4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Doctorossi]

Here's a technical question I'm not sure where to put:

Being that the consumer 4K format is, spatially, an even multiple of 1080p, I'm guessing that upscaled 4K software will likely be mastered from 1080p sources rather than (the slightly higher-resolution) 2K sources, being that the even multiple would probably make for a less "processed" image than would a more fractional upscale from 2K to the consumer 4K resolution.

Can anyone confirm if my expectation matches current and/or likely practice?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Here's a technical question I'm not sure where to put:

Being that the consumer 4K format is, spatially, an even multiple of 1080p, I'm guessing that upscaled 4K software will likely be mastered from 1080p sources rather than (the slightly higher-resolution) 2K sources, being that the even multiple would probably make for a less "processed" image than would a more fractional upscale from 2K to the consumer 4K resolution.

Can anyone confirm if my expectation matches current and/or likely practice?

From the stuff I have upscaled myself and my Sony doing the work, as long as you have the bitrate it can look stunning, but actual 4k can look a world part depending on the source.
I need to make my own encode and a-b vs an actual 4k file or a UHD disc really

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

From the stuff I have upscaled myself and my Sony doing the work, as long as you have the bitrate it can look stunning, but actual 4k can look a world part depending on the source.
I need to make my own encode and a-b vs an actual 4k file or a UHD disc really

Thanks, but I'm specifically asking about whether UHD discs mastered from 2K-sourced movies are going to use 2K masters or (the slightly lower resolution, but mathematically simpler) 1080p masters.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Thanks, but I'm specifically asking about whether UHD discs mastered from 2K-sourced movies are going to use 2K masters or (the slightly lower resolution, but mathematically simpler) 1080p masters.

I see, nobody will know yet

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

I see, nobody will know yet

I feel confident that somebody around here has got to (or would at least be able to point to a publication or something).

In the same way that trimming a 2K master to 1080p gives a better-looking result than downconversion, I'm anticipating that upscaling a 1080p master to (consumer) 4K will give a better result than upscaling a 2K master would (since 2K does not multiply into consumer 4K evenly the way 1080p does).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I feel confident that somebody around here has got to (or would at least be able to point to a publication or something).

In the same way that trimming a 2K master to 1080p gives a better-looking result than downconversion, I'm anticipating that upscaling a 1080p master to (consumer) 4K will give a better result than upscaling a 2K master would (since 2K does not multiply into consumer 4K evenly the way 1080p does).

You're kinda looking at it from the wrong angle, if I may say so. Fact is, whether you're taking dat 2K master and scaling/cropping to get down to 1080p then upscaling to consumer UHD OR you're taking the 2K, scaling it up to 'pro' 4K (4096/3998) then scaling/cropping to get to UHD, the source will still have to be scaled/cropped at some point in the mastering chain to fit the 16:9/1.78 frame size of consumer video.

Personally I'd prefer it if they did the 2K to 4K uprezzing first and then applied a crop to the final product to attain the 3840 horizontal res and preserve a 1:1 pixel relationship with the master, with the appropriate matting to preserve the illusion of the original ratio for 2.35 movies or just leave 1.85 movies in 1.78.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Personally I'd prefer it if they did the 2K to 4K uprezzing first and then applied a crop to the final product to attain the 3840 horizontal res and preserve a 1:1 pixel relationship with the master, with the appropriate matting to preserve the illusion of the original ratio for 2.35 movies or just leave 1.85 movies in 1.78.

Yes, I think I'd prefer that approach, too.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Yes, I think I'd prefer that approach, too.

We've been seeing a bit more of that lately anyway I think, for UHD masters in general I mean. Penton hinted that My Fair Lady wasn't scaled for the 4K to UHD version and, from comparing the 4K caps that Robert Harris put up at the HTF, I think Spartacus was also cropped rather than scaled: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post11467996

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I feel confident that somebody around here has got to (or would at least be able to point to a publication or something).

In the same way that trimming a 2K master to 1080p gives a better-looking result than downconversion, I'm anticipating that upscaling a 1080p master to (consumer) 4K will give a better result than upscaling a 2K master would (since 2K does not multiply into consumer 4K evenly the way 1080p does).

If the UHD disc is be released with an HDR grade, it sounds like at least some studios are going back to the original 2.8k, 3k, 4k and upward digital files and regrading from that. Lower grade digital S/FX are then upscaled to 4k.

That would mean at least some UHD discs will be struck from 4k archival masters.

[Geoff D]

I think he knows that Mr Freakosaurus, he's just spitballing about the provenance of the 2K upscales in general - which is worth thinking about because we've only had confirmation from Fox so far that 4K rebuilds are part of their UHD plan (and then only because they happened to do it at the same time as the HDR regrade, talk about dumb ****ing luck). So the quality of dat 2K upscaling may yet have a big part to play in all this.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

If the UHD disc is be released with an HDR grade, it sounds like at least some studios are going back to the original 2.8k, 3k, 4k and upward digital files and regrading from that. Lower grade digital S/FX are then upscaled to 4k.

That would mean at least some UHD discs will be struck from 4k archival masters.

What are the chances that the studios will completely re do the CGI at 4K? or is that too George Lucas?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

What are the chances that the studios will completely re do the CGI at 4K? or is that too George Lucas?

Personally, I wouldn't put that in the "George Lucas" category, being that it would just be a higher-resolution render, similar in philosophy to an upscale of live action footage or a Blu-ray release of an SD television production, shot on film. The Blu-ray release of Toy Story is in that category, a re-render at a higher resolution than the sub-HD original theatrical release.

That said, I'd be very surprised to see it happen often or even at all. What I can imagine that would surprise me less is to see some new productions integrate UHD plans into their post workflow such that they render CG at 2K for the DCP and do a second (less rushed) 4K render to complete a 4K master for UHD delivery.

[Vugam]

It will not happen. Remastering a movie or making the effort of retrieving the biggest resolution scans for a UHD must already be costly. There's just no way someone would greenlight a rerender of all the CGI scenes. It would have to be a remaster, like they did for Blade Runner.

In short, CGI is more than rendering a three dimensional object. There's a postproduction chain after that - tracking, colour correction, shadowing, grain, a thousand more. I also doubt they could open the file from the beginning of Fight Club. It was done on software that probably doesn't exist now.

Fully CGI movies - that's a different story, I don't know.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Being that the consumer 4K format is, spatially, an even multiple of 1080p, I'm guessing that upscaled 4K software will likely be mastered from 1080p sources rather than (the slightly higher-resolution) 2K sources, being that the even multiple would probably make for a less "processed" image than would a more fractional upscale from 2K to the consumer 4K resolution.

Can anyone confirm if my expectation matches current and/or likely practice?

I'm fully sure they will use the biggest scans they have, unless they are lazy. I follow your logic, but upscaling from a 2K will ALWAYS look better than upscaling from a less, even source. It contains more information. You won't ever see a perfect straight line on a shot sequence, given it's distorted by the lens, and can't either be razor-sharp focused. A frame from a movie is not a pixel perfect environment.

I mean, if you compared an upscaled 4K credits frame from both sources, the best possible scenario, the only difference you would see is in detail, not in shape.. so 2K.

[StingingVelvet]

They'll do small tweaks like for Blade Runner, but they're never going to pay millions to remaster all CGI in a CGI heavy film. Even Disney wouldn't pay for that with Star Wars.

[Geoff D]

Bingo. CG still costs a lot of money to produce at 2K, never mind 4K/5.6K (for IMAX) etc. It would be prohibitively expensive to re-render hundreds if not thousands of shots @ 4K for the average modern day blockbuster, to say nothing of doing the CG completely from scratch for a movie where the original data can no longer be read e.g. Phantom Menace.

Personally I don't get the fascination with 4K CG. Yeah, I suppose people want something that does what it says in the tin - dat numbers game is strong - but until we step beyond the realms of 24p for 4K I just don't see the need for such high-res CG. When the temporal resolution of the source demands it then I think it'll happen because it'll have to, but until then...meh.

[StingingVelvet]

I'm surprised when I watch an older movie like Phantom Menace that the CGI is as crisp as it is. I don't think resolution is the problem, it's detail and number of polygons, which isn't about 2k versus 4k, more about old CGI versus new CGI. Unfortunately we can't go back in time and tell the director of Harry Potter 1 that CGI wasn't ready to do Harry riding on a troll's back yet.

[Geoff D]

That's pretty much the point Velvet, it's more than the sheer number of lines or polygons or whatever. And it's not just the CG element itself but how skilfully and artfully it's integrated into a shot which makes such a huge difference as to how the end product looks (lighting, compositing, grain reproduction etc). That's basically the reason why some of the 1K-ish CG in T2 or Jurassic Park still looks so incredibly good a quarter of a century later. Sure, some of it doesn't hold up but some shots still look photo real to me, and I say that without hyperbole.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's pretty much the point Velvet, it's more than the sheer number of lines or polygons or whatever. And it's not just the CG element itself but how skilfully and artfully it's integrated into a shot which makes such a huge difference as to how the end product looks (lighting, compositing, grain reproduction etc). That's basically the reason why some of the 1K-ish CG in T2 or Jurassic Park still looks so incredibly good a quarter of a century later. Sure, some of it doesn't hold up but some shots still look photo real to me, and I say that without hyperbole.

Indeed, agree 100%. It's not about resolution. How come the raptors in Jurassic Park hold up so damn well compared to CGI from even a few years ago? I watched Underworld Awakening last night and those CGI werewolves look terrible compared, almost 20 years later. It's all about talent, blending with practical effects and direction.

Someone said a while back too that before green screen and CGI backgrounds the CG artists had to work a lot harder to blend CG into real settings and I wonder if that really is a factor. When you're transitioning from a Stan Winston Raptor to a CG Raptor in a real, filmed kitchen set then you have to nail it or it never works at all.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Indeed, agree 100%. It's not about resolution. How come the raptors in Jurassic Park hold up so damn well compared to CGI from even a few years ago? I watched Underworld Awakening last night and those CGI werewolves look terrible compared, almost 20 years later. It's all about talent, blending with practical effects and direction.

Someone said a while back too that before green screen and CGI backgrounds the CG artists had to work a lot harder to blend CG into real settings and I wonder if that really is a factor. When you're transitioning from a Stan Winston Raptor to a CG Raptor in a real, filmed kitchen set then you have to nail it or it never works at all.

Yep, the mix of practical of CGI is why they don't date.
Winston is sorely missed

[Geoff D]

He is indeed.