AVS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
In the case of an XPR DLP vs. a good 2K DLP, it's probably not as much of an upgrade simply because of the very lackluster contrast on the XPR units. Once you get to something like the Epson 5050, 4K HDR is a clear step up from 2K.



I have a decent 4K HDR set (Vizio P series) and the NX7 with dynamic tone mapping does a very good job while still looking film like.
That may well be true, but if I read Josh correctly he was saying in the case of HDR and tone mapping without a JVC there wasn’t anything out there to do proper tone mapping on board a projector and that other brands likely need a secondary unit to process the tone mapping properly. Maybe I misunderstood what he was saying most of the time I do.

But if that was the case none of the 4k HDR projectors in the 3000 forum would need a secondary tone mapping device. That wouldn’t be logical given the cost to match one with a cheap 4k HDR projector. I know at least some of the cheap DLP 4k HDR projectors use a color filter when doing HDR and that cuts the light output about in half. Sounds kind of counter productive cutting lumens to meet a spec that calls for greater lumens.

I was mainly trying to resolve for myself the statement Josh made, and you kind of confirmed it also that if I don’t need the 4k resolution I’m likely better off staying with 1080p than chasing HDR with a cheaper projector.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,963 Posts
It's not that other projectors don't do any tone-mapping. They have to, or the image on the screen would be unwatchable. It's that JVC does it much better.

Most projectors use static tone-mapping "curves" that are based on: 1) the peak brightness of the image, and 2) the average brightness level. Some curves are better than others. The better ones might even look pretty decent most of the time. But because these curves are static, they can't take into account big frame-to-frame or scene-to-scene brightness changes in the content. As a result, you wind up with some scenes where highlights are clipped or shadows are crushed.

More problematic is that most of these curves rely on metadata in the content to tell them those peak and average brightness levels, and most content has either no metadata or incorrect metadata. Disney owns half of Hollywood today, and they don't put that metadata on anything they release. Without this info, the projector may choose the wrong curve entirely, and users wind up having to manually fiddle with the settings on each new piece of content they watch until they find one that looks somewhat acceptable.

JVC's "Frame Adapt HDR" feature is not a static curve and does not rely on metadata. It will analyze the brightness of the video signal and adjust the tone-mapping frame-by-frame. The results are far better than any static curve, and this is mostly a set-it-and-forget-it process that doesn't require much manual adjustment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Craig Peer

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
It's not that other projectors don't do any tone-mapping. They have to, or the image on the screen would be unwatchable. It's that JVC does it much better.

Most projectors use static tone-mapping "curves" that are based on: 1) the peak brightness of the image, and 2) the average brightness level. Some curves are better than others. The better ones might even look pretty decent most of the time. But because these curves are static, they can't take into account big frame-to-frame or scene-to-scene brightness changes in the content. As a result, you wind up with some scenes where highlights are clipped or shadows are crushed.

More problematic is that most of these curves rely on metadata in the content to tell them those peak and average brightness levels, and most content has either no metadata or incorrect metadata. Disney owns half of Hollywood today, and they don't put that metadata on anything they release. Without this info, the projector may choose the wrong curve entirely, and users wind up having to manually fiddle with the settings on each new piece of content they watch until they find one that looks somewhat acceptable.

JVC's "Frame Adapt HDR" feature is not a static curve and does not rely on metadata. It will analyze the brightness of the video signal and adjust the tone-mapping frame-by-frame. The results are far better than any static curve, and this is mostly a set-it-and-forget-it process that doesn't require much manual adjustment.
Thanks for explaining, and in the world of SDR we have a dynamic range encoded that is well suited to projection as well as flat panels just not as deep of a gamut. Projectors can’t take advantage of the gamut spread in the direction of brightness/luminance so rather than clipping that imposable to produce brightness they are trying to convert it downward and possibly outward so as to improve what they can do as best they can do it.

HDR is trying to take a bigger chunk of what potential human vision has and is better suited IMO for brighter flat panel devices that are generally not used in pitch black theaters with our eyes dilated and a screen occupying almost all of our vision.

HDR media I assume is being made for these devices and not projectors or this tone mapping would be a non issue.

So what I thought at first is there is still some time for this JVC type processing to trickle down to the entry level HDR projectors. Is there a reason to believe this won’t happen over the next few years, and until then people buying them should know they may have a new level of messing around to do with new HDR content?

The one part I still don’t quite understand is most people doing HDR say it helps to have some extra brightness along with the tone mapping if 16 FL was good for SDR they say you want 32FL for HDR and true HDR might require 500FL that we can’t get to. Does the JVC system tailor the tone mapping to the max FL you can get on the screen? Do you input something in at calibration?

The funny part is until I heard of HDR and saw how much everyone needs it I felt SDR covered enough of my spectrum that I never felt the visuals were lacking realism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
Thanks for explaining, and in the world of SDR we have a dynamic range encoded that is well suited to projection as well as flat panels just not as deep of a gamut. Projectors can’t take advantage of the gamut spread in the direction of brightness/luminance so rather than clipping that imposable to produce brightness they are trying to convert it downward and possibly outward so as to improve what they can do as best they can do it.

HDR is trying to take a bigger chunk of what potential human vision has and is better suited IMO for brighter flat panel devices that are generally not used in pitch black theaters with our eyes dilated and a screen occupying almost all of our vision.

HDR media I assume is being made for these devices and not projectors or this tone mapping would be a non issue.

So what I thought at first is there is still some time for this JVC type processing to trickle down to the entry level HDR projectors. Is there a reason to believe this won’t happen over the next few years, and until then people buying them should know they may have a new level of messing around to do with new HDR content?

The one part I still don’t quite understand is most people doing HDR say it helps to have some extra brightness along with the tone mapping if 16 FL was good for SDR they say you want 32FL for HDR and true HDR might require 500FL that we can’t get to. Does the JVC system tailor the tone mapping to the max FL you can get on the screen? Do you input something in at calibration?

The funny part is until I heard of HDR and saw how much everyone needs it I felt SDR covered enough of my spectrum that I never felt the visuals were lacking realism.
The DTM in the JVC does not take into account the light output from the screen. You can however modify settings to help it work in extreme situations. For the majority of the setups it does very, very well with no real tweaking needed.

You wouldn't want the light output on a 10' screen you can tolerate on an 85" flat panel. So I don't think there is a "true HDR" threshold for a projector. 30ft-L is a good start, but other factors can come into play. Also there are flat panels where tone mapping is beneficial based on their specs.

The extra lumens for HDR come into play with how it works. SDR looks very nice at 14 ft-L, but is to bright and washed out looking at 30ft-L. HDR is using that extra light output differently. The majority of what you see is mapped to look very close to how it does in SDR, but when something calls for that extra oomph it's there. For example we just watched Harry Potter: The Order of the Phoenix. The beginning scene at the Riddle mansion doesn't look a whole different than the Blu Ray. Some more shadow detail and a bit darker black floor. But when the caretaker turns on the flashlight, big difference. That spot in the frame that could only hit 14ft-L is now more than twice as bright and looks convincingly like what a flashlight actually looks like on a dark night. SDR can't do that.

Although 2K SDR Blu Ray is still a wonderful looking format, HDR and 4K are offering a superior experience. An Epson 5050UB with a Panasonic UB420 player would be a fantastic combo that would yield a picture better than a 2K setup would provide. Would it be as good as the JVC NX lineup and DTM? No. But still absolutely a worthwhile upgrade for someone looking to get into 4K HDR for less than $3k.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
The DTM in the JVC does not take into account the light output from the screen. You can however modify settings to help it work in extreme situations. For the majority of the setups it does very, very well with no real tweaking needed.

You wouldn't want the light output on a 10' screen you can tolerate on an 85" flat panel. So I don't think there is a "true HDR" threshold for a projector. 30ft-L is a good start, but other factors can come into play. Also there are flat panels where tone mapping is beneficial based on their specs.

The extra lumens for HDR come into play with how it works. SDR looks very nice at 14 ft-L, but is to bright and washed out looking at 30ft-L. HDR is using that extra light output differently. The majority of what you see is mapped to look very close to how it does in SDR, but when something calls for that extra oomph it's there. For example we just watched Harry Potter: The Order of the Phoenix. The beginning scene at the Riddle mansion doesn't look a whole different than the Blu Ray. Some more shadow detail and a bit darker black floor. But when the caretaker turns on the flashlight, big difference. That spot in the frame that could only hit 14ft-L is now more than twice as bright and looks convincingly like what a flashlight actually looks like on a dark night. SDR can't do that.

Although 2K SDR Blu Ray is still a wonderful looking format, HDR and 4K are offering a superior experience. An Epson 5050UB with a Panasonic UB420 player would be a fantastic combo that would yield a picture better than a 2K setup would provide. Would it be as good as the JVC NX lineup and DTM? No. But still absolutely a worthwhile upgrade for someone looking to get into 4K HDR for less than $3k.
Thanks for explaining.

I know all projection from the days of film to digital were highly inefficient in terms of light utilization and now it seems that HDR projection is roughly twice as inefficient as SDR. All that brightness ability has to stand behind each and every pixel waiting for that highlight to require it. Maybe even worse is the ability to produce black has got twice as hard as well as the best black is stopping 100% of white with twice the amount to deal with that makes me think why DLP has so much trouble with CR and HDR.

It seems HDR projectors must run hotter dealing with twice the discarded light? Are the light sources rated higher wattage?

Now a movie like Harry Potter does the director make the movie with the intent of HDR output of the flashlight that high and then cut it back for theaters that are not HDR yet? Or does he shoot it like he always did and someone in postproduction decide what highlights get what levels?

I have always run my home setup a little hot around 20-25 FL. Even after my gray screen. I never really noticed colors or flashlights not seeming real or bright enough. In fact stuff like that I could noticeably notice my eyes correcting to level the brightness. Makes me wonder in a dark room if anyone has tested how much of HDR brightness gets rejected at the eyes iris?

It is an interesting topic for sure. It is something that seems so logical applied to a screen that produces light like a flat panel to have more power when needed thus turning up the brightness whereas projectors start with full brightness and turn down the brightness. The flat panel has the advantage of being in a lit room the projector is disadvantaged by a lit room in terms of how our vision is receiving them as well.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
Thanks for explaining.

I know all projection from the days of film to digital were highly inefficient in terms of light utilization and now it seems that HDR projection is roughly twice as inefficient as SDR. All that brightness ability has to stand behind each and every pixel waiting for that highlight to require it. Maybe even worse is the ability to produce black has got twice as hard as well as the best black is stopping 100% of white with twice the amount to deal with that makes me think why DLP has so much trouble with CR and HDR.

It seems HDR projectors must run hotter dealing with twice the discarded light? Are the light sources rated higher wattage?

Now a movie like Harry Potter does the director make the movie with the intent of HDR output of the flashlight that high and then cut it back for theaters that are not HDR yet? Or does he shoot it like he always did and someone in postproduction decide what highlights get what levels?

I have always run my home setup a little hot around 20-25 FL. Even after my gray screen. I never really noticed colors or flashlights not seeming real or bright enough. In fact stuff like that I could noticeably notice my eyes correcting to level the brightness. Makes me wonder in a dark room if anyone has tested how much of HDR brightness gets rejected at the eyes iris?

It is an interesting topic for sure. It is something that seems so logical applied to a screen that produces light like a flat panel to have more power when needed thus turning up the brightness whereas projectors start with full brightness and turn down the brightness. The flat panel has the advantage of being in a lit room the projector is disadvantaged by a lit room in terms of how our vision is receiving them as well.
:)
The bulb wattage determines heat output. Higher watt bulb is going to produce more light and as a byproduct heat. I haven't had high lamp (which I use for HDR) ever make the room uncomfortable on the NX7 or my previous 4K unit the JVC RS520.

SDR 20-25 ft-L isn't going to look the same, you are simply displaying a narrower range brighter. Yes the flashlight beam will still be the bright spot on the screen, but it won't have the pop and brightness of HDR. HDR is only raising the brightness of the picture elements that need more light while leaving the rest of image alone.

HDR grading is done at the studio. I'm not sure if that grading is ever utilized in the theater. Something like a Dolby laser cinema could likely use it. But I'm not certain if it does.

Projectors can produce very nice HDR images. Flat panels certainly have more light, but the surface area of the image and conditions that a projector is used in changes the needed output to where it isn't apples to apples. I'd definitely suggest your next projector should be something like the Epson 5050 or JVC NX5 (or perhaps a used JVC RS5xx). The large bump in contrast vs your DLP will make your existing collection look that much better. And the well done 4K material will be whole new level for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
The bulb wattage determines heat output. Higher watt bulb is going to produce more light and as a byproduct heat. I haven't had high lamp (which I use for HDR) ever make the room uncomfortable on the NX7 or my previous 4K unit the JVC RS520.

SDR 20-25 ft-L isn't going to look the same, you are simply displaying a narrower range brighter. Yes the flashlight beam will still be the bright spot on the screen, but it won't have the pop and brightness of HDR. HDR is only raising the brightness of the picture elements that need more light while leaving the rest of image alone.

HDR grading is done at the studio. I'm not sure if that grading is ever utilized in the theater. Something like a Dolby laser cinema could likely use it. But I'm not certain if it does.

Projectors can produce very nice HDR images. Flat panels certainly have more light, but the surface area of the image and conditions that a projector is used in changes the needed output to where it isn't apples to apples. I'd definitely suggest your next projector should be something like the Epson 5050 or JVC NX5 (or perhaps a used JVC RS5xx). The large bump in contrast vs your DLP will make your existing collection look that much better. And the well done 4K material will be whole new level for you.
Although those are some great projectors and the feature of zoom memory controls would be great, they wouldn’t fit my rooms needs for shorter throw and if anything with the improvements I would want greater immersion not less. They would be perfect for CIH+IMAX with full on IMAX immersion.

If I get a larger room otherwise I will have to wait around for more shorter throw options in 4k and figure out tone mapping in those projectors. Sadly that’s a few years off for me I think. The only shorter throw 4k projectors are DLP with filters for WDR that cut light output and lower CR.

Good to hear that almost all cinema is remaining SDR I like the idea of getting my bright highlights as a film-like presentation where they are bright because my eyes are sitting in the dark. Most directors I assume are still making movies for the theater and are ok with the SDRish nature of the end product.

You may have misunderstood or I didn’t quite explain it right when I raise my total image brightness 20-25 FL I’m not doing that to try and simulate HDR but rather do it for when the image isn’t trying to be cinema but more like TV with some ambient on in the room. I reduce the image with projector movement zoom and go from 110” down to 70-80” that concentrates the image and ups the brightness. 80” from 8’ is more than large enough for TV, and the added brightness makes it work with some light.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
Although those are some great projectors and the feature of zoom memory controls would be great, they wouldn’t fit my rooms needs for shorter throw and if anything with the improvements I would want greater immersion not less. They would be perfect for CIH+IMAX with full on IMAX immersion.

If I get a larger room otherwise I will have to wait around for more shorter throw options in 4k and figure out tone mapping in those projectors. Sadly that’s a few years off for me I think. The only shorter throw 4k projectors are DLP with filters for WDR that cut light output and lower CR.
I'd think you could get something to work with the mirror and slide configuration. Short throw is unfortunately a neglected niche. I agree that the current 4K DLP projectors would be a step backwards in many ways.


Good to hear that almost all cinema is remaining SDR I like the idea of getting my bright highlights as a film-like presentation where they are bright because my eyes are sitting in the dark. Most directors I assume are still making movies for the theater and are ok with the SDRish nature of the end product.
That's certainly more to do with the limitations of most commercial theaters and not due to a preference for SDR type presentation.

You may have misunderstood or I didn’t quite explain it right when I raise my total image brightness 20-25 FL I’m not doing that to try and simulate HDR but rather do it for when the image isn’t trying to be cinema but more like TV with some ambient on in the room. I reduce the image with projector movement zoom and go from 110” down to 70-80” that concentrates the image and ups the brightness. 80” from 8’ is more than large enough for TV, and the added brightness makes it work with some light.
:)
You explained it fine. I was just pointing out that raising the overall brightness of an SDR image isn't approximating what HDR is doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
I'd think you could get something to work with the mirror and slide configuration. Short throw is unfortunately a neglected niche. I agree that the current 4K DLP projectors would be a step backwards in many ways.




That's certainly more to do with the limitations of most commercial theaters and not due to a preference for SDR type presentation.



You explained it fine. I was just pointing out that raising the overall brightness of an SDR image isn't approximating what HDR is doing.
Wouldn’t it be nice if an intermediate media were introduced for projectors with the tone mapping blended in? I don’t see that happening unless commercial theaters wanted a HDR standard and upped their brightness and then needed a special digital media made for them. You would think commercial theaters would be putting on a major effort to include HDR.

I really haven’t studied the issue in great depths, but I wonder if the great directors are speaking out on their feelings about HDR and front projection.

Yes I could go back to the mirror setup I had great success with that for 3 years with 720p resolution. Like an A-lens adding anything to the light path has to be up for the 4k challenge. I would really wonder how much more perfect a mirror setup would have to be given 4k. I haven’t heard of anyone doing it yet. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
Wouldn’t it be nice if an intermediate media were introduced for projectors with the tone mapping blended in? I don’t see that happening unless commercial theaters wanted a HDR standard and upped their brightness and then needed a special digital media made for them. You would think commercial theaters would be putting on a major effort to include HDR.

I really haven’t studied the issue in great depths, but I wonder if the great directors are speaking out on their feelings about HDR and front projection.

Yes I could go back to the mirror setup I had great success with that for 3 years with 720p resolution. Like an A-lens adding anything to the light path has to be up for the 4k challenge. I would really wonder how much more perfect a mirror setup would have to be given 4k. I haven’t heard of anyone doing it yet. :)
Honestly I think you'll see more 4K projectors adopting the same strategy JVC has: dynamic tone mapping. This eliminates the reliance of media creators to encode things correctly (they surprisingly do make mistakes here) and works with any source, streaming or physical.

I haven't heard them speak out one way or the other, but they are approving transfers. So they must at least be OK with it. I think one of the things that impresses me most is how good older films that see a 4K HDR makeover look. Apocalypse Now DC, Alien and Blade Runner '82 look absolutely stunning on the format. Better than they every have. The 70mm model work mastered in 4K on Blade Runner is just jaw dropping for something filmed almost 40 years ago.

I'm fairly sure I've read about a couple owners doing a mirror to increase throw distance with 4K. Don't recall any issues. Really a shame Ultra Short Throw doesn't get more attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
Honestly I think you'll see more 4K projectors adopting the same strategy JVC has: dynamic tone mapping. This eliminates the reliance of media creators to encode things correctly (they surprisingly do make mistakes here) and works with any source, streaming or physical.

I haven't heard them speak out one way or the other, but they are approving transfers. So they must at least be OK with it. I think one of the things that impresses me most is how good older films that see a 4K HDR makeover look. Apocalypse Now DC, Alien and Blade Runner '82 look absolutely stunning on the format. Better than they every have. The 70mm model work mastered in 4K on Blade Runner is just jaw dropping for something filmed almost 40 years ago.

I'm fairly sure I've read about a couple owners doing a mirror to increase throw distance with 4K. Don't recall any issues. Really a shame Ultra Short Throw doesn't get more attention.
I guess there is two ways of looking at it. One could see it as something like the colorization of B&W movies. Technology made that possible and there were a lot of people that said it was a great improvement over B&W. Others argued it was not what the movie was supposed to look like and the director never had that intent. But then again they are around and not speaking out against conversion to HDR so that could be taken as a sign of approval as we know a lot of directors didn’t like pan n scan and that was something also similar where they were “making it better for TV”.

I agree 4k trends in projectors will follow trends down thru the years with projectors and the things the marketplace likes will trickle down into the lower cost machines. One thing is with resolution getting better they must assume people will want greater immersion if anything and that should compute to larger screens thus shorter throw distances. There is no logical reason why anyone should ever need a mirror setup when you think about it. I don’t think many people want a projector hung in front of them so I would say make throws starting directly over head and then go back from there. I can see longer throws for multi rows and that has kind of been the classical divide in long throw and medium throw for HT. The new UST for me are TV replacement projectors and wont do things like CIH that theater folks want. I do see slightly shorter throws coming along with prices coming down. They have in all the previous techs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 · (Edited)
Thanks again for all the advice and input. As an update on my process, here is where I landed:

I went with the JVC RS1000 and Denon X6500h.

Edit: I also jumped in on the pre-order special for the Paladin-C DCR lens. I realize @Joshz thought I'd be fine without it but I figure I can get setup using the Zoom method and once the new lens ships, I be able to do a comparison. I figured having the full 4K image on the screen can't be worse and with the current pre-order deal, I didn't want to miss out on the special pricing. I will also look to move my seats a few feet closer. :)

I am looking forward to getting both setup (they already arrived super quick and on Saturday) and installing 4 new speakers in the ceiling. I am now shopping around for an Oppo UDP 203 to serve as my 4K video source. :)

Thank you and I am looking forward to checking out the new setup.

-T.Wells
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
I guess there is two ways of looking at it. One could see it as something like the colorization of B&W movies. Technology made that possible and there were a lot of people that said it was a great improvement over B&W. Others argued it was not what the movie was supposed to look like and the director never had that intent. But then again they are around and not speaking out against conversion to HDR so that could be taken as a sign of approval as we know a lot of directors didn’t like pan n scan and that was something also similar where they were “making it better for TV”.
.
HDR simply expands the color palette and allows headroom for objects that would naturally be brighter without blowing out the compostiion. It's not fundamentally changing the presentation as colorization does or completely butchering the film like Pan and Scan did. Blu Ray increased the amount of color we could reproduce and the resolution we watched it in. 4K HDR is a very similar next step, I don't really see how anyone could view at as at all similar to colorization or destroying the framing of a film.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
HDR simply expands the color palette and allows headroom for objects that would naturally be brighter without blowing out the compostiion. It's not fundamentally changing the presentation as colorization does or completely butchering the film like Pan and Scan did. Blu Ray increased the amount of color we could reproduce and the resolution we watched it in. 4K HDR is a very similar next step, I don't really see how anyone could view at as at all similar to colorization or destroying the framing of a film.
Take a movie like The Wizard of OZ (1939), all the actors are gone the director is gone and most of the people that saw it in theater are now gone. It plays on TV and the enhanced 4k HDR version is by all reviews touted as a version improved way beyond what anyone could have ever seen in 1939. It has been converted from a movie to a piece of media to compare to anything digital media could do and is intended to be played on the latest flat panel light emitting TV sets. It is by all accounts beautiful and soap opera like in quality. Colors and luminance never seen in 1939.

It might well be better but there is no denying it is greatly altered both in image and sound. The measure of is it better is in the eyes of the beholder it is like polishing a valuable antique and removing all the patina. Some would say colorization applies something new and not part of the original content in the same way.

What matters to all movie properties is that they make money and continue to make money for as long as they can. Here is a movie 81 years old and still making money. The side effect is it is still bringing people happiness and people want to view it polished up and on big flat screen TV sets. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,830 Posts
Take a movie like The Wizard of OZ (1939), all the actors are gone the director is gone and most of the people that saw it in theater are now gone. It plays on TV and the enhanced 4k HDR version is by all reviews touted as a version improved way beyond what anyone could have ever seen in 1939. It has been converted from a movie to a piece of media to compare to anything digital media could do and is intended to be played on the latest flat panel light emitting TV sets. It is by all accounts beautiful and soap opera like in quality. Colors and luminance never seen in 1939.



It might well be better but there is no denying it is greatly altered both in image and sound. The measure of is it better is in the eyes of the beholder it is like polishing a valuable antique and removing all the patina. Some would say colorization applies something new and not part of the original content in the same way.



What matters to all movie properties is that they make money and continue to make money for as long as they can. Here is a movie 81 years old and still making money. The side effect is it is still bringing people happiness and people want to view it polished up and on big flat screen TV sets. :)


Have you seen the 4K UHD Blu-ray of The Wizard of Oz? The HDR is subtle - certainly not over done. It is not “ soap opera like “ at all. It really looks great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
Have you seen the 4K UHD Blu-ray of The Wizard of Oz? The HDR is subtle - certainly not over done. It is not “ soap opera like “ at all. It really looks great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Craig: I have seen the 4k HDR version of The Wizard of OZ and I watched it on a friends new large flat panel TV with the full HDR WCG intact. I have not seen it with 4K projection with proper tone mapping in place. The TV version is a beautiful piece of eye candy and I think the methods used are similar to what IMAX is doing with IMAX Enhanced. My point really wasn’t if they somehow destroyed the original only that anyone comparing the two presentations 81 years apart would clearly see that some “improvements” have taken place. The original was 1.0 audio if I’m not mistaken and the video was state of the art Technicolor of the day.

The reviews written of the process talk about how far they wanted to go and how they left grain or manufactured it in the Kansas B&W / sepia parts of the movie to retain the old feeling and then expanded the WCG where they wanted to show more range than was possible in 1939, along with added detail in fabrics and textures and such that the technology couldn’t have captured 81 years ago. The curators of the process have worked on all the updates and were very careful not to overstep what they felt was making it too new looking.

I was only trying to point out it is clearly more than just cleaning up scratches and removing dust. There was actual altering happening. I agree it could be good and most people feel it was good. There are also people that feel coloring a B&W movie makes it appeal to more people today. Yes it may not be the same level of change but it is change and it is done for profits.

It is a slippery slope.

I guess I can enjoy the 4k HDR version in one way and also enjoy the closest to original film version I can get in other ways.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,830 Posts
Craig: I have seen the 4k HDR version of The Wizard of OZ and I watched it on a friends new large flat panel TV with the full HDR WCG intact. I have not seen it with 4K projection with proper tone mapping in place. The TV version is a beautiful piece of eye candy and I think the methods used are similar to what IMAX is doing with IMAX Enhanced. My point really wasn’t if they somehow destroyed the original only that anyone comparing the two presentations 81 years apart would clearly see that some “improvements” have taken place. The original was 1.0 audio if I’m not mistaken and the video was state of the art Technicolor of the day.

The reviews written of the process talk about how far they wanted to go and how they left grain or manufactured it in the Kansas B&W / sepia parts of the movie to retain the old feeling and then expanded the WCG where they wanted to show more range than was possible in 1939, along with added detail in fabrics and textures and such that the technology couldn’t have captured 81 years ago. The curators of the process have worked on all the updates and were very careful not to overstep what they felt was making it too new looking.

I was only trying to point out it is clearly more than just cleaning up scratches and removing dust. There was actual altering happening. I agree it could be good and most people feel it was good. There are also people that feel coloring a B&W movie makes it appeal to more people today. Yes it may not be the same level of change but it is change and it is done for profits.

It is a slippery slope.

I guess I can enjoy the 4k HDR version in one way and also enjoy the closest to original film version I can get in other ways.
:)
Ah, but which version is exactly like watching a first run print when the movie first was shown in theaters ? You and I can never know. But I like to think that the 4K UHD disc as seen on my RS4500 with the Lumagen doing the DTM for HDR is about as close as possible. Watching this on a flat panel would not be my preferred method. Actually watching anything on a flat panel is not my preferred method - I don't like the look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
Ah, but which version is exactly like watching a first run print when the movie first was shown in theaters ? You and I can never know. But I like to think that the 4K UHD disc as seen on my RS4500 with the Lumagen doing the DTM for HDR is about as close as possible. Watching this on a flat panel would not be my preferred method. Actually watching anything on a flat panel is not my preferred method - I don't like the look.
I think we are in agreement and I mainly misspoke suggesting it was embellished to soap opera levels. But surely there is the potential to go there if wanted. It is also true it was taken past what you could have seen at the premier in 1939 even with the best Technicolor film copy made. Color film and sound were amazing feats of the day in movies but nothing like HDR as a color gamut.

All 4k HDR media is primarily a product intended for home consumption and to be played on TVs with 4k HDR abilities The methods of DTM for projection are evolving and most agree projector setups using it are at least double the brightness of SDR projections and SDR projection has always tried to hold on to motion picture film standards.

I didn’t see The Wizard of OZ in a theater in 1939 and if I was that old I doubt my eyes would see the same now. I also don’t doubt the new version is something most will enjoy not knowing the difference.

I personally like you want as close to original film reproduction as I can get and when I read reviews saying see the emerald city in hues of emerald never before possible it makes me think we could be going a little too far. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,830 Posts
I think we are in agreement and I mainly misspoke suggesting it was embellished to soap opera levels. But surely there is the potential to go there if wanted. It is also true it was taken past what you could have seen at the premier in 1939 even with the best Technicolor film copy made. Color film and sound were amazing feats of the day in movies but nothing like HDR as a color gamut.

All 4k HDR media is primarily a product intended for home consumption and to be played on TVs with 4k HDR abilities The methods of DTM for projection are evolving and most agree projector setups using it are at least double the brightness of SDR projections and SDR projection has always tried to hold on to motion picture film standards.

I didn’t see The Wizard of OZ in a theater in 1939 and if I was that old I doubt my eyes would see the same now. I also don’t doubt the new version is something most will enjoy not knowing the difference.

I personally like you want as close to original film reproduction as I can get and when I read reviews saying see the emerald city in hues of emerald never before possible it makes me think we could be going a little too far. :)
That thinking has been shown to be incorrect. You really don't need the large brightness increases for projection. Lets just say Kris Deering " opened my eyes " - and the shadow detail and black scenes look much better as a result. In fact, HDR should not look wildly different for SDR - except the color looks better and everything looks more realistic. it's taken 5 years of HDR / 4K evolution to get here though - I was watching at 45 foot lamberts not too long ago !
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Top