A Few Words About A few words about…™ Lawrence of Arabia - in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Lidenbrock]

I usually avoid posting because as a non-native English speaker I have difficulties expressing properly and engaging in a discussion is a PITA. But here we go.​

The disc screenshots are all mine except for the first one. The screenshots from the web-dl are from the internet. Unfortunately I don´t have the video file. I have another streaming version, which is a tiny bit softer and it doesn’t show compression artifacts. The problem with this one is that it has been DNRd. However, it is sharper than the UHD disc too.​

I have compared the screenshots from the disc with the video. That is, with my PC, opening the screenshots at 100% with Photoshop, and playing the disc and pausing the video, and then switching windows. They are all identical in sharpness and textures. There is a difference in color, but color management doesn´t affect sharpness. Low contrast can affect apparent sharpness but it´s not the case here. To be sure, I took some screenshots to compare them to those at capsaholic, and they are all the same, pixel by pixel resolution-wise.​

Anyway, for those who doesn´t trust what I´m saying: they can take their own screenshots.​

Many people can´t play UHD discs with their computers, so they can´t see it for themselves. And many of them are led to believe that screenshots are an obscure means of deceiving hometheater enthusiasts, with properties that don´t obey the Physics of our Universe. They are in the same league with black magic.​

There is so much controversy about screencaps, that it made me had doubts myself. Luckily, there are other methods to compare, if one is really interested in knowing the truth: I connected the PC to my OLED TV, playing the disc with it (and checking that the player settings for sharpness and DNR are off), and opening the capture in Photoshop. And it showed the same result, as expected. The web-dl has a crispness that the disc is lacking. And let´s not forget the web-dl is heavily compressed, therefore the master it came from has more quality.​

For those who can´t play discs with a computer, there is a third way: playing the disc with the standalone UHD player and connecting the computer to the 4k TV, and then switching inputs. And an important point: standing very close to the TV, of course. We´re not watching the movie, just comparing images.​

 

[Lidenbrock]

Why am I saying all this? Why all the trouble? Some people question screenshots, so the least they can do is to see it for themselves. But do it right: a fair apples to apples and oranges to oranges comparison. And if they do a fair comparison and still don´t see the difference, then it´s fine by me, because they´ll have been honest to themselves.​

There is no point in checking the disc with a 4K TV (or projector) and then checking the capture with the PC monitor. They have to be compared using the same display. And they have to be compared at the same time. Some people watch the movie on the TV sitting on their couch one day, and then the following day they see the screenscaps on the computer monitor with their nose several inches away. And they claim they don´t see those differences on their TV. I mean, really? That´s an unreasonable way to do a fair comparison. Visual memory is not to be trusted.​

No one who does photo editing, amateur or professional, uses Photoshop or any other software to apply USM or any other masking, DNR, color correction, cloning…sitting on the couch with a computer plugged to the TV or a 4K projector. It´d be silly. We watch movies this way, but if we want to edit an image, or assess if it has some issues like DNR or edge enhancement, we´d better use a decent monitor several inches away. However, with some controversial releases some people swear over and over again, that they see wonders from their couch. And that´d be perfect, it they didn´t deny some evidence. Sometimes I can´t see the problems myself unless I switch on the computer.​

I´m very grateful to Sony for all their commitment to quality releases. AFAIK, until now they have released nothing but perfection. It´s OK if they make mistakes or release discs that have some issues from time to time. I have no problem with that. The UHD disc is fine, I mean, it´s better than the BD, and its quality can be found in other excellent releases of old films. And yes, from my couch it seems very authentic, it doesn´t appear to have been tampered with.​

So what´s the problem? I have a 4K projector and a 12 feet screen, and I´m entitled to point out any issues that I may find. However, I understand that sometimes, with the best of intentions, things don´t turn out as expected. I swear I wouldn´t have said a word, let alone spent my time uploading screencaps, unless I had become tired of reading all these reviews and posts stating that the image quality is astounding. Sorry, it should, but it is not special, it doesn´t stand out from other old films. It´s my belief that since we all have high expectations from 65mm film scans, and we all know all the effort Sony went through to scan the film at 8K and restore it, why would anyone expect less than perfection? Reviewers see what they want to believe, switch into autopilot mode, and behave like a religious group reciting a litany. At least there is a web-dl to prove it, for those who want to see.​

Is the image quality good? Yes. Could it be improved? Absolutely. Is it reference material? No way.​

 

[Robert Crawford]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion!

 

[Reed Grele]

When Robert A. Harris, the man who KNOWS what Lawrence of Arabia should look like tells me to throw out my Sony 4K UHD BD and watch a sharper, compressed, 4K streaming version.... Then I will gladly do so.

 

[Chewbabka]

We’re not “questioning screenshots”, we‘re just saying that if you need to use stills to detect the flaws in a video transfer, they are in fact not flaws, since video products are meant to be viewed in motion.

 

[OliverK]

Just checked the 4k version that I have downloaded to the FMP-X10 with the UHD disc and indeed it looks more transparent and detailed.
It also has compression issues together with a bunch of other drawbacks not the least being that it is not available for purchase and download anymore. And of course if that's your thing no HDR either.

I have no idea if the caps have been taken from such a file but clearly there is a bit of high frequency detail left for a superbit edition for those who sit a bit closer than most.

This comparison was done with two different projectors sitting ca. 3.7 m away from a 3.54 m screen (ca. 11ft 8") and brightness was roughly matched. People who do not sit as close would probably see less of a difference depending on their seating distance although the higher mtf of a TV will compensate for that to a degree.

 

[Mike Boone]

Mike, my eyes are not failing. With the limitations of using words, the 2012 Blu had hit the limitations of technology at that time for home theater - players, panels and projection gear. I could have bemoaned the fact that I did not possess a 4k OLED panel and a top 4k player, which I knew could have added fantastic resolution, and possibly a bit more depth, but didn’t wish to appear prescient. Keep in mind that I was using 8 and 4k scans back in 2007.

The 2020 literally has four times actual resolution, which gives a more 70mm appearance. Unlike 35mm, 70 as well as VVLA and TLA shine in 4k, where other film-based formats cannot.

Also keep in mind that panels are designed set up so that your “redder reds and greener greens” will affect the souls of those poor folks who enter the Temples of Home Theater, aka the Big Box stores, where they can fall to their knees and grovels to the panel gods, and all those panels illuminated with the likes of hummingbirds in flight, football fields covered in bright green faux grass on which tiny players in bright uniforms attempt to mangle one another whilst attempting to move a piece of inflated pigskin across a line, as well as magnificent clown fish within coral against a bright blue sea.

All on panels set to Vivid.

That is not fillum.

HD Plasma panels were very good in their time, but cannot compare to a high-end OLED. You’d be best asking Robert Zohn about that, as well as the reproduction of reds.

But as far as Aurens, and other films on which I’ve worked, it’s all about replicating the look of the film - I’ll not get into the questions of available print stocks - as closely as possible with the gear available at the time.

That noted, a major part of image reproduction has nothing to do with bright reds and greens, but rather, Accurate colors. I would surmise that had you the ability to place your cherished plasma panel beside one of those local fire trucks, you might find that while it appeared nice, it probably wasn’t totally accurate to the original. You might contact the entity that builds the trucks, and request a color chip.

But in doing so, you would only be involved in a small portion of the equation.

ENG news gear on the ground. Image sent back to the studio in electronic form, probably massaged and corrected for broadcast.

Vs film negative, optics, lighting, processing, analogue or digital color correction.

The levels of attributes, differences, and playback possibilities are endless.

Then add HDR to the mix...

But returning to your original query, it was obvious in 2012, that as beautiful as it was, the BD did not reproduce the 70mm imagery, and one‘s position becomes awkward. Laser disc and DVD provided a nice, albeit limited image for their time.

Blu can nicely reproduce, from a nominal seating distance, the attributes of a 35mm print.

But it‘s only via 4k, and preferably OLED that we can get a quality rendering go large format in a home environment.

Although compressed, there’s no reason why one cannot take a quality 4k disc, and run it at a top theater on a huge screen in 4k. Even though not running 250/500 mb/s, the image should be amazing.

And that’s where Aurens shines, far better than on anyone’s OLED panel.

So...

In reality, for home theater the new 4k UHD discs fail.

For they lack the size to accurately see detail, and gradations of color and density.

The discs are fine.

Home Theater is the problem.

But those of us who love it, and accept its shortcomings, are fine seeing a nice copy and not the veritable original medieval illuminated manuscript on parchment.

It’s all in perception.

Mr Harris, I regret not having seen this post of yours the other day, when instead, I saw OliverK's response to me which also mentioned the limitations of technology regarding older vs newer formats, so I responded to that OliverK post.

Actually, I think the whole issue I brought up (with hopefully, not too much trouble) may just come down to SEMANTICS, regarding the way in which I was interpreting a phrase that you had chosen to include in your 2012 review of LOA's debut on Blu-ray, which had you describing the degree of accuracy of the color found on the then new Blu-ray of "Lawrence", relative to the film itself, which gave me the impression from your use of the word perfect, that the Blu-ray's presentation of the film's color, was actually a perfect replication of color, looking exactly the same as you knew the film's color to be.

To me, RAH, it seemed that when you wrote that 2012 review, that if you thought, at the time, that the Blu-ray's color was falling short, to any significant degree, of being an exact replication of precisely how the color of "Lawrence" should look, you would not have typed the words "dead-on perfect" to characterize that Blu-ray's rendering of color. Since the usual understanding of perfect doesn't just mean a thing is very good , compared to an original, or even that it's extremely close to matching the original, since most people understand "perfect" to mean that something is as good as it can get, like an archer's arrow hitting a bull's-eye dead center, or a guy scoring 300 in bowling, by getting all strikes.

So RAH, since your review of the "Lawrence" 4k BD has you note its much improved color depth, compared to the 1080p BD, could you then agree that in being caught up in the heat of enthusiasm over FINALLY having a LOA Blu-ray in 2012, with your writing about that LOA BD being the most enthusiastic rave review of a BD I'd ever seen you do (after all, you did give its video 5+ Stars), then you may have gone just a bit overboard in calling the BD's color "dead-on perfect", since your 4k UHD BD review shows you always knew that the old BD fell somewhat short of perfectly replicating LOA's color?

Long story short, since some people, like yours truly, still take words, like perfect, to be indicating the literal meaning that such definitive sounding descriptive terms have traditionally carried, for a long time, you might agree, RAH, that back in 2012, a better (and more accurate) choice of words for describing the 1080p's color quality, could have been achieved with a sentence like this "It's a genuine gain for home theater fans, that Lawrence of Arabia is finally available on Blu-ray, as home viewers can enjoy a higher quality showing of the film, that among other refinements, has Blu-ray displaying color that's CLOSER to perfectly representing how the color of the film's camera negative originally looked.

Anyway RAH, I apologize for possibly stirring up a tempest in a teacup, or some other kind of semi- controversy, which such an outdated description could refer to. Maybe I just shouldn't get too hung up by worrying about words having to mean what they traditionally used to mean.

And, I also regret my comment about some of us OLDER gents possibly losing some color perception, with age, but that was due to me searching for any possible (even slightly far fetched) explanation to account for why your 2012 BD review had me believing you once thought the 1080p BD managed to reproduce the color of that 1962 film perfectly, but then your recent 4k UHD BD review indicating that the older BD's color is far from perfect, as you pointed out in that review, that the older BD's 2020 4k UHD counterpart, has much better color depth.

Anyhow, with my hunt & peck typing style, bet I'm as tired of this mini-controversy, as anyone else is, so I'd better give up on this topic, as I ALREADY told OliverK that I would, the other day, before I ran into your post I'm responding to.

Hope there are no hard feelings, RAH, because thanks to your efforts, I, and countless others, are grateful that we can all enjoy some great films, beautifully restored, that certainly hold special places in the collection that my wife and I have here, particularly My Fair Lady, Spartacus, Rear Window, and, of course, Lawrence of Arabia.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Make of that what you want.

Blu-ray Forum - View Single Post - Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

Everything about Blu-ray Disc. Join the Blu-ray Forum to discuss topics such as Blu-ray movies, players, recorders, drives, media and software.

forum.blu-ray.com

 

[Mark-P]

Comment withdrawn

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Oh my god. People on other forums are insane. Are personal attacks of people on other forums permitted?

What personal attacks? The link simply demonstrates that this specific shot has basically 1080p detail and not UHD.

 

[Dave H]

It is a bit curious why the stream is showing more detail than the UHD BD in those shots.

 

[ToEhrIsHuman]

Honestly, I've looked at those screencaps thoroughly ad nauseam at the highest possible zoom level and all I am seeing is compression noise in the streamed version, and perhaps more contrast. There is nothing in the way of actual detail that one has over the other. Just my opinion. Give me caps from a less-compressed stream from the likes of Kaleidescape and perhaps you may change my mind.

 

[OliverK]

Honestly, I've looked at those screencaps thoroughly ad nauseam at the highest possible zoom level and all I am seeing is compression noise in the streamed version, and perhaps more contrast. There is nothing in the way of actual detail that one has over the other. Just my opinion. Give me caps from a less-compressed stream from the likes of Kaleidescape and perhaps you may change my mind.

It is pretty visible in this one if you look at Auda's beard:

Lawrence Of Arabia : Screenshot Comparison

Make comparison of screenshots

screenshotcomparison.com

 

[Chewbabka]

It is pretty visible in this one if you look at Auda's beard:

Lawrence Of Arabia : Screenshot Comparison

Make comparison of screenshots

screenshotcomparison.com

I’ll keep that in mind next time I stare at Auda’s beard.

 

[Mark-P]

Comment withdrawn

 

[Reed Grele]

I’ll keep that in mind next time I stare at Auda’s beard.

"Be not clever with me, English."

 

[ToEhrIsHuman]

It is pretty visible in this one if you look at Auda's beard:

Lawrence Of Arabia : Screenshot Comparison

Make comparison of screenshots

screenshotcomparison.com

No, that's just the "fake" kind of resolution gain you get from sharpening and digital noise. Not convinced, sorry. But you are of course entitled to watch whichever version you prefer.

 

[Mark-P]

Comment withdrawn

 

[BlackOps]

Where should the folks on the other forum send their refund requests for this glorious upscale?

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Where should the folks on the other forum send their refund requests for this glorious upscale?

I don't think it's an upscale. Just not maxing out what the master could provide.