and 'The Last Jedi' on 4K. I think hey both look excellent on my 4K TV, especially the latter. The Throne Room scene looks fantastic, whilst the dystopian Los Angeles Orange glare of the former looks spectacular!!! That's just my perception of it though.
Honestly, I thought with 3D now pretty much obsolete in the physical media market, companies decided to use 4K as a marketing ploy more so than there actually being improved quality of picture.
This doesn't surprise me because I haven't noticed a significant improvement on the HDR discs I have either. I think it's one of those deals where people go into a viewing with the concept in their head that it will of course be better and that affects their perceptions. It's like the wine "connoisseurs" who get fooled by cheap wine.
I have many 4K discs, however only titles with 'Native 4K Scans'. This justifies my scepticism to a large degree, i.e. in many cases there is little perceptible difference between the 2K and 4K. For those reasons I have yet to own any Marvel Universe 4K discs. Just a thought, even a true 4K scan/transfer of a 'Letterboxed' or 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie is presented, is that the real-deal by definition when almost a third of the horizontal lines are black??
Soooo. What I've heard, and in my understanding when buying 4k HDR movies, you're not looking for higher nits, its more about better tone mapping and a wider color gamut. an example I was given was there is more detail in flames from an explosion on HDR then on SDR. My example would be from a movie called the Natural. When Roy Hobbs hit the ball into the stadium lights, on SDR the flames are washed out, on HDR there is so much detail...looked really good
This is maybe the reason why the Criterion Collection hasn't launched any 4K movies yet. They know a quality production and respect the author's choice for lighting, and shadows. This Blade Runner movie now has the same price for Blu-ray and for '4K' in amazon. I don't know for how long has been the case. When I bought it I just went for the '4k'. I can't compare them myself. That's the only test I would trust fully. Comparisons made by other channels in youtube, for this movie and others, it looks that HDR means: shifted color palette, more color saturation, and lighter scenes where there were shadows before. But again, I can't fully trust them. Lack of trust is a major problem for the 4k HDR system.
Hi, I'm enjoying your videos and decided to comment on this one because the entire HDR on UHD discs has been quite puzzling. I think one of the big issues is that most people today still have Rec709 screens at home and one would need a true Rec2020 screen for HDR to matter. Additionally, it seems also a lot of TV's have been sold with the HDR label but they are not really Rec2020. I'm not at sure how players and possibly even cables factor into this. To me this means though that "HDR" is a marketing gimmick that really doesn't mean anything (it may in the future). All I can say is that I hardly buy any UHD discs since Close Encounters was a huge disappointment.. Someone cranked the chroma and the contrast way up during that transfer and any SD copy has more dynamic range. It would be great if someone with more insight on hardware requirements could shed more light on this entire HDR thing.
"fake" isn't an accurate term. That was meant to describe functionally broken HDR like what Red Dead Redemption 2 launched with. Even Vincent Teoh has abandoned that word as part of his analysis. However, it's worth being aware of the various combinations of metadata, max brightness etc to know whether your TV and/or player can give you a worthwhile experience. That is if you're an overly cautious customer who needs guidance post-release. There are also some discs that might very well be broken, fake HDR, but it won't just be any disc that doesn't exceed 200 ish nits. It's more about functionality than bare faced numbers.
it wasn't vincent that did the test, it was his friend he just made a video on it. also HDR is not just about light output its about color reproduction.
I watched TLJ and TROS on 4k disc this week and was wondering why the pictures looked terrible. Now I know why. Shame on me for thinking Disney would put some effort in their physical products.
If a particular filmmaker/director isn’t a fan of HDR, their films shouldn’t be marketed with HDR label on physical media and streaming. We should care about creator’s intent. I am a fan of movies first and foremost and displays second. TV’s look better than ever. Enjoy the movies without measuring every damn thing.
I can understand why Vincent would say that because most are up scaled to 4K and are not in HDR at all and some older titles were scan as a 2k intermediated and should be higher HDR and brighter
I'm more interested in the better resolution that 4K provides over Std Blu-Ray & DVD. I'll agree that advertising HDR on a movie and not actually delivering it is a bit sneaky and ethically dodgy. But if I enjoy the look of a movie and it doesn't have a high HDR rating, I'm not exactly gonna lose any sleep over it. Some movies are shot to have a dark & moody look so shouldn't be registering high HDR levels at all. I'm probably more annoyed by things like 2K movies being upscaled and sold as 4K content or bad noise reduction on movies shot using film (digital smoothing).
I'm no expert but I thought HDR isn't only about brightness. I thought 4K HDR is supposed to provide better shadow detail and wider color gamut too, which is maybe where movies like Blade Runner 2049 are actually using HDR. I recently watched BR2049 and thought it looked amazing. I don't even have a great HDR TV but I could still tell that HDR was making a difference with things like color and less banding/more detail in shadow areas. I mean yeah it would be nice if companies were forthcoming by what they mean by HDR on their discs and whether they utilize higher peak brightness, but I think HDR discs still helps movies like BR2049 or Interstellar (idk if that film has been tested yet for "true" HDR)
I think the DP & Director's vision for the look of the film should be what matters most. Roger Deakins talked about doing an HDR grade for Blade Runner 2049 on his podcast and specifically mentioned a shot with Ryan Gosling in silhouette and the window behind was too bright to look at in HDR, so they brought it down because it wasn't his intention for the film. Films are creative experiences and not just technical readouts. It's still an HDR bluray in my opinion because they've specifically created that version in the DI. Not every film is going for the brightest highlights and the deepest blacks. Sometimes a DP will want a flatter image to help tell the story.
That's interesting! As an example of creative intent on the other end of the scale, I offer up "Solo (a Star Wars story)" on UHD, specifically scenes on Dryden Vos yacht where characters are in near-silhouettes, or at least lit very minimally against very bright backgrounds (scenes on t- it's quite painful to watch at times.
Chee-Meng Chuah Good to know. I’ll have to rent the 4K disc and revisit it. Haven’t seen it since the theater. I’m pretty sure Roger said it was actually painful to his eyes to look at the window.
I'm way more interested in HDR for the number of total colors - true Dolby Vision having 68 Billion colors is way more important to me than how bright the scene can get. Although there is definitely a point where the brightness level effects the colors, but at a very high nit those colors will be distracted by the brightness.
Excellent video. The only 4K discs I buy r movies shot on film. I would like to hear how a restoration of like Beetlejuice or Jaws ranges in Nits. Thanks again.
Yeah unfortunately I bought the 4K Blade Runner 2049 disc before seeing Vincent's video. I was thinking about all the neon signs and holograms of the city in HDR, it was a dream.
The discs are not fake 4K discs unless you call upscaled 4K fake. With or without HDR present a 4K resolution is still 4K. Fake HDR is more proper as accusation there. If you buy a movie in 4K with HDR you do and should expect that these are the settings for the main movie entirely. Not just menus or a logo. All else should be called what it is. False claims. If the 4K of Blade Runner 2049 does not reach HDR Sony shoukd remaster and send out new discs to all customers who bought them thinking that the product they buy is as claimed. Just what we shoukd and can demand for the money we spend on them. Disney is too big for its own good. Not much care put into 4K there since they just want to spread the Disney Plus streaming service. There the 4K contrnt most likely will look as crappy as on all the other streaming channels due to low bitrate. Sucks. Put demands on Sony and others. If we buy and not complain they will not change attitude. Money is power. Dont waste yours on low quality products claiming they are more.
Doesn't bother me, I've bought 4Ks that I know don't have HDR (& not advertised as such) as long as it looks good I don't give a hoot about all the technical specs
In my opinion, there’s definitely a case here of falsification by the studios. By law, you can’t sell a product as having a particular feature and then not including it. The studios are charging substantially more for 4k discs. When those discs are not what they purport to be it’s quite simply a breach of trading laws and as such, should be looked into.
From the perspective of the artist, HDR is just another tool to be utilized at their discretion. From the perspective of some consumers, it is a goal for the disc to reach X amount of nits. Could something look better with juiced up bright highlights? Maybe but it's all subjective...I consider it more important is that the artist is satisfied with the end result. The way it looks might not match your taste but I'm fairly certain they know what they're doing and didn't forget to apply a big HDR grade. I wonder if Vincent goes into art galleries and tells anyone who will listen how he would have painted a landscape differently. I sort of get it though, he's very interested in the progress of display tech and HDR is another way to measure and differentiate. Also, you can disagree with someone you respect and still appreciate their work. I watch all of Vincent's videos 👍
The point isn't artistic intent. The point is they advertise HDR on the cover, and they aren't delivering on that. It's an issue of false advertising. If the artist prefers SDR, that's fine, just don't stamp HDR onto the package.
Interesting how someone else telling you how a movie doesn’t have HDR would change how you feel about the movie. You loved it before and the movie hasn’t changed. Think about it. What matters more? Your perception or what someone told you?
Question: is the existence of high dynamic range in a movie the same as HDR ? I think not. The ability to display HDR using a movie that is predominantly dark would require altering the movie's natural dynamic range. That is something that is contrary to the movie creator's vision. Therefore you can't specify that a particular movie is not 4K HDR without the visual context. For instance I would expect there to be a difference between a movie about the universe, and a movie about butterflies.
What I would like is for the studios to answer to this, because we can speculate until the cows come home but not until they explain that it's for money-saving reasons.. Ooops! The questions we should perhaps ask are: would the movies be better with "true" HDR? And.. would they be sold cheaper if the HDR sticker wasn't on there? As an honesty-issue, I absolutely feel that if the disc doesn't have HDR, it should NOT be sold with the sticker on there, but is it possible, that many customers would avoid a perfectly great-looking movie (Blade Runner 2049) if it honestly told u that it wasn't HDR?
This is so much more complex than fake or true HDR. This analysis is incomplete and throw oil on fire for nothing in my humble opinion. I have tried to give a long answer on comments under
Alot of 4ks are upscales only offering subtle upticks in definition.. alot of the time its the HDR applied that makes the most differences to the 4k format. The original Blade Runner and much older films such as The Wizard Of Oz and Spartacus are prime examples of the format put to maximum use though if filmakers are spending alot of time performing a wet scan from the original 35mm negatives in some cases and having the film colour corrected to best replicate the film as when it was first released then the results are truly rewarding but similar to the blu ray format, you have good discs and not so good discs. I feel it comes with the territory when really it shouldn't. All 4k films should be given the same time and attention but sadly this dosent happen. In some instances the HDR is subtle but can make a huge difference to the picture quality offering better to excellent black levels or in some cases such as this film Blade Runner 2049 it doesn't completely blow its 1080p counterpart out of the water when really it should. There's only a handful of films in my 4k collection that I can say are demo worthy. The rest can range from looking fairly good modest upgrades to pretty striking but only in some areas of the film. Recently Alita Battle Angel was reviewed by Vincent explaining that the 4k wasn't really much of an improvement over the blu ray. Clint Eastwood supervised the 4k scan of his film Unforgiven which has the majority of reviews saying that this also has only minor upticks in definition over an already impressive blu ray. Eastwood choosing to make his film look much darker in 4k especially the opening scenes and any interior scenes which tend to be only lit by dim wall lanterns or candles. Sometimes we cannot really argue with what the filmakers intended look is and alot of directors are now choosing their films to look more digital for 4k than filmic. An example of this was T2 where alot of DNR was applied by James Cameron and also the changes to the color timing. I always read the reviews especially if you are thinking of upgrading your blu ray disc to 4k. The format is still relatively expensive and coming up six years into the format it should be out of its infancy stage though clearly they're still debates and discussions concerning HDR, HDR10 and Dolby Vision. Tv specs and displays as well as the quality of a 4k player. It can be frustrating though lets not forget that the leap from blu ray to 4k isnt exactly the biggest leap as the massively significant leap from vhs to dvd and dvd to blu ray. I personally still think the 4k is the best way to watch a film over the 1080p though I cannot justify replacing my entire blu rays with 4ks as its just not affordable. If a 1080p has been given 5 stars for picture quality and only 4 stars on the 4k format this too can make you question why?. This is because they are rated or merited based on the capabilities of their formats. I think theres still alot of expectations for 4ks to be the front runner though on a lot of occasions they only win by a small margin. I dont think HDR is fake on the low end 4k discs such as BR 2049, Alita and Unforgiven, its probably more to do with the HDR not been applied as well as some of the other discs. I think its a bit sad that a more recent film only looks a little better than the 1080p, and what ive found with the 4k format is that the much older films are the real stand outs. If a film from 1939 can look so damn good on 4k then why does a film from 2016 have so many issues triumphing its blu ray!?
I see the value in verifying the technical specs of a release, but ultimately people are only going to go by what their eyes tell them. I just watched Twin Peaks Season 3 on HD Blu Ray (upscaled by my sony player, played on a 4K samsung tv) and a large majority of its scenes had me wondering how it could possibly look any better in Native 4K. And this is coming from someone who's critical of even some native 4k discs as being poorly done, I hail the likes of Dunkirk and Tenet as gold-standard 4K discs, and there's plenty of HD blu ray discs that are very noticeably just HD when played with the same setup. It all comes down to how well the source material was shot, the DI used, the compression or lack their of, and the codec (i.e., bottom line, is it a well done transfer). Some blu rays (Twin Peaks 3) looking better than some 4K's (V for Vendetta, King Kong) just calls attention to just how lazy some 4K disc transfers are. I was FLOORED with how amazing the new Twin Peaks looks in "mere" HD.
This is exceedingly dishonest and frustrating! We the consumers, invest a lot of money into our 4K TVs with HDR and other equipment and are deceived by the movie studios with fake HDR content which they charge us a premium for! If this bothers you, I encourage you to contact the studios and ask them to create REAL HDR content in their future releases!
thanks for the insight! I am planning to invest a 4K player for the first time since I own a blu-ray player for years. is time for an upgrade. I do already own some 4K titles into my collection. I am curious which 4K player I should get? I think I have an idea what player I am going to get is on Best Buy. is a Sony UBPX700 4K blu-ray player. I do already own a 4K tv all I need is the player. have a good one! -bernardo cisneros
I personally only purchase 4K movies IF the digital transfer is a true 4K scan... If I see it is a 2K upscale I pass... now I will be even more careful... jeez!
The lack of definitive standards has created this mess as well as "creative intent". The industry definitely has to be more transparent instead of slapping labels on things. HDR is now completely intertwined with 4K and consumers need to know what they are buying and what to possibly expect when HDR is attributed.
![Blade Runner 2049 4K Blu-ray Analysis: Should We Call It "Fake HDR"? [SPOILERS]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C2vsxdaRA7w/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you think about this 'fake' HDR business? Should the blu-ray companies be clearer in their messaging regarding HDR? Let me know in the comments below!
Reviewers need to include true HDR ratings for each 4K release.
Picture Detail Quality
LFE Quality
General Audio Quality
HDR Rating
I love 4K UHD but it is for a small market, for enthusiasts really and Disney already look to be dropping back catalogue releases on the format. Which is a shame because they own the entire fox studios library. Anyway my point is the format is in a delicate position and the last thing it needs is people complaining about a transfer because it didn’t hurt their eyes to view it.
Physical releases have had more issues than low hit numbers. Anyone remember perfect picture and sound thrown around in Bluray marketing?
How is this even a question? If they say it's HDR, then it should be HDR. This is why governments get involved in industries and regulate. Left on their own, companies will happily commit fraud. You're not going to convince me they don't know what they're doing. They know full well. It's dishonest, anti-consumer, and fraudulent. If they believed such a claim makes no difference, they'd not make it.
JG Ballard fraudulent? That’s a laugh how about you start with the TV manufacturers, most televisions that state the do HDR but can’t reach 600 nits then alone get near perfect black ( except for oled).
@@corporalhicks86 Oh dear, you've been triggered. How about you stop deflecting and stay with the topic at hand? The disc claims HDR, it is not HDR, how about you explain how that is not fraudulent? If you want to talk about TV manufacturers, start another topic. Although I will say, every single TV I've ever researched has published how many NITS is can achieve.
I thought HDR stood for a high dynamic RANGE, so from black in a ton of scales up to very white. I never was assuming that every bright scene in a movie should shine like a flashlight in my face.
The dark scene's in Blade Runner have so much detail because of all those different shades that would band together on for instance a DVD.
So yes the range is high but it doesn't mean that every disk should be high nits numbers to be shown the excellence of the format. I even think it would over-bloom the darker parts making them less visible.
Is that a way natural light works in the real world, yes, but a movie is an artistic presentation of a created reality so it doesn't need to go all bright when there is sunlight, narrowing your pupils after a dark scene and push you into darkness after the so called "bright" seen is over. It wouldn't support the story.
The movie is set in a neon cyberpunk city, so in my opinion it would be the perfect choice for it.
I think it's uncharitable to say that it's like having a flashlight shone in your eye. For many people, Mad Max Fury Road is a reference grade disc, for audio and visuals, and that hits 10k nits at some points.
@@1rnw792 90% of blade runner 2049 is black, there's absolutely no reason to go full bright, it'd be blinding
XO RNW being 10,000 nits isn’t what makes Mad Max a refence disc ( find a display that can display above 4,000), it does have some excellent bright highlights but I thought it was more due to the 10bit color and detail.
There are much more to HDR than specular highlights, but that is also true with the "ton of scales up to very white" (the stops). The problem is that the original Blade Runner has a much better HDR presentation, proving the sequel would benefit from the extra nits. Not a problem if that lack of luminance was a creative choice in Blade Runner 2049, but I agree with Vincent and Elliot that the issue is transparency, so the people can know that you don't need a premium consumer TV to see the full capability of this disks, you only need a 10bit 4K tv, the kind that is around since mid 2010's.
Agree
This is why I'm sticking with watching regular blu-rays on my 4k tv for a little while longer.
I've realized that older film shot on film yield the best HDR.
As long as DNR is not applied. lol
Is this 70mm/65mm classics or any older films? thanks
@@PlunderRoad All film yield great results if done with care
Very frustrating to spend the extra money, sometimes more than double the price of a standard BluRay, just to get something that's only a slight improvement if at all. Studios need to be held to a higher standard with their releases.
Indeed. That's part of the issue with 4K not growing as perhaps it could. The benefits of the format are shrouded in technical jargon and sometimes it feels like the companies are saying 'trust us, it's gonna be better than plain ol' blu-ray' while charging twice the price.
Quadrupling the overall resolution is more than just a slight improvement.
@@michaelleslie5312 digitally shot movies don't have quadruple the resolution
@@ZodsSnappedNeck You're talking about something completely different. He's talking about a standard BDR vs 4k. Quadruple.
Michael Leslie no, R Brooks is right. Upscaled 4K isn't the same thing as Native 4K. Not even close. They are creating 4x the resolution but they are doing it by filling pixels in places where they aren't when it was shot and finished at 2K. It's an elaborate "stretching" of the image.
However, if the image is true Native 4K then yes. Quadruple the pixel count, in every sense of the word.
Hi Elliot, I just found your channel and am not in the habit of commenting on RUclips. However, I appreciate the nuance you are looking for and wanted to share my opinion. Also, I'm amazed at how many civilised and intelligent comments there already are under this video. Congrats! You might be on to something.
I am a professional colorist myself and am aware that not everyone has the same level of knowledge on the topics of HDR and WCG. Hearing your surprise to the brightness levels in Blade Runner emphasises the need to separate tech specs from marketing.
If Roger Deakens wants BR2049 to not exceed 200nits than that's it. It actually makes this disc more valuable for me knowing that I'm watching the film as the artist intended it.
Now for the studio to add the HDR label to the box I find unacceptable. I agree that a film doesn't always need to use the maximum brightness that is available within the medium, you can use it creatively in certain scenes or choose to not use it at all. But don't apply the label. If the film features a wider color gamut but ot dynamic range, communicate that its WCG.
The industry, my industry, is dependent on you passionate collectors to contribute money to physical media development. There exists a fine level of trust. 4k disc collectors trust that they will get a premium product and agree to pay more then a subscriber to a streaming platform. When that trust fades, it is the beginning of the end for the medium.
That leaves me with 2 closing points.
1. We need better technical information for collectors. Not just its a 2k DI upscale or a 4K DI. At what brightness is it mastered? What color gamut was used? What resolution are the VFX? Most important, was the cinematographer or director involved with the HDR grade?
2. Blade Runner 2049 is a work of art. Roger Deakens is an artist. He wants you to see this film this way. That's why its perfect. My disc will be delivered this week.
Just my 2cts.
Keep up the great content!
Hello Remco! Thank you so much for the wonderfully detailed comment. I agree with both of your closing points - more info for collectors and Deakins is one of the greatest cinematographers working today. Thanks for watching, my friend :)
I think we all have to be cautious which 4k discs we invest in... I’ve seen some awful examples recently, colours that look overly saturated and unnatural and HDR cranked right up without any good reason... the recent Hitchcock 4k set is a good example - specifically, Rear Window - one of the worst cases I’ve seen. Also, Arrows king of New York looks to be pretty poor compared to the Blu. It just means we have to do extra research, which is a good thing for Movie nerds like us. In the case of Blade runner 4049 - I think it looks and sounds awesome, although HDR is misleading... but just as in photography, high levels of HDR isn’t always welcome.
Wow .. Spot On Remco on all points.. but there is always the catch 22. If we do not buy 4K discs then less money for the physical media dept. If we buy any ole 4k they "give us" then they wont uptick quality. Thats why i wait for 4k reviews. And I'm getting more and more hesitant to buy 4k unless there is also Audio upgrades to Dolby Atmos &/or DTS-X
>If Roger Deakens wants BR2049 to not exceed 200nits than that's it.
If you look at recent James bond films on the dark scenes, you would know Roger Deakens' "artistic" intent here is to be lazy on the shoots, With higher nits, the nit resolution would expose shoddy lightings, costumes, and environment and editing them out would be actual work. Its less Roger Deakens, more of an intent of the production to cut costs.
@@1Aquadon Exactly if the movie is going to be capped at 200nits then sell it as SDR, do not advertise or sell as if it is some special bluray edition of the movie.
I mentioned this on Vincent's channel differently than I will here more time perhaps better solution...
Monitor makers as well as TV makers have a standard for performance disclosure ex: HDR 10, HDR 400, HDR 600...
Film distributors for the sake of transparency need to adopt this model and can say remastered to HDR 400 or HDR 200 or HDR 1000 as per the creators intent.
Simple really
Better dark levels and shadow detail are also important not just nits, disney releases are not that impressive on 4k especially last jedi! great detailed video!
I agree. I did watch the new Mulan movie that can only be seen with the Premiere Access of Disney+ for now before I realized how this movie is actually being boycotted because of comments made by the female star of the movie. The movie itself is ok but the HDR and colors of this movie are great. Vincent did a review of this movie and I think the highest nits he saw on the movie was 700 nits. Definitely watch the video Vincent made in regards to this movie.
I am sorry but HDR is not only about peak levels of brightness, its about Having more levels of details, shades between black and max bright on a display. I also see the same thing about 2k DI, with 1080p 4:2:0 for bluray compared to 2k 4:4:4 you have more than twice the resolution.
How could you compare the range of color to the range of light. It's a dark movie?
@@lawrence-yx1ew The chroma downsampling was just another example of commonly misunderstood concept, same like every movie must hit 1000 nits for it to take advantage of HDR.
@@lawlorie24 Having 1000nits is not mandatory for a high quality production but it is a must for HIGH Dynamic Range... Truth to be told no one needs 1000nits or more but thats the selling point!!
My suggestion would be to develop a new certification which rates anything having luminance fluctuations between 300nits to 600nits as Enhanced Dynamic Range.
@@4rzaluz That is incorrect, for example pure grey in 8 bits gives you exactly 256 shades from peek white to black, in 10 bits you get 16348 shades, many of them well below 1000nits.Tthats why you can see things in the dark with HDR, no need for a encoding to reach 1000 nits to have benefits, look at Game of thrones season 8 episode 3 long night, almost unwatchable in SDR banding and just large blobs of black, look at it in HDR very different.
@@lawlorie24 As a Network Engineer im perfectly aware of how BIT 'depth' creates a particular volume of data. What you are failing to realize is that environment dictates performance..
Hardly anyone is watching the display at an underground media room.. display calibration varies even in a per-home basis.. You are making the assumption that every single panel has the same amount of microsteps to modulate luminance output.
Mine might be fake. I buy them off that dodgy stall on the market, 5 for a tenner!
😂😂
Damn, 5 for a tenner is a sweet come up. Hope you buy and resell them, better than any 9-5 lol
I think the problem with Vincent's blanket "Fake HDR" label on BR2049 and SW TLJ is he isn't considering the fact that HDR isn't just a designation for a UHD disc with nits higher than 200. It indicates a wider color gamut than SDR blu-ray as well. And it needs to be remembered that it's well within the director and DP's artistic intent. If Roger Deakins doesn't like his CLL above 200 nits in his films, but the disc is native 4k and has a wider color gamut than SDR discs, then it just becomes tricky to label and market the disc when the industry has these standards in place. Should WB alter the film and boost the CLL just to meet an arbitrary standard, despite Roger Deakins's intent? Absolutely NOT. Does not having a CLL above 200 nits disqualify BR2049 as a reference UHD disc? Definitely not. It's still a reference disc with insane levels of detail, depth and gorgeous colors. Not to mention a reference Atmos track. I appreciate your commentary on the nuance of the topic Elliot!
I have got the US Warner 4K edition. It's Rec.2020 and is in a 10k nits container. The max CLL is 181 and Max FALL is 73. Vincent needs to look at that version as it might be the more authentic Roger Deakins intent of the movie. The movie is
... is definitely dark but idk why stuff like neon lights push the nit count up.
WCG and HDR are different things. True HDR10 is a format that require both but it is advertised as HDR on the box and in the end this is just plain lying to customer.
Dolby Cinema Max CLL is 108 nits. That's also very important to mention.
Vincent is a good reviewer. But, his stances on hdr and what should be a standard is just his feelings. There is no real standard for what hdr should be
To me, a FAKE 4K disks means a lower resolution movie that was enlarged to be 4K instead of being from a 4K+ source.
In this subject there seems to be a lot of interchangeability between HDR (the variance between the darkest part of the image and the lightest) and peak brightness. The image can still have high dynamic range, many stops of exposure between the darkest and lightest colours, without having a very high peak brightness.
I don't think its really any kind of an issue, in most movies there are only usually a few spots in a few scenes that have very high peak brightness that you would notice. I think past a certain point you get the desired effect and having even brighter highlights doesn't really add anything to the enjoyment of the movie, and can actually look artificial if its overly brighter than real life.
I think Wide Colour Gamut, black levels, accurate colour, higher resolution, Atmos / DTS:X uncompressed audio are more useful/valuable for the 4K format. I think "HDR" is also generally used as a blanket term for WCG, high dynamic range, and peak brightness.
Vincent picked on BR 2049 having low peak brightness, but I think that movie (one of my favorite) looks superb in 4K regardless of its peak brightness and has a pretty muted colour scheme in line with the theme of the movie and doesn't really suit having super bright effects. SDR technically is 120 nits brightness so even so it is "proper" HDR as it is higher peak brightness than the blu-ray, even though its not super bright peak brightness.
I do agree with you when you say that WCG, black levels, accurate colors, higher resolution and the better audio options also play a role in selecting a 4K movie but don't think you are accurate about 120+ nits being HDR. I can't remember which video Vincent was talking about the HDR whitelist papers mentioning that HDR should be 203+ nits at a minimum. Vincent doesn't have that many videos about HDR and the specific nits of the 4K movie he is testing so I would definitely watch all of his videos about the topic. Very informative.
Thank you. I'm not alone ^^
@@toddharrington1582 HDR has no standardization. You ''can'' reach 1000 nits, but it does not mean that you should. Movies are still graded at DCI-P3 SDR color profile for movie screenings. Dolby Cinema can reach around 108 nits...
Low max brightness doesn't mean no HDR
If the picture's max brightness is always within the SDR, how can it be considered HDR? I'm genuinely trying to learn more about it, so if you can explain, that would be great
@@ElliotCoen High dynamic range doesn't mean high brightness or luminosity, it means that the shadow or colour range within the picture contains more detail or more nuance. For example, you can say that black and white is low dynamic range (just to shades/colours, and even if the white is bright as heck), but from black to white with all the shades of grey (hundreds) in between means high dynamic range. I've been a photographer for more than 40 years, and in that world this it what it means to have high dynamic range. Brighter whites is a very strange way of measuring the dynamic range.
@@ElliotCoen what he said^
There's a lot more info in other comments, but it's as simple as brightness being but one factor when deciding if something is "fake" HDR. There's no standardisation, and nor should there be. If a particular film never goes above 200 bits, but takes advantage of the much wider colour gamut available, it's still clearly not SDR.
I think this issue is less about whether these studios are lying to you or trying to pass "fake" discs, and more them not properly defining what the HDR badge means in a way that the average consumer can easily understand
Cheers to both of you for the replies. It's helped me understand a lot more!
@@ElliotCoen Easy take 8 bit RGB, it only gives you 256 shades of pure grey, increase that to 12 bit you have 4096 shades of pure grey, many of those greys would be under 1000 nits
Same thing with 3D. 95% of 3D movies are NOT recorded in 3D, but only later converted in 3D. That's why 3D has failed...
The reason 3d failed is every major studio had their own version of 3d and you had to wear their glasses to watch their film, not all 3d glasses and films were the same, so you had to make sure that your 3d glasses suited the 3d film you want to watch, that’s what I was told by somebody who sells TVs, blurays etc
Hi everyone,
I think it still is a reference disc for that film specifically. See, Roger Deakins was the Cinematographer. He scaled the film prints, digital masters and the 4k Blu Ray to have the exact measures of HDR applied as you see on the disc. He personally doesn't use too much high level of HDR whites and brightness because they level out detail eventually. However the main reason, is to maintain the scope and look of traditional celluloid.
So its all an artistic choice, therefore reference quality (of this film not the 4k BluRay format). Other films do make use of the full capabilities of the format.
So Not Fake
My understanding was that HDR discs were able to take advantage of your television's ability to generate a range of brightness per pixel to allow the viewer to see more natural and realistic colours. Even though some discs might not go above a certain brightness, it doesn't mean that the same technology being used is not presenting the viewer with a colour that could not be achieved on a SDR Blu-ray. Once again, that's just my understanding, I'm not too sure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This happened in the 3D market also... Many films were not shot in 3D, but converted...
Most of the converted films looked poorer to native 3D! (Titanic was a rare exception here)
YET, the cinemas still charged an extra £2.00 to watch the 3D version!!
The differences Elliot talks about are more subtle, and ultimate brightness of nits can't be the only benchmark!!
The conclusion should be that you shouldn't care whether it actually has high dynamic range range or not, but to watch the movies and enjoy them. If they look good to your eyes, that's what matters. You can't go back and say, even though I previously said this specific movie was good, now I'm saying that because of these scientific tests that the movie isn't good after all.
The biggest pro of 4K UHD is that it can bring "old" 35mm film on a disc, on your big flatscreen and look as good as it did in the theater.
I am far more sceptical on a lot of modern, digital movies. They are mastered, somtimes even shot at 1080p. 4K UHD is little more then a glorified upscale job to this movie. And it is here that HDR has to play its marketing role: "Look this is so much better then the standard blu-ray, it has HDR!"
With the current big price gap between standard and UHD Blu-ray, you should be sceptical towards what you are buying.
LOTR, shot on 35mm = 4K UHD will bring the theater version in your living room
The Avengers = digital 1080p, let your 4K player upscale the standard Blu-ray and you will get close to the UHD Blu-ray, for far les money...
So, if the whole film was set in a coal mine lit by candles you'd think the presentation was faulty because the candles don't blind you? What part of a well lit movie is going to pummel your eyes with +200 NITS?
I'm with Roger Deakins on this. Surely it's about finding the right level to BALANCE the colours and contrast, no?
I thought Blade Runner 2049 looked absolutely stunning (and so did you), and happily I never once felt that I needed sunglasses. I think the people who light films at the level of something like Blade Runner would know their craft. The fact that you consider it to be a reference work should tell you all you need to know. It IS a reference work. It does look amazing. It does NOT use HDR. Ergo - HDR is not necessary to make a reference quality film.
I strongly suspect that you don't actually understand that more NITS does not equal better. The best film is one that's balanced to represent the whole range of colours and brightnesses available WITHIN THE PHOTOGRAPHY. You can't ask for more brightness than was included in the making of the image.
Nor would it make sense to balance the brightest part of the Blu-ray image at 400 NITS, because then the darks way too bright. The only way to fix that would be to completely rebalance the look of the film. To do that JUST to get the numbers some people want would be a big mistake, and it would look awful.
[In a way this whole discussion seems like the visual equivalent of the volume wars in music production. Exactly the same issue, exactly the same range of misunderstandings.]
Glad to see you uploaded this!
I genuinely think people trying to argue that it's an artistic choice is such a cope, you're really telling me that having a lower nit grade for lightsabers is come kind of creative masterstroke?
Another thing that you didn't touch on is the colour gamut, HDR discs are meant to have WCG, they don't have that either.
Thanks for the support as always! True, I didn't touch on the colour gamut this time, and I should have. Maybe in the next video!
@@ElliotCoen Pleasure as always! I was wondering, have you thought about creating a discord server?
Vincent just reviewed The Matrix 4k BD and it is what 4k movies should be. Color reaches the edges of rec 2020 and up to 1000 nits. This is what i would consider a reference 4k HDR movie should be.
@@MrIagainsti120 Of course this movie is bright and green. That's a creative intent which utilise the whole HDR palette. But do all the film utilise that much the HDR palette? NO. Do a content need to be graded with high values? NO Do all movies should looks like Matrix to be validated as HDR movies? HDR is complex and so much more than nit values. Those videos are misleading people. Focussing on a incomplete analyse. Color grading is an art and each film deserve a special treatment wich may not use all HDR palette. Again an 4K HDR blu ray does not only offers High Dynamic range. There is no plot, no conspiracy no fake HDR, only Fake drama
@@LELABODEJAY if it does not use luminesce passed SDR range then it is not HDR and should not be advertised as such and should just be labeled as just a 4k blu ray. I'm fine with them using HDR10 as a container but it's still just SDR in a HDR format. WCG is not HDR and HDR is not WCG. If you want to have low standards and are ok with movie studios lying to you that's your problem not mine.
If it's not HDR, don't sell it as HDR. And it seems making the logo exceed 200 nits might be an attempt to avoid legal action.
I still haven't adopted 4K but I don't like the idea of this extreme brightness. Couldn't a disc peak at 200 NITS but then have a perfect black level that only HDR can achieve? I like the idea of proper black levels, but the idea of eye scorching brightness kind of puts me off. I guess I need to get a proper demonstration of a good HDR disc to see it for myself.
Or is the extreme brightness a trick to make the black level look comparitvely more impressive?
since the release of 4K, regular blu ray authoring has declined incredibly ! la la land blu ray is so veiled and blurry that I thought my projector lamp was failing. the same thing happened when I played the Whiplash blu ray. disgusting !
This was a very interesting video!
Thank you for your insights!
I’ve been thinking a lot about HDR and I compared my Blu-rays and 4K Blu-Rays side by side and I didn’t really see the HDR. In most cases the Blu-ray disc was more vibrant than the 4K. I thought maybe my TV wasn’t good enough to display it correctly, because it’s not an OLED or QLED TV.
You need a premium or high tier display to really see the HDR impact
Really great commentary on the subject! If the film looks sharper and I can see more detail and the colour is more vibrant than its blu ray counterpart, I'm more than happy with my purchase and not really bothered if its HDR or not. However it shouldn't be labelled as such as a selling point, although that's never why I've bought 4K discs in the first place. Great video pal
Bit late a comment perhaps, but just now stumbled upon this video. Appreciate the nuance.
The trouble with 4K is that there's really no consumer-level equipment that can show all aspects of it, apart from the resolution. And at the same time, the resolution part is often where the discs themselves are effectively limited, as many films have 2K intermediates and were upscaled. Or the films were scanned from noisy analogue films, in which case 4K makes this very apparent. In any case, the resolution is not necessarily the thing that makes 4K shine against Blu-rays.
If we talk about dynamic RANGE, I think that Vincent (of HDTVTest) is completely right. This is about brightness levels. If a movie does not employ this high range, it should not have the HDR sticker. Filmmakers intent or not, I find it a bit silly to say that you're against high dynamic range. This is not about blinding people with an overly bright image. You are not going to leave anyone in the dark that has a TV that cannot handle the complete range possible. This is about specular highlights, and about being able to see details in a dark room AND through the bright windows. If a TV cannot handle those highlights, you'll basically be left with what you got with SDR in the first place, so you don't really loose anything. But if companies don't maintain those highlights themselves everybody looses, also the ones that bought those expensive TVs that can handle it.
It also find it silly to say that lightsabers, lamps, and the sun are not that bright. That it is creative intent to display those in a muted fashion. Well, you can, but I think that would be rather exceptional for a movie if that needs to convey a realistic image. Especially sci-fi filmmakers go at great lengths to show a 'realistic' image, so why not use the tools you have?
Then colour gamut. Many modern TV's can display a wider gamut than Rec709, although I think Rec2020 is still out of reach. It could be that Blade Runner 2049 looks better than the Blu-ray because of that, in combination with the higher resolution. So it might still be a good disc to buy. Unfortunately colour gamut is probably the thing that you'll notice the least while watching the movie. The human eye is quite capable of compensating for colour in a less than optimal situation and these wider gamuts are all in a range where the perceived colour difference becomes very small. It seems to me that the advantage of 4K in this area is rather that companies have taken the time and effort to actually correct the colours on the disc, and not so much that Blu-ray wouldn't be able to show better colours either. Or maybe they just changed the colours a bit in a way that we think is more pleasing. All in the name of creative intent. I mean: if resolution and HDR are not really apparent, you have to do something to make the 4K stand out.....
I myself probably won't buy the 4K version of Blade Runner 2049. I have the 3D version and I am not going to shell out again. I am looking for a device that supports my 3D discs since my old TV died. I hate the lack of options in that area. Yes, I tried some beamers. But that's a different story,
Well this is a tricky one. Firstly let's clarify we aren't talking about fake 4K... The resolution is not what we are questioning here but purely the HDR component of what a 4K CAN offer. I'm a bit torn here because like some of the cinematographers I don't necessarily think a disc HAS to have a massive bright and vibrant HDR .... And although I have not received it yet I'm wondering if the Ghost In The Shell 4K will end up in that category for me once I see it given some of the reviews out there saying it's over the top and not true to the source material and gritty dystopian vision. I've compared the Blade Runner 2049 Blu ray and 4K and to me the latter looks far more detailed and even brighter/colourful to MY eyes but it's certainly not over the top so maybe yeah, they did artistically dial it down or just not include HDR at all. Though my HDR light comes on when I play it in my 4K player. The real question is whether the studios are being purposely disingenuous to make 4K discs sound sexier than they may actually be in some cases. Its obviously not across the board as for example if you compare Bram Stokers Dracula on Blu ray to 4K it's night and day improved on the 4K disc. Perhaps the labels should be forced to put a HDR rating on their discs.... Standard or High (or none?) and also the NIT rating should perhaps be included to back it up. Like Jeff from films at home for me it's more about if I think it looks fantastic and/or improved or not via the eye test. I'd never get as technical as some people do on this but at the same time it does concern me that these HDR claims are made so broadly but now we have some technical evidence that this is perhaps a little bit sneaky and not true in some cases where they claim otherwise. So THAT I do have an issue with. In the meantime though most of the 4k / Blu ray side by side eye tests I've done have been heavily in favour of the 4K (with some exceptions of course such as overuse of DNR). At the end of the day as long as it looks filmic and true to the source that is my main concern and overuse of DNR concerns me more than lack of HDR. However I also think the studios should not BS their consumers and should be clearer on their discs from now on with some extra technical detail around the HDR applied, not just about the source for the film and what res it was scanned etc.
Vincent is so funny ... love his channel.
Guy has the most boring voice ever. Sounds like he has a cold.
The RANGE is high. That doesn't mean the nits have to be high. This isn't a "gotcha" moment so much as it's an opportunity for people to learn what HDR even means.
WCG is different from HDR. HDR10 and DV require HDR and WCG together. Video with WCG with SDR packed into a HDR10/DV shell is just false advertising. HDR strictly concerns the luminance of the video. In the HDR10 this is between 0-10000 nits and DV 0-20000 nits. As long as the values fall between these and exceed 200 nits it is HDR. If the values only fall between 0-200 nits it is SDR. If the Video is SDR it should not be advertised as HDR but as Wide Color Gamut. Its fine if they have it in a HDR10 shell but but again should not be advertised as HDR. If you search for High-Dynamic-Range Video on Wikipedia you can get more information on it. I just dont like false advertising and being lied too.
Dude you have a great conversation going on in the comments!! This is what we need, to all talk about how we feel about 4k! Dont be sorry if you recommend 2049, if it looked great to you thats all that matters brother!
Yes at least if we are not agree people here are well educated and not aggressive... But those video are to my point of view toxic. They are base on uncomplete analysis and everybody takes what he says for the absolute truth... Unfortunaltly his point of view is quite oriented and for me and lots of pros not accurate
I usually check reviews from blu-ray dot com before I make purchasing decisions. They usually include technical information and also reference previous blu ray releases in their section on 4K video quality. But I agree, if we're not being told the whole truth then something needs to change.
About The Last Jedi, when they re-released the 4K Blu Ray for The Skywalker Saga box set, they dropped Dolby Vision, so they changed it up. Is it an improvement?
No my 4K discs are not fake. Blade Runner 2049s DP Roger Deakins intended for the 4K and HDR transfer to look exactly the way it does. It is an amazing transfer and proves that high nits are not required. The 10bit colour, 3.4K DI and high bit rate give this transfer a stable, detailed and vibrant appearance. Sadly Vincent has no appreciation for Intent and compares a excellent transfer like this to turning the lights off.
He is not a movie fan. He is a fan of displays 😅
What about the colour gamut? HDR has 10bit colour range, whereas SDR only has 8bit. You can clearly see this difference between HD and 4K movies
I have a lot of respect for Vincent and I truly trust and believe berthing he say... So if he said they not true hdr blueray... Then it's not.... He has equipment that clearly show that don't... There isn't nothing to argue about
Great video, mate. I look at the topic this way: 4K, with its higher bitrate and storage capacity, will always mean, at the very least, less compression and better visuals in motion. Regarding HDR, I have no issue if Roger Deakins decides not to colour grade with an HDR spec in mind. The benefits of the format extend beyond HDR. However, Warner Bros. should absolutely not slap the HDR sticker on the disc if that is the case. If everything is on the up and up, I can decide my actions in good faith as a consumer. If I'm lied to, then that choice has been taken away from me. And that is absolutely wrong.
Can we sue them?
Elliot: "Don't boycott these."
Also Elliot: "Maybe we shouldn't buy these. "
The Last Jedi has a particularity : it's in HDR10 on Blu-Ray but Dolby Vision on Disney+. I'm curious to know the differences between those versions.
I must say I watched Vincent's channel before the latest videos, and I trust him.
Yes, he's earned my trust over the years too. It's no surprise he has a lot of followers based on his knowledge!
@@ElliotCoen don t want to be disrespectfull but followers does not means quality. he has a point of view. Does not mean he is right and that there is no other explanations
@@LELABODEJAY Vicent is a calibrator, he is not a director of photography... He is setting up displays and his point of view in regards of artistic choices means nothing.
I wouldn't feel embarrassed by recommending Blade Runner 2049 as a reference disk. No matter what nits it hits, the movie is absolutely beautiful to look at and really shows off what 4k is capable of in the hands of professionals. With all due respect for Vincent and the work he does, at the end of the day, all I'm looking for is an excellent picture and great sound. If they can provide those things over and above the Blu-Ray version, then I'm willing to hand them my money.
Having said that, I do feel it's unethical to advertise a feature that isn't actually available on the disk. This may all come down to a lack of communication between the marketing and technical departments, who knows? However, now that this issue has been brought out into the open for discussion and debate, the film studios should re-evaluate and try to come up with an industry-standard for a disk to be listed as 4K (4k scans only, no upscaling please) and HDR features.
Indeed.
They aren’t “fake 4K discs”. The resolution is 4K. It just lies about HDR.
It advertises HDR, but has SDR in an HDR container.
Btw- HOW did you not notice the lack of HDR? It’s pretty obvious.
Hi nice content💪👑 but anyway curious ive been buying blu ray over 4k starting to regret it think im making a mistake by doing this feel like i might be wasting my money since there's the 4k discs is 4k really that much better looking then regular blu ray? thanks buddy
hello, I just bought a 4K UHD blu ray Resident Evil Vendetta film. is this fake 4K?
Hello. I do not own that particular film, but 4kmedia.org/real-or-fake-4k/ says that it is upscaled and not true 4K. I hope that helps :)
@@ElliotCoen thank you but is that website valid?
What equipment do you use to record your videos? The production quality looks top-notch!
I was under the impression that HDR wasn’t as much about the brightest moments of the film and more about the difference in level between the brightest areas of a shot and the darkest areas. So the bright parts look bright and the dark parts look dark, even on the same frame.
This whole issue is a byproduct of the fetishisation of what is essentially a gimmick. HDR is something that can be taken advantage of, if the DP wants to... but many 4k reviewers, especially on RUclips, fetishise HDR as if it's a must have feature... and that is probably because it has been marketed as such. And the more it's marketed as a feature, the more pressure studios are under to implement it... irrespective of whether the DP intended to employ it. And so films are being re-graded, sometimes contrary to the cinematographer's intentions. Revealing shadow detail that was never meant to be revealed, for example. This is what happens, when these technologies are fetishised by tech-heads. For me, 4k is about increased resolution and detail, and the real scandal isn't lack of HDR... it's 4k discs that aren't *actually* 4k at all! Many 4k discs are 2k. And yet even RUclips reviewers seem to that's all cool. Many 4k discs with 2k DIs are reviewed as looking GREAT by RUclips reviewers. This boggles my mind. Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Shutter Island. on and on, films that were finished in essentially 1080p resolution, are sold as 4k discs, and they have practically zero increased resolution. That's the con
All of this is so confusing. 4K UHD HDR. What's what, and which is which? I thought the resolution was the point, then that color deepness, which is caused by a darker picture, which is what HDR mode on tvs do. But I've now been told it's the brightness of the brighter highlights...?
I suppose darkening the image should make the brighter areas shine, but this takes away detail in the shadows known as black crush... I don't know anything, and I'm trying to educate myself, but I seem to be hitting barriers every time I find something new, the old is claimed to be irrelevant.
There are a number of technical aspects about 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays to understand, and I encourage you to research and understand more about them before jumping to conclusions. 4K resolution is the number of pixels used to represent a rectangular image: 3,840 wide x 2,160 high. 4K Blu-ray Discs are using that 4K resolution for whatever the source image was created in...whether the source was greater than 4K (like shot in 5K or 8K or on film) or less than 4K (shot in 2K or 1080HD). But the quality of each of those 8,294,400 pixels is influenced by a host of factors from the color space and its dynamic range capability, to the bitrate and compression algorithm for the video codec. 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays are built around the new H265 video codec which has a number of benefits over the H264 video codec standard of 1080 Blu-ray Discs and the internet/RUclips. The codec can be understood somewhat as the “philosophy” for which information in a particular pixel is thrown out or how it is interpreted when it is compressed so that the film can be fit on a Blu-ray Disc. All videos we are watching at home on discs or on streaming are compressed, whereas the master of a film is not as compressed and has a lot more original information. So an uncompressed 2K DI for a film is interpreted in different ways for the final compressed video on a 4K or 1080 blu-ray. So the newer H265 codec of the 4K discs can provide at times a better quality pixel than the H264 codec on a 1080 disc. this is just one example of many of why a 4K version of a 2K/1080 film can still be seen as better than a blu-ray version. Even if both are coming from the same original 2K DI master source.
@@BSwenson I'll ignore the underlying condescension of your reply, and take it at face value. The fact is that there might be a tiny marginal improvement in quality in representing a 2k DI with a new codec... however, the underlying reality is that the source is still 2k, and convoluted incantations you intone to explain away the increase in quality is largely bollocks. Yes; the 2k has a tiny improvement in terms of colour space and sharpness, but, it's a 2k source, and therefore not native 4k, and therefore a total, and borderline dishonest misrepresentation of the resolution of the content. And people are catching on. They're comparing Blu-Rays with UHD discs and noticing a tiny resolution increase when a 2k DI is used. It's a ripoff. No amount of technical convolutions will persuade me otherwise.
Buy or don’t buy 4K discs. As someone who makes a living in editing and producing video, I was just trying to explain a fuller picture of 4K beyond just the 4K resolution. But if you take knowledge as condescending, ok. There are multiple reasons one might want a 4K disc, from resolution to color to HDR to a new sound mix like Atmos or DTS:X. Also, the upscaling algorithm onto a 4K disc is different and can be higher quality than the live on-the-fly upscaling by a 4K TV of a1080 Blu-ray Disc. The original Source is important, but it’s not just about resolution.
@@BSwenson It is about resolution. That's what 4K means. Your attempts to obfuscate this by dressing up upscales as somehow a valid presentation of 4K discs doesn't wash. 4K discs are marketed as having 4K resolution, and upscales are simply put, a totally dishonest misrepresentation of the inherent benefit of that disc. Yeah, you might buy a 4k disc for HDR only, you might also buy it as a coffee mug coaster - why someone buys something is totally irrelevant. It is being marketed as one thing, when in actual fact, it's another. it really is that simple. I'm an editor, so you can pretty much stick your condescending "As someone who makes a living..." bullshit up your arse.
I don't believe in letting other people change your mind about your own viewing experiences. To me, if it looks fantastic, it looks fantastic, I don't care for the technical details behind it. I've done many comparisons between the blu ray and 4K versions of films I own and I can 100% say that the 4K versions look better, blacks are deeper, whites are brighter, sound is often upgraded, colours are brighter and pop off the screen more.
Obviously some 4Ks are not well made but even poorly made ones are often better than their blu ray counterparts. All I know is what I see, and what I see is that 4K is the ultimate format and it's a fantastic viewing experience, especially if you have a surround sound system.
Looking at some comparisons and such, it does look to me like the 4K of Blade Runner 2049 still looks nicer than the Blu Ray (and there is more to HDR than just purely the Nits number, such as black levels, color range, etc. that make it look really nice) so I do think the 4K is still better. However, I do think that in advertising they should be more honest/clear but of course their goal is to sell the product and they want to say whatever they can say that makes their product look/sound better, but if that means giving blatantly false or deliberately misleading information then that is not right (though unfortunately deliberately misleading information has been rampant in advertising for decades). I haven't seen those "test" videos you mentioned though so I don't know what kind of tests he did or if anyone else has done similar tests on these discs, so I'm going to have to look up some more information about that.
All this being said though, I'm not sure if completely "boycotting" 4K discs is the best way to go about this. We need to continue supporting physical media and get our movies in the highest quality we can before it's all shoved into streaming where it's overly compressed, lower bitrate, spread across a million different expensive subscription services, you don't actually OWN a copy of it and it can be taken away at any time, etc.
I thought the whole "real vs. fake" 4K was whether the source material was a 4K+ source or a 4K upscale from a 2K source. I didn't think the nits thing mattered because some movies are darker than others. I'm a data snob and want reference quality with all my stuff so that's what I'm concerned about.
Even though I do not think studios should miss label products I have to say it would not affect my buying decision whatsoever as long as they did a great job on the transfer as a whole
I can see a clear difference. The shadow detail, dark scenes textures and colour pop look far better than the blu ray. Maybe my oled and settings enhance this?
Why would a movie like blade runner need to hit 1000 nits, its all in a very dark neo noir type environment, its not like a movie where someone is traveling to the sun.
We are still at a fairly early stage with 4K. If you look back at the DVD and Bluray era, a lot of the early discs aren't that great compared to what followed in quality. How many discs that you bought early did you rebuy in these formats. HDR of course makes great promises but any experienced buyer will recognize we are at the beginning of a generation, that the best of now isn't near what the peak will be in a few years. Dolby vision and HDR10 are already pushing the format beyond HDR, which feels tame compared to them. NITS might be important to ensure good colour brightness but a balanced colour palate is more important. The balanced of colour and shadow shot to shot so the film is not unbalanced are really the main factors. There are 4k's like the meg which pushed the colours so high that it was distracting to the film. Many Disney films meanwhile seem undercooked. (Star Wars in $K is all over the place for quality). But you have some great transfers from Kubrick films such as 2001, and The Shining, you have the new Flash Gordon remaster, Jaws, the new Crash 4K remaster, 1917, which show a range of terrific transfers of different styles of films. Battle Angel Alita is dull on HDR but its HDR 10 is gorgeous if you have that capability with your tech. I didn't spend a fortune but managed to get some decent equipment. You are gonna gets duds like terminator 2 4K as well as the peaks. There's also gonna be a lot of middle ground 4k's that are fine but based on films that were never shot with the greatest care. 4K can't perform miracles. MY advice to any friend that asks about 4K is that you don't need it but its nice to have. Don't treat it like a miracle but as a nice addition to viewing.
This is why tvs native contrast ratio is so vastly more important than disk mastering. This is why my Plasma, my zt60 looks better playing back 4k disk than my high end Sony x930c. The biggest contributing factor in picture quality will always be your panels native contrast. True black levels vs brights. Oled and plasma will look better with all content. Your screen will always matter more than your disk. Invest in quality tvs.
Isn’t this like the same thing with companies who put the hdr label on their 4k blu-rays which are not actually native 4k but only just upscaled to 4k
That's strange, because I own both 'Blade Runner 2049' and 'The Last Jedi' on 4K. I think hey both look excellent on my 4K TV, especially the latter. The Throne Room scene looks fantastic, whilst the dystopian Los Angeles Orange glare of the former looks spectacular!!! That's just my perception of it though.
Honestly, I thought with 3D now pretty much obsolete in the physical media market, companies decided to use 4K as a marketing ploy more so than there actually being improved quality of picture.
HDR≠UHD
Would you still buy it? Blade runner is worth it for resolution and art direction alone.
This doesn't surprise me because I haven't noticed a significant improvement on the HDR discs I have either. I think it's one of those deals where people go into a viewing with the concept in their head that it will of course be better and that affects their perceptions. It's like the wine "connoisseurs" who get fooled by cheap wine.
All I know is BR2049 looks and sounds amazing on 4k. In the end that is all I care about.
I have many 4K discs, however only titles with 'Native 4K Scans'. This justifies my scepticism to a large degree, i.e. in many cases there is little perceptible difference between the 2K and 4K. For those reasons I have yet to own any Marvel Universe 4K discs.
Just a thought, even a true 4K scan/transfer of a 'Letterboxed' or 2.40:1 aspect ratio movie is presented, is that the real-deal by definition when almost a third of the horizontal lines are black??
Soooo. What I've heard, and in my understanding when buying 4k HDR movies, you're not looking for higher nits, its more about better tone mapping and a wider color gamut. an example I was given was there is more detail in flames from an explosion on HDR then on SDR. My example would be from a movie called the Natural. When Roy Hobbs hit the ball into the stadium lights, on SDR the flames are washed out, on HDR there is so much detail...looked really good
This is maybe the reason why the Criterion Collection hasn't launched any 4K movies yet. They know a quality production and respect the author's choice for lighting, and shadows. This Blade Runner movie now has the same price for Blu-ray and for '4K' in amazon. I don't know for how long has been the case. When I bought it I just went for the '4k'. I can't compare them myself. That's the only test I would trust fully. Comparisons made by other channels in youtube, for this movie and others, it looks that HDR means: shifted color palette, more color saturation, and lighter scenes where there were shadows before. But again, I can't fully trust them. Lack of trust is a major problem for the 4k HDR system.
Seems like newer movies don't improve much in 4k. The older movies shot on film benefit the most from 4k (spartacus/Lawrence of Arabia).
Hi, I'm enjoying your videos and decided to comment on this one because the entire HDR on UHD discs has been quite puzzling. I think one of the big issues is that most people today still have Rec709 screens at home and one would need a true Rec2020 screen for HDR to matter. Additionally, it seems also a lot of TV's have been sold with the HDR label but they are not really Rec2020. I'm not at sure how players and possibly even cables factor into this. To me this means though that "HDR" is a marketing gimmick that really doesn't mean anything (it may in the future). All I can say is that I hardly buy any UHD discs since Close Encounters was a huge disappointment.. Someone cranked the chroma and the contrast way up during that transfer and any SD copy has more dynamic range.
It would be great if someone with more insight on hardware requirements could shed more light on this entire HDR thing.
"fake" isn't an accurate term. That was meant to describe functionally broken HDR like what Red Dead Redemption 2 launched with. Even Vincent Teoh has abandoned that word as part of his analysis.
However, it's worth being aware of the various combinations of metadata, max brightness etc to know whether your TV and/or player can give you a worthwhile experience. That is if you're an overly cautious customer who needs guidance post-release.
There are also some discs that might very well be broken, fake HDR, but it won't just be any disc that doesn't exceed 200 ish nits. It's more about functionality than bare faced numbers.
it wasn't vincent that did the test, it was his friend he just made a video on it. also HDR is not just about light output its about color reproduction.
I watched TLJ and TROS on 4k disc this week and was wondering why the pictures looked terrible. Now I know why. Shame on me for thinking Disney would put some effort in their physical products.
If a particular filmmaker/director isn’t a fan of HDR, their films shouldn’t be marketed with HDR label on physical media and streaming. We should care about creator’s intent. I am a fan of movies first and foremost and displays second. TV’s look better than ever. Enjoy the movies without measuring every damn thing.
I can understand why Vincent would say that because most are up scaled to 4K and are not in HDR at all and some older titles were scan as a 2k intermediated and should be higher HDR and brighter
I'm more interested in the better resolution that 4K provides over Std Blu-Ray & DVD.
I'll agree that advertising HDR on a movie and not actually delivering it is a bit sneaky and ethically dodgy.
But if I enjoy the look of a movie and it doesn't have a high HDR rating, I'm not exactly gonna lose any sleep over it.
Some movies are shot to have a dark & moody look so shouldn't be registering high HDR levels at all.
I'm probably more annoyed by things like 2K movies being upscaled and sold as 4K content or bad noise reduction on movies shot using film (digital smoothing).
I'm no expert but I thought HDR isn't only about brightness. I thought 4K HDR is supposed to provide better shadow detail and wider color gamut too, which is maybe where movies like Blade Runner 2049 are actually using HDR. I recently watched BR2049 and thought it looked amazing. I don't even have a great HDR TV but I could still tell that HDR was making a difference with things like color and less banding/more detail in shadow areas.
I mean yeah it would be nice if companies were forthcoming by what they mean by HDR on their discs and whether they utilize higher peak brightness, but I think HDR discs still helps movies like BR2049 or Interstellar (idk if that film has been tested yet for "true" HDR)
I think the DP & Director's vision for the look of the film should be what matters most. Roger Deakins talked about doing an HDR grade for Blade Runner 2049 on his podcast and specifically mentioned a shot with Ryan Gosling in silhouette and the window behind was too bright to look at in HDR, so they brought it down because it wasn't his intention for the film. Films are creative experiences and not just technical readouts. It's still an HDR bluray in my opinion because they've specifically created that version in the DI. Not every film is going for the brightest highlights and the deepest blacks. Sometimes a DP will want a flatter image to help tell the story.
That's interesting! As an example of creative intent on the other end of the scale, I offer up "Solo (a Star Wars story)" on UHD, specifically scenes on Dryden Vos yacht where characters are in near-silhouettes, or at least lit very minimally against very bright backgrounds (scenes on t- it's quite painful to watch at times.
Chee-Meng Chuah Good to know. I’ll have to rent the 4K disc and revisit it. Haven’t seen it since the theater. I’m pretty sure Roger said it was actually painful to his eyes to look at the window.
Glad to read this... Movie is creative intent not nits value. HDR is so much more than nits values. All this drama is stupid
The Color Out Of Space 4K is one of the more honest releases.
Its a very nice transfer with HDR.
That's one I still need to get. I've heard good things about the movie!
@@nazarinprod No HDR on Color Out Of Space 4K.
@@2Timothy2.15 I know. My brain said something and my fingers wrote with rather than without. It's a lovely transfer
I'm way more interested in HDR for the number of total colors - true Dolby Vision having 68 Billion colors is way more important to me than how bright the scene can get. Although there is definitely a point where the brightness level effects the colors, but at a very high nit those colors will be distracted by the brightness.
Excellent video. The only 4K discs I buy r movies shot on film. I would like to hear how a restoration of like Beetlejuice or Jaws ranges in Nits. Thanks again.
So what to do? Just buy movies that you are sure are from a 4K scan?
Yeah unfortunately I bought the 4K Blade Runner 2049 disc before seeing Vincent's video. I was thinking about all the neon signs and holograms of the city in HDR, it was a dream.
The discs are not fake 4K discs unless you call upscaled 4K fake. With or without HDR present a 4K resolution is still 4K.
Fake HDR is more proper as accusation there.
If you buy a movie in 4K with HDR you do and should expect that these are the settings for the main movie entirely. Not just menus or a logo. All else should be called what it is. False claims.
If the 4K of Blade Runner 2049 does not reach HDR Sony shoukd remaster and send out new discs to all customers who bought them thinking that the product they buy is as claimed.
Just what we shoukd and can demand for the money we spend on them.
Disney is too big for its own good. Not much care put into 4K there since they just want to spread the Disney Plus streaming service. There the 4K contrnt most likely will look as crappy as on all the other streaming channels due to low bitrate. Sucks.
Put demands on Sony and others. If we buy and not complain they will not change attitude. Money is power. Dont waste yours on low quality products claiming they are more.
Doesn't bother me, I've bought 4Ks that I know don't have HDR (& not advertised as such) as long as it looks good I don't give a hoot about all the technical specs
In my opinion, there’s definitely a case here of falsification by the studios. By law, you can’t sell a product as having a particular feature and then not including it. The studios are charging substantially more for 4k discs. When those discs are not what they purport to be it’s quite simply a breach of trading laws and as such, should be looked into.
From the perspective of the artist, HDR is just another tool to be utilized at their discretion. From the perspective of some consumers, it is a goal for the disc to reach X amount of nits. Could something look better with juiced up bright highlights? Maybe but it's all subjective...I consider it more important is that the artist is satisfied with the end result. The way it looks might not match your taste but I'm fairly certain they know what they're doing and didn't forget to apply a big HDR grade. I wonder if Vincent goes into art galleries and tells anyone who will listen how he would have painted a landscape differently. I sort of get it though, he's very interested in the progress of display tech and HDR is another way to measure and differentiate. Also, you can disagree with someone you respect and still appreciate their work. I watch all of Vincent's videos 👍
The point isn't artistic intent. The point is they advertise HDR on the cover, and they aren't delivering on that. It's an issue of false advertising. If the artist prefers SDR, that's fine, just don't stamp HDR onto the package.
I do like videos and discussions like this
Thanks so much, Jessy :)
Interesting how someone else telling you how a movie doesn’t have HDR would change how you feel about the movie. You loved it before and the movie hasn’t changed. Think about it. What matters more? Your perception or what someone told you?
Question: is the existence of high dynamic range in a movie the same as HDR ? I think not. The ability to display HDR using a movie that is predominantly dark would require altering the movie's natural dynamic range. That is something that is contrary to the movie creator's vision. Therefore you can't specify that a particular movie is not 4K HDR without the visual context. For instance I would expect there to be a difference between a movie about the universe, and a movie about butterflies.
When I as watching it and it chapter 2 I found out that it was too dark and hard to watch at times . Does anyone else have that problem
What I would like is for the studios to answer to this, because we can speculate until the cows come home but not until they explain that it's for money-saving reasons.. Ooops! The questions we should perhaps ask are: would the movies be better with "true" HDR? And.. would they be sold cheaper if the HDR sticker wasn't on there? As an honesty-issue, I absolutely feel that if the disc doesn't have HDR, it should NOT be sold with the sticker on there, but is it possible, that many customers would avoid a perfectly great-looking movie (Blade Runner 2049) if it honestly told u that it wasn't HDR?
This is so much more complex than fake or true HDR. This analysis is incomplete and throw oil on fire for nothing in my humble opinion. I have tried to give a long answer on comments under
Alot of 4ks are upscales only offering subtle upticks in definition.. alot of the time its the HDR applied that makes the most differences to the 4k format. The original Blade Runner and much older films such as The Wizard Of Oz and Spartacus are prime examples of the format put to maximum use though if filmakers are spending alot of time performing a wet scan from the original 35mm negatives in some cases and having the film colour corrected to best replicate the film as when it was first released then the results are truly rewarding but similar to the blu ray format, you have good discs and not so good discs. I feel it comes with the territory when really it shouldn't. All 4k films should be given the same time and attention but sadly this dosent happen. In some instances the HDR is subtle but can make a huge difference to the picture quality offering better to excellent black levels or in some cases such as this film Blade Runner 2049 it doesn't completely blow its 1080p counterpart out of the water when really it should. There's only a handful of films in my 4k collection that I can say are demo worthy. The rest can range from looking fairly good modest upgrades to pretty striking but only in some areas of the film. Recently Alita Battle Angel was reviewed by Vincent explaining that the 4k wasn't really much of an improvement over the blu ray. Clint Eastwood supervised the 4k scan of his film Unforgiven which has the majority of reviews saying that this also has only minor upticks in definition over an already impressive blu ray. Eastwood choosing to make his film look much darker in 4k especially the opening scenes and any interior scenes which tend to be only lit by dim wall lanterns or candles. Sometimes we cannot really argue with what the filmakers intended look is and alot of directors are now choosing their films to look more digital for 4k than filmic. An example of this was T2 where alot of DNR was applied by James Cameron and also the changes to the color timing. I always read the reviews especially if you are thinking of upgrading your blu ray disc to 4k. The format is still relatively expensive and coming up six years into the format it should be out of its infancy stage though clearly they're still debates and discussions concerning HDR, HDR10 and Dolby Vision. Tv specs and displays as well as the quality of a 4k player. It can be frustrating though lets not forget that the leap from blu ray to 4k isnt exactly the biggest leap as the massively significant leap from vhs to dvd and dvd to blu ray. I personally still think the 4k is the best way to watch a film over the 1080p though I cannot justify replacing my entire blu rays with 4ks as its just not affordable. If a 1080p has been given 5 stars for picture quality and only 4 stars on the 4k format this too can make you question why?. This is because they are rated or merited based on the capabilities of their formats. I think theres still alot of expectations for 4ks to be the front runner though on a lot of occasions they only win by a small margin. I dont think HDR is fake on the low end 4k discs such as BR 2049, Alita and Unforgiven, its probably more to do with the HDR not been applied as well as some of the other discs. I think its a bit sad that a more recent film only looks a little better than the 1080p, and what ive found with the 4k format is that the much older films are the real stand outs. If a film from 1939 can look so damn good on 4k then why does a film from 2016 have so many issues triumphing its blu ray!?
I see the value in verifying the technical specs of a release, but ultimately people are only going to go by what their eyes tell them. I just watched Twin Peaks Season 3 on HD Blu Ray (upscaled by my sony player, played on a 4K samsung tv) and a large majority of its scenes had me wondering how it could possibly look any better in Native 4K. And this is coming from someone who's critical of even some native 4k discs as being poorly done, I hail the likes of Dunkirk and Tenet as gold-standard 4K discs, and there's plenty of HD blu ray discs that are very noticeably just HD when played with the same setup.
It all comes down to how well the source material was shot, the DI used, the compression or lack their of, and the codec (i.e., bottom line, is it a well done transfer). Some blu rays (Twin Peaks 3) looking better than some 4K's (V for Vendetta, King Kong) just calls attention to just how lazy some 4K disc transfers are. I was FLOORED with how amazing the new Twin Peaks looks in "mere" HD.
So just buy the HD Bluray versions?
This is exceedingly dishonest and frustrating! We the consumers, invest a lot of money into our 4K TVs with HDR and other equipment and are deceived by the movie studios with fake HDR content which they charge us a premium for! If this bothers you, I encourage you to contact the studios and ask them to create REAL HDR content in their future releases!
No wonder I feel that my 500 nit Wide Color Gamut TV/monitor is adaquate, color-wise. ...many companies do not issue true HDR content.
thanks for the insight! I am planning to invest a 4K player for the first time since I own a blu-ray player for years. is time for an upgrade. I do already own some 4K titles into my collection. I am curious which 4K player I should get? I think I have an idea what player I am going to get is on Best Buy. is a Sony UBPX700 4K blu-ray player. I do already own a 4K tv all I need is the player. have a good one!
-bernardo cisneros
I have this player and it is great for 4k bluray, Dolby Vision content looks great with it. I use it with my Sony XBR950g
@@MrIagainsti120 thank you!
Do we have info on what 4k disks actually are good HDR?
Mad Max FR, The Greatest Showman and the new Mulan.
I personally only purchase 4K movies IF the digital transfer is a true 4K scan... If I see it is a 2K upscale I pass... now I will be even more careful... jeez!
Have a 4K projector I want the wider colors but it seems some of them barely do that on these HDR disc as well.
The lack of definitive standards has created this mess as well as "creative intent". The industry definitely has to be more transparent instead of slapping labels on things. HDR is now completely intertwined with 4K and consumers need to know what they are buying and what to possibly expect when HDR is attributed.