That guy with no name

bpmination said:

You didn’t have comment the way you did. All I wanted to do is bring up what I saw from the video. I’m sorry I didn’t search through this post for those images you mentioned. It’s my fault, I admit. But I had posted in a different area which had no such photos, and I was directed to this thread for discussion of the topic of the video. You are rude and insulting for no reason. I DID mention that YouTube’s compression could be the reason for loss of detail, if you’d read my post more carefully, rather than quickly deciding to insult me. I guess you you were in a rush to prove you’re the smartest guy in the room, though. You could’ve simply stated the issues you had without being insulting. I reported your behavior, for whatever it’s worth, but I hope you got whatever pleasure you were seeking from being dismissive and pompous.

So many people get this way around these various releases and this topic, its oh so tiring at this point. See that same kind of attitude on other social media sites, everyone jumping to prove how right they are. At this point I’m checking out of even reading these discussions and will wait for this official announcement that will be coming. Much like half life 3, I am sure its right around the corner.

I’m pretty sure being a smartypants overly righteous a-hole (like me) is better than spreading misinformation…

bloop said:

That guy with no name said:

bloop said:

I posted over in the OT section before I knew about the discussion going on in this thread. I figured I’d repost what I wrote there:

bloop said:

Hey, long time lurker. I just registered because I never had much to post about. I saw the supposed “leaked restoration footage” on youtube and wanted to share some observations and thoughts. Here’s the link to the footage:

[[NOTE: Since I’m a new member, I can’t post website links yet, so I had to add spaces in between the . and the com in these links. I know it’s a pain, but if you want to go to the links, you’ll have to copy and paste them without the spaces.]]

youtube. com/watch?v=4Z6TpkT-6AY

I grabbed a few frames and did a comparison on another website forum, so I’m reusing those pics here. I’m comparing the “leaked restoration footage” with the Star.Wars.4K77.2160p.UHD.No-DNR.35mm.x265-v1.4 version:

therpf. com/forums/attachments/leaked-20th-century-fox-logo-png.1992607/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/05-star-wars-4k77-2160p-uhd-no-dnr-35mm-x265-v1-4-mkv_snapshot_00-00-05-858-jpg.1992590/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/tantive-iv-blurry-png.1992608/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/05-star-wars-4k77-2160p-uhd-no-dnr-35mm-x265-v1-4-mkv_snapshot_00-02-35-185-jpg.1992592/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/tantive-iv-clear-png.1992609/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/05-star-wars-4k77-2160p-uhd-no-dnr-35mm-x265-v1-4-mkv_snapshot_00-02-35-193-jpg.1992593/

Now, I realize the YouTube converts and compresses video when you upload, so there might be some detail loss, but I grabbed screens from the 4K version, so it should be pretty good, at least for the points I make.

So, I don’t think the restoration looks all that good. Here’s my issues, which you can see in the above pic links:

• The “restoration” footage looks like they used way too much noise reduction, to the point to where most of the film grain has been lost. Losing grain means losing detail, and you can see it in my examples. The 20th Century Fox production logo animation is almost free of grain and looks to be digitally sharpened. They left in the hair on the top of the frame, which I could understand leaving, since you can see the hair in other footage of the 20th logo (I found it on a 16mm clip online and in 4k80). But the fact that they scrubbed the rest of the grain and details away along with the blemishes but left the hair seems odd. Maybe they aren’t done, but it seems almost like they just used AI or an automated filter to “clean” the frames, but the hair is big enough and remains constant throughout the opening that the AI/filter assumed it was supposed to be there. The cloud background and light beams from the spotlights especially look too free of detail. The whole thing just looks very flat, very “CG.”
  In the droid pics on the Tantive IV, the walls especially have been scrubbed of grain and detail, with missing panel lines and barely visible panels. I used a blurry shot and a clear one so you can see how much detail the blurry 4K77 screenshot still has in comparison. You can see the loss of detail in the droids as well.

• The colors are too saturated, not representative of the original theatrical release of the film. Also, the 20th logo background is practically purple, and the walls of the Tantive IV should have a slight brownish tint, as in the 4K77 version. Instead, the colors are too blue. The walls in the “restoration” look more like a low saturation gray tone. I’ve seen lots of posts on color grading over in the Star Wars Restoration subforum here, with posts by user Dr. Dre being especially researched on getting colors more accurate to the original, theatrical release, so I’m pretty confident that these “restoration” colors are NOT accurate.

• The footage has been cropped - see that C-3PO’s head is significantly cut off in the “restoration” footage, and R2’s lower panels are cut off at the bottom of the frame. I don’t see any reason for cropping that much, unless the film was in such bad shape along the edges that they had to crop the damage out, which I doubt, because 4K77 has no cropping. You’d expect an official restoration would use the highest quality sources, better than what Team Negative 1 had to work with. I can only think of one other reason to crop, and that’s if they applied too much digital sharpening, so that the frames look as if they have double lines around the edges.

All in all, it just looks bad for a supposed “restoration.” If this is an official restoration, sanctioned by Disney, maybe this isn’t representative of the finished product, but I don’t think that digitally removing detail and messing up the colors and cropping are things that a competent video editor should do, especially with a high profile project like this. Or maybe someone at Disney directed them to do it this way, I don’t know. It just seems like sloppy work. It bugs me that so many people are gushing about this “restoration” in the comments on YouTube. I realize most people don’t have the same eye for detail and knowledge about the way the film originally looked, or they just don’t care and want everything overly-smoothed, over-saturated and overly sharpened.

I’m just glad I have the Team Negative 1 editions.

Firstly, the leaked shots have by far the most detail and grain ever seen in any official/non-official release. What you’re describing is compression, as these videos were posted on YouTube. We have sourced HQ captures of these videos, which tell a different story. All the screenshots in this thread (which you’ve hilariously been willfully ignorant of) are sourced from those captures, and if you actually look at them (with your eyes), you’ll see plenty of original grain and detail.

Secondly, the color is unbelievably accurate. Dr Dre himself has proclaimed them the best he’d ever seen and is even basing his next 4K77 color grade on them. Btw, the tantive walls are not brown FYI…

Thirdly, the cropping of these leaks has been identified as temporary, as these videos are for quality control, but many shots (especially from ROTJ) have had wider cropping than any other official release. Again, you would know this if you actually looked at the comparisons posted here instead of watching. A compressed YouTube video consisting of re-uploaded videos that were already compressed…

This plethora of “thoughts” is ridiculously brutish, uneducated, and downright wrong.

Here’s a video uploaded by Harmy himself to further educate you on the subject you are clearly horribly ignorant of.
https 😕/youtu.be/J29_AcURtyc?si=leBXOdD1H5qKeGWF

Good luck, my troubled friend.

I reported your behavior, for whatever it’s worth,

😂

EDIT: Seriously, though, I apologize if you felt I insulted you. I’m glad you’ve been enlightened though…

bloop said:

I posted over in the OT section before I knew about the discussion going on in this thread. I figured I’d repost what I wrote there:

bloop said:

Hey, long time lurker. I just registered because I never had much to post about. I saw the supposed “leaked restoration footage” on youtube and wanted to share some observations and thoughts. Here’s the link to the footage:

[[NOTE: Since I’m a new member, I can’t post website links yet, so I had to add spaces in between the . and the com in these links. I know it’s a pain, but if you want to go to the links, you’ll have to copy and paste them without the spaces.]]

youtube. com/watch?v=4Z6TpkT-6AY

I grabbed a few frames and did a comparison on another website forum, so I’m reusing those pics here. I’m comparing the “leaked restoration footage” with the Star.Wars.4K77.2160p.UHD.No-DNR.35mm.x265-v1.4 version:

therpf. com/forums/attachments/leaked-20th-century-fox-logo-png.1992607/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/05-star-wars-4k77-2160p-uhd-no-dnr-35mm-x265-v1-4-mkv_snapshot_00-00-05-858-jpg.1992590/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/tantive-iv-blurry-png.1992608/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/05-star-wars-4k77-2160p-uhd-no-dnr-35mm-x265-v1-4-mkv_snapshot_00-02-35-185-jpg.1992592/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/tantive-iv-clear-png.1992609/
therpf. com/forums/attachments/05-star-wars-4k77-2160p-uhd-no-dnr-35mm-x265-v1-4-mkv_snapshot_00-02-35-193-jpg.1992593/

Now, I realize the YouTube converts and compresses video when you upload, so there might be some detail loss, but I grabbed screens from the 4K version, so it should be pretty good, at least for the points I make.

So, I don’t think the restoration looks all that good. Here’s my issues, which you can see in the above pic links:

• The “restoration” footage looks like they used way too much noise reduction, to the point to where most of the film grain has been lost. Losing grain means losing detail, and you can see it in my examples. The 20th Century Fox production logo animation is almost free of grain and looks to be digitally sharpened. They left in the hair on the top of the frame, which I could understand leaving, since you can see the hair in other footage of the 20th logo (I found it on a 16mm clip online and in 4k80). But the fact that they scrubbed the rest of the grain and details away along with the blemishes but left the hair seems odd. Maybe they aren’t done, but it seems almost like they just used AI or an automated filter to “clean” the frames, but the hair is big enough and remains constant throughout the opening that the AI/filter assumed it was supposed to be there. The cloud background and light beams from the spotlights especially look too free of detail. The whole thing just looks very flat, very “CG.”
  In the droid pics on the Tantive IV, the walls especially have been scrubbed of grain and detail, with missing panel lines and barely visible panels. I used a blurry shot and a clear one so you can see how much detail the blurry 4K77 screenshot still has in comparison. You can see the loss of detail in the droids as well.

• The colors are too saturated, not representative of the original theatrical release of the film. Also, the 20th logo background is practically purple, and the walls of the Tantive IV should have a slight brownish tint, as in the 4K77 version. Instead, the colors are too blue. The walls in the “restoration” look more like a low saturation gray tone. I’ve seen lots of posts on color grading over in the Star Wars Restoration subforum here, with posts by user Dr. Dre being especially researched on getting colors more accurate to the original, theatrical release, so I’m pretty confident that these “restoration” colors are NOT accurate.

• The footage has been cropped - see that C-3PO’s head is significantly cut off in the “restoration” footage, and R2’s lower panels are cut off at the bottom of the frame. I don’t see any reason for cropping that much, unless the film was in such bad shape along the edges that they had to crop the damage out, which I doubt, because 4K77 has no cropping. You’d expect an official restoration would use the highest quality sources, better than what Team Negative 1 had to work with. I can only think of one other reason to crop, and that’s if they applied too much digital sharpening, so that the frames look as if they have double lines around the edges.

All in all, it just looks bad for a supposed “restoration.” If this is an official restoration, sanctioned by Disney, maybe this isn’t representative of the finished product, but I don’t think that digitally removing detail and messing up the colors and cropping are things that a competent video editor should do, especially with a high profile project like this. Or maybe someone at Disney directed them to do it this way, I don’t know. It just seems like sloppy work. It bugs me that so many people are gushing about this “restoration” in the comments on YouTube. I realize most people don’t have the same eye for detail and knowledge about the way the film originally looked, or they just don’t care and want everything overly-smoothed, over-saturated and overly sharpened.

I’m just glad I have the Team Negative 1 editions.

Firstly, the leaked shots have by far the most detail and grain ever seen in any official/non-official release. What you’re describing is compression, as these videos were posted on YouTube. We have sourced HQ captures of these videos, which tell a different story. All the screenshots in this thread (which you’ve hilariously been willfully ignorant of) are sourced from those captures, and if you actually look at them (with your eyes), you’ll see plenty of original grain and detail.

Secondly, the color is unbelievably accurate. Dr Dre himself has proclaimed them the best he’d ever seen and is even basing his next 4K77 color grade on them. Btw, the tantive walls are not brown FYI…

Thirdly, the cropping of these leaks has been identified as temporary, as these videos are for quality control, but many shots (especially from ROTJ) have had wider cropping than any other official release. Again, you would know this if you actually looked at the comparisons posted here instead of watching. A compressed YouTube video consisting of re-uploaded videos that were already compressed…

This plethora of “thoughts” is ridiculously brutish, uneducated, and downright wrong.

Here’s a video uploaded by Harmy himself to further educate you on the subject you are clearly horribly ignorant of.
https://youtu.be/J29_AcURtyc?si=leBXOdD1H5qKeGWF

Good luck, my troubled friend.

Mocata said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

JadedSkywalker said:

I’m really curious as to where they will get the original colors from 1977, 1980 and 1983 and to know they are accurate.

What references do they have. I’m somewhat skeptical because Lowry messed them up twice.

I don’t think Lowry “messed them up”. The DVDs and BDs almost certainly looked as George wanted them.

He just really loves magenta.

Which is odd, considering he oversaw and approved the gorgeous 1997 SE color grade lol…

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: UHD…

Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.

Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…

I don’t know why you say “digital fake grain was added.” This shot was scanned, digitized, had CGI added, and was reprinted. If there’s supposedly more grain, it’s because of the reprinting. Although, back then, films had very fine grain, so no detail was lost when reprinting a film a second time. In the case of the enhanced shots in Star Wars, they look “worse” because they were rendered in 2K.

No, they had fake grain added onto them aswell… even in '97.
https://youtu.be/RMzif1D0nyA

Well, I think it refers more to the completely computer-generated shots, like the CGI shots of the Battle of Yavin, the CGI arrival on Bespin, among others, but the existing shots that were altered already had grain, and when reprinting, the natural grain of the new film did its thing.

I’m sorry, why are we making assumptions here? In the full video he says this was done to both new and “changed” shots. There are many original shots that appear to have had more grain in them in the SE evidenced by the need of more aggressive DNR…

YAREL_RGP said:

That guy with no name said:

YAREL_RGP said:

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: UHD…

Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.

Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…

I don’t know why you say “digital fake grain was added.” This shot was scanned, digitized, had CGI added, and was reprinted. If there’s supposedly more grain, it’s because of the reprinting. Although, back then, films had very fine grain, so no detail was lost when reprinting a film a second time. In the case of the enhanced shots in Star Wars, they look “worse” because they were rendered in 2K.

No, they had fake grain added onto them aswell… even in '97.
https://youtu.be/RMzif1D0nyA

Haarspalter said:

oojason said:

NEW SCREENSHOT COMPARISON - AND A NEW VIDEO CLIP - FROM RETURN OF THE JEDI…

ALI…

What’s up with Han’s hair? There is an odd (compositing?) line around it. Looks almost like Ford was in front of a blue-screen doing his thing.

That’s just motion blur…

Bepis28 said:

I’m not sure why we have this argument every few months. Tatooine has blue skies. Get over it.

Saying ‘get over it’ is kinda considered snarky my guy

Yeah, I know. I was referencing an infamous Star Wars video title, “The special editions ARE the movies, get over it” by Rick Worley. I wasn’t being serious with that line. Either way, I’m sorry for being brass.

Telion said:

That guy with no name said:

ThiscouldbeR2D2 said:

Yeah, you’re right. Why would moisture vaporators be needed on a planet with clearly a lot of moisture in the air, judging by the blue skies and clouds? What are your thoughts, Ady?

Firstly, Blue skies are a sign of low moisture, not the other way around…

Also, the skies on Tatooine are blue because the skies on Tatooine (Tunisia) ARE blue… They’ve been desaturated on home media (especially in the UHD) but have always been and meant to be a deep and bright blue…

I’m not sure why we have this argument every few months. Tatooine has blue skies. Get over it.

Not to make the argument cyclical but just to point out how unwarrented you’re snarkiness. The only thing anyone was saying is the colourgrading on the orginal ANH:R was felt better on the eyes not the 2020 release. Also Thick coud cover is a sign of high moister which has been added is some shot or made more apprent with the new grading. Also, also even your own images of Tunisia is a perfect example of looking more like the Cyan/blue from ANH:R than BLUE from ANH:RHD. That said as long as Ady is Happy noone is here to argue with him. With you though? Absolutely if you’re gonna through your weight around.

I’m not throwing my weight around. Just sharing my opinion which happens to be at odds with you. I didn’t mean any offense.

YAREL_RGP said:

Detail: ALI…

 
Detail: UHD…

Well, it’s important to note that this shot was digitized in 2K in 1997 to add the rope holding Han, so the UHD not only includes that shot with a clearly lower resolution, but also suffers from excessive DNR for the 3D conversion, which caused the image to lose detail.

Yeah, the point of the comparison is that this isn’t sourced from the UHD. Or you’re right, it would also have quality loss. Also good to note that the 97 filmouts also had fake digital grain added on top to disguise the new CG! So yeah, doubly worse…

NeverarGreat said:

That guy with no name said:

the skies on Tatooine are blue because the skies on Tatooine (Tunisia) ARE blue… They’ve been desaturated on home media (especially in the UHD) but have always been and meant to be a deep and bright blue…

If they’ve been desaturated on home media, does that not imply that they’re meant to be desaturated? You may as well show us pictures of Mexico City and claim that all the Hollywood movies that give it a yellow color grading are wrong. At that point, your complaint is with color grading itself, not the artistic intention behind it.

By home media I don’t mean every single release, just the UHD. Even the 2011 BD has had the correct sky saturation, though the hues and other colors were off in that release. Also the original SD version of revisited also suffered from desaturation due to Ady’d at that point undeveloped cc skills. The sky color in these comparisons is correct. I should know, I’ve spent the past 10 years color grading Star Wars, (as you have also been) and you as much as I who’s worked on many film prints, you always get that deep blue when you dig deep enough. It’s supposed to be like that. Toning it down would make the sky appear darker than it should be…

ThiscouldbeR2D2 said:

Yeah, you’re right. Why would moisture vaporators be needed on a planet with clearly a lot of moisture in the air, judging by the blue skies and clouds? What are your thoughts, Ady?

Firstly, Blue skies are a sign of low moisture, not the other way around…

Also, the skies on Tatooine are blue because the skies on Tatooine (Tunisia) ARE blue… They’ve been desaturated on home media (especially in the UHD) but have always been and meant to be a deep and bright blue…

I’m not sure why we have this argument every few months. Tatooine has blue skies. Get over it.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

That guy with no name said:

Hey guys, I’m not trying to “gotcha” anybody, but I think that 4K77 is just the UHD, but color timed and regrained! And these two sources were created almost 40 years apart! TN1 are such hoaxers omg.

UHD

4K77

UHD

4K77

This is all such great fun…

That’s the smoking blaster!

Isn’t it something that TN1 actually thought they could get away with punking us? But thank the good lord we have Little Nemo and his vast intelligence to make us see the truth!

Hey guys, I’m not trying to “gotcha” anybody, but I think that 4K77 is just the UHD, but color timed and regrained! And these two sources were created almost 40 years apart! TN1 are such hoaxers omg.

UHD

4K77

UHD

4K77

This is all such great fun…

Little Nemo said:

First of all I want to say this is all great fun and I’m not trying to “gotcha” anybody, but in the 4K clip compilation the dirt/dust that got through the Reliance 4K restoration seems to match that of these “ALI” clips, which isn’t helping dispel my theory that these are sourced from the UHD, re-timed (often appealingly so!), sharpened and re-grained. Just to highlight a few, comparing grabs from the D+77 and the vid Sonny Hale posted:

No I don’t always have this much time on my hands, but today I did lol. Thoughts?

I don’t know if you knew this —it’s kind of a secret, imao— but it’s the same movie lol. There are many pieces of dirt in 4K77 that also appear in the UHD. Does that mean that 4K77 is just the UHD? Hmmm? There are also many instances of new dirt in the ALI shots, and even missing dirt that’s on the UHD. This might be a surprise to you but you’re not the first person to discover this…

Also, remember that the previous post where you said the UHD screencap was wrong and wasn’t actually the UHD? Still waiting on your response to that, even though it seems to me you were actually using D+ for it, and YOU were actually dead wrong —oh well. It seems some never learn… “i kNoW scReencAps arE aN impERfect sCIenCe”

Am I the only one who actually prefers the change? I think it flows fine. Even if it does break the 180 rule… which, if you know anything about film, is done all the time, even in Star Wars…

UHD color correction example:

Broom Kid said:

It’s been a locked room for almost 20 years now, and the people who got locked in all those decades ago frequently don’t know how to act anymore, LOL. If they ever did, considering when it was that the doors got nailed shut.

What was the reason they closed up shop again?

Grand Admiral Thrawn said:

Glad this change is getting the love it needs to be cleaned up. Ady is also restoring it for ANH:R HD.

https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1626717

I wonder how he’ll approach it…

I’m finally finished with this shot…

Both the SE and the print source for this shot are highly degraded. I’ve isolated most, if not all, the foreground elements from a cleaned-up shot of the 2011 BD, then registered and laid everything on top of the 4K77 background. This was very difficult as the rotoscoping in the SE is horrendous, so a lot of lost information had to be restored from other sources. Not to mention the tedious cleanup to the 4K77 source itself… I still have to repaint the lasers and add missing muzzle flashes, but for the most part, this shot is finally restored and up to standard to fit in with the surrounding shots, finally…

ThiscouldbeR2D2 said:

Why was that first closeup shot of R2 extended by a few seconds?

He just switched the shot with another one from later. I’m unsure why, but it’s been like this since the SD version, right Ady?

adywan said:

Clip Time !

A fix that i wanted to do for ANH:R when i started, but no matter how much i tried it never worked. It’s the shots of 3P0 when he spots the sandcrawler in the distance. It was an obvious flipped shot due to the oil stain being on the opposite side of his torso suddenly. Rotoscoping 3P0 to fix the problems with the shot being flipped was a nightmare. I could never get it to look anywhere near passable . It was just impossible when doing the SD version and i thought i may stand a better chance when a HD versions became available. But i kept failing, right up until a couple of years ago when i decided to shelve the idea .

But sometimes, long after i’ve given up, i decide to give something one last try. I’m so glad i did because i worked out how to do it to a level that i feel works so i can finally cross that continuity error off my list.

In this comparison video you’ll notice that the official version goes out of sync with the Revisited one. This is because i had to shorted one shot and extend another for this to work once the rotoscoping with finished.

I have tried posting this numerous times now and everywhere i’ve uploaded it, it has instantly been blocked. My only option was to upload it to google drive. I don’t know how long this will last due to the bandwidth restrictions , but it was my only option. You can view the preview or download the clip to see it in better quality ( which is what i would recommend )

See if you can spot all the fixes…

(although i have used the 2020 Blu-Ray for this comparison, there are shots i used from the 2011 Blu-Ray, or a mixture of both)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IuT7b9MXkQmTF0Nxjpk8Wk3la9914L8f/view?usp=drive_link

Looks incredible, Ady! Great work!

roy neary said:

It looks like the font has changed on the ALI versions in that it’s regular, vs bold on the 4k77.

It’s not. It’s the exact same font. It’s just that 4K77 has brighter highlights Which gives the illusion of a different font. But it’s the same font and even fades in and out at the exact same time.

YAREL_RGP said:

oojason said:

NEW SCREENSHOT COMPARISON - AND A NEW VIDEO CLIP - FROM RETURN OF THE JEDI…

 

ALI…

 
UHD…

 
2011 blu ray…

 
4K83…

 

a streamable video clip of the above scene: https://streamable.com/q1txlq
 

I still find it strange that the VistaVision intermediate film hasn’t been scanned at 8K. I don’t know if 6K is really that good, because even though VistaVision is high quality, how comparable is it to a 65mm film to warrant scanning it at 8K?

I’m not sure why you’re mentioning Vistavision, as only a handful of shots were printed on that stock. The reason this shot is labeled as such is most likely a typo, as the last ROTJ shot (palace door matte) was a VVI, and that has been carried into the title of this new clip. Either way, according to the docs, all effects shots are, in fact, being scanned in 8K. This shot, which isn’t a VVI, was most likely scanned at 6K. At least according to the documents.

I have no clue what source you’re using, but it’s completely wrong.

Here’s the UHD with HDR simulation:

And here’s the SDR 1080p BD:

And here’s yours:

I haven’t got a clue where you’ve sourced your screencap from, but it doesn’t look like the UDH. Not even close. Please check your sources before correcting people in the future.