4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[eriaur]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Great cinematographer, but at the risk of invoking the wrath of one of his most ardent fans (mike), I get the sense that what is of paramount importance to Roger is to maintain his personal *look* or fingerprint on a motion picture. For example…

Moderator question “How important to you are high-dynamic-range technologies, which allow audiences to see blacker blacks and whiter whites?”

Deakins…”It's also about personality, isn't it? I mean, each one of you, I can watch your work and know it's you. It's about the eye behind the camera. It's not about the bloody technology (bolding mine); it's about the person behind it.”…. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...akins-5-751367

I think most cinephiles don’t care if they watch a film and automatically recognize from the get-go by looking at it that it was shot by Deakins, Beebe or Chivo (whose personal *style* in The Revenant Roger commented about here….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ahh...utu.be&t=3m28s

Maybe I’m getting entirely the wrong vibe, but I get the feeling that Roger is reluctant (unless prodded) to use capture resolution beyond ALEXA XT (or film acquisition DI-ed at 4K) or high dynamic range finishing because it doesn’t fit with his long established style. I think that a cinematographer can shoot at higher spatial rez and greater dynamic range and still get some/more value out it in terms of further immersing the audience into the story, beyond that of his traditional methods.

as long as it's featherweight

In your opinion, what are the upcoming trends and technological advances in cinematography ?

RD : Even if all I’ve been saying to you about my passion for Jean-Pierre Melville’s classicism might seem a bit old-fashioned, in fact, I am someone who is very interested in technology and its future developments ! In my opinion, the major breakthrough that I see coming to sets has to do with the miniaturization of cameras, of gyro-stabilized equipment, and the sophistication of drones… I think that, when you see a film like Birdman, you’ve got the proof that a new way of shooting movies is coming.
Of course, all movies don’t need such complicated setups, but it’s in that direction that I think things are going to evolve, a bit like what the Steadicam brought to the cinema in the early 1970s. Whatever the case may be, I am going to make a confession : I am very thankful for the arrival of featherweight digital cameras, because at my age, I would have been forced into retirement if I had had to continue working with an Ari 535 on my shoulder !

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The upscaling will be "much, much better", eh? I can't wait to put that to the test, seeing as the upscaling is exceptional on my set. And "higher bitrate" would actually mean something if we were talking about the same compression codec as Blu-ray. But we're not, so such comparisons are meaningless.

WCG and HDR will be the real x factors when comparing a pro 2K -> UHD upscale to the regular Blu, and seeing as I can't use either of those things on my 4K TV I'll be in a better position than most to see if the upscaling in and of itself is "much, much better".

I can understand if someone says I don't care about the difference, why would I buy it again. But on a purely technical basis, that should be true. You are forgetting some major differences that should make a difference.

1) your player starts off with a very compressed BD image (and if you are watching streaming or DVD it is even worst) the studio starts off from the master that has not lost all that detail. Even if the upscale capabilities between the two devices are 100% the same the results should be better.

2) (not as big a deal) but since the studio starts off with 2K instead of 1080p they are starting off with a bit more precision.

3) UHD has higher bitrate, that means less compression then BD (add a newer codec that is supposedly better and so that difference is amplified)

[Geoff D]

The 2K thing doesn't amount to a hill of beans when the end result will still have to be downscaled from 4K to UHD, thus losing some of that "precision".

Bottom line is that HD into UHD is a far more mathematically linear process than anyone dares to believe, and while there ARE pro upscaling nodes out there that will do a better job than the real time processes inside the TV the improvement is marginal IMO, especially once the uncompressed source upscale which everyone keeps mentioning is compressed back down again for consumer usage.

Sure, some may well end up looking markedly better but I think that'll come down to a pre-filtered Blu-ray (esp. if something's been scaled to 1080p rather than cropped from 2K, or is an older transfer/encode in general) rather than the pro upscaling *itself* magically unleashing a hitherto unseen torrent of detail - because that just doesn't happen on the UHD upscales I've seen.

For me there isn't a blanket assumption at work here, it'll vary from movie to movie as to how much better the pro upscale will be compared to the original Blu upscaled on the fly, though the introduction of WCG/HDR will muddy those waters and will probably prove very difficult to get a pro opinion on what the upscale is like on its own. Not that that will bother anyone else here but myself.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

This is however interesting.
http://www.artofvfx.com/the-hobbit-a...-weta-digital/

I also find interesting, personal communications about the conformed DI between myself and filmmakers involved in the project, esp. when they affirm a prediction I’d made long before the movie was exhibited regarding some degree of motion estimation in the 48fps -> 24fps convert of some shots…...https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ng#post7542631

We good now…with the multi-quote thing?

[Geoff D]

Ah, the use of motion estimation is another reason why the 24p version still looks a little hinky in terms of movement w/regards to the SOE thread: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post11805010

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

We good now…with the multi-quote thing?

Of course, no worries. I just wanted to make note, nothing more. And I don't want to act like a moderator. Multi-quoting is less annoying, than quoting a ton of images, like some people do. No no no no, not you.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I can understand if someone says I don't care about the difference, why would I buy it again. But on a purely technical basis, that should be true. You are forgetting some major differences that should make a difference.

1) your player starts off with a very compressed BD image (and if you are watching streaming or DVD it is even worst) the studio starts off from the master that has not lost all that detail. Even if the upscale capabilities between the two devices are 100% the same the results should be better.

2) (not as big a deal) but since the studio starts off with 2K instead of 1080p they are starting off with a bit more precision.

3) UHD has higher bitrate, that means less compression then BD (add a newer codec that is supposedly better and so that difference is amplified)

We need 0 video compression.

It's only 2-3GB/s data.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ah, the use of motion estimation is another reason why the 24p version still looks a little hinky in terms of movement w/regards to the SOE thread: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post11805010

No offense to kashif as I believe he intended no malice in starting that thread, but I skipped his entire thread after reading the title. Too funny the coincidence though as nearly 2 hours after I type this post about The Hobbit, now quickly skimming that thread after reading your contribution, I see more references to the Hobbit movies than I’ve noticed in a long time <- I’m pretty sure I did the math correctly.

The slight motion estimation post processing employed on The Hobbit as mentioned to me in personal correspondence by one of the filmmakers back-in-the-day actually made the imagery look a little better than strictly only dropping every other frame in going from 48 -> 24fps for the 24fps deliverables.

As far as that SOE thread you linked and the degree of motion interpolation referred to therein, in regards to movies and creative intent, as I posted a few pages back in the 4K Movies Releases thread, many filmmakers have come forward to support the petition started by Reed Morano and signed by such cinematographers as Claudio….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...o#post11691918

I sympathize with Spike’s frustration with thee entire situation. Thee only positive thing I can personally say about consumer TV motion interpolation setting and movie content (24 fps with a 180 degree shutter), is that if one doesn’t mind the SOE look, but, on the other hand, is highly sensitive to strobing, is that one of the most problematic grading artifacts of HDR is that it highlights strobe, quite severe with fast action, in fact. So I guess the TV manufacturer motion interpolation setting does have some redeeming grace to a very select set of observers….not that interested in creative intent.

[Geoff D]

Bah. SOE is but one of many, many, many things that are left on by default on TVs nowadays, all of which are fudging with dat original intent something chronic so it's just another brick in the wall. And I make no apologies for using motion interpolation on certain content either.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Bah....

I did enjoy reading your post telling it the way it is here

[Brightstar]

will Iron Man 3 come out in UHD blu ray ?

[m3racer123]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

will Iron Man 3 come out in UHD blu ray ?

Disney haven't announced any titles yet.

[Ben_R]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

will Iron Man 3 come out in UHD blu ray ?

It's got a 2.8k source and 2k DI, what is the point?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Ben_R

It's got a 2.8k source and 2k DI, what is the point?

Greater dynamic range, compression characteristics, professional upscaling, a touch more spatial resolution and that all-important new disc smell.

[m3racer123]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Greater dynamic range, compression characteristics, professional upscaling, a touch more spatial resolution and that all-important new disc smell.

Plus you're financially supporting the makers of this incredible film!

EDIT: Oh shit, I was switching between this and the Mad Max: Fury Road UHD threads. You can work out the rest...

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by m3racer123

Plus you're financially supporting the makers of this incredible film!

I spit out my water laughing when I read this.

[cybergrimes]

We should probably start an Indiegogo fund for the makers of Iron Man. They need the financial support.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by cybergrimes

We should probably start an Indiegogo fund for the makers of Iron Man. They need the financial support.

$1,215,439,994 is barely enough to pay Downey Jr

[Derb]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

$1,215,439,994 is barely enough to pay Downey Jr

& 61 cents.

[m3racer123]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

I spit out my water laughing when I read this.

Apologies, have you seen my edit? I was switching between this and the Mad Max: Fury Road thread and thought we were talking about Mad Max!

I'm very tired, and ill. Ugh...

It's kinda funny though