4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by nmycon

Heres a comparison of Avatar

Huge leap between DVD and Blu-ray, small step between 1080 and 4K IMO

And Avatar is one of those films that will benefit from the most from a 4K release.

It's not only about pixels, a 1080p blu-ray has upto 50mbps bitrate, where as 2k has upto max bitrate of 250Mbps, and 4k has a max bitrate of 800Mbps, these of course are theatrical versions, so a true 2k will look way better than its 1080p counter part.

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by nmycon

Now say a film like Ghostbusters, the blu-ray looks very good, but it's far from being reference quality. There definitely wont be this big of a difference.

I have Ghostbusters and it's one of my favorite movies. I think it looks great on BD. In fact, it looks a bit too good that you can tell how lousy the special effects were at that time. Yes it's grainy, but that doesn't bother me. I'd rather a movie be grainy than be DNRed to death.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by Big A2

That "4K" image has a vertical resolution of 548. You've got some s'plaining to do. Was it cropped from a 4K picture?

Yup, cropped.

Originally Posted by MrHT

I have Ghostbusters and it's one of my favorite movies. I think it looks great on BD. In fact, it looks a bit too good that you can tell how lousy the special effects were at that time. Yes it's grainy, but that doesn't bother me. I'd rather a movie be grainy than be DNRed to death.

My point is not that the grain is bad, rather it is quite coarse. A film with finer grain will benefit much more from a 4K transfer than a film with very coarse grain.

Its like the equivalent of shooting outdoors with 100 ISO film or indoors with 6400 ISO film. If I wanted to take my pictures and use them for a poster or whatever, I would bump the lighting up indoors and try to get the ISO down to around 200 or so, because the 6400 film stock would not produce an image suitable for being enlarged past an 8 x 10 print.

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by nmycon

1080p is 2K isn't it? 1080p is 1920 x 1080, 4K is 3840 x 2160.

2K/4K is the horizontal measurement, when people say 720p or 1080p they are talking vertical. So in this case, the 4K image of Avatar would be 2160p

Yes, but it has very little compression, hense less compression artifacts, you can squeeze a 1080p video down to 4gig, but it will look like crap because of the compression artifacts. Think of it closer to lossless, but not true lossless.

[rblum199]

Originally Posted by nmycon

And Avatar is one of those films that will benefit from the most from a 4K release.

While that may be true, the problem is that it won't show as much improvement as you may think - it was shot at 1080p. Granted, the master is without a doubt much less compressed than the blu-ray version, assuming there is any compression at all, but that doesn't change the fact that it won't be a true test of how 4k will look.

And to the guy that said that Taxi Driver wouldn't look good in 4k - after they scanned it in and restored it for the blu-ray (all in 4k I might add - they didn't downgrade the quality until after that), they had a promotion where they showed copies of the 4k master at theaters throughout the United States, in 4k. Long story short, it not only looked good, it blew the already incredible looking blu-ray out of the water.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by rblum199

While that may be true, the problem is that it won't show as much improvement as you may think - it was shot at 1080p. Granted, the master is without a doubt much less compressed than the blu-ray version, assuming there is any compression at all, but that doesn't change the fact that it won't be a true test of how 4k will look.

And to the guy that said that Taxi Driver wouldn't look good in 4k - after they scanned it in and restored it for the blu-ray (all in 4k I might add - they didn't downgrade the quality until after that), they had a promotion where they showed copies of the 4k master at theaters throughout the United States, in 4k. Long story short, it not only looked good, it blew the already incredible looking blu-ray out of the water.

Avatar was digitally shot in 2k slightly above 1080p but well below 4k. Cameron wanted to shoot in digital 3D and in early 2007 when Avatar began shooting 2k was the highest digital 3D cameras went. Thankfully 4k digital 3D cameras now avalible and many 3D movies this year are shot with them they include The Hobbit movies, Prometheus, and The Amazing Spider-Man. You can always re-render the animation (it is the majority of the movie in Avatar's case) in 4k but the live action footage is stuck at 2k forever and can only be upconverted beyond that

Any 35mm film shot movie would benefit from the leap to 4k far more then Avatar would. Star Wars Revenge of the Sith looked gorgeous on Blu-Ray but it was shot in 1080p and thus re-releasing it in 4k would also be pointless. Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back on the other hand despite being 25 years older would benefit from a 4k release far more then the prequels would

[saprano]

Originally Posted by nmycon

Heres a comparison of Avatar

Huge leap between DVD and Blu-ray, small step between 1080 and 4K IMO

And Avatar is one of those films that will benefit from the most from a 4K release.

Now say a film like Ghostbusters, the blu-ray looks very good, but it's far from being reference quality. There definitely wont be this big of a difference.

Where did you get this comparing from?

The 4K is clearly better than the 1080p. But only in subtle areas like the hair and eyes. Its nowhere near the jump like DVD to bluray. As i've been saying all along in these two threads.

Edit- Oh. Im sure that 4K is uncompressed also is it not?

[Zot!]

Nobody's wife is going to let them buy an even bigger more expensive TV!

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by saprano

Where did you get this comparing from?

The 4K is clearly better than the 1080p. But only in subtle areas like the hair and eyes. Its nowhere near the jump like DVD to bluray. As i've been saying all along in these two threads.

Edit- Oh. Im sure that 4K is uncompressed also is it not?

The 4k version is an upconversion because everything in Avatar was shot and rendered in 2k

Gone with the Wind will benefit from 4k televisions more then Avatar will

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

The 4K is clearly better than the 1080p. But only in subtle areas like the hair and eyes. Its nowhere near the jump like DVD to bluray. As i've been saying all along in these two threads.

Zoomed and then upscaled to 4k.

Congratulations Sap, I knew you had it in you , for despite continuously demonstrating a difficult time in this thread of actually complementing the real-world home theater benefit of “native, native, native” 4k source as theoretically displayed on upcoming consumer 4k displays…

you just backed into expressing at least some value in the increased detail as shown on an up-scaled sample as viewed on peoples’ HD resolution monitors at home.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Zot!

Nobody's wife is going to let them buy an even bigger more expensive TV!

For some, that may indeed be a real-world hurdle.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

The 4k version is an upconversion because everything in Avatar was shot and rendered in 2k

Gone with the Wind will benefit from 4k televisions more then Avatar will

Jimmy, for the intents and purposes of this discussion (*value*), in essence, you are correct.

Just for the record, because of the IMAX release, a tiny handful of the fast-action shots were requested and thusly rendered at higher resolution, i.e. in this case at 3k. Namely, after the Fox logo, the opening shot fly-over and later on in the movie, the grand vista shots of flying thru the floating mountains.

All told, I think there were only about 6 shots done at 3k in this nearly 2hr. and 45min. motion picture.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Jimmy, for the intents and purposes of this discussion (*value*), in essence, you are correct.

Just for the record, because of the IMAX release, a tiny handful of the fast-action shots were requested and thusly rendered at higher resolution, i.e. in this case at 3k. Namely, after the Fox logo, the opening shot fly-over and later on in the movie, the grand vista shots of flying thru the floating mountains.

All told, I think there were only about 6 shots done at 3k in this nearly 2hr. and 45min. motion picture.

The live action is a bigger problem then the animation

It will always be possilbe to re-render the animation in 4k once 4k televisions become popular but the live action which was shot in 2k is stuck at that resolution now and forever other then upconversion

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Zot!

Nobody's wife is going to let them buy an even bigger more expensive TV!

Time to claim those trousers back men!

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by MrHT

I have Ghostbusters and it's one of my favorite movies. I think it looks great on BD. In fact, it looks a bit too good that you can tell how lousy the special effects were at that time. Yes it's grainy, but that doesn't bother me. I'd rather a movie be grainy than be DNRed to death.

which is odd, since the SFX shots were filmed in 65mm, yet the editing of the standard 35mm scenes for the final cut resulted in one throughly grainy looking film. I saw this in it's original 70mm release in the theaters and I don't remember the film looking THAT grainy as on the bluray edition.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

...but the live action which was shot in 2k is stuck at that resolution now and forever other then upconversion

I think that’s intuitive to most folks reading here , for even the pick-up shots which were captured with a newer generation digital camera (the Sony F23) are locked in at 1920 X 1080 rez.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I think that’s intuitive to most folks reading here , for even the pick-up shots which were captured with a newer generation digital camera (the Sony F23) are locked in at 1920 X 1080 rez.

That unfortunitly is true for alot of digitally shot movies of the last decade. They include

Star Wars 2 & 3
Apocalypto
The Curious Case of Benjiman Button
Sin City
And many many television series of the last decade

All were shot in 1080p digital cameras and all would be pointless to release in 4k as they can only be upconverted beyond 1080p. 1080p digitally shot movies usually look great on Blu-Ray but on a future 4k format films from the 30s would look better

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

That unfortunitly is true for alot of digitally shot movies of the last decade. They include

Star Wars 2 & 3
Apocalypto
The Curious Case of Benjiman Button
Sin City
And many many television series of the last decade

All were shot in 1080p digital cameras and all would be pointless to release in 4k as they can only be upconverted beyond 1080p. 1080p digitally shot movies usually look great on Blu-Ray but on a future 4k format films from the 30s would look better

Eh? No they wouldn't. Sure 35mm film may be capable of more than 1080 lines of detail, if it was scanned in, but no movie I've seen on Blu from the 30's (Gone with the Wind, M, and Stagecoach for example) looks anywhere near as good as recent movies, including those shot in 2k digital. You'd gain nothing by watching old movies in 4k except a bit more grain.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Zoomed and then upscaled to 4k.

Congratulations Sap, I knew you had it in you , for despite continuously demonstrating a difficult time in this thread of actually complementing the real-world home theater benefit of “native, native, native” 4k source as theoretically displayed on upcoming consumer 4k displays…

you just backed into expressing at least some value in the increased detail as shown on an up-scaled sample as viewed on peoples’ HD resolution monitors at home.

Haha. I had no intention of causing a difficult time. I knew there would be a difference. I just doubted the so called 480p to 1080p increase. And judging from those shots, the 4K definitely gives off a more refined and detailed image, but the 1080 is nothing to complain about. Step back a few feet from your monitor and tell me what you see?

(There i go again!)

But this is a good sign for upscaled content. Going by that 4K shot, our current blurays should look very good. Native even better.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by saprano

Where did you get this comparing from?

The 4K is clearly better than the 1080p. But only in subtle areas like the hair and eyes. Its nowhere near the jump like DVD to bluray. As i've been saying all along in these two threads.

Edit- Oh. Im sure that 4K is uncompressed also is it not?

For blue is the color that my baby wore, is true , yes it is is true. Blue is the worst color to evaluate sharpness 2

Originally Posted by saprano

Step back a few feet from your monitor and tell me what you see?

A small TV instead of a big movie-like screen?