Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

That's fine, so long as you aren't one of those people who get upset at others for preferring to watch movies in something other than OAR.

No, just digital copies on large TVs

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

but Dynamo brings up a good point. these movies are a product of their time. how is increasing the clarity different than colorizing a black and white film? you can say "the clarity was always there, technology just didn't let us see it" but that arguement can be used as a reason to colorize film - has color been available, wouldn't most of them have used that? a lot of films were made knowing that the image would only be so clear in the theatre so they could get away with things that would look phony if you saw them live. with the new formats, these things become more and more evident and start to ruin the movie or show because now instead of being pulled into that scary scene, you now see the string pulling the door open(if you really want to respect the filmmaker's work, you won't be going in and removing that string)

The problem with the argument that "the clarity was always there" is that it was there in the original negative, not in the end presentation when older movies came out. At least some filmmakers likely took the end presentation technology of the time when their respective films came out into account. While I'm sure they knew that technology would evolve over time, they had to work with what they had.

Now that certainly doesn't mean that they want everything viewed today on a 480i 4X3 TV or anything like that. But they may not want a level of definition applied to their films that reveal more problems than what they intended at the time that they made them.

This is something that I've thought about from time to time long before anyone was talking about 4k.

While it's understandable to assume that filmmakers in general want their films viewed in OAR, the same may not apply to the absolute maximum resolution possible.

[Lucy Diamond]

Does anyone else stop by this thread after they buy a ton of movies??

I just did $200 worth of damage at Best Buy

[Geoff D]

While it is true that film goes through several intermediary stages to get to a movie screen, it still has to be blown up to a ridonkulous size considering how titchy that negative is (35 or less, natch). It's a double edged sword, because while those print generations will help to even out grain and fudge out wires, if anything they had to overdo the quality at the source to make sure that it got through, especially with VFX.

Why would ILM have gone to the trouble of building an optical printer out of a VistaVision camera, if they weren't concerned about how those multiple passes would look if done on regular 4-perf 35? Some of Ghostbusters' VFX was done on 65mm, which is why many of the opticals actually look sharper and cleaner than the anamorphic 35 footage which bookends them.

There will be certain bits and pieces that don't hold up in 4K, just like there's content which doesn't look great in HD, but that will simply be a function of the constraints (time, budget etc) of the production rather than any underlying shortcomings with the technology itself. With that in mind, I'm not gonna cut off my nose to spite my face, i.e. I'll gladly accept 4K for the benefits it brings, regardless of whatever seams it may show.

And besides, it's not like high resolution is a modern concept. Large format (in whatever gauge) has been around for many decades, proving that, even way back when, people were striving for better picture quality. ME WANTEE!

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

The problem with the argument that "the clarity was always there" is that it was there in the original negative, not in the end presentation when older movies came out. At least some filmmakers likely took the end presentation technology of the time when their respective films came out into account. While I'm sure they knew that technology would evolve over time, they had to work with what they had.

Now that certainly doesn't mean that they want everything viewed today on a 480i 4X3 TV or anything like that. But they may not want a level of definition applied to their films that reveal more problems than what they intended at the time that they made them.

This is something that I've thought about from time to time long before anyone was talking about 4k.

While it's understandable to assume that filmmakers in general want their films viewed in OAR, the same may not apply to the absolute maximum resolution possible.

exactly. the filmmaker may not have ever planned for such clarity and by seeing them that clear, you are not seeing what they wanted. people tend to be picky when it comes to technology and movies - they want it as clear as possible but colorizing a film or making a stereo soundtrack out of a mono one is wrong. it isn't what's on the film that matters but how you were supposed to see it that counts. that doesn't mean that doing better scans and getting a clearer picture is wrong, it just means that we need to be aware that this might not be how we were meant to see it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

All though you may not know this ~ For the paste 5+ years I have really enjoyed reading what you have to say & how you say it Penton-Man

Thanks

GEICO Hump Day Camel Commercial - Happier than a Camel on Wednesday - YouTube

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

i.e. I'll gladly accept 4K for the benefits it brings, regardless of whatever seams it may show...

It won’t even show seams, if enough care is given. During color correction, defocus filters can be used for the entire image or even just parts of it….. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...us#post2192537 Heck, that’s been one of the most popular tools offered by any manufacturer since about 2002 - http://www.finalcolor.com/historyDV.htm

Or if you want to completely get rid of something that the 4K scan makes unintentionally apparent, you can simply paint it out… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...re#post4496527

There are more complex things to be concerned about in determining what to do with older motion pictures… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...le#post4507580

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

ME WANTEE!

Me-too-ee.

I would like to see and I’ll bet most Directors in most cases would prefer having audiences see, something closer to the degree of resolution they saw when viewing their dailies rather than generation-diluted release prints….after accounting for removal of wires and such.

Of course the above is just my opinion, but this is an opinion thread.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

exactly. the filmmaker may not have ever planned for such clarity and by seeing them that clear, you are not seeing what they wanted. people tend to be picky when it comes to technology and movies - they want it as clear as possible but colorizing a film or making a stereo soundtrack out of a mono one is wrong. it isn't what's on the film that matters but how you were supposed to see it that counts. that doesn't mean that doing better scans and getting a clearer picture is wrong, it just means that we need to be aware that this might not be how we were meant to see it.

We go through this exact same kind of soul-searching every time a jump in PQ takes place - heck, I remember reading a fevered debate at the HTF about the remastered DVD of George Pal's War Of The Worlds because the wires on the models were now clear as day (though I said then, as I say now, that they've always been visible to me).

That seems to be the common theme, that of minor details like wires becoming more visible. Lowry painted them out of certain model shots in the 4K version of Goldfinger, and IIRC Warners painted out the ones holding up the Lion's tail for the 8K restoration of Wizard of Oz. Are trifling matters like that worth obstructing the reveal of the artistry that is - and always was - on the negatives?

Someone just PM'd me and asked if I thought that this is equivalent to colourisation, and I say no, absolutely not. You're not adding anything, just peeling back another layer of detail that was always there. If said minor seams are brought into sharp relief, then they can be massaged out without offending all but the most anal of purists.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

We go through this exact same kind of soul-searching every time a jump in PQ takes place - heck, I remember reading a fevered debate at the HTF about the remastered DVD of George Pal's War Of The Worlds because the wires on the models were now clear as day (though I said then, as I say now, that they've always been visible to me).

but that's kind of the point - they weren't visible to most people when it was first released but being remastered brings them out for everyone. you can't say that the director wanted people to see the model wires. it does change how people think about the film as you can be pulled out of the scene when you see things like that. even look at old bluescreen shots - unless they are recomposited when remastered, they can look pretty bad now. that is part of the problem though - a lot of these issues could be fixed if studios didn't just remaster the film but actually recomposited effects to take advantage of today's technology. Star Trek is actually a really good example. Look at the remastered TNG episodes - the ships look great because they are going in and recompositing them so we get the best shot possible. but look at the movies - remastering them has brought out the clarity but you are also starting to see things like stars passing through the ships, etc. These are things that wouldn't have mattered when the movie originally came out because very few could notice them but with the increased clarity, it is becoming more and more visible. unless they fix the problem, it is only going to get worse and worse as resolution gets better. is it going to bother everyone? no but we are at a point now where people won't watch certain movies because they are in black and white or 4x3 - what are they going to think of War of the Worlds when they see the wires there plain as day? a lot of people can't comprehend "oh, this movie was made in 19xx so that's how it was done".

[raygendreau]

Ultra HD magazine looks like a good source of info for all things 4K and Ultra HD. Netflix didn't waste any time getting on board:

http://www.ultrahdtv.net/netflix-4k-...-least-15mbps/

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

but that's kind of the point - they weren't visible to most people when it was first released but being remastered brings them out for everyone. you can't say that the director wanted people to see the model wires. it does change how people think about the film as you can be pulled out of the scene when you see things like that. even look at old bluescreen shots - unless they are recomposited when remastered, they can look pretty bad now. that is part of the problem though - a lot of these issues could be fixed if studios didn't just remaster the film but actually recomposited effects to take advantage of today's technology. Star Trek is actually a really good example. Look at the remastered TNG episodes - the ships look great because they are going in and recompositing them so we get the best shot possible. but look at the movies - remastering them has brought out the clarity but you are also starting to see things like stars passing through the ships, etc. These are things that wouldn't have mattered when the movie originally came out because very few could notice them but with the increased clarity, it is becoming more and more visible. unless they fix the problem, it is only going to get worse and worse as resolution gets better. is it going to bother everyone? no but we are at a point now where people won't watch certain movies because they are in black and white or 4x3 - what are they going to think of War of the Worlds when they see the wires there plain as day? a lot of people can't comprehend "oh, this movie was made in 19xx so that's how it was done".

I've been seeing matte lines, transparencies, wires, garbage mattes and the general degradation inherent to most opticals for as long as I've been watching movies. Don't make the mistake of assuming that every filmmaker thought that every shot was perfect; just as we can see the flaws, what do you think they saw when they looked through the viewfinder or viewed a completed optical pass?

Yes, they knew that release prints would help to conceal certain flaws, but they also made sure that it wouldn't curtail the artistry itself, which is why things like digital wire removal and grain management (note: not wholesale grain reduction) are very much in keeping with that original ethos.

But using TNG as an example of recomping VFX is a touch disingenous, because it's not like it was finished at a motion-picture level of quality to begin with. They redid it because the completed shots literally did not exist in HD, and not because they looked a bit rough around the edges.

As for folks not wanting to watch black and white, I know people whose kids won't watch a film unless it's 3D, never mind in colour! The point being that as technology progresses certain things will always be dismissed by those who simply don't know any better - but why should I care about said people? It's their loss.

[blonde_devil]

fair enough. to an extent, movies need to be viewed as a product of thier times and people need to understand that sometimes you are going to see things that you probably shouldn't. the effects from T2 were groundbreaking at the time but now some of them look a little cheeze and I am sure in 15 years we will be talking about how bad some of the modern effects look. nature of the business. anyone who decides not to watch a good movie because of that is missing out. for me, bluray is a good place right now as we are getting decent quality without seeing too much.

[Geoff D]

For all of my waffling about seeing the joins here there and everywhere, I still think T2 is an astonishing piece of VFX work. Some of that CG couldn't be done any better today, and I truly mean that. There are some clunkers too, but ILM hit way more often than they missed on that show.

Fingers crossed it'll get a 4K remaster for the 25th anniversary, and maybe even a stereo makeover at some point. If it gets a 3D conversion half as good as Titanic I'll be all over it.

[Packerfan75]

Originally Posted by pixler

I bought a lot of movies of DVD and then Blu-Ray came along and I was sold on this technology so I started re-buying movies I once had on DVD so I can get them on Blu-Ray. Now we have 4K technology but I'm not buying into it, at least not yet. Blu-Ray is good enough for me. I'm not going to keep re-buying movies everytime a new technology comes out. I might upgrade later down the road but it's too soon for a new format to come out. Blu-Ray is still new, it hasn't been around for very long. Technology needs to slow down. I just hope 4K doesn't phase out Blu-Ray any time soon.

Music to my ears. It's way too early for 4k considering that bluray still hasn't finished off dvd as it is. I also feel the same whay about 3D. Having to buy a whole new T.V. , player and discs is ridiculous. Only the few with lots of money to blow on every new thing can keep up with that. Despite reports, I think bluray discs will be here for many more years to come and I'm very content to keep it that way.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

The bottom line is that I was springboarding off of that comment. I didn't mean to mis-paraphrase it. You get overly particular about these things sometimes.

You asked why I responded to you and not to him. And no, I am not being particular.


Let me try and explain the HUMONGUOUS difference again but this time with an example

Let’s say Bob goes to Amazon and sees
http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Dark...738196&sr=1-11

ST:ID gift set for 49.55
Or
http://www.amazon.com/Blu-ray-SteelB...rgo+steel+book

Argo steel book for 47.32

Or
http://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Collec...ectors+edition

Pacific Rim CE for 44.96

And bob decided to buy them because "I've paid far more for certain Laserdisc and DVHS titles so I am willing to spend up to 50$ on a BD I want”

Do you get now why I could not question what he said, there will always be rare films, collectors editions...... that will be expensive. I don’t remember how much I paid, but it was a lot more than 50$ for the Blade runner film in the numbered plastic briefcase.

On the other hand what would you say if someone used the “I will buy it since it is under 50$” to springboard to

“BD is doomed because people are used to lower prices and there are not as many people today willing to pay LD prices”? You would assume the guy is nuts. Yes some are close to 50$ but there are others that are much cheaper. Like I said I bought BR for much more than 50$, on the other hand I bought a couple of days ago Halloween double feature for 5$ ( so it would be 2.50/film) and Goonies/Gremlins/Gremlins 2 for 9.99 (so it would be 3.33/film)

that is why I asked if you believed that the 4k titles would be that expensive.

It probably won't be $70+ But even at $25-$30, it may be tougher to get people to buy again. You figure that just with formats that have been mainstream like VHS, DVD, and Blu-Ray, many people have already bought many older movies (old enough to have been around during the VHS era) at least 3 times... possibly more depending on different editions coming out with different extras, etc. Then add in those who got onboard with niche formats like Laserdisc and failed competitors of winning formats like Beta and HD-DVD, and that potential number goes up.

There's a reason why many older films (that existed prior to the launch of DVD) were sold on DVD at ~$20 when they first came out, but are now being licensed out by the major studios to the likes of Mill Creek and Echo Bridge and sold at ~$5. People don't want to keep spending $20 on them each time they come out on a new format. It's repurchase fatigue.

I'm not completely writing off 4K Blu-Ray at this point, but I am on the fence about whether I really want to dive into another format again. I think this will be the case with people who were more open about jumping onto Blu-Ray after already investing into DVD. It's going to have to be one hell of a difference in terms of PQ for me to get on board with it.

Before BD launched I was certain that I wanted it, but at the time I was thinking , “how much better can BD be, I will keep the old DVDs and just buy new films on BD.” . But once I started watching BDs it was painful to play a DVD and so my attitude changed and that is why I have over 1500 BDs. Now with 4k I am not willing to assume my BDs are “good enough” (learned from experience) but I don’t know if I will need to upgrade everything (still hoping that my nearly 2k BDs are good enough). I am not here to try and convince anyone to upgrade their collection (since honestly at this point I am not even sure I will do that) or even to convince anyone to buy 4k. My issue was simply with your argument.

But you just said in this post "It probably won't be $70+ But even at $25-$30, it may be tougher to get people to buy again" and it just brings up the same point I had before. Why do you assume prices will be fixed so high (even if they are 25-30 which is much lower than what you discussed before). Yes, new releases might begin at 25-30 (or even higher) but does it make sense to assume the price will be fixed there or (like today) as the value of the content drops so will the prices of the items and in a couple of years after launch there might be a garbage bin with 5$ 4k BDs (or 7$ or 10$ or what ever the garbadge bin pricing will be). My point was that it costs almost nothing to produce a disk which is why you have some cheap BDs and that is why my two disk set of (Zombie) Halloween was 5$ and the 3 disk “gremlins” set was 10$. Why do you assume the 4kBDs will be any different and the prices for individual titles won't drop with time?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I know what you mean but don't forget, they may have been meant for a big screen but that doesn't mean it was meant to be seen so clearly. seeing a movie from a 35mm projector and seeing a movie from a modern digital projector are 2 different things - the 35mm projectors are not going to be as clear in a lot of cases. as well, not every theatre was state of the art and a lot had older equipment that meant you were not seeing it as clearly as possible. and then there are issues with the prints not being the best quality either. it isn't uncommon today to hear that you are seeing movies in better condition and quality on bluray than when they were in the theatre. a lot of effects were done knowing that while it was going to be on the big screen, people were not going to be able to pick out the details and you could get away with things.

and yes, that shot always looked bad but at least with vhs, it didn't look that bad. now it really stands out.

Even though it is true that you might be seeing it more clearly at home than at a theatre, and there are always people more interested in $ and so things are “good enough”. Your argument does not hold water

Let’s start at the beginning. Do you think the wardrobe people, the props designers, the make up artists.... know exactly where the camera will be situated and think “ we don’t want there to be more detail since Joe in the camera won’t pick it up?

Now you also brought up VFX and theatres. But that also does not make sense, the people working on the movie are not watching it in the crappy multiplex that Joe did. The premiere of a film is not done just anywhere. Yes Joe might be seeing a better copy today than he did 20-30-40 years ago in his home town theatre, but the people working on the film were working with first generation material, so when editing when deciding is it “good enough” they did have much better quality than Joe did at home. And if it was an a$$ hole that said "those VFX look so bad but who cares because Joe will watch it in his home town theatre after it has scratches and film burns and the copy of the copy of the copy would have degenerated, so who cares if the VFX are bad", isn’t there something to say about knowing that?


PS The argument also misses the obvious that a digital picture is by definition a different beast than film and so the characteristics will be different. I want 4k so that it can eliminate some of the harshness of a digital image so that I can move my chairs a bit closer and get an even bigger picture . It also misses that if you have a projector at home and you want to soften the image because you don't want to see the wires used you can always soften the focus. But you can't magically add resolution to the other film that does not have the wires.

[jdw89]

Originally Posted by pixler

I bought a lot of movies of DVD and then Blu-Ray came along and I was sold on this technology so I started re-buying movies I once had on DVD so I can get them on Blu-Ray. Now we have 4K technology but I'm not buying into it, at least not yet. Blu-Ray is good enough for me. I'm not going to keep re-buying movies everytime a new technology comes out. I might upgrade later down the road but it's too soon for a new format to come out. Blu-Ray is still new, it hasn't been around for very long. Technology needs to slow down. I just hope 4K doesn't phase out Blu-Ray any time soon.

I too will also stop at Blu-ray, the quality far exceeds anything else I'd expect so it's good enough for me.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I think, as soon as some of us see true 4k on disc in our homes, we will be convinced.

One look at the Sony demo (a 65" LCD IIRC) was all it took for me to know that I wanted to get a 4K projector. That demo definitely has/had some problems. It was great on static shots but when the camera panned there was a lot of blur and the pan was fairly slow. The blur could have been caused by the LCD, low frame rate, encoder, low bit rate or a combo of all this.

There have been quite a few that have reported on the Sony VPL-VW600ES from the recent CEDIA and none have mentioned the above problem.

That was how I felt with bluray after my first experience (Apocalypto). It looked gorgeous and it still does.

We started broadcasting HDTV in November of 1998 so I was already familiar with the format. My personal HDTV started with D-VHS D-Theater in 2002. I knew that Blu-ray would ≥ D-Theater but D-Theater was available, Blu-ray was not. It seemed like it took forever for Blu-ray to arrive (BD announced on 2/19/2002).

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

One look at the Sony demo (a 65" LCD IIRC) was all it took for me to know that I wanted to get a 4K projector. That demo definitely has/had some problems. It was great on static shots but when the camera panned there was a lot of blur and the pan was fairly slow. The blur could have been caused by the LCD, low frame rate, encoder, low bit rate or a combo of all this.

There have been quite a few that have reported on the Sony VPL-VW600ES from the recent CEDIA and none have mentioned the above problem.


We started broadcasting HDTV in November of 1998 so I was already familiar with the format. My personal HDTV started with D-VHS D-Theater in 2002. I knew that Blu-ray would ≥ D-Theater but D-Theater was available, Blu-ray was not. It seemed like it took forever for Blu-ray to arrive (BD announced on 2/19/2002).

Exciting times then and exciting times ahead. I am half geek and I have that 'must get' mentality when I see something truly impressive. It sounds like you are the same? (Maybe not the geek bit lol)