I agree with Vincent. SDR in a HDR container should still be called SDR. I have come accross DVDs advertised as 5.1, and technically they were, except only the 2 front channels contained any audio data. It's just false advertising.
I totally agree, I even think we need a better HDR certificate to guarantee real HDR, lets call it ,,Real HDR". It is not only misleading but gives people who never seen HDR before a bad impression so it could have a negative impact on the technology.
Very interesting, thanks! 10 Bit colors are more important to me than HDR. I don't need to be blinded by light, but I want subtlety and details in my colors. Regular Blu Rays can't offer that.
That's not the case. Besides colors which aren't reproducible within the define color space (BT 709 in case of HD BDs), "subtlety and details" in colors don't require a certain bit depth. At least not, when the image gets properly dithered (at the cost of a higher noise floor, granted), a topic which often and annoyingly gets entirely omitted by many producers with ugly banding artifacts being the most prominent visible flaw.
@@aarondaniel9986 "Keep in mind, age has nothing to do with quality, classics shot on 35mm such as Independence Day, Lawrence of Arabia and Ghostbusters can have the original negative film scanned at up to 6K." Um they could be scanned at 128K.... or even higher if you like. There is no "up to" with film. Sure, you won't really get more details past around 5.5K but it can still be scanned at any resolution you want.
@@R1ckmister some are even on this channel: ua-cam.com/video/hJgXQ3qNg74/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/mE-_3aabOU8/v-deo.html In reality RDR2 has kind of been fixed with some updates
Ooh controversial, I love it! While I agree with your sentiment that packaging SDR in an HDR container is a bullshit move and artistic intent is not enough to justify it, I feel like the same argument can also be levied at using 2K DIs rather than 4K DIs as a source. Now yes, the upscaling process done by the studio is superior to what your TV can do, but I'm not quite certain where I stand on this issue. Ultimately, as long as the video quality isn't actually hampered, I guess it's OK? And Blade Runner 2049 is my favourite film of the decade so I really can't say no to it! However, I do have a bone to pick with Christopher Nolan. His films have gradually been getting awful sound mixed that are way too hot to the point of distortion (clipping) embedded on the actual soundtrack. Dialogue gets lost underneath the music and sound effects and its pretty much impossible to listen to at reference level. Ironically, listening at a lower volume gives the opposite effect of what he intended by losing impact. Now he and his award winning sound mixer claim this is all intentional to give an impressionistic effect. I call bullshit on this because a 48 kHz/24-bit soundtrack can go really loud quite cleanly. Mixing your sound to distort a 48/24 soundtrack is like grading your video for HDR and then putting it in an SDR container. Or when you take a photo, it's like over exposing your image to convey a sense of brightness - but in video, we have a solution for that, and it's called HDR. Likewise for audio, we DO have a solution and it's a 48/24 format. If you want to push even louder than that (which is absolutely insane and even if your sound system can reproduce it, you would end up getting tinnitus), you would need to use a 32-bit audio format (I erroneously said earlier you needed a 96/24 audio format, but that would only increase the audio frequency range that is captured and not the dynamic range, or volume of the sound if that's easier to understand. For reference: 16-bit = 96 dB of dynamic range, 24-bit = 144 dB which is akin to the noise level on an aircraft carrier deck. Frankly, it is a bit more complicated than I'm making it out to be and I'm only giving the gist of it). In conclusion, I call bullshit on Nolan's "impressionistic" sound mixing and call for him to come back down to earth. I'd like to not risk blowing my speakers from the ridiculous clipping baked into his soundtracks. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
From what I heard from people who actually went to see Tenet,you're gonna have a blast from its sound mix. It makes The Dark Knight Rises sound coherent in comparison. I heard it sounds more blown-up than Interstellar.
@@CharlieA24 Yup, it's pretty bad - the dialogue is essential and yet completely buried. To remind myself, I also watched Interstellar last night and boy, the amount of times that the score and effects bury the dialogue... The Social Network is a stellar example of a film that effectively uses the dynamic range of modern audio formats. The nightclub scene is bloody loud but the direction and acting also convinces you that the characters are having just as difficult a time as you in understanding what they are saying to each other. In Nolan's films, you're convinced the actors are having a perfectly audible conversation with each other and you're just observing them from miles away with a directional microphone. I did still enjoy Tenet though, even if it isn't necessarily Nolan's best and despite the myriad editing and sound mix issues.
@@Diggs4ever I am curious about this. CGI can simulate light fed into a virtual camera that is not hindered by exposure times that are too long or short, sensors that will not clip if the virtual light is too bright or be inaccurate or noisy in low light, etc. If anything, CGI should have a much easier time rendering an image with very wide dynamic range than a camera would have capturing one.
Patrick M modern films almost always have a 2K DI. That’s why 4K fans lap up older films as they have the information from when they were shot. It’s also to do that most films use VFX and it’s taxing already without upping it to 4K. Much like how video games work.
Exactly every review I’ve seen they have said it’s a benchmark title when I bought it I thought the picture was good but it was all about the Dolby Atmos with that movie for me
Still think the 4K Blu-ray detail is excellent but in principle, I totally agree with the false HDR advertising. If the intent is to keep color grading at SDR levels then don't promote HDR and sell the 4K cheaper.
Keep speaking the truth, Vincent. There are no doubt a huge number of people who deeply value your insight and analysis. Thank you for shining a light on concerns that many of us videophiles have but don’t possess the equipment to confirm. As well, love the comment about the flame retardant jacket. ❤️
Talking about the HDR specifically as this is the focus of the video. The HDR in the OG Blade Runner is much better. The native 4K transfer from 35mm film is just a bonus. 3.4k digital with no grain vs 4k native transfer scanned from 35mm with film grain is a bit of a subjective call as to which is better from that point of view but, personally, I also prefer the 35mm look in this particular case.
Because the cinematographer is dead, no one ask him how his film should look! Roger Deakins is alive and he has final say on how his film should look. And this guy making a video here think he know better than a Deakins! What a f nerve! He makes a loving of comparing monitors shot with his lame video camera and transferred to a shitty UA-cam compresión, but has the nerve to tell Deakins how his films should look like! HDR is Ther from the camera it has a 15 stop DR, a lot more that any Medium his looking at it can display! HDR is not about brightness at all!
@@pablovi77 Calm down and please don't poop yourself in the process. He knows what he's talking about, you don't. HDR is about high dynamic range and it's clear that this movie doesn't have HIGH dynamic range. Creator's intent is whole different story, he doesn't criticise it, he just points out HDR is false advertising in this case. Deakins have said that "Any difference between the Blue Ray, the HDR and the original screen version (flat) is purely unintentional." So the creator himself clearly admits that this movie isn't HDR.
klik klik For fuk sake I’m a cinematographer as well. The movie has all the dynamic range it can have, it doesn’t need to have anything higher than 200 nits. Why? When the cinematographer wanted the film to be on the dark side. And that’s how he wanted it to look.
So 2 things. 1 Loving the flame proof jacket. 2. From my photography background for me a photo with HDR is having a lot of shadow details whilst retaining a lot of highlight details in the same frame. So as opposed to thinking of HDR as getting the "blinding effect" of a sunrise in a HDR movie, couldn't the creative intent with BR2049 be that lots of details in shadows are retained?? Since in general BR2049 is a pretty dim/dark movie.
You're right that the 10bit signal should be able to be fully utilized to just represent the brightness values from 0 to 200 nits, and give a full 1024 shades in that brightness range with impeccable tonal quality. Chances are that's not what they did and most likely the video file is only using around 200 shades to represent their 200 nit image.
@@hdtvtest Someone else here in the comments provided this link: archimago.blogspot.com/2018/03/1080p-blu-ray-vs-4k-uhd-blu-ray-blade.html I think you would find it interesting. Cheers!
No, there is no compromise here. It's "fake HDR"--if for no other reason--to address false advertising. That sign on the back proclaiming hdr in big letters is wrong. If it was in an hdr container but wasn't really advertised as much because of it, then fine. But this is Fake HDR. There's creative intent, and marketing intent, and purchase intent (expectations).
If this false marketing bothers you, please send a link to this video to the WB studio and let them know how you feel. If enough people complain maybe they'll do something about it in future releases.
This makes me laugh at all the reviewers of the UHD version who go on and on about how great the HDR looks. Everyone should send this video to those "reviewers". Too bad there arne't more reviewers of content like Vincent.
It's a shame no one checked out just how amazing Coco looked with Dolby Vision on Disney Plus because people were too obsessed whining about how Disney Plus had no HDR at all simply because of The Mandalorian. Although honestly when I watched The Mandalorian, which was a few months after release, I honestly can say I noticed no HDR issues. It seemed dim when I first tried it out just when it was out, but when I got around to actually watching it, it seemed much brighter. Maybe I'm blind, but even in the first episodes it definitely went way above 200 nits.
@@BirdArvid I thought it was tedious and pointless. Everything that needed to be said already was in the original. What did you like about it storywise? Where was the climax to the film? It isn't enough to have special effects and look pretty, like Ana DeArmas.
So true Vincent👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 I'm a Hard-media Movie Collector and an Artist myself (Digital/Fine: Arts) I Will Spend twice or three times on a movie I like to have the opportunity to view it in the different formats (DVD/Blu-Ray/4K/HDR/UHD) variants. But when it comes to Buying a fraudulently labelled "Standard-Bluray Within an HDR Container" That really P****** me off!!! Especially when I hear stupidity of bogus big-heads whom have footballs or balloons for craniums... and I don't mean that flatteringly! To clarify: "HEADS FILLED WITH AIR".... Say stupid things like "Artist Intent"... do they honestly know what they are talking about! Using the word Artist Intent means the artist at some point told you their intentions... otherwise you are lying... these people need to stop trying to sound smart about knowledge that eludes them!!! It would be as evil and fraudulent of me to sell a digital art piece of mine created on a Canvas with all the settings of 4K resolution... only to print out the piece on a 4"x5" photo card" and still use the term 4K in the title! Moreover, how's about I painted something with 1920x1080 canvas resolution... only to print it out at 4 times that size! Still the intention to fraud would be there!!! As the content being sold to you from me does not fill the 4K criteria's! I know this video is focused on peak brightness and not resolution however I hope your viewers understand the point I'm explaining! At the end of the day we as consumers are paying for an upgrade and in reality just receiving something we already had! How misleading is that! However, in regards to the 2K content within a 4K container, The ramifications are far worse, as when viewing on a UHD TV, certain settings that would be available for tweaking on Standard Definition DVD or High Definition Blu-ray via a 4K/UHD TV are not available for alterations! As the TVs read the content as a 4K product thus turning off those settings (to make sure you view the content as the artist intended)... But in reality the settings that you would need to make the 2K products reach their optimum quality on 4K Screens are no longer available!!! Ask those who write to you justifying the "Artist Intent Augment" and think that the artist truly intended their audience to not appreciate "The Contrasts of Lights and Darks, Colours and Hues and Tints" and just present said audiences with a subdued or monochromic pallets! Was this truly the Artist Intent! Anyone who says: "well yes , yes it was"... Ask them, are they the same idiots that would buy a box of eggs when they are presented with the option to buy a box of 6 eggs with Standard Definition artwork printed on it for £1.50 or the very same eggs within a box with High Definition artwork printed on it calling it HDR EGGS and pay £3.00 more! When in reality the product that is being sold is no different than the cheaper variant! If they say they would... then they are just as lost as someone shopping at Waitrose and Lidl instead of Asda or Aldi... Even worse! Someone paying the ridiculous extra of almost 30p to 70p per item extra at Co-Op because they truly think they are helping the farmers out😂🤣😂🤣 Wake-up!!! In reality the content creators (i.e. Farmers) don't even see that profit... Vincent please be more realistic with idiots like these! and tell them to "WAKE UP!!! YOUR BEING RIPPED OFF!!!" Anyway leaving the Lemmings aside! Keep up your good work and the good fight Vincent!!! You are truly appreciated by those of us with common sense to reason👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Finally someone called out this disc 2 years to late, the reviews on this disc where amazing hdr I even read some where up to 10k nits when i purcahsed it was based on amazing hdr movie, which it wasn't it looked sharp but there was no peak brightness at all in this movie .
BR2049 was mastered in 4K and utilizes a Wide Colour Gamut compared to the SDR BD. The luminance values might be similar, or even identical, to the SDR BD but there are still major differences between the two releases.
Totally agree, it's a trade-off overall. SDR can and will look better since you can push the peak brightness (whereas HDR is locked), but you don't get the WCG of the HDR version.
I respect this review - and agree with the general sentiment (and clearly the focus here is HDR, understood) - but you do somewhat ignore some of the other benefits of the UHD presentation - higher resolution and an extended colour gamut. While it's true HDR is the most impactful compared with WCG and image detail, as 2049 was filmed in 3.4k and upscaled to 4k there is extra detail on offer in this disc when compared to the SDR bluray the is worthwhile for videophiles. That said, I'm not going to pretend the extra spend for these upgrades are worth it (this will be subjective and based on your screen size, viewing distance and eye keen-ness of course) - and I support your message here. But as a long time viewer from the start, it's unusual for you not to present the whole 'picture' so to speak. Here's an excellent breakdown of image quality for this release, comparing UHD / 1080p presentations: archimago.blogspot.com/2018/03/1080p-blu-ray-vs-4k-uhd-blu-ray-blade.html
@@light_splitter What on earth are you on about? Which part of 'I agree' and ' I support this message' did you not understand? I completely agree that this release is clearly sub par, and possibly outright misleading. My comment was purely to point out that there are redeeming qualities to this UHD presentation outside of the dynamic range and even balancing (to an extent) for the failings here - for those interested in other aspects of the presentation (there is objectively more picture detail obvious to any viewer paying attention) and I'd argue that this upside is worth pointing out. I'd also argue that even if you managed to detect something 'off', I'd quite happily argue that the enjoyment of the cinematography in this movie was not marred greatly by the 'fake HDR' presentation. Would it have been boosted greatly by a proper treatment, of course. Should we take the company to task for this release - absolutely. Should excellent content creators such as Vincent, whom we respect also be pulled up when we feel the full story isn't presented? Yes. That's all I was doing here. I'm unsure if you even read my entire comment if I'm honest.
Congratulations !! Awesome video Vincent : ) Agree with you that its not HDR for the low nits brightness. But, even being less than 200nits, the 10-bit Rec2020 container is still very required for the Wide Color Gamut (DCI P3). The alternative would be what some Studios have done for some titles, which is for the UHD Blu-ray to use a 10-bit SDR Rec709 container, but that means no more Wide Color Gamut (DCI P3) and undesirably only Rec709 color. And you didnt mention that detail in this video: the color space. Can you also run more tests, and analyze if Blade Runner 2049 UHD Blu-ray color space goes to DCI-P3/Rec2020 levels, or if its also deceivingly just Rec709 color in a Rec2020 container? That would be an even more awesome find !! Maybe worth a follow up video : )
This disc got amazing reviews and people still think of it as the quintessential 4K UHD. I picked it up recently and compared it back to back with the Blu-ray and was surprised I didn't see much of a difference. This explains it! Can't imagine why the 4K is rated so highly when the BD is almost indistinguishable. Fascinating video and topic!
Probably because it's one of the most beautiful movies on disc, regardless of resolution / HDR. The Cinematography and color grading is immaculate at any resolution.
I remember when the 4K Blu-ray of BR2049 first came out everyone was saying how this was the best looking 4K HDR disc and reference quality...thanks to Vincent we now get the real review!
There’s more to HDR than peak brightness... this was a very dark movie I saw it in a Dolby theater. That being said I mostly agree peak brightness should get higher than 400nits if you are gonna advertise it as HDR.
Any video frame containing the sun should be mastered to 5,000 Nits. I'm not totally convinced we need 10,000 Nits, but now that Visio is pushing 3,000 Nit TVs at respectable prices, I don't want the industry low balling HDR anymore.
@@chrisd6736 My Q8FN theoretically goes to around 1,400 Nits on maximum oversaturation mode, it can be "uncomfortably bright" but I've never seen any small highlights feel out of place, just full field maximum bright seems excessive. Compared to the highlights you see in real life, a small highlight at 5,000 Nits might not seem out of place.
Makes you wonder just how many more movies have been labeled 'HDR' that are actually just SDR. And don't worry about calling it 'Fake HDR' because that's exactly what it is. I've heard several PC tech channels use the term 'Fake HDR' for any PC monitor that has been labeled 'HDR' but cannot go above 400 nits. Real HDR or 'noticeable' HDR happens at 600 nits and above.
I think the BDA fucked everyone over by making HDR mandatory for all Ultra HD Blu-ray discs. Studios are now forced to package their SDR masters into the HDR container. Of course, they could maybe put some effort into making sure it looks passable or at least not worse than the SDR version but some studios seem far too lazy to do even that.
This is a specific adherence to the design ethos of Roger Deakins. None of his highlights in any film he does with Villeneuve reach pure white. To do so would undermine the specific design choices They made in the colour grade. This was a specific issue with many filmmakers on the Sicario Release which ruined the subdued highlights by pushing them to pure white and thus killed detail. Just because Something can blast you with light doesn't mean it always should
Not disputing the colour grade. Our contention is that an SDR release should have sufficed if they wanted an SDR grade. But no, someone somewhere has to make more money...
I don't see why a true HDR version has to deviate from the cinematographer or the director's visual intent. I'm sure the existing HDR content is mastered in a way that the creators approve of. And if you don't want to use the wider dynamic range just don't release HDR versions. Packaging the SDR master inside HDR containers only makes things look worse. I can't imagine Deakins would want that either.
@@krazyfrog Actually approval is often not the case. It's been brought up by cinematographer Steve Yedlin that many 4k Releases are done purely by the studio without the filmmakers involvement. It was actually notable when Nolan personally oversaw the 4k Mastering of his releases. I'm not sure if it has changed completely since Yedlin Brought this up about 3-4 years ago, but that was a thing. also, I personally don't know how many modern movies even get 4k releases nowadays. Most stuff is still shot on Arri Alexas (non wide format) which are not native 4k and with VFX, the final master is done at 2l
@@NightSkyPictures1 The Alexa and Alexa Mini that most productions use only shoot in 2.8K but that hasn't stopped studios from making a 4K master. I don't remember the last time a movie released on physical media that didn't have a 4K UHD version. Unfortunately, it seems HDR is tied to the UHD Blu-ray standard, so it seems the creators don't have a choice other than making a fake HDR version even if they don't want to use the extra dynamic range.
@@krazyfrog While it's technically a 4k 'Master'/Output file for disk/theaters. The reason the final deliverable file of the finished film tends to be 2k is due mostly to VFX. Due to the increased fidelity of CGI, render times have markedly increased to the point where putting out 4k natively is cost and time prohibitive (the VFX of the black hole in interstellar, rendered at Imax took up to 100 hrs per frame to render). So the vfx are often rendered in 2k to compensate for the time/computational cost. It's actually easier to do 4k releases of films prior to 2005 because regardless of the output resolution, optically printing the vfx to film and the film grain embedded in the image increases the perceivable/subjective resolution to the eye in a way that reads as higher resolution. So when 4k scans of the prints are made and restored and HDR is added, it looks better overall as a result
Im usually not a HDR-Tech-Nerd, who looks how bright and vibrant a movie is but i have to agree: Blade Runner 2049 is a really good showcase on how crisp and detailed 4k can look. But i won't use it for showing off HDR. Black Levels are not as deep as i like them to be, specular highlights just don't pop of the screen and the colors look a little bit muted, especially in all the scenes with Neon Lights where you expect vibrant colors. I still love the movie and think that the 4k Bluray is worth picking up. Plus: Denis Villeneuve probably didn't want the movie to have this HDR pop and I'm fine with it. And i don't mind the HDR label like Vince. I read 4k reviews before i buy a bluray so i always know what i'm buying.
This is what happens during technology/format transition. Very soon everything will be in packaged HDR Rec.2020 and there will be no choosing between B/W, SDR, or HDR. Until then, for the next two or three years we'll have to deal with some marketing misrepresentations and tiered pricing. Thanks for being a consumer advocate and calling out this trend
I agree with your point about the HDR . But I feel you missed to point out that the resolution and image quality is on the 4K disc is far superior to that on the standard 1080p blu ray disc. The 4K transfer is one of the cleanest out there. This is still one of my favourite transfers even if the HDR is dim. But well done for pointing out this issues with misleading HDR . Another very interesting video Vincent keep up the good work.
@@absolutium In the hocus pocus HDR release (at least in the UK or at the very least the version I own) you get the 4K disc as well as the regular Blu-ray. I've watched the film both ways on an LG GX (basically a CX but wall mounted) and I did notice a perceivable resolution increase from the 4K compared to the 1080p disc. Obviously not really any difference in the peak brightness and such which is what originally led me to this video. Either way I’ve got to say that I'm glad I have the 4K disc because it is the best way I can currently watch it. I skimmed through the film on prime just to see what it was like on there and while it's just fine and convenient it really doesn't come close to disc as you’d probably expect. It's got me wondering about the iTunes release because that claims to be dolby vision but if there's no HDR one would assume there can be no proper dolby vision either but it would certainly make for an interesting comparison if it did. It’s also got me wondering about the original Blade Runner amongst other films. Regardless if you’ve made it this far then thanks for reading, in conclusion I do feel a bit shortchanged knowing this release could be even better but I won’t be losing sleep over it. I really do wish I could see it in IMAX again though *sigh.
I agree with Vincent here. SDR values in an HDR package is still SDR -> it literally looks 99% the same as watching the SDR bluray color and luminance wise. Besides as someone with an HDR panel it's getting kind of annoying to 'blindly' buy a movie or game advertised as HDR only to find out it really isn't. And especially in case of the games I have in mind, it for sure is not related to creator's intent at all. That I'm sure of.
Totally agree. Why isn't there no industry standard that states an HDR disc advertised as HDR must have a minimum peak brightness within the movie , this minimum peak brightness must exceed the maximum peak brightness of the same SDR disc - not including any intro or credits.
Thanks. I wouldn't consider myself a videophile but, I have been investing in UHD HDR blu ray disks, trusting that they are what they advertise that they are. Thanks for reminding me that those big, flashy, acronyms are, first and foremost, marketing and should not be trusted arbitrarily.
I absolutely get where you are coming from and what you are trying to say, and it's very reasonable. If something ISN'T HDR, they should not be putting HDR on the packaging, it's as simple as that, as it's misrepresenting the product and promoting it for something it doesn't have. It's like selling a game and saying it has got single player and multiplayer, when in fact it doesn't have multiplayer. Like you say, if the creators intent is not to have HDR, that's fine, but don't advertise it as having it if it doesn't have it in that case.
I’m still shocked by this. Just watched the 4K and I still think it looks incredible. I know the Nits aren’t as high but the use of shadow is really good. Quite surprised at this being the case and yet the film still looks demo worthy to me
@@JASONXMARIELA Except it actually DOES look worse than SDR, as he says in the video. If you process SDR you can literally get a higher peak brightness than the HDR version, which is ridiculous. The only good thing about the HDR version is the WCG.
I definitely agree with what he's saying about luminance but I thought HDR involved colour range as well regardless of how bright it might be? Perhaps I missed something in the video, but is he saying that the films he is talking about don't have a wider colour range (rec.2020?) either?
I think the issue is that HDR is not constituted by increased color range alone. So if that's all you're getting, then fine, advertise the movie as legitimately enhanced. But it's not HDR.
Thank you for taking a stand. There are so many 4K HDR films and shows that are so dark that I've asked myself this question many times before. And now I know the answer. ;0) again, thank you!
Great video Vincent totally agree. If they're offended by term Fake HDR they should maybe ask themselves how customers feel being swindled. Why not call these Scam 4K or just state "Forget this 4K, save some money and stick with the Blu-Ray". Well done for calling these companies out. The sad thing is that they say there's no demand for physical media but that may be as people are fed up with double / triple dipping and being taken for mugs.
Unfortunately, the creator is fighting a losing battle as he doesn't do the marketing. If marketing did not put HDR on the packaging then they expect sales would plummet. Problem is consumers have been programmed to expect it from High definition content to the extent it is ubiquitous with HDef. Hyped Dynamic Range!
I never really liked HDR until I bought an OLED it wasn't until then I realised the full value of HDR however I think in this case Bladerunner 2049 HDR stands for Happily Doubles Resolution and I guess that's enough for me to buy it over the 1080p version . It's a shame it doesn't take full advantage of the screen I have now though and shouldn't be labelled as HDR before I would have been extremely happy with the purchase now I'm semi happy ! Excellent work Vincent !
It is unlikely a Dolby Vision variant for streaming is much brighter particularly being that it is compressed more for streaming. It will be different because of the Dolby Vision processing 'look'. If they were going advantage of dynamic range, they could've done that once and process both the HRD10 and Dolby Vision variants at the same time using Dolby Lab's tools for than.
@@matthewgaines10 Like Vincent I only watch UHD discs but I think the issue would still be the same. He was also talking about how Star Wars only gets to about 300 to 400 nits, though I thought star wars looked ok. It's just a shame because Star Wars used to be bleeding edge!
This is from Mr. Deakins forum. It was his decision for the HDR to look this way as it was filmed, not an intention to mislead the buying public: Roger Deakins 3 years ago We did a special 'grade' for the HDR version of 'BR 2049' and it looked quite close to the regular version of the film. The problem arises when a regular grade is transferred directly into an HDR format without any adjustment for the format.
Thank you for doing this, people getting the truth out there, with facts, not speculation is what makes the internet great. Also, studios need to be called out on their bullshit, cause too many big businesses think their customers are idiots and can't tell a good product from a cheaper one.
lmao you should use the "hocus pocus HDR" it's way more hilarious. I also wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm all about creators intent but I don't understand why some hate HDR and with movie like Blade Runner 2049(what I haven't seen yet) I was expecting to see awesome HDR effects but I guess not then.
I 100% agree with you. Funny thing is that people on reddit and UA-cam often call BR 2049 one of the best 4k blurays you can buy. I respect filmmaker intent, but I agree with you that it is misleading to present something as if it is taking advantage of HDR (with prominent display of it on the label) when you know you are never planning to work in the range that would demand it. I dont expect them to put SDR on the label, but maybe better just to not label it with any range at all. Just let it sell on its own merits.
Doesn't affect the love for sure but did you pay full price for the 4K HDR Blu-ray? I mean I bought mine on sale but it still sucks that I paid the money for it. I could have just bought the 1080p Blu-ray and that would have been cheaper still.
@@Nope2022HugeTheWarningFan I know you're joking but that's a stupid idea. At the same time I haven't bought a 4K player or tv yet so it's a moot point at the moment.
@@DarrenKrusi The UHD is more detailed, has better and more accurate colours, less compression. HDR is literally only brightness, why do you have such an obsession with it? The 4K is clearly worth it.
I had to pause the video and come here to comment. I was laughing out loud throughout the whole "creator's intent" scene with lights off. Dude, you just earned a subscriber for life.
Thank-you for making these constructive criticisms, hopefully one day we might get better quality releases of these films. I love Bladerunner2049 on bluray and the 4k edition, but I am disappointed that we are not getting the best quality that should be available, and that it's being falsely advertised.
I agree with what you say Vincent. If I see 4K HDR on a box cover, I am entitled to assume it is in 4K and has HDR colour range. If it is not 4K HDR then surely that is false advertising. Once again, consumers are having to read the fine print to see what they are really buying (that is if the truth is even in the fine print). Thanks for the enlightenment Vincent.
Competely agree with you and totally support your case - if I watch an HDR video, I expect it actually HAVE a Higher Dynamic Range than SDR - they are extracting the urine with this. 🤦♀️🤦♂️ Surely if they're making easily testable false claims, they can be done under the Trade Descriptions act?
Roger Deakins isn't a fan of HDR. "I'm not sure if they are coming up with the same picture. HDR is a case in point. If we had not done a separate timing pass for 'Sicario', the HDR version would have been like watching a completely different film. If you create a balance of light and dark on set you expect that balance to be maintained throughout the process. I personally resent being told my work looks 'better' with brighter whites and more saturation." Also Vincent you still get a higher resolution picture with the UHD version.
Absolutely the brightness achieved on set should be followed as closely as possible throughout all post process work. That's half the point of HDR! HDR is the only way to reproduce much of the imagery as it was seen on set.
Between film, the capturing capabilities of all but the earlier digital cinema cameras, and the file formats produced by the cameras themselves and those passed around for editing and effects/post production, most of movie production has been far more "HDR" (file formats that support 32-bit/floating point color and more meta-data, no less) and since long before what most of us think of as HDR (rec.2020, 10/12-bit color, UHD Blu-ray, HDR displays, etc). If he had issues with HDR/Wide Color Gamut as a concept, I think the would have manifested long before HDR as it applies to consumer electronics. Here is another post of his: "It is nice having the depth of the black and the option to brighten a highlight but if HDR is used as it is advertised I find it quite distracting." Considering that, and especially seeing the former quote in context ( www.rogerdeakins.com/lighting-2/sicario-grading-for-hdr/ ), I feel like it might be what the advent of HDR capable displays (in general), delivery formats to consumers, and marketing has done to people's expectations on how his content should look, including people second guessing what he captures on set through post process work, more than a resentment to "HDR".
@@BeastieMK RAW is not HDR format. It can be coverted to HDR (PQ tone responce curve), if we know the range of the camera. Now, the problem here is that these are photos. If metadata on videos were to chage on every frame (or scene), it will not be a problem, like in Dolby Vision. Now, in hdr10 metadata is static (not always, BTW, but usually). It can only be correctly presented on frames that are inital frames, unless we are talking about 1000/4000 nit device (there -- no problem as well). To present it correctly on 700 nits (like LG C9), we need DTM, the recomended DTM curve is BT.2390.
No! A major studio or distributor would never falsely advertise their products! It just does NOT happen. But seriously, it's "hocus-pocus" HDR from now on for me!
Hey Vincent. Keep up the good work analyzing these HDR-movies. I also would like to know if the movie is true 4K or if it was mastered from a 2K intermediate. 200nits and 2K on UHD-BD, is the biggest rip off ever.
Vincent, I would watch every single review of 4K Blu Rays of you review their HDR meta data like this. Top find, well done! Simply false advertising. I would never had bought this film if I knew this first!!!
i think the film is graded well and the hdr definitely improved depth, it is weird that they didn't take advantage of higher nit specular highlights, would've made those wow moments which i remember not getting from the image, so this explains it
@@lawrence-yx1ew yeah but to have no hdr highlights (legit like 2% of the screen coverage at 600 nit plus) is a stupid decision on the directors part. It causes bugger all eyestrain and huge benefits to image depth
I completely agree. I bought and calibrated a good hdr tv specifically to enjoy content using the full dynamic range. Just as I did my sound setup for good atmos mixes. Sub par implementations advertised as being the latest and greatest is practically a slap in the face when you shell out the extra money to get these experiences. A 4k disc marked with HDR and Atmos logos should have the work put in to deliver on these selling points.
Thank you so much. You are the best reviewer. I understand the peak brightness is just like sdr or so. But what about color gamut ? Isn’t it better ? Take a look at the end of the movie, the scenes in the “orange color” area. There should be a difference, isn’t it ? Thanks Vincent.
I completely agree, your correct to point this out. Regardless of artistic intent, HDR labelling is a sales tool and if it’s not used to any meaningful extent on the disc is a con. Thanks for letting people know.
I could not agree more with what you said. Even in the past I avoided bad HDR implementations on UHD BRs. Same goes for bad audio audio formats like Dolby Digital or DTS. On (UHD-BR) I expect a lossless audio format. Besides that bad 3D audio mixes are another topic where a lot of studios do really bad job. There are dozens of movies out there that advertise Dolby Atmos/DTS:X while only having like 1 or 2 minutes of audio comming from the height speakers. Which is a real shame.
Vincent Teoh is full HDR in the flesh, with a resolution of up to 5k60Hz interpolated. His body also houses multiple proximity sensors that can be activated with a thrusting motion toward his anterior receptacle. As advertised on TV!
If you're looking for a name for it I think the best way to describe it is "SDR like HDR", it gets the point across but without the negative connotation that I think is what bothers the people that dislike "fake SDR". As for the advertising it's something that I get the frustration behind, just like I wish the companies were more transparent about 4K films that used a 2K digital intermediate. Truthfully I have very little issue with those calling it 4K or HDR because honestly when I've compared them side by side versus the normal Blu-ray on the same TV when I see a little bit of a difference in the color grading or when pixel peeping for clarity the UHD Blu-ray beats out the normal Blu-ray (although whenever I do it is small) However at the same time how much difficulty would there be to just simply add what the resolution was the film was mastered in, what the average per frame peak brightness was, and what the maximum peak brightness of a film was in the spec box at the bottom back of the film box. If they did that I don't think it would hurt sales for people that are just browsing for a movie, but also would be greatly appreciated by those that are AV people.
Case Closed!!!!! You go Vincent!......They don't want people getting educated on the many ways we get cheated, whether you are a video/audiophile or average consumer.
I'm still a little confused about 4K HDR. Even though BR2049 is low nits, wouldn't the colors be better with the wider color gamut compared to the blu-ray? Also having the content in 4K as well.
@@desinho9 showing the 1080p and 4K side by side and saying 'they looked the same' without the same amount of analysis attributed to the HDR, is as misleading as the HDR lable on this disc
Vincent, keep calling it the way it is. In the U.S. the FTC enforces truth in labeling. It is absolutely okay for filmmakers to do whatever creative thing they want to do but they shouldn't label it as something it isn't.
Impossible to argue with your findings and opinions on this matter. Roger Deakins' cinematography is excellent of course, but I found 2049 to be lacking in depth and detail compared to the vastly superior original Blade Runner. Even Deakins said Jordan Cronenweth (cinematographer - Blade Runner) was the true master of light and shadow. Cronenweth would have likely wanted to fully utilize HDR encoding if he was alive to oversee the 4K Blu-ray transfer of the 1982 masterpiece, fortunately Warner Bros. did a great job on that one. The sound mix on 2049 also has heavily bloated, clipped LFE throughout, especially on the Dolby Atmos track. Let's hope Denis Villeneuve's Dune receives better results.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the way it was lit. This film could easily be regraded for proper HDR presentation up to 1000nits. The sound on 2049 is absolutely fantastic you couldn't be more wrong.
@@haaake - I didn't say anything about how it was lit. The score is great in 2049 - but I didn't say anything about that either. The sound was mixed with something like a +10dB gain over reference on the LFE channel (I can't remember exactly, it was confirmed in 2017 by Oppo and Warner Bros. after I purchased the 4K Blu-ray and researched the sound issue). Now before you go saying I'm wrong about this, put the disc in and listen for a crackling distortion sound on Chapter 1 at 0:00.03. The distortion is caused by the huge gain in LFE over reference causing it to clip, and can be easily heard throughout various parts of the movie. And before you go saying I don't know what I'm talking about or my equipment is at fault, I'm a 25 year experienced speaker technician who works in the industry: equipment used is an Oppo 105D, a Panasonic UB9000, Arcam processor, Bryston amplifiers and Aerial Acoustics speakers. Maybe Warner Bros. fixed the clipping sound issue since the original 2017 releases, but I haven't heard anything on that.
Directors don't like high brightness because stuttering highlights at 24 fps are painful to the eye - the brighter the highlight, the more it hurts. The solution is to shoot at higher frame rates or use motion interpolation.
Paid shills, very few official reviews are accurate, independent people are best such as this guy. Same goes for reviews of anything, games, films, various products etc
It's very likely that they just viewed it through naked eyes, without any additional equipment to test the nit values. Believe me when I say the difference between SDR and HDR is at times not very distinguishable to human eyes.
I vote for HPDR - Hocus Pocus Dynamic Range! As a side note on "creative intent," this is also the reason I refrain from telling other TV owners how to set their TVs. While I personally enjoy watching a calibrated TV and without any soap opera effect, I have come to realize that there are people out there who really do enjoy watching with their TVs set to "Vivid / Dynamic" with motion interpellation on. To each their own I suppose.
I somewhat agree with you to an extent. My explanation here may not be the best, but I'll try. HDR is defined as the the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of an image. According to the Dolby Vision white paper, Blu-ray and SDR is limited from 0.117 nits to 100 nits. For HDR, the minimum luminance should go as low as 0.005 nits to peak luminance of 1000 nits and beyond. So even though a movie like Blade Runner 2049 may not reach peak brightness beyond 200 nits, it may retain details on the lower end of the dynamic range. I believe we call this shadow detail? That may be lost in SDR 1080p Blu-ray. This is on top of the DCI-P3/Rec. 2020 WCG over SDR's Rec. 709 colour gamut. And not to mention that BR2049 was also beautifully shot in 3.4K and mastered in 4K. That resolution is preserved on 4K Blu-ray. I understand the frustrations with the lack of peak brightness in 4K Blu-rays, and it should be marketed as "SDR in HDR container". But 4K Blu-ray is pretty much false advertising. First, we shouldn't even be calling it 4K Blu-ray. 4K was originally for DCPs with horizontal resolution of 4096 pixels. Ultra HD is up to 3840px only. And most movies are presented as "DCI-P3 in Rec. 2020" containers for colour gamut. So what's my takeaway here? Maybe don't worry too much and just enjoy the disc as it is. P.S. - I should maybe try switching on HDR to SDR conversion for low peak brightness movies and watch it on my TV. I'd be curious to know the resulting experience.
Between this and the 'HDR' TVs that accept the signal but can't display the signal properly, there needs to be an HDR certification board that review all TV sets and blu rays released to check for compliance to the standard.
![Alita: Battle Angel 4K Blu-ray HDR Analysis [SPOILERS]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JLmkRyhjzQ8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Alita: Battle Angel 4K Blu-ray HDR Analysis [SPOILERS]](/img/tr.png)
![Rogue One: A Star Wars Story 4K Blu-ray HDR Analysis [SPOILERS]](/img/n.gif)
I agree with Vincent. SDR in a HDR container should still be called SDR. I have come accross DVDs advertised as 5.1, and technically they were, except only the 2 front channels contained any audio data. It's just false advertising.
I've found that a lot too when I was collecting DVDs.
I totally agree, I even think we need a better HDR certificate to guarantee real HDR, lets call it ,,Real HDR". It is not only misleading but gives people who never seen HDR before a bad impression so it could have a negative impact on the technology.
@Wojciech Olczyk Pretty good, there...
SDR is 100 nits. LOL. Of course i did not read bt.2408. If I were to read it 203 nits?
@@perschistence2651 So how many nits would need to be in the content to receive this "Real HDR" certificate?
Very interesting, thanks! 10 Bit colors are more important to me than HDR. I don't need to be blinded by light, but I want subtlety and details in my colors. Regular Blu Rays can't offer that.
That's not the case. Besides colors which aren't reproducible within the define color space (BT 709 in case of HD BDs), "subtlety and details" in colors don't require a certain bit depth. At least not, when the image gets properly dithered (at the cost of a higher noise floor, granted), a topic which often and annoyingly gets entirely omitted by many producers with ugly banding artifacts being the most prominent visible flaw.
Fully agree Vincent! So sick of fake HDR in movies and games myself.
Hey Vincent, would you be willing to provide a list of verified HDR movies? Thanks for exposing the “fake hdr”.
@@traverien simple, there are no REAL ones.
@@aarondaniel9986 "Keep in mind, age has nothing to do with quality, classics shot on 35mm such as Independence Day, Lawrence of Arabia and Ghostbusters can have the original negative film scanned at up to 6K."
Um they could be scanned at 128K.... or even higher if you like. There is no "up to" with film.
Sure, you won't really get more details past around 5.5K but it can still be scanned at any resolution you want.
Games do fake HDR? Really? What games
@@R1ckmister some are even on this channel: ua-cam.com/video/hJgXQ3qNg74/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/mE-_3aabOU8/v-deo.html
In reality RDR2 has kind of been fixed with some updates
Ooh controversial, I love it! While I agree with your sentiment that packaging SDR in an HDR container is a bullshit move and artistic intent is not enough to justify it, I feel like the same argument can also be levied at using 2K DIs rather than 4K DIs as a source. Now yes, the upscaling process done by the studio is superior to what your TV can do, but I'm not quite certain where I stand on this issue. Ultimately, as long as the video quality isn't actually hampered, I guess it's OK? And Blade Runner 2049 is my favourite film of the decade so I really can't say no to it!
However, I do have a bone to pick with Christopher Nolan. His films have gradually been getting awful sound mixed that are way too hot to the point of distortion (clipping) embedded on the actual soundtrack. Dialogue gets lost underneath the music and sound effects and its pretty much impossible to listen to at reference level. Ironically, listening at a lower volume gives the opposite effect of what he intended by losing impact. Now he and his award winning sound mixer claim this is all intentional to give an impressionistic effect. I call bullshit on this because a 48 kHz/24-bit soundtrack can go really loud quite cleanly.
Mixing your sound to distort a 48/24 soundtrack is like grading your video for HDR and then putting it in an SDR container. Or when you take a photo, it's like over exposing your image to convey a sense of brightness - but in video, we have a solution for that, and it's called HDR. Likewise for audio, we DO have a solution and it's a 48/24 format. If you want to push even louder than that (which is absolutely insane and even if your sound system can reproduce it, you would end up getting tinnitus), you would need to use a 32-bit audio format (I erroneously said earlier you needed a 96/24 audio format, but that would only increase the audio frequency range that is captured and not the dynamic range, or volume of the sound if that's easier to understand. For reference: 16-bit = 96 dB of dynamic range, 24-bit = 144 dB which is akin to the noise level on an aircraft carrier deck. Frankly, it is a bit more complicated than I'm making it out to be and I'm only giving the gist of it).
In conclusion, I call bullshit on Nolan's "impressionistic" sound mixing and call for him to come back down to earth. I'd like to not risk blowing my speakers from the ridiculous clipping baked into his soundtracks.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
From what I heard from people who actually went to see Tenet,you're gonna have a blast from its sound mix. It makes The Dark Knight Rises sound coherent in comparison. I heard it sounds more blown-up than Interstellar.
@@CharlieA24 Yup, it's pretty bad - the dialogue is essential and yet completely buried. To remind myself, I also watched Interstellar last night and boy, the amount of times that the score and effects bury the dialogue...
The Social Network is a stellar example of a film that effectively uses the dynamic range of modern audio formats. The nightclub scene is bloody loud but the direction and acting also convinces you that the characters are having just as difficult a time as you in understanding what they are saying to each other. In Nolan's films, you're convinced the actors are having a perfectly audible conversation with each other and you're just observing them from miles away with a directional microphone.
I did still enjoy Tenet though, even if it isn't necessarily Nolan's best and despite the myriad editing and sound mix issues.
He needs to use Atmos and do a better job mixing it.
If your movies doesn’t have proper HDR don’t advertise as having HDR
It does, shadow details.
It's simple any movie with cgi does not have true HDR. Im to lazy to explain why just look it up
@@Diggs4ever That makes no sense to be honest.
@@Diggs4ever I am curious about this. CGI can simulate light fed into a virtual camera that is not hindered by exposure times that are too long or short, sensors that will not clip if the virtual light is too bright or be inaccurate or noisy in low light, etc. If anything, CGI should have a much easier time rendering an image with very wide dynamic range than a camera would have capturing one.
This is capitalism we're talking about. Would be good, but won't happen.
Fake HDR, and Fake 4k... you should just call it fraudulent marketing.
Isnt that illegal?
@@TechnoBro999 Only if government or a class action lawsuit occurs and proves as much...
He never said it was not 4k.
@@gaba023 I was talking about 4K discs in general and how most DIs are 2K... Blade Runner gets credit for being mastered at almost 4K.
Patrick M modern films almost always have a 2K DI. That’s why 4K fans lap up older films as they have the information from when they were shot.
It’s also to do that most films use VFX and it’s taxing already without upping it to 4K. Much like how video games work.
I agree. If the footage is SDR, it should not be sold as HDR!!! And the term "Fake-HDR" works perfectly. Keep using it.
From now on... I shall declare every fake HDR movies as "Hocus Pocus HDR"
🤣
Hocus pocus is spelt with a "c" not a "k" (:
@@dylreesYT oh, thanks man
HP-HDR
@@larserlandsson9592 HPR... Hocus Pocus Range
I've seen so many people say "this is one of the best showcases of HDR so far!" Interesting to see it's not even HDR at all...
Exactly every review I’ve seen they have said it’s a benchmark title when I bought it I thought the picture was good but it was all about the Dolby Atmos with that movie for me
I think it's the greatest showcase of OLED so far
The film and cinematography are just stunning. Most likely people being blown away by that and not the technicalities
@@MannYSJ1080p more than half the movie is foggy lol and the rest try to simulate the old movie and looks artistic but really it is overrated
Still think the 4K Blu-ray detail is excellent but in principle, I totally agree with the false HDR advertising. If the intent is to keep color grading at SDR levels then don't promote HDR and sell the 4K cheaper.
Keep speaking the truth, Vincent. There are no doubt a huge number of people who deeply value your insight and analysis. Thank you for shining a light on concerns that many of us videophiles have but don’t possess the equipment to confirm. As well, love the comment about the flame retardant jacket. ❤️
"HDRn't" is a term popularized by Linus. Maybe you can use that.
Linus also created a whole hdr monitor comparison videp using a video player that doesn't support hdr.
Linus is a hack.
@@Lead_Foot HDTVTEST also does not use a camera that has hdr... Just saying)) And even if he did do you watch on hdr device?))
@@lolerie yes, watching on 65c9 and commenting via S10+. Both have HDR screens. But that's beside the point here.
Валерий Заподовников what are you getting at?
What about High Dynamic Revenue? or
High Dynamic Ripoff?
Hahahaha I vote for the revenue!
High Dynamic Revenue sounds accurate.
I prefer "Ripoff". The acronym, not the ripoff per se...
someones upset they dont have a high end tv
It's amazing how meh the "HDR" looks on this disc when the original Blade Runner 4K transfer looks absolutely fantastic. No excuse whatsoever.
Apart from the problem of BR49 being rendered in 3.4k. It's not going to look as great as filmstock that has had a 4k transfer no matter what.
Talking about the HDR specifically as this is the focus of the video. The HDR in the OG Blade Runner is much better. The native 4K transfer from 35mm film is just a bonus. 3.4k digital with no grain vs 4k native transfer scanned from 35mm with film grain is a bit of a subjective call as to which is better from that point of view but, personally, I also prefer the 35mm look in this particular case.
Because the cinematographer is dead, no one ask him how his film should look! Roger Deakins is alive and he has final say on how his film should look. And this guy making a video here think he know better than a Deakins! What a f nerve! He makes a loving of comparing monitors shot with his lame video camera and transferred to a shitty UA-cam compresión, but has the nerve to tell Deakins how his films should look like! HDR is Ther from the camera it has a 15 stop DR, a lot more that any Medium his looking at it can display! HDR is not about brightness at all!
@@pablovi77 Calm down and please don't poop yourself in the process. He knows what he's talking about, you don't. HDR is about high dynamic range and it's clear that this movie doesn't have HIGH dynamic range. Creator's intent is whole different story, he doesn't criticise it, he just points out HDR is false advertising in this case.
Deakins have said that "Any difference between the Blue Ray, the HDR and the original screen version (flat) is purely unintentional." So the creator himself clearly admits that this movie isn't HDR.
klik klik For fuk sake I’m a cinematographer as well. The movie has all the dynamic range it can have, it doesn’t need to have anything higher than 200 nits. Why? When the cinematographer wanted the film to be on the dark side. And that’s how he wanted it to look.
SDR in HDR container is the new Atmos label (with 10 secs or less atmos (top speakers) in the movie) . Labels sells :)
Regardless of hdr the picture is great on bladeruner 2049. But I agree, false advertising
So 2 things. 1 Loving the flame proof jacket. 2. From my photography background for me a photo with HDR is having a lot of shadow details whilst retaining a lot of highlight details in the same frame. So as opposed to thinking of HDR as getting the "blinding effect" of a sunrise in a HDR movie, couldn't the creative intent with BR2049 be that lots of details in shadows are retained?? Since in general BR2049 is a pretty dim/dark movie.
Didn't see any significantly improved shadow detail in our side-by-side comparison after calibration.
You're right that the 10bit signal should be able to be fully utilized to just represent the brightness values from 0 to 200 nits, and give a full 1024 shades in that brightness range with impeccable tonal quality.
Chances are that's not what they did and most likely the video file is only using around 200 shades to represent their 200 nit image.
@@hdtvtest Someone else here in the comments provided this link: archimago.blogspot.com/2018/03/1080p-blu-ray-vs-4k-uhd-blu-ray-blade.html I think you would find it interesting. Cheers!
Glad there are people out there holding the studios fire to the flame. Kudos
NOTE : the Canon DP-V3120 31" 4K HDR Reference Monitor he is using to bring us this free analysis only costs $32,000!
Hold that fire to the flame 🔥 🔥
No, there is no compromise here. It's "fake HDR"--if for no other reason--to address false advertising. That sign on the back proclaiming hdr in big letters is wrong. If it was in an hdr container but wasn't really advertised as much because of it, then fine. But this is Fake HDR. There's creative intent, and marketing intent, and purchase intent (expectations).
If this false marketing bothers you, please send a link to this video to the WB studio and let them know how you feel. If enough people complain maybe they'll do something about it in future releases.
This makes me laugh at all the reviewers of the UHD version who go on and on about how great the HDR looks. Everyone should send this video to those "reviewers".
Too bad there arne't more reviewers of content like Vincent.
It's a shame no one checked out just how amazing Coco looked with Dolby Vision on Disney Plus because people were too obsessed whining about how Disney Plus had no HDR at all simply because of The Mandalorian. Although honestly when I watched The Mandalorian, which was a few months after release, I honestly can say I noticed no HDR issues. It seemed dim when I first tried it out just when it was out, but when I got around to actually watching it, it seemed much brighter. Maybe I'm blind, but even in the first episodes it definitely went way above 200 nits.
thenonexistinghero Er… what does that have to do with anything?
@@BlownMacTruck It's about reviewers not reviewing the stuff that matters (to me).
thenonexistinghero That makes even less sense in this context.
Disappointing but the film is still a visual marvel.
2049 story is weak, it's entirely superfluous as a film, like most sequals.
@@SEAL341 Many people would agree to disagree with you; I'd be one of them. I respect your view; it's perfectly valid. I think Josh and I disagree.
@@BirdArvid I thought it was tedious and pointless. Everything that needed to be said already was in the original.
What did you like about it storywise? Where was the climax to the film?
It isn't enough to have special effects and look pretty, like Ana DeArmas.
Shame the actors didn't wake up, a dull and pedantic yawnfest.
@@davewills6121 Not enough explosions and yelling for you?
So true Vincent👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻 I'm a Hard-media Movie Collector and an Artist myself (Digital/Fine: Arts) I Will Spend twice or three times on a movie I like to have the opportunity to view it in the different formats (DVD/Blu-Ray/4K/HDR/UHD) variants. But when it comes to Buying a fraudulently labelled "Standard-Bluray Within an HDR Container" That really P****** me off!!! Especially when I hear stupidity of bogus big-heads whom have footballs or balloons for craniums... and I don't mean that flatteringly! To clarify: "HEADS FILLED WITH AIR"....
Say stupid things like "Artist Intent"... do they honestly know what they are talking about!
Using the word Artist Intent means the artist at some point told you their intentions... otherwise you are lying... these people need to stop trying to sound smart about knowledge that eludes them!!!
It would be as evil and fraudulent of me to sell a digital art piece of mine created on a Canvas with all the settings of 4K resolution... only to print out the piece on a 4"x5" photo card" and still use the term 4K in the title!
Moreover, how's about I painted something with 1920x1080 canvas resolution... only to print it out at 4 times that size! Still the intention to fraud would be there!!!
As the content being sold to you from me does not fill the 4K criteria's!
I know this video is focused on peak brightness and not resolution however I hope your viewers understand the point I'm explaining! At the end of the day we as consumers are paying for an upgrade and in reality just receiving something we already had! How misleading is that!
However, in regards to the 2K content within a 4K container, The ramifications are far worse, as when viewing on a UHD TV, certain settings that would be available for tweaking on Standard Definition DVD or High Definition Blu-ray via a 4K/UHD TV are not available for alterations! As the TVs read the content as a 4K product thus turning off those settings (to make sure you view the content as the artist intended)...
But in reality the settings that you would need to make the 2K products reach their optimum quality on 4K Screens are no longer available!!!
Ask those who write to you justifying the "Artist Intent Augment" and think that the artist truly intended their audience to not appreciate "The Contrasts of Lights and Darks, Colours and Hues and Tints" and just present said audiences with a subdued or monochromic pallets! Was this truly the Artist Intent!
Anyone who says: "well yes , yes it was"...
Ask them, are they the same idiots that would buy a box of eggs when they are presented with the option to buy a box of 6 eggs with Standard Definition artwork printed on it for £1.50 or the very same eggs within a box with High Definition artwork printed on it calling it HDR EGGS and pay £3.00 more! When in reality the product that is being sold is no different than the cheaper variant! If they say they would... then they are just as lost as someone shopping at Waitrose and Lidl instead of Asda or Aldi... Even worse! Someone paying the ridiculous extra of almost 30p to 70p per item extra at Co-Op because they truly think they are helping the farmers out😂🤣😂🤣
Wake-up!!! In reality the content creators (i.e. Farmers) don't even see that profit... Vincent please be more realistic with idiots like these! and tell them to "WAKE UP!!! YOUR BEING RIPPED OFF!!!"
Anyway leaving the Lemmings aside! Keep up your good work and the good fight Vincent!!! You are truly appreciated by those of us with common sense to reason👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Finally someone called out this disc 2 years to late, the reviews on this disc where amazing hdr I even read some where up to 10k nits when i purcahsed it was based on amazing hdr movie, which it wasn't it looked sharp but there was no peak brightness at all in this movie .
Is your TV OLED by any chance?
@@ПавелПовх-з3у I own p quantum x and oled both don't provide a good hdr experience with this movie
@@leeparkinson5900 I don't get it, how tv that can make any sdr brighter fails at this "fakehdr"
BR2049 was mastered in 4K and utilizes a Wide Colour Gamut compared to the SDR BD. The luminance values might be similar, or even identical, to the SDR BD but there are still major differences between the two releases.
Totally agree, it's a trade-off overall. SDR can and will look better since you can push the peak brightness (whereas HDR is locked), but you don't get the WCG of the HDR version.
I respect this review - and agree with the general sentiment (and clearly the focus here is HDR, understood) - but you do somewhat ignore some of the other benefits of the UHD presentation - higher resolution and an extended colour gamut. While it's true HDR is the most impactful compared with WCG and image detail, as 2049 was filmed in 3.4k and upscaled to 4k there is extra detail on offer in this disc when compared to the SDR bluray the is worthwhile for videophiles.
That said, I'm not going to pretend the extra spend for these upgrades are worth it (this will be subjective and based on your screen size, viewing distance and eye keen-ness of course) - and I support your message here. But as a long time viewer from the start, it's unusual for you not to present the whole 'picture' so to speak.
Here's an excellent breakdown of image quality for this release, comparing UHD / 1080p presentations:
archimago.blogspot.com/2018/03/1080p-blu-ray-vs-4k-uhd-blu-ray-blade.html
@@light_splitter What on earth are you on about? Which part of 'I agree' and ' I support this message' did you not understand? I completely agree that this release is clearly sub par, and possibly outright misleading. My comment was purely to point out that there are redeeming qualities to this UHD presentation outside of the dynamic range and even balancing (to an extent) for the failings here - for those interested in other aspects of the presentation (there is objectively more picture detail obvious to any viewer paying attention) and I'd argue that this upside is worth pointing out.
I'd also argue that even if you managed to detect something 'off', I'd quite happily argue that the enjoyment of the cinematography in this movie was not marred greatly by the 'fake HDR' presentation. Would it have been boosted greatly by a proper treatment, of course. Should we take the company to task for this release - absolutely. Should excellent content creators such as Vincent, whom we respect also be pulled up when we feel the full story isn't presented? Yes. That's all I was doing here. I'm unsure if you even read my entire comment if I'm honest.
Thanks for the link to the archimago review! For anyone here who hasn't seen it, I highly recommend it.
Congratulations !! Awesome video Vincent : )
Agree with you that its not HDR for the low nits brightness.
But, even being less than 200nits, the 10-bit Rec2020 container is still very required for the Wide Color Gamut (DCI P3).
The alternative would be what some Studios have done for some titles, which is for the UHD Blu-ray to use a 10-bit SDR Rec709 container, but that means no more Wide Color Gamut (DCI P3) and undesirably only Rec709 color.
And you didnt mention that detail in this video: the color space.
Can you also run more tests, and analyze if Blade Runner 2049 UHD Blu-ray color space goes to DCI-P3/Rec2020 levels, or if its also deceivingly just Rec709 color in a Rec2020 container?
That would be an even more awesome find !!
Maybe worth a follow up video : )
I’m loving the daily uploads Vince, keep it up!
(ding).
Agree with you Vincent. I don't feel there's anything wrong with sdr content on uhd bd/streaming but don't sell to me like it's HDR when it's not.
This disc got amazing reviews and people still think of it as the quintessential 4K UHD. I picked it up recently and compared it back to back with the Blu-ray and was surprised I didn't see much of a difference. This explains it! Can't imagine why the 4K is rated so highly when the BD is almost indistinguishable. Fascinating video and topic!
Probably because it's one of the most beautiful movies on disc, regardless of resolution / HDR. The Cinematography and color grading is immaculate at any resolution.
@@jak3legacy Very true. No matter how you view it, it's a beautiful film with pristine visuals.
Both discs have Atmos as well.
@@Mowglibaloo2 Not on the UK 1080p disc, that only gets dts hd master audio 5.1
I remember when the 4K Blu-ray of BR2049 first came out everyone was saying how this was the best looking 4K HDR disc and reference quality...thanks to Vincent we now get the real review!
There’s more to HDR than peak brightness... this was a very dark movie I saw it in a Dolby theater. That being said I mostly agree peak brightness should get higher than 400nits if you are gonna advertise it as HDR.
Any video frame containing the sun should be mastered to 5,000 Nits.
I'm not totally convinced we need 10,000 Nits, but now that Visio is pushing 3,000 Nit TVs at respectable prices, I don't want the industry low balling HDR anymore.
Bud The Cyborg- ya I have a 2000 nit tv and it is way too bright for my basement. I usually have to turn it down.
@@chrisd6736 My Q8FN theoretically goes to around 1,400 Nits on maximum oversaturation mode, it can be "uncomfortably bright" but I've never seen any small highlights feel out of place, just full field maximum bright seems excessive.
Compared to the highlights you see in real life, a small highlight at 5,000 Nits might not seem out of place.
1000 nits is minimum for true HDR
@@prich0382 unless you are talking about oled tvs.
Makes you wonder just how many more movies have been labeled 'HDR' that are actually just SDR. And don't worry about calling it 'Fake HDR' because that's exactly what it is. I've heard several PC tech channels use the term 'Fake HDR' for any PC monitor that has been labeled 'HDR' but cannot go above 400 nits. Real HDR or 'noticeable' HDR happens at 600 nits and above.
nah i got a badass hdr200 certified panel that i streamed this movie on and it hurt my eyes it was so bright
I would appreciate this type of analysis more often from you. Great content!
I think the BDA fucked everyone over by making HDR mandatory for all Ultra HD Blu-ray discs. Studios are now forced to package their SDR masters into the HDR container. Of course, they could maybe put some effort into making sure it looks passable or at least not worse than the SDR version but some studios seem far too lazy to do even that.
This was the best video I’ve watched this week on UA-cam.
I'm pretty vexed that I purchased this "HDR" disc only to come home and find out it was SDR. Great job calling these people out Vincent.
This is a specific adherence to the design ethos of Roger Deakins. None of his highlights in any film he does with Villeneuve reach pure white. To do so would undermine the specific design choices They made in the colour grade. This was a specific issue with many filmmakers on the Sicario Release which ruined the subdued highlights by pushing them to pure white and thus killed detail. Just because Something can blast you with light doesn't mean it always should
Not disputing the colour grade. Our contention is that an SDR release should have sufficed if they wanted an SDR grade. But no, someone somewhere has to make more money...
I don't see why a true HDR version has to deviate from the cinematographer or the director's visual intent. I'm sure the existing HDR content is mastered in a way that the creators approve of. And if you don't want to use the wider dynamic range just don't release HDR versions. Packaging the SDR master inside HDR containers only makes things look worse. I can't imagine Deakins would want that either.
@@krazyfrog Actually approval is often not the case. It's been brought up by cinematographer Steve Yedlin that many 4k Releases are done purely by the studio without the filmmakers involvement. It was actually notable when Nolan personally oversaw the 4k Mastering of his releases. I'm not sure if it has changed completely since Yedlin Brought this up about 3-4 years ago, but that was a thing.
also, I personally don't know how many modern movies even get 4k releases nowadays. Most stuff is still shot on Arri Alexas (non wide format) which are not native 4k and with VFX, the final master is done at 2l
@@NightSkyPictures1 The Alexa and Alexa Mini that most productions use only shoot in 2.8K but that hasn't stopped studios from making a 4K master. I don't remember the last time a movie released on physical media that didn't have a 4K UHD version. Unfortunately, it seems HDR is tied to the UHD Blu-ray standard, so it seems the creators don't have a choice other than making a fake HDR version even if they don't want to use the extra dynamic range.
@@krazyfrog While it's technically a 4k 'Master'/Output file for disk/theaters. The reason the final deliverable file of the finished film tends to be 2k is due mostly to VFX. Due to the increased fidelity of CGI, render times have markedly increased to the point where putting out 4k natively is cost and time prohibitive (the VFX of the black hole in interstellar, rendered at Imax took up to 100 hrs per frame to render). So the vfx are often rendered in 2k to compensate for the time/computational cost. It's actually easier to do 4k releases of films prior to 2005 because regardless of the output resolution, optically printing the vfx to film and the film grain embedded in the image increases the perceivable/subjective resolution to the eye in a way that reads as higher resolution. So when 4k scans of the prints are made and restored and HDR is added, it looks better overall as a result
Im usually not a HDR-Tech-Nerd, who looks how bright and vibrant a movie is but i have to agree:
Blade Runner 2049 is a really good showcase on how crisp and detailed 4k can look. But i won't use it for showing off HDR.
Black Levels are not as deep as i like them to be, specular highlights just don't pop of the screen and the colors look a little bit muted, especially in all the scenes with Neon Lights where you expect vibrant colors.
I still love the movie and think that the 4k Bluray is worth picking up. Plus: Denis Villeneuve probably didn't want the movie to have this HDR pop and I'm fine with it. And i don't mind the HDR label like Vince. I read 4k reviews before i buy a bluray so i always know what i'm buying.
This should be illegal to advertise these as HDR.
This is what happens during technology/format transition. Very soon everything will be in packaged HDR Rec.2020 and there will be no choosing between B/W, SDR, or HDR.
Until then, for the next two or three years we'll have to deal with some marketing misrepresentations and tiered pricing. Thanks for being a consumer advocate and calling out this trend
You aged well! 👏👏
I agree with your point about the HDR . But I feel you missed to point out that the resolution and image quality is on the 4K disc is far superior to that on the standard 1080p blu ray disc. The 4K transfer is one of the cleanest out there. This is still one of my favourite transfers even if the HDR is dim. But well done for pointing out this issues with misleading HDR . Another very interesting video Vincent keep up the good work.
I was thinking the same....
If you own both versions you would notice both look almost the same.
@@absolutium In the hocus pocus HDR release (at least in the UK or at the very least the version I own) you get the 4K disc as well as the regular Blu-ray. I've watched the film both ways on an LG GX (basically a CX but wall mounted) and I did notice a perceivable resolution increase from the 4K compared to the 1080p disc. Obviously not really any difference in the peak brightness and such which is what originally led me to this video. Either way I’ve got to say that I'm glad I have the 4K disc because it is the best way I can currently watch it. I skimmed through the film on prime just to see what it was like on there and while it's just fine and convenient it really doesn't come close to disc as you’d probably expect. It's got me wondering about the iTunes release because that claims to be dolby vision but if there's no HDR one would assume there can be no proper dolby vision either but it would certainly make for an interesting comparison if it did. It’s also got me wondering about the original Blade Runner amongst other films. Regardless if you’ve made it this far then thanks for reading, in conclusion I do feel a bit shortchanged knowing this release could be even better but I won’t be losing sleep over it. I really do wish I could see it in IMAX again though *sigh.
I agree with Vincent here. SDR values in an HDR package is still SDR -> it literally looks 99% the same as watching the SDR bluray color and luminance wise. Besides as someone with an HDR panel it's getting kind of annoying to 'blindly' buy a movie or game advertised as HDR only to find out it really isn't. And especially in case of the games I have in mind, it for sure is not related to creator's intent at all. That I'm sure of.
Good point I guess. Anyway, I'm here for ASMR purposes.
Totally agree.
Why isn't there no industry standard that states an HDR disc advertised as HDR must have a minimum peak brightness within the movie , this minimum peak brightness must exceed the maximum peak brightness of the same SDR disc - not including any intro or credits.
Thanks. I wouldn't consider myself a videophile but, I have been investing in UHD HDR blu ray disks, trusting that they are what they advertise that they are. Thanks for reminding me that those big, flashy, acronyms are, first and foremost, marketing and should not be trusted arbitrarily.
I absolutely get where you are coming from and what you are trying to say, and it's very reasonable. If something ISN'T HDR, they should not be putting HDR on the packaging, it's as simple as that, as it's misrepresenting the product and promoting it for something it doesn't have. It's like selling a game and saying it has got single player and multiplayer, when in fact it doesn't have multiplayer.
Like you say, if the creators intent is not to have HDR, that's fine, but don't advertise it as having it if it doesn't have it in that case.
I’m still shocked by this. Just watched the 4K and I still think it looks incredible. I know the Nits aren’t as high but the use of shadow is really good. Quite surprised at this being the case and yet the film still looks demo worthy to me
No one said it was bad or looks bad. It just should not be called HDR when it does not utilize the capabilities of HDR.
@@JASONXMARIELA Except it actually DOES look worse than SDR, as he says in the video. If you process SDR you can literally get a higher peak brightness than the HDR version, which is ridiculous. The only good thing about the HDR version is the WCG.
@@aaronth07 so if it uses WGC wouldn't it be worth it? I mean, maybe it's just a super dark movie
@@carlosalejandroalvarenga4913 Yes, that's the only reason I would recommend watching the HDR version. It still has improvements, just not enough.
@@aaronth07 it's a small upgrade, which might not warrant the price jump. But it's still at least an objective improvement right
Honestly at this point, fake 4k transfers and poor, lazy quality gradings should be illegal. Wasting everyone's hard earned money
I definitely agree with what he's saying about luminance but I thought HDR involved colour range as well regardless of how bright it might be?
Perhaps I missed something in the video, but is he saying that the films he is talking about don't have a wider colour range (rec.2020?) either?
warrior hamster I’m also wondering.
I think the issue is that HDR is not constituted by increased color range alone. So if that's all you're getting, then fine, advertise the movie as legitimately enhanced. But it's not HDR.
You can see in the side by side that the colors are also identical.
Nathan Brown Colors look the same because the video is using the BT.709/sRGB color space, which means that all out-of-range colors are tone mapped.
I agree, it’s like having a 7.1 sound track that has 2 silent channels. Most people would call that 5.1
Thank you for taking a stand. There are so many 4K HDR films and shows that are so dark that I've asked myself this question many times before. And now I know the answer. ;0) again, thank you!
Great video Vincent totally agree. If they're offended by term Fake HDR they should maybe ask themselves how customers feel being swindled. Why not call these Scam 4K or just state "Forget this 4K, save some money and stick with the Blu-Ray". Well done for calling these companies out. The sad thing is that they say there's no demand for physical media but that may be as people are fed up with double / triple dipping and being taken for mugs.
Unfortunately, the creator is fighting a losing battle as he doesn't do the marketing. If marketing did not put HDR on the packaging then they expect sales would plummet. Problem is consumers have been programmed to expect it from High definition content to the extent it is ubiquitous with HDef. Hyped Dynamic Range!
I never really liked HDR until I bought an OLED it wasn't until then I realised the full value of HDR however I think in this case Bladerunner 2049 HDR stands for Happily Doubles Resolution and I guess that's enough for me to buy it over the 1080p version . It's a shame it doesn't take full advantage of the screen I have now though and shouldn't be labelled as HDR before I would have been extremely happy with the purchase now I'm semi happy ! Excellent work Vincent !
Thank you for calling out the "director's intent" bs, if it's HDR it should be HDR, not sure why people hate contrast?
It is unlikely a Dolby Vision variant for streaming is much brighter particularly being that it is compressed more for streaming. It will be different because of the Dolby Vision processing 'look'. If they were going advantage of dynamic range, they could've done that once and process both the HRD10 and Dolby Vision variants at the same time using Dolby Lab's tools for than.
@@matthewgaines10 Like Vincent I only watch UHD discs but I think the issue would still be the same. He was also talking about how Star Wars only gets to about 300 to 400 nits, though I thought star wars looked ok. It's just a shame because Star Wars used to be bleeding edge!
This is from Mr. Deakins forum. It was his decision for the HDR to look this way as it was filmed, not an intention to mislead the buying public: Roger Deakins 3 years ago
We did a special 'grade' for the HDR version of 'BR 2049' and it looked quite close to the regular version of the film. The problem arises when a regular grade is transferred directly into an HDR format without any adjustment for the format.
Please do more 4k Blu-ray Analysis videos. Maybe a top reference 4k Blu-ray video too?
Thank you for doing this, people getting the truth out there, with facts, not speculation is what makes the internet great.
Also, studios need to be called out on their bullshit, cause too many big businesses think their customers are idiots and can't tell a good product from a cheaper one.
lmao you should use the "hocus pocus HDR" it's way more hilarious. I also wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm all about creators intent but I don't understand why some hate HDR and with movie like Blade Runner 2049(what I haven't seen yet) I was expecting to see awesome HDR effects but I guess not then.
I 100% agree with you. Funny thing is that people on reddit and UA-cam often call BR 2049 one of the best 4k blurays you can buy. I respect filmmaker intent, but I agree with you that it is misleading to present something as if it is taking advantage of HDR (with prominent display of it on the label) when you know you are never planning to work in the range that would demand it. I dont expect them to put SDR on the label, but maybe better just to not label it with any range at all. Just let it sell on its own merits.
Disappointing for sure. Doesn’t affect my love of the film however
And I don't think the point was to.
Doesn't affect the love for sure but did you pay full price for the 4K HDR Blu-ray? I mean I bought mine on sale but it still sucks that I paid the money for it. I could have just bought the 1080p Blu-ray and that would have been cheaper still.
@@DarrenKrusi Maybe there should be a petition to get your money back?
@@Nope2022HugeTheWarningFan I know you're joking but that's a stupid idea. At the same time I haven't bought a 4K player or tv yet so it's a moot point at the moment.
@@DarrenKrusi The UHD is more detailed, has better and more accurate colours, less compression. HDR is literally only brightness, why do you have such an obsession with it? The 4K is clearly worth it.
I had to pause the video and come here to comment. I was laughing out loud throughout the whole "creator's intent" scene with lights off. Dude, you just earned a subscriber for life.
You are the man. Love your analysis and sincerity.
I like your view on this issue, they should not label an SDR movies as HDR. The word fake-HDR is a great term to use to describe this.
so many "forum people" claim it's got incredible HDR. They full of it
Thank-you for making these constructive criticisms, hopefully one day we might get better quality releases of these films. I love Bladerunner2049 on bluray and the 4k edition, but I am disappointed that we are not getting the best quality that should be available, and that it's being falsely advertised.
love the flame proof jacket!
I agree with what you say Vincent. If I see 4K HDR on a box cover, I am entitled to assume it is in 4K and has HDR colour range. If it is not 4K HDR then surely that is false advertising. Once again, consumers are having to read the fine print to see what they are really buying (that is if the truth is even in the fine print). Thanks for the enlightenment Vincent.
Competely agree with you and totally support your case - if I watch an HDR video, I expect it actually HAVE a Higher Dynamic Range than SDR - they are extracting the urine with this. 🤦♀️🤦♂️
Surely if they're making easily testable false claims, they can be done under the Trade Descriptions act?
I really appreciate your deiailed technical videos , and your dry humour.
Thanks for that Vincent.
Roger Deakins isn't a fan of HDR.
"I'm not sure if they are coming up with the same picture. HDR is a case in point. If we had not done a separate timing pass for 'Sicario', the HDR version would have been like watching a completely different film. If you create a balance of light and dark on set you expect that balance to be maintained throughout the process. I personally resent being told my work looks 'better' with brighter whites and more saturation."
Also Vincent you still get a higher resolution picture with the UHD version.
Absolutely the brightness achieved on set should be followed as closely as possible throughout all post process work. That's half the point of HDR!
HDR is the only way to reproduce much of the imagery as it was seen on set.
@@budthecyborg4575 without correct BT.2390 DTM curve it is impossible. Or Dolby Vision.
Between film, the capturing capabilities of all but the earlier digital cinema cameras, and the file formats produced by the cameras themselves and those passed around for editing and effects/post production, most of movie production has been far more "HDR" (file formats that support 32-bit/floating point color and more meta-data, no less) and since long before what most of us think of as HDR (rec.2020, 10/12-bit color, UHD Blu-ray, HDR displays, etc). If he had issues with HDR/Wide Color Gamut as a concept, I think the would have manifested long before HDR as it applies to consumer electronics.
Here is another post of his: "It is nice having the depth of the black and the option to brighten a highlight but if HDR is used as it is advertised I find it quite distracting."
Considering that, and especially seeing the former quote in context ( www.rogerdeakins.com/lighting-2/sicario-grading-for-hdr/ ), I feel like it might be what the advent of HDR capable displays (in general), delivery formats to consumers, and marketing has done to people's expectations on how his content should look, including people second guessing what he captures on set through post process work, more than a resentment to "HDR".
@@BeastieMK RAW is not HDR format. It can be coverted to HDR (PQ tone responce curve), if we know the range of the camera. Now, the problem here is that these are photos. If metadata on videos were to chage on every frame (or scene), it will not be a problem, like in Dolby Vision. Now, in hdr10 metadata is static (not always, BTW, but usually). It can only be correctly presented on frames that are inital frames, unless we are talking about 1000/4000 nit device (there -- no problem as well). To present it correctly on 700 nits (like LG C9), we need DTM, the recomended DTM curve is BT.2390.
@@lolerieYou have no idea what you're talking about😂
No! A major studio or distributor would never falsely advertise their products! It just does NOT happen. But seriously, it's "hocus-pocus" HDR from now on for me!
I watched this several times at a Dolby Cinema at AMC. I was so excited to see it on a bright LED tv at home. Such a letdown.
I knew something was off about the movie, it looked good there wasn't any banding in the black details. But it's not what i expect from HDR.
Hey Vincent. Keep up the good work analyzing these HDR-movies. I also would like to know if the movie is true 4K or if it was mastered from a 2K intermediate.
200nits and 2K on UHD-BD, is the biggest rip off ever.
Vincent, I would watch every single review of 4K Blu Rays of you review their HDR meta data like this. Top find, well done! Simply false advertising. I would never had bought this film if I knew this first!!!
i think the film is graded well and the hdr definitely improved depth, it is weird that they didn't take advantage of higher nit specular highlights, would've made those wow moments which i remember not getting from the image, so this explains it
This is what I don't understand from this review. Just because the nits aren't as high as other hdr films? Hdr is more than just higher highlights
@@lawrence-yx1ew yeah but to have no hdr highlights (legit like 2% of the screen coverage at 600 nit plus) is a stupid decision on the directors part. It causes bugger all eyestrain and huge benefits to image depth
I completely agree. I bought and calibrated a good hdr tv specifically to enjoy content using the full dynamic range. Just as I did my sound setup for good atmos mixes. Sub par implementations advertised as being the latest and greatest is practically a slap in the face when you shell out the extra money to get these experiences. A 4k disc marked with HDR and Atmos logos should have the work put in to deliver on these selling points.
Thank you so much. You are the best reviewer. I understand the peak brightness is just like sdr or so. But what about color gamut ? Isn’t it better ? Take a look at the end of the movie, the scenes in the “orange color” area. There should be a difference, isn’t it ? Thanks Vincent.
I completely agree, your correct to point this out. Regardless of artistic intent, HDR labelling is a sales tool and if it’s not used to any meaningful extent on the disc is a con. Thanks for letting people know.
HDR Lite? HDR S? 😂😂😂
Id go with HDR F
@@kidShibuya Yes, I like that too. Maybe Vinnie should run a poll to let followers choose between Fake HDR, HDR F, HDR Lite or HPR 😂
I could not agree more with what you said.
Even in the past I avoided bad HDR implementations on UHD BRs.
Same goes for bad audio audio formats like Dolby Digital or DTS. On (UHD-BR) I expect a
lossless audio format. Besides that bad 3D audio mixes are another topic where a lot of studios
do really bad job. There are dozens of movies out there that advertise Dolby Atmos/DTS:X while only having like
1 or 2 minutes of audio comming from the height speakers. Which is a real shame.
Hey Vincent, what are the best 4k HDR disc, in your opinion?
Power Rangers and Pan.
@@CaveyMoth What about for good movies, though?
@@mrtickleuk lol
.
@@mrtickleuk Uhhhhhh... James Bond Skyfall?
They have to leave room for selling true HDR regraded versions some years later.
Vincent Teoh is full HDR in the flesh, with a resolution of up to 5k60Hz interpolated. His body also houses multiple proximity sensors that can be activated with a thrusting motion toward his anterior receptacle. As advertised on TV!
Thanks for doing HDR movies review! Your expertise in invaluable
So ironic that the best cyberpunk movie gets fake HDR
If you're looking for a name for it I think the best way to describe it is "SDR like HDR", it gets the point across but without the negative connotation that I think is what bothers the people that dislike "fake SDR".
As for the advertising it's something that I get the frustration behind, just like I wish the companies were more transparent about 4K films that used a 2K digital intermediate. Truthfully I have very little issue with those calling it 4K or HDR because honestly when I've compared them side by side versus the normal Blu-ray on the same TV when I see a little bit of a difference in the color grading or when pixel peeping for clarity the UHD Blu-ray beats out the normal Blu-ray (although whenever I do it is small)
However at the same time how much difficulty would there be to just simply add what the resolution was the film was mastered in, what the average per frame peak brightness was, and what the maximum peak brightness of a film was in the spec box at the bottom back of the film box. If they did that I don't think it would hurt sales for people that are just browsing for a movie, but also would be greatly appreciated by those that are AV people.
6:57 made me extremely happy for some reason 😂
Case Closed!!!!! You go Vincent!......They don't want people getting educated on the many ways we get cheated, whether you are a video/audiophile or average consumer.
I'm still a little confused about 4K HDR. Even though BR2049 is low nits, wouldn't the colors be better with the wider color gamut compared to the blu-ray? Also having the content in 4K as well.
Yes, if the wider gamut was actually used. That requires a separate analysis which Vincent didn't mention (if he did i missed it)
Seeing as he showed the 1080p version side by side and said they looked the same then no the colors probably don't look better either.
@@desinho9 showing the 1080p and 4K side by side and saying 'they looked the same' without the same amount of analysis attributed to the HDR, is as misleading as the HDR lable on this disc
Vincent, keep calling it the way it is. In the U.S. the FTC enforces truth in labeling. It is absolutely okay for filmmakers to do whatever creative thing they want to do but they shouldn't label it as something it isn't.
Impossible to argue with your findings and opinions on this matter. Roger Deakins' cinematography is excellent of course, but I found 2049 to be lacking in depth and detail compared to the vastly superior original Blade Runner. Even Deakins said Jordan Cronenweth (cinematographer - Blade Runner) was the true master of light and shadow. Cronenweth would have likely wanted to fully utilize HDR encoding if he was alive to oversee the 4K Blu-ray transfer of the 1982 masterpiece, fortunately Warner Bros. did a great job on that one. The sound mix on 2049 also has heavily bloated, clipped LFE throughout, especially on the Dolby Atmos track. Let's hope Denis Villeneuve's Dune receives better results.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the way it was lit. This film could easily be regraded for proper HDR presentation up to 1000nits.
The sound on 2049 is absolutely fantastic you couldn't be more wrong.
@@haaake - I didn't say anything about how it was lit. The score is great in 2049 - but I didn't say anything about that either. The sound was mixed with something like a +10dB gain over reference on the LFE channel (I can't remember exactly, it was confirmed in 2017 by Oppo and Warner Bros. after I purchased the 4K Blu-ray and researched the sound issue). Now before you go saying I'm wrong about this, put the disc in and listen for a crackling distortion sound on Chapter 1 at 0:00.03. The distortion is caused by the huge gain in LFE over reference causing it to clip, and can be easily heard throughout various parts of the movie. And before you go saying I don't know what I'm talking about or my equipment is at fault, I'm a 25 year experienced speaker technician who works in the industry: equipment used is an Oppo 105D, a Panasonic UB9000, Arcam processor, Bryston amplifiers and Aerial Acoustics speakers. Maybe Warner Bros. fixed the clipping sound issue since the original 2017 releases, but I haven't heard anything on that.
Directors don't like high brightness because stuttering highlights at 24 fps are painful to the eye - the brighter the highlight, the more it hurts. The solution is to shoot at higher frame rates or use motion interpolation.
That’s crazy, Blu-ray.com said the HDR was so good they gave it a 5.0. Called it the best way to view this movie. I can’t trust anyone
Paid shills, very few official reviews are accurate, independent people are best such as this guy. Same goes for reviews of anything, games, films, various products etc
Prich038 even avforums.com gave it a 10. My world is upside down
Clark Hagerich it may not have HDR but that movie in 4K is amazing looking on my C9
It's very likely that they just viewed it through naked eyes, without any additional equipment to test the nit values. Believe me when I say the difference between SDR and HDR is at times not very distinguishable to human eyes.
I vote for HPDR - Hocus Pocus Dynamic Range!
As a side note on "creative intent," this is also the reason I refrain from telling other TV owners how to set their TVs. While I personally enjoy watching a calibrated TV and without any soap opera effect, I have come to realize that there are people out there who really do enjoy watching with their TVs set to "Vivid / Dynamic" with motion interpellation on. To each their own I suppose.
If you're looking for a film with real HDR, check out Spartacus (1960).
I agree and the picture quality of the 4K Gemini Man is phenomenal!
PLEASE DO MORE CONTENT LIKE THIS FOCUSING ON 4K BLU RAYS PLEASE
I somewhat agree with you to an extent. My explanation here may not be the best, but I'll try.
HDR is defined as the the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of an image. According to the Dolby Vision white paper, Blu-ray and SDR is limited from 0.117 nits to 100 nits.
For HDR, the minimum luminance should go as low as 0.005 nits to peak luminance of 1000 nits and beyond. So even though a movie like Blade Runner 2049 may not reach peak brightness beyond 200 nits, it may retain details on the lower end of the dynamic range. I believe we call this shadow detail? That may be lost in SDR 1080p Blu-ray.
This is on top of the DCI-P3/Rec. 2020 WCG over SDR's Rec. 709 colour gamut.
And not to mention that BR2049 was also beautifully shot in 3.4K and mastered in 4K. That resolution is preserved on 4K Blu-ray.
I understand the frustrations with the lack of peak brightness in 4K Blu-rays, and it should be marketed as "SDR in HDR container". But 4K Blu-ray is pretty much false advertising.
First, we shouldn't even be calling it 4K Blu-ray. 4K was originally for DCPs with horizontal resolution of 4096 pixels. Ultra HD is up to 3840px only.
And most movies are presented as "DCI-P3 in Rec. 2020" containers for colour gamut.
So what's my takeaway here? Maybe don't worry too much and just enjoy the disc as it is.
P.S. - I should maybe try switching on HDR to SDR conversion for low peak brightness movies and watch it on my TV. I'd be curious to know the resulting experience.
Between this and the 'HDR' TVs that accept the signal but can't display the signal properly, there needs to be an HDR certification board that review all TV sets and blu rays released to check for compliance to the standard.
💯