Posts: 1,554
Threads: 60
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 229
Given 627 thank(s) in 372 post(s)
Country:
Ah, you are probably right about the prequels. I was thinking only in terms of the OT.
Interesting to hear about Raiders! I wonder if somebody somewhere bagged it.
deleted user
Unregistered
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
I'm not sure I agree with the methodology of the reviewer. HDR doesn't mean the movie *has* to have all the dynamic range that's possible in HDR, merely that it has a higher dynamic range than SDR (Rec709) would allow. If they simply preserved the dynamic range of the scanned 35mm elements, which is - especially for the original negatives - higher than Rec709, they would end up with something that has a higher dynamic range than SDR but of course is nowhere near the intensity of a modern digital production in terms of dynamic range. So in other words, it might just be faithful, which I would welcome.
And there would still always be the benefit of non-clipped highlights. What true fake HDR would mean, in my opinion, is to take an SDR master with clipped highlights or with already applied tonemapping, and then just copy-pasting it into a HDR stream, preserving the tonemapped & clipped highlights.
So in my eyes, the proper test would be to find sequences of the original Blu Ray that had clipped highlights and comparing them to the HDR and seeing if they still clip.
Of course, if one has an SDR master without clipped highlights (competent tonemapping) one could in theory stretch those tonemapped highlights back out to restore the original dynamic range of the scan, if one knew the exact curves that were used for the tonemapping. This could be considered an "upconversion", yet might be indistinguishable from a HDR master of the movie that was simply never tonemapped to begin with.
It sounds to me like the reviewer would only consider it true HDR if they artificially added more brightness in the peaks than was there on the original film elements to begin with.
Posts: 520
Threads: 41
Joined: 2019 Jun
Thanks: 733
Given 339 thank(s) in 192 post(s)
Country:
TrollUHD have ripped them.
Posts: 1,264
Threads: 14
Joined: 2017 Aug
Thanks: 102
Given 307 thank(s) in 226 post(s)
Country:
2019-12-05, 01:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 2019-12-05, 01:36 AM by Beber.)
I got A New Hope: sadly, they synchronized the Blu-ray dts HDMA instead of keeping the new Disney+ Atmos track, so no "McClunkey" to see/hear what the fuss is all about. Plus they kept the poorly done subtitles on the alien parts and cropped half of them out as they split the image and the bottom black bar. A messed up release...
deleted user
Unregistered
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
(2019-12-05, 01:36 AM)Beber Wrote: I got A New Hope: sadly, they synchronized the Blu-ray dts HDMA instead of keeping the new Disney+ Atmos track, so no "McClunkey" to see/hear what the fuss is all about. Plus they kept the poorly done subtitles on the alien parts and cropped half of them out as they split the image and the bottom black bar. A messed up release...
That audio part is sadly exactly what I suspected. Thanks for confirming.
The subtitles part sounds even worse. Hope someone does it better in the future.
Posts: 1,554
Threads: 60
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 229
Given 627 thank(s) in 372 post(s)
Country:
Yeah, they are HDMI caps, not proper WEB-DLs, which is a shame. But at least you get to see what the new transfers look like. The color timing is a definite improvement on that of the BDs. There'll almost certainly be another scene release soon enough, one with Atmos.
deleted user
Unregistered
Thanks:
Given thank(s) in post(s)
(2019-12-05, 01:39 AM)Beber Wrote: (2019-12-05, 01:37 AM)TomArrow Wrote: The subtitles part sounds even worse. Hope someone does it better in the future.
Yikes!