Scream (2022) UHD Blu-ray HDR Nit Output Concerns... (1 Viewer)

[Kaskade1309]

Can someone else who owns this title on 4K Blu-ray (Region 1/A) confirm something for me?

We just received this disc in the mail from Best Buy after waiting for it to come down in price a little, and I was shocked when I ran it through my system -- the HDR10 layer (our Samsung display doesn't support Dolby Vision) didn't seem to pop at all in terms of highlights or extreme light output, instead looking very much like the 1080p Blu-ray we originally rented (and which I remember) with regard to color saturation and "punch."

When I checked the metadata information on my Panasonic DP-UB9000, I was surprised to see that the average nit output wasn't even reaching 200 -- it indicated, on average, something like 197 nits or so if I'm not mistaken, which would have explained why the disc looked kind of "blah" to me.

What's more -- and not that I'm complaining about this -- there was little to no blooming occurring in the letterbox areas of my edge lit screen, which is NOT the norm when we view discs with HDR, also indicative of the transfer looking much darker than usual.

Has anyone else noticed this with the Scream 5 (aka Scream 2022) 4K Blu-ray? Could this have been an issue with the title's HDR10 layer? Doesn't seem like any online reviews are having anything to say about this disc looking dull without any real HDR highlights, but from everything I gathered, the reviewers were running the Dolby Vision layer; the only review I saw that mentioned anything about this was on YouTube (I think it was MovieGuy).

 

[Kyle_D]

I don't have the disc, but there's nothing concerning about a 197 nit ABL.

 

[Kaskade1309]

I don't have the disc, but there's nothing concerning about a 197 nit ABL.

For an HDR presentation?

I mean, there were zero spectacular highlights, nor anything that really popped off the screen at any given moment; it actually looked like a standard 1080p presentation, to be honest.

 

[Kyle_D]

Yes, even for an HDR presentation. I own many HDR discs that don't get much above 200 nits. Blade Runner 2049 is another example. HDR is a tool, not a toy, and a lot of cinematographers and directors aren't fans of boosting highlights for the sake of boosting highlights, nor are they interested in grading their films to look differently than they would look during theatrical projection.

Also, 197 nits is almost twice as bright as the peak highlights on a properly calibrated SDR display, albeit we don't perceive that large an increase due to the logarithmic way we perceive brightness.

 

[Kaskade1309]

Yes, even for an HDR presentation. I own many HDR discs that don't get much above 200 nits. Blade Runner 2049 is another example. HDR is a tool, not a toy, and a lot of cinematographers and directors aren't fans of boosting highlights for the sake of boosting highlights, nor are they interested in grading their films to look differently than they would look during theatrical projection.

I understand the ins and outs of HDR and that every title shouldn't be eye-searingly blinding in terms of color and sheer light output -- I have never called for that or complained about it, even on titles that looked "restrained" a bit for artist intent (many catalog titles, for example, such as Evil Dead/Evil Dead II and The Shining, boast HDR grades that are perfectly suited and somewhat restrained for the material, and they look absolutely fine). But what I noticed on the Scream disc is something different -- there were like no spectacular highlights that popped from any of the scenes, at all, and I'm not referring to, say, big explosions or direct sunshine shots. The whole thing, from beginning to end, smacked of a standard Blu-ray transfer, and it concerned me (perhaps I was thinking there was something wrong with my equipment or that I got a bad disc).

At the end of the day, I just wanted to know if other owners of this particular title found what I did regarding the overall brightness of the transfer -- because, as I mentioned, professional reviewers online aren't mentioning anything about this, save for a couple of YouTubers (if that) who said something about the HDR not really being a "showcase" on this release.

I am surprised the new version of Blade Runner isn't that bright -- I am not a fan, so I don't own it, but I have seen videos of people's setups where they're running this disc and it looked pretty punchy to me.

Also, 197 nits is almost twice as bright as the peak highlights on a properly calibrated SDR display, albeit we don't perceive that large an increase due to the logarithmic way we perceive brightness.

Yes -- I know that 197 or so nits is about double the number for garden variety SDR, which is around 100 (my display IS adjusted via the backlight control to deliver about 100 nits for SDR playback, confirmed by Rtings tests for my model and which comes out to "11" out of "50" on the Samsung backlight slider).

This just surprised me when I saw it on the metadata screen, as most of the titles I've viewed and purchased have significantly higher nit numbers than this (modern films of Scream 2020's vintage, I mean) -- I'm not saying the film HAS to be wildly punchy and vivid, I'm merely explaining why I was surprised that the presentation was so "reserved."

 

[Kyle_D]

Here's a podcast interview with the cinematographer.

The Cinematography of Scream - Newsshooter

On the latest Go Creative Show podcast, Scream cinematographer Brett Jutkiewicz breaks down the biggest kill scenes and how he brought his unique

www.newsshooter.com

Starting at 25:45, he starts discussing his preference for custom on-set LUTs because they allow him to establish his intended exposure curves before the film goes to the colorist in post-production. He doesn't specifically mention HDR, but his comments are similar to the comments of several other filmmakers (e.g. Roger Deakins and Robert Eggers) who have argued that colorists often depart from the intended look of films when grading for HDR by, among other things, artificially boosting specular highlights.

 

[Kaskade1309]

Thanks.

 

[JediFonger]

not all 4k discs are created alike:

 

[Kaskade1309]

not all 4k discs are created alike:

Thanks Fonger; I'll check out Vincent's video as soon as I can.

I guess Scream falls into this category, but I was just curious if what I was seeing was actually right or if it was my equipment getting all funky, so that's why I had asked about it in this thread; seems nowhere I ask online yields any concrete answers, so I suppose I'm the only one who's actually bought this disc.

 

[JediFonger]

not all DP/filmmakers are a fan of HDR.

i know a few friends who work in vfx/editing part of movie industry. they basically say that the HDR pass is automated for consumers. most of the times DP/directors aren't looking at it frame by frame. that's all done in the color timing portions of editing that have little to do with hdr outputs.

it's a sad part of the reality of the pros being so busy they just dont see how the consumers view stuff at home. also, many many movies do not appear consistently across all home media anyways: http://notonbluray.com/blog/fight-club-compared-blu-ray-vs-itunes-vs-d-vhs-vs-dvd-vs-laserdisc/

you'd like to think there is 1 master for everything, the reality is there is multiple versions of any given movie (generally speaking) floating around. it's always kind of been that way since silent film era days.

Thanks Fonger; I'll check out Vincent's video as soon as I can.

I guess Scream falls into this category, but I was just curious if what I was seeing was actually right or if it was my equipment getting all funky, so that's why I had asked about it in this thread; seems nowhere I ask online yields any concrete answers, so I suppose I'm the only one who's actually bought this disc.

 

[Kaskade1309]

not all DP/filmmakers are a fan of HDR.

i know a few friends who work in vfx/editing part of movie industry. they basically say that the HDR pass is automated for consumers. most of the times DP/directors aren't looking at it frame by frame. that's all done in the color timing portions of editing that have little to do with hdr outputs.

it's a sad part of the reality of the pros being so busy they just dont see how the consumers view stuff at home. also, many many movies do not appear consistently across all home media anyways: http://notonbluray.com/blog/fight-club-compared-blu-ray-vs-itunes-vs-d-vhs-vs-dvd-vs-laserdisc/

you'd like to think there is 1 master for everything, the reality is there is multiple versions of any given movie (generally speaking) floating around. it's always kind of been that way since silent film era days.

I totally get all that -- and, as I said to another member here in the thread discussing "dark" HDR releases, I do not expect every disc to exhibit Aquaman-esque HDR highlights. It's just that I was a little taken aback when I saw that my edge-lit display WASN'T exhibiting nasty blooming into the letterbox areas (which it always does with 4K scope content), coupled with a visible lack of highlight pop anywhere in the transfer. It really did come across as a 1080p Blu-ray with nothing to actually distinguish it as a 4K/2160p version that includes an HDR pass.

I suppose it's just one of those titles that make you shrug and say "it is what it is," but it's just weird that such a new release boasted such low average nit level numbers.