Better Than 1080p?

[DiscoDan]

Forgive me if this topic has already been exhausted, but I've been wondering... now that youtube streams HD video and there are 3D blu rays and 100gb BDs, it seems like HD is evolving pretty rapidly.

So, my question is.. has there been any news that a resolution greater than 1080p might be just around the corner? Would it even make sense to have video in higher quality?

I don't know much about 35mm, but doesn't it technically have more pixels or whatever than a blu ray?

Thanks in advance for any help!

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by DiscoDan

Forgive me if this topic has already been exhausted, but I've been wondering... now that youtube streams HD video and there are 3D blu rays and 100gb BDs, it seems like HD is evolving pretty rapidly.

So, my question is.. has there been any news that a resolution greater than 1080p might be just around the corner? Would it even make sense to have video in higher quality?

I don't know much about 35mm, but doesn't it technically have more pixels or whatever than a blu ray?

Thanks in advance for any help!

Ultrad HD is planned for around 2025 (at the earliest). Remember, resolution is far from everything, 1080p does not qual 1080p. Blu-ray is less compressed and has many advantages (huge advantages over the 1080p that is on sites like youtube). Simply put, blu ray looks a lot better then any stramed 1080p content atm.

Most films in the last ten years have been edited at 2k (which is only just above blu ray in terms of resolution). In fact it's so minor I doubt one could see the difference between them (remember the 2k files of the films and compressed like blu ray which has its advantages, but when done is done right it for the most part is unnoticable).

[JayX]

Yeah, 2K and 4K are the two 'big' industrial formats that are talked about these days. Rather than referring to the vertical resolution like we have done for years (576p, 720p, 1080p etc) the 2K refers to the 2000px width of the horizontal, and 4K refers believe it or not, to the 4000px width. There's bound to be a reason that 2K/1080P both exist, but I'm not sure why myself as like Suntory_Times said, the difference is negligable in terms of resolution.

Let's hope the age old 'more megapixels is better!' sales speak nonsense of the digital camera world doesn't transpire to video anytime soon.

edit:

With regards to 35mm, 70mm etc... they don't have 'pixels' as they're not digital formats. But yes, the equivalent resolution would be higher than 1080p.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by JayX

Yeah, 2K and 4K are the two 'big' industrial formats that are talked about these days. Rather than referring to the vertical resolution like we have done for years (576p, 720p, 1080p etc) the 2K refers to the 2000px width of the horizontal, and 4K refers believe it or not, to the 4000px width. There's bound to be a reason that 2K/1080P both exist, but I'm not sure why myself as like Suntory_Times said, the difference is negligable in terms of resolution.

2K Digital Cinema is 2048x(whatever is needed). I'm not sure theres really a good reason for 2k and 1080p both existing, except that they have two different purposes. Ones a home media TV format the other is digital cinema.

At this time theres really very little reason for a home media system to have more than 2 megapixels of resolution. Theres very little content out there at a higher resolution, plus you'd need a giant TV or a projector to see the increased resolution anyways.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by JayX

With regards to 35mm, 70mm etc... they don't have 'pixels' as they're not digital formats. But yes, the equivalent resolution would be higher than 1080p.

70mm, more or less is always much higher then a 2k equivelant resolution. (somewhere between 3k and 6k is what is generally said.

35mm get a bit more interesting, I wouldn't say that it goes all that far above 2k, but it is really hard to judge as most prints I see that wern't edited at 2k are from old prints of old films (it's generally said to usually to be around an equivelant 2k to 3k resolution though).

How many of you saw jumps in the quality of the footage in Inception. If you didn't then for you at least you can tell the difference between 35mm and 65mm [which more or less = 70 mm film], or maybe you where to caught up in the movie.

[JayX]

D'oh, should've put my thinking helmet on. Of course it's 2048px... must've been thinking in the wrong base this morning!

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

2K Digital Cinema is 2048x(whatever is needed). I'm not sure theres really a good reason for 2k and 1080p both existing, except that they have two different purposes. Ones a home media TV format the other is digital cinema.

At this time theres really very little reason for a home media system to have more than 2 megapixels of resolution. Theres very little content out there at a higher resolution, plus you'd need a giant TV or a projector to see the increased resolution anyways.

Aspect ratios for cinemas is 1.85:1 or a scope ratio (between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1). 2k is in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, blu ray is in 1920x1080 resolution, which is a 1.78:1 aspect ratio whent he whole image area is bieng used up.

1.78:1 is used for tv's as it is the best overall fit for all the diffent aspect ratios that have been used.

Originally Posted by JayX

D'oh, should've put my thinking helmet on. Of course it's 2048px... must've been thinking in the wrong base this morning!

I challenge anyone to be able to tell the difference. They won't be able to.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Aspect ratios for cinemas is 1.85:1 or a scope ratio (between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1). 2k is in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, blu ray is in 1920x1080 resolution, which is a 1.78:1 aspect ratio whent he whole image area is bieng used up.

2048x1080 is actually about 1.89:1.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I challenge anyone to be able to tell the difference. They won't be able to.

Nah, no way.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

70mm, more or less is always much higher then a 2k equivelant resolution. (somewhere between 3k and 6k is what is generally said.

35mm get a bit more interesting, I wouldn't say that it goes all that far above 2k, but it is really hard to judge as most prints I see that wern't edited at 2k are from old prints of old films (it's generally said to usually to be around an equivelant 2k to 3k resolution though).

How many of you saw jumps in the quality of the footage in Inception. If you didn't then for you at least you can tell the difference between 35mm and 65mm [which more or less = 70 mm film], or maybe you where to caught up in the movie.

35mm film is always the same resolution. Of course it depends on the film stock used, the condition of the film etc on whether or not scanning it in at a higher res would be a waste of space or not.

I don't really remember seeing in pic quality difference for Inception, but I wasn't really paying attention. However I certainly can notice a difference in picture quality in The Dark Knight during the IMAX sequences.

70mm film prints are made from 65mm negatives (at least the old format dunno about IMAX). The extra space is for the sound track.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

35mm film is always the same resolution. Of course it depends on the film stock used, the condition of the film etc on whether or not scanning it in at a higher res would be a waste of space or not.

And it depends on the lens used/filters, what's in focus, what's in motion and things like that which determine the resolution of what is on the film. And they may add filters and other things in post that will also reduce the resolution.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

1.78:1 is used for tv's as it is the best overall fit for all the diffent aspect ratios that have been used.

How was that worked out? Wouldn't around 1.865:1 be a ratio that would be half way between 1.33:1 and 2.40:1? And there are films with wider aspect ratios than 2.40:1 - maybe the intention was to make it closer to 1.33:1 because that was what most of the existing TV programming was in.

[DiscoDan]

Thanks for all the great responses! A lot of it is still a little over my head, but your explanations helped a lot

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

How was that worked out? Wouldn't around 1.865:1 be a ratio that would be half way between 1.33:1 and 2.40:1? And there are films with wider aspect ratios than 2.40:1 - maybe the intention was to make it closer to 1.33:1 because that was what most of the existing TV programming was in.

Think about it this way:

4:3 is the narrowest AR in common usage, 2.4:1 is the widest*. On a 16:9 monitor exactly 1/4th of all pixels are wasted when displaying 4:3 content (1440x1080). Also, almost exactly 1/4 of all pixels are wasted when displaying 2.35:1 content (1920x816).

So in that sense 16:9 is a very good compromise.

*Yes I know ultra-panavision and multi-camera formats are wider, but only about a dozen movies were made in those formats. And I know I flubbed it a bit for 2.35:1 (pre 1970 scope).

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Think about it this way:

4:3 is the narrowest AR in common usage, 2.4:1 is the widest*. On a 16:9 monitor exactly 1/4th of all pixels are wasted when displaying 4:3 content (1440x1080). Also, almost exactly 1/4 of all pixels are wasted when displaying 2.35:1 content (1920x816).

So in that sense 16:9 is a very good compromise.

*Yes I know ultra-panavision and multi-camera formats are wider, but only about a dozen movies were made in those formats. And I know I flubbed it a bit for 2.35:1 (pre 1970 scope).

Yeah, theres alot of details on this (and personally I prefer a scope screen), but that is more or less the reason.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Most films in the last ten years have been edited at 2k

What? Where'd you get this?

[Deciazulado]

http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ture-of-pixels

http://www.cintel.co.uk/bmt_mymedia/...solution_1.pdf

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/im...09mm2Kfig5.jpg

http://www.swift.ac.uk/vision.pdf

http://www.fb06.fh-muenchen.de/fb/qu...ad.php?id=6001

http://www.filmschooldirect.com/samp...HD_vs_35mm.htm

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

image pixels for 2K scan:

S-35 1.85: 1080 x 2000/13mm x 24mm
S-35 2.39: 836 x 2000/10mm x 24mm
Flat 1.85: 944 x 1746/11.3mm x 21mm
Scope 2.39: 1461 x 1746/17.5mm x 21mm

image pixels for 4K scan:

S-35 1.85: 2160 x 4000/13mm x 24mm
S-35 2.39: 1672 x 4000/10mm x 24mm
Flat 1.85: 1888 x 3492/11.3mm x 21mm
Scope 2.39: 2922 x 3492/17.5mm x 21mm