4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

Considering how much the CE companies have promoted 4K resolution my guess is that most 2K movie titles will be upscaled to 4K resolution. It may just be wasting bits but upscaling video is easy to do and the studios will feel compelled to have "higher resolution" listed on the back of the box in order to maximize sales.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

That's what I'm thinking too. They're unscrupulous.

If a movie filmed in 2K can benefit from UHD Blu-ray (due to the other improvements other than resolution) then I am all for a UHD Blu-ray release. I don't care if it is presented in its native resolution or upscaled but if upscaling causes more people to buy the UHD Blu-ray (because they can't look past the resolution) then that's exactly what the studios should do.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by reanimator

I don't doubt that will happen eventually. Even with regular BD we've seen that many titles were simply repurposed HD masters created for DVD.

But in the early-going of UHD-BD I think we'll see a lot of true 4K/UHD content in an effort to sell the format. Which is why I think you'll see many of these 'mastered in 4K' titles released first.

Exactly, companies are already striking new masters.

4k games console revisions on the way?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=984215

[kristoffer]

It seems crazy that the new format does not have 48fps support with The Hobbit trilogy and Avatar 2 being shot in the format.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

It seems crazy that the new format does not have 48fps support with The Hobbit trilogy and Avatar 2 being shot in the format.

It does seem to be a silly omission. But it all depends whether HDMI, or the kit it is attached to can accept this frame rate!

[BozQ]

I think if the format wanted to, it could. But the compatibility don't just end with the disc. The TV has to be capable of displaying 48hz (or 96hz) to get HFR to work.

[Geoff D]

So not worth it for 3 movies.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So not worth it for 3 movies.

They could always do the old PAL trick and speed it up to 50 Hz (4% speed up). I believe that 50 Hz is a supported frame rate. That way there would be no judder, but the film would run just a little faster and the audio would be a little higher in tone.

Not ideal, but we in 50 Hz. territories are used to this compromise.

[Geoff D]

50hz support isn't mandatory for UHD BD though (or indeed US/JP TVs), it's still for designated territories only so I can't see it being released in a manner which would exclude 60Hz countries, chief among them the Yoo-nited States.

Besides, one thing which keeps getting missed out in this discussion is that this implementation of 48fps was intended to support the 3D presentation first and foremost. Producing a 2D version of it - because 3D is NOT part of the UHD BD spec - seems kinda pointless to me. I might as well just turn on the interpolation on my TV which, incidentally, works brilliantly with the 2D Hobbit Blu-rays...

[BozQ]

Hopefully when it's time to introduce 3D into UHD BD, this HFR is included.
Otherwise, our next hope would be to wait for James Cameron and his Avatar sequels. Only someone like him would have the reputation to push the industry to have a major change in home media.

[Neomic]

I've noticed a few people asking if movies will sound better on UHD-BD. The answer is a bit of a mixed bag; yes and no.

Blu-ray uses lossless audio, which means it's a duplicate of the studio's master file. You can't really make it sound better. The only thing they could do is possibly remix the audio tracks for certain movies with more channels (7.1, 11.1, etc) or depending on what quality the sources were recorded at, re-render the audio in a higher resolution (96kHz, 192kHz). But re-rendering is only viable if you've recorded the audio for that film in that resolution. You won't have any benefit to a 96kHz soundtrack if the audio was recorded at 48. It would just be muted high frequencies.

Usually, at least now days, the score is recorded in 96kHz, mastered at 48kHz, and then all the sound effects and foley sounds are usually recorded at 48kHz. This is why most movies are rendered in 48/24, it's the "sweet spot" because very few source elements for movies go higher than that. To me, it would sound pretty off if an audio track was 96kHz or 192kHz, and only the music had that fidelity. Would make the rest of the movie sound dull in comparison.

I've also seen many instances where the soundtrack in a film will have tracks in 44.1kHz or even 32kHz, and they'll just use EQs to make the tracks blend better with the audio. One example off the top of my head is "Entertainment" by Phoenix, used at the end of Now You See Me; it was 44.1kHz, everything above that was empty. I know this because I ripped the audio from the Blu-ray I borrowed from a friend since the CD is mastered pretty awful (loudness wars, ftw).

So it really depends on the movie. Lossless is lossless, but if the studio has access to higher resolution audio files, and wants to sanction a remix in higher resolution, then yeah.

[GenPion]

The audio won't be dramatically different. I imagine (or at least hope) that studios who issued certain films on Blu-ray with 16 bit audio (possibly because of space limitations) would consider re-releasing the films with upgraded 4K resolution as well as updated specs to 24 bit. Obviously, if said film was already given a 24 bit treatment on Blu-ray it wouldn't be that different aside from the possibility of more channels if re-mixed that way for the new formats. Though I don't think that will take off as well for home media as some seem to think. A lot of home theaters still have 5.1 (like myself) and are not 6.1 or 7.1 equipped yet. Jumping up to a lot more channels will have a very limited audience.

I would like to upgrade to 7.1 eventually but am skeptical about the new formats allotment of discrete channels, especially given that almost no films made to date will use that technology. Most movie theaters are not even equipped for more than 7.1. I think it will remain a specialty item for certain enthusiasts and for the more elite theaters equipped for the new sound systems.

Neomic, I think I would personally like it is it was done with 96khz sampling for the score, even if the sound effects wouldn't benefit anywhere near as much from the upsampling.... if native score mixing was done that way I would be thrilled.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

If a movie filmed in 2K can benefit from UHD Blu-ray (due to the other improvements other than resolution) then I am all for a UHD Blu-ray release. I don't care if it is presented in its native resolution or upscaled but if upscaling causes more people to buy the UHD Blu-ray (because they can't look past the resolution) then that's exactly what the studios should do.

I expect most 4K releases will be of 4K or higher content, but for the 2K titles that do come out on 4K Blu-ray (UHD Blu-ray, technically -- which is probably part of the reason for the name chosen) would still have some benefit with the added color depth and higher bit-rates/new encoding system.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by GenPion

The audio won't be dramatically different. I imagine (or at least hope) that studios who issued certain films on Blu-ray with 16 bit audio (possibly because of space limitations) would consider re-releasing the films with upgraded 4K resolution as well as updated specs to 24 bit. Obviously, if said film was already given a 24 bit treatment on Blu-ray it wouldn't be that different aside from the possibility of more channels if re-mixed that way for the new formats. Though I don't think that will take off as well for home media as some seem to think. A lot of home theaters still have 5.1 (like myself) and are not 6.1 or 7.1 equipped yet. Jumping up to a lot more channels will have a very limited audience.

I would like to upgrade to 7.1 eventually but am skeptical about the new formats allotment of discrete channels, especially given that almost no films made to date will use that technology. Most movie theaters are not even equipped for more than 7.1. I think it will remain a specialty item for certain enthusiasts and for the more elite theaters equipped for the new sound systems.

Neomic, I think I would personally like it is it was done with 96khz sampling for the score, even if the sound effects wouldn't benefit anywhere near as much from the upsampling.... if native score mixing was done that way I would be thrilled.

The large audio post houses are moving to object based mixing at the dubbing stage level, and at a fairly fast pace (much faster than the transition to lossy Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 encoding in the 90's). One reason, besides much better sound localization within a given 3D space, is that they will only have to do ONE master mix with a bunch of speaker outputs (in Dolby Atmos or DTS MDA aka DTS: X) and then have the software automatically do a fold-down for any other format (7.1, 5.1, 2.0, etc.). Saves major time and money.

At some point in the near future Atmos or "X" will be as ubiquitous on home video as Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio lossless compression is now for strictly channel based PCM soundtracks.

We're just at the beginning of an audio renaissance, so even if there aren't a lot of discs with discrete Atmos or X encoded tracks right now, the new upscalers are quite good at taking a regular track and expanding it to 3D audio speaker positions for the time being.

[GenPion]

I have no doubt there will be an increase in the number of titles released with Dolby Atmos or DTS X but I just don't see a huge number of films even being produced that way or for many consumers to ever hear the full difference in terms of channels. I think it will be a even more niche thing than UHD (which hopefully will become much more mainstream over time). Sure, a higher portion of Hollywood Blockbusters will use it, because Dolby and DTS are pushing it and select theaters will be equipped for it. However, that doesn't mean it will take off with a lot of previous films, at least IMO.

I obviously haven't heard the new upscalers or have a sound system setup to hear those benefits, so I'm not sure what to think of that. Maybe eventually I will get to.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by GenPion

I have no doubt there will be an increase in the number of titles released with Dolby Atmos or DTS X but I just don't see a huge number of films even being produced that way or for many consumers to ever hear the full difference in terms of channels. I think it will be a even more niche thing than UHD (which hopefully will become much more mainstream over time). Sure, a higher portion of Hollywood Blockbusters will use it, because Dolby and DTS are pushing it and select theaters will be equipped for it. However, that doesn't mean it will take off with a lot of previous films, at least IMO.

I obviously haven't heard the new upscalers or have a sound system setup to hear those benefits, so I'm not sure what to think of that. Maybe eventually I will get to.

Having been to CEDIA last year, I can tell you that 3D audio, when mixed correctly (just like any other soundtrack- quality is king), is well worth the effort. It's far more multidimensional.

Even if the object tracks aren't released theatrically, they can be placed on a disc. A few Blu-ray's with Atmos encoding were mixes not sent to cinemas in a DCP packet, but ready to go from the original dubbing sessions.

That's the great thing about the industry moving to object mixing anyway irrespective of the small amount of theaters with 3D audio installations. It's good for all sorts of things.

[KubrickKurasawa]

It's a bummer waiting for 4K discs/players and Atmos discs...I'm glad there's news and it looks like the next gen, but it looks extremely expensive. It also looks less than laid down with 3D, Atmos, HDMI/HDCP spec.

Just wait but I hope it's all sorted out soon. Because those kinds of things are very annoying. 4k and Atmos will be for the hardcore imho. I'll probably ride out my setup at least 2 years...which is a bummer.

[Geoff D]

Whew. Tough crowd: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257063

[AK65]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Whew. Tough crowd: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257063

It's hard to know how good HDR and wider color gamut are if people haven't seen it.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Whew. Tough crowd: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=257063

It's the popular answer right now. I'm sure they all will soon enough.

[Nightopian]

Originally Posted by GenPion

I have no doubt there will be an increase in the number of titles released with Dolby Atmos or DTS X but I just don't see a huge number of films even being produced that way or for many consumers to ever hear the full difference in terms of channels. I think it will be a even more niche thing than UHD (which hopefully will become much more mainstream over time).

I think if it's a niche thing it will make it that much for enjoyable.