Sign In

Jay

User Group
Administrators
Join date
22-Feb-2003
Last activity
4-Mar-2021
Posts
2,385

Post History

Post
#1394510
Topic
44rh1n's "The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Edition Color Restoration (Released)
Time

This is my last post on this topic since this has sort of turned into the unofficial LOTR 4K review thread…and apologies to 44rh1n for the tangent 😃

I’m going to post an opinion that runs counter to what most others are sharing elsewhere right now and say that ROTK is the worst-looking of the trilogy. While TTT has some abysmal moments due to excessive DNR and the newly-DNR’d Rohan exteriors are a real shame, it has superior detail to the 1080p EE through the vast majority of the presentation and isn’t distractingly oversharpened most of the time.

Unfortunately, ROTK has a consistently oversharpened look throughout. Immediately after finishing the first disc, I put in the 1080p EE Blu-ray to compare and was shocked at the consistent grain field (this one was actually much grainier than I remembered) and nearly zero difference in fine detail compared to the 4K disc.

There are still benefits to the new HDR grade; ROTK in 1080p SDR looks murky in comparison. Darker scenes definitely benefit from improved shadow detail and depth. However, the blown-out highlights on the 1080p disc are even worse on the 4K disc. Minas Tirith exterior shots look terrible. Gandalf’s face often looks like pixel art.

ROTK 4K is one of the ugliest 4K discs I’ve seen. All the grain has been wiped away and what remains is an image that I would’ve been upset to see on a 1080p disc a decade ago.

Having seen the 4K discs with my own eyes, I would not buy them again if given the choice.

Post
#1394213
Topic
44rh1n's "The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Edition Color Restoration (Released)
Time

CMMAP said:

Jay said:

After reading comments from one of the members in the blu-ray.com thread whose opinion I trust and usually agree with, I decided to give these discs a shot after all instead…

And there’s no way these are real 4K back-to-the-negative scans. No way.

Thanks for this review. Set aside the HDR, this is a real bummer for me. It seems I would do better if a upscale my 1080p Blu-ray’s/44rh1n´s TFotR to 4K myself and have more detail this way. Good I don’t have the skill set to implement HDR myself but for a nice sdr experience - there is madVR.

If you set aside the obviously problematic shots that have had copious amounts of new DNR applied, the 4K discs have more real detail than the 1080p discs. They’ve reduced the grain, which you may or may not like, but actual detail is (mostly) superior on the 4K version. And the HDR grade is nice.

That said, I watched the EE Blu-rays earlier this year with my display handling the upscaling, and aside from the issues those versions have—and they do have issues—I quite enjoyed them and thought they looked great overall.

Post
#1393865
Topic
44rh1n's "The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Edition Color Restoration (Released)
Time

After reading comments from one of the members in the blu-ray.com thread whose opinion I trust and usually agree with, I decided to give these discs a shot after all instead of selling them. So far, I’ve finished FOTR EE and the first half of TTT EE.

Firstly, these encodes are absolutely a 2K upscale. I’ve seen enough 4K discs from both 2K DIs and proper 4K scans to know what each typically looks like. While watching FOTR, it immediately gave me the same impression as the later Harry Potter films in 4K, which are upscales; there’s a slight uptick in detail when compared to the 1080p discs, but it lacks the finer details a 4K scan provides.

The other bit of evidence that these are the same 2K masters as the 1080p discs is that all the scenes in TTT that are problematic on the 1080p discs, with their smeary DNR artifacts, have the same problems here, just amplified. I tend to think the DNR for the EEs is baked into the master and they may have tried piling on additional noise reduction on the 4K discs to mask these issues.

I’m sure lots of people will like the new color grade for FOTR. My only gripe is that the Shire and Rivendell, both of which had a romantic golden hue on the 1080p discs, are much more neutral now and lack that warm quality. I suppose it’s okay since the infamous green tint is gone from the whole film, but regrading the Shire and Rivendell to get back some of that warmth would’ve been welcome. Detail is good overall, though many long shots have a somewhat digital appearance with occasional slight aliasing, no doubt from sharpening.

TTT is frustrating. Some won’t like the new grade. I think it’s good overall, but I think I prefer the grade on the 1080p version. It suits the tone of the film better. The bulk of the movie actually looks pretty good in terms of detail, but the most frustrating part is Rohan. You’ve probably seen the screenshots, and they’re not lying. Most of the Rohan exterior shots have been absolutely wiped clean of detail with excessive DNR, and these same shots were fine on the 1080p discs with excellent detail overall. Seems to be any shot with visible blue sky in it. It’s annoying because as they switch back and forth between interior and exterior, the interior shots look absolutely fine, suggesting that they didn’t simply turn up the DNR knob and walk away; they selectively applied it to the exteriors only and completely ruined them. Some other shots are similarly bad, like when Gollum is leading Frodo and Sam through the marsh.

That said—and I can’t believe I’m saying this—I think what I’ve seen so far is an overall improvement on the 1080p discs. FOTR is pretty good, but grain-managed for sure (which I don’t hate, but don’t necessarily like either), and while TTT has some really bad moments, the bulk of it is good. Somebody could make a nice fan project of TTT by reincorporating the 1080p Rohan exterior scenes regraded to match the new grade (or regrade the 4K version to match the 1080p grade). Swapping out the flashback revisionism would be welcome also. Haven’t watched ROTK yet, but from what I’ve read, it sits somewhere between FOTR and TTT in terms of quality.

I want to be clear though: any “professional” reviewer who watched these 4K discs on a good display at a reasonable distance (I sit about 7’ from a 65" Sony A9F OLED that I calibrated with CalMAN) and gave these a 5/5 or 10/10 or whatever scale they use simply wasn’t paying attention, or only did casual spot-checks and missed the worst parts.

And there’s no way these are real 4K back-to-the-negative scans. No way.

Post
#1392347
Topic
44rh1n's "The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Edition Color Restoration (Released)
Time

Harmy said:

Yeah, the more I look at these, the more disappointed I am. I think I actually will be sticking to Blu-Ray for my viewing, at least for TTT and ROTK and for FOTR, I might actually stick to 44rh1n’s version, because I looked at it again yesterday and even though the detail level is noticeably worse when comparing it to the UHD or even the EE BD, on its own it just looks beautifully film-like with lovely colors. This sort of really shows the rule of diminishing returns with 4K - sure, in direct comparison, there may be a difference in detail but when I’m watching a good 1080p transfer, not comparing it to UHD, never do I think “I wish I was watching 4K” - what I think is “this looks gorgeous” but if I was watching a DVD, I certainly would think “I wish this was HD”.

I’ve quite enjoyed going back through my 1080p Blu-ray collection over the last year-plus after finally upgrading to a 4K TV. 1080p to 2160p is a clean upscale (easy math) and a great 1080p disc actually looks even better on my 4K TV (Sony OLED) than it did on my 1080p TV (Pioneer Kuro) and would probably fool most people into thinking they’re watching genuine 4K. In fact, I prefer the SDR presentation for most film-based material because the torched highlights in many HDR releases just don’t look natural at all.

Post
#1392341
Topic
Is anyone looking forward to Lord of the Rings Deleted scenes next year?
Time

JadedSkywalker said:

I’m almost afraid to ask but how much DVNR was used if at all in the 4K releases, i passed on the blu rays because of the digital video noise reduction.

Some of us have been discussing it here (starting on page 8):

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/44rh1ns-The-Fellowship-of-the-Ring-Extended-Edition-Color-Restoration-Released/id/61952/page/8

It’s…not good. The 1080p Blu-ray EEs have grain that’s been scrubbed from the 4K release in pretty much every effects shot, then there’s sharpening layered on top of it. Some screens look like they’ve been painted over with a brush when compared to the 1080p Blu-ray.

When there are effects-laden 4K releases like The Matrix that look reference quality, there’s no excuse for a high-profile release like this to look so bad.

Post
#1392269
Topic
44rh1n's "The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Edition Color Restoration (Released)
Time

44rh1n said:

Ugh, but the more and more that I look at these films and pixel-peep, the more I’m realizing that they really do have far too much DNR… Makes me sad. Colors on Fellowship EE are still far better than the regular Blu-ray though.

Jay said:

Just watched this review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Z58uiwcME

I don’t see how anybody can defend this release…

Wow, that shot of Gandalf’s staff is REALLY bad… UGH!

Most of those other shots aren’t as bad as people are making them out to be though. Most of that “detail” he’s referring to is just grain, whereas the actual detail is still there in the 4K.

But I agree that the grain looks really nice and it should have been left in!! Peter, WHY did you remove the grain?!

Mild DNR is forgivable, and even preferable in some cases, but too many of these effects shots take on a painterly look, and to throw sharpening on top of it is just mind-boggling.

That shot of Helm’s Deep is a great (terrible) example. There’s obvious ringing around the main characters and the wall behind them (in front of the army) looks like watercolors.

This is the type of release that many will justify now as being better than the previous release, but will age poorly and be regarded as substandard in a few years (see the original Gladiator Blu-ray, which many defended at the time because it was a step up from the DVD, and the truly reference remastered Blu-ray released a few years later that showed what a proper 1080p transfer could look like).

Post
#1392234
Topic
44rh1n's "The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Edition Color Restoration (Released)
Time

Just watched this review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Z58uiwcME

I don’t see how anybody can defend this release when even older films with a comparable number of effects shots look great on 4K disc, like The Matrix.

I was annoyed that the post office delayed my package for a week, but I’m glad they did, because I would’ve torn into these immediately and been disappointed. Instead, I’m putting them on ebay unopened and making a few dollars (the Best Buy steelbooks are selling above retail).

I’m sticking with the old Blu-ray EE.

Post
#1392232
Topic
44rh1n's "The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Edition Color Restoration (Released)
Time

My library is full of 4K discs consisting of 2K upscales that still look very good. While not as good as a proper 4K scan, upscaling is fine when done well (just look at any good 1080p disc on a 4K display with excellent upscaling, they look fantastic).

I think maybe the 2K effect shots just got hit a bit hard with DNR and didn’t get any fake grain added back in to keep them consistent with the 4K portions. This is unacceptable, though:

WXM said:

https://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/8656

It’s like something I’d expect from a 1080p Blu-ray 10 years ago before studios got a handle on good mastering techniques. How a shot like that ends up in a major 4K title in 2020 is beyond me, especially since the older Blu-ray looks vastly superior in comparison.

Post
#1392191
Topic
44rh1n's "The Fellowship of the Ring" Extended Edition Color Restoration (Released)
Time

My copy finally showed up today and I plan to watch all 3 films Thursday/Friday/Saturday. I’m not encouraged by many of the screenshots as far as resolution and detail go. Seems like a mixed bag.

I became concerned before I saw any of the screenshots when I watched the promo with Jackson and he said (paraphrasing) that this gave them the opportunity to make all 6 films look consistent; I took this to mean he wanted the LOTR trilogy to look like the Hobbit trilogy, and I’m afraid that’s what we got…lovely film scrubbed in an attempt to make it look digital.

Also, I don’t understand why I’m still seeing these small mastering displays in editing bays that mask the effects of DNR. At the very least, I hope they’re doing QA on larger calibrated consumer displays and projectors. Sony and LG OLEDs are close to reference quality after calibration, and sitting 6’ from a 65" screen makes overzealous DNR obvious.

Post
#1389920
Topic
Is anyone looking forward to Lord of the Rings Deleted scenes next year?
Time

All reports are that LOTR looks about as good as it can without re-rendering the CG at 4K. FOTR’s colors have been fixed and it sounds like the HDR grade isn’t overcooked like a lot of film-based material, which simply looks wrong with eye-searing highlights (in my opinion). Warner’s 4K releases have mostly been spot-on and I expect this one will be no exception.

I watched the extended Blu-rays earlier this year and a viewing once every year or two for epics like this is enough for me, but my 4K copy is supposed to arrive tomorrow, so I’ll probably watch it this weekend. I thought about waiting for the deluxe set, but I’m not interested in The Hobbit (sat through the first and only got about 15 minutes into the second before giving up) and I really wanted Best Buy’s steelbook set, which likely won’t be available in the long term.

Post
#1385676
Topic
Flash Gordon Rumor - now a 'general discussion' thread for Flash Gordon
Time

Darth Dougal said:

I imported the 5-disc set from the UK and just finished watching the 4K version. It’s outstanding. Unlike many HDR presentations, I rarely felt like it went overboard in terms of contrast. Still mostly looked filmic.

Hi Jay, did you notice any problems with the soundtrack?

I’ve got the Zavvi 3 disc 4K steelbook, which is the Studio Canal UK edition of the remaster. I can only watch the blu-ray (no 4K gear yet) but the 5.1 DTS MA soundtrack on my disc is a mess. One of the AV forums here in the UK has picked up on this as well.

The Queen soundtrack is phasey and distorted, music was routed through the front right and centre speakers. I’ve asked Zavvi if they have heard about a recall yet (unlikely).

Update: Turns out the dialogue is meant to be routed through the front speakers and everything else through the rear ones. Re-setting the speaker mode on my receiver should fix the problem. The stereo soundtrack is fine. Perhaps the studio created a surround mix from the original stereo magnetic track using something like CEDAR Cambridge software.

Sorry, just saw this. I only have a 2-channel setup and headphones these days, so I listened to the stereo track, which sounded great.

I need to give it another watch. Too good to leave it for only once a year 😃

Post
#1369969
Topic
Flash Gordon Rumor - now a 'general discussion' thread for Flash Gordon
Time

I imported the 5-disc set from the UK and just finished watching the 4K version. It’s outstanding. Unlike many HDR presentations, I rarely felt like it went overboard in terms of contrast. Still mostly looked filmic.

I’d read the director opted to remove the wires from the Hawkmen, but I don’t think I would’ve noticed if I hadn’t read it beforehand. The cleanup work was seamless and I was too busy enjoying the movie. I’m not as much of a hardcore preservationist as some, so it doesn’t bother me, but I’m sure some people would’ve preferred everything been left intact. That said, it’s definitely a more reserved restoration in terms of the effects; I could still see the transparencies resulting from traditional optical effects, so no digital recompositing here. I could be wrong, but I think they might have redone some of the laser fire during the final battle on War Rocket Ajax. It seemed a little too bright and sharp for 70s effects. Maybe I’ll throw in my old Blu-ray to compare. Nothing else stuck out to me as being off though.

I will never tire of this movie.

Post
#1339466
Topic
Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga 4k UHD -- 27 DISC Boxed Set -- 3/31/2020
Time

yotsuya said:

Han Solo IRL said:

MikeMatt101 said:

Broom Kid said:

Looking at the cap from above, thought I’d put together a comparison of “Here to Rescue Yous”

http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/7DKY7NNX

I think I got those all labeled correctly.

May I ask, is the last of these screenshots the 2019 Blu Ray or the 2019 4K?

It’s the 4K. It’s got a 3840x1610 pixel count.

yotsuya said:

It sounds like we need to rip the new BR’s and 4k discs and apply a lut to make the 4k version match the colors of the BR. From what I’ve seen the 4k versions have crap colors unless you discover what tinkering you need. Virtually all the 4k screen caps I’ve seen look like crap. Utter crap. So washed out and unlike any film I’ve ever seen in a theater. Natalie Kalmus would be appalled.

The 4K discs are orders of magnitude better than the new 1080p discs for colour and contrast on my GZ1000. Tone mapped screencaps on PC monitors don’t give a good or accurate representation of the 4K versions at all.

From what has been shared, I can’t see it. If you can’t even capture an accurate image of it, what good is it? It has the resolution but if this community is going to make use of that, the colors you claim to be seeing need to transfer over or they are useless. So if we can’t transfer them any other way, we copy the BR colors to the 4k image. Should be easy. I don’t care for 4k because of all the problems the format seems to be having. We can’t burn 4k disc, we can’t transfer HDR colors, can’t even get the right colors in screen caps.

Converting HDR to SDR will always be problematic because you have to compromise somewhere and fidelity will be lost. You can’t squeeze 10 gallons of water into a 5 gallon bucket. Troublesome SDR screenshots don’t imply a problem with the format.

Ignore the SDR screen caps. On a capable 4K HDR display, the overall dynamic range and colors of these transfers (based on the D+ versions, haven’t seen the discs yet) are fantastic. Brightness is just fine and they don’t look washed out at all. Maybe not as punchy as some transfers, but this isn’t Thor: Ragnarok (reference HDR image btw). It’s 70s film and they stayed truer to that aesthetic. Just a shame about the DNR and frozen grain.

The challenge with HDR isn’t that it has no guidelines; it does. Its real challenge is that it’s about 5 to 10 years ahead of current display technology. No consumer display can hit 4000 nits, let alone 10,000, and even then, LCDs don’t have anywhere near the contrast to do the format justice. I’ve had two relatively high-end displays recently: the Samsung Q90R and Sony XBR-65A9F. The Samsung is superior in terms of maximum brightness, but the higher contrast of Sony’s OLED gives it a much punchier image, and therefore the appearance of nearly the same brightness, while having superior black levels (obviously) and color volume. Judging HDR transfers on even the best LCDs isn’t fair to the transfer.

(I kept the OLED. It absolutely destroys the Pioneer Kuro it replaced.)

Post
#1326801
Topic
4K77 reel by reel color grading (a WIP)
Time

DrDre said:

A new release of 4K77 is in the works, that will feature these colors. Our esteemed williarob will provide updates in the future, but an exact release date is not yet available.

After sitting through the Disney+ versions and shaking my head at more dumb alterations, frozen grain in many of the backgrounds, and SE CGI that has aged terribly and sticks out like a sore thumb, I’m excited to have such high-quality 4K versions in the works. I’ll gladly wait a few years to have a complete film-like OT in 4K with excellent color.

Thanks to everyone involved in these preservations.

Post
#1313298
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

ray_afraid said:

Broom Kid said:

I can think he’s wrong, but I don’t have to let it personally affect me to the point where I’m indulging in conspiracy theories and ugly insults.

There’s only a very small fraction of sad weirdos doing that.
I’m not attacking the man or anything, but I don’t like his stance on this.
Suppression of history is wrong. It’s something George himself used to preach about.

Post
#1313207
Topic
The Rise of Skywalker box office results: predictions and expectations
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Maybe Spielberg from 20 years ago could do it. I don’t know. With so many attempts, surely someone will figure out the precise formula that works. Since nobody has it all, it will probably be a team effort from writers like Filoni working on the worldbuilding and more film-centric writers being allowed to hone a script/storyboard until it becomes decent in a sort of Pixar development process. After going through an art director with a strong sense of simple, powerful design most directors would be able to make a decent film, but for a great one you’d need a director who could balance swashbuckling action with high romance and a dash of monster movie camp, among other things. These are after all fantasy fairy tales.

The original movies were all great because they were collaborative efforts from people at the top of their game and on the forefront of the craft of moviemaking. Disney needs to replicate that in some form.

Yup. Everyone is obsessing over the particular director at the helm when the magic of the OT was in collaboration. In the ST, we got one director with no real vision at all—mostly nostalgia and mystery boxes—followed by a director whose vision of Star Wars was “not Star Wars”. Now, it sounds like J.J. is doubling down and doing what he does best: using fast edits and fee-fees to distract you from the lack of substance underneath. (Full disclosure: I haven’t seen ROS yet, but I’ve read the review thread and I’m horrified by what I’ve seen.)

Disney had a number of successful models to replicate in creating a modern movie trilogy and I’m surprised how badly they botched it. Such a wasted opportunity that we’ll never have again.

Post
#1306783
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

DrDre said:

Jay said:

DrDre said:

4throck said:

“In this case I optimized the display for HDR content in general, which always appeared somewhat dark, flat, and desaturated on my TV screen, compared to SDR content even if the dynamic range was obviously increased.”

The problem is that most people have their TVs set with very high SDR brightness levels.
At least for me the recommended SDR brightness of 100 to 200 nits (according to sources, most mention 100) is just too dark…

So yes, HDR will look dark in comparison, but that’s how it was mastered…

I don’t have my SDR set to very high brightness levels. I don’t like high contrast, brightness and saturation on my TV. I set the colors to a natural profile for SDR content, which generally means I have ro adjust, since most TVs by default go for high contrast, and punchy colors.

What do you use to calibrate your display?

For my own viewing pleasure, I optimize my TV to my personal preferences, so I wouldn’t call it calibrating.

Fair enough, and totally valid. I like to clarify this sort of thing so when I see screenshots, I have some context.

Post
#1306775
Topic
Markdown
Time

There is no underlining in Markdown, probably because underlining as a means of formatting text has fallen out of fashion (especially on the web, where underlining typically is reserved for links). Also, Markdown is a semantic language that isn’t concerned with how content is displayed:

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/207727/why-there-is-no-markdown-for-underline#answer-207730

Post
#1306772
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

DrDre said:

4throck said:

“In this case I optimized the display for HDR content in general, which always appeared somewhat dark, flat, and desaturated on my TV screen, compared to SDR content even if the dynamic range was obviously increased.”

The problem is that most people have their TVs set with very high SDR brightness levels.
At least for me the recommended SDR brightness of 100 to 200 nits (according to sources, most mention 100) is just too dark…

So yes, HDR will look dark in comparison, but that’s how it was mastered…

I don’t have my SDR set to very high brightness levels. I don’t like high contrast, brightness and saturation on my TV. I set the colors to a natural profile for SDR content, which generally means I have ro adjust, since most TVs by default go for high contrast, and punchy colors.

What do you use to calibrate your display?

Post
#1306767
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

4throck said:

“In this case I optimized the display for HDR content in general, which always appeared somewhat dark, flat, and desaturated on my TV screen, compared to SDR content even if the dynamic range was obviously increased.”

The problem is that most people have their TVs set with very high SDR brightness levels.
At least for me the recommended SDR brightness of 100 to 200 nits (according to sources, most mention 100) is just too dark…

So yes, HDR will look dark in comparison, but that’s how it was mastered…

Exactly. You can’t take something mastered for 4000 nits (or 10,000 nits in some cases), smash it into 700 nits, and expect it to look as punchy (on average) as SDR content when most consumers adjust their settings to something well above the recommended 100 nits. This is why some manufactures (Sony) clip some highlight detail in HDR in favor of maintaining a higher APL.

The HDR spec is well ahead of today’s display capabilities, so it’s going to take some time for the full benefits to present themselves.

Post
#1306740
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

DrDre said:

Turns out the problem with washed out colors, and a flat image is at least partly caused by the HDR settings on the display device. HDR can look radically different from one device to the other (there are no real standards for HDR)

I hear this said frequently and it’s partially true, especially on the display side of things. There are standards for creating HDR content (like the EOTF curve), but there are few guidelines for translating that data for display. If video is mastered with a peak nit level of 4000 and the display can’t actually hit 4000 nits (none of them can at this point I think), the display has to tone map the image to fit within the display’s dynamic range, at which point it comes down to the manufacturer’s goals and philosophy. They can either maximize dynamic range (render all the highlight detail while reducing average brightness) or sacrifice some dynamic range to maintain average brightness levels (have a high average brightness and crush some highlight detail). But since we’re talking about Dolby Vision here, that means these decisions are being made in the material itself rather than the display (unless the display doesn’t support Dolby Vision and it falls back to the HDR10 layer).

Are you optimizing your display with settings specific to the OT or are you referring to general optimizations for all HDR content? This is a case where I think Sony’s approach in their consumer displays is the right one; you calibrate the display for SDR, then the display performs the necessary calculations and adjustments to render HDR content.

Your screenshots do look great, so I might sign up just to check out these transfers.

Fang Zei said:

Jay said:

HDTVTest evaluates the OT and ST in HDR on Disney+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGZmMjPJiAk

Vincent of HDTVTest is a respected reviewer and display calibrator. He doesn’t get into color grading or anything like that, but it’s an interesting look into whether the OT on Disney+ is true HDR or just some contrast tweaks (spoiler: it’s not real HDR).

I wonder how much of the issue is “fake HDR.” They may have simply intentionally graded it that way, giving it a restrained HDR pass. It may also be that there isn’t a whole lot of dynamic range to squeeze out of the camera negatives at this point, if there ever was to begin with.

But if I had to guess, I’d say that even if they could have gotten more HDR “pop” they still chose not to, if only so that the OT would still recognizably look like the OT. For all the time they’ve spent keeping the OOT buried, Lucasfilm sure seems to be striving for authenticity as far as the color and contrast goes.

It’s possible, but as soon as you watch film that was intended for a large screen in a dark room at 16fL transferred to a digital medium for viewing on a consumer display calibrated for 100 nits (~30fL, and that’s conservative), it no longer looks like projected film anyway. I can appreciate wanting to maintain the aesthetic (I watched the Criterion edition of Scanners back in October, and it looked about as close to film as you can possibly get on video, and I loved it), but we are talking about movies with glowing laser swords, laser pistols, gleaming golden robots, and big explosions in this case.

It’s also important to note that the goal of HDR (“High Dynamic Range”) isn’t necessarily eye-searing brightness levels, but high peak brightness (which would be seen sparingly in the objects noted above) with extra dynamic range for everything else. This is where Dolby Vision (and I suppose HDR10+) shines, allowing adjustments on a scene-by-scene basis.

I think Vincent’s key point isn’t that we get lower peak brightness, but that it’s indicative of reduced dynamic range.