Quote:
Originally Posted by takla
You will get a worse image experience (ignoring HDR) using the fake 4K blurays then with the normal bluray
|
Yes and no, but I'm more prone to "no".
The original master delivered to theaters of the movie is a Motion JPEG 2000 250 Mbit/s 23.976p 4:4:4 12bit in XYZ, so, assuming that it's how they checked it and how it was supposed to look like, it makes a lot of sense to go to H.265 rather than H.264. You're right in the sense that it might have not been shot in 4K and that it has been upscaled, but it was shot in Log-C with an Arri Alexa, which offers several stops/nits and high bit depth; hence, assuming that it has been edited as such ("assuming" 'cause not even us working in TV know what they do as we only get the final product), targeting HEVC H.265 BD 1000 nits offers an homomorphism and preserves all the stops recorded by the camera, while 10bit planar preserves way more frequencies than going to 8bit (H.264 BD). Unfortunately, there's no public release that is done in 4:4:4 nor in XYZ as the best the public can get is 4:2:0 Type 2 YUV in an H.265 HEVC BD, but still, it's way better than the transformation they do when they go down to BT709 with a function similar to a Sigmoid with a knee on high frequencies to match the 100 nits offered by SDR + Manual adjustments + Colorist's view. Last but not least, Marvel's movies are full of GFX and, as such, they have plenty of "flat" surfaces, which is a good thing for the encoder as it can recognize the blocks and macroblocks that make up a surface and almost perfectly recognize them with motion-compensation, hence saving bits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder
One reason in addition to the non-grainy video is that the non-graded HDR image is so flat that it confuses the encoder. It means that you should test how it looks, the numbersmay deceive you. With HDR sources, I use CRF 14 while with SDR it's 18.
|
This is also true.
Flat images which have purely logarithmic curves are much "easier" to encode for an encoder.