![]() ![]() One thing I'd like to point out is that the movie retains a similar look that Dunkirk had with its flickering. This is a prideful encode, because achieving this look under bit-rate constraints is one of the hardest things to master with encoding video, and they've achieved it here. The biggest thing I look for is how film grain resolves, and let me tell you, in those black-and-white shots, every piece of film grain is retained and resolved gorgeously. So, the work that has been done to get this on one disc, and make it look this good is staggering. The reason I pointing this is is because Universal's encode on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray looks better than the prores trailer at 500 Mbps and looks better than my encode at 98 Mbps. This is because x265, (which is the codec used for 4K Ultra HD) is incredible at compressing an image and making it look equal to the source, or visually lossless. I encoded it at 98 Mbps, and you could not tell the difference between the 500 Mbps version and the 98 Mbps version. I encoded all of the Oppenheimer trailers and the source files that I used were 500 Mbps for it's bit-rates, yes 500. But, with all this talk about bit-rates, I have to see with my own eyes what's happening, and as far as I can see, it's been encoded at a visually lossless level. I run test encodes to see how things work with encoding, and you can save anywhere from 20 to 10 Mbps by just encoding on slower speeds and optimizing the encoding settings while keeping the quality as though it was 20 Mbps more than it really is. This means you actually get much better picture quality than just looking at bit-rates alone. So, to get more bang for your bit, you must encode at a very slow speed. After inspecting the file, it's just over 60 Mbps on average. From just watching the movie and looking at the bit-rate meter, it looks to be on average about 70 Mbps. ![]() I wish more directors had this level of control and passion to make their movies look great from the cinema to disc. This was a worry of mine when thinking about a 3-hour movie on a single 100GB disc, but I am thankful that the encoding is absolutely stellar! I believe Christopher Nolan has worked with the encoding team in trying to get the absolute most out of his movie and to try and get it looking as good as possible for Physical Media. However, film grain resolves perfectly in either case. Once again, this aligns with the era in which the film is set and has been purposely done.įilm grain is slightly inconsistent, and the difference in grain between black and white scenes, and color scenes is there. If some don't know what nits are, it's just the range of light in each shot. I personally love this look, and it really does show me that high nit counts are not the primary goal in the way great movies look. This is one of the reasons why many filmmakers still like to shoot on film because film within itself has a very limited window of captured light, especially when thinking about exposure levels. The dynamic range appears squeezed and squashed, but this has been done for a reason. I noticed this specifically at Oppenheimer's hearing at my IMAX theater. The reason for the low nit count is that many shots in Oppenheimer appear purposely capped on dynamic range, or a different way of looking at this is that they have limited dynamic range. HDR is on the natural side, and the nit count is around 200 nits. It's a stylistic choice or restriction, but I think worth noting. They would have both been shot at different times, and this is why there is this difference, but some continuity is lost here. This "special effects shot" has different black levels to the current scene. And, while Oppenheimer is talking, visuals of stars are closing in on each other. The image has a raised black floor here due to the exposure needed for this type of shot. An example of this is when they're camping. I didn't feel that the color timing was consistent, however. This instantly gives the image an aged look, because when you think about old images and photos, they always have limited blues. It leans heavily on reds and greens, with blues being subdued. I love the color timing work that has been done. You can see all of his pours on his skin, it's very impressive. ![]() The detail on his face is quite stunning. I really got a good idea of the detail when Groves first made his appearance in the lab. However, on a 77-inch OLED, I can see that this movie is Christopher Nolan's most detailed film he's ever made, even more so than Tenet, which was visually stunning. Admittedly, IMAX screens are ridiculously huge, but the perceived resolution lessens the larger the image is. ![]() Oppenheimer looks absolutely amazing on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray! The detail and resolution at home look much higher than I remember when watching this in two different IMAX theaters. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |