4K Movies Releases

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Are there any bit rate standards for DCPs, Penton? Or can studios pretty much send whatever they want?...

Not that I want to make you feel even worse singhcr, but fact of the matter is I also forgot to mention that since uncompressed 65mm source 4K images are typically 50 MB/frame (or 1.2 GB per sec), many large format folks (active in dealing with large format like those at FotoKem) believe that DCI’s maximum data rate of 250 Mbit/s is too low for that type of material.

I tend to agree.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’ll need about 15 min. to type up a response to that because I’m not sure how familiar people are with the basics of this topic and it will take some time to explain things. Plus, you’ve also touched on something important to 4K delivery into the home.

Be patient. I’ll be back.

Thank you again, my friend. I always enjoy this info that you provide, and now I like you even more as you've met Pele.

Are you saying that even raw (i.e uncompressed) 4K content won't look much better than raw 1080p content at typical viewing distances, regardless of screen size? Considering that BD is compressed you'd think 4k would be a good step up in PQ, though. However I have yet to see a quality 4k source go up against a good BD so I can't make that conclusion yet.

Those pictures you linked to are quite revealing. This is why I worry about 4k delivery if it is only streaming.

Heck, one of my favorite TV shows (Burn Notice) changed from Super16 to HD video after 3 seasons due to viewer complaints during its broadcast run. The show has a very high-contrast, blown out look and the one BD release of Season 2 captured that nicely and was a huge step up in PQ but due to complaints no further seasons are on BD so the best quality source I have is my Dish Network super compressed MPEG-2 feed. I love the show but it looks like garbage. If the only availiable content sources are DVD and crappy 720p MPEG-2 with compressed DD5.1 audio you might as well start shooting in SD video because I honestly think the DVD looks less glossy and compressed than the 720p feeds at times. I wonder if Breaking Bad made their switch away from S16 for the same reasons. At least that show is on BD and looks very good despite my preference for film-based material.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Thank you again, my friend. I always enjoy this info that you provide, and now I like you even more as you've met Pele.

Are you saying that even raw (i.e uncompressed) 4K content won't look much better than raw 1080p content at typical viewing distances, regardless of screen size? Considering that BD is compressed you'd think 4k would be a good step up in PQ, though. However I have yet to see a quality 4k source go up against a good BD so I can't make that conclusion yet...

Screen size is not really the critical factor….it is more the *convenience* factor, in that larger screen sizes will not necessitate front projector videophiles having to adjust their current (1080p) seating positions as close to the screen as those folks with 55” or 65” TVs….to achieve full benefit of the extra pixels.

The critical factor is FOV (field of view), i.e. screen-to-eye distance. If screen size were critical, Sony, for one, wouldn’t have put so much $$ into producing these on-set monitors for filmmakers….http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-PVMX300/ who have to justify their expenses to producers and are not swayed by marketing hype.

As far as the difference between real-world motion picture (not screenshots of paint drying or grass growing, etc.) uncompressed 4K content and uncompressed 1080p content, as to rez, there is unquestionably an improvement in picture detail with 4K which can be perceived by videophiles and probably Joe6pack-type consumers…if one sits close enough to the screen.

But I wouldn’t call it a *knock your socks off* type of a difference (for instance, like seeing The Hobbit in theaters @48fps as opposed to 24fps) no matter how far you sat back from the screen. That’s why it’s so important for 4K delivery into the home as to how much the content providers will be compressing the source material.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Those pictures you linked to are quite revealing.

Yup, I’m sure some people in Hollywood are shuddering right now. But hey, there are no sacred cows on this thread.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

TV

Reminds me, one moment, as I must find a good link to do this topic credit.

[Penton-Man]

^
If ‘Candelabra’ turns out to be Steven’s last motion picture for awhile (if not ever)…. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-...b_3348762.html
Which happens to be coming to Blu-ray in a couple months… https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Behin...Blu-ray/74129/

Well then, he did it with panache, technically, as the HBO motion picture went through a 4K DI pipeline.

[Penton-Man]

Sap, here’s something for you to look forward to both in terms of aesthetic bliss (film) and a challenge. Captain Phillips was shot mostly on Fuji film and boasts a 4K finish… http://www.captainphillipsmovie.com/site/

When the motion picture gets a worldwide release, see if you can readily differentiate the digital from the film captured scenes.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

...Those pictures you linked to are quite revealing. This is why I worry about 4k delivery if it is only streaming.

Yes, whatever be the codec (a variant of h.264 or the entirely new codec HEVC), claims by companies as in footnote #1 at the very bottom of the page - “10Mbit/s connections provide near lossless delivery”… http://www.nuvola4k.com/

are worrisome without seeing testing proof showing direct comparisons with the uncompressed 4K source, at least by the manufacturer… best by an independent lab .

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Sap, this accusation should tickle your fancy, i.e. the demos being *rigged*…. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/beh...r-hd-is-578724

Originally Posted by saprano

Heh. It more than tickled. I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. The entertainment industry is a funny, funny business.

Well I attended the last CES and NAB and at least with what I viewed at those venues, I’m not quite sure the Arri accusation holds merit (also keep in mind I wouldn’t exactly describe Arri and Sony as bosom buddies… http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/techfa...040993.article ). But I can tell you what the display manufacturers do though, which I don’t think is really *cheating* but more like leveraging their knowledge of the human visual system and display technology which I think is fair. You see the perception of resolution depends on contrast because the human visual system has a contrast-sensitivity function.

An increase in spatial resolution is most easily appreciated in scenes with high contrast sensitivity like for instance credits, leaves moving in the wind, glints off the water, newspaper text http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...sQj0#at=74,etc. which is why all manufacturers purposely choose that type footage in demo reels at trade shows.

[Kirk Out]

awesome article indeed thank you for posting that.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kirk Out

awesome article indeed thank you for posting that.

Which one?

[Kirk Out]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Which one?

The hollywood reporter

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Yes, whatever be the codec (a variant of h.264 or the entirely new codec HEVC), claims by companies as in footnote #1 at the very bottom of the page - “10Mbit/s connections provide near lossless delivery”… http://www.nuvola4k.com/

are worrisome without seeing testing proof showing direct comparisons with the uncompressed 4K source, at least by the manufacturer… best by an independent lab .

Delivering 4K at 10Mbps with HEVC is like delivering 1080p at 6-7Mbps with H.264.

We know from experience that delivering 1080p at 7Mbps can deliver good/watchable results but not something you would describe as near lossless to source.

Streaming and broadcasts have rarely aimed for 'near lossless' type quality. I don't expect these habits to change with 4K.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kirk Out

The hollywood reporter

Well although as Sap said, the entertainment industry is a funny business and there’s documented intentional skullduggery by a movie studio Blu-ray mastering executive when it relates to being honest with regards to other types of consumer products (in this case Blu-ray software in the which the public was interested in an honest explanation of the new color grade of a movie and received FAR from that….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...al#post6782166 )

I’m personally skeptical of the validity of the accusation by the Arri spokesman. Firstly, that sort of behavior by the electronics executives would inevitably come back to haunt them once enough consumers *bought into 4K*, got their TVs up and running at home and discovered they’d been duped by having counted on rigged demos. Secondly, you have to understand that Arri is about as anti-4K as RED is pro-4K and you have to take what each of them say with a grain of salt.

What I find humorously interesting about the Hollywood Reporter article is that Arri seems to have *succumbed* to developing a 4K camera because they are not happy about it. Fact of the matter is they obviously assumed their 2K Alexa would be cutting-edge technology for motion picture acquisition for a lot longer time.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Don’t underestimate the power of the marketing machine...

Market Research Says (about 4K tvs)… http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/...n-k-in-/220403

If we get content which is visually lossless to uncompressed 4K, well that be good. On the other hand, if not, first gen 4K consumer displays will prove nothing but hype.

[Penton-Man]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ra#post7834450

^ Yesterday received 15 Emmy noms…http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/em...nations-104176

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Screen size is not really the critical factor….it is more the *convenience* factor, in that larger screen sizes will not necessitate front projector videophiles having to adjust their current (1080p) seating positions as close to the screen as those folks with 55” or 65” TVs….to achieve full benefit of the extra pixels.

The critical factor is FOV (field of view),

Visual aid which is courtesy of the Sony Home Entertainment & Sound Business Group but, it really doesn’t matter from whom, as I think most manufacturers use the same viewing parameter to educate folks as to best viewing practices with 4K displays, no matter what be their size.

P.S. A cookie goes to anyone who can correctly tell me why an FOV of 60 degrees is recommended as ‘enough’ immersive experience. In other words, why not 50 degrees or 85 degrees?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

P.S. A cookie goes to anyone who can correctly tell me why an FOV of 60 degrees is recommended as ‘enough’ immersive experience. In other words, why not 50 degrees or 85 degrees?

Well I like cookies.

It is largely based upon research out of NHK in 2007 which determined that there were significant resolution-dependent visual perception differences between an FOV of 33.2 arc-degrees and 61.6 arc-degrees; whereas, there were no significant differences between the visual angles from 61.6 to 100 arc-degrees.

Offhand, I can’t recall the exact number of participants in the study….I would have to look up the actual paper as published in SMPTE journal for that particular info but, I know it was somewhere around 200 observers.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...by Dr. Hoffmann

Who, by the way (for anyone planning to attend) is convening the SMPTE session entitled “"Beyond HD: The Technology Landscape for Future Broadcasting" at IBC2013 coming up in less than two months…https://www.smpte.org/news-events/ne...bc2013-preview

[Brightstar]

If i watch a 4k movie on a 84inch 4k tv will i get black bars on the top and bottom ? (widescreen)