Same with IMAX 70mm in Ontario California. Looked completely like garbage and everyone seemed to love it. Dolby was so much better.
-
Thanks for visiting the Kaleidescape Owners' Forum
This forum is for the community of Kaleidescape owners, and others interested in learning about the system, equipment, services, and the company itself.It is run by a group of enthusiastic Kaleidescape owners and dealers purely as a service to this community.
This board is not affiliated in any way with Kaleidescape, Inc.
For official technical support, product information, or customer service, please visit www.kaleidescape.com
You can dismiss this box forever by clicking the "X" in the upper right corner of this message. -
You are currently in "Guest" mode and not logged in with a registered account.
The forum is free to use and most of the forum can be used by guests who are not registered....
... but we strongly encourage you to register for a full account. There is no cost to register for a full account.
Benefits of registering for a full account:
- Participate in the discussions! You must have a registered account to make posts on the forums. You will be able to start your own thread on a topic or question, or you can reply to other threads/discussions.
- Use the "Conversation" feature (known as "private messaging" on other forums) to communicate directly with any of the other users here.
- Access the Files area. The "resources" area of the forum contains many "Favorite Scene" and Script files that can dramatically increase the enjoyment of your Kaleidescape system. Go directly to great scenes in your favorite movies, created by other owners, and add automation to playback of your system with Scripts.
- You won't see this annoying notice at the top of every screen!😊
This box goes away for registered users.
[Buyer’s Guide] Kaleidescape Quality Compared to Blu-ray & other Digital Sources
- Thread starter Rmarci
- Start date
- Status
Same with IMAX 70mm in Ontario California. Looked completely like garbage and everyone seemed to love it. Dolby was so much better.
Finally a title I have. Interesting for sure on this as I watched this over the weekend and thought it looked incredible on my system. Of course I was not comparing one version to another, just watching the movie casually (4K HDR Cinematic). But definitely see the difference in your comparison here!In the Grey
- Again Cinematic much softer... look at the ground, looks like 1080p.
deejaykorn
Member
@Rmarci I didn't see this as I read through the thread, but how are you ensuring that each grab in the comparisons is the same type? Obviously with a rip of a 4K disc, you can parse that data. But for the signal coming out of the K, you wouldn't know. I only ask because comparing an I-frame to a B-frame wouldn't be a fair comparison.
I’m not an expert in this by any means but wouldn’t the I-frame vs b-frame issue only matter for non-decoded video? I.E. they don’t really come into play when capturing the output from the HDMI signal like @Rmarci does, as the full image would be reconstructed at that point?
J.Chitwood
Well-known member
I think this is how it will be for the vast majority of K customers. Let's enjoy our movies and let Rmarci cook, which will result in better encodes (and more accountability from K). It’s a win-win for everyone and ensures a better product. Thanks for the work you’re doing, Rmarci!
Yeah, I wanted nothing more than to catch up on this thread and see glowing results about the Cinematic format from his work. Especially given so many more recent comparisons were coming out very positive for the newer Kscape encodes.
It's a bummer that there is a disconnect between the comparisons and user sentiment with the K. We are not shills, and I find it hard to believe so many first-hand takes are some kind of placebo or self-fulfilling prophecy. But I also cannot rationalize the disconnect.
In any case, I appreciate that the time is being invested to analyze and feedback and try to make this platform achieve its maximum potential. We will see what comes next but hopefully it only gets better in the end.
deejaykorn
Member
I'm referring to the encode itself and not how it is being captured. The structure absolutely matters as it determines the quality of the output.
But this is raw, high-bandwidth HDMI data "after" it has been decoded in the player. Each frame captured by the card should represent what is displayed (barring additional scaling/manipulation by the display).
deejaykorn
Member
I am referring the source of the decoded data and not the process after it has left the player.
Furnace Inferno
Well-known member
Image of the rocks looks quite bad actually, almost like it’s a double image blurring the detail. My K is arriving tomorrow now anyhow so once I’ve got the subs up and running again I’ll be thrashing out some movies.In the Grey
- Again Cinematic much softer... look at the ground, looks like 1080p.
OK, but he is capturing the HDMI signal after it has "left the player" using a hardware capture card.
deejaykorn
Member
I'm confused why you keep talking about the capture hardware when I am not referring to that.
Because the capture card is acting just like the display and decoding the frames and recreating them. Maybe we are talking past each other, not sure.
deejaykorn
Member
There's the problem. The capture card is NOT decoding the frames. That is done in the player.
I'm just amazed that people are so chill about this. K keeps hoodwinking people for as long as they can get away with it. I bet internal chats and documents would show they know they are releasing bad encodes to get them out quickly. It's so trivial for them to do QA here and they have zero concern about reputational damage for constantly failing to deliver their main marketing claim.
I think most of us don't believe that's the case. Doing these encodes is a lot of work, and doing them badly is a lot of work being done for no reason. If they wanted to hoodwink us, they'd just rename the identical files and call it a day. I believe they thought they were making superior versions of the files, took a quick look at them by eye and (like many people!) saw what they expected to see and believed they looked better, and moved on.
I would like to see an explanation of what's going on here -- did something get screwed up on the encodes? is there a flaw in the QA process that should have caught these? -- but my starting point on that would be that they very much want to deliver good output, and just missed the mark through honest mistakes.
There was a gentleman that did “scientific” comparisons on the K player either on this thread or the “k player announcement” thread…. His results were great on the cinematic encodes… I can’t not find his post, he posted all of the data and what he used.. anyone remember seeing it?
But doesnt this point to the root of all this...that has been the case for going on over a year now....lack of QA and knowledgeable subject matter experts on staff?
Are you referring to these? [Buyer’s Guide] Kaleidescape Quality Compared to Blu-ray & other Digital Sources
Unfortunately, that only shows bandwidth during different sections of the titles, which won't account for the poor encoding practices but higher bitrates. I'm not aware of any other testing in this thread that could be considered "scientific", beyond obviously @Rmarci's testing.
- Status