True 4K Blu-ray - why I will mostly skip if released - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 22 Old 07-27-2013, 05:45 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Hi all,
So, with the advent of 4K there is the likely chance we will see physical media @ 4k in 2014 as the BDA has stated they are debating this as we speak. Personally, though, I am finding it hard to get excited about this tech. Reasons:

1) JOE KANE of Video Essentials/DVE fame, said outright in his testing you need a 120" screen before you even start to notice any real benefit of 4k over 2k (1080p) at normal viewing distances. This is an extremely trustworthy source who has been a video expert for a long time. Now, I actually have a 120" screen. But this is telling of how (little) improvement there will be with BD > BD 4k compared to say DVD > BD.

2) RESOLUTION in most MASTERS just isn't there, and the studios don't want to spend money to do restorations - All I have to do is look at my Blu-ray library. Most of the catalog films I have just barely get to effective 1080p resolution if lucky. There are some exceptions that could benefit from more res, sure, like some Warner/Sony/Criterions that are mastered in 4k. But the vast majority are mastered in 2k and some of those look like they have an effective resolution of 720p with the EE/DNR applied (and in some more rare cases don't look any better than a DVD!) So, aside from some of the newer movies and the rare exception where studios have spent a buck on 4k restoration I don't see the effective resolution being there on the vast majority of titles. And if the studio couldn't spend the money to restore for Blu-ray, why in the heck would they do so for an even more niche 4k market?

3) TWILIGHT TIME / limited release model is telling of catalog Blu-ray low sales - So, you are telling me that massive box office hits like Sleepless in Seattle, Philadelphia, and As Good As it Gets need a 3000 copy limited release @ $30/ea to make a profit? These limited releases Sony and other companies have farmed out to 3rd parties like twilight time indicate to me that some of these catalog titles are deemed unprofitable through the standard retail sell through model. So with an even smaller niche market of 4K I don't see how they are going to sell any copies of these movies, and likely if they go to twilight time we will see the price inflated to $50 or some ridiculous number like that.

4) MORE DRM - You just know this is coming. With the studios adding Cinavia on top of things after deeming BD+ was not good enough and 4K BD requiring all new hardware, you know a new and more advanced helping of intrusive DRM will be on the way. No thanks.

5) MOVIE THEATERS with MUCH LARGER SCREENS USE 2k/1080p - Very simply, if a movie theater with a screen many times larger than mine looks amazing with 1080p, why do I need 4k?

6) COST vs BENEFIT - Given all of the above and the fact that 4k will require display, source, and individual movie upgrades, I am finding it hard to see how the benefit outweighs the cost.


So, if 4K ever gets down to normal prices and display technology evolves in other areas where a 4k display might make sense I could be interested in the future. But, it won't be like DVD to Blu-ray. It will only be a few select titles where the mastering allows for a significant difference to be seen, but from what I have seen over the course of Blu-ray mastering my thoughts are that pool will be a small one.
Osirus23 likes this.
Ruined is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 22 Old 07-27-2013, 08:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ChrisW6ATV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hayward, Collie-fornia USA
Posts: 4,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
I suspect that if 4K displays succeed in the consumer/home industry, it will be because of marketing, not because people see something missing from their 1080p equipment.

I personally will not upgrade to 4K in the foreseeable future because I do not have the room for a display to make it worthwhile. Your comment about the masters is right on-a lot of existing Blu-ray releases do not come close to that format's potential, so why would we expect 4K discs to be better overall?

Chris

"It's [expletive] lame to watch Jaws, a film that uses the 2.40 ratio as well as any ever produced, in the wrong format on HBO." -Steven Soderbergh, Oscar-winning director

ChrisW6ATV is offline  
post #3 of 22 Old 07-27-2013, 09:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Angler55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Mouth of the AuSable River, Michigan
Posts: 408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
From just casual reading, out of curiosity mostly, it appears many folks are already anxious for 4K Blu Ray. I guess the debate going on concerning 4K and the many folks that can't seem to wait for it to get here is doing a lot of the marketing already for the industry.

I haven't even consider if I would upgrade or not but after realizing the cost involved I'll be staying with my Sharp TV, Panasonic blu ray player, Pioneer AVR and pieced together speaker configuration for quite some time. For a very long time, I'm sure.

Al
Angler55 is offline  
post #4 of 22 Old 07-28-2013, 07:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

So, with the advent of 4K

Agree with most of your points on 2 - 6 but disagree on #1. It is easy to see the increased resolution even on small screens. In watching a 4K demo (Sony) I was really struck at the pictures clarity except during motion. The loss of detail was very striking when the camera did a slow pan, there were no fast pans in the demo and I can see why rolleyes.gif, so all this jerky, handheld camera crap would probably look worse on 4K vs 2K.

If there were a decent native 4K projector under $10K MSRP I would most likely buy one.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #5 of 22 Old 07-28-2013, 11:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

Agree with most of your points on 2 - 6 but disagree on #1. It is easy to see the increased resolution even on small screens. In watching a 4K demo (Sony) I was really struck at the pictures clarity except during motion. The loss of detail was very striking when the camera did a slow pan, there were no fast pans in the demo and I can see why rolleyes.gif, so all this jerky, handheld camera crap would probably look worse on 4K vs 2K.

If there were a decent native 4K projector under $10K MSRP I would most likely buy one.

The loss of detail during motion is a weakness of LCD. If you saw a DLP 4K you likely would not see that.

That being said, sitting 10ft back I doubt the difference will be significant on 99% of movies on screens 10ft and below. Personally I'd rather invest the money in a pro quality 1080p projector than a consumer 4k projector.
Ruined is offline  
post #6 of 22 Old 07-28-2013, 05:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

The loss of detail during motion is a weakness of LCD. If you saw a DLP 4K you likely would not see that.

Have you seen the Sony demo? The camera pans were slow yet the detail loss was striking, even an LCD should be able to display these scenes without much detail loss. Without knowing the camera used, frame rate (assumed 24 because of HDMI 1.4 at 4K), shutter angle, compression settings, etc. one can only speculate the cause.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #7 of 22 Old 07-28-2013, 08:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Lazarus Dark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

Hi all,
So, with the advent of 4K there is the likely chance we will see physical media @ 4k in 2014 as the BDA has stated they are debating this as we speak. Personally, though, I am finding it hard to get excited about this tech. Reasons:....
1: There are other benefits. I'm not a big fan of 3d, but there are a couple movies I would like to watch in 3d at home, but I'm not wearing glasses in my living room, I barely tolerate that a couple times a year in the theater. 4k sets allow for passive full resolution 1080p 3d.
A new BD spec will also allow for better color, which may actually give you more picture improvement than the resolution increase.
You currently can not watch The Hobbit trilogy in HFR 3d at home, which is a shame because I saw it three times in theaters and found it to be a fantastic experience I would love to have at home. A new BD spec will allow for HFR, which will only be a few movies for the next several years, but future proofing is never a bad thing (see: the shortsightedness of the BDA not to include 1080p60 or anamorphic in the original bluray spec).

2:Agreed. But new movies are in 4k, and no one is saying you need to replace all your blurays for 4k-BD's. Just buy the 4k-BD's going forward, replacing only the catalog titles that have been reviewed here on AVS and shown to give significant improvement over the 1080p bluray. There are plenty of catalogs I will want in 4k like the Dark Knight/TDKR, various classics that have been scanned at 4k.

3: Agreed. 4k-BD's will be expensive for some time. But this is not a new situation. Remember laserdisc and D-VHS were also enthusiast-only formats and were very expensive. But it's not like you'll be buying any tv shows on 4k-BD, as tv shows are only shot in 1080p. In truth, the number of titles that will actually be worth buying over the standard BD will be a very small number for most people, even enthusiasts.

4: Probably. And probably Slysoft will break it in less than a week. I'm not concerned.

5: When my local Regal upgraded from 2k to all 4k projectors, on the same screens, the improvement was mind-blowingly noticeable. And that was just on 2k files that were upscaled to 4k. The native 4k movies look even better. I can't even stand to go to a 2k theater anymore (yes, I actually went to one after getting used to the Regal 4k, and I had to walk out because the 2k theater, which I had been to many times before, looked blurry and dull after I had been used to 4k for a while)

6: I wouldn't tell anyone to go toss out thier entire 1080p setup next year just to upgrade. But if you are ready to upgrade anyway, you may as well future-proof for the next couple years, or else you may find yourself regretting it.
Lazarus Dark is offline  
post #8 of 22 Old 07-29-2013, 07:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus Dark View Post

(see: the shortsightedness of the BDA not to include 1080p60 or anamorphic in the original bluray spec).

Like your post but AFAIK, no spec needed, the content providers could provide BD anamorphic titles if they chose to do so. The folks at Panamorph are trying to get the studios to do this very thing.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #9 of 22 Old 07-29-2013, 08:24 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Some good points brought up here, these are my responses:

#1 MOVIE THEATERS LOOK BETTER WITH 4K - Yes, they do, as the screen size of a movie theater is many times that of a home theater. My original post was just stating we've collectively been seeing movies in the theater for quite some time at 1080p, and most people didn't think it looked horrendous or anything (assuming you have a good theater by you). 4K will bring improvement to the mega size theater screen, but remember for most at home 120" is extremely large. Most have 65" or below - so trying to sell the consumer on this may be challenging.

#2 NEW MOVIES ARE SHOT in 4K - Sort of. I thought this as well, but from doing research I discovered that even 4K movies such as the hobbit often downconvert to 2K for post because keeping 4K throughout the whole chain is deemed not worth the extra cost. Also, from the "mastered in 4K" line that you know will likely be a true 4K launch title - Spider-Man - has its special effects done in 2K. What this means is that studios will likely need to invest heavily in even newer movies sometimes even re-rendering the special effects at a higher resolution if we want to get something that is truly higher than 1080p resolution on the screen. While going forward there may be movies that are 4K through the whole chain, I wonder how many movies that will actually consist of given the cost? A good portion of the launch 4K titles may actually end up being 1080p upscales.

#3 EXPANDED COLOR - This is a bit of an unknown how much of a difference it will make, but personally I doubt we are going to get it anyway. Given that I don't think all parties involved are going to invest in new pressing machines just for expanded color, I think we are more likely to see something similar to our 4:2:0 w/ deep color similar to the existing Blu-ray "mastered in 4k" line. IMO there is no way even with h265 I would see 4:4:4 12bit *and* 4k will come anywhere near fitting on a 50gb disc. BDXL exists, but the machines to press them en-masse do not - and even if they did they would be far more costly to replicate than BD50.

#4 HIGHER RESOLUTION FOR 3D - I actually don't notice the resolution loss in 3D despite using a BENQ W7000 DLP projector (which I believe halves resolution for 3D). I guess the 3D effects mask the loss. But, it is unknown whether they can even fit 4K 3D on a 50GB disc, and again I don't think this is a feature they would invest millions in new machines just to implement.

#5 HIGH FRAMERATE 48fps - While this is an interesting format, one question is whether it will actually continue to thrive - I saw mostly negative reactions to the Hobbit @ 48fps with people stating it looked like a soap opera. Are they actually making a lot more movies with HFR? I haven't seen it myself, though this is another feature I am not sure they would be able to fit on a 50GB disc or prioritize. Something else interesting though is I read that is actually possible to do @ 1080p with the current BD Spec using the MVC encoder and simply encoding sequential frames instead of L/R 3D frames.

So, while I see requests for things like expanded color, 4K 3D, and 48fps 3D - I wonder how much they will actually be able to fit on a 50GB disc w/ h265. I know any of these techs will greatly inflates the file size, so I wonder whether they will be included or whether the less complex task of simply 4K 2D on disc will be pursued instead.

I personally don't think with the current economy and declining disc sales that 4K on disc will be a whole new format with all new physical disc specifications, the money that would need to be invested to do so would likely eclipse any sales made - instead I think we will see BD50 with h265 and whatever can be fit using that combination.
Ruined is offline  
post #10 of 22 Old 07-29-2013, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

IMO there is no way even with h265 I would see 4:4:4 12bit *and* 4k will come anywhere near fitting on a 50gb disc.
IMO, the studios will not issue 12 bit, 4:4:4 on a disc even if it were cheap to do so. We will be lucky to get 10 bit, 4:2:2

Quote:
instead I think we will see BD50 with h265 and whatever can be fit using that combination.
It will be interesting to see what H.265 (with extensions) and the x265 project brings to the table.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #11 of 22 Old 07-30-2013, 07:39 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
seggers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: WNY
Posts: 2,096
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 24
There is discussion about Sony and Panasonic doing a 300GB BD. Mostly for archiving right now, but I wonder if that would hold a full length 4k film, with a HD sound and some extras?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/30/sony_and_panasonic_promise_300gb_bluray_replacement_by_2015/

Seggers

Mits 73835, Denon X4000, Emotiva UPA5 (triggered), Wharfedale Pacific Evo 40s, CS, 10s, the internet, a NAS drive, a TiVo Series 3 and an Oppo 103 (bye bye PS3). There's also a Wii, but we don't talk about that...
seggers is offline  
post #12 of 22 Old 07-30-2013, 07:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Sure would, maybe even most of the features several requested above.

Question is, could they produce the discs on a scale that is profitable? And, would they be able to sell them at a reasonable price?

Anyways, this tech looks like it could be a long way off and is probably different than the "BD format extension" group that I have heard bandied about for 4k.

Personally if I were Sony/Panasonic/etc and could fit a 4k movie on a BD50, I would think that would make the most sense. You get to ride the "4k" marketing wave with minimal investment. 300GB discs means all new pressing equipment and much more expensive to manufacture media. And, I am not really sure the market will be there for people to spend like they did with Blu-ray both due to the economy and diminishing returns.

Perhaps more telling, it is unlikely the XBOX ONE and PS4 will be able to play this 300GB format while they could both play BD50 and likely 4K on BD.
Ruined is offline  
post #13 of 22 Old 07-31-2013, 05:43 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 28
One thing I want everyone to keep in mind reading the following post is that I am not one to dictate what other people buy or deride them for it. These are my own opinions.

Some of the things I’ve learned looking into 4K more:
* The amount of *true 4k* content is staggeringly small. It appears even the 3D movie library dwarfs true 4k content that was not downscaled at anytime during the production chain. Even several of the movies in Sony’s own 4k delivery system either have 2k effects or were down-converted to 2k at some point, and will then essentially be upconverted from 2k to 4k for the system.

* Even the highest end 4K film cameras apparently have sensors that cannot fully resolve 4k. So even with a movie that is fully shot and post processed in 4k, you are not getting 4k – apparently at best 3k – 3.5k depending on the camera. Which is better than 2k, but still not 4k.

* 4k will require a new Blu-ray player, new 4k discs, and new display device. It may require a new receiver/preamp as well.

* Even if you get past all that, as stated in post #1, Joe Kane says you need a 120” screen to START to appreciate the difference. Sony – the one trying to sell you all new hardware -- said at CEDIA you need at least an 84” screen otherwise 4k is pointless. Either way those are LARGE screens compared to what most people are willing to buy. We’re not most people, okay I get that.

BUT – does this not seem fishy to some people? This almost seems like they are trying to create a market for a product that does not exist yet, which the majority of people will gain no benefit from buying. Taking 2K films and upscaling them to 4K, using cameras that cannot fully resolve 4k yet calling it 4k anyway, all with the knowledge that 99.9% of consumers won’t have a screen size to even begin seeing the difference between 2K and 4K, nevermind 2K and whatever half-baked product is apparently being delivered?

Maybe 20 years from now when whole-wall TVs are the norm and cheap, 4K will make sense for most. At this point, I am really struggling to see the point and would love to see an argument for how this will possibly take off in any way shape or form that will be anything less than blatent wallet destruction for consumers. I can see how it makes sense for the camera companies, to make money selling new cameras to the studios… And the developers/software companies, to make money selling new “4k” production and effects software… And the consumer electronics companies, to sell you all new hardware again… And the content providers, to sell you all new media again. But I really don’t see it making sense for consumers especially in a real bad economy (and that is being nice).

To be honest, you know what I would like to see even more than 4k Blu-ray? How about Strange Days on Blu-ray? How about a new Blu-ray remaster of Apollo 13 that is at least as good as the HD DVD video master (and not DNR’d, EE’d and contrast boosted like the BD trainwreck Universal released) with some nice DTS sound? Heck, how about RAD on Blu-ray? How about your favorite cult movie that does not exist on Blu-ray?

Think about how many Blu-rays you could buy with the thousands of dollars it will cost in hardware to upgrade to 4k… If the difference was VHS > DVD, or DVD > Blu-ray, I totally get it. But 4k seems like SACD/DVD-Audio all over again – CD was good enough (in fact, MP3 at lower quality than CD was good enough), yet all that marketing trying to convince us that SACD/DVD-A was better… Studios putting pristine masters on the HD audio side of the disc, then putting a garbage master on the CD side of the disc so when we flipped it we heard “the difference.”

The more I think about it, I am turning into someone against this rather than ambiguous. But, I am nobody special of course… Just debating it in my own mind whether consumers are being sold a piece of the Brooklyn bridge here.

I apologize for the wall of text smile.gif
Ruined is offline  
post #14 of 22 Old 08-01-2013, 08:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

* Even the highest end 4K film cameras apparently have sensors that cannot fully resolve 4k. So even with a movie that is fully shot and post processed in 4k, you are not getting 4k – apparently at best 3k – 3.5k depending on the camera. Which is better than 2k, but still not 4k.

That is true with any digital camera (or scanner) because the pickup devices output analog signals therefore must be sampled in order to output digital signals. Because the signals are sampled they must meet the Nyquist sampling theorem. Example, for a 1920 X 1080 camera the highest horizontal resolution will be limited to about 1750 pixels (or less) because the highest sampled frequency must be < ½ the pixel clock.
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #15 of 22 Old 08-01-2013, 12:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Wendell, yes, but I was also referring to articles such as this:
http://library.creativecow.net/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/1
Ruined is offline  
post #16 of 22 Old 08-01-2013, 03:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

One thing I want everyone to keep in mind reading the following post is that I am not one to dictate what other people buy or deride them for it. These are my own opinions.

Some of the things I’ve learned looking into 4K more:
* The amount of *true 4k* content is staggeringly small. It appears even the 3D movie library dwarfs true 4k content that was not downscaled at anytime during the production chain. Even several of the movies in Sony’s own 4k delivery system either have 2k effects or were down-converted to 2k at some point, and will then essentially be upconverted from 2k to 4k for the system.
Mostly true.
Some of the movies in the Sony 4K release list are shot on film and is listed at IMDb as having a 4K DI. It is possible that they do the VFX in 2K and up-convert it and re-link it with the 4K DI for the 4K release.

Only movie on that list that had full 4K workflow throughout is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, shot digital on 5K sensors and all the ca. 1200 VFX shots was done in 4K DI (a lot of VFX for such a movie, almost as many as Prometheus).

Talking of Prometheus; This could get a true 4K version because nearly all the VFX was shot "old style" with huge sets. Everything was shot on 5K stereo.
Very little was CGI, which is where the problem of doing in 4K starts.
Quote:
* Even the highest end 4K film cameras apparently have sensors that cannot fully resolve 4k. So even with a movie that is fully shot and post processed in 4k, you are not getting 4k – apparently at best 3k – 3.5k depending on the camera. Which is better than 2k, but still not 4k.
Red cameras and Sony F65 can all resolve 4K.
F65 has a effective pixel area of 17.6MP.
Red Epic has about 14MP and will get a new sensor in September with 19MP.

These camera sensors oversampled to 4K resolve 4K fine.
Quote:
* 4k will require a new Blu-ray player, new 4k discs, and new display device. It may require a new receiver/preamp as well.
Yes, naturally, for the disc player. Do not need a new disc though.
Quote:
* Even if you get past all that, as stated in post #1, Joe Kane says you need a 120” screen to START to appreciate the difference. Sony – the one trying to sell you all new hardware -- said at CEDIA you need at least an 84” screen otherwise 4k is pointless. Either way those are LARGE screens compared to what most people are willing to buy. We’re not most people, okay I get that.
Kane says a lot of things. Not everything is true. Same goes for all the people that is obsessed with seating distance.

4K improvements has more to do with what happens on the capture stage with high resolution cameras, oversampling of sensor data and post production. This is what will increase quality over HD.

2K as a capture format is just too low resolution to reproduce good quality. It is also too low resolution to compress without introducing artefacts.

2K film scans and movies shot on 2K digital cameras had no chance of being good. The still Photo world knew this a long time ago. Now the movie world comes there too.

Rather listen to what the people that have 4K TVs and projectors say about the improvement in image quality, including these who now gotten their 32" and 39" monitors. They are quite enthusiastic, particularly those that have real 4K material from digital motion cameras..
Quote:
BUT – does this not seem fishy to some people? This almost seems like they are trying to create a market for a product that does not exist yet, which the majority of people will gain no benefit from buying. Taking 2K films and upscaling them to 4K, using cameras that cannot fully resolve 4k yet calling it 4k anyway, all with the knowledge that 99.9% of consumers won’t have a screen size to even begin seeing the difference between 2K and 4K, nevermind 2K and whatever half-baked product is apparently being delivered?
If somebody true history hadn't gone forward and just upgraded technology regardless of people asking for it or not progress would not happen.
The public at large didn't ask for HD and flat panels, they would still have been happy watching their CRT TVs.

Doesn't mean that we will not have a lot of sub-quality 4K content, in the same way we have had "mountains" of sub-quality HD broadcasts and sub-quality Blu-Ray releases.

Majority of digital motion cameras with 4K sensor won't resolve 4K, have bad codec systems and deliver baked in compressed materiel.
The most popular digital camera in Hollywood now is Arri Alexa which only delivers 2.8K files. A lot of the movies shot on this camera will be released as 4K in the future.
Quote:
Maybe 20 years from now when whole-wall TVs are the norm and cheap, 4K will make sense for most.
Wall TVs would be nice, but then you will need a much higher resolution than 4K.
When homes get 4K now, cinemas should have been on the 8K roll-out if we compare screen size.
Quote:
To be honest, you know what I would like to see even more than 4k Blu-ray? How about Strange Days on Blu-ray? How about a new Blu-ray remaster of Apollo 13 that is at least as good as the HD DVD video master (and not DNR’d, EE’d and contrast boosted like the BD trainwreck Universal released) with some nice DTS sound? Heck, how about RAD on Blu-ray? How about your favorite cult movie that does not exist on Blu-ray?
If you see EE on 4K material then you know you have been cheated, it should not need it in any way.

A lot of older movies will be rescanned from a show print. As film doesn't have 4K of resolution, to really get as much quality as possible you need to rescan the negative at higher than 4K and oversample. That means you also have to re-assemble the movie almost from scratch. Not going to happen in most instances.

In addition, you can image the scanning of movies shot on film in production today where they hurry to scan the negative so the director can have his daylies at location. It will often be a hurried job which they most likely won't repeat for the edit.

I recently saw a discussion between people who had worked with film scanning in Hollywood back in 2004. They concluded there was only three scanners they meant was good enough. many movies are scanned with other scanners.

In addition you have incompetent people manning the scanners, dialling in wrong parameters, and editors insisting on working from transcoded to ProRes files because they love FCP7 instead of working with something better like RAW and you see the results. Particularly when these movies are compressed for BD by incompetent authoring people as we see from numerous BD releases.

But it is still preferable to have movies done for 4K than for 2K releases.

Sadly, Hollywood is not so much about quality as it is about "Make.Believe", which is the trademark of Sony. wink.gif
Quote:
Think about how many Blu-rays you could buy with the thousands of dollars it will cost in hardware to upgrade to 4k… If the difference was VHS > DVD, or DVD > Blu-ray, I totally get it. But 4k seems like SACD/DVD-Audio all over again – CD was good enough (in fact, MP3 at lower quality than CD was good enough), yet all that marketing trying to convince us that SACD/DVD-A was better… Studios putting pristine masters on the HD audio side of the disc, then putting a garbage master on the CD side of the disc so when we flipped it we heard “the difference.”
It was a sad day when music went for MP3 and not for something better than CD.
The discs for higher audio quality are there and the audio file systems for better fidelity are there. It was just not utilised, much thanks to BDA's restrictive licence agreements.

Saddest thing with BD was that it locked all development into the tyranny of Sony. The result was that independent creative people where not given a chance. A more open format is needed for progressive developments. In that and many other regards, HD-DVD would have been much better. Already from the launch of HD-DVD independent groups had developed new Audio formats for this.
Quote:
The more I think about it, I am turning into someone against this rather than ambiguous. But, I am nobody special of course… Just debating it in my own mind whether consumers are being sold a piece of the Brooklyn bridge here.

I apologize for the wall of text smile.gif
Wait and see and let some real 4K material be released so you have something to compare to.

I think my replay was even longer than yours. wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined View Post

Wendell, yes, but I was also referring to articles such as this:
http://library.creativecow.net/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/1
Don't take too much of that as facts. It is so full of both wrong information and purposeful misrepresentations. It was thoroughly dunked back in 2009 when it first appered.
He his very much trying to defend some bad decisions he did back in the early 2000's regarding development of a 2K camera, betting on CCD sensors and so forth.

.
coolscan is offline  
post #17 of 22 Old 08-02-2013, 04:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Nachmanowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Srsly, I never even considered it. Sounded like bollocks from day one.

And still I haven't got my 3D 1080p @60fps. Thank you industry.
Nachmanowicz is offline  
post #18 of 22 Old 08-04-2013, 09:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 374
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

A lot of older movies will be rescanned from a show print. As film doesn't have 4K of resolution, to really get as much quality as possible you need to rescan the negative at higher than 4K and oversample. That means you also have to re-assemble the movie almost from scratch. Not going to happen in most instances.

What then is the effective resolution of film? And could you explain what a show print is? Will this be available for most older movies?
Doctor is offline  
post #19 of 22 Old 08-04-2013, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wendell R. Breland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,408
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Red cameras and Sony F65 can all resolve 4K.
F65 has a effective pixel area of 17.6MP.
Red Epic has about 14MP and will get a new sensor in September with 19MP.

I believe all the above are single chip designs, do you know of any 4K (or >) that use 3 chips and beam splitters (trichroic, etc.)?
Wendell R. Breland is offline  
post #20 of 22 Old 08-05-2013, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor View Post

What then is the effective resolution of film?
There is some controversy there as how to count film resolution and compare it to digital pixel.

An older study in German (use google translate) end on about 2-3MP Kodak Vision 100 T / 200 T; Auflösung von Kinofilm
This HD VIDEO vs. 35mm FILM article concludes similar without providing a link to the study they quote.
Quote:
And could you explain what a show print is?
Show print is often the first print of a movie to show to studio bosses and for special screening and is often then used for archiving of the film, where they take extra care to do the best possible quality.
Quite much better than the distribution print which are mas produced in high speed operations.
Quote:
Will this be available for most older movies?
Depending on that they have taken good care of it (doesn't always happen) and that the storage doesn't go up in flames.
A lot of archived movies have showed to be in terrible conditions when they pull them out for new scans.

Digital storage is also full of problems as both tapes and hard drives might loose their magnetism or get damaged in other ways and not be playable any more.
Digital crisis: Motion pictures may fade to black
"Fewer than half of all feature films made before 1950 have survived"

In shoot-out between 70mm (Imax 15perf. 1.44:1) and 4K projector, the 4K was as good as the 16x9 portion of the 70mm Imax, which means that 4K is about equal to 5perf. or maybe 8perf. 70mm.
Read the report here; http://www.avsforum.com/t/1319207/barcos-4k-dlp-cinema-projector-takes-on-15-70mm-film-at-digital-cinema-symposium#post_21602311



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

I believe all the above are single chip designs, do you know of any 4K (or >) that use 3 chips and beam splitters (trichroic, etc.)?

After RED launched the first motion camera with a 4K sensor in 2007 with CMOS and Bayer pattern, nobody has continued developing 3-chip CCD sensor cameras for large format (S-35/APS-C/APS-H) movie cameras.

This is some of the background for the John Galt article where he and Sony had been doing a lot of ridicule of CMOS Bayer pattern sensors vs. CCD sensors whcih they had been investing in, so Galt just tried and failed to make this argument still after he had been proven wrong.
Remember that the basis of this article was a lecture by Galt in 2008 not long after the RED One camera was in the hands of camera people.

Sony motion camera division had to change their position on CMOS, (who's still camera/DSLR division and sensor manufacturing plant had been making CMOS sensor for years already) and launched the F65 in the start of 2012, but made some ridiculous claims and "radical" configurations to save face from their previous ridicule of CMOS.

Had Sony motion camera division not hung so hard onto their CCD beliefs, and not listened so much to John Galt who was their adviser, they would have had a 4K CMOS camera at the same time as Red, and not five years later.

The only high resolution 3-chip motion camera I know of is the NHK 8K camera that use 3 x 4K CMOS sensor to pixel-shift to 8K.
That is the camera they have used for their 8K demonstrations, including the filming of the 2012 London summer Olympics.

Since then NHK have constructed a new 8K camera together with Hitachi, which supposedly is a single CMOS 8K sensor camera.

Strange to see how much NHK avoids working with the most experienced camera companies in Japan like Sony, Canon and Panasonic when making these new experimental camera design prototypes.
coolscan is offline  
post #21 of 22 Old 08-05-2013, 01:51 PM
Member
 
dougcall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Actually there are true 4Kcameras that shoot feature films and commercials. The Sony F65 is True 4K & 8K capable camera.Check out the link below:

Sony Demonstrates F65 4k Camera - 8k sensor
dougcall is offline  
post #22 of 22 Old 08-05-2013, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,810
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougcall View Post

Actually there are true 4Kcameras that shoot feature films and commercials. The Sony F65 is True 4K & 8K capable camera.Check out the link below:

Sony Demonstrates F65 4k Camera - 8k sensor
If you had read the whole thread you would have seen that both Sony F65 and F55 and the Red Epic and Scarlet, and also the new Red Dragon sensor, are mentioned as 4K capable cameras because they have sensors that has more resolution than 4K.

The Sony F65 is not a 8K camera and will never be (unless it gets a new sensor) regardless how much false hype Sony puts into their marketing.

If everybody started to count sensor pixels like Sony, then there would be several 8K cameras.
You can read about the bluff here; http://camerarentalz.com/sony-f65-6k-sensor/

Sony launched the camera in 2012 and called it a 8K camera, which ii wasn't.
After that blog was written, Sony has up-graded the camera firmware and now call it a "true 8K camera". So wasn't it really a 8K camera when they launched it?

What they have done is to take some of their pixel-shifting technology from their HD video cameras, which also often doesn't have true HD sensor.
Still doesn't make it a 8K camera if it doesn't resolve minimum of 33 megapixel resolution during capture.

All a part of the Sony slogan make.believe.

See the size difference between a Red Epic and the Sony F65, Both cameras will in some months have same resolution sensor.



.
coolscan is offline  
Reply HDTV Software Media Discussion



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off