UHD Titles Worth/Not Worth Upgrading [Archive]

[tenia]

It wouldn't surprised me that Paramount are credited for it because they're the ones who did it but they have mostly used Ritrovata's usual workflow for it.

[Finch]

Studio Canal titles added to OP, thanks MA.

[Roscoe]

The encode on Criterion's Baron Munchhausen UHD is disappointing.

Forgive me, but I don't understand what the problem is. Can someone elucidate? It looks great on my TV.

[mhofmann]

The encode on Criterion's Baron Munchhausen UHD is disappointing.

Forgive me, but I don't understand what the problem is. Can someone elucidate? It looks great on my TV.

Baron Munchhausen appears to have been shot on fairly grainy film stock. That's fine, however, the grain is not properly reproduced on Criterion's 4K UHD.
What should look like film grain are actually thousands of visible and noticeable compression artifacts in each frame on the Criterion disc.

Take this, this, or this frame detail (look at UHD; enlargement to demonstrate issue clearly). There should not be any square blocks visible. Also, the color distribution of the heavily compressed grain particles should not look like this. Here's a particularly egregious example of the same or very similar issue in the Blu-ray screencap, which should simply never have happened.

Discerning viewers with large screens will find this bad video encoding very distracting, also in motion and at normal viewing distances. Once you start noticing this kind of issue, you cannot unsee it. Criterion has quite a history with sub-par video compression, especially of color sources with high-frequency content, e.g., 4K scans.

As the encoding standard HEVC still relies on block-based compression (DCT or DST with varying block sizes), this points to a very careless setting of quantization parameters, especially for the chroma channels.

Basically, Criterion's encoding house doesn't put enough effort (or competency?) into something that can be done a lot better, as other encoding houses have demonstrated time and time again. Very disappointing, as this can ruin the most beautifully prepared restorations, and this is a mastering step that needs to be done only once (and then you can sell many, many nice-looking copies) but with the right level of care.

[jheez]

I haven't seen Baron Munchhausen UHD yet, but I think the caps look good on my 4k monitor at 100%. Zooming in to a single section of a single frame seems a bit ridiculous IMO as that's not how we watch these films. Let us not forget that artifacts are created (and exaggerated) by zooming algorithms. We watch UHD discs at 100%, and each frame is only visible for 1/24 of a second. There are always going to be minor compression artifacts since the compression needed to fit a feature length film on a blu-ray is enormous. If they are distracting in real world motion is another question. That said, I think Criterion could/should work on improving the encoding on their discs.

[therewillbeblus]

I don’t know how to best put into into practice, but I’d be interested in a category that really emphasizes the UHDs that are objectively abominable, worse than blu ray and just all around assaults to watch, vs whatever subjective metrics go into other category assignments of disappointment. A lot of those listed in various tiers of disappointing I think look great or certainly look better than the old blus and I know others have weighed in with the same thoughts. So it’d be nice to know whether - even if something isn’t ideal for the format - it’s still worth picking up at a discount price to upgrade, or if I need to run from it because the blu ray I already own looks better, rather than getting dissuaded because it’s not up to par for those with the keenest eye and the top gear to assess the disc

[mhofmann]

Let us not forget that artifacts are created (and exaggerated) by zooming algorithms.

Uhm, no they're not, unless the algorithm used does a lot more weird stuff than, say NN or bilinear interpolation. The artifacts presented are also well visible on 100%, depending on your screen size and viewing distance. The enlargement/crop is mainly there to make the issues very, very clear to someone who otherwise wouldn't know what to focus on.

We watch UHD discs at 100%, and each frame is only visible for 1/24 of a second.

That might be, but this doesn't mean such artifacts aren't visible in motion. They can be even more distracting in motion, since the random distribution assumption of film grain particles is violated. It just doesn't look as grain should look, creating an uncanny valley effect.

There are always going to be minor compression artifacts since the compression needed to fit a feature length film on a blu-ray is enormous.

Sure, but that's a bit of a strawman argument. Good compression can and should be a lot more transparent to the source. We have by now collected enough experiences with what good encodes can provide.

[swo17]

Watching a UHD on a large enough TV may be zooming in on each frame as much as caps-a-holic does

[mhofmann]

To show a good example: Here or here are screencaps of another UHD with much better compression and thus spatial acuity.
Also quite grainy film stock (caveat: may not be directly comparable), but no egregious block artifacts and no false quantization-induced colors visible here.
Is it perfect? No, of course not, due to how HEVC inherently works. But it looks much better, both on stills and in motion.

[Roscoe]

Many thanks all. I'll check the Criterion disc a little more carefully and see if I notice anything off. This isn't the first time I've wondered what the issue was, as something others found problematic wasn't a problem on my set up. I remember I responded to a particular screencap of Criterion's THE DAMNED Blu-Ray by saying "damn that's GREEN" but found it far less so on my home set up.

[tenia]

Watching a UHD on a large enough TV may be zooming in on each frame as much as caps-a-holic does

Even outside TV sizes, poor encodes of finely grainy sources are most often generating fluctuations of this graininess that is very unpleasant to watch and give the related movies some kind of instabilities of textures that properly encoded discs don't have.
This means that's one way to see such issues in motion (1) and without any zoom nor big screen (2).

[Finch]

The Munchausen Blu-Ray is even worse. It's not the first UHD where the compression was not ideal (Virgin Suicides was one previous title and I can't recall what the other Criterion 4k was right now but with both films it was minor) but it's the first where it's really pronounced. It's disappointing because for a long time it felt like you could rely on Criterion's UHD encoding being consistently good without having to wait for reviews first. I really hope this is not becoming a pattern.

I think the Disappointing column already addresses what you're asking for, TWWB, but I'm happy to add a clarifying sub-header saying that these titles would still be better than BDs (unless the 4k is competing against a truly exceptional BD).

[EddieLarkin]

It is disappointing to see UHD encoding standards fall at Criterion, but it is worth remembering that they use FEL Dolby Vision as standard, meaning the compression as you see it in those caps is not how it will present on playback on a Dolby Vision compatible system.

[therewillbeblus]

Finch, I think you've done a great job at adding notes here and there when something is way better except for the previous BD or the previous BD from said company, etc. which is super helpful when thinking of upgrading a specific disc, and the notes in disappointing detailing why are also much appreciated. I guess what I'm asking for is something a little more clearcut in a categorical way, rather than tasking you with putting additional notes in already detailed and overpopulated parentheses qualifying the discs' issues.

For instance, what separates "Dreadful UHDs to be avoided" (which only includes one UHD right now) from the "Disappointing" categories? Is it that Terminator 2 is so bad that it's worse than the blu-ray, while the others aren't 'quite there' but have a host of issues that may dissuade one from purchasing them but ultimately can still be considered 'upgrades'? If that becomes the clear marker of difference, I think it would be a helpful organizational system to just throw all the movies that have better blu-rays than UHDs in the worst category and then movies that have at least one UHD better than the best blu-ray in whatever category you feel is appropriate above that. This way, I for one would feel better about buying, say, Jurassic Park, a movie we know has been botched on UHD, but one which is still in a category greater than "Dreadful UHDs to be avoided," if it's on sale or something, so long as it's not a worse disc than the one I own

[M-A]

The problem is that some discs in the Disappointing section are better than the blu-rays, but disappointing because they could have been better, and that some of them are legitimately worse than the blu-rays and should be in the Avoid section instead.

Having Baron Munchausen and Platoon, for example, in the same section will be very confusing for people looking at the tiers because one is clearly worse than the other. I also think that it would be useful for those discs where the blu-ray is better for it to say which blu-ray is preferred over the 4K.

[swo17]

I've always operated under the assumption that UHD > Blu-ray unless the UHD is in the "Avoid" section

[Finch]

I appreciate wanting to differentiate more between the various discs in the Disappointing column and I can parse it out more going forward. To that end, I like MA's idea of moving any discs that are worse than the BDs into the last column, and revise that to say "avoid (worse than the BD)" and say which BD is the best.

I find it somewhat hard to believe that Terminator 2 is the only disastrous release but will need more input as to what discs we should move into the bottom column.

[therewillbeblus]

Sorry if it wasn't clear but that suggestion is exactly what I was asking for to begin with..

I think it would be a helpful organizational system to just throw all the movies that have better blu-rays than UHDs in the worst category and then movies that have at least one UHD better than the best blu-ray in whatever category you feel is appropriate above that.

[M-A]

I think the ones that should be in the avoid section are the following:

Terminator 2 - Best is the 2015 Lionsgate blu
Platoon - Best is any of the old MGM blus
The Bourne Identity - Best is any of the old Universal blus
Friday the 13th - Best is the 2021 Paramount blu
Hot Fuzz - Best is any of the old universal blus
King Kong (2005) - Best is the old universal blu
Pan's Labyrinth - Best is the 2011 Optimum blu (or the criterion if not region B or free)
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl - Best is the old Disney/Buena Vista blu

and a couple of titles new to the list:
The Blood on Satan's Claw (NSM Records) (German Import) - Best is the Severin or Screenbound blu
Trancers (Full Moon Features) - Best is the Full Moon Features or 88 Films blu
No Escape (Turbine) (German Import) - Best is the Unearthed Films blu

And while we are on the subject, there are some that I think should be in other tiers:
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Solid -> Disappointing
Forrest Gump: Solid -> Disappointing
The Night Porter: Reference -> Solid
Cliffhanger: Reference -> Solid
They Live: Solid -> Disappointing (I still think its the best of the three releases, its just that none of the 3 are particular great)

But that is just my opinion. P.S. for Universal Soldier, I think you put it in the Great in DV, poor in HDR10 section by mistake when I think it should be in reference instead

[hearthesilence]

Re: Baron Munchausen, if you don't have this title at all, Criterion's UHD is still the best way to look at it despite its shortcomings, correct?

[cdnchris]

Re: Baron Munchausen, if you don't have this title at all, Criterion's UHD is still the best way to look at it despite its shortcomings, correct?

I'd say "definitely." The old Sony Blu-ray is very dated and I still think the UHD looks better than the Criterion BD (though it's quite good on its own). As EddieLarkin mentions Dolby Vision also helps a lot (I just want to mention here the ballroom sequence looks amazing thanks to DV). And if you don't have DV I still don't think it looks anywhere near as bad as what seems to be suggested. It's not perfect but far from a travesty.

[Finch]

Re: Baron Munchausen, if you don't have this title at all, Criterion's UHD is still the best way to look at it despite its shortcomings, correct?

I'd say "definitely." The old Sony Blu-ray is very dated and I still think the UHD looks better than the Criterion BD (though it's quite good on its own). As EddieLarkin mentions Dolby Vision also helps a lot (I just want to mention here the ballroom sequence looks amazing thanks to DV). And if you don't have DV I still don't think it looks anywhere near as bad as what seems to be suggested. It's not perfect but far from a travesty.

Hi Chris, are we talking about a "poor in HDR, good in DV" situation like many Studio Canal discs? If that's the case, I'm happy to move Munchausen.

[rrenault]

So is there not a single title people feel is in a lower tier than it deserves to be? :-k

The blu-ray.com response to Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie seems to be almost universally positive, for instance.

[Gcsee]

As noted before a lot of the experience of a 4K UHD and especially the HDR/Dolby Vision application will be TV and player dependent. It seems more people on these forums (and blu-ray.com) are getting to grips with good ballpark settings and a correct viewing distance to see that most discs can deliver a more satisfying ‘filmic’ experience than blu-ray if a little care is taken with the underlying transfer itself. So there are very few titles in the lower tier because of that I guess.

For me it’s more a question of the cost to get the 4k UHD upgrade on disc to decide where I would place a disc in order of ‘must-haves’. I reside in Europe so for instance a lot of the Kino Lorber and Criterion 4K USA only releases are very expensive to import so I buy less of those than I would otherwise even though a lot of them are great upgrades. By also calculating the cost and upgrade potential another section to add (just to complicate things further) would be the ‘Unnecessary Upgrades'. I’m thinking of Super 8, Sherlock Holmes (Guy Ritchie), Hot Fuzz, Knives Out, even Henry Portrait of A Serial Killer (if you already have the MPI 30th anniversary disc) and Night of the Living Dead Criterion 4K. These discs use the same underlying transfer on the most recent blu-ray and the 4K. All these discs I would buy if they were cheap enough: but Henry on the Arrow UHD is not worth 35 euros for me to import: the MPI suffices, also because my Oppo 105 can upscale good blu-rays like this very well.

[MichaelB]

As noted before a lot of the experience of a 4K UHD and especially the HDR/Dolby Vision application will be TV and player dependent.

Very much so, and much more than I've ever experienced with any other video format.

For instance, I was really quite startled by how much things improved when I kitted out my office with a good 55" OLED screen, having previously been using the main family telly (a 58" LCD setup). I suspect even without Dolby Vision things would have looked noticeably better, but DV-encoded UHD discs really are properly extraordinary.

It seems more people on these forums (and blu-ray.com) are getting to grips with good ballpark settings and a correct viewing distance to see that most discs can deliver a more satisfying ‘filmic’ experience than blu-ray if a little care is taken with the underlying transfer itself. So there are very few titles in the lower tier because of that I guess.

One would hope that minimum technical standards are applied, especially given the considerable per-unit expense of a UHD release. Not least because there's no point even considering a UHD release if the source materials aren't up to it - the days when you could get away with slapping an old analogue telecine onto a DVD are long gone.