4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[Teazle]

To me the biggest problem for 4K is that virtually all movies, except a few IMAX titles and some legacy big-negative ones, are not visually composed for a large apparent image. So when you sit close you might get a bigger impression and more "telepresence" but not necessarily much more useful information that helps you follow the film.

Sure, in a close-up now you can count the actors' eyelashes but so what?

To me for 4K to be interesting there need to be more films shot w/ lots of wide-angle high-detail sequences like you get in, say, the ending of It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. You want to be able to peer "into the distance" and see loads of interesting stuff going on. Again, they do this all the time in IMAX demos. Right now not too many cinematographers for conventional feature film seem to be thinking & shooting this way. The assumption is that most of the audience only get to enjoy a (relatively) small apparent image. And the assumption is currently right for most theatres.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by Teazle

To me the biggest problem for 4K is that virtually all movies, except a few IMAX titles and some legacy big-negative ones, are not visually composed for a large apparent image. So when you sit close you might get a bigger impression and more "telepresence" but not necessarily much more useful information that helps you follow the film.

Sure, in a close-up now you can count the actors' eyelashes but so what?

To me for 4K to be interesting there need to be more films shot w/ lots of wide-angle high-detail sequences like you get in, say, the ending of It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. You want to be able to peer "into the distance" and see loads of interesting stuff going on. Again, they do this all the time in IMAX demos. Right now not too many cinematographers for conventional feature film seem to be thinking & shooting this way. The assumption is that most of the audience only get to enjoy a (relatively) small apparent image. And the assumption is currently right for most theatres.

??????

No actually any 35mm film would greatly benefit from 4K if a 4K master exists. 16mm film is maxed out with HD or 1.9K - 35mm and up will show a real improvement. Any film with a 4K master will look great. Most 65mm and 70mm films you are suggesting are scanned anywhere from 4-8K and then a 4K master is made. All things being equal 70mm is going to look better than 35mm with a 4K scan, but bluray captures less than 1/3 the resolution of 35mm film form the OCN.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

??????

No actually any 35mm film would greatly benefit from 4K if a 4K master exists. 16mm film is maxed out with HD or 1.9K - 35mm and up will show a real improvement. Any film with a 4K master will look great. Most 65mm and 70mm films you are suggesting are scanned anywhere from 4-8K and then a 4K master is made. All things being equal 70mm is going to look better than 35mm with a 4K scan, but bluray captures less than 1/3 the resolution of 35mm film form the OCN.

Uh ... maybe my post wasn't as clear as it should've been, but this quote doesn't contradict it. By "No actually" are you trying to disagree with me?

...

HINT: My post didn't have to do with the capture of existing film elements at this or that resolution; it involves the way content is originated (in particular, shots composed, depth of field, what's available to be seen) on the assumption of a large apparent image for the audience. And what practical difference this makes to the audience's appreciation of the film; why they might want to see more in the first place. (I quietly assumed shooting for 4K theatrical projection nowadays is a bit like shooting for the classic big-negative Cineramas and what have you.)

[Steedeel]

First 4k set to come in Q1 2013. That is the rumor anyhow!

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

First 4k set to come in Q1 2013. That is the rumor anyhow!

I read somewhere that as a fixed panel display it would most likely be quad HD 3840x2160, which puts it at odds with Sony's true 4K 4096x2160 projector. Should be interesting to see which becomes the standard.

[joliefan]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

I read somewhere that as a fixed panel display it would most likely be quad HD 3840x2160, which puts it at odds with Sony's true 4K 4096x2160 projector. Should be interesting to see which becomes the standard.

far too early who would buy it?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Teazle

To me the biggest problem for 4K is that virtually all movies, except a few IMAX titles and some legacy big-negative ones, are not visually composed for a large apparent image. So when you sit close you might get a bigger impression and more "telepresence" but not necessarily much more useful information that helps you follow the film.

Sure, in a close-up now you can count the actors' eyelashes but so what?

To me for 4K to be interesting there need to be more films shot w/ lots of wide-angle high-detail sequences like you get in, say, the ending of It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. You want to be able to peer "into the distance" and see loads of interesting stuff going on. Again, they do this all the time in IMAX demos. Right now not too many cinematographers for conventional feature film seem to be thinking & shooting this way. The assumption is that most of the audience only get to enjoy a (relatively) small apparent image. And the assumption is currently right for most theatres.

I am not sure I get your point, siince to me it makes no sense. So let me see if I understand the gist of it.

1)if something is too small and too far away then you cant see it (simple premis that is the basis of any 4k is not needed discussions.)

2) films (minus exceptions) are shot/composed with the intent that the viewer will be too far away from a small screen

3) since that is how films are shot that is the proper way of seeing them and so seing them on a big screen that is close any extra detail will not be assumed by the people making the film so it is trivial

ergo there is no need for 4k.


is that it? if that is it, then I really don't get it. It might be true if we were talking TV, but even then I doubt it, but any movie is meant to be shown on "the big screen" as it is often called and filmed with the idea of theatrical play. Now if we look at SMPTE they recommend that the farthest seat in a theater (not the closest or the middle which will be much closer) is 30 degrees, that roughly translates to 1.6x the diagonal (for 16:9) and THX recommends 36 degrees that is 1.3x the diagonal, so if someone has a 42"TV that will mean 67.2" away(a bit over 5') with SMPTE and 54.6 (a bit under 5'). If someone has their couch on one wall and the TV on the other, let's say 8' away (wich I think is reasonable for a small room), then you need a TV that has at least a 60" if you want to be at the farthest limit of SMPTE and 74" to be within the THX recommendation for the farthest seat. Personally I find way too many people sit way too far away in order to enjoy a film, and I always see that when people go from small TV to an FP set-up, they are always amazed at how much they trully missed over the years watching their films on a small screen.

Also even if we went with your premises, it would still not work. At the end of the day the production designers, the make-up artists, the costume designers don't know at what distance it would be filmed and how big their stuff will be on screen so they need to worry about a lot more detail then what you might see, so if it is there (because the film caught it with its high resolution) who cares if the director/cameraman, was not thinking I will zoom in on it?

[Lyris]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

First 4k set to come in Q1 2013. That is the rumor anyhow!

There's already a 4K TV. Toshiba have one at select stores in Europe.

But there's no way to get 4K content to it (other than JPEG images via USB) that I'm aware of.

[Constitution 101]

The bottom line is higher resolution is generally better-period. All the logistical problems are ultimately much ado about nothing. They'll get worked out due to consumer demand(like any other product). I say bring it on. Resolve all the issues along the way if need be. Just get the ball rolling, and all the concerns will get worked out eventually(just like blu-ray, etc.).

[joliefan]

Originally Posted by Lyris

There's already a 4K TV. Toshiba have one at select stores in Europe.

But there's no way to get 4K content to it (other than JPEG images via USB) that I'm aware of.

The amazing Spiderman will be in 4k so they might use that as a demo

[Livelong420]

Originally Posted by joliefan

The amazing Spiderman will be in 4k so they might use that as a demo

A demo to who? And where?

[joliefan]

Originally Posted by Livelong420

A demo to who? And where?

in shops for customers to see just like when HD came out

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Teazle

To me the biggest problem for 4K is that virtually all movies, except a few IMAX titles and some legacy big-negative ones, are not visually composed for a large apparent image. So when you sit close you might get a bigger impression and more "telepresence" but not necessarily much more useful information that helps you follow the film.

Sure, in a close-up now you can count the actors' eyelashes but so what?

To me for 4K to be interesting there need to be more films shot w/ lots of wide-angle high-detail sequences like you get in, say, the ending of It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. You want to be able to peer "into the distance" and see loads of interesting stuff going on. Again, they do this all the time in IMAX demos. Right now not too many cinematographers for conventional feature film seem to be thinking & shooting this way. The assumption is that most of the audience only get to enjoy a (relatively) small apparent image. And the assumption is currently right for most theatres.

I can see your point to a degree, but the higher the resolution of the image, the more detail you are going to see. Whether you use a very wide-angle lens and have lots of things in the background of each shot or a spherical one with a narrow aspect ratio and have nothing but close-up shots, you'll still get a benefit from 4k.

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by Teazle

To me the biggest problem for 4K is that virtually all movies, except a few IMAX titles and some legacy big-negative ones, are not visually composed for a large apparent image. So when you sit close you might get a bigger impression and more "telepresence" but not necessarily much more useful information that helps you follow the film.

Sure, in a close-up now you can count the actors' eyelashes but so what?

To me for 4K to be interesting there need to be more films shot w/ lots of wide-angle high-detail sequences like you get in, say, the ending of It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. You want to be able to peer "into the distance" and see loads of interesting stuff going on. Again, they do this all the time in IMAX demos. Right now not too many cinematographers for conventional feature film seem to be thinking & shooting this way. The assumption is that most of the audience only get to enjoy a (relatively) small apparent image. And the assumption is currently right for most theatres.

Can't the same argument be made for Blu-ray?

[typod]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

First 4k set to come in Q1 2013. That is the rumor anyhow!

I certainly hope so! I'm ready and been ready for a long while. We need to push more than 1080x1920 pixels into these large displays. Just bought a retina MacBook Pro and I'm drooling over how good 4k stuff looks.

I can't believe Apple dropped the ball on physical media though...they shipped the best laptop screen in the world and I can't pop in a BD and preview it

When I watch a movie, I like film grain and I like to sit close! I'm on board with more detail!!

[Steedeel]

same here dude. cannot wait.

[Flatnate]

I'm curious if along with the increased resolution will we have increased color depth or any other improvements?

[keb33509]

Originally Posted by typod

. Just bought a retina MacBook Pro and I'm drooling over how good 4k stuff looks.

The retina display is not 4k.

[typod]

Originally Posted by keb33509

The retina display is not 4k.

Understood...But at the moment it's the densest display at its size and looks freakin brilliant for higher than 1080 material. AND it only helps the cause in the 4k display technology progression.

[TheHighRoller]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

I'm curious if along with the increased resolution will we have increased color depth or any other improvements?

Yeah, what would 4K offer with the Blu-rays we already own? As for other stuff, it would improve clarity immensely.