Lists of fake and real 4K UHD Blu-Rays (2K vs 4K) - Page 8 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 144Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #211 of 263 Old 12-03-2016, 07:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 974 Post(s)
Liked: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Yet the disc still says Sept. 2016? That's definitely not on my copy from that date.
It features two purple elements on the cover simulating the double D, "BLU-RAY DEMO DISC / SEPT 2016" "DOLBY ATMOS" "NOT FOR RESALE". Copyright on the back says "2016 Dolby Laboratories".
  • Introduction (1 item)
  • Dolby Content (5 items)
  • Music (7 items)
  • Test Tones (5 items)
  • Movies & TV (Batman vs. Superman / Everest / Game of Thrones / In the Heart of the Sea / Les Saisons / Mad Max: Fury Road / The Man from Uncle / Pan / Samsara / Unbroken)
  • Audio Only (4 items)
  • Sports (2 items)
  • Video Games (2 items)

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 263 Old 12-03-2016, 11:58 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 26,372
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5315 Post(s)
Liked: 4408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
It features two purple elements on the cover simulating the double D, "BLU-RAY DEMO DISC / SEPT 2016" "DOLBY ATMOS" "NOT FOR RESALE". Copyright on the back says "2016 Dolby Laboratories".
  • Introduction (1 item)
  • Dolby Content (5 items)
  • Music (7 items)
  • Test Tones (5 items)
  • Movies & TV (Batman vs. Superman / Everest / Game of Thrones / In the Heart of the Sea / Les Saisons / Mad Max: Fury Road / The Man from Uncle / Pan / Samsara / Unbroken)
  • Audio Only (4 items)
  • Sports (2 items)
  • Video Games (2 items)
I just realized mine is from Sept. 2015. Yours is the latest version. Most of those movie clips are new.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #213 of 263 Old 12-23-2016, 06:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
taxman48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,352
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 459 Post(s)
Liked: 416
real vs fake

Visited this below site provide by an AVS member. It displays real K vs Fake 4k (upscaling 2k) movies.. How does the consumer distinguish between the 2 when they buy a BD? Looking at the new Oppo but I want to purchase some 4K movies to use this incredible player.. I would use the dual hdmi outputs since my AVR is old and does not pass 3D. .. thanks in advance.

http://4kblurays.com/
.

taxman48 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #214 of 263 Old 12-24-2016, 09:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxman48 View Post
Visited this below site provide by an AVS member. It displays real K vs Fake 4k (upscaling 2k) movies.. How does the consumer distinguish between the 2 when they buy a BD? Looking at the new Oppo but I want to purchase some 4K movies to use this incredible player.. I would use the dual hdmi outputs since my AVR is old and does not pass 3D. .. thanks in advance.

http://4kblurays.com/
.
The site says "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is "Real 4K", when apparently most of it is 2K upscaled. It doesn't go to another page to list any more details about its resolution, it just goes to amazon.com with a referal link. Perhaps it would be better if each linked to imdb or other information sources that state where the resolution info is obtained.

Though even for "real 4K" it doesn't tell you enough about the real resolution. You could have a 4K scan of one film giving less detail than a 2K scan/capture of a different film.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 12-24-2016 at 09:16 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #215 of 263 Old 12-24-2016, 11:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 11,139
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxman48 View Post
Visited this below site provide by an AVS member. It displays real K vs Fake 4k (upscaling 2k) movies.. How does the consumer distinguish between the 2 when they buy a BD? Looking at the new Oppo but I want to purchase some 4K movies to use this incredible player.. I would use the dual hdmi outputs since my AVR is old and does not pass 3D. .. thanks in advance.

http://4kblurays.com/
.
More grist for the mill. Agree with Joe, though. Effective resolutions can vary with many factors. Here's a link to a 2014 disc measurement that might apply to UHDs with suitable formula mods. -- John

Another post in this thread with a good tech-paper sublink.

Last edited by John Mason; 12-24-2016 at 12:04 PM. Reason: url add-on
John Mason is offline  
post #216 of 263 Old 12-27-2016, 10:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
puddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,370
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxman48 View Post
Visited this below site provide by an AVS member. It displays real K vs Fake 4k (upscaling 2k) movies.. How does the consumer distinguish between the 2 when they buy a BD? Looking at the new Oppo but I want to purchase some 4K movies to use this incredible player.. I would use the dual hdmi outputs since my AVR is old and does not pass 3D. .. thanks in advance.

http://4kblurays.com/
.
There is no way for the consumer to distinguish between 2k upscales and real 4K without researching online. Starting with the tech specs of the film at IMDb is a good start, although not entirely reliable. That 4kbluray site is decent, although as Joe pointed out, Into Darkness is actually a 2k upscale. My favorite, because I am a contributor, is this thread on Blu-ray.com:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=270798

And Real or Fake, which is based on that thread and created by a user here, also includes streaming titles:

http://realorfake4k.com/
puddy77 is offline  
post #217 of 263 Old 12-27-2016, 10:18 AM
Member
 
ryanjf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddy77 View Post
There is no way for the consumer to distinguish between 2k upscales and real 4K without researching online. Starting with the tech specs of the film at IMDb is a good start, although not entirely reliable. That 4kbluray site is decent, although as Joe pointed out, Into Darkness is actually a 2k upscale. My favorite, because I am a contributor, is this thread on Blu-ray.com:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=270798

And Real or Fake, which is based on that thread and created by a user here, also includes streaming titles:

http://realorfake4k.com/
Thanks for the links, very informative. And this whole time I thought my collection was all 4k.
ryanjf is offline  
post #218 of 263 Old 12-27-2016, 10:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
puddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,370
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanjf View Post
Thanks for the links, very informative. And this whole time I thought my collection was all 4k.
You're welcome. While not every title is "true 4K" resolution, the HDR and WCG is real no matter the original resolution. The source usually has much more dynamic range and much wider color gamut. So there are reasons to upgrade and enjoy an upscaled UBD. And then there's also the possibility of Atmos and DTS:X which usually isn't available on the regular BD.
ryanjf likes this.
puddy77 is offline  
post #219 of 263 Old 12-27-2016, 11:54 AM
Member
 
ryanjf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddy77 View Post
You're welcome. While not every title is "true 4K" resolution, the HDR and WCG is real no matter the original resolution. The source usually has much more dynamic range and much wider color gamut. So there are reasons to upgrade and enjoy an upscaled UBD. And then there's also the possibility of Atmos and DTS:X which usually isn't available on the regular BD.
All very true and I'm still loving the experience regardless. HDR, WCG, Atmos and finally just got my DTS:X upgrade on my Pioneer SC-95, all are incredible and it's amazing how far we've come with video and audio in the roughly 20 years that it's been affordable to own the tech.
ryanjf is offline  
post #220 of 263 Old 12-27-2016, 10:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rieper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York NY
Posts: 3,585
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Out of 10 new 4K titles for January, NONE ARE REAL 4K

NEW 4K Releases for January 2017

Feel free to look each title up on realorfake4k.com, although I've already done the research for you.

Sad to say, none of the 4K titles were mastered at 4K. They are ALL 2K upconverts.

Therefore I will not be buying any 4K movies for my new Oppo 203 player this January. I refuse to pay good money $30-$40 USD for fake 4K - remember we are paying a premium for "supposed" 4K movies.
zmarty and badcatsclaws like this.
Rieper is offline  
post #221 of 263 Old 12-27-2016, 11:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddy77 View Post
You're welcome. While not every title is "true 4K" resolution, the HDR and WCG is real no matter the original resolution. The source usually has much more dynamic range and much wider color gamut. So there are reasons to upgrade and enjoy an upscaled UBD. And then there's also the possibility of Atmos and DTS:X which usually isn't available on the regular BD.
Though they will often be creating the HDR in the editing suite. ie. it's not necessarily "real" HDR. It's like the editor deciding to boost the brightness of various regions manually to certain values. It's not like the captured dynamic range is (or is necessarily) approx what you get on the UHD BD - it's whatever the editor/colour grader doing the HDR grade has decided to set them as.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #222 of 263 Old 12-27-2016, 11:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wrathloki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,050
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 746 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Though they will often be creating the HDR in the editing suite. ie. it's not necessarily "real" HDR. It's like the editor deciding to boost the brightness of various regions manually to certain values. It's not like the captured dynamic range is (or is necessarily) approx what you get on the UHD BD - it's whatever the editor/colour grader doing the HDR grade has decided to set them as.
Although there are certain cameras that can capture what you could call a real HDR image. The Red Epic Dragon can manage 18 stops of exposure which is crazy. In those situations you could probably even say that you're kind of crunching that dynamic range down on a SDR TV, even though you're seeing the whole range, if that makes any sense.
skibum5000 likes this.
wrathloki is offline  
post #223 of 263 Old 12-28-2016, 08:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
puddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,370
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Though they will often be creating the HDR in the editing suite. ie. it's not necessarily "real" HDR. It's like the editor deciding to boost the brightness of various regions manually to certain values. It's not like the captured dynamic range is (or is necessarily) approx what you get on the UHD BD - it's whatever the editor/colour grader doing the HDR grade has decided to set them as.
I agree that the HDR grade is a reinterpretation of the source (if it was not graded in HDR for the theater as most big movies since 2015 have been). And hopefully the original creators are involved in the new HDR grade. But in most cases, the original negative, digital or analog, has much more dynamic range than what was shown on the original SDR grades. SDR has 6 stops of dynamic range. HDR can currently use 18 stops, and can theoretically go to 21 stops of dynamic range. Film can have about 13 stops, and most digital cameras can have 13-18 stops of dynamic range. So new HDR grades aren't artificially boosting contrast, they are bringing out the contrast inherent to the source. The debate about what's real is that very murky area about the filmmaker's intent.
philochs1 likes this.
puddy77 is offline  
post #224 of 263 Old 12-28-2016, 09:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddy77 View Post
I agree that the HDR grade is a reinterpretation of the source (if it was not graded in HDR for the theater as most big movies since 2015 have been).
Wouldn't it probably be regraded anyway for the HDR home release? I thought cinema HDR was not as high nits as LCD consumer HDR displays.
Quote:
And hopefully the original creators are involved in the new HDR grade. But in most cases, the original negative, digital or analog, has much more dynamic range than what was shown on the original SDR grades. SDR has 6 stops of dynamic range. HDR can currently use 18 stops, and can theoretically go to 21 stops of dynamic range. Film can have about 13 stops, and most digital cameras can have 13-18 stops of dynamic range. So new HDR grades aren't artificially boosting contrast, they are bringing out the contrast inherent to the source. The debate about what's real is that very murky area about the filmmaker's intent.
Do they always/usually go back to the original negative though? Or do they often just do a HDR grade on the (SDR) digital intermediate ? Also lots of times I think they don't scan the original negative (I'm guessing for those that aren't new releses). But what about CGI shots - surely lots will have been not originally rendered in HDR. Basically if the editor/grader is pushing buttons/sliders to increase/decrease brightness/nit values to whatever he feels like it's not really real HDR. Real HDR would be more like a camera capturing with known nit/lux levels and the display outputting the same (live broadcast HDR is probably more "real" HDR) - though in reality we don't need/want the extreme dynamic ranges real life is capable of (I personally don't think we need to keep going higher and higher it nit levels for LCDs, UHD BDs (which are limited in the nit levels they are allowed to use for a few years) etc. I'd prefer they didn't grade to have way high contrast/dynamic ranges. Making stuff really high brightness doesn't necessarily equal better quality or a great to watch UHD BD). Plus the higher the scene nit level, the more the judder/strobing of 24 fps will be noticed (basically HDR emphasises the judder - so it really needs to be combined with HFR).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 12-28-2016 at 09:59 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #225 of 263 Old 12-28-2016, 10:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
puddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,370
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Wouldn't it probably be regraded anyway for the HDR home release? I thought cinema HDR was not as high nits as LCD consumer HDR displays.
You are correct that a theater grade is different than a home grade, HDR or SDR, because of the difference in luminance. When the home grade is made depends on those involved. For the newest stuff, it is becoming common that all grades are created at the same time. But the titles that were graded for theater HDR before home HDR existed were likely re-grades.

Quote:
Do they always/usually go back to the original negative though? Or do they often just do a HDR grade on the (SDR) digital intermediate ? Also lots of times I think they don't scan the original negative (I'm guessing for those that aren't new releses). But what about CGI shots - surely lots will have been not originally rendered in HDR. Basically if the editor/grader is pushing buttons/sliders to increase/decrease brightness/nit values to whatever he feels like it's not really real HDR. Real HDR would be more like a camera capturing with known nit/lux levels and the display outputting the same (live broadcast HDR is probably more "real" HDR) - though in reality we don't need/want the extreme dynamic ranges real life is capable of (I personally don't think we need to keep going higher and higher it nit levels for LCDs, UHD BDs (which are limited in the nit levels they are allowed to use for a few years) etc. I'd prefer they didn't grade to have way high contrast/dynamic ranges. Making stuff really high brightness doesn't necessarily equal better quality or a great to watch UHD BD). Plus the higher the scene nit level, the more the judder/strobing of 24 fps will be noticed (basically HDR emphasises the judder - so it really needs to be combined with HFR).
A digital intermediate is neither SDR nor HDR. It is basically the edited together version of the original source materials (but in whatever resolution they chose to work at, 2k or 4k). The color grade does not apply to the DI. It applies to the deliverables (end products). So when they are color grading, it uses all the available color and dynamic range of the source to create all the final versions of the film. And today, that can be dozens of versions when you take into account all the different combinations of 2D, 3D, SDR, HDR, proprietary big screen formats, home formats, regional versions, various resolutions, etc...

CGI is also format agnostic. It is rendered in neither SDR nor HDR. It is rendered to match the original source, then it is all graded together in the end.

If a movie is shot on film but edited using a DI, the original negatives are scanned, usually at a high resolution and bit depth. The only instance where the negatives probably aren't scanned are when the film is finished photochemically instead of digitally. Christopher Nolan being the only big director who finishes on film nowadays. So his final print is the version that is scanned.

For older films, if it was previously scanned at a high enough resolution and bit depth, that can be used to create a real HDR grade. If it was not, then it will need to be re-scanned. Preferably 16 bit and 4k or higher. And those usually are not scans of negatives, but of the highest quality finished version they can find.

If someone talks about going back to the source or original negative, it most likely means that they want to use a higher quality/resolution than what they worked in originally and preserved in the DI. Basically, a remaster. They would most likely re-scan the negatives or go back to the original raw digital camera negative if they are available.

I'm not sure I follow you on the "real HDR" camera stuff. But I assure you that most current professional cameras are capturing real HDR. And as to the level they are mastered, it is usually limited to the monitor they use to master the HDR grade. That is typically either Sony's 1000 nit OLED or Dolby's 4000 nit LCD.
puddy77 is offline  
post #226 of 263 Old 12-28-2016, 11:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddy77 View Post
CGI is also format agnostic. It is rendered in neither SDR nor HDR. It is rendered to match the original source, then it is all graded together in the end.
I don't get that. How can CGI not be SDR or HDR? CGI that modelled the the true lighting in a scene would be rendered to a result that was either SDR or HDR. Adjusting a CGI render that was intended for SDR displays and then adjusting it in a grade is faker than doing a HDR render (where the output is a file where the pixel brightness levels have some look-up table/transfer function to particular lux/nit levels) of the original 3D scene in the computer rendering application (ie. the 3D prog will be modelling the actual lights hitting the objects etc. in 3D space).
Quote:
I'm not sure I follow you on the "real HDR" camera stuff. But I assure you that most current professional cameras are capturing real HDR. And as to the level they are mastered, it is usually limited to the monitor they use to master the HDR grade. That is typically either Sony's 1000 nit OLED or Dolby's 4000 nit LCD.
For the "real HDR" camera stuff I'm saying a camera that, for each pixel, it records the lux level (or similar real-world lighting measurement), not just a numerical value based on the amount the luma bit-depth of the recording format can hold, eg. 0-255 (or less) for 8 bit, 0-1023 (or less) for 10 bit. Or based on a look-up table. Perhaps the HDR capable cameras do have something like this. But for the "Real HDR" example I was saying, the display would output the exact same lux/nit levels recorded by the camera, there wouldn't be a colour grader in the mix adjusting brightness/colours however he felt like. Live broadcast HDR which used a similar method (recorded the actual lux/nit levels with the camera, and displayed it with the source's lux/nits at the display) would be the most "real" HDR (it wouldn't have someone adjusting things to a grade he felt like, where he could be increasing/decreasing brightness (or altering colours) however he and/or the director wanted). Though in reality the real life lux/nits would need to be toned down (eg. so you don't damage eyes if the camera was pointed at the sun etc.) and due to displays not being capable of certain nit levels (there's also the extra electricity cost, consumer preferences (eg. ability to roll-off brightness at a certain point(s) to make content easier to watch), how it effects the lifetime of OLED etc.

I think live broadcast HDR using HLG is probably going to be more "real HDR" than non-live content where the HDR grade has been created in an editng suite by the colour grader adjusting the picture/values however he/the director wants (such as boosting certain colours/parts of the scene etc.).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 12-29-2016 at 01:59 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #227 of 263 Old 12-29-2016, 07:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
puddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,370
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked: 2764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
I don't get that. How can CGI not be SDR or HDR? CGI that modelled the the true lighting in a scene would be rendered to a result that was either SDR or HDR. Adjusting a CGI render that was intended for SDR displays and then adjusting it in a grade is faker than doing a HDR render (where the output is a file where the pixel brightness levels have some look-up table/transfer function to particular lux/nit levels) of the original 3D scene in the computer rendering application (ie. the 3D prog will be modelling the actual lights hitting the objects etc. in 3D space).
Like I stated before, CGI is rendered to match the source. For modern digital cameras, the source is usually in some sort of Log format. So vfx would be rendered in Log, which is usually very flat looking on its own, but I guess technically it is HDR. Because the raw footage will look so flat, they will usually apply some LUT to the footage while working to get it looking good on their monitors, but that is temporary. In the end, the source and fx are graded together as one in the DI into both HDR and SDR.

Quote:
I think live broadcast HDR using HLG is probably going to be more "real HDR" than non-live content where the HDR grade has been created in an editng suite by the colour grader adjusting the picture/values however he/the director wants (such as boosting certain colours/parts of the scene etc.).
That may be why they want HLG for broadcasting (besides it being a quicker and easier workflow, and backwards compatible with SDR). But in my opinion, feature films aren't meant to look exactly like real life. Otherwise they'd all look the same, and that would get boring.
puddy77 is offline  
post #228 of 263 Old 12-29-2016, 11:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddy77 View Post
Like I stated before, CGI is rendered to match the source. For modern digital cameras, the source is usually in some sort of Log format. So vfx would be rendered in Log, which is usually very flat looking on its own, but I guess technically it is HDR. Because the raw footage will look so flat, they will usually apply some LUT to the footage while working to get it looking good on their monitors, but that is temporary. In the end, the source and fx are graded together as one in the DI into both HDR and SDR.


That may be why they want HLG for broadcasting (besides it being a quicker and easier workflow, and backwards compatible with SDR). But in my opinion, feature films aren't meant to look exactly like real life. Otherwise they'd all look the same, and that would get boring.
Yes, I agree. At least they have the ability to colour grade it to make all films look different http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.co.uk/...ease-stop.html .

But even if they only altered colours and kept lux/nit levels approx as they were (within reason - ie. without it going to high brightness, and the consumer could still control the roll-off) it would still be more real than currently were they (colour graders) alter them (brightness levels) however they/the director feels like doing (so it's not "real" HDR).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 12-29-2016 at 11:28 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #229 of 263 Old 01-02-2017, 03:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
Dick Emery's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked: 138
The elephant in the room. Most Ultra HD titles are upscaled 2K.

Anyone buying into Ultra HD at present must accept the simple fact that MOST currently released - physical media - titles are either 2K upscales (The Secret Life of Pets, Angry Birds, Oblivion, Pacific Rim) or intermediate (Deadpool being shot at 3.8K with 2K CGI elements as an example). These are the first titles (Including Xmen Apocalyspe) I have purchased. I hear that only Xmen: Apocalypse (2K CGI elements), The Lego Movie, The Revenant and The Martian (This one is a hybrid where Non-CGI/effects parts are true UHD) and a few others with 2K effects elements are actually shot and mastered in true Ultra HD.

The best reason for upgrading is for HDR and the promise of true 4K to Ultra HD conversions later on.

Source.

http://realorfake4k.com

Thoughts?

Last edited by Dick Emery; 01-02-2017 at 03:37 AM.
Dick Emery is offline  
post #230 of 263 Old 01-07-2017, 10:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
MikeSp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: south of metro Kansas City
Posts: 792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Thumbs down Am I the only one that feels 4K discs should be native 4K...

That stating on the box that the movie inside is 4K - the purchaser should be able to assume correctly that the movie is in native 4K (my Oppo, pre-pro or 4K TV can up convert and do a darned good job of it from a Blu-ray). IMHO, truth in advertising here, in claiming 4K for many movies being just up converted that my own components could do from Blu-rays is deceiving and fraudulent and the industry should somehow be forced to state on the cover a disclaimer that the alleged 4K movie was NOT native but up converted from 2K, 2.8K or whatever the lower resolution to 4K.

Samsung SUHD UN65JS8500 TV, Marantz MM8077 multi-channel amp, Marantz AV8802a pre-pro; Oppo UDP-203; speakers -- Aerial Acoustics Model 9's for mains and CC5 for center, Def Tech BPVX/P's and BPVX's for surrounds and JL F113's (2) for subs; Roku 3; Tivo Roamio; and Monster HTPS...
MikeSp is offline  
post #231 of 263 Old 01-07-2017, 11:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Worf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,569
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 946 Post(s)
Liked: 682
That would mean the format becomes a desert wasteland, as the number of true 4k movies is very limited. It would probably be more like "don't bother with UHD as there is very little content". This is because the instant you have any cgi, that brings you down as 4k cgi is extremely rare.

That said, even 2k upscaled are better quality than the Blu-Ray. This is because even though both are similar in resolution (2048x1080 vs 1920x1080) how that resolution is used matters. A 2k master is fully 2048x1080, even on anamorphic presentations as they use a lens to stretch the picture properly. On a Blu-Ray, to accommodate the extra width, you have to letterbox, and that means the number of lines is reduced to around 900 or so. With a 4k image, you can use all 1080 lines of information and upscale that to around 1800 lines of video.

And that doesn't count the added improvements like HDR.
ScottAvery, capwkidd and marcuslaw like this.
Worf is offline  
post #232 of 263 Old 01-08-2017, 08:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Worf View Post
That would mean the format becomes a desert wasteland, as the number of true 4k movies is very limited. It would probably be more like "don't bother with UHD as there is very little content". This is because the instant you have any cgi, that brings you down as 4k cgi is extremely rare.
I disagree. They should be honest with the consumer about the resolution they're giving them. That's what the trade descriptions act and advertisting standards are all about. They shouldn't advertise it as being "4K" (or 3840x2160) without mentioning if it's entirely upscaled.
Quote:
That said, even 2k upscaled are better quality than the Blu-Ray.
Not always - not in the level of detail according to reviews.
Quote:
This is because even though both are similar in resolution (2048x1080 vs 1920x1080) how that resolution is used matters. A 2k master is fully 2048x1080, even on anamorphic presentations as they use a lens to stretch the picture properly. On a Blu-Ray, to accommodate the extra width, you have to letterbox, and that means the number of lines is reduced to around 900 or so. With a 4k image, you can use all 1080 lines of information and upscale that to around 1800 lines of video.
Do you have any links showing this? The version shown in cinemas (if using digital projection - according to DCI standards) doesn't use the full 2048x1080 - for aspect ratios that don't fit that they leave the pixels blank (on the DCI cinema package). Are they really storing all these films anamorphically (using the "full" 2048x1080) but then decreasing the resolution (to square pixel format, with blank areas) for when it's projected? Maybe you mostly mean older films (before digital intermediates) - and if so, they're likely to have lowish resolution due to the optical compositing - or maybe not scanning the original negative. Are there any Blu-ray vs UHD Blu-ray with the UHD showing a lot more detail when the source for both 2040x1080?
Quote:
And that doesn't count the added improvements like HDR.
If you think it's always an improvement. Making things extra bright isn't necessarily an improvement.Especially if you don't have control over the brightness/contrast.
skibum5000 and sarahb75 like this.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 01-09-2017 at 09:30 AM. Reason: added "if digital projection"
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #233 of 263 Old 01-09-2017, 06:02 AM
Member
 
celboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Most films is the cinema digitally are either 1998 for flat & 2k for widescreen.

I believe all these "true 4k" UHD discs are really 3.8k crops of the master file--either 4k or 3996 pixels wide.

I would think scaling hasn't improved significantly since blu ray has been introduced.

Reason being---Image sharpness is to be maintained over seeing the whole entire image.

Or maybe I am wrong?

(Personally though, I prefer composition over pixel sharpness)

Last edited by celboy; 01-11-2017 at 08:53 PM. Reason: elaborating
celboy is offline  
post #234 of 263 Old 01-11-2017, 07:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Rieper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York NY
Posts: 3,585
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 287 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Jason Bourne (2016): Real or Fake 4K??

http://digitalbits.com/item/jason-bourne-uhd-bd
Quote:
Jason Bourne was shot on both film (35mm and 16mm) and digital and finished to a 2K DI at the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. That upsampled presentation is included here in 4K with High Dynamic Range.

http://realorfake4k.com/my-product/jason-bourne/
Quote:
This is the real deal. Everything was digitally shot in 4K or the original 35/70mm film negative was scanned in 4K and all the mastering/editing was done in 4K.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4196776/...ef_=tt_dt_spec
Quote:
Cinematographic Process:
ARRIRAW (2.8K) (source format) (some scenes)
Canon Cinema RAW (4K) (source format) (some shots)
CineForm RAW (2K) (source format) (some shots)
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)

Rieper is offline  
post #235 of 263 Old 01-12-2017, 09:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
puddy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,370
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked: 2764
Jason Bourne has a real 4k master. If you scroll to the bottom of the Real or Fake 4k page, he has a link that goes to this: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/med...se/20160803-01

That is a press release from the makers of the color grading console touting the performance of their product. In it, they confirm a 4k master:
Quote:
The Goldcrest team worked in full 4K throughout the project, and also deployed DaVinci Resolve Studio’s new high dynamic range capabilities to deliver the film in HDR for the first time.
When the Jason Bourne UBD came out, IMDb still said it had a 2k DI. Since IMDb, is the biggest, and usually only source of info about a movie's production, nearly all UBD reviewers check it when looking for stats. AVS reviewer Ralph Potts did the same thing. I told him of the mistake and he changed it in his review.

IMDb is not authoritative, it is crowd sourced. After seeing all the reviews were mistakenly calling this a 2k DI, I changed the info in IMDb. But changes take awhile. The damage was done. And there are a few other reviews out there that state Jason Bourne comes from a 2k DI.

That is why this real vs fake 4k nonsense is tough. Studios do not like to publicize all their production details. There is no one true source to find the truth.
Rieper and skibum5000 like this.
puddy77 is offline  
post #236 of 263 Old 01-17-2017, 02:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dick Emery's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked: 138
realorfake4k.com is down.
Dick Emery is offline  
post #237 of 263 Old 01-31-2017, 08:32 PM
Member
 
Kool-aid23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Emery View Post
realorfake4k.com is down.
It's back up but hasn't been updated in some time. Any1 have any info?
Kool-aid23 is offline  
post #238 of 263 Old 02-05-2017, 02:00 PM
Member
 
samcro1100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Useful stuff, thanks!
samcro1100 is offline  
post #239 of 263 Old 01-15-2018, 09:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Phantom Stranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Between the known and the unknown...
Posts: 4,674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 623 Post(s)
Liked: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kool-aid23 View Post
It's back up but hasn't been updated in some time. Any1 have any info?
It still appears to be down.

This site is still up and even has a few recent UHDs listed as being fake 4K.

http://4kblurays.com/

Blu-ray Picture Quality Tiers (updated through July 13, 2017)
Phantom Stranger is offline  
post #240 of 263 Old 01-27-2018, 11:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skibum5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenoh89 View Post
I thought only EP II was shot digitally?
EP I was mostly on film but had a couple experimental digitally shot scenes
EP II and III were all shot on video
skibum5000 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Blu-ray Software

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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