4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Charon

That's a tough question to answer at this point, we'll have to wait and see. IMO (and this is just my opinion) whether or not a 3D version of a film is successful really depends on the film. The Lion King is Disney's most successful 2D animated film ever. Historically Disney released their films to theaters every seven years and in the past decade or two they've applied that schedule (more or less) to their video releases (putting them in the vault..) with the popular ones getting a limited theatrical release with some extras (new scenes, IMAX, now 3D) to get people in theaters. The Lion King is the kind of film where this makes sense and one of the reasons is animation is different.

I'm somewhat familiar with the software "vault" re-release of Disney classics, but not so familiar with their theatrical re-release schedule...though I do admit to seeing Fantasia back in the '60's when it was re-released with a stereo soundtrack.

Disney took a chance with a 2 week theatrical 3D re-release and was handsomely rewarded. Did you read Disney has scheduled 4 additional theatrical 3D conversion re-releases for the near future? No "wait and see" attitude with those folks.

Shucks...gotta go. I'll address your other interesting comments later.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Charon

.... The 3D versions of Pirates and Harry Potter both tanked on 3D recently. Pirates was filmed in 3D and Potter was a conversion. In both cases the 3D was nice, I liked it. But it didn't add anything to those films really.

Look what Pirates did worldwide:

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $241,071,802 + Foreign: $798,500,000 = Worldwide: $1,039,571,802

and Potter:

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $380,350,637 28.7%
+ Foreign: $947,100,000 71.3%
= Worldwide: $1,327,450,637

Overseas... 3D audiences make up between 50 to 60% of box office receipts....higher than in the States. These are damn good numbers.

Titanic is a film that a lot of people like (I'm not a fan) so I'm sure the 3D will help sell tickets. Top Gun I don't see selling many tickets, but the 3D will sell on Blu-Ray.

Top Gun 3D is an interesting development. It's a corroboration effort between one of the 3D conversion houses and Paramount. They're going to split any profits. Love It!!!

Re-issues of the Godfather and Dirty Dancing were not very successful and 3D would not have helped. 3D makes more sense with Top Gun, just not in theaters IMO. We'll wait and see. With Star Wars, the fact that GL is going in order started with the prequels is bad news, especially starting out with the worst SW film period. If this was the original I would go see it. In recent years the prequels have had a polarizing effect on fans with many finally snapping out of it and realizing they are terrible. The blu sold well but I'm sure the extras helped.

"3D has been a wonderful exercise but I was brought up as a camera operator so its really about lensing and all that kind of stuff. So with the help I’ve had from a wonderful cameraman and his technical team its been, for me, a pretty straight forward ride. That said I’ll never work without 3D again, even for small dialogue scenes. I love the whole process. 3D opens up the universe of even a small dialogue scene so I’ve been very impressed with that."

Those words were spoken by Ridley Scott. Honestly....3D would help ANY movie.

As for conversions, like laie_techie said, that tech is easier with animation because of it's nature. Harry Potter lacked depth, the depth looked odd to me and many objects you could tell were flat. It's a mixed bag.

No doubt that converting live action to 3D would be difficult and more expensive. BUT, I think I can speak for the uncounted millions of catalog movie fans out there by saying...it would be well worth the effort.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Charon

...Harry Potter lacked depth, the depth looked odd to me and many objects you could tell were flat. It's a mixed bag.

The lack of depth is more of a subjective evaluation which is difficult to find *fault* with if that was the creative intention , so at least that observation comes down more to personal preference, i.e. see - https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post5168110

What is more objective and bothersome would be the presence of any technical errors with the conversion…because given the time, $$ and experience, these could be correctable, esp. if such errors were highly prevalent as compared to the 'good' converted imagery.

Did you notice any such errors…and if so, what type, which scenes?

P.S.
Please forgive the illustrative links to my thread, or, for that matter, to any other outside threads, in case you or others feel them to be annoying.

In reality, the practice is an old habit of mine which comes from years of writing scientific papers, in which when a statement is made or hypothesis introduced, the source is cited, be it from the same author or any outside investigator.

[Penton-Man]

I like your thinking ole geezer . Since you’re a fan of commercial theatrical 3D and I think you’ve mentioned you haven’t pulled the trigger yet on a home 3D system, I’ll let you in on a little technical tidbit which is a current challenge in the industry….at least in terms stereo 3D theatrical vs. home, in general.

Smaller (and thusly, less immersive) home theater screen size aside, theatrical 3D does offer a different *3D experience* than 3D at home. What I’m getting at is that when scaling theatrical cinema screen content in order to be shown on home theater displays, disparities are obviously reduced (the depth is more contracted or squished together, if you will, than that exhibited at the theater), which you just can’t get around but, what may not be as intuitively obvious to folks is also the fact that the perceived depth of objects in a scene is affected in a non-linear fashion when the 3D is scaled for the home display devices.

One of the latest on-going 3D application projects involves finding solutions at the post production stage of content production to mitigate this difference in perceptual 3D imagery between cinema and home 3D exhibition caused by current scaling method which affects depth of objects in a non-linear fashion in order to help make home 3D look more similar to theatrical 3D.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I notice that the link which I had originally posted ^ is now *not functioning*, so here is the direct link to the UHDTV (closer to reality) news -
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/p...s/2011/39.aspx

Stepping down somewhat in terms of resolution (4k2k) and in regards to new codecs [High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)] and potential commercial applicability of 4k2k (other than packaged/physical home media which seems to be of some debate here and which I’ll try to stay out of), the ITU-TISO/IEC Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) foresees applicable usages will be in delivering the emerging 4k x 2k video format in the same channel capacity as HD AVC today and eventually more power efficient coding for things like handheld devices. JCT-VC is aggressively aiming for a 2013 distribution date for the HEVC standard.

Penton-Man...

This technology challenged reader would like to ask....Could movies shot on the Sony F65 camera with its' 8k image sensor along with a suitable commercial projector eventually bring UHDTV's 7680 x 4320 resolution to our local theater screens?

Huge wall to wall UHDTV type screens as seen in that Arnold Schwarzenneger Total Recall movie just don't seem very practical or affordable for anyone other than the super rich.

[Penton-Man]

For the sake of expediency, I mixed two things together in that post, namely UHDTV broadcast and an upcoming codec (HEVC) which people believe will have many 4k applications, so you may be confused in that I lumped apples and oranges together in the same post, so to speak.

I figure it will be a loooong time before we see any practical applications of UHDTV. Fellow member 4K2K brought the topic up and coincidentally there was recent ITU news which I thought he’d find interesting. It’s just fun to talk about in that it is sort of the pie-in-the-sky or golden fleece of resolution. I really don’t know much about it other than to answer your question as it refers to the F65. The F65 camera records 4K video with a 20.4megapixel sensor whereas the NHK Super High Viz camera records 8k view with a 33 megapixel camera. So, the answer is no, unless you could somehow stitch together the images from two F65s to make one image on those UHDTV displays. UHDTV is really not my bag. Just too, too far in the future.

Regarding screen sizes and the 4k x 2k resolution, which is on the much, much more immediate horizon than UHDTV, you really don’t need super large screens or displays to appreciate ‘4k's’ gain in resolution over HD, you just have to sit close enough to do so. Anyone who has dabbled with this 56” monitor…
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/Broa..._srdl560.shtml

or even smaller 36” monitor….
http://gizmodo.com/5813575/a-4k-reso...s-on-your-desk

can readily attest to that. In fact, I think a few folks on the Red camera forum have done so in the past. I would have to search for the old thread on the matter.

[saprano]

How much of a difference is 4k going to really make in the home? I know theres going to be some differences from 1080p but will it be night and day like DVD?

I don't want to spend money buying new equipment and movies for a little bit of an improvement. Take Transformers 3 for example. One of the best looking BD's to date. Watching it my 60" kuro replicates exactly what i saw in the theater this pass summer. Would a 4k BD of that movie look even better?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

How much of a difference is 4k going to really make in the home? I know theres going to be some differences from 1080p but will it be night and day like DVD?

I don't want to spend money buying new equipment and movies for a little bit of an improvement. Take Transformers 3 for example. One of the best looking BD's to date. Watching it my 60" kuro replicates exactly what i saw in the theater this pass summer. Would a 4k BD of that movie look even better?

I haven’t seen tests of a 4k BD of any movie….and apparently, I am not allowed to imagine about things –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...ml#post5364638

Anyway, baby steps first…
http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/03/p...oving-picture/

[saprano]

Your post and Nissens post explains alot.

I guess little things like that would be a non issue with 4KBD?

How are those 4K pictures going to be displayed on our TV? Will it be downscaled to 1080p?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by saprano

How much of a difference is 4k going to really make in the home? I know theres going to be some differences from 1080p but will it be night and day like DVD?

I don't want to spend money buying new equipment and movies for a little bit of an improvement. Take Transformers 3 for example. One of the best looking BD's to date. Watching it my 60" kuro replicates exactly what i saw in the theater this pass summer. Would a 4k BD of that movie look even better?

no one can decide it but you. I am sure I can find people that would say the difference between DVD and BD is small, I am sure I can find people that say the difference between streaming and BD is small, I am sure I can find people that say the difference between VHS and DVD is small. ON the other hand if you ask me, those differences are all more than big enough. If someone cares, I am guessing, the difference will be visible and so big enough, if someone does not care it will still be visible but they won't care.

Resolution/ image quality won't change the acting nor the plot, with higher resolution you should get finer detail and a more natural image.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by saprano

How much of a difference is 4k going to really make in the home? I know theres going to be some differences from 1080p but will it be night and day like DVD?

I don't want to spend money buying new equipment and movies for a little bit of an improvement. Take Transformers 3 for example. One of the best looking BD's to date. Watching it my 60" kuro replicates exactly what i saw in the theater this pass summer. Would a 4k BD of that movie look even better?

Transformers 3 has been locked in at 2k, so you don't get much of a quality boost. Any movie shot on 35mm film would be superior with a 4k transfer assuming a suitable source can be found.

[WontonNoodle]

4K will look straight up amazing.
That is all.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I like your thinking ole geezer . Since you’re a fan of commercial theatrical 3D and I think you’ve mentioned you haven’t pulled the trigger yet on a home 3D system, I’ll let you in on a little technical tidbit which is a current challenge in the industry….at least in terms stereo 3D theatrical vs. home, in general.

Smaller (and thusly, less immersive) home theater screen size aside, theatrical 3D does offer a different *3D experience* than 3D at home. What I’m getting at is that when scaling theatrical cinema screen content in order to be shown on home theater displays, disparities are obviously reduced (the depth is more contracted or squished together, if you will, than that exhibited at the theater), which you just can’t get around but, what may not be as intuitively obvious to folks is also the fact that the perceived depth of objects in a scene is affected in a non-linear fashion when the 3D is scaled for the home display devices.

One of the latest on-going 3D application projects involves finding solutions at the post production stage of content production to mitigate this difference in perceptual 3D imagery between cinema and home 3D exhibition caused by current scaling method which affects depth of objects in a non-linear fashion in order to help make home 3D look more similar to theatrical 3D.

Thanks Penton. Yes...it's true. I'm looking for a new rig for my HT room to replace my old 720P projector and I've been given this a lot of thought lately.
I've resisted upgrading my projector to 1080p because....well, ZoetMB explained the idea behind my thought processes extremely well when he wrote:

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

... I recently bought a new system that is reputed to do a really good job with upscaling. So I threw in a DVD the other day and I was shocked just how good it looked upscaled. Did it look every bit as good as a Blu-ray? No, but on most of the several films I tested, it was suprisingly close and for films that I wouldn't watch more than once every few years, I decided that I probably wasted some money re-buying them on BD in spite of the better sound quality. I doubt whether a neophyte user would be able to tell the difference on first viewing...

I have the same misgivings when comparing 720P to 1080P; both are surprisingly close in rendering detail even on a large HT screen. BUT, if a 4k projector can upscale 1080P 2D/3D content to the same degree that DVDs were dramatically up-scaled....we just might have a winner here. So...that's my plan.

[khris1]

To see a significant difference between 4K and 1080p will require a big screen and being close to it. In most living rooms situations, 1080p will be just fine. For projection equipments though, 4K benefits can be noticeable, but other than that, I can't help thinking that with HD TV still ramping up, 4K is mostly about marketing.

[WontonNoodle]

60+ inch tv's ull be able to tell the difference.

[Steedeel]

Bring it on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by khris1

To see a significant difference between 4K and 1080p will require a big screen and being close to it...

Well, I wish you would have told Curtis Clark, the longtime head of the ASC Technology Committee (http://www.theasc.com/ac_society/ind...Tech_Committee)
that pearl of wisdom at this recent Symposium –
http://www.hpaonline.com/mc/page.do?sitePageId=129261

for, in considering the need for a D.P. to set an accurate look on-set which can then journey through the post production pipeline, he publically queried the Senior Product Manager of Sony as to when a practical 4k monitor would be available for use on-set and perhaps your intervention would have enlightened Curtis and prevented him from asking for such a needless display.

P.S.
By ‘practical’ 4K monitor, he meant something on the order of the size of which would fit on the cart here - http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/video/chann...behind_scenes/

or around…desktop size. Sure a 1080p flat panel will be ‘just fine’ for most consumers. A 720p flat panel is ‘just fine’ for many consumers, esp. if they sit back far enough.

In recent years, various prototype 4K flat panel displays have been shown as technology demos at industry trade shows such as IBC. Anecdotal reports from firsthand viewers indicated that they could appreciate a “significant” difference…from 1080p. I guess it depends on how discerning a viewer you are and what your expectations may be.

[bkbluray]

4K is a nice idea, but for me, I can't see upgrading to that anytime in the next 5-10 years. I've invested too much into my TV and 1080p Blu-rays to make that worth it in the least. Not to mention, I don't have the space for a very large projector.

I'm not complaining though, if you guys build a 4K theater I will be the first one over

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by bkbluray

4K is a nice idea, but for me, I can't see upgrading to that anytime in the next 5-10 years. I've invested too much into my TV and 1080p Blu-rays to make that worth it in the least...

I appreciate your sentiments, I really do, as they exemplify what I meant by a “pocket shocker” here…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-te...ml#post5390265

or, to put it into more visual terms –

Best Buy® Buy Back Program: Outdated World - YouTube

[Flatnate]

I'll admit that I'm more keen to a 4k resolution computer monitor than anything else at this point. A 4k projector probably comes in second, but 4k for a reasonable living room television at normal viewing distances.... psh.