Not just Scott, the DP/cinematographer and whoever else worked on the sets and art design. Then there's the 4K native scan of the negatives, any clean up, and HDR grading. And the fact that the SDR version didn't also receive a new master/remaster. But don't misunderstand me, Blade Runner 4K is a triumph, and the Atmos remix is amazing as well. Whereas BR2049 4K HDR grading looks the same as the 1080p SDR grading.
fast kein Unterschied.. Würde nur heller gemacht.. keine Schärfe einer 4k scheibe.. 4k filme sind verarsche.. habe mehrere und keiner film 4k hat mich mit 4k Schärfe begeistert 👎
Uhhm what? The HDR version benefits from improved colours, improved highlights and higher resolution. If the contrast had been increased, the blacks would be crushed and highlights would be blown out. SDR looks like it got vaseline smudged on it. HDR got fine details that are not visible in the SDR version.
Bullsh*t. The 4k HDR version of Blade Runner is amazing. Blade Runner 2 (2049) sucks in HDR, it looks worse than the SDR Blu-ray. Light sources are flat and dim compared to the BD.
@@leandersvids it has sense, hdsr just didnt exist when the movie was shot and now they edit it to make it in hdr and it sucks. hdr is complete garbage made to sell tvs that make look hdr like the movie is properly lit
The HDR one looks so much worse. All full of noise and grain. I bet the moving shots look like a sandstorm. There's a resolution point where all of the shot-detail can be captured, and that is around 1080p. Any further resolution gives no more captured detail of what was actually shot, and you just go deeper into the film's noise, which worsens the image. I'd definitely watch the Blu-ray over the 4K. The 4K artificially worsens the image, obviously.
Absolute nonsense. By definition, higher resolution means greater accuracy... not less. Film grain is NOT "noise" either, film grain is detail that is present in the original source material and isn't something that should be discarded!
4K HDR is simply otherworldly! It looks like a movie made yesterday... but better! Scott is a genius.
Not just Scott, the DP/cinematographer and whoever else worked on the sets and art design. Then there's the 4K native scan of the negatives, any clean up, and HDR grading. And the fact that the SDR version didn't also receive a new master/remaster.
But don't misunderstand me, Blade Runner 4K is a triumph, and the Atmos remix is amazing as well.
Whereas BR2049 4K HDR grading looks the same as the 1080p SDR grading.
THE 4K here is a noticeable improvement. Can't always say that. Plus Atmos. Just ordered.
Wow great job! The HDR version is clearly superior. The old version has a weird green tint to it too…
No
A good HDR master will always be superior in terms of realism.
Watched the 4k on my G3 and can say it was simply stunning.
The HDR is actually very good here in Blade Runner 1982.
thanks for the video!!
good job
Prefer the SDR
if i didnt had the right equipment i would also prefer SDR, but i have all the goodies for HDR haha :D !
I prefer the DVD
A lot of people say its a matter of taste. However hdr is actually closer to reality. I personally strongly prefer hdr over sdr.
fast kein Unterschied.. Würde nur heller gemacht.. keine Schärfe einer 4k scheibe.. 4k filme sind verarsche.. habe mehrere und keiner film 4k hat mich mit 4k Schärfe begeistert 👎
IMHO looks like its just 10% more contrast...not impresssed
Just having more contrast would make the image quality worse. I'd say this is pretty impressive
Uhhm what?
The HDR version benefits from improved colours, improved highlights and higher resolution. If the contrast had been increased, the blacks would be crushed and highlights would be blown out. SDR looks like it got vaseline smudged on it. HDR got fine details that are not visible in the SDR version.
The original sdr version is much better, more cinematic! A good proof hdr is garbage and not the way movies are meant to be seen!
Bullsh*t.
The 4k HDR version of Blade Runner is amazing.
Blade Runner 2 (2049) sucks in HDR, it looks worse than the SDR Blu-ray.
Light sources are flat and dim compared to the BD.
Lmao that BS. The HDR version looks way closer to the Orignal vision. And that hideous teal color grading is gone.
@@Chorismos impossible in theaters hdr garbage is not possible because of the use of projectors
@@Noname-yu8qw this comment doesn't make any sense
@@leandersvids it has sense, hdsr just didnt exist when the movie was shot and now they edit it to make it in hdr and it sucks. hdr is complete garbage made to sell tvs that make look hdr like the movie is properly lit
The HDR one looks so much worse. All full of noise and grain. I bet the moving shots look like a sandstorm. There's a resolution point where all of the shot-detail can be captured, and that is around 1080p. Any further resolution gives no more captured detail of what was actually shot, and you just go deeper into the film's noise, which worsens the image. I'd definitely watch the Blu-ray over the 4K. The 4K artificially worsens the image, obviously.
u have no idea, i have both version and the 4k HDR Version looks 10x better on my OLED from Sony !
HAHAHAHAAHAH
@@realifeHD Google translated your comment from your language to English lol
Absolute nonsense.
By definition, higher resolution means greater accuracy... not less. Film grain is NOT "noise" either, film grain is detail that is present in the original source material and isn't something that should be discarded!