UHD Titles Worth/Not Worth Upgrading

[EddieLarkin]

It's great that these issues are being discussed, but as I made clear in a number of tweets in response to Devan, I largely disagree with his conclusions. The issue of poor compression on UHD has little to do with studios opting for low bitrates, and it certainly has bugger all to do with the data capacity of UHD discs (Devan later went on to tweet that the solution to the issue would be for UHDs to hold 200GB, instead of 66GB/100GB). David M proves this with every disc he works on.

Liberty Valance looks poor in terms of grain reproduction because its encode is not optimised well, made worse by the fact Paramount use FEL Dolby Vision, which as discussed elsewhere often leads to poorer HDR10 layers (which is the layer screencaps show). Anatomy of a Murder on UHD has a very similar bit rate as Liberty Valance, is of a similar vintage, is in B&W (an important factor, as there is no chroma channel to compress, so a lower bitrate can be used) and uses a lovely new and very grainy 4K HDR master. And yet its presentation on UHD is essentially flawless. Liberty Valance could have been flawless too, even with the bitrate it currently uses on UHD.

Ultimately, there is very little difference between the problems of UHD compression and the problems of BD compression. Some studios/labels simply do not optimise their encodes to ensure proper fidelity to the source master, and that's been the case for over a decade. It's simply not true to say the UHD format routinely gets worse encodes than BD used to get, indeed, I would say the opposite. So far, we've seen far better grain reproduction on UHD, as evidenced strongly by Criterion's move to the format. They were often one of the worst when it came to BD compression, yet all of their UHDs have been problem free so far.

[senseabove]

But presumably, using higher storage capacity and greater bitrates would mean the compression would not need to be handled with David M.-quality care to produce a high quality master, no?

To put it in very crude terms, you: a) could shove your clothes in a carry-on willy nilly, sit on it, and zip it up, and they'll come out thoroughly crushed and wrinkled on the other end of your trip; or b) you could fold them all with gold-standard, award-winning precision to fit precisely in your carry-on and have minimal wrinkling; or c) you could put everything in a checked bag with some competent folding, and have minimal wrinkling.

[EddieLarkin]

Sticking with your analogy, it'd be like offering bigger and bigger suitcases so the clothes don't have to be folded as much, whilst ignoring that some of the studios/labels have no arms, and simply aren't capable of folding.

So no, even if the format was twice the capacity you'd still get poorly optimised compression. Look at the grain on Rambo II, where two labels are given the same master, and use the same average bitrate:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x=39 ... 0&i=8&go=1

One is so poorly optimised that all of the grain is gone at points. Now, the issue might be lessend if the format was bigger sure, my point is that's not the issue at hand. All of the studios have the ability to compress to a fairly competent degree, some of them just don't care to. That's the real problem.

What I take issue with is Devan's seeming belief that the UHD format is flawed because it is too small to handle these new 4K HDR ultra grainy masters, and his initial implication that we routinely see these masters better compressed when the studios put them on new Blu-rays alongside the UHD. Which is complete nonsense. There are many posts in this thread and others which describe how studios have treat Blu-ray like the red headed step child since moving to UHD, and that routinely we now get worse quality now on Blu-ray than we did before (both in compression like on Apocalypse Now, and in HDR to SDR conversion).

He laments that so many of these new masters only ever appear on UHD, and so consumers are forced to buy a more expensive but more flawed product. But it just doesn't hold water.

[tenia]

I can't speak for UHD, but I've seen plenty of maxed out BDs showing problems David M is able to avoid at 20-25 Mbps.
Of course more usually is safer, but if you can't properly use all that you already have, there seems to be little reason you might be able to know what to do all the extra space and bitrate you might be given.

This being written, it's a bad sign for some UHDs to begin with when the movie end up with an AVB of only 46 Mbps when the movie isn't 2h50 long. Sure enough, some could start not shooting themselves in the foot : they already are capable to screw an encode at a much higher AVB, why adding avoidable obstacles ?

[EddieLarkin]

Don't get me wrong, higher bit rates and bigger discs are a good thing. But it lets the studios off the hook to imply they are hamstrung by the size of the discs and the H265 codec. That is not the reason why Valance looks like it does, nor is it because of the 46mbps rate, as Anatomy of a Murder proves.

Obviously I would prefer both to use 100mbps but to focus on the bitrate is to miss the real issue.

[tenia]

To me, they should help themselves by maximising everything they could (which they not so often do), but indeed, it's a question of mastering the encode thechniques as a whole, something encoding suppliers aren't all equal with each other (which shows it's not a question of medium, since otherwise, everyone would hit the same issues, except they don't).

[Finch]

first caps of the Untouchables UHD vs the BD

Feedback on the Atmos track is very good.

[therewillbeblus]

First reviews for the Second Sight Drive UHD are raves across the board

[Finch]

Drive and Double Indemnity added to OP.

[Finch]

The Untouchables added to OP: a very solid UHD against a dreadful Blu-Ray.

Geoff D's review

[videozor]

Could anyone comment on Die Hard UHD vs. 25th AE and/or 30th AE BDs (not sure if those BDs are the same save the cover art)? Thank you in advance!

[Finch]

Die Hard is a significant upgrade. Far superior colors, better contrast, good skin tones, good grain. No upgrade for the audio but the video is very worthwhile. Added to OP.

One caps a holic example

Geoff D

[videozor]

Thank you!

[kekid]

Is "The Bridge on the River Kwai 4K UHD" issued this week as Limited Edition Stteelbook the same version as rated on the first page of this thread as "Appreciable / Solid Upgrades?"

[EddieLarkin]

Better, because it now has Dolby Vision (always useful for Sony grades) and the original mono, both of which the disc lacked on its first release.

[Finch]

^ Amended OP to add Steelbook LE of Kwai as a reference title while leaving the original UHD as a solid upgrade

[Finch]

Better, because it now has Dolby Vision (always useful for Sony grades) and the original mono, both of which the disc lacked on its first release.

Eddie, presumably this applies to Lawrence of Arabia, too?

EDIT: According to pictures of the back of the steelbook, LoA does have Dolby Vision but the mono track is not listed in the specs on Blu-Ray.com.

[andyli]

The copy of LoA included in the Columbia set already had Dolby Vision.

Also, given LoA was shot in 65mm, there's no "original" mono for it, right?

[EddieLarkin]

Yes, the LoA Steelbook discs are just the same ones from the Classics box set.

[Finch]

Thank you for your replies, gents.

[Finch]

The Australian UHD of Akira has been confirmed to be the same as the other Western discs, so the Japanese edition remains the go-to release for the original audio track.

[Finch]

Giant (WB) added to OP.

caps a holic

[rrenault]

What's the word on Studio Canal's UHD of Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie? It may be too early to tell, but based on one review I found online I reckon it's headed for the "solid upgrade" category. The restoration appears to have questionable color grading but the disc, thankfully, doesn't seem to have any serious compression issues.

On a side note, would it be worth it for Criterion to invest in competing UHD editions of films that already have reference quality English-friendly releases elsewhere, such as The Seventh Seal and Breathless. Given the difference in MSRP (The Seventh Seal UHD is going for under 16 GBP on Amazon UK right now), I wouldn't imagine importing the UK editions would be much more costly than purchasing a hypothetical Criterion edition domestically, unless you wait for a B&N sale.

Le Cercle Rouge made sense, due to how egregious SC's 4K encoding of that film was.

[Finch]

What's the word on Studio Canal's UHD of Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie? It may be too early to tell, but based on one review I found online I reckon it's headed for the "solid upgrade" category. The restoration appears to have questionable color grading but the disc, thankfully, doesn't seem to have any serious compression issues.

A Blu-Ray.com user uploaded screenshots here. Use the page down/up button to change to new screenshots, left and right arrows switch between the UHD and the old UK BD. I've never seen the film myself so would like to hold off assigning a grade until I've heard from/read reviews from people who know the film well. Cine Outsider only compared the Blu-Rays but was very happy with the new 1080p.

[EddieLarkin]

Sony continue their reissues of earlier UHDs with Dolby Vision added on, now for Bram Stoker's Dracula. More importantly, the film will now be presented with its proper theatrical style subtitles for the translated moments, unlike the previous UHD which just used standard player generated text. The original Dolby Stereo 2.0 track and the earlier 5.1 remix will now also be included, along with the old Atmos remix.

A quick review of the other titles:

Labyrinth (adds Dolby Vision along with the original 2.0 and older 5.1 remix)
Karate Kid (adds Dolby Vision only, the first release carried all the necessary soundtracks)
Ghostbusters I & II (adds Dolby Vision along with the original 2.0s and older 5.1 remixes)
Bridge on the River Kwai (adds Dolby Vision and the original mono)
Men in Black (adds Dolby Vision and the original 5.1 track)