4K Movies Releases

[saprano]

I also found this while searching that thread-

He also mentioned that the PS3 was quite a capable Blu Ray player, and that Blu Ray as a format was unlikely to be replaced anytime soon (i.e. the next 5/6 years) as there was no big leap in quality to be gained anymore, like from VHS to DVD or DVD to HD. Launching a new format is very expensive it costs billions of dollars apparently.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/3649229-post1.html

And thats from sony themselves.


*Runs while looking over shoulder for penton*

[Flatnate]

I don't mind IMAX running a laser powered 4K DLP projector next to the 15/70mm film stuff but I am sure they'll scrap the film projectors in most venues.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

^ they have a year and 10 months til all the IMAX screens have and will begin the digital conversion.

you haven't been there?! it's a great HUGE screen.

Yes, but unless it's been changed from the original screen, you can see all the screen seams whenever there's a bright scene. That always annoyed the hell out of me.

Someone above claimed that the Loews Lincoln Square is going to keep the 70mm IMAX, but that only works while they still make 70mm prints. When that stops, they'll have no choice but to switch out to digital IMAX. I haven't seen an IMAX film there in a long time. Guess I should go see one soon.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by saprano

Is this why bluray looks better than the theater sometimes?

Yes. What you see all depends on the quality on each of the transfer stages and the resulting image.
Heard of a chain being as strong as its weakest link?

Without counting all manners of color and tone deviations on film duplication and projection, assuming contact printing, final film resolution on screen can depend on all these steps:

First we have the actual object: Image on front of camera x focus x [(aperture selected x quality of camera optics) = Lens] x camera steadiness x emulsion quality = Original Camera Negative Image

So lets assume you got all that optimal and you got 70 c/mm on film.
On standard 35mm, the image is 21mm wide, or ~1500 cycles. A cycle is one black line and one white line (a line/pair) or what you'd call 3000 analog lines of resolution. (Now remember in this capacity the lines of detail being analog are actually formed by variations of density in microscopic grains, so the lines can be in any position they want within the image so they're not exactly "analogous" to fixed pixels on a digital image). Also when detail is small enough that it's reaching this limit (lines on film are shrinking nearing to 1/3000th the size of the 21mm width) they are also being recorded on the film at very low contrast (amplitude) (similar to the high frequency response roll-off of an audio tape). But lets assume you recorded 3000 lines on the neg. To see this you either A: Are Superman and can blow up the negative with your own eyes and see all the detail directly, B: Use a microscope, or C: You print this on positive film and project it. These days, you can also scan it.

So the 3000 lines on the Negative x Interpositive emulsion x Internegative emulsion x Print emulsion (contact printed, optical printing would add more lenses in between each) x [(emulsion orientation on reel x projector lamp heat x mechanical vibration) = projector steadiness] x projector lens x focus = what you see on screen.

(Sitting sufficiently close to the screen so you see all the diminishing lines with enough contrast too)

All those factors degrade the original image bit by bit as it goes though all the intermediate steps to reach your eye. How much you think in each step is needed for it to go from 3000 lines down to the equivalent 1900 pixels? In this example, even if each of the components (IP, IN, P, PS, PL, F) is able to maintain 90% of the resolution of the previous step, you get there. Or if you had just one bad component that does, let's say 50% (bad focus) while the others hypothetically retained 100%, you're already there too, as the bad focus alone in that case would halve the lines) With more degradation on each stage, you could get nearer SD. So the best presentation is the one that has minimized the degradation on each of the steps (excellent duplication with highest quality stock, proper storage of the reel, projector that minimizes unsteadiness and heat transfer (one reason 70mm prints can look bettah: bigger hole = less heat per area & less magnification = steadier image) (or IMAX vaccum suck), an excellent lens, and very important, correct focus (focus can kill everything). If you're into engineering and mathematics you can check more about MTF theory on the web.


With digital, there are stages of degradation too. At the moment for the home you have a 1080 x 1920 pixel limit, so nothing can be better than that but it can be lower. But if you selected a scanner with the correct properties and scanned the film element so that the digital file ends with 100% of the 3000 lines (or even 90%, etc) and on the subsequent digital stages changed nothing (lets say you have a scan that scans 7000 pixels across the 21mm width (a 8K scan) so each line on the film is represented by at least 2 pixels or more and you make sure that the contrast (the ampltude) of even the tiniest lines is above threshold, if you watch that on a 8K monitor it's obviously going to reproduce better than a 35mm print on a theater.

Now at what point by using a downscaling algorithm and smaller monitor it's going to still look (better/ equivalent / worse) than a 35mm print on your (excellent / average / deficient) 35mm theater screen? Obviously a good transfer on a 1080p BD on a direct view 1:1 monitor looks much better than a deficient theater.

Now, the best of transfers compared to an average or the best theater... ?
What about a digitally originated image?

[saprano]

Thanks for that detailed explanation deci. I think this is also what some directors ment when they mention the BD will be better than the theater. But everytime someone mentions that people get up in arms because we all know theaters have a higher resolution, along with being uncompressed, better color etc, than bluray. Thats true, but nobody is talking numbers/specs, they're talking about how itlooks in the home.

Now, the best of transfers compared to an average or the best theater... ?

What about a digitally originated image?

I was going to ask you about this too. I assume a good theater then, also with all the other things you mentioned being perfect, will have a better image than bluray?

Digital releases will always look as good, or better, than at home because it doesn't really degrade or have to go through what you mentioned?

School me.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Yes. What you see all depends on the quality on each of the transfer stages and the resulting image.
Heard of a chain being as strong as its weakest link?....

Nice post.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

But everytime someone mentions that people get up in arms because we all know theaters have a higher resolution, along with being uncompressed...

JPEG 2000 as exhibited in Digital Cinema is compressed.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Thanks for that detailed explanation deci. I think this is also what some directors ment when they mention the BD will be better than the theater. But everytime someone mentions that people get up in arms because we all know theaters have a higher resolution, along with being uncompressed, better color etc, than bluray. Thats true, but nobody is talking numbers/specs, they're talking about how itlooks in the home.

More numbers/specs (as to film) can be found in the paper published back in ’01/’02 as ‘Image Resolution of 35mm film in Theatrical Presentation’. Google it to see if the pdf is still available online.

If you like dem numbers, '4K' in the digital intermediate world is not the same as '4K' in the Digital Cinema (theatrical) world….it’s a different format, for that matter, same thing applies to '2K'. In other words, post production houses work with 4096 x 3112 pixels, meaning a 4:3 aspect ratio, and from that, a presentation window central extraction of 4096 x 2160 is done to produce the ‘4K’ image in Digital theaters.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

I also found this while searching that thread-



http://www.avforums.com/forums/3649229-post1.html

And thats from sony themselves.


*Runs while looking over shoulder for penton*

Whoa, hold the phone, I missed this ^ post as you slipped one by me…..you wolf in sheep’s clothing, you.

I’m not going to quibble with you about the definition of the word “big”. The point is, 4K will offer an improvement over 1080p viewing even to home theater enthusiasts. The *debate*, if you will, is how much of an improvement that will be…and whether that improvement be worth it to home theater enthusiasts who wish to invest in bleeding edge technology – just like you did in purchasing a 1080p Kuro Eite over a more reasonably priced 720p LCD at the time....to which those owners could be providing to you the same arguement, you're doing now with 1080p vs. 4K.

And you’d better run.

Sap, I’m told by a co-member who follows threads/forums over much of the internet (we call him ‘The Machine’ in honor of this hit TV series http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1839578/ . that you have now become a follower and believer of the teachings of *Amir*….in regards to his assertions about 4K home media ( B.T.W., to begin with, I didn’t even realize that the A-man was still posting on internet forums, so this information is rather kind of bizarre and humorous in itself – I wonder if darinp is still holding his feet to the fire regarding facts and accuracy…like with bandwidth).

Anyway, if this is the same *Amir* that I’m thinking of, I'll school you as to the person who left a position at a computer software company in order to *pursue other interests* and as to his past assertion track record on physical home media formats ….

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...eff#post626959

[saprano]

So im being watched now? Im calling the police.

I just agree with some of what he had to say about 4K. It made sense to me. How that all of sudden makes me a follower i don't know. I didn't even remember who he was until you posted. This is getting crazy. This whole 4K vs saprano thing started because (for the billionth time) people in these threads think im against it and think i believe there won't be a difference. But thats not at all true. There will be a difference and i already mentioned how the 4K avatar pic looked better than the 1080p version (though i would still need to see a live comparison). I don't think there will be a humongous earth shattering difference thats all. Many others agree. And the math tells us there shouldn't be. Especially when our BD's are going to be upscaled, for who knows how long, before there's a large selection of native 4K blurays.

And would you kindly tell whichever informant/detective/fbi agent thats watching what i post wherever else to stop it.

[saprano]

The kuro was a large improvement over other displays. And in some ways still is. It was immediately obvious. People who didn't see it were either lying to themselves because they didn't want to pay the price, or just don't know what to look for when it comes to a TV's picture quality.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

So im being watched now? Im calling the police....
And would you kindly tell whichever informant/detective/fbi agent thats watching what i post wherever else to stop it.

You're funny.

No you were not being watched or tracked. Apparently, an outside thread was already being monitored for peoples’ thoughts/feelings about consumer ‘4K’ and the way I understand it, is that you somehow joined in on the conversation and used the word *amir* which triggered a red flag.

Don’t take it personally as the “ informant/detective/fbi agent” doesn’t know you from Adam, so to speak.

[Penton-Man]

This is individual tracking and it only took a few minutes using the proper key word….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...3&postcount=19

^ Seems you already made up your mind on the subject in an authoritative fashion over 3 years ago without having viewed any consumer 4K product.

[PRO-630HD]

What is in store for 4K bluray on the audio side? With Lossless audio is anything better really needed? I would just as soon keep my current receiver. I can't imagine a 4K bluray player wouldn't have 2 HDMI outputs.

Is just improved PQ going to be enough to sell the format?

What is in line for extras that would improve upon PIP commentaries, Max. Movie Mode, etc?

Last request, make sure the format is locked down before you release players! We don't need another fiasco like 1.0-1.1-2.0 players being released 6 months apart! While bluray is an excellent format it has had more growing pains than any format I have ever owned. The 4K BD format wll need to be complete and competent at launch to survive.

[Toxa]

I'm big fan of amir

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

How good are your eyes? (if you can appreciate the aliasing artifacts in the welder's shirt here....
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=162

then the difference between 2k and 4k should be easily obvious to you if you are willing to sit close enough to your display at home.

Expect professional desktop-sized 4k monitors which are practical for on-set usage, as knowledgeable D.P.’s are already clamoring for them…https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-te...ml#post5405008
-especially to examine for noise when the D.P. could be getting close to pushing the limits of the exposure during a particular scene while shooting with high resolution cameras like the Sony F65 or the Red Epic.

+1
For me, increases in resolution gives me more viewing options; not all of them will allow my eyes completely resolve what the display is capable of. Its like looking at a large piece of fine art. Sometimes it's high resolution to view it up close to study the detail; other times it's low resolution to see it in a different context when viewed from far away.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by U4K61

+1
For me, increases in resolution gives me more viewing options; not all of them will allow my eyes completely resolve what the display is capable of. Its like looking at a large piece of fine art. Sometimes it's high resolution view it up close to study the detail...

And some people may not be required to sit quite as close to their home theater screens to appreciate 4K rez over 1080p as internet bloggers might have you believe. See….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...nd#post5910340

In essence, the one arc minute criterion (of which traditional viewing distance/screen size graphs are based on) may also be described as 30 cycles/degree (cpd.). In a paper first published in SMPTE Technical Conference Publication of October 2007 and then later published in the April ? 2008 SMPTE journal, NHK scientists reported that viewers could readily distinguish between motion pictures with 78 cpd. and 156 cpd., with the later being significantly greater than the Visual Acuity Viewing Distance traditional calculations, which many take for granted and written in stone, so to speak.

In a nutshell, what this suggests is that not only are there viewers with better than 20/20 vision but also, even with people having ‘normal’ vision, i.e. 20/20, that perhaps there is something more intangible and subjective going on with viewing higher resolution motion picture displays i.e. “visual realness” as NHK terms it, which makes traditional recommendations/philosophy regarding viewing distance to be not quite as rigid and inflexible as some may think.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And some people may not be required to sit quite as close to their home theater screens to appreciate 4K rez over 1080p as internet bloggers might have you believe. See….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...nd#post5910340

In essence, the one arc minute criterion (of which traditional viewing distance/screen size graphs are based on) may also be described as 30 cycles/degree (cpd.). In a paper first published in SMPTE Technical Conference Publication of October 2007 and then later published in the April ? 2008 SMPTE journal, NHK scientists reported that viewers could readily distinguish between motion pictures with 78 cpd. and 156 cpd., with the later being significantly greater than the Visual Acuity Viewing Distance traditional calculations, which many take for granted and written in stone, so to speak.

In a nutshell, what this suggests is that not only are there viewers with better than 20/20 vision but also, even with people having ‘normal’ vision, i.e. 20/20, that perhaps there is something more intangible and subjective going on with viewing higher resolution motion picture displays i.e. “visual realness” as NHK terms it, which makes traditional recommendations/philosophy regarding viewing distance to be not quite as rigid and inflexible as some may think.

agree 100% that is why every time people post those stupid graphs it bugs me. Anyone that pays enough attention can see that they are far from the truth of what resolution/size/distance is actually needed. There is a BIG difference between the minimum needed to be distracting (readily visible and easy to point out) and the minimum needed to be enjoyable (visible and ruins the presentation but can’t be pinpointed accurately).

[Deciazulado]

^^ Well and also one thing, the common graph that makes the rounds tells you the farthest distance you can sit and "get benefits" using the standard calculation Penton mentioned above (and like Penton said, people can see more, visual discrimination is a complex subject) and people then think that's the best position to watch movies, which it's telling people to sit on the last row of the theater in screen size/field off view terms and so I also argue that you can sit closer/get a larger screen which will fill your field of vision and give you the telepresence that you get when you sit on the middle of the theater to enjoy movies more and the way they're meant to, and future improved resolution helps that along nicely. Acording to John B. Williams' Image Clarity: High-Resolution Photography, there's range of resolutions through which the eyes perceives quality from acceptable, good, very good, excellent (the "It looks like a window") . So you can have 1080/2K and very small screen and excellent, you can also have 1080/2K and a bigger screen and good, or 4k and excellent. etc. Amazing what retinas can perceive.

[saprano]

I always sit in the middle row when i go to the theater. Perfect balance.