4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[JohnCrooks]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

You'd lose out due to interpolation. A 16:9 1080P pixel will convert directly to a 2x2 pixel pattern at UHD (barring any software upscaling processing). A 17:9 2K pixel will require interpolation of each pixel to upscale it to letterboxed 16:9 UHD. So you'd probably lose more in the interpolation than the extra width would give you.

Why not pillarboxed and letterboxed, then?

[Geoff D]

Why would you want to add borders to the picture before you even get to the actual borders for 2.35 widescreen content?

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

It only means it was mastered from 4k elements. You won't actually see it in 4k, just 1080p. You'll have to wait for the Ultra HD Blu-ray version for the full monty.

Technically Fury can be seen now in 4K if you have a 4KTV and a Sony 4K media player (since it's being offered now in digital 4k as a download).

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

I can see it happening at some point but probably not on Ultra HD Blu-ray, apparently the mastered in 4K release of Godzilla 1998 has his effects redone in 1080p I have both but I can't see a difference.

All effects and animation are still done in 2K. I don't see that changing anytime soon. That would effect nearly all blockbuster movies, since those that aren't animation are laden with special effects which are usually the highlights of the movie.

So basically the stuff you most want to see in 4K won't actually be in true 4K on UHD BD, and you'll have to enjoy those scenes for the other enhancements that UHD would bring to the table.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by JohnCrooks

Why not pillarboxed and letterbox, then?

Well in order to get 17:9 2K mapped to 16:9 UHD with no interpolation (ie. a pixel to a whole number of pixel(s)), you would have a 2048x1920 image in a 3840x160 frame... Not exactly ideal .

I've long been of the opinion that UHD Blu-Ray should have the option of full 4K resolution.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Technically Fury can be seen now in 4K if you have a 4KTV and a Sony 4K media player (since it's being offered now in digital 4k as a download).

Not in Europe you can't... Sony are taking the p1$$ over here .

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Alexa's Open Gate mode looks tasty as well, delivering the full 3.4K res of the sensor. People may still think 'well, that's not 4K is it?' but seeing how 35mm acquisition delivers >4K only in the most ideal conditions I think the regular Alexa's gonna be getting a lot of work well into the 4K era, never mind that lovely looking Alexa 65.

In order to take efficient advantage of the imagery that cameras like the Arri Alexa 65 (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=248962 ) and Red Dragon bring to the table, I envision a future involving the next major post house infrastructure upgrade cycle in which 6K data files are handled just as easily as 2K files…at least one facility already has that capability now.

P.S.
Despite marketing hoopla with 5K or 8K monitors which one often sees in the A/V press, in post houses, 4K monitoring (of the acquired ‘6K’ material from these cutting edge cameras with big sensors that capture higher and higher resolutions), 4K monitoring will be a long lasting plateau.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by q-BUZZ-p

I bought the Blu-ray for Fury (2014) today and it says on the back it is a 4K film. I haven't popped it into the Blu-ray player yet, but I'm guessing the picture quality is gonna be great. We get to see Brad Pitt in all his 4K glory LOL.

Attachment 107237

I enjoyed the movie and the range of the character he played….from the beginning ‘get the job done attitude’ to the dinner table scene trying to achieve some sort of momentary humanity/relief from it all, to surprising the preacher guy with his *sympatico* knowledge while in the tank near the end.

Plus, Brad’s first motorcycle was a Kawasaki Enduro ….http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...-magazine.html

Another Pitt, whom few have heard of….http://gonzospencer.com/2014/10/20/b...ivist-brother/

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Not in Europe you can't... Sony are taking the p1$$ over here .

That sucks. I think I've heard of a work around for that though.

[JohnCrooks]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Why would you want to add borders to the picture before you even get to the actual borders for 2.35 widescreen content?

Sorry? I'm simply asking why you can't frame an image to its true size on an UHD Blu-ray Disc.

[JohnCrooks]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Well in order to get 17:9 2K mapped to 16:9 UHD with no interpolation (ie. a pixel to a whole number of pixel(s)), you would have a 2048x1920 image in a 3840x160 frame... Not exactly ideal .

I've long been of the opinion that UHD Blu-Ray should have the option of full 4K resolution.

You'd be asking for a televisual overhaul then-or a niche option for nonstandard screens. I personally don't understand why you couldn't simply frame the image and display it as so-not ideal, but by far the simplest option.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCrooks

Sorry? I'm simply asking why you can't frame an image to its true size on an UHD Blu-ray Disc.

Because it's a non-standard resolution compared to the 16:9 frame size that's the standard for home video. And if you put a 2048x858 (2.39) image into the 3840x2160 UHD frame it'd basically take up less than a quarter of the screen! If we take that up to 4K res, with a 4096x1716 image, then the horizontal resolution will not fit consumer UHD displays so it would need to be either bordered to fit (that's before you even get to to the 2.39 letterboxing), scaled to fit, or cropped to fit which chops off 256 pixels.

That is of course the reality that content providers face every day, that one does not fit into the other, and they have that exact same decision to make. Putting out 2048/4096 content isn't an option, so they scale or crop to 1920/3840 horizontal res. Scaling retains the proper dimensions and all of the available picture area, but (as Kirsty said) it's not a linear process and quality can sometimes be lost, resulting in stuff like aliasing. If they crop the image to fit you'd get the best quality every time, but not the full picture area.

Simply put, it's all a compromise in one way or another, and adding the "true size" of the image into the mix would cause too much consumer confusion, although I admit that it'd be nice to make that decision (scale or crop) for ourselves after seeing the piss poor job that some studios make of the scaling.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by JohnCrooks

Sorry? I'm simply asking why you can't frame an image to its true size on an UHD Blu-ray Disc.

Yes you can, this will involve interpolation.

Originally Posted by JohnCrooks

You'd be asking for a televisual overhaul then-or a niche option for nonstandard screens. I personally don't understand why you couldn't simply frame the image and display it as so-not ideal, but by far the simplest option.

My emphasis.

If many (mostly the 4K /UHD detractors) are to believed, then 4K / UHD will be a niche format. I still think that 17:9 full 4K would be a good option. After all, I don't think it will be long before 17:9 screens may be on sale. Many DSLR companies are updating their ranges with cameras which shoot UHD and 4K. Some gear which is on the market which currently shoots in UHD will shortly be able to shoot full 4K via firmware updates. The Atomos Shogun external recorder being one of these. Sony 4K projectors already display full 17:9 4K from a suitable source.

I still say that since Blu-Ray is for home cinema buffs (UHD / 4K more so), then since they are going though this upgrade upheaval, then incorporating the proper cinema aspect ratio support would be a good thing.

[JohnCrooks]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Because it's a non-standard resolution compared to the 16:9 frame size that's the standard for home video. And if you put a 2048x858 (2.39) image into the 3840x2160 UHD frame it'd basically take up less than a quarter of the screen! If we take that up to 4K res, with a 4096x1716 image, then the horizontal resolution will not fit consumer UHD displays so it would need to be either bordered to fit (that's before you even get to to the 2.39 letterboxing), scaled to fit, or cropped to fit which chops off 256 pixels.

That is of course the reality that content providers face every day, that one does not fit into the other, and they have that exact same decision to make. Putting out 2048/4096 content isn't an option, so they scale or crop to 1920/3840 horizontal res. Scaling retains the proper dimensions and all of the available picture area, but (as Kirsty said) it's not a linear process and quality can sometimes be lost, resulting in stuff like aliasing. If they crop the image to fit you'd get the best quality every time, but not the full picture area.

Simply put, it's all a compromise in one way or another, and adding the "true size" of the image into the mix would cause too much consumer confusion, although I admit that it'd be nice to make that decision (scale or crop) for ourselves after seeing the piss poor job that some studios make of the scaling.

I do understand all of that. I suppose the answer to my question then is, because it would look small (relative to screen size), on an UHD display.

[Geoff D]

That's a bingo. A 2.39 movie in actual 2K would occupy 1757184 pixels of the available 8294400, roughly 21% of the screen! 1.85 wouldn't fare much better, occupying 26% of the available UHD real estate. The borders would be bigger than the movie

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

the 4K /UHD detractors)

Another reason for them to start crying in their beer….http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/artic...ens-increasing

P.S. I think ’43.7’ is a typo though.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the regular Alexa's gonna be getting a lot of work well into the 4K era....

For example, the good puppy commercial shot with an Alexa XT…http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/...uppies-n295646

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

That sucks. I think I've heard of a work around for that though.

Can you pm me that Please?

[moviedude 2K15]

I wonder if Ultra HD 4K Blu-ray will use a different case type or color to differentiate itself from regular Blu-ray?

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Wouldn't doubling every frame cause some oddball motion artifacts?


At least with 1080/60i it's still a true 30fps.

30 fps looks the same on a 60 Hz display regardless of whether it is sent to the display at 30 fps or 60 fps since either way it has to be on the display for 1/30th of a second. The only benefit in sending 30 fps as 30 fps is if you wanted the TV to generate additional frames using motion interpolation. Even than though it should be possible to do that with HEVC since pictures can be marked with a duplicate flag which is used when the current picture is a duplicate of the previous picture. That would take a bit more work but it would deliver the same results.

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

I've long been of the opinion that UHD Blu-Ray should have the option of full 4K resolution.

The problem with that is that scaling 4096 down to 3840 would get rid of a lot of the benefit of having 4K resolution. I don't think the consumer market will go to 4096 since that causes a lot of problems and delivers very little benefit.