AVS Forum banner

2801 - 2820 of 4969 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
Too many $$$. Down the road it may change to some extent, but it's not going to be a fast process at all.
Totally disagree...I'd bet my 1,000+ Blu-ray collection that it's already begun my friend! Hardware manufacturers don't usually anticipate a launch without software partners and are usually in bed with the studios from the initial development phases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,117 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,459 Posts
Totally disagree...I'd bet my 1,000+ Blu-ray collection that it's already begun my friend! Hardware manufacturers don't usually anticipate a launch without software partners and are usually in bed with the studios from the initial development phases.
But I'm not sure we are talking the same thing or not, so just to clarify...

As far as newly released movies, almost all of them today are finished in 2K per Dan's point. It's a very expensive process as of today to change that to 4K. If you talk to anyone in the industry (as I have) they will tell you that. There are workflow matters, CG rendering, etc. So, newly released 4K finished films are not going to happen to any great extent anytime soon. It will be a very slow process over time. You are going to be seeing largely 2K upscaled as a result for new movies with P3, HDR, etc.

Catalog titles filmed on 35mm (and 65mm) are a different matter. There are many 4K transfers which exist for those and it will be interesting to see which will be released in the coming year.

Also, remember UHD BD is likely to be just a tiny niche at best if it even survives. Do we have verification all of the major studios are even supporting it? This "launch" as you call it is nothing to the degree of previous formats, but times have changed with streaming taking bigger market shares by the day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,215 Posts
When you are shopping for blurays, how do you know what res it is? Up converted movies are what I want to avoid.
There is no requirement that any Blu-ray disc package state that their source material is from a lower resolution than how it was encoded on the disc.

It's taken on good faith. For instance, Jim Henson Entertainment released "Farscape" on 1080p Blu-ray, but they only had standard PAL resolution masters to work from, so they mentioned on the box that fact. The BBC's "Blue Planet" was also 1080p, but in small print said they were upscaled from standard definition source files.

It will be up to the studios whether or not they will mention that some of their Ultra HD titles are, in fact, from 2k sources that were upscaled to 2160p.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
There is no requirement that any Blu-ray disc package state that their source material is from a lower resolution than how it was encoded on the disc.

It's taken on good faith. For instance, Jim Henson Entertainment released "Farscape" on 1080p Blu-ray, but they only had standard PAL resolution masters to work from, so they mentioned on the box that fact. The BBC's "Blue Planet" was also 1080p, but in small print said they were upscaled from standard definition source files.

It will be up to the studios whether or not they will mention that some of their Ultra HD titles are, in fact, from 2k sources that were upscaled to 2160p.

Thanks Dan. I think they should be required to plainly label the source material resolution as we are paying for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,459 Posts
IMDb states in the technical specs what resolution a movie was finished. That will be your "go to" guide although I assume there will be other sources of info.

Case in point: Fantastic Four which has been announced by Fox as one of the first UHD BD titles. This was finished in 2K.

According to IMDb:

Cinematographic ProcessARRIRAW (2.8K) (3.4K) (source format)
Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
But I'm not sure we are talking the same thing or not, so just to clarify...

As far as newly released movies, almost all of them today are finished in 2K per Dan's point. It's a very expensive process as of today to change that to 4K. If you talk to anyone in the industry (as I have) they will tell you that. There are workflow matters, CG rendering, etc. So, newly released 4K finished films are not going to happen to any great extent anytime soon. It will be a very slow process over time. You are going to be seeing largely 2K upscaled as a result for new movies with P3, HDR, etc.

Catalog titles filmed on 35mm (and 65mm) are a different matter. There are many 4K transfers which exist for those and it will be interesting to see which will be released in the coming year.

Also, remember UHD BD is likely to be just a tiny niche at best if it even survives. Do we have verification all of the major studios are even supporting it? This "launch" as you call it is nothing to the degree of previous formats, but times have changed with streaming taking bigger market shares by the day.
We shall see right? I disagree on your talking points...4K masters for both digitally shot and filmed content is and has been available for quite a number of movies for a long time, so the "almost all" isn't valid, probably the opposite (speaking strictly about newer releases). Fuel for the fire. The studios are all about money, if they can have even a niche product such as this and charge a premium over and above anything else based on content they already have or would take a small effort on their part to put forth (in 4K), why wouldn't they want to embrace that fully? It's a win-win and they love to double dip.

I'm sure there will be more mastered in 4K than not. I know Sony (including subsidiaries: Columbia, Tri-Star, Screen Gems, etc) masters the majority of their movies in 4K, most of which are shot in 4K digital to begin with (F65 anyone?). 4K is not new, it's been around in Hollywood for close to a decade now if not longer (thanks to Red for ushering in the high resolution digital film era) and a lot of studios already have 4K masters of a ton of movies (check IMDB). It's also just as easy to get a 4K master from a film print/negative than to get a 2K print, for those that are still shooting on film, with the same cost effectiveness. The majority of film labs have already had 4K and beyond film scanning capabilities. D-Cinema is what's happening in the cine-plexes now and the sources are usually 4K DCI files.
<---from my post a few pages back.

Then take into consideration the number of movies "Shot on Red" over the course of the last 8 years and future films and the numbers stack up really quickly (in the hundreds already). I get your point on the CGI pieces that are rendered to be mastered at 2K and I would venture to guess those would the the last on the list to get a 4K master, most likely will if the format takes off. As far as studios are concerned, I've only heard of Fox and Sony buy in with some scattered movies from other studios, but it's just a matter of time before they jump on board, that's the progression of things.

The 4K vibe is strong in Hollywood, stronger than you think...it's been ingrained in the way they've been producing movies for quite a long time now, why would you think they'd go to all that trouble with 4K to not share with us? Food for thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Then take into consideration the number of movies "Shot on Red" over the course of the last 8 years and future films and the numbers stack up really quickly (in the hundreds already). I get your point on the CGI pieces that are rendered to be mastered at 2K and I would venture to guess those would the the last on the list to get a 4K master, most likely will if the format takes off. As far as studios are concerned, I've only heard of Fox and Sony buy in with some scattered movies from other studios, but it's just a matter of time before they jump on board, that's the progression of things.

The 4K vibe is strong in Hollywood, stronger than you think...it's been ingrained in the way they've been producing movies for quite a long time now, why would you think they'd go to all that trouble with 4K to not share with us? Food for thought.
As far as all the films "shot on Red" or otherwise filmed in 4k but mastered in 2k. Initial logic might suggest that they intended to remaster in 4k at some point in the future, when it mattered more, or would give them a better selling point. However, that is not necessarily the reason. Films shot in 4k will look better when downscaled to 2k than a film shot natively at 2k and this is probably the more likely reason many films were shot in 4k (added bonus: with 4k the director could zoom into a shot during editing with no perceived loss of quality on the final 2k master).
So, the existence of 4k archived video for a film that was mastered in 2k, does not necessarily indicate that it will later receive a 4k master for UHD Bluray or streaming. I suspect that the biggest blockbusters may(may) get remastered, but the medium selling films will stick with the 2k master, upscaled to UHD for the UHD-BD. For years to come, there will be, IMO, far more upscaled 2k UHD-BD's than native 4k. It doesn't bother me too much though. My local theater has a 4k Barco projector, fantastic quality picture, and I can just barely perceive the difference when watching a native 4k dcp vs a 2k dcp that is being upscaled. And thats only if I squint, when watching the film I don't notice whether its a 2k or 4k film*

*I do notice when I go to the other theater that still has 2k Christie projectors (I only go there because they sometimes show limited release films). I'm like, how can people stand to see movies on these old 2k projectors anymore, the pixels are so huge and noticeable throughout the whole movie??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,390 Posts
We shall see right? I disagree on your talking points...4K masters for both digitally shot and filmed content is and has been available for quite a number of movies for a long time, so the "almost all" isn't valid, probably the opposite (speaking strictly about newer releases). Fuel for the fire. The studios are all about money, if they can have even a niche product such as this and charge a premium over and above anything else based on content they already have or would take a small effort on their part to put forth (in 4K), why wouldn't they want to embrace that fully? It's a win-win and they love to double dip.
*sigh*

There's nothing quite like letting everyone else know that the argument is going right over your head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,459 Posts
We shall see right? I disagree on your talking points...4K masters for both digitally shot and filmed content is and has been available for quite a number of movies for a long time, so the "almost all" isn't valid, probably the opposite (speaking strictly about newer releases). Fuel for the fire. The studios are all about money, if they can have even a niche product such as this and charge a premium over and above anything else based on content they already have or would take a small effort on their part to put forth (in 4K), why wouldn't they want to embrace that fully? It's a win-win and they love to double dip.

<---from my post a few pages back.

Then take into consideration the number of movies "Shot on Red" over the course of the last 8 years and future films and the numbers stack up really quickly (in the hundreds already). I get your point on the CGI pieces that are rendered to be mastered at 2K and I would venture to guess those would the the last on the list to get a 4K master, most likely will if the format takes off. As far as studios are concerned, I've only heard of Fox and Sony buy in with some scattered movies from other studios, but it's just a matter of time before they jump on board, that's the progression of things.

The 4K vibe is strong in Hollywood, stronger than you think...it's been ingrained in the way they've been producing movies for quite a long time now, why would you think they'd go to all that trouble with 4K to not share with us? Food for thought.

Yes, but it will take time is my point. A long time. Most movie theaters are using 2K projectors I hope you understand?

Some studios are going to wait and see is my guess. With the format getting close to launch, a lot of quietness out there. And a lot of big "ifs" for UHD BD. The format has a tall mountain to climb - and I haven't heard if they insist on this online authentication nonsense. If they require this, kiss the format goodbye fast.


The costs today of creating 4K DIs would far exceed the benefits of releasing them for a super niche format. Over time, this can change but will be slow, but if you understand what it takes, it's not cheap which is why it's not being done. I suggest you do more reading on the process involved, costs, workflow, software, etc.

Whether it was filmed in 4K or not is pretty irrelevant if it's finished at 2K which accounts for nearly all digitally released movies.

And going back to re-finish a movie from 2K to 4K is unlikely to happen as the costs would be extraordinary - basically like remaking the movie with the costs of re-creating the CG, etc. Not gonna happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,135 Posts
*sigh*

There's nothing quite like letting everyone else know that the argument is going right over your head.

I'm not sure where you're getting that, but it adds nothing to the conversation. I understand the process fully, from beginning to end, planning to post-production and the points that I'm making towards the topic at hand are valid from my perspective. I've been on set for movie shoots, been in the cutting room, been at the audio mixers and I've had a couple of 'extra' roles and I've been in a music video or two. I'm surrounded by Hollywood people who work in the movie business both in front of and behind camera and who all have a long list of IMDB credits. I live in he middle of it all on a regular basis so my knowledge is very much on point here. We can talk cameras, film types, aspect ratios, lenses, codecs, gaffing, sound design, blocking, staging, production design, cinematography and any other aspect of film and I'd hold my own with most.


I understand that people are saying 'what they think' will be the outcome of UHD BD and as such I'm expressing my take on what I think will be the outcome of the same, difference of opinions which happens in the forum by the minute. So you can keep your derogatory remark for yourself.

@DavidHir, we can agree to disagree my friend. I don't have the time to spend to look up movies mastered in 4K, feel free and we're both more or less presenting what we think we know will happen to the format which is a guessing game at this point. I totally get what you're saying, I'm just saying that I think there are more 4K masters out there than most people think.


As far as all the films "shot on Red" or otherwise filmed in 4k but mastered in 2k. Initial logic might suggest that they intended to remaster in 4k at some point in the future, when it mattered more, or would give them a better selling point. However, that is not necessarily the reason. Films shot in 4k will look better when downscaled to 2k than a film shot natively at 2k and this is probably the more likely reason many films were shot in 4k (added bonus: with 4k the director could zoom into a shot during editing with no perceived loss of quality on the final 2k master).
So, the existence of 4k archived video for a film that was mastered in 2k, does not necessarily indicate that it will later receive a 4k master for UHD Bluray or streaming. I suspect that the biggest blockbusters may(may) get remastered, but the medium selling films will stick with the 2k master, upscaled to UHD for the UHD-BD. For years to come, there will be, IMO, far more upscaled 2k UHD-BD's than native 4k

I get all that...see my point above.


At the end of the day it's a crap shoot and I normally don't even entertain speculation but I have a feeling that 4K is more prominent than Hollywood is leading us to believe. Anywho (in my Forrest Gump voice): "that's all I have to say about that".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,390 Posts
I'm not sure where you're getting that, but it adds nothing to the conversation. I understand the process fully, from beginning to end, planning to post-production and the points that I'm making towards the topic at hand are valid from my perspective. I've been on set for movie shoots, been in the cutting room, been at the audio mixers and I've had a couple of 'extra' roles and I've been in a music video or two. I'm surrounded by Hollywood people who work in the movie business both in front of and behind camera and who all have a long list of IMDB credits. I live in he middle of it all on a regular basis so my knowledge is very much on point here. We can talk cameras, film types, aspect ratios, lenses, codecs, gaffing, sound design, blocking, staging, production design, cinematography and any other aspect of film and I'd hold my own with most.

...

@DavidHir, we can agree to disagree my friend. I don't have the time to spend to look up movies mastered in 4K, feel free and we're both more or less presenting what we think we know will happen to the format which is a guessing game at this point. I totally get what you're saying, I'm just saying that I think there are more 4K masters out there than most people think.
ROFL... Please explain to us what a DI is. Then explain to us what mastering in 4K is. This should be really easy for someone with all your Hollywood experience and knowledge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
Some new information:

Up until now I always thought that there would only be one HDR Blu-Ray and the UHD BD player would convert it down to BT.709 SDR for non-HDR displays. However, I've been told by an insider source that this downconversion, although supported in the spec, can be turned off by a flag in the UHD BD disc, and most movie studios plan to set that flag, and they plan to provide a conventional 1080p Blu-Ray in the UHD BD package for older displays.

Well, at least that's what I've been told. Let's see how it plays out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
Some new information:

Up until now I always thought that there would only be one HDR Blu-Ray and the UHD BD player would convert it down to BT.709 SDR for non-HDR displays. However, I've been told by an insider source that this downconversion, although supported in the spec, can be turned off by a flag in the UHD BD disc, and most movie studios plan to set that flag, and they plan to provide a conventional 1080p Blu-Ray in the UHD BD package for older displays.

Well, at least that's what I've been told. Let's see how it plays out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
945 Posts
Wouldn't mean that UHD Bluray would be completely useless to everyone that has older 4K displays that can't do HDR?

Sounds like a terrible decision if true. Why not allow them to still benefit from the wider color space, higher bit depth, and higher resolution (if any)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,948 Posts
Could be that you're screwed if you don't have both HDCP 2.2 and HDR support in your 4K display. However, maybe there will be ways to work around it somehow. E.g. an HDFury or a video processor might help at some point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,747 Posts
Could be that you're screwed if you don't have both HDCP 2.2 and HDR support in your 4K display. However, maybe there will be ways to work around it somehow. E.g. an HDFury or a video processor might help at some point.
I would be surprised if that was the case. Too many 4K displays out there that do not do HDR. I don't see the manufacturer's being that short sighted. It could mean the difference in 4K BD making it or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,215 Posts
I would be surprised if that was the case. Too many 4K displays out there that do not do HDR. I don't see the manufacturer's being that short sighted. It could mean the difference in 4K BD making it or not.
It may be that the studios are shortsighted. They're the ones that always hold back on making a format the best it can be.

I even doubt Digital Bridge will get used much. Why bother anyway if it's just 1080p?
 
2801 - 2820 of 4969 Posts
Top