Originally Posted by Ruined
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.
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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.