4K Movies Releases

[Marcos1408]

I am very concern about movies with HDR. I mean, in a photography taken from a dslr is a great improvement, but in a movie, it will change the original look and the timming color of the films. I don't known, but it doesn't seem very appealing to me.
What you guys think?

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Launch a 4K format with only one title that has a 4K master, loving it!

I did not expect 6 out of 7 of the Fox launch titles to be upscales. I was expecting them to do a bit better for the launch of Ultra HD Blu-ray.

Originally Posted by reanimator

Do you guys not understand that High Dynamic Range and Wide Color Gamut are much more important visual improvements of UHD-BR than mere pixel count?

All of the titles announced by Fox today will look superior on UHD-BR, regardless of whether they had a 2K DI or not. I suspect many of these Fox UHD-BRs will actually look superior to the cinema file that played in most commercial movie theaters.

Hopefully that will be true though I do wonder how many of the directors involved in those movies are going to personally work on the HDR version of the movie and how that version will be made.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I also came to the same conclusion as reanimator did, that your primary irritation is that of what you see as misleading marketing (4K upscale rather than 4K native) for the announced Fox titles.

I am with Kris on this, the 6 Fox titles in question may look fantastic in some ways but they are still 2K and not UHD/4K as implied by the packaging.

Hopefully, we will have an easy reference as in, Real UHD/4K or Fake UHD/4K.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Kris, I am a little confused too but maybe I skimmed all your posts too quickly in an attempt to get out the office by 5 P.M. I also came to the same conclusion as reanimator did, that your primary irritation is that of what you see as misleading marketing (4K upscale rather than 4K native) for the announced Fox titles. Anyway, as the summer winds down and we approach Labor Day, a traditional Blue Crush YouTube posting is in order for Blu-ray.com

Blue Crush - Cruel Summer - YouTube

I guess it can be looked at in different ways. My beef is here we are right out of the gate marketing a product as 4K that isn't, and I think that will be the case with the majority of the content we'll see for quite sometime. I'm excited about what this format can bring and I have no doubt that even these titles will look fantastic, but I hate that we're already starting out by misleading the masses with the number one marketing bullet of the entire format.

[Geoff D]

Agreed Kris. But if the masses don't notice - all that shiny HDR will deflect their attention - then I guess it doesn't really matter as long as the format itself gains traction, and quickly.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

...but they are still 2K and not UHD/4K as implied by the packaging.

That's where you're wrong, Wendall. The Fox titles do meet the definition of UHD.

You guys seem to be implying that there's no difference between the Fox UHD discs and a normal BD version upscaled by a 4K television. That is factually incorrect.

All of the Fox titles have been re-graded in HDR and Wide Color Gamut, which together offer a greatly improved image that is not achievable by the regular blu ray.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

I am with Kris on this, the 6 Fox titles in question may look fantastic in some ways but they are still 2K and not UHD/4K as implied by the packaging.

Implied by packaging…..“Audio Video Science forum”. Last evening vis-à-vis PM, I was sent the url of this thread for my opinion -
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-com...distances.html

So, 43% of “scientists” believe it’s impossible to see UHD detail at HD distances despite the fact that vision science professionals (giving presentations at SMPTE/NAB gatherings) and hobbyists who own 4K/UHD displays (if they’ve watched enough high contrast (even just SDR) content on them that is) claim (correctly) that one can.

Should people that read ‘science’ forums be as upset that these days there is more pseudo science and speculation than true science present? Heck, one could make the argument that the uneducated consumer is more harmed by how much wasted time he spends wading thru pseudo science labeled ‘science’ than he would by unknowingly purchase a 4K up-resed Ultra HD Blu-ray as opposed to a native 4K product.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I guess it can be looked at in different ways. My beef is here we are right out of the gate marketing a product as 4K that isn't, and I think that will be the case with the majority of the content we'll see for quite sometime. I'm excited about what this format can bring and I have no doubt that even these titles will look fantastic, but I hate that we're already starting out by misleading the masses with the number one marketing bullet of the entire format.

It may seem a bitter pill to swallow for those in the know…..and expecting better (native 4K), but you are well aware how much time and money has already been invested in 4K/UHD slogans and advertising in order to sell products arising out of the next-gen ecosystem (sorry Dex). There is an element of pragmatism by the content creators involved in all this and over the course of time these two words (4K/UHD) have just sort of become synonymous.

However, in order to be completely transparent to Joe6Pack consumer with all the mastering pipeline information, I guess sometime in the future an asterisk could be added to the 4K part of the labeling (for upscales) but, if not, and anyone is that concerned over whether or not a motion picture is true 4K (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhls...utu.be&t=3m57s )
or up-resed 4K, they can always do their due diligence in researching it or simply pose the question on this thread. Heck, I’ll even tell folks what is a common popular tool (scale node) that post houses use to up-res 2K material.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by reanimator

"Remind me to stay out of the STAR WARS threads."

http://www.hdnumerique.com/actualite...ree-en-4k.html

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by reanimator

That's where you're wrong, Wendall. The Fox titles do meet the definition of UHD.

You guys seem to be implying that there's no difference between the Fox UHD discs and a normal BD version upscaled by a 4K television. That is factually incorrect.

All of the Fox titles have been re-graded in HDR and Wide Color Gamut, which together offer a greatly improved image that is not achievable by the regular blu ray.

Speaking for myself there's no such implication in my posts and I've FULLY acknowledged that they'll look better than the regular BD to one degree or another on TVs which can support such things as WCG and HDR, but what's annoying me is 2K upscaled content being specifically passed off as 4K. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp in this thread? And come on Penton, even you've joined in with the 'ho ho ho, that Samsung 4K HDD is full of upscaled movies' mickey taking in the past (you pointed out Life of Pi, for example) so I don't quite get why you're suddenly acting all mystified that people might actually be slightly miffed by it. Have the 4K secret police gotten to you too?

UHD is one thing - the name having been pushed so as not to exclusively focus on 4K-rez content - but when something has 4K in the title it's not unreasonable to expect that it's actually genuine 4K. And the underlying threat is that if the studios do a lot of this and it flies under the radar, then there's even less scope for true 4K in the future because they'll just upscale their entire 2K back catalogues and slap on an HDR regrade with scant regard for the original intent of the filmmakers.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And come on Penton, even you've joined in with the 'ho ho ho, that Samsung 4K HDD is full of upscaled movies' mickey taking in the past so I don't quite get why you're suddenly acting all mystified that people might actually be slightly miffed by it.

Because the ‘tech writers’ who flood the internet with their *wisdom* were clueless as to the pedigree of those movies which puts into the question the credibility of anything (other than simplistic) that they report on.

Someone had to point it out but now that physical media (Ultra HD Blu-ray) is launching and it already has so many hurdles to overcome the way it is (home theater not being what it used to be, competition from streaming, traditional Blu-ray collectors just wishing/hoping for the extended format to fail so as not to diminish the quality of their collections or even make them consider the idea of having to upgrade all their equipment again.) I figure it needs all the help it can get.

Be patient, you’ll be getting more native 4K UHD movies.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Have the 4K secret police gotten to you too?

hah, not a chance for they know, I know where all the skeletons are buried. I already primed you guys for this situation back in July….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...e#post11066214

Now please get to the Prem league thread quickly cause I need some advice and I've got to get out of here by 1 P.M.

[Geoff D]

Yep, and I replied then saying 4K upscaling can and does look sensational (I've been living with consumer-grade processing of consumer-grade video on my 4K TV for over 2 years and I'm regularly bowled over by it, never mind all that fancy Deluxe stuff) but I'm still sceptical that all outfits will be able to deliver such a transparent upscale when mooks like Lionsgate still can't deliver 1080p video without banding.

As with 3D conversion, if it's done right then the results are amazing, if not then it can be embarassingly bad and a stain on the format, one which lingers in consumer's minds. There are folks who to this day haven't touched a 3D conversion because it's against their principles; UHD BD can't afford to start alienating people in that manner IMO. In spite of that, if the benefits of the HDR aspect quickly overtake such concerns - i.e. HDR becomes The Next Big Thing™ that people want over and above 4K - then I'll be happy to hold my hands up and say I was wrong. But there are some crazy people out there...

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

"Examining the Effect of HDR
During one debate about whether there is a need to go beyond HD, it was suggested that a 4K display can offer the best possible HD pictures. However, actual comparison of the footage taken from a single ARRI Alexa camera and displayed on an HD HDR display and on a 4K display reveals that the HDR HD display provides apparently superior images."

https://www.smpte.org/publications/i...chubin-HPA2014

Did anyone read this Mark Schubin paper, which is based on real science? The least important element of UHD is spatial resolution and it requires more data per grade of improvement than HDR/HFR/WCG:

"Conclusion: 4K vs. Ultra HD?
After all the math is done, it is clear that the combination of higher resolution, HFR, and better pixels presents a significant challenge in terms of data rate. After all, 4K at 60 FPS currently uses 12G-SDI. While 4K seems to offer limited benefits under home viewing conditions, HFR, HDR, and WCG (along with immersive sound) yield benefits that extend into a wider (and more typical) range of viewing distances and environments. For the same degree of improvement, 4K data rates (pre- and post-compression) are eight times those of 720p or 1080i while the data rate increase for HFR is times two (or four if comparing to interlace), and the data rate increase for HDR and WCG is minimal.

Viewing tests seem to indicate that 4K offers the lowest perceptual improvement compared with HFR and HDR. It also seems to demand a higher frame rate, and it definitely requires the highest pre- and post-compression data rate. At 60 fps, 4K equipment currently uses 12G-SDI connections; at 120-fps, will it require 24G-SDI? If so, will it preclude higher frame rates? Those planning for the future should consider all aspects of UHD, not just static spatial resolution."

So, I say, save the data, since the increased resolution will not matter to most people. For marketing purposes, they should drop the 4K and just use UHD. The sooner the UHD Alliance defines this and sets standards, the better. That is still months away based on Hanno Basse's comments at IFA.

[Geoff D]

That's not a bad point either, ray. If there is a lack of widespread 100GB support at launch then there's no point cramming the 66GB discs with an upscale of 2K material (especially for something long-ish like Exodus) when they could put a fat 1080p P3 HDR encode on there instead and let the players or displays handle the upscaling.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

"Examining the Effect of HDR
During one debate about whether there is a need to go beyond HD, it was suggested that a 4K display can offer the best possible HD pictures. However, actual comparison of the footage taken from a single ARRI Alexa camera and displayed on an HD HDR display and on a 4K display reveals that the HDR HD display provides apparently superior images."

https://www.smpte.org/publications/i...chubin-HPA2014

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's not a bad point either, ray. If there is a lack of widespread 100GB support at launch then there's no point cramming the 66GB discs with an upscale of 2K material (especially for something long-ish like Exodus) when they could put a fat 1080p P3 HDR encode on there instead and let the players or displays handle the upscaling.

That recent Home Theater Geek video with Stacy Spears saying that we will see more BD HDR than we will UHD BR may not be far off the mark.

[Adrian Wright]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

For marketing purposes, they should drop the 4K and just use UHD. The sooner the UHD Alliance defines this and sets standards, the better. That is still months away based on Hanno Basse's comments at IFA.

One better, drop the whole Ultra HD Blu-ray moniker and just call it Blu-ray HDR. If the spatial resolution is not as effective, just market the whole thing based around WCG, HFR and, more importantly, HDR.

This will not happen though as I suspect there are more 4K capable TV sets WITHOUT HDR than with at this moment in time and that is one audience the studios maybe scared of alienating. The whole thing is a mess tbh and does not need the influence of a competing format like HD DVD this time to make this launch a disaster. Between the Consumer Electronics Companies, the BDA, the UHD Alliance and the Studios the whole thing is rapidly becoming a shambles all of their own doing.

[Geoff D]

Another good point Adrian. I mean, I was aware that the 4K name might now be too deeply ingrained in consumer's minds to just backtrack from, but such is my own distaste for this situation I kinda forgot that it's the user base who've got the early 4K sets who'll make up the bulk of the early UHD BD adopters by sheer weight of numbers. So if the studios start pushing all the other stuff (WCG, HDR) which those people can't use at the expense of the one thing they can readily identify with (4K) then it could all go sour very quickly. But the 4K label brings with it it's own pressures, e.g. providing actual 4K content for those people rather than 2K upscales with HDR which they can't take advantage of, in which case they might as well have just bought the regular Blu-ray anyway!

As you said, it's another fine mess the industry has gotten itself into.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Did anyone read this Mark Schubin paper, which is based on real science?
Viewing tests seem to indicate that 4K offers the lowest perceptual improvement...

Didn’t have to as some people here actually attend the annual HPA retreat regularly, for years, with their families, human as well as canine ( https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ez#post4164898 ) and pay attention to the presentations and have a fairly good memory, at least according to my colleagues who also give real science presentations.

If I recall correctly and given this current discussion, the most ironic thing is that of the viewing test to which Mark references (56-inch TVLogic monitor to be precise) is that it actually compared native 4K to upscaled 4K (from 1080p/50 and 720p/50) for its ‘value proposition’.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

Viewing tests seem to indicate that 4K offers the lowest perceptual improvement compared with HFR...

True, but in regards to the ‘value proposition’ for cinematic (movies) HFR, to which Ultra HD Blu-ray applies (motion pictures) see the hyperlink in #2…..

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

2. On a more serious note - Whether the motion picture industry is any more enthusiastic in creating HFR motion pictures now.....than since the time the first Hobbit movie was exhibited….for without a buy-in from the content creators and distributors, no matter how excited you or others are, you’ll get little content. A vote has already been taken and a paltry few raised their hands .

Pretty sure Mark was present and awake at the time of the vote ^ that day at HPA 2015. If he really wants to continually promote HFR for cinematic content then to be truly cutting edge, I’d suggest he play the artifact angle - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post11232824 in future presentations.