4K Movies Releases

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

...And streaming at 2.5MB? Heh.

Before anyone’s mind is blown, just keep in mind that 2.5MB/s is like 20 mbps (not 2.5 mbps), which, in magnitude, is quite in line with what the French are getting for HEVC (i.e. 16.5 mbps for bitrate identical (to H.264/AVC) PSNR)
http://ateme.com/IMG/pdf/4k_delivery...er_-_ateme.pdf

I can see that RED codec working superbly for home theater, even those folks with front projection screens, but my understanding after reading the advertisement is that the RED team is claiming that their codec (at this rate, I think) will also show stellar 4K imagery at theatrical venues, i.e. really BIG screens.

Interesting and quite impressive if that pans out.

[Penton-Man]

Still no official confirmation as to the simple answer of what spatial resolution The Hobbit was finished in (4K or 2K)….http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov...obbit-20121121

In the meantime, elaborating a bit more on my post near the bottom of the last page, those attendees questioned at the world premiere certainly do not represent statistically significant sampling and I would have liked to know exactly where in the theater the naysayers were sitting, as well as to whether this was the first 3D motion picture they’d ever seen because maybe they fit into that small minority of folks who get *sick* viewing any stereographic content on a 2D screen, BUT

the thing I find a little disconcerting about that news item is that if you’ve been following the HFR developments since the very beginning, Jim Cameron touted as one of the primary reasons (if not thee primary reason) why HFR would be so advantageous was that he claimed LESS people would get headaches or eye strain, feel nauseous, etc. than with the traditional frame rate. In turn, this would draw larger audiences into 3D screenings and help grow the format.

After that initial pronouncement, i.e. less people would get *sick* with HFR 3D as compared to 24fps 3D, then other more esoteric cinematographic advantages were touted by both Jim C. and P.J…. looks more real and life-like etc.

I hope the therapeutic advantage put forth as to why HFR 3D will be better than 24fps eventually works out to be true, but it’s not looking too good so far. Headaches, eyestrain aside, as far as the reaction to the aesthetics of 48fps acquisition and distribution, I really see not much of a difference in the reaction by movie critics today…http://www.movies.com/movie-news/wha...fr-48fps/10502

to that of what I experienced from professional cinematographers at an Arri demo back in 2010… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...mo#post4565520

waaay back when nobody was even using the acronym ‘HFR’ and the mainstream press pretty much hadn’t even heard of it.

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Still no official confirmation as to the simple answer of what spatial resolution The Hobbit was finished in (4K or 2K)….http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov...obbit-20121121

In the meantime, elaborating a bit more on my post near the bottom of the last page, those attendees questioned at the world premiere certainly do not represent statistically significant sampling and I would have liked to know exactly where in the theater the naysayers were sitting, as well as to whether this was the first 3D motion picture they’d ever seen because maybe they fit into that small minority of folks who get *sick* viewing any stereographic content on a 2D screen, BUT

the thing I find a little disconcerting about that news item is that if you’ve been following the HFR developments since the very beginning, Jim Cameron touted as one of the primary reasons (if not thee primary reason) why HFR would be so advantageous was that he claimed LESS people would get headaches or eye strain, feel nauseous, etc. than with the traditional frame rate. In turn, this would draw larger audiences into 3D screenings and help grow the format.

After that initial pronouncement, i.e. less people would get *sick* with HFR 3D as compared to 24fps 3D, then other more esoteric cinematographic advantages were touted by both Jim C. and P.J…. looks more real and life-like etc.

I hope the therapeutic advantage put forth as to why HFR 3D will be better than 24fps eventually works out to be true, but it’s not looking too good so far. Headaches, eyestrain aside, as far as the reaction to the aesthetics of 48fps acquisition and distribution, I really see not much of a difference in the reaction by movie critics today…http://www.movies.com/movie-news/wha...fr-48fps/10502

to that of what I experienced from professional cinematographers at an Arri demo back in 2010… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...mo#post4565520

waaay back when nobody was even using the acronym ‘HFR’ and the mainstream press pretty much hadn’t even heard of it.

There was a production video about the Hobbit it which it said it was being filmed in 5K, if that's what you're asking

[Penton-Man]

Concerning my last comment, please don’t anyone get the impression that I am ragging on Jim Cameron. On the contrary, if you check out my old thread, from day 1 of this HFR discussion when HFR was but a blip on the radar screen of movie lovers, I applauded Jim for favoring 60fps…over 48fps.

You see, by P.J. by choosing the HFR of 48fps, he went into the project totally dismissive of the home theater (Blu-ray enthusiast) by not giving them the opportunity of viewing The Hobbit at home according to his filming and exhibiting vision, meaning 3D at 48fps. He knew, from the get-go, that only those who paid to go to commercial theater showings would have the ability to see The Hobbit in his format of choice, according to his creative vision as the filmmaker.

Conversely, I believe that Jim C. is a bit more caring of the home theater crowd (if he carries through with his HFR choice of 60fps) because he knows that Blu-ray currently supports 720/60p and at least for 3D, the lower spatial resolution of 720 is a marginal PQ downside in comparison to the gain in temporal resolution obtained by that (60fps) higher frame rate for 3D as viewed with most small-sized consumer flat panels at home.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

There was a production video about the Hobbit it which it said it was being filmed in 5K, if that's what you're asking

Hi Lnds…your location just brought back fabulous memories of a trip years ago my wife and I took to your country which included the beautiful island of Hydra, so thanks for that!

But, no, that’s not what I’m asking. I don’t think you understand. Read this post for enlightenment…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ed#post6818156

I’m fairly familiar with the camera (Red Epic) used to shoot The Hobbit…

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

To be fair, in the past there has been a rather noticeable disparity in quality between film and digital cameras, but now with the RED Epic and Sony F65 these latest digital cameras equal or actually exceed some characteristics of film cameras. For example, with the proper settings, there is higher dynamic range and higher MTF than film.

[saprano]

Penton, there's something incredibly wrong with movie theaters when my home viewing of The Dark Night Rises surpassed viewing it in IMAX. Seriously.

By the way. The films IMAX shots reminded me of what i saw with sony's 4K TV. Just throwing that out there. The 70mm shots look absolutely amazing. It's PQ like that on bluray that has me wondering why do we need 4K right now. In all honesty, we should be jumping to 8K.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Before anyone’s mind is blown, just keep in mind that 2.5MB/s is like 20 mbps (not 2.5 mbps), which, in magnitude, is quite in line with what the French are getting for HEVC (i.e. 16.5 mbps for bitrate identical (to H.264/AVC) PSNR)
http://ateme.com/IMG/pdf/4k_delivery...er_-_ateme.pdf

I can see that RED codec working superbly for home theater, even those folks with front projection screens, but my understanding after reading the advertisement is that the RED team is claiming that their codec (at this rate, I think) will also show stellar 4K imagery at theatrical venues, i.e. really BIG screens.

Interesting and quite impressive if that pans out.

20mbps is too low for 4K. In can work yes. But i don't like half assing stuff. We should be going all the way with 4K (Rec 2020 etc).

Thats why i hope a new BD spec is used with more space than the current 50gigs. Can they make 4K fit? I guess but if you're going to do it, do it right. Let it breathe.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by saprano

Penton, there's something incredibly wrong with movie theaters when my home viewing of The Dark Night Rises surpassed viewing it in IMAX. Seriously.

By the way. The films IMAX shots reminded me of what i saw with sony's 4K TV. Just throwing that out there. The 70mm shots look absolutely amazing. It's PQ like that on bluray that has me wondering why do we need 4K right now. In all honesty, we should be jumping to 8K.

Did you sit <4 feet away from the 60" Kuro?

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Did you sit <4 feet away from the 60" Kuro?

Nope. 8 to 9 feet. Mostly 8.

EDIT- Not just specifically talking PQ, which the IMAX theater looked good but the projectionest had a light shining on the screen for what seemed like an hour of the movie, and it wasn't fully dark for awhile too. How do you forget to dim the lights all the way? Still, even when all that was settled the PQ on bluray looks better to me. The audio too.

[Brightstar]

in future do we have to download 4k content onto a usb stick so we can use it in a red ray player ?

does that mean no more disk??

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by saprano

20mbps is too low for 4K. In can work yes. But i don't like half assing stuff. We should be going all the way with 4K (Rec 2020 etc).

Thats why i hope a new BD spec is used with more space than the current 50gigs. Can they make 4K fit? I guess but if you're going to do it, do it right. Let it breathe.

Red has their own proprietary video codec that I assume is more efficient than h.264. There is no set number where 4k is going to look great versus bad in any digital compression system. Just like any video resolution there are many factors that determine how much bitrate is needed. Hell, I thought "The Warrior" showed signs of compression on BD-50. But thats a super noisy film, 40mbps is overkill for most video. I also think the 2.5MB/s number is a minimum, it doesn't say anywhere that this is the highest bitrate available. The player comes with a 1 TB drive, so there is no need to use USB thumb drives, its just an option.

I see this device as being for early adopters only with huge wads of cash to burn. They'll be other ways to play 4k content in the future, after h.265/HEVC is standardized. How many 4k TV's have been sold so far in the US? I'd guess maybe a thousand or two. What I really want to see are sports and live events in a 4k system, that is direct from the distributor. I could care less about resolution above 1080p, but what I do care about is getting a pristine, 1 lossy encode, video stream. Watching the Superbowl without it first passing through a local affiliate cramming it into MPEG-2 with a sub channel taking up space, will be very nice.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by saprano

Nope. 8 to 9 feet. Mostly 8.

EDIT- Not just specifically talking PQ, which the IMAX theater looked good but the projectionest had a light shining on the screen for what seemed like an hour of the movie, and it wasn't fully dark for awhile too. How do you forget to dim the lights all the way? Still, even when all that was settled the PQ on bluray looks better to me. The audio too.

Never seen an actual movie at an IMAX, but I saw Prometheus and Skyfall at a theater this year, and I distinctly remember looking absolutely stunning, better than anything I've seen on BD. There's been a few other times where I was disappointed though, I guess it depends on the projectionist and equipment.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Penton, there's something incredibly wrong with movie theaters when my home viewing of The Dark Night Rises surpassed viewing it in IMAX. Seriously.

Well there ya go. Now all you need is one of these to be complete…
http://www.standardconcessionsupply....nmachines.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by starfantasy

in future do we have to download 4k content onto a usb stick so we can use it in a red ray player ?
does that mean no more disk??

I don’t know the details as I’ve only read the RED initial announcement because right now my free time is devoted to a major home upgrade which I promised my wife to accomplish before Christmas.

From the listed Technical specs, I think it’s pretty clear that RED has given up on optical disc media as being a viable deliverable for the future. Now, as to whether the 4K movies on the USB-2s are intended to/capable of being used as a sale-able home deliverable and not “loaned to purchasers” (read paragraph 6 closely) by the content provider like here…
http://blog.sony.com/sony-4k-tv-content

I don’t know. The only thing I *think* I’m correct in assuming with their announcement is that there will not be a pro and consumer version of their REDRAY player, but there will be a pro and consumer version of their RED laser projector.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Will21st

cheers Penton

http://www.sonyclassics.com/awards-i...screenplay.pdf

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...ped_fragment_=

That article still bugs me. Constitution, send this to the author for some perspective -

The Most Useless Machine EVER! - YouTube

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Conversely, I knew Joe6packs who walked into their local motorcycle shop to purchase a motorcycle, geared up and fooled around in the dirt on weekends. Joe6packs who never raced in a single organized/sanctioned event, never rode injured, and left their bikes pretty much stock from the day they bought them. Nothing wrong with the path they chose as compared to me, BUT they never labeled the aftermarket companies as being “stupid”….and, by logical extension….me being “stupid”, for gladly taking advantage of those companies’ latest offerings.

At the end of the day, it comes down to your wallet and how passionate you are…whether you are chasing a couple additional horsepower or the perfect picture.

That is a great analogy. I get this attitude many times with people when I tell them that I am really into vinyl and tape (R2R and cassette) and that I prefer film over digital for photos as well. Some are impressed, but many dismiss me as some kind of obsessed nut and think I'm wasting my time. These are most likely the same people who actually go out of their way to tell me that 24-bit recordings are not needed. It is one thing to not desire high fidelity audio, but why are people resisting the desires of those who want it? If 24-bit downloads become more common they don't impact those who prefer MP3's. Having 4k BD's don't affect those who stream movies on Hulu. Insisting that 24-bit audio or 4k TV is overkill does affect me, though.

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hi Lnds…your location just brought back fabulous memories of a trip years ago my wife and I took to your country which included the beautiful island of Hydra, so thanks for that!

But, no, that’s not what I’m asking. I don’t think you understand. Read this post for enlightenment…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ed#post6818156

I’m fairly familiar with the camera (Red Epic) used to shoot The Hobbit…

Glad you had a nice time! It's a very nice island and it has a very distinct look.

Yeah, I was alarmed that I might have misinterpreted your question even while answering. Oh well.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Never seen an actual movie at an IMAX, but I saw Prometheus and Skyfall at a theater this year, and I distinctly remember looking absolutely stunning, better than anything I've seen on BD. There's been a few other times where I was disappointed though, I guess it depends on the projectionist and equipment.

Yeah it was definitely the projectionist and the theater lighting. I expected better from AMC lincoln square.

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

That article still bugs me. Constitution, send this to the author for some perspective -
The Most Useless Machine EVER! - YouTube

That's video's a riot. Funny, the article's author was a lead writer for Home Theater magazine for years...