Will We Ever Have "Filmic" Home Video Tech?

[Pagey123]

I know there's a rule for this...if you ask a question in a headline, lol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better...w_of_headlines). However, the "law" notwithstanding, I wanted to pose this question to my fellow BR forum members: do you feel that we will ever have a home video/presentation technology that will product what YOU consider to be a truly "filmic" experience? It can be any one single technology or a combination of technology (e.g., better analog to digital codecs combined with advances in home projection and display tech).

Also, what do you, personally, consider a "filmic" presentation to be? E.g., I have watched both the DNR and non-DNR UHD versions of Project 4K77. I would, personally, consider the non-DNR version to be very "filmic". However, others might argue that the presentation is still not filmic because of, say, contrast issues, color issues, projection vs. a software media player on an LCD-based display tech, etc.

I realize opinions are going to vary wildly, and I hope everyone remains as civil as possible. I want to say, up front, that I did not ask this question for the purpose of provoking controversy. I am just genuinely curious if, for YOU personally, there will ever be a home video format (it will likely have to remain a digital format) that so closely approximates film you say "good enough for me!"

[Pagey123]

I will start out by saying that I think, from a capture/scanning standpoint, I think we have the technology, now, to capture as much detail as analog film. I would think that both camera sensors and film scanners both are capable of capturing as much detail as/all of the detail available in a film source.

But that only addresses the pixel/resolution part of capture. I do not know enough about digital capture or film scanning to say that we can, digitally, capture/scan the same contrast/dynamic range as film.

As far as display technology goes, I think it's safe to say from both an overall display technology standpoint and a bang-for-the-buck standpoint, we are at a golden age in home theater. But, as good as current technology is, and for the purposes of this thread, is there a home video/cinema/digital technology that can closely approximate a filmic experience? Also, for that matter, is the projection aspect REQUIRED, in your opinion, for a home video experience to appear/feel filmic? Is there a way to achieve this look/feel without the use of a projector, digital or analog?

[David M]

“Filmic” is a very subjective term.

On the display technology side, I’d like to see better dark frame insertion features to mimic the shuttering effect of film projectors. I remember reviewing a Sony SXRD projector years ago that had beautiful dark frame insertion. Then in the next generation they changed the panel design and the effect suddenly became much lessened. Most people don’t like the flicker, though, from my experience. Personally I’d rather have that than a sterile sample and hold look.

[Pagey123]

I agree...this is a very subjective term, so opinions will vary. I'm just genuinely curious to read those opinions. There is a lot of good experience here in the forums, and I look forward to the comments all that experience will hopefully create!

[kidglov3s]

I guess it could be possible for advances in imaging and display technology to someday 1:1 simulate film projection. I'm dubious it would ever be realized because I think there would only be a niche market for that at best.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Pagey123

I am just genuinely curious if, for YOU personally, there will ever be a home video format (it will likely have to remain a digital format) that so closely approximates film you say "good enough for me!"

A well done UHD is usually good enough for me (especially if David M is handling the encoding).

[Pagey123]

That's a fair point - that it would only be a niche market at best. Which brings up another important consideration - we all live in a time that is relatively close to so much of our important movie/cinema (and even television) history being captured and displayed on film. And, also important, there will be certain important/epic/monumental motion pictures that were captured on film...so keeping that film look, going forward, will remain an important part of the aesthetic of displaying and enjoying those motion pictures. But fast forward a hundred years. Imagine a time when both the source/capture of a motion picture is ONLY in the digital world (for many films/shows, we are already there)...will there be a forum where people argue, "That's not how it looked when it was (digitally) captured and first (digitally) displayed!"...?

[Lee A Stewart]

Are you using what you would see in a commercial movie theater, showing a 35mm print, as a reference for your description of "a truly filmic experience?"

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Are you using what you would see in a commercial movie theater, showing a 35mm print, as a reference for your description of "a truly filmic experience?"

Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that probably the majority of people would agree that is, indeed, a valid reference point. No in the sense that "is that the ONLY definition of filmic?" But, "truly filmic" could also be larger projected formats (e.g., IMAX, 70mm). Or, for some, it might be a 2 or 4K DCI projection.

My main motivation for asking is this: so many times in so many threads we read about a new 4K scan/master being done on a film; the UHD and/or Blu-ray comes out; and invariably we get the "it doesn't look like X (film, etc.)" comments. So, it got me to thinking - if a motion picture was created/captured on film and projected on film during its original run...is there a way...or will there ever be a way...to capture that analog world, translate it to digital, and display it digitally in such a way that people would agree it is "filmic".

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by David M

“Filmic” is a very subjective term.

On the display technology side, I’d like to see better dark frame insertion features to mimic the shuttering effect of film projectors. I remember reviewing a Sony SXRD projector years ago that had beautiful dark frame insertion. Then in the next generation they changed the panel design and the effect suddenly became much lessened. Most people don’t like the flicker, though, from my experience. Personally I’d rather have that than a sterile sample and hold look.

SXRD is still king for me.
The subjective thing is the focus here tho, Laserdisc and its analogue nature looks more like projected prints to me than anything digital.
And I am not talking clarity, just feel.

[Pagey123]

Thank you, Agent Kay. That's exactly the kind of thing I am looking for - for YOU, what "does it"? What is filmic to you? If, currently, that answer is "laserdisc," then by all means...laserdisc it is.

I am 43, so I grew up with both projected film for large screen viewing and NTSC broadcast/VHS for small screen/home viewing. I can honestly say, when I watch a Blu-ray today, that I have no recollection of how that movie looked, projected on film, 30+ years ago.

Going back to the example of the Project 4K77 releases - my eye prefers the cleaner, more modern looking, DNR version. It really seems to reveal more detail and better color/contrast to ME, than the non-DNR versions. HOWEVER...the non-DNR version, with its beautiful/organic, layer of grain looks, to ME, more "filmic".

Now, there is most definitely a line that can be crossed in the digital world where something looks way, way too overly processed/fake/digital. The best example I can think of is the original Predator Blu-ray with its ancient MPEG-2 encoding vs the Ultimate Hunter Edition where the actors literally look like wax figures. There is nothing filmic, to me, about that, nor is it even enjoyable in the digital realm. It's simply...too much.

[Lee A Stewart]

OK - if that's the case then yes - in the future, when we have 16 bit color space panels and projectors along with 16 bit 4:4:4 content. This will surpass the color space of 35mm film which is spec'd at 14 bit. This will take full advantage of all the available colors (billions) and a full Grayscale of 65,536 steps (tonal values). 10 bit has 1024 steps BTW.

The worst kept secret in home video is color resolution. We continue to use the same color resolution (4:2:0) as we used in SD. Same for HD. Same for UHD. The high resolution comes from the B&W portion of the signal (Luma) not the color (Chroma). That's the difference between home video and professional video.

[Pagey123]

Thank you for that, Lee. Again, exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping to see posted here. I think you are really on to something there - the 4:2:0 chroma compression/subsampling. I honestly "take it for granted" at this point and never give it s a second thought...until a post like this comes along.

[singhcr]

Interesting topic!

I have an arthouse theater nearby where I've watched several movies in 35mm.

In my opinion (aside from screen size as I don't have a projector) a well handled 4K release like, say, Glory with intact grain coming off a good scan easily bests the 35mm prints I have seen. If studios just let the material breathe and exist as-is without all of the noise reduction I'd argue we're already there.

Philadelphia was another good example. That felt like watching a second generation print in my own home.

[Lee A Stewart]

What we see in a theater showing a 35mm print is totally different than what a Director sees when he is looking at "dallies" in one aspect: resolution. Because film is analog it is subject to MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) which is that each time we step away from the OCN (Original Camera Negative) the resolution drops. They are going from OCN to Interpositive to Internegative to Print which has a spatial resolution about equal to a well done DVD.

But what doesn't change is the color/grayscale. It remains 14 bit from OCN to Print. So the color resolution of a 35mm print is much higher than the spatial resolution and this IMO is what people love about film which has not been duplicated in home video.

[Pagey123]

Again, Lee, thank you for the detailed technical aspects of this discussion. I work in information technology, doing IT/infosec for a mid-sized community bank, so I can appreciate the differences in bit depth, for example. The lay person hears something like "but going from 8 bit to 16 bit is just twice the number of bits!" Being in the digital/IT world, I understand the reality of the situation - it's the difference in 256 values versus, like your grayscale example, 65,536!

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

What we see in a theater showing a 35mm print is totally different than what a Director sees when he is looking at "dallies" in one aspect: resolution. Because film is analog it is subject to MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) which is that each time we step away from the OCN (Original Camera Negative) the resolution drops. They are going from OCN to Interpositive to Internegative to Print which has a spatial resolution about equal to a well done DVD.

But what doesn't change is the color/grayscale. It remains 14 bit from OCN to Print. So the color resolution of a 35mm print is much higher than the spatial resolution and this IMO is what people love about film which has not been duplicated in home video.

Color is definitely something I notice when watching a print compared to what I see at home (excellent examples are Hard Boiled and Robocop in 35mm), although saying that a print is equal to a DVD in terms of spatial resolution is a bit of a stretch. I'd say it's equal to a good Blu-ray, especially considering how large the image is projected compared to what you see on TV.

So you do have a point about color. Dynamic range is something that a 4K disc bests a theatrical print on though. That's why 4K77 loses information in the shadows oftentimes as the dynamic range on that fourth generation print is greatly reduced from the negative due to contrast buildup from the analog copying process.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Color is definitely something I notice when watching a print compared to what I see at home (excellent examples are Hard Boiled and Robocop in 35mm), although saying that a print is equal to a DVD in terms of spatial resolution is a bit of a stretch. I'd say it's equal to a good Blu-ray, especially considering how large the image is projected compared to what you see on TV.

Nope - no stretch. No where's near the resolution of a BD:

http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_re...on_english.pdf

Go down to Section 5.

So you do have a point about color. Dynamic range is something that a 4K disc bests a theatrical print on though. That's why 4K77 loses information in the shadows oftentimes as the dynamic range on that fourth generation print is greatly reduced from the negative due to contrast buildup from the analog copying process.

Film preserves the dynamic range taken on the OCN by the use of it's high color space and grayscale. Keep in mind that the film itself deteriorates each time it is run through a projector. That along with 35mm projectors inability hold the frame against the gate uniformly. Only an IMAX projector can do that.

You have to have an apples to apples comparison meaning you can't compare a 65" FPD or 120" HT to a 30 foot screen.

[Lee A Stewart]

A long time ago when LD became popular it was compared to VHS. It wasn't just the difference in resolution, it was also the difference in color resolution.

Joe Kane, video guru, came up with a list of what makes up a high quality image. He then placed them in their corresponding hierarchy:

Contrast
Grayscale
Color Space
Resolution

Nothing has changed in the 30+ years that followed.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

OK - if that's the case then yes - in the future, when we have 16 bit color space panels and projectors along with 16 bit 4:4:4 content. This will surpass the color space of 35mm film which is spec'd at 14 bit. This will take full advantage of all the available colors (billions) and a full Grayscale of 65,536 steps (tonal values). 10 bit has 1024 steps BTW.

The worst kept secret in home video is color resolution. We continue to use the same color resolution (4:2:0) as we used in SD. Same for HD. Same for UHD. The high resolution comes from the B&W portion of the signal (Luma) not the color (Chroma). That's the difference between home video and professional video.

That might make it sound like it's the same visible chroma resolution across all of those formats. It's not, in case anyone was wondering. 4:2:0 is basically a quarter of the available luminance resolution, so on DVD we got chroma of effective 360x240 resolution (which is why CUE was so pronounced i.e. you needed good processing for colour to not look like a jaggy mess), for BD it's 960x540, for UHD it's 1920x1080. The latter is important because we're finally getting decent chroma resolution with UHD and it makes all the difference in areas of high saturation, particularly red and blue which tend to suffer most in YCbCr. It applies to UHD upscales just as much as it does to native 4K content too, as it's argued by some that we're essentially seeing the chroma resolution of the actual 2K master in the upscaled UHD.