True 4K Blu-ray - why I will mostly skip if released

[Ruined]

One thing I want everyone to keep in mind reading the following post is that I am not one to dictate what other people buy or deride them for it. These are my own opinions.

Some of the things I’ve learned looking into 4K more:
* The amount of *true 4k* content is staggeringly small. It appears even the 3D movie library dwarfs true 4k content that was not downscaled at anytime during the production chain. Even several of the movies in Sony’s own 4k delivery system either have 2k effects or were down-converted to 2k at some point, and will then essentially be upconverted from 2k to 4k for the system.

* Even the highest end 4K film cameras apparently have sensors that cannot fully resolve 4k. So even with a movie that is fully shot and post processed in 4k, you are not getting 4k – apparently at best 3k – 3.5k depending on the camera. Which is better than 2k, but still not 4k.

* 4k will require a new Blu-ray player, new 4k discs, and new display device. It may require a new receiver/preamp as well.

* Even if you get past all that, as stated in post #1, Joe Kane says you need a 120” screen to START to appreciate the difference. Sony – the one trying to sell you all new hardware -- said at CEDIA you need at least an 84” screen otherwise 4k is pointless. Either way those are LARGE screens compared to what most people are willing to buy. We’re not most people, okay I get that.

BUT – does this not seem fishy to some people? This almost seems like they are trying to create a market for a product that does not exist yet, which the majority of people will gain no benefit from buying. Taking 2K films and upscaling them to 4K, using cameras that cannot fully resolve 4k yet calling it 4k anyway, all with the knowledge that 99.9% of consumers won’t have a screen size to even begin seeing the difference between 2K and 4K, nevermind 2K and whatever half-baked product is apparently being delivered?

Maybe 20 years from now when whole-wall TVs are the norm and cheap, 4K will make sense for most. At this point, I am really struggling to see the point and would love to see an argument for how this will possibly take off in any way shape or form that will be anything less than blatent wallet destruction for consumers. I can see how it makes sense for the camera companies, to make money selling new cameras to the studios… And the developers/software companies, to make money selling new “4k” production and effects software… And the consumer electronics companies, to sell you all new hardware again… And the content providers, to sell you all new media again. But I really don’t see it making sense for consumers especially in a real bad economy (and that is being nice).

To be honest, you know what I would like to see even more than 4k Blu-ray? How about Strange Days on Blu-ray? How about a new Blu-ray remaster of Apollo 13 that is at least as good as the HD DVD video master (and not DNR’d, EE’d and contrast boosted like the BD trainwreck Universal released) with some nice DTS sound? Heck, how about RAD on Blu-ray? How about your favorite cult movie that does not exist on Blu-ray?

Think about how many Blu-rays you could buy with the thousands of dollars it will cost in hardware to upgrade to 4k… If the difference was VHS > DVD, or DVD > Blu-ray, I totally get it. But 4k seems like SACD/DVD-Audio all over again – CD was good enough (in fact, MP3 at lower quality than CD was good enough), yet all that marketing trying to convince us that SACD/DVD-A was better… Studios putting pristine masters on the HD audio side of the disc, then putting a garbage master on the CD side of the disc so when we flipped it we heard “the difference.”

The more I think about it, I am turning into someone against this rather than ambiguous. But, I am nobody special of course… Just debating it in my own mind whether consumers are being sold a piece of the Brooklyn bridge here.

I apologize for the wall of text

[Flatnate]

No, I agree. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Frankly, I am more excited about 10 bit or 12 bit color and a wider color gamut.

[2pacalypsenow]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

No, I agree. I think you hit the nail on the head.

Frankly, I am more excited about 10 bit or 12 bit color and a wider color gamut.

agreed i rather them perfect the 1080 p content we have now . Its like the people buying HDtvs back in the Late 90's HD did not become Mainstream till about 2005-2006

[Canada]

4K on twit.tv with Scott Wilkinson

[Ruined]

I think anyone remotely interested in buying 4k BD in the future should read this article, a fantastic article by an industry expert that is incredibly informative:
http://www.creativecow.net/interstit..._Pixels/1&id=0

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by 2pacalypsenow

agreed i rather them perfect the 1080 p content we have now . Its like the people buying HDtvs back in the Late 90's HD did not become Mainstream till about 2005-2006

And to be frank most of those early big screen HDTVs weren't that much better than decent quality SDTVs... CRT RPTVs with low resolution and digital sets with horrendous contrast ratios.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Ruined

BUT – does this not seem fishy to some people? This almost seems like they are trying to create a market for a product that does not exist yet, which the majority of people will gain no benefit from buying. Taking 2K films and upscaling them to 4K, using cameras that cannot fully resolve 4k yet calling it 4k anyway, all with the knowledge that 99.9% of consumers won’t have a screen size to even begin seeing the difference between 2K and 4K, nevermind 2K and whatever half-baked product is apparently being delivered?

This is what's been said about every new technology introduction, including Blu-ray. There are always people who say that the current quality is good enough. And there are people who cannot live without the new technology.

However, if Sony (and others) weren't pushing this technology, then people would be complaining that they're too cheap to put R&D money into more advanced technology. You can't have it both ways.

While the number of 4K films is relatively small, more are being shot that way all the time. And when the studios stop releasing any movies on 35mm film at the end of this year (and at the end of 2014 internationally), Kodak will probably stop producing motion picture film, including negative film, since all the money was in prints. At that point, there will be no choice than to shoot digitally and more and more will be shot in 4K. The technology will catch up the sensor will resolve it fully. Remember, you already have still cameras with 35MP resolution.

When I attended the TV shootout at Value Electronics some months back, I couldn't see any difference between 2K and 4K on the new Sony set unless I was very close to the screen - less than three feet. But I've been looking at the 65" 4K Sony at J&R and on the right material, you can easily see the difference. The image is much sharper. Maybe too sharp: it draws your attention to every blemish and pore on someone's face.

I wouldn't upgrade to a 4K set, especially at today's prices. But in a few years, if my current TV died, I'd certainly consider it, especially if there's a lot of 4K releases by then, although it would probably have to be some kind of download service, because I don't see another new physical format being offered ever (although that's been said about every new technology as well.)

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Hi,
1080p upscaled to 4k is going to look worse than straight 1080p given the same quality display components - likely a bit softer in actuality; you can't reliably invent new detail that did not exist originally.

DVDs upscaled to 1080p look better than DVDs on a 480p screen. Why wouldn't upscaled blurays not look better too? Resolution is more than just detail. It's smooth rendering and anti-aliasing as well.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Hi all,
So, with the advent of 4K there is the likely chance we will see physical media @ 4k in 2014 as the BDA has stated they are debating this as we speak. Personally, though, I am finding it hard to get excited about this tech. Reasons:

1) JOE KANE of Video Essentials/DVE fame, said outright in his testing you need a 120" screen before you even start to notice any real benefit of 4k over 2k (1080p) at normal viewing distances. This is an extremely trustworthy source who has been a video expert for a long time...

Don’t get misled by credentials, for they are not foolproof, as for one real world analogy, that’s why people coping with serious things like cancer and such go to different doctors….i.e. for 2nd opinions those later opinions of which can be completely contradictory to the first. As to Joe…..

Joe has said things in the past which were either incorrect or at least incomplete as relating to the total fact(s) and science of the matter at hand, for example - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ch#post7555890
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...oe#post7556046

But all that ^ aside, what you’ve underlined is also incorrect, i.e. “at normal viewing distances” so you’re misquoting your expert, or he’s preaching different things to different people. According to the gospel of Joe, it’s unimportant as to how close an observer gets to the image itself and he admits that he has his own position on this matter and that a lot of other people don’t agree with him. In fact, I don’t know anyone in the motion picture business or in the field of advanced imaging science in general who agrees with him. His position is that “you need to spread the picture out over a larger size before you can truly see what’s in the image” in essence blow it up to a certain size in order to visualize the full amount of detail. He claims “a 1080p image needs to be at least 6 feet wide and a 4K image needs to be at least on a 10 ft. wide screen”. < I think other than possibly for pronouns and such, that is an accurate quote of his position from my listening to him.

But on the contrary, I haven’t read one scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal, nor have I even heard of a presentation by anyone else expressing Joe’s *theory* which essentially is based upon his belief (through his unpublished testing) that the size of the image needed to visualize true 1080p or 4K image resolution is the same size as that which begins to show apparent encoding artifacts.

The overwhelming consensus of opinion from others is that this simply is not the case and that the only truly limiting factor to possibly being able to appreciate ‘full’ resolution…be it 1080p or 4K resolution is if the observer can’t get close enough to the screen ( ~ 1.5PH) because of perceiving pixel structure because the pixel pitch isn’t dense enough. These days technology has advanced so much that that is really not an issue, for we now have common displays with a very fine pixel pitch.

His *theory*, if it ever was true, would have been validated a long time ago at least in regards to 1080p as it has enormous implications beyond ENTERTAINMENT. I’m talking about significant medical implications (not to mention probable medico-legal implications) because if physicians and scientists believed that you needed 6 ft. screens (his assertion) to fully visualize 1080p resolution structures, they would be using 6 ft. sized 1080p – 2K displays in Diagnostic Radiology suites to view a host of digital imaging studies to examine for subtle evidence of cancer presence, spread etc. which directly determines the management of the disease and can have morbidity as well as mortality consequences if something is not ‘seen’. Instead, they use much smaller displays like these –

For what you know as roughly 2K rez, given format difference of course (note the 21” size, nowhere near Joe’s 6 ft. minimum) -

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/assetDownloadController/LMD_DM_30.pdf?path=Asset%20Hierarchy$Professional$ SEL-yf-generic-153704$SEL-yf-generic-154228SEL-asset-348747.pdf&id=StepID$SEL-asset-348747$original&dimension=original

Or, for 4K rez (note the 36” size, also nowhere near Joe’s 10ft. minimum for that rez) - http://www.eizo.com/global/products/...840/index.html
And in either case, the examiners simply move their eyes closer to the screen to fully visualize either resolution…..rather than standing at the back of the room.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by thelwig14

I agree with the analysis in regards to our eyes won't be able to tell a difference in anything below 120 inches. So that in itself pretty much eliminates most of the consumer market.

However, as someone who has access to a theater that uses 4k, the difference is very noticeable. Doesn't mean the usual 2k theater sucks, it is just a pretty big difference for me. And for anyone to argue differently is not looking at the situation objectively.

From Texas, eh?

I guarantee you that somewhere on the order of 99% of the total movie presentations that have been shown at your theater (assuming that it is a typical commercial theater in town rather than the giant screen theaters of the Houston Museum of Natural Science or Moody Gardens in Galveston) that if indeed your theater has a 4K projector system, then the ‘4K’ which you’ve been viewing was up-converted to 4K from the DCP. Note to Ruined…don’t have a stroke after realizing this.

Objectively, maybe 98 or 97%, depending upon how long your theater has had their 4K projector. So if you’re seeing a “very noticeable” difference, then thank the projector manufacturer, the projectionist and great eyesight…..not native 4K content supplied to your theater.

Like Joe, you are also mistaken about large size being the critical factor needed to fully appreciate 4K. I’ll refer to you fellow doctorial colleague Sean McCarthy, Ph.D (of Motorola [Google]) with his presentation at last April’s NAB starting at ~ the 34 min. mark of the brightcove link listed here as it relates to applied signal processing -

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post7404949

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Hi all....I am finding it hard to get excited about this tech....

But apparently not writing about it. Dude, too funny , I was just passed this PM from another member…..http://www.avsforum.com/t/1483393/tr...ip-if-released

You must be an activist on an anti-4K mission, bouncing from forum to forum *to get the word out* to the folks in every province.

Reminds me of the good ‘ol days on AVS during the format war where this sort of multiplex forum canvassing was a daily occurrence.

[fmw]

Originally Posted by Ruined

One thing I want everyone to keep in mind reading the following post is that I am not one to dictate what other people buy or deride them for it. These are my own opinions.

Some of the things I’ve learned looking into 4K more:
* The amount of *true 4k* content is staggeringly small. It appears even the 3D movie library dwarfs true 4k content that was not downscaled at anytime during the production chain. Even several of the movies in Sony’s own 4k delivery system either have 2k effects or were down-converted to 2k at some point, and will then essentially be upconverted from 2k to 4k for the system.

* Even the highest end 4K film cameras apparently have sensors that cannot fully resolve 4k. So even with a movie that is fully shot and post processed in 4k, you are not getting 4k – apparently at best 3k – 3.5k depending on the camera. Which is better than 2k, but still not 4k.

* 4k will require a new Blu-ray player, new 4k discs, and new display device. It may require a new receiver/preamp as well.

* Even if you get past all that, as stated in post #1, Joe Kane says you need a 120” screen to START to appreciate the difference. Sony – the one trying to sell you all new hardware -- said at CEDIA you need at least an 84” screen otherwise 4k is pointless. Either way those are LARGE screens compared to what most people are willing to buy. We’re not most people, okay I get that.

BUT – does this not seem fishy to some people? This almost seems like they are trying to create a market for a product that does not exist yet, which the majority of people will gain no benefit from buying. Taking 2K films and upscaling them to 4K, using cameras that cannot fully resolve 4k yet calling it 4k anyway, all with the knowledge that 99.9% of consumers won’t have a screen size to even begin seeing the difference between 2K and 4K, nevermind 2K and whatever half-baked product is apparently being delivered?

Maybe 20 years from now when whole-wall TVs are the norm and cheap, 4K will make sense for most. At this point, I am really struggling to see the point and would love to see an argument for how this will possibly take off in any way shape or form that will be anything less than blatent wallet destruction for consumers. I can see how it makes sense for the camera companies, to make money selling new cameras to the studios… And the developers/software companies, to make money selling new “4k” production and effects software… And the consumer electronics companies, to sell you all new hardware again… And the content providers, to sell you all new media again. But I really don’t see it making sense for consumers especially in a real bad economy (and that is being nice).

To be honest, you know what I would like to see even more than 4k Blu-ray? How about Strange Days on Blu-ray? How about a new Blu-ray remaster of Apollo 13 that is at least as good as the HD DVD video master (and not DNR’d, EE’d and contrast boosted like the BD trainwreck Universal released) with some nice DTS sound? Heck, how about RAD on Blu-ray? How about your favorite cult movie that does not exist on Blu-ray?

Think about how many Blu-rays you could buy with the thousands of dollars it will cost in hardware to upgrade to 4k… If the difference was VHS > DVD, or DVD > Blu-ray, I totally get it. But 4k seems like SACD/DVD-Audio all over again – CD was good enough (in fact, MP3 at lower quality than CD was good enough), yet all that marketing trying to convince us that SACD/DVD-A was better… Studios putting pristine masters on the HD audio side of the disc, then putting a garbage master on the CD side of the disc so when we flipped it we heard “the difference.”

The more I think about it, I am turning into someone against this rather than ambiguous. But, I am nobody special of course… Just debating it in my own mind whether consumers are being sold a piece of the Brooklyn bridge here.

I apologize for the wall of text

I believe 4K will be like ultra high end 2 channel audio at best in terms of market share and will fail business-wise at worst.

[Tok]

The reality is that 1080p is essentially 2K and 2K is pretty much the standard in Digital Cinema. While I do think Digital Cinema needs higher resolution, I really believe that 1080p/2K is more than enough for even large screen home theaters. Now DVD was clearly inadequate once screen sizes above 50 to 60 inches. High quality 1080p on BD is more than enough on home projection setups. The bigger issue with 1080 signals is the over compression that cable/satellite companies apply to fit more channels in their limited bandwidth.

4K/UHD is new the marketing term to get people to feel that their current equipment is inadequate. Sorry I ain't buying into 4K especially when the industry is trying to deceive me into thinking that 4K streaming will be the best way to get it.

[Z1NONLY]

I saw a 4k demonstration in Best Buy.

4k looks better...but not "better-enough" to cover the extra money. I will probably upgrade to 4k...in 5 to 10 years when the prices come down and there is a lot more 4k content available.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

But apparently not writing about it. Dude, too funny , I was just passed this PM from another member…..http://www.avsforum.com/t/1483393/tr...ip-if-released

You must be an activist on an anti-4K mission, bouncing from forum to forum *to get the word out* to the folks in every province.

Reminds me of the good ‘ol days on AVS during the format war where this sort of multiplex forum canvassing was a daily occurrence.

And your point? You are posting this as if you found the treasure of the sierra madre or something. Are you saying Blu-ray.com is the only home theater forum you belong to? That is quite limiting yourself.

Based on the content of your posts it appears that you are much more emotionally invested in at least the concept of this technology than I am. The purpose of this thread was merely to discuss opinions of whether we'd be peddled snake oil or not with a potential future Blu-ray 4K format, as this is common practice in the A/V industry. By posting in another forum, I was able to get opinions of much more people.

Regarding your other points, you can slag off on Joe Kane all you'd like but he has been a constant reliable reference for home video technologies, certainly moreso than the average anonymous forum member. Therefore I highly value his opinion.

All the theory aside two things have become abundantly clear from these discussions. You can count the number of films that are true 4K (all the way through the whole process) on one hand, and even if you were to get one of those rare true 4K movies you need a massive screen to see the difference between 4k and 1080p unless you are sitting 3ft away from it. It was shocking to learn so many "shot in 4K" films had 2K effects and/or post which would make a 4k release essentially a 1080p upscale.

Bottom line, I still do not see the value of this tech for home theater (at least on the source side). For commercial theater, yes. But for home theater, this is the equivalent of DVD-Audio for me - a heavily-marketed technical difference that will be largely undetectable by the majority of consumers given calibrated sets and same masters.

4K does have merits for PC, medical, commercial, etc... But for Blu-ray movies I just don't see it being significantly beneficial or practical.

[Tok]

Not saying 4K should be entirely tossed away but it's going to a long time before 4K is going to the standard in living rooms across the country.

It's just the hot buzzword to make you think your relatively new flat panel is inadequate.

Ruined you are right. But I hope you feel the same way about 4K streaming.

I personally have no interest in 4K unless it's delivered on disc. I have seen way too many craptastic so-called HD streams from Netflix, Amazon and other providers. Just because they call it HD it doesn't magically polish a turd service.

[Ruined]

I actually feel 4k streaming is even MORE pointless than 4k on disc.

Current streaming can't match 1080p Blu-ray due to bandwidth and compression... So how is it going to match 4k on disc?

At best, 4k streams will likely have more resolution (assuming its not filtered out by the encoder) but also more compression artifacts than 1080p Blu-ray... which I don't see as a net gain, especially since the extra detail will not be noticeable but the compression artifacts will be.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Bottom line, I still do not see the value of this tech for home theater (at least on the source side). For commercial theater, yes. But for home theater, this is the equivalent of DVD-Audio for me - a heavily-marketed technical difference that will be largely undetectable by the majority of consumers given calibrated sets and same masters.

4K does have merits for PC, medical, commercial, etc... But for Blu-ray movies I just don't see it being significantly beneficial or practical.

Hey Ruined.

Tech will always evolve. You're comparison about DVD-Audio is spot on. That said, there is no harm in advancing resolution beyond what average joe sees. The most notable difference from any seating distance playing back 4K is color IMO. I doubt there is room for native 4K optical media to boom in today's digital world.

[Flatnate]

Won't lie, I admit that I have a subscription to Widescreen Review, so I get a lot of Joe's technical write-ups sent through my mailbox. To a lay person with at least more than a casual interest it becomes very easy to trust him on almost everything he says. Granted I am fully aware that the publication got it's start as a Laserdisc review magazine, so I can see how there would have been bias in the past. Gary's introduction articles are often industry op-eds, and at times have been long winded. Most of the time, he makes some good points about the state of the CE industry even if I don't always agree with him on every aspect. They are definitely very "brick and mortor store-centric" bunch over there. On the other end of the spectrum you have guys like Andrew Robinson making statements like how he thinks Magnepan should go direct consumer with the likes of SVS Sound and HSU. Point is we all take our bias's and experience with us when we talk about new tech. You can try to be objective in a review, or a discussion of new tech and I value that objectivity but the more I read the more I realize that old biases and opinions permeate everything. That's ok, I value other's opinions, you just have to be able to spot it as opinion, and that takes some experience. It's good to have a reminder that even Joe K, isn't immune from it either.

For me, my opinion is still out on 4K. We have so much to nail down yet with HDMI 2.0, the colorimetry, source content specs (I think . I think it would be cool to see DisplayPort on sets, but what do I know?! I saw the 65 inch Sony LED again the other day at Best Buy. Looked great hooked up to the server, granted the couch was maybe five feet from it, and it looked almost hyper saturated. There are things the industry can do to make this compelling but it's not there in its current state (see, that part was my opinion there). I know this, I wouldn't buy anything without HDMI 2.0!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ruined

And your point? You are posting this as if you found the treasure of the sierra madre or something. Are you saying Blu-ray.com is the only home theater forum you belong to? That is quite limiting yourself.

Based on the content of your posts it appears that you are much more emotionally invested in at least the concept of this technology than I am. The purpose of this thread was merely to discuss opinions of whether we'd be peddled snake oil or not with a potential future Blu-ray 4K format, as this is common practice in the A/V industry. By posting in another forum, I was able to get opinions of much more people.

Regarding your other points, you can slag off on Joe Kane all you'd like but he has been a constant reliable reference for home video technologies, certainly moreso than the average anonymous forum member. Therefore I highly value his opinion.

The point is that, at least in this case, the multiple forum listing(s) of the original itemized post comes off, not as an incentive to gather opinions but rather just another anti-something crusade, in this particular situation, 4K. Not to mention your inaccurate quoting of a “reliable” expert who was either technically wanting or technically biased (due to HD DVD affiliation) during the format war -- which doesn’t go over too well with longtime members of the Blu-ray movement.

Ruined, show me some ‘balance’. I don’t care too much for negative campaigns against some/any pastime/hobby which may be of interest to others, but not to you, as it’s just like disparaging something like 3D if one has absolutely no interest in that format. Heck, if you really don’t like it, ignore it, but don’t go on a mission negatively criticizing some new technology.

As far as my “emotional investment”, I own and use a 4K camera (the brand will remain anonymous) and I inform those of both the strengths as well as what many would consider practical weaknesses (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...id#post7856932 ) and real pitfalls ( https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...od#post7832414 ) of 4K delivery options and consumer displays which I believe, personal value-regardless, will someday be as ubiquitous as 1080p TVs are to 720p TVs with the mainstream public. So…the evolution of this new consumer format, I find a lot more interesting than many other topics on consumer audio/video forums.

Kind of reminds me of the early days of Blu-ray with Ben ( https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...en#post7929866 ) which were quite intriguing. Anyway, my attitude is rather than being a negative contributor to a technological advancement, think of ways to improve it - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...te#post7325076

Rather than spending all your time thinking of reasons to condemn it.