Quote from: Nukiemorph on Dec 16, 2023, 01:38:02 PMSomeone finally uploaded some screenshots for comparison with the blu-ray. Click the dropdown menu on the top left for more.
https://slow.pics/c/gUfJLrcw
Lots of DNR and AI upscaling. The top and bottom have been slightly cropped and the image is vertically stretched a tiny bit. Plenty to complain about, but I think it looks a lot better than the Wax Figure Edition of Predator.
Scanning a grainy film for compression to digital video causes the resultant bitrate to skyrocket because film grain is, in effect, lots of teeny tiny spacial and temporal detail that ends up as increased file data. This is not good for video intended for internet streaming, for which moderate bitrates are desired for reliable playback.
This is why DNR is often applied to the final master before compression; it smooths out the image, removes non-subject detail, and thereby lowers file size and bitrate.
What i don't know is what the industry best-practice is when it comes to manufacturing these video masters. Do they prioritise the internet-streaming version (the one that requires the heavy DNR treatment) and then say 'f**k it, we'll use this master for the blu-ray/UHD physical disc release as well,' or do they go to the trouble and expense of creating a second master which is much lighter in DNR specially for the blu-ray/UHD release?
It will be interesting to see this 4K comparison being made again, but this time using video frames from the actual UHD disc release, and not frames from the streaming version.
Also, what does it mean when people say they have a copy of the 35mm print that they prefer to watch? Surely, this doesn't mean what it sounds like?
TC
