List of UHDs that utilize 4K or Higher Masters

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

I'm no longer buying new UHD titles if the source isn't 4K or above. Would i buy a blu ray film if it was sourced from a 720p source? Or a dvd sourced from 540 lines? Why bother investing in the format unless it is treated to a Master that delivers what the format is about!

You still don't seem to realize that resolution is only part of the equation. There are 2k, 2.8k, and 3.4k uprezzed masters that look better than true 4k masters for various reasons (lens choice, camera choice, possible film stock choice, digital manipulation for a certain "look," etc.). There is more to the image than just resolution.

[Geoff D]

Not many people do realise it. I can't fault them for wanting something that says 4K to actually be 4K but there are still some noticeable gains to be had with a UHD version of whatever upscaled movie, as long as one is appreciate of those gains e.g. HDR which is very much a double-pronged matter of taste vs tech. I would of course love to have 4K masters for everything, but that's the icing on the cake for me rather than the be-all and end-all.

The thing about the obsession with resolution is that taking stills and taking moving images are two different things, while the latter can technically have as much spatial resolution as the former this doesn't take into account temporal resolution, i.e. how any kind of moving object shot using the traditional 24fps rate with a 180 degree shutter will basically kill the effective resolution of the image. And I'm not making this up, when looking back for a prognostication of mine in the 8K thread Penton posted a link to a paper which outlined how 8K may struggle to genuinely make an impact on viewers because of how fooked the motion resolution is, that even 120fps might not even be enough! The more pixels you have, the more frames per second you need to preserve those pixels in motion.

The exact same issues apply to 4K as well when setting that against 2K, NOT that there aren't gains to be had but they can often be small (look at the Dog Soldiers BD vs UHD comparison caps, although this is a 16mm source admittedly, but 35mm anamorphic Suspiria that I mentioned upthread can also be compared at capsaholic, spoiler alert: there ain't much in it) and when things move about - as dem 'movies' often do - then the resolution gap is closed further.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

A session at thee upcoming SMPTE 2017 Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition in Hollywood (I’m attending, again this year) is actually devoted to the topic -

Beyond 4K: Can we actually tell stories in motion pictures and TV in 8K? A Cinematography Perspective.
Salon 2

While the full scale implementation of 4K (Ultra HD) is still under way, demos showcasing 8K (Super Hi-Vision) are already being introduced at major industry conferences and shows. While it is part of the strategic plan of some public and private parties, and already standardised (Rec. ITU-R BT.2020, SMPTE ST 2036-1, ARIB STD-B56) the question of the value of 8K as a storytelling tool deserves further consideration.

In this paper, we analyze the relative worth of such a high spatial resolution through the lens (pardon the pun) of temporal resolution and optical flow. Using motion models with real-life footage from some of the most popular recent motion pictures and television shows, the paper clearly demonstrates that even at a frame rate of 120 frames per second, it is nearly impossible to shoot compelling stories that match today's audience expectations while preserving such a high level of spatial resolution, due mainly to motion blur, meaning that the viewer's experience may not be improved by a migration from 4K to 8K.

To achieve an 8K level of resolution on screen (or at least a visible increase in resolution from a 4K source, shown side-by-side), camera motion has to be almost nil. At 8K120, using cameras that are compatible with full-size sensor lenses, an angular motion of only one degree per second in pan or tilt is enough, for example, to negate the increase in resolution. That means that a left to right pan of 45 degrees in a scene would need to last 45 seconds, which is unthinkable in modern cinematography. Progress in bandwidth and compression would be more effectively leveraged in the delivery of "better" pixels, instead of "more" pixels. The author describes several avenues that could be explored using this philosophy, namely the use of ultra high frame rates (240Hz), lesser compression, higher dynamic range and more immersive media.

[Doctorossi]

What we need to be pushing for is for more movies to be finished in 4K, in the first place. As long as studios are only giving us upscaled UHDs in cases of movies finished < 4K (which is 99.99% the case), I’m not going to fault a 2K release of a 2K movie.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

I'm no longer buying new UHD titles if the source isn't 4K or above. Would i buy a blu ray film if it was sourced from a 720p source? Or a dvd sourced from 540 lines? Why bother investing in the format unless it is treated to a Master that delivers what the format is about!

I've seen some excellent UHD discs that stem from 2K DIs. Pacific Rim and Creed come to mind.

[Visitor2014]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I've seen some excellent UHD discs that stem from 2K DIs. Pacific Rim and Creed come to mind.

And also there are some fantastic regular Blu-rays that were done so well there was very little to be gained by the full 4k. Reading the reviews really helps in determining which standard BD's are exceptional.

[Geoff D]

And if you're reading reviews by "professionals" and taking every word as gospel without seeing it for yourself then you're just taking on board their own biases and misconceptions re: 4K. Not that people aren't allowed to have biases and misconceptions, but when it comes to UHD there seems to be precious few reviewers who really know WTF they're talking about, this place included.

[Visitor2014]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And if you're reading reviews by "professionals" and taking every word as gospel without seeing it for yourself then you're just taking on board their own biases and misconceptions re: 4K. Not that people aren't allowed to have biases and misconceptions, but when it comes to UHD there seems to be precious few reviewers who really know WTF they're talking about, this place included.

Not as gospel, for sure. But after buying my first 4k (disastrous purchase that was happily refunded) and learning the hard way, I have been extremely cautious on buying anything without looking at a lot of voices out there. The reviews, so far, have been spot on for what I actually see from the foot of my bed. What I see is what I get, and fortunately I have only purchased from vendors who will refund the purchase if the result is egregious to what is promoted and advertised.

It's no wonder that Costco pulled all of their general 4k titles (with few exceptions) because there are so many things that can go wrong with customer satisfaction.

Here's a post you might get a kick out of:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...7#post16191807

The above is a recent post I did that is linked to my Signature about distance.

[Visitor2014]

Originally Posted by multiformous

Obligatory Steve Yedlin Resolution Demo link.

Wow . . . this is a keeper.

[Visitor2014]

Originally Posted by birdztudio

i used to mention this but seems nobody sees it, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo disappeared from the list, what happened?

"As previously reported, Sony was preparing Panic Room and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo for 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray later this year, but now The Digital Bits is reporting that Sony has no plans to release either film in the United States in 2018 or 2019."

Source:
https://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...d-bluray/42556

[Visitor2014]

Originally Posted by gkolb

If anyone is interested, I found the video from CES 2019 thread in post 188, it's this:

Sony - BRAVIA - Z9G/ZG9 Series - MASTER Series 8K HDR TV - YouTube

It's a short video, but zero in on the part starting around 0:26 .

Did you notice how close the guy is sitting to the 96" Screen? I suspect the Oled 65" I have 7 feet from my eyeballs could easily be replaced with LED technology if I increased the size to 96" .

But then again, the estimated price of the new Sony is $15,000 . More than what I paid for the Oled.

Still . . . beautiful.

[TheSweetieMan]

i’M nO lOnGEr bUyInG tItLeS tHaT aReNt 4K

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Visitor2014

And also there are some fantastic regular Blu-rays that were done so well there was very little to be gained by the full 4k. Reading the reviews really helps in determining which standard BD's are exceptional.

Ah, so you're not one of the "4K or nokay" people, you don't think that even full-fat 4K is worth it, well, not unless some trusted opinion tells you otherwise.

Ps

I also sit 7ft from a 65"

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I've seen some excellent UHD discs that stem from 2K DIs. Pacific Rim and Creed come to mind.

I hear what you are saying, i was surprised when i found out that John Wick 1 was true 4K and Wick 2 was a 1080p upscale. I find that most titles benefit from being sourced at a true 2160p resolution, as evidenced by Universal releasing The Fast And The Furious in true 4K and Fast 6, 7 and 8 from the same 1080p master as the bd's. I simply don't want to encourage the studios to get cheap by releasing older films using a previously existing 1080p BD master.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

i’M nO lOnGEr bUyInG tItLeS tHaT aReNt 4K

tHaT’s ToO bAd; YoU’lL mIsS oUt On SoMe GrEaT dIsCs.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

I hear what you are saying, i was surprised when i found out that John Wick 1 was true 4K and Wick 2 was a 1080p upscale. I find that most titles benefit from being sourced at a true 2160p resolution, as evidenced by Universal releasing The Fast And The Furious in true 4K and Fast 6, 7 and 8 from the same 1080p master as the bd's. I simply don't want to encourage the studios to get cheap by releasing older films using a previously existing 1080p BD master.

At this point I am buying every title that I want in 4K just to support the format.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

I hear what you are saying, i was surprised when i found out that John Wick 1 was true 4K and Wick 2 was a 1080p upscale. I find that most titles benefit from being sourced at a true 2160p resolution, as evidenced by Universal releasing The Fast And The Furious in true 4K and Fast 6, 7 and 8 from the same 1080p master as the bd's. I simply don't want to encourage the studios to get cheap by releasing older films using a previously existing 1080p BD master.

They're really not using the "1080p BD masters", but I'm getting the vibe that you've made your mind up so I won't press the point further.

[Visitor2014]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ah, so you're not one of the "4K or nokay" people, you don't think that even full-fat 4K is worth it

Not sure where I said that. There are some 4k titles that knock the socks off, but that does not necessarily mean I care for the movie, storyline, directing, or acting. Moreover, there are some titles that I will forever attribute to my growing up years, which aided in my beliefs and actions, that may be only available in upscale . . . and every inch of improvement is one giant leap for me-kind. All in all, whatever I enjoy on my screen immerses me into the story. Most of my titles are keepers that bring another meaning to life on each viewing.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

well, not unless some trusted opinion tells you otherwise.

Trusting a reviewer, such as yourself at The Digital Fix, is not something I take lightly. If I read a review of yours that leads to my purchasing a product, then the final score of the review is going to be how the product performs for me (not necessarily anyone else). If others concur with the elements of your review, then it helps me to make the decision of purchase. Reviews that contain a lot of puffery are very noticeable to me. Sometimes I attribute my noticing review flaws to having internal discernment at the moment.

I made a purchase two weeks ago because of my overall enjoyment of the leading actor's other films from the 60's and 70's. Contrary to enjoying the film, it was becoming intolerable and I felt I would never watch it again (a non-keeper). Back it went for a full refund to the vendor. A rarity for me. It says I am still vulnerable to making off-purchases.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ps

I also sit 7ft from a 65"

What is the brand and model of your set?

[GuyBrushwood9000]

I'm just buying whatever.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Visitor2014

Not sure where I said that. There are some 4k titles that knock the socks off, but that does not necessarily mean I care for the movie, storyline, directing, or acting. Moreover, there are some titles that I will forever attribute to my growing up years, which aided in my beliefs and actions, that may be only available in upscale . . . and every inch of improvement is one giant leap for me-kind. All in all, whatever I enjoy on my screen immerses me into the story. Most of my titles are keepers that bring another meaning to life on each viewing.


Trusting a reviewer, such as yourself at The Digital Fix, is not something I take lightly. If I read a review of yours that leads to my purchasing a product, then the final score of the review is going to be how the product performs for me (not necessarily anyone else). If others concur with the elements of your review, then it helps me to make the decision of purchase. Reviews that contain a lot of puffery are very noticeable to me. Sometimes I attribute my noticing review flaws to having internal discernment at the moment.

I made a purchase two weeks ago because of my overall enjoyment of the leading actor's other films from the 60's and 70's. Contrary to enjoying the film, it was becoming intolerable and I felt I would never watch it again (a non-keeper). Back it went for a full refund to the vendor. A rarity for me. It says I am still vulnerable to making off-purchases.


What is the brand and model of your set?

I've given up the reviewing lark, it's a waste of time.

My TV is a Sony 65ZD9.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

You still don't seem to realize that resolution is only part of the equation. There are 2k, 2.8k, and 3.4k uprezzed masters that look better than true 4k masters for various reasons (lens choice, camera choice, possible film stock choice, digital manipulation for a certain "look," etc.). There is more to the image than just resolution.

I understand that, but as a BASE requirement, i want the resolution of the final transfer to be on a 1:1 pixel ratio for the image that i'm watching. Am i watching Attack Of The Clones or Tom Cruise' Collateral on BD? Because they were both lensed at a screen resolution (due to 2.35:1) of 720p resolution, and that's what i got on BD. A 4K film taken from a 1080p Master is a quarter of the resolution of the screen i'm watching it on. And that is just plain lazy on behalf of the studios!