OK, behind the curve on 4K, help? Fake or real.

[Abouna]

So I decided I should start buying 4k anytime the price is pretty close. I have zero 4K equipment but figure I will at some future this will be a good idea.

So here I am listening to my 23 year old son who says he's been looking at realorfake4k.com and says the new titles I've been buying aren't real 4K, in this case I just bought Thor: Ragnarok, paid an extra fiver for it and it looks like it just uprezzed 2K?

Can someone clarify this stuff for me?

[ninfan81]

Originally Posted by Abouna

So I decided I should start buying 4k anytime the price is pretty close. I have zero 4K equipment but figure I will at some future this will be a good idea.

So here I am listening to my 23 year old son who says he's been looking at realorfake4k.com and says the new titles I've been buying aren't real 4K, in this case I just bought Thor: Ragnarok, paid an extra fiver for it and it looks like it just uprezzed 2K?

Can someone clarify this stuff for me?

A majority of the films being released are being upscalaed to 4K from 2k sources. That being said, the HDR component is the real reason to buy 4K. Once you have a good 4K TV with HDR the difference in contrast and color will be the important upgrade in my opinion.

[Geezer00003]

I just finished watching Thor Ragnarok for the first time ever and in 2K upscaled 4K.......It looked awesome!!!!!!

Fun movie!

[DJR662]

When you see The Shallows, John Wick 2 or Pacific Rim on UHD and then afterwards watch the 1080p Blu-rays, I bet you will forget about this whole "fake 4K" nonsense in a heartbeat.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Abouna

So I decided I should start buying 4k anytime the price is pretty close. I have zero 4K equipment but figure I will at some future this will be a good idea.

So here I am listening to my 23 year old son who says he's been looking at realorfake4k.com and says the new titles I've been buying aren't real 4K, in this case I just bought Thor: Ragnarok, paid an extra fiver for it and it looks like it just uprezzed 2K?

Can someone clarify this stuff for me?

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

[nick4Knight]

Anyone who says it needs to be "real" 4K is fundamentally thinking about it all in the wrong way. 2K upscales can outperform native 4K content, it has already, and will continue to in many cases. And yes, HDR and WCG is more important...

But each to their own.

[gkolb]

This thread is a great primer on HDR, 4K, and Ultra High Definition;

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=293133

[guachi]

Even if it's only an upscale, the 4k has more bits available for the image. I'd rather have an upscale done by the studio than by my UHD player or TV.

Also, like others have said, the big reason for 4k is the HDR, the 10-bit color, and the WCG. Of course, that's what you pay for when you get a good 4k TV. It's why people spend good money on an OLED or a super-bright Sony Z9D.

I own (and would buy again) an LG C7 55" OLED and if I had to buy a UHD player again I'd go for the Oppo 203 instead of my Panasonic as it has Dolby Vision and so does the LG.

[Abouna]

OK, that's the info I needed! Thanks much everyone, now I know.

[dcx4610]

Some movies simply aren't filmed with 4k cameras and instead at 2k. They will still greatly benefit from a 4k release.

With a 2k release, you don't have to worry about it being compressed and you get HDR. There are several 2k releases I have that look better than native 4k movies. It's all about how the movie is filmed, how the HDR is applied and how the studio masters it.

It's interesting to know technically if a film was filmed in 2k vs. 4k but it shouldn't really have a bearing on if you should purchase the 4k version. It's worth it.

[LoSouL]

$5 is more than worth it for full 2048x1080 native upscaled vs 1920x1080 hardware upscaled+ HDR + wide color gamut + 10-bit color + higher bitrate and chroma.

Plus you get the additional blu ray and digital included with almost every UHD release.

If all goes well, the UHD disc will be the best available version of any 2K source and the best way to watch. Whether it's a modern blockbuster full of CG VFX tendered with a 2K DI at the theaterical level, or a 35mm classic restored and scanned in at full 4K, you're getting the best.

That site is useful to quickly find out specifics, but it's not an immutable buying guide.

[mzupeman]

Unfortunately, sites like ‘real or fake 4K’ aren’t helpful at all. All they do is say, “Oh look, this film was finished with a 2K DI, and now you’re getting a 4K disc which is clearly an upscale.”

However, there are many factors to consider. 2K is actually slightly higher resolution than 1080p, so you’re going to get more detail from the 2K DI anyway. 4K UHD discs actually have a more efficient encoder and more disc space to use, so quality will not be hindered in those respects, either. HDR also provides deeper black levels and allows more to be seen in highlights, while also making highlights brighter for better contrast. There’s wider color range to consider as well.

In regards to the ‘real or fake 4K’ thing, it’s something that people even on this forum choose to remain woefully ignorant about. All they seem to understand is, “Well, 2K is close enough to Blu-ray, so why spend extra money for an upscale. I’m paying for 4K! Not for upscales!” Those people are seriously, seriously missing out.

One test I like to point out all the time is the difference between John Wick and John Wick 2. John Wick 1 was actually ‘real 4K’, and while it looked great, its visual aesthetic didn’t allow it to exactly pop off the screen. John Wick 2 actually had a 2K DI, and yet most people would swear it looks better than John Wick 1 does, mainly because it’s a brighter, more colorful film all around.

Comparisons between Bluray and 4K even of 2K DI’s almost always go in favor of the 4K release. IT is another great example of this.

Numbers do not tell the entire story, or even half of it, honestly.

[Geoff D]

Yep, but the effect is snowballing when it comes to that stupid site, it's gaining in popularity all the time.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep, but the effect is snowballing when it comes to that stupid site, it's gaining in popularity all the time.

I hate the "term" fake 4K. There's nothing fake. I'm happy to read the comments in here from posters who actually know what's up.

Btw are the people from that fake4K site the same as the ones behind that "realorfake3D" site from years back? That was/is as ignorant to me as this real or fake 4K discussion.

[Geoff D]

No idea, even if it's not the same people you can see where they got the idea from. Then, as now, some of my favourite examples of either format (back when I liked 3D ) are "fake" and all this kind of binary good/bad listing does is spread FUD and damage the format.

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No idea, even if it's not the same people you can see where they got the idea from. Then, as now, some of my favourite examples of either format (back when I liked 3D ) are "fake" and all this kind of binary good/bad listing does is spread FUD and damage the format.

I agree, and sadly some people are missing out on some great releases, they just don't understand the benefits that it adds.

[DJR662]

There have been (and still are) so many great 3D conversions, it's not even an issue anymore whether it's native or converted. Which was quite different during the early years (2010-2013) I think.

[Brian81]

Additional information is not useless. Knowing whether something was shot stereoscopic or not is worth knowing and taking into consideration. One has more information than the other, whether or not you find more pop in the image or not. You can't create something that doesnt exist in the source without altering it. 3D in post is an alteration, albeit an intentional one. Just like colorization. Asfar as 4K upscales go, you do get the full 2048 of the source vs a slightly downscaled 1920.

[Geoff D]

Additional information is fine if it's framed in a sensible manner. But the problem with any new format and public perception is that some people think it's all a rip-off anyway, with "It's all a con, I can hardly see a difference!" being a refrain I've heard over and over and over and over again over the last 25 years along with that perennial favourite "I'm not gonna buy all my movies again!". Christ, even DVD was being shit upon by the Laserdisc crowd 20 years ago and went through its own teething issues of using laserdisc masters instead of new anamorphic transfers.

While that typical clickbaity "real or fake" title clearly gets people visiting the site in their droves, it doesn't do anything on the surface apart from play to the confirmation bias that people have, they won't bother to read the bit underneath that says "it may have some benefit due to HDR and WCG" or that it's "Nearly 4K" in the case of Blade Runner 2049. It wouldn't be so bad if the dude didn't have his Amazon affiliate links at the bottom of the page, he's literally making money off of this idiocy. [edit] Probably not enough to retire to the Bahamas and frolic with grass-skirted maidens but still, every penny counts.

[recS-12]

This is my best advice. I’m in the same situation as the OP. No 4K display yet, however I have zero desire to purchase a UHD if the PQ isn’t a noticeable upgrade over the BD. That’s one of the issues the OP is debating. Save the $5.00-$7.00 & put it in the display fund. You still can’t blind buy everything 4K and assume it’s worth the extra money. I.E. “The Accountant” You have to keep up on the latest releases and not only read reviews, but read the things some of the guys have to say from their own viewing experiences like on this website. So far these are the 4K titles I’ve purchased I understand are worth the extra money spent over the BD.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula
Blade Runner 2049 (Sony release)
Dunkirk
Jumanji (original)
I’m positive there are many, many more. But again, I don’t recommend blind buying everything 4K and assuming it’s worth the extra $5-$7 yet. Thoughts....