Lionsgate clearly used the 2003 DI. Grain structure is typical of old 2K DI. The HDR presentation is an improvement for retrieving highlights details that are no longer clipped. The real issue of this new color grading lies on the skin tone hues that I find a little too warm. It might also be too bright for my personnal taste.
i think part of the og look was highlights clipping, so kind of hate the new look, but it looks great technically. certainly an improvement if you care about dynamic range and colors.
Yes. But it manage to retrieve the lost information in the specular lights that were clipped on the blu-ray. The color grading is also different with more yellowish skin tones.
The DI was done at a 2K definition back in 2003. Making a new 4K master would imply rescanning the footage, developing it, and re-editing it. Its easier for Lionsgate to use the old DI and just make an HDR grading out of it. At least the whites are no longer clipped in the HDR presentation.
@@Mimbrera666you are not watching this in HDR, and with an HDR colorspace compatible profile, and likely not on an HDR device…Hence, you can’t make heads or tails of this.
@@spikewilliam one thing to note Tarantino doesn't seem to be a fan of creating new 4k masters from scratch seems he would rather keep what was done originally than risk alternating it in some way at least for his films with a DI since jackie brown was pre DI and it got an original negative scan for 4k and he did approve all 3 new 4ks
is this with dolby vision on or just the standard HDR...? i compared the blu ray to the 4k last night and the blu ray def was brighter and more vivid than the dolby vision 4k.
On UA-cam it's only in HDR10. But DV Dynamic Metadatas won't really matter for this title. If your SDR blu-ray looks brighter it's probably due to a wrong image mode (Dynamic/Standard/Sports) or a wrong calibration. Scopes don't lie, you can see how the HDR presentation is far brighter than the SDR blu-ray. Your SDR image should look as the one in this video if your TV is correctly calibrated/set-up. :)
@@spikewilliam hmm i tried it again and i do have my tv on a vivid setting, running the movie off a pansonic ub820 player, in dolby vision setting... but the blu ray still looks better to me hahaha. Grain and detail is pretty bad when anything is in moving vs stagnant scenes in the new 4K uhd release. The regular original blu ray seems like how the movie was meant to be watched and seems closer to how I remember it being in theaters colors wise. So I guess in the end its just subjective haha
Exactly the comparison I was looking for, thank you. So clearly not brilliant detail-wise but the HDR looks a good improvement
Lionsgate clearly used the 2003 DI. Grain structure is typical of old 2K DI. The HDR presentation is an improvement for retrieving highlights details that are no longer clipped. The real issue of this new color grading lies on the skin tone hues that I find a little too warm. It might also be too bright for my personnal taste.
i think part of the og look was highlights clipping, so kind of hate the new look, but it looks great technically. certainly an improvement if you care about dynamic range and colors.
Clearly the 4K is superior HOWEVER, it’s an extremely close call between the 4k and the blu-ray upscaled by a Panasonic HDR optimizer.
keep up good work, we appreciate it !
Thank you for your nice comment.
@ ❤️❤️
Does bluray have more film grain ? I enjoy the look of film more than things being digitally smoothed out.
It's the same master that was used for the blu-ray. No DNR was applied. There is only a slight temporal grain stabilisation but that's it.
Great comparison video. Very minor upgrade. Hdr is really the only improvement. Is the 4k better than bluray?-yes, but not dramatically
Yes. But it manage to retrieve the lost information in the specular lights that were clipped on the blu-ray. The color grading is also different with more yellowish skin tones.
Great comparison. Bravo!
Thanks ☺️
Hmm, looks like an HDR upgrade from a 2K source?
The DI was done at a 2K definition back in 2003. Making a new 4K master would imply rescanning the footage, developing it, and re-editing it. Its easier for Lionsgate to use the old DI and just make an HDR grading out of it. At least the whites are no longer clipped in the HDR presentation.
It seems to be a bit too bright in the 4k, maybe?
@@Mimbrera666you are not watching this in HDR, and with an HDR colorspace compatible profile, and likely not on an HDR device…Hence, you can’t make heads or tails of this.
@@spikewilliam one thing to note Tarantino doesn't seem to be a fan of creating new 4k masters from scratch seems he would rather keep what was done originally than risk alternating it in some way at least for his films with a DI since jackie brown was pre DI and it got an original negative scan for 4k and he did approve all 3 new 4ks
is this with dolby vision on or just the standard HDR...? i compared the blu ray to the 4k last night and the blu ray def was brighter and more vivid than the dolby vision 4k.
On UA-cam it's only in HDR10. But DV Dynamic Metadatas won't really matter for this title.
If your SDR blu-ray looks brighter it's probably due to a wrong image mode (Dynamic/Standard/Sports) or a wrong calibration. Scopes don't lie, you can see how the HDR presentation is far brighter than the SDR blu-ray.
Your SDR image should look as the one in this video if your TV is correctly calibrated/set-up. :)
@@spikewilliam hmm i tried it again and i do have my tv on a vivid setting, running the movie off a pansonic ub820 player, in dolby vision setting... but the blu ray still looks better to me hahaha. Grain and detail is pretty bad when anything is in moving vs stagnant scenes in the new 4K uhd release. The regular original blu ray seems like how the movie was meant to be watched and seems closer to how I remember it being in theaters colors wise. So I guess in the end its just subjective haha
Huge difference thank u