Breaking Bad 4K Remaster Coming...

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by satam55

Not True. You can't say 2K & 1080p are interchangeable or the difference is just so minute that it isn't worth mentioning. Because Digital Cinema resolutions like 2K are measured differently from Television resolutions like 1080p, depending on the aspect ratio, differences in resolution will vary. For example, if a studio wants to remaster an older 4:3 TV Show or movie, the 1080p resolution would be 1440x1080. The 2K resolution would be 2048x1536. That's a HUGE difference!

Not to the human eye, it isn't.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

This is 100% marketing BS. The headline implies that it will somehow be presented in 4K natively, perhaps on some new format - that's not the case.

Sony’s “Mastered in 4K” initiative will release a limited set of content onto Blu-Ray discs. Blu-Ray does not support native Ultra HD content, but Sony states that when watched on an Ultra HDTV, the “Mastered in 4K” content will be upconverted into “the best possible picture” until native 4K content arrives.

Countless films are remastered in 4K.... Hell, even 8K sometimes. How is this news? If Sony is banking on showcasing their "new resolution" by remastering TV shows already out on BD (that have decent quality to begin with - as Breaking Bad does) in 4K and then once again storing them on BD in 1920X1080p then good luck with that - that's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

This is 100% marketing BS. The headline implies that it will somehow be presented in 4K natively, perhaps on some new format - that's not the case.



Countless films are remastered in 4K.... Hell, even 8K sometimes. How is this news? If Sony is banking on showcasing their "new resolution" by remastering TV shows already out on BD (that have decent quality to begin with - as Breaking Bad does) in 4K and then once again storing them on BD in 1920X1080p then good luck with that - that's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

They get to do a re-release, and they get content ready for the launch of the new format, makes great business sense to me.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

This is 100% marketing BS. The headline implies that it will somehow be presented in 4K natively, perhaps on some new format - that's not the case.



Countless films are remastered in 4K.... Hell, even 8K sometimes. How is this news? If Sony is banking on showcasing their "new resolution" by remastering TV shows already out on BD (that have decent quality to begin with - as Breaking Bad does) in 4K and then once again storing them on BD in 1920X1080p then good luck with that - that's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I think this was already covered.

See: Bit, Super

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by rickah88

I think this was already covered.

See: Bit, Super

Superbit was designed to sell the DVD format, and was marketed as such.

This is clearly being marketed for the 4K format, which it isn't... if they have any hope of succeeding in pushing a format above and beyond what BD is capable of they'd really need something to show off a discernible visible difference over what already exists in the market. This would not accomplish that, it would do the opposite and if anything pre-emptively tarnish their efforts to showcase the benefits of increased resolution above 1080p.

[slimdude]

I doubt very much if anybody on this forum have a $25,000.00 UHDTV, to utilize any future 4K content right now anyway! At the present time, 4K technology is a niche market, and the technology may or may never become mainstream, to make it worth the investment. If I did have $25,000.00 to spend, I wouldn't buy a TV with it that's for sure!

[42041]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

This is 100% marketing BS. The headline implies that it will somehow be presented in 4K natively, perhaps on some new format - that's not the case.

It will be: when such a format exists.
And the rumblings suggest it's in the works. This seems like a clear effort to give that format some marketable content.
Might even find out some information about it today, with the presumed PS4 announcement.
And if they re-release it on THIS format, it'll still likely sport visibly superior image quality due to a better film transfer.

[satam55]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Not to the human eye, it isn't.

Did you even read my last 2 posts in this thread? A 1080p 4:3 image has 1,555,200 pixels. A 2K 4:3 image has 3,145,728 pixels. That's a HUGE difference!!! That's a bigger jump than the jump from a 480p 4:3 image to 1080p 4:3 image. So, 2K and 1080p should NEVER be considered interchangeable.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by satam55

Did you even read my last 2 posts in this thread? A 1080p 4:3 image has 1,555,200 pixels. A 2K 4:3 image has 3,145,728 pixels. That's a HUGE difference!!! That's a bigger jump than the jump from a 480p 4:3 image to 1080p 4:3 image.

Not in percentage terms, which is the only meaningful comparison. You're talking about a resolution jump of 100% for 4:3 1080p to 4:3 2K, versus a resolution jump of 400% from 4:3 480p to 4:3 1080p.

It's a huge numerical difference...but not a huge perceptible difference to the naked human eye, when viewing an image in motion.

[satam55]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

Not in percentage terms, which is the only meaningful comparison. You're talking about a resolution jump of 100% for 4:3 1080p to 4:3 2K, versus a resolution jump of 400% from 4:3 480p to 4:3 1080p.

It's a huge numerical difference...but not a huge perceptible difference to the naked human eye, when viewing an image in motion.

I don't understand where you got those percentage numbers. They don't make sense if you're using total pixel count. The Television & Electronics industry have always used the phrase that "Blu-ray (1920x1080p = 2,076,600 pixels) is 6x the resolution as DVD (720x480 = 345,600 pixels)". They're using the numerical difference of the total pixel count. So, my previous post still stands.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by slimdude

I doubt very much if anybody on this forum have a $25,000.00 UHDTV, to utilize any future 4K content right now anyway! At the present time, 4K technology is a niche market, and the technology may or may never become mainstream, to make it worth the investment. If I did have $25,000.00 to spend, I wouldn't buy a TV with it that's for sure!

Comments liks this are so silly...with the first HDTVs sold back in 1998, the cheapest sets were $8000, with most going for over $10,000. How fast people forget the facts when trying to make an obtuse argument. The first blu-ray players were around $1000, as well, not they cost $100.

Naturally, the prices will slowly come down and this "argument" will be even more invalid than it is already.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by satam55

I don't understand where you got those percentage numbers.

I'm getting them by performing simple math.

They don't make sense if you're using total pixel count.

Yes they do. 4:3 2K only has twice as many pixels as 4:3 1080p...your own numbers demonstrate that.

3,145,728 ÷ 1,555,200 = 2.0227

That is a 100% increase.


Meanwhile, 4:3 1080p has five times as many pixels as 4:3 480p.

1,555,200 ÷ 307,200 = 5.0625

That is a 400% increase.

The Television & Electronics industry have always used the phrase that "Blu-ray (1920x1080p = 2,076,600 pixels) is 6x the resolution as DVD (720x480 = 345,600 pixels)". They're using the numerical difference of the total pixel count. So, my previous post still stands.

Actually, by saying six TIMES, they're presenting one resolution as a MULTIPLE of the other.

4:3 2K is TWO TIMES the resolution of 4:3 1080p.

4:3 1080p is FIVE TIMES the resolution of 4:3 480p.

Get it yet?

[satam55]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

I'm getting them by performing simple math.




Yes they do. 4:3 2K only has twice as many pixels as 4:3 1080p...your own numbers demonstrate that.

3,145,728 ÷ 1,555,200 = 2.0227

That is a 100% increase.


Meanwhile, 4:3 1080p has five times as many pixels as 4:3 480p.

1,555,200 ÷ 307,200 = 5.0625

That is a 400% increase.




Actually, by saying six TIMES, they're presenting one resolution as a MULTIPLE of the other.

4:3 2K is TWO TIMES the resolution of 4:3 1080p.

4:3 1080p is FIVE TIMES the resolution of 4:3 480p.

Get it yet?

Yeah, I get it now. The point i'm trying to make is 2K & 1080p should never be considered interchangable, especially since their measured diffrentely. If an older TV show or movie is being remastered in HD to prep for a Blu-ray release, I'd prefer it remastered in 2K over 1080p just to get the best possible quality transfer.

[MEHEARTJC]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

I think it's one of the worst shows in the history of television. Even worse than The Kardashians.

You must hate tv shows with compelling characters and on the edge of your seat storylines then.

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by satam55

Yeah, I get it now. The point i'm trying to make is 2K & 1080p should never be considered interchangable, especially since their measured diffrentely. If an older TV show or movie is being remastered in HD to prep for a Blu-ray release, I'd prefer it remastered in 2K over 1080p just to get the best possible quality transfer.

I don't believe that anyone who is calling the two resolutions comparable would be referring to 4:3 images. Generally speaking, the term "2K" is applied to a 17:9 image with a resolution of 2048x1080. It is not a stretch at all to say that such an image is more or less indistinguishable from a 1080p image. So no, the terms should not be used interchangeably, because they are not the same thing. But my point was that, with regard to a 16:9 image, the difference is so minute as to be not worth mentioning. I can't speak for anyone else's statements, but that's all I was saying.

[Pyoko]

Regardless of any marketing confusions and implications for the future I welcome this and will definitely buy it if a complete Blu-ray set is released from these 4K remasters. Not only because 4K sources are still of benefit at 1080p but mostly because the existing masters for Breaking Bad look pretty... bad, especially for such a recent show.

[jordanwalkert]

Does anyone have anymore information on this or confirmation that its actually happening?