#videophile

A/V Nerds: 4k UHD Blu-Ray Player Options

_I recently completed my home 7.1.4 speaker setup and have been really enjoying digging into high-end Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision material. Playing around with nip23 long-form content to share this kind of niche nerd stuff that doesn't quite make sense as a regular nostr note._ ![](https://i.nostr.build/J64rG.jpg) tldr: For videophiles there's really only one option: ~$450 Panasonic UB820. Just do it. ## Videophile nerd standards hell I'll have to do a post to really dig into the 4k UHD video formats: HDR10, HDR10+, and Dolby Vision. The short version: **HDR10** is the baseline high-dynamic range format that's on all 4k UHD blu-ray discs. Better than HD / 1080p blu-rays due to HDR10's greater dynamic range (duh!), more intense contrast, and richer colors. But HDR10 is an inherently compromised HDR format compared to the two more advanced options below. **HDR10+** is an optional enhancement that maximizes the data on the disc (more data and more efficient usage of that data). Part of this additional data — dynamic metadata — is a ginormous game-changer. Imagine an opening scene that's way too bright. So you dial back the Brightness control on your TV. But now dark scenes are way too dark. That one Brightness control is just too blunt a tool to give you good results over an entire movie. HDR10 is (metaphorically) limited to that one Brightness control. HDR10+'s dynamic metadata is like the cinematographer adjusting it for you on a shot-by-shot basis. Absolutely massive improvement. Except there are almost no 4k blu-rays that use it. **Dolby Vision** ("DV") does everything HDR10+ does, but better (has even more, richer data!). Dolby Vision leaps further out in front because it also incorporates a kind of communication layer with a DV-capable TV to optimize how the content is displayed, including locking down certain adjustment options. No tweaking; just hit play. BLISSFULLY relaxing for an otherwise OCD videophile! It is the best format we have to watch video content. Period. It's well worth it. And more and more content (especially streaming, but also 4k blu-rays) is in Dolby Vision. ## Dearth of Dolby Vision-capable players 😢 My original 4k blu-ray player (from 2016!!), a [Samsung UBD-K8500](https://www.samsung.com/uk/video-players/uhd-blu-ray-player/uhd-blu-ray-player-black-ubd-k8500-xu/), only supported baseline HDR10. My Xbox One X can output Dolby Vision (and maybe HDR10+?) but only for streaming services (e.g. Netflix) or gaming. On-disc Dolby Vision is not supported because — this seems beyond ridiculous — the onboard laser hardware literally cannot read the DV data off a 4k blu-ray disc. Current-gen Xbox Series One and the PS5 can't read disc-based DV data, either. wtf? Look carefully at the specs for cheap, dedicated 4k blu-ray players. Very few support Dolby Vision. ## Triple-layer disc woes Another really dumb technology problem: the biggest 4k blu-ray discs have 100GB of data stored on three different layers but plenty of players — including the prominent gaming consoles — are reported to freeze or skip ~2/3 of the way through a movie when the laser tries to refocus itself to the third data layer. Or they'll struggle to even load the intro menus. Again, wtf? Does this tech shit work or not? So even if you find a more affordable 4k blu-ray player with Dolby Vision support (they do exist), odds are that it'll still struggle on some 100GB discs. Because those triple-layer discs store the most data, they offer the best possible picture quality. The reference-quality, demo-worthy 4k blu-rays will fill a 100GB disc. So if you want to experience the best that the format can offer, your player better be able to read triple-layer discs reliably. ## So there's only one option It's the [Panasonic UB820](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07N3PQM5N). It's not cheap but it's not a back-breaker, either. Dolby Vision and HDR10+ support. Flawless reads for triple-layer discs. There are other, more expensive players that can achieve all this. But there are zero cheaper players that can do it. ## Yes, it's worth it If your TV supports Dolby Vision — and especially if it's rated for more than 1000 nits — then the Panasonic UB820 is just a must-have for any hardcore videophile. "nits" are a measure of how bright the screen can get. I call this out specifically because all the HDR formats can be authored to target intensities beyond 1000 nits. That's when the dynamic range of your TV really starts to impress. If your TV can't go that bright, it does its best to smoothly ignore the extra-bright (or extra intense color) information. But if it CAN go that intense, whoa baby is it amazing! And with Dolby Vision optimizing how that intensity is mapped to your TV... just pure videophile nerd bliss.

audiophile videophile dolby dolbyvision dolbyatmos bluray review 4k uhd

5b0e8da6

A/V Nerds: "The Fifth Element" on 4k UHD Blu-Ray

_I recently completed my home 7.1.4 speaker setup and have been really enjoying digging into high-end Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision material. Playing around with nip23 long-form content to share this kind of niche nerd stuff that doesn't quite make sense as a regular nostr note._ ![](https://images.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/171526_large.jpg) tldr: Still a joy, though much of its intentional over-the-top ridiculousness is just too much for me now. The absolute trash 4k transfer is a tragedy. See [Blu-ray.com's 4k review](https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Fifth-Element-4K-Blu-ray/171526/#Review). ### The movie I'm fairly sad to report that I just couldn't enjoy the first hour or so anymore. More and more of the movie's creative absurdity that I previously loved is souring to cringe. The bulky, waddling alien designs in the intro sequence are just pointlessly dumb. The savage lampooning of an American-style government — from the casting of a President who looks and sounds like an NFL lineman to all the stupid and/or war-hungry military leaders — I'm sure is hilarious to the French creative team (and, sure, somewhat deserved), but it's just so blunt and caveman-y and insulting. I'm not interested in defending America's honor, but this is just so dumb and cruel in its way that it's unpleasant to watch. Gary Oldman is, as always, a powerhouse. But when you direct him to go big with the campiness, it's... it's a lot. Things improve once Leeloo starts to take over the story. And, maybe this is a surpise given the above, but Chris Tucker's how-do-you-even-describe-it Ruby Rhod is still a shockingly successful, brain-breaking spectacle. Happy to report that the Fhloston Paradise set piece is still a gem and is where all the unique absurd energy truly finds its groove. Overall, I think the movie still works. Luc Besson is unapologetically asking us to YOLO into this crazy world. It's experimental in a idgaf way but he does real work to layer in an appealing emotional core between Corben and Leeloo. It does all somehow come together and ultimately works surprisingly, uniquely well — if you can get past the first hour. ### Video https://i.nostr.build/0ren.jpg Just straight trash. #### Sidebar: On image processing / contrast Our eyes want strong contrast in images. You might complain that this pic is just a little too muted: https://i.nostr.build/8Y9J.jpg But once you start tinkering, it can be very easy to way overshoot the mark: https://i.nostr.build/jQAr.jpg Some of you may think, "Uh, I prefer the boosted version." Yes, it's more lively to our eyes, certain things are so much more emphasized now that you can appreciate those details more. But then look at the highlights. They're so boosted that details have disappeared into full white. Same for the shadows. Crushed to pure black. The art is to dial in just the right amount of contrast boost without blowing out the highs or crushing the lows. And there's just an overall harshness where there had previously been subtle gradations of color and texture. The more you work with image processing, the more you appreciate a lighter touch. Here's another set: https://i.nostr.build/lBRA.jpg https://i.nostr.build/P94W.jpg This was a lower quality image to start with (cellphone cam vs DSLR) and then overjuiced so hard that it's lost any semblance of the natural world. #### Back to the trash "The Fifth Element" video transfer The 4k transfer is similarly overjuiced everywhere. It's hideous. My cellphone photos of the HDR screen are in no way accurate, but even still some of the flaws are entirely evident. https://i.nostr.build/A6GR.jpg Harsh over-contrasty processing. Color saturation similarly overjuiced. There are lots of dark areas in this image, but if we boost those levels, we see that there's NO information in the shadows. Once you crush shadows to black, no amount of brightening can bring back those details. https://i.nostr.build/z9LM.jpg Ruby Rhod's hair and black dress are just (0,0,0) pixels. A good transfer would still provide strong contrast where it's called for, but would preserve the subtleties, some details even in the shadows and highlights. A good transfer paints with up to the full 1 billion available colors. This transfer clumsily, bluntly limits itself to a box of 32 crayons. View this one full-screen: https://i.nostr.build/P9A6.jpg Just harshness everywhere. There's also way too much sharpening applied which adds to the harshness and over-accentuates the natural film grain. I'm not the only one who hates this transfer. > It's noisy and harsh [...] I think a lot of people would be surprised at how artificial Sony's remaster would look compared to an untampered presentation. ([link](https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=15516291&postcount=941)) > There’s no positives that I can mention in regards to Sony’s efforts on The Fifth Element. It may be the single most artificially sharpened UHD. You can literally use the screen as a cheese grater. And the color grade is completely off from 35mm. ([link](https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=15518957&postcount=957)) #### There's a better option Weirdly, there's an alternate 4k disc that was published in the UK by Studiocanal that is said to be a vastly superior transfer. https://i.nostr.build/0r4M.jpg The 4k disc is region-free, so even though it's a UK disc, it'll play fine in any 4k blu-ray player. It's currently $28 on amazon but, given my lessening admiration for the movie (at least the first hour), I'm not interested in double-dipping and spending more money to get this version. ### Audio Nice that it has a Dolby Atmos mix but I think I was too distracted by the horrible visuals to do any kind of critical listening. But for any movie this old (1997), the quality of the original sound elements will always be an obvious limiting factor.

audiophile videophile dolby dolbyvision dolbyatmos bluray review 4k uhd Review

5b0e8da6

A/V Nerds: "Star Trek: Into Darkness" on 4k UHD Blu-Ray

_I recently completed my home 7.1.4 speaker setup and have been really enjoying digging into high-end Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision material. Playing around with nip23 long-form content to share this kind of niche nerd stuff that doesn't quite make sense as a regular nostr note._ ![](https://images.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/153633_large.jpg) tldr: A pretty good but not-really-Trek movie's presentation totally disappoints on this early-run 4k disc. See [Blu-ray.com's 4k review](https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-4K-Blu-ray/153633/#Review). ### The movie It's JJ Abrams doing Star Trek. Normie non-Trekkies should love the slick excitement. More hard-core Trekkies should resent the commoditization of Trek. Abrams is a great storyteller; his generation's sorta-Spielberg. Well, a Spielberg whose artistry is happy to live within the sanitized confines of corporate mega-media. But Abrams does have much of Spielberg's lively camerawork (without being Michael Bay's swoosh-all-the-shots), expert tight pacing, clarity, and humor. But my core conflict as a Next Generation-era Trekkie is that Trek was never about fast-paced, intense action. Abrams' Trek is good for what it's aiming for. It does have heart. But no matter how earnestly it tries to honor its Trek roots, it just isn't terribly Trek-like. Minor side gripe: I have no clue why Benedict Cumberbatch feels the need to overplay Khan so badly. Even the way he mouths words is just so weirdly overdone (it's like he needs to fit a whole apple in his mouth between each syllable). ### Video Interesting — and disappointing — nerd issues here. This was one of the first 4k discs that Paramount put out. New tech, new processes, lots to learn. The disc was cut from a 2k master. 2k is basically the same as a standard HD blu-ray. That's half the resolution dimension-wise vs true 4k. Note that when you halve both height and width, you end up with 1/4 the total number of pixels. And it shows. Surprisingly, it's less noticeable in close-ups. Those look detailed enough. But any shot where the camera is backed a little further away is just really soft. It's so bad that if a future "4k" disc I'm considering watching is actually a 2k transfer, I'm just going to take a pass. I'm also already so spoiled by Dolby Vision that mere HDR10 (the baseline HDR standard that the 4k UHD disc format guarantees) is a let down. This is an interesting case where the Blu-ray.com review linked above actually raves about the technicals here. I was super-confused at first given my deep disappointment. But their review was in the infancy of 4k discs, seven years ago. Since then there've been great leaps forward to get so much more out of this format. It was impressive for 2016. But unacceptably bad for 2024. Misc notes: The HDR color grading makes Christopher Pine's hair look like it's dyed a slight orange in the opening, perhaps a consequence of over-cranking the colors to make the unique red foliage pop (though it's entirely possible that my system is to blame; HDR10 requires your system to be properly calibrated). This is the IMAX version of the movie, meaning that the aspect ratio pops up to IMAX's taller format (fills the area above and below that would otherwise be letterboxed) and pops back down to the quite wide Cinemascope (2.40:1) aspect ratio. I've liked these combo presentations in the past (e.g. The Dark Knight HD blu-ray), but the aspect ratio changes here are just too jarring. I think there were even some scenes that were shot-for-shot alternating between the two formats. ### Audio Another consequence of being an early release, the Dolby Atmos mix just sounds amateurish to me. Yes, there are distinct audio effects as spears go whizzing by in the opening. But everything is just overdone. The mix is loud and harsh. Wait, if the mix is loud, just turn down the volume, right? Except the dialog is targeting a certain level. The loudest effects are just too aggressive relative to that dialog baseline level. A loud, deep rumble from the sub is one thing, but too often it's accompanied by a higher-end harshness that is just unpleasant. The previously reviewed [Midway](https://habla.news/u/KeithMukai@nostr.seedsigner.com/1708450249010) Atmos mix puts Star Trek: Into Darkness' overcranked mix to shame and shows that it is possible to deliver intense sonic warfare without just being loud and painful.

audiophile videophile startrek dolby dolbyvision dolbyatmos blu-ray review 4k uhd Review

5b0e8da6

A/V Nerds: "Midway" on 4k UHD Blu-Ray

_I recently completed my home 7.1.4 speaker setup and have been really enjoying digging into high-end Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision material. Playing around with nip23 long-form content to share this kind of niche nerd stuff that doesn't quite make sense as a regular nostr note._ ![](https://images.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/256916_large.jpg) tldr: I came for the state-of-the-art A/V experience but was happily surprised at how good the movie is! See [Blu-ray.com's 4k review](https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Midway-4K-Blu-ray/256916/#Review). ### The movie I'll be honest, I picked up this disc mostly because the above rave review of its A/V technicals. Newly completed 7.1.4 speaker setup was begging for a top-notch Dolby Atmos mix. But the movie was more than just a rah rah boom boom spectacle. Not quite on par with the spectacle aspect of Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor", but — thankfully — director Roland Emmerich is an actual grownup, which makes this movie easily better than anything Michael Bay can put out (Bay's movies are sumptuously slick and sexy but are mostly terrible if you set aside the visual candy). There are some cringe Bay-esque proudly dumb testosterone moments (every scene with Nick Jonas) and there are way too many characters for any of them to get sufficient development. Expected consequence of it being built around a selection of real people who played pivotal roles in the actual events; this is not a single hero narrative (though it sorta tries). It's not bad character development, just diluted. And, yeah, sorry, but at some point every white guy with a '40s-era haircut and mustache all start looking the same... Worse, Emmerich fails at the most important aspect of a movie about a crucial battle: you can never fully appreciate the strategy, the physical positioning of the warships, who's being lured where, how a trap is set up and sprung, how the enemy's reaction does or does not play into the plan. But mostly it was just surprisingly good. I vaguely knew that the Battle of Midway was a thing but not really anything beyond that. The aftermath of Pearl Harbor and the military's need to land a counterpunch make for a pretty fascinating slice of history. "Midway" is emotionally engaging and entertaining enough to be well worth the time. ### Video Ironically, I said that I came for the A/V technicals but I have the least to say about them. The Dolby Vision video presentation is simply perfect. Period. In previous tech eras, if you were really savvy, you might review a disc to be "as good as the DVD format can provide" or "as good as a 1080p blu-ray can provide"; i.e. laud the current achievement, but realize that it could get even better via some future format. But at this point with 4k HDR displays, any future 8k or 16k or 100k display won't have noticeably higher resolution unless you project it on a huge wall. And the dynamic range (min-to-max brightness, more intense colors) is already beyond fantastic. We are at peak 2D video technology. Barring a move into a whole other storytelling medium (e.g. fully immersive VR worlds), 4k UHD blu-rays of this quality are the apex. ### Audio This is the most active Dolby Atmos presentation I've heard yet that really engages the rears with distinct effects (in a 7.x setup you have center, front left/right, side left/right, and rear left/right): bullets whizzing by, chaff exploding behind you. Atmos (and/or my more careful approach to calibrating my speakers) yields incredible, sumptuous subwoofer integration. My ceiling speakers can't play deep at all but they sound like they do, the sub seamlessly supporting them to perfection. Absolutely amazing what good content + tight calibration can get out of relatively inexpensive speakers. The movie's audio is whizz-bang flashy, but there's just so much going on (it's supposed to be max chaos) it's not what I'd reach for if I wanted to demo distinct surround and/or height sound effects. Zero complaints about the technicals of it, though. It's incredibly immersive (orchestral score coming from everywhere, fully 3d ambient sound and effects, yet consistently clear dialog throughout) and yet it doesn't try to show off too much and call attention to itself. The mix also manages to be as big and boomy as you'd expect but never feels like it's overly loud or brash or harsh. Can't emphasize enough just how impressive that is. It's nice to find myself just being engrossed in the content rather than constantly analyzing the technicals or thinking about other minutiae of the presentation.

5b0e8da6

A/V Nerds: "The Matrix" on 4k UHD Blu-Ray

_I recently completed my home 7.1.4 speaker setup and have been really enjoying digging into high-end Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision material. Playing around with nip23 long-form content to share this kind of niche nerd stuff that doesn't quite make sense as a regular nostr note._ ![](https://images.static-bluray.com/movies/covers/198328_large.jpg) tldr: This is the best The Matrix has ever looked or sounded. Find someone with a Dolby Vision-capable 4k blu-ray player (not as easy as you might think) and go watch it. Now. And, no, streaming doesn't cut it. See [Blu-ray.com's Matrix 4k review](https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Matrix-4K-Blu-ray/198328/#Review). Their reviews get pretty deep into the videophile / audiophile nerdosity. ### The movie Holds up amazingly well for being almost 25 years old. Bitcoiners have obsessed about the red (er, orange) pill meme for good reason. The Matrix was astonishingly ahead of its time in 1999 and still feels futuristic. When old tech is onscreen (green CRTs were old even in 1999; old tube TV; rotary land line phones) it's now even clearer that it was a stylistic choice; The Matrix's simulation has frozen our progress in the past. I think phone booths still existed in 1999, but now they, along with the movie's still-pretty-cool flip phones, read as just part of that time capsule effect. ### Video _(aka why Dolby Vision is amazing)_ My older 4k blu-ray player started playing the disc in HDR10 (the baseline high dynamic range format). It looked good but there were all sorts of obvious flaws (primarily shadows being crushed to black). My screen wasn't calibrated (contrast/brightness/color/etc tweaks) in its HDR10 mode. Ug, calibration for videophiles is such an OCD rabbithole. But what happened to the disc's Dolby Vision output? (Omitting longer story here. Deeper nerding happened) Ah, now we've got Dolby Vision output! And holy shit. It's incredible. Shadows are now perfect. The pervasive computer green is SO richly green (thank you, high dynamic range color)! Yet human-toned reds (pink cheeks, red lips) still pop through. The Matrix was shot on film so it doesn't have the shot-on-digital, low-grain look of a modern movie, but the natural film grain looks great. The only glaringly bad effects shot was the physical prosthetic used when Neo's mouth is sealed (the skin tone coloring just does not match). For a sci-fi film shot in 1999, The Matrix's Dolby Vision presentation has NO flaws and far exceeds expectations. ### Audio The Dolby Atmos mix has some nice gee-whiz 3d audio effects (e.g. the bullet-time shots w/sounds tracking around the room as the camera orbits Neo) but I kind of discount big loud action movies; yeah, of course shit's blowing up all around you. The real win for Dolby Atmos is when it ISN'T explicitly grabbing your attention. The overall fullness and envelopment of the music and ambient sounds (the whole point of Atmos is that it adds ceiling speakers) is what people should really appreciate. One critique: the source material does show its age a bit. At max orchestral and sound effects intensity, the limits of the original recordings are somewhat revealed. Really great recordings have a certain liveliness to their dynamic range; your ear is constantly intrigued and excited by certain resonances or richness or suddenness (e.g. the attack of a bow on a violin). Lower dynamic range audio is like being stuck in a tunnel. The liveliness is muted and as a whole the crescendos become more like a wall of noise rather than a collection of widely varied sounds. Minor limitation and totally expected. The only real technical nitpick for this disc.

audiophile videophile matrix the matrix dolby dolby vision dolby atmos blu-ray review 4k uhd Review