My suspicion all along.

[Native_bon]

This has always been my suspicion. Yes some HDR content looks good but very few and far between. Ive always said you tube 4K looks better than most UHD HDR content.
Now watch this video, you will be surprised what resolution your so called 4k content is mastered in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3KJKWzvhPXc

 

[Native_bon]

This has always been my suspicion. Yes some HDR content looks good but very few and far between. Ive always said you tube 4K looks better than most UHD HDR content.Now watch this video, you will be surprised what resolution your so called 4k content is mastered in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=3KJKWzvhPXc

 

[davidf]

What a donkey.

Is this guy blind? Even I can see a difference between most of those comparisons just on an iPad.

Firstly, as I keep saying, 4K/UHD is more suited to projectors, where the screens are 10ft and bigger, rather than 40-60”. This is where you’ll see a bigger difference. On smaller screens, the differences will be much less noticeable. So if this guy is some sort of film enthusiast, why doesn’t he have a projector?

And it’s all very well saying most films are just upscaled 2K, but these CGI/green screen based movies will have been upscaled using industrial pro equipment, not the cheap upscale circuitry found in his below average Samsung player.

Some people don’t deserve 4K - this guy is one of them.

 

[Gray]

What a donkey.

Is this guy blind? Even I can see a difference between most of those comparisons just on an iPad.

Firstly, as I keep saying, 4K/UHD is more suited to projectors, where the screens are 10ft and bigger, rather than 40-60”. This is where you’ll see a bigger difference. On smaller screens, the differences will be much less noticeable. So if this guy is some sort of film enthusiast, why doesn’t he have a projector?

And it’s all very well saying most films are just upscaled 2K, but these CGI/green screen based movies will have been upscaled using industrial pro equipment, not the cheap upscale circuitry found in his below average Samsung player.

Some people don’t deserve 4K - this guy is one of them.

I:m picturing the sign in your shop, 'No Donkeys'.

 

[Native_bon]

What a donkey.

Is this guy blind? Even I can see a difference between most of those comparisons just on an iPad.

Firstly, as I keep saying, 4K/UHD is more suited to projectors, where the screens are 10ft and bigger, rather than 40-60”. This is where you’ll see a bigger difference. On smaller screens, the differences will be much less noticeable. So if this guy is some sort of film enthusiast, why doesn’t he have a projector?

And it’s all very well saying most films are just upscaled 2K, but these CGI/green screen based movies will have been upscaled using industrial pro equipment, not the cheap upscale circuitry found in his below average Samsung player.

Some people don’t deserve 4K - this guy is one of them.

I think you missing the whole point of the video. I have to agree with him. Real 4k content on You Tube looks way better than most HDR 2k mastered disc. I'm not just going by what he said, I can see that for myself. Does some HDR UHD content look good?, yes of cause, do most look better than 1080P well that's for the individual to judge. As for me it makes little to no difference. As for your case of bigger screens making a difference, he blow up the image 4x the original resolution.

I have a 65inch TV set and it really is becoming apparent there is little to no difference when it comes to HDR content and HD content. Some disc do however look better when mastered in real 4k HDR, but I will take real 4K content over upscaled 2K HDR content anyday. Example, Star Wars the Last Jedi was filmed in 3.4k as a result would look way better in HDR over HD and 2k upscaled HDR disc. Not all HDR labelled 4k are real 4k resolution. Even most of the latest flims are 2k Upscaled versions. *dirol*

 

[davidf]

I think you missing the whole point of the video. I have to agree with him. Real 4k content on You Tube looks way better than most HDR 2k mastered disc. I'm not just going by what he said, I can see that for myself. Does some HDR UHD content look good?, yes of cause, do most look better than 1080P well that's for the individual to judge. As for me it makes little to no difference. As for your case of bigger screens making a difference, he blow up the image 4x the original resolution.

And there was a difference, despite his claims otherwise.

I have a 65inch TV set and it really is becoming apparent there is little to no difference when it comes to HDR content and HD content. Some disc do however look better when mastered in real 4k HDR, but I will take real 4K content over upscaled 2K HDR content anyday. Example, Star Wars the Last Jedi was filmed in 3.4k as a result would look way better in HDR over HD and 2k upscaled HDR disc. Not all HDR labelled 4k are real 4k resolution. Even most of the latest flims are 2k Upscaled versions. *dirol*

I don't know whether this is coming down to the lack of calibrated screens used, whether people are choosing certain settings that don't agree with or possibly negate HDR's effects, or whether it's just a case of people using a load of "auto" settings which are badly effecting the benefits. Having initially set up my TV to my preferred settings, I was struggling to get HDR to even look natural, let alone display any benefits, and found that I was using ECO settings that were not allowing HDR to be what it should be. Turn ECO off (no power saving), everything was suddenly starting to look natural with a great vibrancy about it, something that was lacking from my (admittedly old) projector. I'm still convinced I have some settings somewhere that are preventing it from looking its best, but I'll save that for when I can affod a calibration.

With regards to upscaled content, it's either a case of a film being shot in 2K and upscaled if it is heavily CGI/green screen, or something it's 4K (or 3.4K) with certain effects heavy scenes being rendered in 2K then upscaled to 4K. But that's referring to films shot digitally. A film captured CGI-fest will have had its negative scanned at 4K and remastered in 4K, making it a genuine 4K film.

Once you get to a certain resolution (on smaller screen), it no longer becomes about sharpness - it's more about textures, natural colours, and looking three dimensional. But this doesn't stop preference creeping in. There's a new restored 2K release of David Cronenberg's Scanners by Criterion, which I was quite excited about, so found High Def Digest's comparison of it against the version that was used for the UK Zavvi steelbook release. As much as they praise the new Criterion release, and I respect the right to see things "as the Director intended", I prefer the look of the UK release, as I find the Criterion release too dark, making it look two dimensional (in my opinion).

 

[davidf]

I:m picturing the sign in your shop, 'No Donkeys'.

Despite him saying he'd bought 4K discs and liked them etc, I just got the feeling there was an agenda behind it. I fully understand that ALL films should be 4K, but hell, we've not even had certain films released on standard Bluray yet! For me, UHD/4K should've been held back until 2020, giving the format time to stabilise, and also many films like True Lies to become available on Bluray before hurriedly shoving 4K down our throats. BUt this has been going on since "HD Ready" TVs. We're now in a situation where people are being mislead into buying "4K" projectors thinking they're genuine 4K, because there's the 4K logo, and the "Ultra HD" logos being proudly displayed for projectors that are effectively 'pixel shifting'. There's a huge amount of confusion surrounding this, and add this to disc releases that are not genuine 4K, and we just have a ticking time bomb on our hands. So many people think they have 4K projectors, and they don't.

 

[iceman16]

David .. why do I have to get a projector to enjoy 4k?

 

[iceman16]

David .. why do I have to get a projector to enjoy 4k?

 

[MajorFubar]

You don't, but expecting to see the difference between HD and UHD on an average-sized TV screen when all other factors are equal is like expecting to see the difference between an 8 magapixel DSLR and a 30 magapixel DSLR by comparing 15cm-by-10cm prints.

 

[davidf]

As above really. If you want to appreciate the difference between two things, use the most extreme examples of each to fully appreciate the benefits - doing this makes it easy to start appreciating the differences, even when making much more modest comparisons.

Whilst 4K can be appreciated on larger TV screens, it’ll be typical size projector screen (7-12ft) that will really benefit from it. And if you already use a 7ft projector screen with a 1080p PJ, you could enjoy the same quality on a 28ft screen with a 4K PJ.

The main issue with PJs is getting the brightness needed for HDR (which is another feature that would benefit PJs more than TVs), which manufacturers are currently working towards. But if HDR isn’t a “must” and you’re all about the clarity and sharpness, then maybe it’s not much of an issue. Projectors are still supporting 3D too, unlike TVs, for those who enjoy the format.

 

[Native_bon]

If that be the case then we are buying HDR UHD disc in the hope of getting bigger screens in the future, not on current 55 to 66inch screens which are mostly used to do reviews of any particular disc. *biggrin*

 

[ellisdj]

I think everyone needs to give the industry a chance to develop their skills.

The people that master and grade the film content will have only started working with HDR in the last couple of years where REC 709 and Standard gamma curves have been around for 50 years or so I think.

It will be a learning curve for them as well - not just them - directors, artists even camera men all have to learn a new part of their trade.

Give it time

 

[Native_bon]

I think everyone needs to give the industry a chance to develop their skills.

The people that master and grade the film content will have only started working with HDR in the last couple of years where REC 709 and Standard gamma curves have been around for 50 years or so I think.

It will be a learning curve for them as well - not just them - directors, artists even camera men all have to learn a new part of their trade.

Give it time

Yes I agree with you in a way. Currently HDR is hit and miss. With time surely will get better. *smile*

 

[MajorFubar]

I think everyone needs to give the industry a chance to develop their skills.

The people that master and grade the film content will have only started working with HDR in the last couple of years where REC 709 and Standard gamma curves have been around for 50 years or so I think.

It will be a learning curve for them as well - not just them - directors, artists even camera men all have to learn a new part of their trade.

Give it time

While I agree with that sentiment in principle, another point of view is early adopters shouldn't be their beta testers. If everybody's got a learning curve to climb - and I suspect you're right - then maybe they should have been thinking of delivering UHD to us in about 2020ish after they'd all got their ducks in a row, instead of fobbing-off early-doors adopters with shnide '4k-with-an-asterisk' upscaled content. But no way were they ever going to wait that long...think of all the money they wouldn't have raked in.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Give these guys a break
How dare you expect them to produce films worth the asking price while they experiment on you the guinea pigs