4K Movies Releases

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by sumawo13

I'm less concerned about resolution and more concerned about bit-rate. Modern transfers have a sharpness and clarity that is unmatched, unfortunately the low bit-rate of standard Blu-ray Disc doesn't allow the full quality to shine through. Not that I'm against scanning film at higher resolutions, I truly believe all films should receive a modern 4k transfer. But for grainy sources, such as The Wizard of Oz or Saving Private Ryan, the low mid-20s bit-rate just doesn't give enough bits to high frequencies where the fine grain structure lies.

Thats absurd

A higher bitrate leads to better picture with less work for sure but a higher bitrate does not always lead to a better picture. Oftentimes its a meaningless statistic. Often times low bit rate transfers have outshined high bitrate ones.

[sumawo13]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Thats absurd

A higher bitrate leads to better picture with less work for sure but a higher bitrate does not always lead to a better picture. Oftentimes its a meaningless statistic. Often times low bit rate transfers have outshined high bitrate ones.

Perhaps a brand new film shot on digital cameras would look better at a lower bit-rate than a film shot on film cameras where there is an apparent grain structure that requires a higher bit-rate to represent, but I've never encountered a situation where less bit-rate looked better than more bit-rate on the same transfer.

[punisher]

just saw THE DESCENDENTS and it said it was 4k during the opening logos..looked damn good but without seeing it on another setup, who's to say it wouldn't look just as good considering the great cinematography of Hawaii

very depressing move with some humor added

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by punisher

just saw THE DESCENDENTS and it said it was 4k during the opening logos..looked damn good but without seeing it on another setup, who's to say it wouldn't look just as good considering the great cinematography of Hawaii

very depressing move with some humor added

was it this logo?



if it was, that just means that the projector in the theater is a Sony 4K unit.

[dickdarlington]

Originally Posted by punisher

just saw THE DESCENDENTS and it said it was 4k during the opening logos..looked damn good but without seeing it on another setup, who's to say it wouldn't look just as good considering the great cinematography of Hawaii

Was it a Regal cinema? All of Regal's pre-show advertisements advertise 4K Digital Cinema at the end of them. The reason Regal advertises that is due to Sony's large deal with them where all of their current projectors will be replaced with CineAlta 4K projectors by 2013/2014. However, only a rare amount of films per year are actually released in 4K.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by sumawo13

Perhaps a brand new film shot on digital cameras would look better at a lower bit-rate than a film shot on film cameras where there is an apparent grain structure that requires a higher bit-rate to represent, but I've never encountered a situation where less bit-rate looked better than more bit-rate on the same transfer.

Compare the Blu-Ray of Troy with the first edition of Gladiator

Gladiator had nearly twice the bitrate of Troy but looked worse despite both being shot on film

Its true that digital productions require a far lower bitrate then films do but even film can be successfully compressed at lower bitrates without compromising quality. Oftentimes a higher bitrate doesn't equal better quality but simply because its cheaper then a better compression job would have cots. For example Avatar 3D had a 25% lower bitrate then the previous 2D only disc in order to fit the movie on the single BD-50 but it matched the 2D version in all quality aspects.

Im not saying a higher bitrate is a bad thing but the notion that higher bitrates always lead to better quality is a simplistic and false worldview

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by dickdarlington

Was it a Regal cinema? All of Regal's pre-show advertisements advertise 4K Digital Cinema at the end of them. The reason Regal advertises that is due to Sony's large deal with them where all of their current projectors will be replaced with CineAlta 4K projectors by 2013/2014. However, only a rare amount of films per year are actually released in 4K.

you do know that Sony and CineAlta are one and the same:

CineAlta is a brand name used by Sony to describe various products involved in content creation, production and exhibition process within digital cinema workflow. Now Sony's products branded by CineAlta include camera, camcorder, recorder, cinema server and projector.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Thats absurd

A higher bitrate leads to better picture with less work for sure but a higher bitrate does not always lead to a better picture. Oftentimes its a meaningless statistic. Often times low bit rate transfers have outshined high bitrate ones.

Come on man you know better than that. Until there is lossless video higher BW will mean you can have a better result. You have spent too much time listening to HD-DVD and DL fanboys making excuses for why BW does not matter.

Compare the Blu-Ray of Troy with the first edition of Gladiator

Gladiator had nearly twice the bitrate of Troy but looked worse despite both being shot on film

Are you seriously using a production mistake in order to make your case? What next, bad acting or bad writing? Obviously there is more than visual detail that is important to film but when one is discussing resolution or compression that is what is being discussed.

The reality is simple. With lossy compression ( and the video we get is lossy) the more that something is compressed the more detail is lost since that is exactly what losssy means. Anything else sounds just as ridiculous as saying there is no difference between having 1M$ and 10$ in ones name. After all if someone wants to buy a chocolate bar and it is only 1$ it does not matter if you have 10$ or 1M$. But once we decide to stop making excuses one realizes you can buy a lot more stuff with 1m$.

Im not saying a higher bitrate is a bad thing but the notion that higher bitrates always lead to better quality is a simplistic and false worldview

But you miss the obvious, it is not that higher bitrate is a bad thing but that you can always have something better with higher bitrate.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by punisher

just saw THE DESCENDENTS and it said it was 4k during the opening logos..looked damn good but without seeing it on another setup, who's to say it wouldn't look just as good considering the great cinematography of Hawaii

very depressing move with some humor added

The descendants was shot at 2K.

[superapplekid]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

There will never be 4k content on Blu-Ray. No Blu-Ray player can display 4k content and even if they could it would require 4x more disk capacity that Blu-Ray players can't read

Therefore if 4k content were to come to market it would essentially be a new format not Blu-Ray

I don't expect to ever see a 4k format either. I expect 4k home media to come via download only unfortunitly

You seem to be in all the 4K forums preaching this. You have to accept you are wrong on this and move on.

Blu-ray is defined, both formally and in name, by the wavelength of the laser used to read the disc. CDs and DVDs used red. Blue, having a shorter wavelength, allows for more dense storage of information per layer. The number of layers or sides that data is written on or codec used to store video do not define blu-ray.

Changing specs like adding layers, possibly preventing the discs from being compatible with older players, does not mean the discs aren't blu-rays. If this were true the various DVD+R whatevers wouldn't be DVDs. Furthermore, when researchers add layers the discs are still referred to as blu-ray discs. The 4k format may ultimately be named UltraHD, but it will still be physically on a blu-ray disc.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by superapplekid

You seem to be in all the 4K forums preaching this. You have to accept you are wrong on this and move on.

Blu-ray is defined, both formally and in name, by the wavelength of the laser used to read the disc. CDs and DVDs used red. Blue, having a shorter wavelength, allows for more dense storage of information per layer. The number of layers or sides that data is written on or codec used to store video do not define blu-ray.

Changing specs like adding layers, possibly preventing the discs from being compatible with older players, does not mean the discs aren't blu-rays. If this were true the various DVD+R whatevers wouldn't be DVDs. Furthermore, when researchers add layers the discs are still referred to as blu-ray discs. The 4k format may ultimately be named UltraHD, but it will still be physically on a blu-ray disc.

sorry to nit pick since I mostly agree, but CD was infrared (780 nm wavelength) that is why DVD (650 nm) could hold a lot more data (it having a data layer that was at .6mm instead of 1.2mm helped as well) and Blu-ray is (408 nm) which actually makes it violet.

also formats have several specs. Like you said a BD disk is "blue" laser but the data layer is also at .1mm from the surface, that is the difference between BD and HD-DVD that had a .6mm datalayer like DVD. And those are disk specs/ physical media. You also have the software specs for rom disks which is why I can buy a BD and watch it on any player, while a BD data disk might not play. The issue is not that there are no specs beyond "blue laser" but that new profiles can be added in both the HW and SW parts of the format, we saw it with BDXL so now there is a 120GB BD disks and in 3D. The thing is that such changes do change the format, but in the end if they are small enough there is no need to change the name

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Come on man you know better than that. Until there is lossless video higher BW will mean you can have a better result.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but higher bit rate only matters if there's something to fill those bits. It's very possible, depending upon the movie, that low bit rate can capture everything that's there. Cartoons, for example, which have large blocks of solid color, can compress down to almost nothing without losing any PQ.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sumawo13

I'm less concerned about resolution and more concerned about bit-rate. Modern transfers have a sharpness and clarity that is unmatched, unfortunately the low bit-rate of standard Blu-ray Disc doesn't allow the full quality to shine through. Not that I'm against scanning film at higher resolutions, I truly believe all films should receive a modern 4k transfer. But for grainy sources, such as The Wizard of Oz or Saving Private Ryan, the low mid-20s bit-rate just doesn't give enough bits to high frequencies where the fine grain structure lies.

Grain is not particularly challenging for AVC at average bitrates in the mid-20’s with modern day tools. I wouldn’t worry about it. What truly stresses a codec with a lot of completely random input data are things such as confetti, or a waterfall (like in Last of the Mohicans), or leaves on trees bouncing in the wind.

With live-action, getting below the 20 average bitrate mark is where you tend to get into trouble, as history has shown with some content providers that in so doing, it has encouraged at least one studio to use *generous* deblocking filter settings (which causes un-sharpness, i.e. fuzzy images) or excessive DNR in order to lower the data load as compensation.

The greatest sharpness penalty people are experiencing with some modern Blu-ray transfers is not due to currently typical Blu-ray average bitrates; but rather, because of 2k -> HD (4:2:0) rescaling from films scanned at 2k or those that went through a 2k D.I. in the original post.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but higher bit rate only matters if there's something to fill those bits. It's very possible, depending upon the movie, that low bit rate can capture everything that's there. Cartoons, for example, which have large blocks of solid color, can compress down to almost nothing without losing any PQ.

why would you assume sarcasm. It is a tautology. If, like you say there is is nothing to fill those bits" then the compression is lossless. But most importantly we do not have lossless compression now. That means that there most definitely is something to fill those missing bits and we don't get it. Yes we can come up with extreme examples to try and make excuses for lower BW and why higher BW does not matter but like I said before that is like saying there is no difference between having 1M$ or 10$ because with either of them you can buy a 1$ chocolate bar, sooner or later you might want to buy a new release and 10$ is not enough, replace an electronic device, put gas in the car, even possibly a good meal (and let's face it even with a chocolate bar what happens the next time you are hungry or the time after that.... Yes there could be scenes in some films where the BR is adequate to pass all the info, but a format is not built on those few exceptions and when you watch a film it is not the detail that is there that define it as good or bad but the detail that is missing.

How hard is it to understand that until there is lossless video higher BW will mean you can have a better result

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by superapplekid

You seem to be in all the 4K forums preaching this. You have to accept you are wrong on this and move on.

Blu-ray is defined, both formally and in name, by the wavelength of the laser used to read the disc. CDs and DVDs used red. Blue, having a shorter wavelength, allows for more dense storage of information per layer. The number of layers or sides that data is written on or codec used to store video do not define blu-ray.

Changing specs like adding layers, possibly preventing the discs from being compatible with older players, does not mean the discs aren't blu-rays. If this were true the various DVD+R whatevers wouldn't be DVDs. Furthermore, when researchers add layers the discs are still referred to as blu-ray discs. The 4k format may ultimately be named UltraHD, but it will still be physically on a blu-ray disc.

Believe me I would love a 4k disc format and would love if 4k disc/Blu-Ray combo packs started coming out to future proof all my purchases. But from what I read most of the industry seems to be moving to download and I don't see any progress on 4k discs. At the very least I definutely would expect them later then 2013.

All Im really saying on capacity issues is that the 50 gigabytes most Blu-Ray players in the world are limited too is insufficient for 4k video no matter what new codec is invented for more efficient compression and thus larger capacity discs are a nessesity. How they are delievered whether it by with multi layered Blu-Ray discs are new laser diodes or whatever is still up in the air as of this point

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Believe me I would love a 4k disc format and would love if 4k disc/Blu-Ray combo packs started coming out to future proof all my purchases. But from what I read most of the industry seems to be moving to download and I don't see any progress on 4k discs. At the very least I definutely would expect them later then 2013.

All Im really saying on capacity issues is that the 50 gigabytes most Blu-Ray players in the world are limited too is insufficient for 4k video no matter what new codec is invented for more efficient compression and thus larger capacity discs are a nessesity. How they are delievered whether it by with multi layered Blu-Ray discs are new laser diodes or whatever is still up in the air as of this point

Which is why 4k is so important. As long as sensible people want to watch in the highest quality, there will be a need for a progressive technology. A little faith is required Jimmy.

[mmore]

thats nice. I have gone through around this.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Which is why 4k is so important. As long as sensible people want to watch in the highest quality, there will be a need for a progressive technology. A little faith is required Jimmy.

but the lacklustre release of theatrical releases in 4K is slow to extremely sluggish - DLP really needs to step up the plate and release content as such. Theaters have the systems in place, but the product is nearly non-existent.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

but the lacklustre release of theatrical releases in 4K is slow to extremely sluggish - DLP really needs to step up the plate and release content as such. Theaters have the systems in place, but the product is nearly non-existent.

It doesn't help when new releases are still being shot at 2K. Sony is probably the only studio that has 4K releases as standard now( i think). If we're to prepar for 4K someone needs to tell hollywood to start now. Its only going to be harder, and take longer, to transition to 4KBD when theres no real 4K content to watch. Forget all these fake upscaling techniques.

Native, native, native, native, native, native.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by saprano

It doesn't help when new releases are still being shot at 2K. Sony is probably the only studio that has 4K releases as standard now( i think). If we're to prepar for 4K someone needs to tell hollywood to start now. Its only going to be harder, and take longer, to transition to 4KBD when theres no real 4K content to watch. Forget all these fake upscaling techniques.

Native, native, native, native, native, native.

All movies shot on 35mm film are shot in 4k and we have that for nearly a hundred years

In terms of digitally shot movies its only been recently that shooting digitally in 4k was an option. The Amazing Spider-Man, The Hobbit, and Promethus are all shot in 3D 4k. I hope that people see how amazing these movies look and shooting with such cameras will be standard