4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ikms

Yes, the cadence is a bit messy since 48 goes into 60 as ABCDEE FGHIJJ KLMNOO (repeating of every 5th frame). Something like the typical silent film 18p->24p pulldown for BD (ABCC DEFF GHII JKLL, repeat of the 4th), though some studios (Criterion notably) go for an 18p->60i interlaced pulldown approach to reduce temporal judder. In my experience the greater the interval before the next stuttered frame the more annoying the intermittent appearance becomes: the classic 3:2 for 24 to 60 (i or p) is quite reasonable while 18fps silents obviously stutter, and some outlying methods (some 24fps material is transferred to PAL repeating just the 24th frame instead of the typical 4% speedup) are the worst.

exactly

Which is to say, I think the previously suggested approach of doing Hobbit via 4% speedup 720p @ 50Hz for 3D BD is by far the best solution with the current (and future) standards in place. Since some people in Region A will surely have problems with it, WB should just release it in Europe region-free letting the rest of us who know what we are doing just import.

except that 50HZ is not a global standard. You could do that in Europe (where it is standard) but in NA many (if not the vast majority) of displays can't handle it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

3:2 pull down is for converting 24fps to 30fps so it would apply to converting 48fps to 60fps as well as it's the same ratio.

not exactly

it is used for going from 24p to 60i.

While uncommon there are currently some screens with a 240hz refresh rate so both 48fps and 60fps could both display perfectly on them, but first UHD Blu-ray has to support both. Native 60fps would likely look better than native 48fps, but there's no reason why UHD Blu-ray can't support both.

yes, but like you said it is "uncommon" you don't only need it to be common but you need it to be "universal" or "ubiquitous" for it to be meaningful and useful. Joe can't buy the film bring it home and it can't play because he his TV is 60HZ or 120HZ TV. The disk would need to play well on every TV

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Some players I'm sure can but all of them certainly cannot and thus it would not conform to the current Blu-Ray standard established in 2005. Thus any high capacity disc even if it contained an AVC 1080p version that does conform to current Blu-ray standards couldn't be honestly marketed as compatible with present Blu-ray players unless it comes with a cumbersome list of models that support it

agree, but that is not what you said before

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

If the resolution of film, any type of film that's is, is greater than 4K, then we can only hope that they are never shot natively at 4K.

The inherent resolution of film, and ‘scanning’ resolution and ultimately the resultant resolution of the files produced from the scanner (i.e. final image size) is a topic which can be a bit unclear.

For instance, under thee most perfect conditions in a lab (locked down camera using no greater than 200 ASA negative shooting immobile test patterns), Super 35mm has an absolute maximum rez of 4153 × 3112 pixels…http://c-sideprod.ch/wp-content/medi...10/4K_plus.pdf . Real world shooting chops that figure down significantly.....and any theoretical figure for full frame capture for that matter.

To harvest the most detail, film is scanned at a higher rez than the final image size files in order to prevent aliasing (Nyquist and Shannon theorem). On that note, the Northlight1 scanner (rather commonplace) scans film at 6K to create a 4K image for colorists to work with.

As to the Northlight2, it can scan even higher in order to create a detailed and nuanced 4K image to work with - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ht#post9991943

[slickkeng]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not exactly

it is used for going from 24p to 60i.



yes, but like you said it is "uncommon" you don't only need it to be common but you need it to be "universal" or "ubiquitous" for it to be meaningful and useful. Joe can't buy the film bring it home and it can't play because he his TV is 60HZ or 120HZ TV. The disk would need to play well on every TV

So it seems the UHD Bluray spec will not allow for 48 fps. Therefore, we best hope for films to go straight to 60 fps in order to see any kind of hfr UHD bluray releases. I thought the BDA was looking into implementing hfr with the UHD spec, looks like they only meant 60p for home videos and such and not for filmed material unless the hollywood pipeline switches to 60 as well. Would it have so hard for them to simply support both? Anyhow the UHD bluray specs have not officially been released so who knows right?

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by slickkeng

So it seems the UHD Bluray spec will not allow for 48 fps. Therefore, we best hope for films to go straight to 60 fps in order to see any kind of hfr UHD bluray releases. I thought the BDA was looking into implementing hfr with the UHD spec, looks like they only meant 60p for home videos and such and not for filmed material unless the hollywood pipeline switches to 60 as well. Would it have so hard for them to simply support both? Anyhow the UHD bluray specs have not officially been released so who knows right?

Well since everything looks sped up at 48fps unless they're standing still, it doesn't bother me!

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

Well since everything looks sped up at 48fps unless they're standing still, it doesn't bother me!

I watched one film with HFR - The Desolation Of Smaug - and I never want to watch another. It was awful. Unnatural. Off putting. Take it away!

[TheFalsetto]

I'm still disgusted with the 1080p HD versions of some films.

For example Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition ... this version simply looks so fake. Like it has been photoshopped. Where as the original DVD, with the grain etc looks perfect, just like how I remember it when I was a kid.

Now imagine a 4K remaster ?? i'm not too excited put it that way. Fairly happy with 1080p HD, don't really want to see peoples pimples and zits in ultra HD.

[hajiketobu]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

exactly



except that 50HZ is not a global standard. You could do that in Europe (where it is standard) but in NA many (if not the vast majority) of displays can't handle it.

Actually 50Hz is more of a global standard, than 60Hz. 60Hz is only America and Japan. America ≠ The World. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL_region

[hajiketobu]

Why do those guys at the BDA always make the same mistakes by not supporting different framerates? Is it so hard to allow all framerates? I mean, honestly, they are kind of stupid. They did the same mistake with Blu-Ray Disc, only supporting 24fps@1080p and not 25p,30p,50p and 60p. Really short-sighted.Now they do the same mistake with UHDBD. I can understand if they want to push 60fps instead of 48 (which is clearly not their intention!). They just want to mess with people. A format is not even released and people already have to worry how to encode a movie to meet the specifications. A perfect format would support all framerates, just like on a computer. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of 48fps, i would rather see 60fps and 120fps movies, but this is a really stupid move, but not really shocking based on their prior old fashioned decisions. Really stubborn people!

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

Why do those guys at the BDA always make the same mistakes by not supporting different framerates? Is it so hard to allow all framerates? I mean, honestly, they are kind of stupid. They did the same mistake with Blu-Ray Disc, only supporting 24fps@1080p and not 25p,30p,50p and 60p. Really short-sighted.Now they do the same mistake with UHDBD. I can understand if they want to push 60fps instead of 48 (which is clearly not their intention!). They just want to mess with people. A format is not even released and people already have to worry how to encode a movie to meet the specifications. A perfect format would support all framerates, just like on a computer. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of 48fps, i would rather see 60fps and 120fps movies, but this is a really stupid move, but not really shocking based on their prior old fashioned decisions. Really stubborn people!

Unlike a computer that can be upgraded with new hardware or can do almost anything in software, a BD player's hardware is limited. Everything must be done in hardware. The more capabilities you add, the more expensive it gets. So they are not adding 48 FPS capabilities as to date there have only been 3 movies released in such a format. 60 FPS makes more sense as that is what will be used for sporting broadcasts.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The inherent resolution of film, and ‘scanning’ resolution and ultimately the resultant resolution of the files produced from the scanner (i.e. final image size) is a topic which can be a bit unclear.

For instance, under thee most perfect conditions in a lab (locked down camera using no greater than 200 ASA negative shooting immobile test patterns), Super 35mm has an absolute maximum rez of 4153 × 3112 pixels…http://c-sideprod.ch/wp-content/medi...10/4K_plus.pdf . Real world shooting chops that figure down significantly.....and any theoretical figure for full frame capture for that matter.

To harvest the most detail, film is scanned at a higher rez than the final image size files in order to prevent aliasing (Nyquist and Shannon theorem). On that note, the Northlight1 scanner (rather commonplace) scans film at 6K to create a 4K image for colorists to work with.

As to the Northlight2, it can scan even higher in order to create a detailed and nuanced 4K image to work with - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ht#post9991943

Harris said that 6K would leave nothing on the table at all with 35mm, I think that 4k is more than enough and that means that people thinking there is no 4k content may have fun with 8K.

[GenPion]

I don't understand the discussion on 6K or 8K in relation to displays. I know some of you seem to think 4K is just a stepping stone to those kinds of HDTV displays. Who knows, perhaps this will end up happening. However, I would be really shocked if it was as the majority of films released will basically tap out at 4K with 35mm film being the average. Digital films aren't always going to benefit from even higher specs either unless the final mastering was done at a higher level.

Basically, I don't think there are enough movies on the market that are at a higher resolution for them to make HDTV's at those levels. And even with some 6K and 8K movies, they can still be scanned at that level and then released on 4K Blu-ray and the results will still be stunning. I don't think most consumers would notice or care about the difference going even higher up because of the size of display it would take to see those extra details.

We are about to see a new 4K Blu-ray disc format extension which will present movies released on the format in the best way ever made available on home media. Do some of you really think they will push 6K or 8K discs (as a format) in the future even though there aren't many movies available in that resolution?

... and on the note of the specs not supporting 48 FPS HFR, I hope this is incorrect. Or that something is done to extend specs for this in the future. I thought this was being implemented to support the HFR options for The Hobbit films and the upcoming Avatar sequels. It would make sense to support it... especially if more Hollywood productions are made this way.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by GenPion

I don't understand the discussion on 6K or 8K in relation to displays. I know some of you seem to think 4K is just a stepping stone to those kinds of HDTV displays. Who knows, perhaps this will end up happening. However, I would be really shocked if it was as the majority of films released will basically tap out at 4K with 35mm film being the average. Digital films aren't always going to benefit from even higher specs either unless the final mastering was done at a higher level.

Basically, I don't think there are enough movies on the market that are at a higher resolution for them to make HDTV's at those levels. And even with some 6K and 8K movies, they can still be scanned at that level and then released on 4K Blu-ray and the results will still be stunning. I don't think most consumers would notice or care about the difference going even higher up because of the size of display it would take to see those extra details.

We are about to see a new 4K Blu-ray disc format extension which will present movies released on the format in the best way ever made available on home media. Do some of you really think they will push 6K or 8K discs (as a format) in the future even though there aren't many movies available in that resolution?

8k is only really beneficial for giant, wall-to-wall screen equipped auditoriums (few and far between today) and not for the consumer market. What they ought to be doing is making UHD look the very best it can possibly be with the best lossless object based audio available... and yet the industry never learns and will push 8k as the next new thing after UHD without perfecting the previous technology.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by slickkeng

So it seems the UHD Bluray spec will not allow for 48 fps. Therefore, we best hope for films to go straight to 60 fps in order to see any kind of hfr UHD bluray releases....

Keep hoping.

60fps was SMPTE standardized as an additional frame rate (as well as others) for D-Cinema back in 2009. For 48fps, even years earlier than that, as it’s included as mandatory support (at 2K rez) in the original DCI spec.

Let’s see, it’s now 2015, and since those higher non-24fps frame rates have been offered to filmmakers, I’d say they’ve hardly embraced the higher alternative fps options for presentation.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by slickkeng

I thought the BDA was looking into implementing hfr with the UHD spec, looks like they only meant 60p for home videos and such

imo, this case study/experiment would make a good ‘such’….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...p#post10216243
Esp. the battle against Ghana… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...a#post10216261
While watching on a TV like this…http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/tx55a...1411073944.htm

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Harris said that 6K would leave nothing on the table at all with 35mm, I think that 4k is more than enough and that means that people thinking there is no 4k content may have fun with 8K.

A Northlight2 with an 8k array producing 4k files is as good
as it gets except under rather unique circumstances. 4K will get you what you want off the 35mm frames from the real world, it’s only with the sharpest prime lenses, no filter, and locked down camera frames that you may push this.

Among active professionals, the understanding of the needed K’s of scanning film is a not much of a nuanced topic these days and it can even be argued that many having firsthand day-to-day scanning experience on multiple projects in active facilities believe that high dynamic range is of greater impact on final picture quality than meeting Nyquist's oversampling recommendation….or, at least it being of equal import.

Given that, after you’ve pretty much settled on a 4K final image being the most optimal, this leads us to how best scan 35mm film (beyond resolution considerations), esp. Vision 3 in order to harvest all its dynamic range. On that note, it is not uncommon for some facilities to output at 10bit log DPX in order to save money with regards to the memory budget. Best practice for cutting edge high end facilities is to scan and output at 16bit DPX, which is an option on the Northlight2.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by hajiketobu

Actually 50Hz is more of a global standard, than 60Hz.

not at all that is an extremely ignorant comment. Every "modern" AV device in any 50HZ market is built with the capability (and extra cost) to handle (let's be honest) US standards because it is assumed that many people in those countries want to watch a lot of "Hollywood" films and TV shows that are made using those standards. On the flip side the opposite is not true and many AV devises built for the 60Hz markets can't handle 50HZ because most people in those markets don't necessarily care for a lot of 25/50HZ content made for other random 50 HZ markets.

So if someone is to discus a "global standard" then it makes a lot more sense to describe 60HZ that way and not 50 HZ (for example every BD player needs to handle 24p,30p,60i but only BD players in 50HZ markets must handle 25p, 50i)

60Hz is only America and Japan. America ≠ The World.

that is a stupid comment since I said and you quoted with your reply

You could do that in Europe (where it is standard) but in NA many (if not the vast majority) of displays can't handle it.

so why try and imply that I said America = The World it just makes you look petty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL_region

why link to a gaming article on Wikipedia? also just to be clear not all PAL is 50HZ in some countries it is PAL and 60HZ so just looking at that map won't give you the full story.

The 50/60 issue does not arise from TV but from the old days of electricity. when CRT TVs came out they needed to be cadenced to the electric frequency of the area so countries that ran electricity at 60HZ needed 60HZ TVs and countries that ran at 50HZ needed 50HZ TVs. So for the most part PAL=50HZ and everywhere NTSC=60HZ but there are places that use PAL (such as Pal M) that is 60HZ

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Unlike a computer that can be upgraded with new hardware or can do almost anything in software, a BD player's hardware is limited. Everything must be done in hardware. The more capabilities you add, the more expensive it gets. So they are not adding 48 FPS capabilities as to date there have only been 3 movies released in such a format. 60 FPS makes more sense as that is what will be used for sporting broadcasts.

It is not only that but the BD player is the first step. What use is it if it can rread and send out a 50i signal but the AVR can't handle it and so can't pass the video (if one is attached)? or the TV?

[hajiketobu]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not at all that is an extremely ignorant comment. Every "modern" AV device in any 50HZ market is built with the capability (and extra cost) to handle (let's be honest) US standards because it is assumed that many people in those countries want to watch a lot of "Hollywood" films and TV shows that are made using those standards. On the flip side the opposite is not true and many AV devises built for the 60Hz markets can't handle 50HZ because most people in those markets don't necessarily care for a lot of 25/50HZ content made for other random 50 HZ markets.

So if someone is to discus a "global standard" then it makes a lot more sense to describe 60HZ that way and not 50 HZ (for example every BD player needs to handle 24p,30p,60i but only BD players in 50HZ markets must handle 25p, 50i)

I think your comment to call 60Hz a global standard is just as ignorant and you are not to decide. You could say that 60Hz is an industry standard, yes, but it is not a global standard. There will never be a global standard, there will always be 50Hz and 60Hz, like you said yourself because of the electric frequency.

ps: isn't it lame that 60hz avrs can't handle 50hz content, but the opposite can?