Fury 4K Blu-ray

[AVSCraig]

Picture 9.5/10
Sound 9.5/10
Movie 9 /10

I'm a fan of Fury, and thought it looked outstanding on Blu-ray. Maybe one of the best recent Blu-ray releases. The 4K Blu-ray adds a layer of realism, and looks even better. Surfaces, metal, the uniforms all look a bit more realistic.  Even the grit and dirt on things looks like you could reach out and grab it.

The audio was always outstanding sounding, and that hasn't changed - great LFE / bass during tank battle scenes. On my system, it sounds the same as before - and that sounds great. Definitely one of my favorite war movies.

Screen shots using my JVC RS4500 projector, Panamorph Paladin DCR lens, Lumagen Radiance Pro ( to scale to 4096 x 2160 ) and Stewart StudioTek 130 screen -

[AVSCraig]

More RS4500 screen shots -

[DavidHir]

Sony hands down produces the best UHD BDs.

[DLCPhoto]

I've been lazy, and haven't taken the time to do it myself, but was wondering if you had photos of the same time-stamp, with both the original blu-ray, and the 4k/UHD blu-ray, to demonstrate the differences?

I'm very attuned to the general concept that we often see what we want, or expect, to, and that visual memory may not be up to the task of this type of comparison.  I also realize that there are challenges to using a photographic image to demonstrate differences that may in fact be clearly evident to the naked eye in real-time, but still thought I'd ask the question.

And, to be clear, I'm in no way challenging your observations; I just think it could be an interesting exercise to make this type of comparison.

Thanks.

[AVSCraig]

I've been lazy, and haven't taken the time to do it myself, but was wondering if you had photos of the same time-stamp, with both the original blu-ray, and the 4k/UHD blu-ray, to demonstrate the differences?

I'm very attuned to the general concept that we often see what we want, or expect, to, and that visual memory may not be up to the task of this type of comparison.  I also realize that there are challenges to using a photographic image to demonstrate differences that may in fact be clearly evident to the naked eye in real-time, but still thought I'd ask the question.

And, to be clear, I'm in no way challenging your observations; I just think it could be an interesting exercise to make this type of comparison.

Thanks.

I might have a couple of photos near the same time stamp. One thing though - when I shoot screen shots, the camera is on auto focus / auto exposure. So it won't show differences like the Blu-ray being 22 foot lamberts ( or 18+ without the DCR lens ), and the 4K version being 45 foot lamberts with the DCR lens. That difference is easy to see in person with a movie like GOTG2, flipping back and forth with and without the lens. Not as easy to show unless each screen shot is shot with the same manual exposure setting. Same with Blu-ray to 4K. Frankly, I don't have the time or patience - it's too time consuming as it is. I will say that the added brightness of the 4K HDR version with the DCR lens makes some scenes that would be difficult to shoot screen shots of ( too dark on Blu-ray ) easy to shoot on the 4K version.

Blu-ray -



4K Blu-ray with DCR lens -



Blu-ray -



4K version with DCR lens -



Blu-ray  -



4K Blu-ray with DCR lens-

[AVSCraig]

The improvement in those photos mirrors what you see on the screen pretty well.

How's that ?

[DLCPhoto]

Thanks for the reply and examples, Craig.

You're absolutely correct that one would need the photos to be rigorously controlled: tripod mounted, full manual exposure, probably using Raw format, controlled conversion to jpeg, comparable white balance, etc.

As you point out, this would be a time consuming process, and this is why I haven't gone through the process myself.

At some point, my curiosity may outweigh my laziness, and I'll give this a try!

[AVSCraig]

Thanks for the reply and examples, Craig.

You're absolutely correct that one would need the photos to be rigorously controlled: tripod mounted, full manual exposure, probably using Raw format, controlled conversion to jpeg, comparable white balance, etc.

As you point out, this would be a time consuming process, and this is why I haven't gone through the process myself.

At some point, my curiosity may outweigh my laziness, and I'll give this a try!

Luckily, I always set up my tripod in the same place, use the same camera, and those shots are very close to the same time stamp. So there most definitely is a picture improvement.

[DLCPhoto]

There's no question that there's a huge difference between the shots you've posted.  The regular Blu-ray shots exhibit really poor shadow detail, and in several of the shots, the white balance seems way off (specifically, the 3rd set of shots, were the Blu-ray seems to show a magenta-type cast).  The UHD shots look very natural, while the Blu-ray ones really look pretty poor.

These are not the types of differences I would have expected to see, in terms of either resolution or color gamut.

But as you pointed out, if the camera is in auto-exposure mode, and presumably auto white balance as well, the shots can't really be used to demonstrate the differences that are there.

I'm really not trying to be difficult.  And I probably shouldn't post until I've done the homework myself, and really have something to show or say.

[AVSCraig]

There's no question that there's a huge difference between the shots you've posted.  The regular Blu-ray shots exhibit really poor shadow detail, and in several of the shots, the white balance seems way off (specifically, the 3rd set of shots, were the Blu-ray seems to show a magenta-type cast).  The UHD shots look very natural, while the Blu-ray ones really look pretty poor.

These are not the types of differences I would have expected to see, in terms of either resolution or color gamut.

But as you pointed out, if the camera is in auto-exposure mode, and presumably auto white balance as well, the shots can't really be used to demonstrate the differences that are there.

I'm really not trying to be difficult.  And I probably shouldn't post until I've done the homework myself, and really have something to show or say.

It's harder for the camera to get good screen shots at 18.5 foot lamberts with the Blu-ray than it is with the 4K Blu-ray and DCR lens combo at 45+ foot lamberts. The more light, the easier it is to get an accurate photo. And the Blu-ray is dimmer - no doubt. Buy the 4K disc - you'll see the difference yourself !