4K Movies Releases

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

I don't really buy into this line of thinking. First, I know that HDTV channels look better on an SDTV than non-HD channels. Even if the source is higher quality than the display, one can notice the quality difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

After a point, additional image quality/clarity no longer offers an appreciable value. As pixel density increases, each individual pixel becomes less and less important until adding more pixels no longer visibly improves the picture.

Second, it may be subjective as to what a "high end" home theater is but I know many people who have screens large enough to notice the difference.

Between 720p and 1080p? Possibly, you might know of some who could REALLY tell the difference while viewing from their normal position. I sit around 6 feet back from my 42 inch set, and, without putting on my glasses, I could just barely notice the difference between a 1280x720 BD screencap and a 1920x1080 screencap that I ran from a computer to test.

But MOST PEOPLE have screens too small and/or sit too far away. The transition from 480i to 720p is VERY EASILY visible even on smaller sets and even from a distance, but 720p to 1080p requires ideal viewing circumstances. Going beyond that would require screen sizes that most people would not want and/or sitting far closer than most people would want. I wouldn't mind sitting 6 feet away from an 80 inch screen, and you might not either, but a lot of people sit 8+ feet away from a 32 inch set. They could never imagine being so close, or they could never imagine having a screen so large. I believe you went on to say that you have a screen in excess of 160 inches? You're like 1 in a 1000, man.

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

why the hell would most people look for flat panel TV sets for displays 80" and above when the best deal in that range is for using a front projector.

Because front projection requires a more specialized setup. Screens and worrying about lighting. But you can just put an LCD in almost any room and get serviceable use out of it.

[Steedeel]

32 inch is the modern equivalent of a portable. Most people have that size in bedroom these days and larger sets downstairs. Me included. At least in England we do.

[dib2]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

There will never be 4k content on Blu-Ray. No Blu-Ray player can display 4k content and even if they could it would require 4x more disk capacity that Blu-Ray players can't read

Therefore if 4k content were to come to market it would essentially be a new format not Blu-Ray

I don't expect to ever see a 4k format either. I expect 4k home media to come via download only unfortunitly

I can't understand why, if you think the content is going to take 4x the capacity, would you expect do download a 100GB+ movie?

When it comes to quality, audio files and video files don't usually download data in order to get that quality. The one exception FLAC files but if you consider that blu-ray music disc have the same quality as FLACs without the worry of loosing the data.

That's off topic but I figured someone would point that out. The fact is you don't download blu-ray quality movies at 25-35GBs. That would leave out everyone who doesn't have internet access.

As far as movies in 4K... When 1080p or 1080i first came out, there was only TV content and that was limited to sports only. I pointed out in the beginning of this thread that movies are and have been recorded in 4K already which was not the case before 1080p or i was available. I would expect a new player to come out to support the new media. I'd assume that would happen within the next 3 years given that there are already projectors that support 4K. My guess is that when you can buy a flat panel 4K TV there will already be movies out and they will be trying to figure out how and why to broadcast such high resolution TV/cable/satellite content. There are still so many channels that are not HD.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Blu-Ray 3D uses the same discs and codec as 2D Blu-Ray. A 4k format could not do this. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

But again why call it Blu-Ray?

It would make far more marketing sense to simply call it a new format given that it essentially would be. Calling it Blu-Ray would do nothing be create unessesary confusion for no reason whatsoever.

Just simple 4k strip would be enough to tell the difference. Same as 3d. 4k will be seen as part of the bluray range. Eventually we will have 4k and standard bluray combos as well! By the way, 4k bluray will happen. Pro is 100 percent correct in my opinion. Just like he/she is right most of the time when predicting market changes or happenings.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Just simple 4k strip would be enough to tell the difference. Same as 3d. 4k will be seen as part of the bluray range. Eventually we will have 4k and standard bluray combos as well! By the way, 4k bluray will happen. Pro is 100 percent correct in my opinion. Just like he/she is right most of the time when predicting market changes or happenings.

I doubt it will be called 4k. More likely it will be called Ultra def or something. Puting it in a combo pack with blu-ray is a possibility but the new format will be given a new name thats all Im saying. It may be a variation of Blu-Ray much like the name of the defeated HD-DVD format but if 4k media is launched marketing will make sure it isn't confused with standard Blu-Ray

[weatherchannel]

Originally Posted by dib2

I can't understand why, if you think the content is going to take 4x the capacity, would you expect do download a 100GB+ movie?

When it comes to quality, audio files and video files don't usually download data in order to get that quality. The one exception FLAC files but if you consider that blu-ray music disc have the same quality as FLACs without the worry of loosing the data.

That's off topic but I figured someone would point that out. The fact is you don't download blu-ray quality movies at 25-35GBs. That would leave out everyone who doesn't have internet access.

As far as movies in 4K... When 1080p or 1080i first came out, there was only TV content and that was limited to sports only. I pointed out in the beginning of this thread that movies are and have been recorded in 4K already which was not the case before 1080p or i was available. I would expect a new player to come out to support the new media. I'd assume that would happen within the next 3 years given that there are already projectors that support 4K. My guess is that when you can buy a flat panel 4K TV there will already be movies out and they will be trying to figure out how and why to broadcast such high resolution TV/cable/satellite content. There are still so many channels that are not HD.

My limited knowledge tells me tv broadcasts are way off. Look at the compression of regular HD content that takes place today and you can definitely notice the quality on channels that are more compressed than others. Will cable or satellite have the bandwidth to broadcast 4k content? Even over the air HD compresses their signal because of add on channels to the main channel ( channel 8.1, 8.2 8.3 ect ).

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

The difference is 3D only requires 50% higher bitrate then 2D. Thus a BD-50 can still fit virtually any movie under 2.5 hours in 3D with lossless audio with no quality loss

4k requires 4x the bitrate of 1080p.

no, the same way that 3D (even though it is 2 1080p images) does not require 2x 2D 4k will not require 4x 2k. It is simple matter of efficiency. For example AVC, and MPEG2 only have two sizes you are either a pixel or a block (8x8 pixels) anything that is a block at 2k will obviously be a block at 4k, but there will be places where a block could not be used in 2k but it can be used in 4k without destroying data so what was an 8x8 pixels could become a 2x2 block in 4k which will use a lot less space. that is also why even thogh 1080p is 6x DVD resolution it does not need 6x the space or BW to get much better.

Even in 2D it could only hold like an hour of play. How many movies are that short? Thus it would require higher capacity discs. If newer higher capacity discs are used why even call it Blu-Ray. It would essencially be a new format

not at all, BD already has BDXL in the recordable market that can have 120 GB, they did not rename it. For me I think the main question is will it be backwards compatible enough or not. If it is in some way (like BD 3D) then it does not need a new name, on the other hand, if it is completely different, I agree it would not be a bad idea. One of the things that bugs me with PS move is how complicated it has become (This game needs one controller, this one needs 2, that other one needs the numchuck..... practically each game is different which makes it hard for the person not in the know to buy games)

[saprano]

Originally Posted by dsbman

Most of these films were not "shot" in 4K -- most were shot on film, others on "lesser" forms of digital -- but they were all mastered for DCP in 4K... that's a vow Sony made as a distributor.

Can you explain (or anybody) this further? I thought the master ment it was shot native 4K?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by saprano

Can you explain (or anybody) this further? I thought the master meant it was shot native 4K?

I can't vouch for DV shot films, but if the movie was shot in 35mm the resolution is 5K-6K.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I can't vouch for DV shot films, but if the movie was shot in 35mm the resolution is 5K-6K.

But i always see 35mm films with 2K masters. Or am i reading it wrong?

[Audiophile_At_Birth]

Originally Posted by saprano

But i always see 35mm films with 2K masters. Or am i reading it wrong?

That was the resolution the master (5-6k) was scanned out. It's the same as if you took a photo and scanned it at a lesser dot per inch (pdf wise, ect).

Another way to think if it is if you took an analog recording and made a digital master at 128kps...ect.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Audiophile_At_Birth

That was the resolution the master (5-6k) was scanned out. It's the same as if you took a photo and scanned it at a lesser dot per inch (pdf wise, ect).

Another way to think if it is if you took an analog recording and made a digital master at 128kps...ect.

Oh, ok. I think i understand now. Forgive me, im still learning about this stuff.

Why would you want to scan it at a lower resolution though? If you have the resolution available, use it.

[Audiophile_At_Birth]

Originally Posted by saprano

Oh, ok. I think i understand now. Forgive me, im still learning about this stuff.

Why would you want to scan it at a lower resolution though? If you have the resolution available, use it.

Easier to ship to theaters. Smaller file sizes and plus a lot of theaters still haven't made the complete switch to support 4k projection. I know my closest Cinemark only has four theaters set up to project a 4k resolution...at a higher cost of course

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Audiophile_At_Birth

Easier to ship to theaters. Smaller file sizes and plus a lot of theaters still haven't made the complete switch to support 4k projection. I know my closest Cinemark only has four theaters set up to project a 4k resolution...at a higher cost of course

Its funny cause all this talk of 4K and im surprised to see alot of movies still shooting in 2K.

[Audiophile_At_Birth]

Originally Posted by saprano

Its funny cause all this talk of 4K and im surprised to see alot of movies still shooting in 2K.

A lot of it comes down to money and resources.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by saprano

Oh, ok. I think i understand now. Forgive me, im still learning about this stuff.

Why would you want to scan it at a lower resolution though? If you have the resolution available, use it.

because
1) the devices to scan at higher resolutions was not always there (don't forget that we are talking a frame of a 35mm negative)
2) if it will be digitally manipulated (CGI, digital correction....) the higher the resolution the more processing power that is needed
3) the higher the scan resolution the more space it takes. Let's say with mild compression it is .5TB/h for 2k 24bit colour, for 4k that would be 4* as much and 8k would be 16*as much. When you have a library of films in the millions and you need multiple copies (you don't want a film lost due to a HDD failure) it becomes very expensive very fast.

[Audiophile_At_Birth]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

because
1) the devices to scan at higher resolutions was not always there (don't forget that we are talking a frame of a 35mm negative)
2) if it will be digitally manipulated (CGI, digital correction....) the higher the resolution the more processing power that is needed
3) the higher the scan resolution the more space it takes. Let's say with mild compression it is .5TB/h for 2k 24bit colour, for 4k that would be 4* as much and 8k would be 16*as much. When you have a library of films in the millions and you need multiple copies (you don't want a film lost due to a HDD failure) it becomes very expensive very fast.

I read somewhere that when Sony did its 4k master on the first Spider Man film that they didn't have the processing power to play back the film in full speed to view their edits.

There's a lot that goes into a 4k master. It's not like sticking a photo on your computer and scanning it to your photo album.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by saprano

But i always see 35mm films with 2K masters. Or am i reading it wrong?

Originally Posted by Audiophile_At_Birth

That was the resolution the master (5-6k) was scanned out. It's the same as if you took a photo and scanned it at a lesser dot per inch (pdf wise, ect).

Another way to think if it is if you took an analog recording and made a digital master at 128kps...ect.

Film negative. as in "that was the resolution the original negative (5-6k) was scanned at (2K)" (is less ambiguous, as saying 'master' sounds as is the film negative is a digital master)

Yes, Master.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I can't vouch for DV shot films, but if the movie was shot in 35mm the resolution is 5K-6K.

The measured resolution of 35mm film is about 3.2 – 3.4k….when referring to slow stock, i.e. ISO 50 film. For faster film, ISO 500, in particular, it drops even lower, being around 3.0 k.

This has been known for quite some time by studios which have done tests as well as by cinematographers having personal experience in 2k as well as 4k D.I.s, such as David Mullen (see his second post halfway down the page regarding 35mm. film resolution)…
http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/...php?f=7&t=1823

P.S. And Deci, don’t give me any of that lines/mm talk, for you’ll just confuse people.

[sumawo13]

I'm less concerned about resolution and more concerned about bit-rate. Modern transfers have a sharpness and clarity that is unmatched, unfortunately the low bit-rate of standard Blu-ray Disc doesn't allow the full quality to shine through. Not that I'm against scanning film at higher resolutions, I truly believe all films should receive a modern 4k transfer. But for grainy sources, such as The Wizard of Oz or Saving Private Ryan, the low mid-20s bit-rate just doesn't give enough bits to high frequencies where the fine grain structure lies.