Is 4K a game changer?

[Tekka]

Originally Posted by 42041

Really? Most people I know don't even sit close enough to large enough TVs to resolve 1080p.

The increase in detail is so large with 4k that it doesn't really matter.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Tekka

The increase in detail is so large with 4k that it doesn't really matter.

err, of course it does
If someone can't resolve 1080p's worth of detail, they fundamentally cannot resolve 4K's worth.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Tekka

The increase in detail is so large with 4k that it doesn't really matter.

From what I understand, one aspect of the benefits of 4K is the added detail, but the added colorspace is also important.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020

[Canada]

Originally Posted by 42041

Really? Most people I know don't even sit close enough to large enough TVs to resolve 1080p.

4k TV's at regular size are pretty much pointless they would be better off greater colour depth or sampling rate as in 12 bit 4:4:4 even Blu-ray is only 8 bit 4:2:0. Home Theater Geeks were saying you need at least a 10 ft screen or larger and 1080p still looks fine at a regular seating distance.

[franken_psycho1990]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

I love this binary argument.

-You have one side saying it will be a "game changer".
-Other's saying it will be almost nonexistant, or a gimmick like 3D.

Reality seems like it will be somewhere in the middle. It won't be as big as blu-ray sure. Many, many titles will never make the leap to 4K, but it also won't just be relegated to "new releases".

Keep in mind there's already lots stuff that is 4K ready, studios are already building their libraries for 4K, and they will continue to archive and restore their films in 4K where it suits them. It's not just going to be limited to Wizard of Oz and Lawrence of Arabia. If the major studios don't put them out, it wouldn't be surprising for an outfit like Criterion to carry the flag a little bit for some "reference" quality catalog titles as well. Maybe a special order group like Twilight Time might want a piece of the action.

Of course it should also be obvious that the market isn't there for it to be completely mainstream. Look at how much Best Buy has shrunk their media space. Do we think they are going to ramp it back up for 4K? Most likely not. I think a fair amount of catalogue titles will be made available, it's just a matter of through what channels they are sold, at what volumes, and at what price. My guess is the big box stores will stick with mostly the new releases, and only the biggest catalogue titles. Obviously we already see them skipping over many blu-ray releases from store shelves - so it's sort of delusional to think the trend will go in the opposite direction for 4K.

Exactly. Hell, I even heard Warner Bros are scanning the 1966 Batman TV series in 4k... People act like old movies and shows cannot be 4k. If it is on film, Most likely it can be 4k.

[Blades1370]

Originally Posted by franken_psycho1990

I suppose you are a fortune teller now? What ever new format comes (4k it looks like) it will eventually become the norm. VHS did, DVD did and BD did. Tell me why 4k won't? It may not happen over night, But it will happen. What, Do you think they will forever release BD's? Nope, It will slowly become 4k or whatever is up next. One day DVD will finally die out, Then BD will eventually... That is just the way it is. No reason to argue about it.

Except there is one major flaw in your arguement, 4k may become the norm, but EVERY SINGLE FORMAT FOLLOWING VHS has had fewer releases then it's predecessor. So to be clear, VHS had more then DVD, DVD has more then Blu-Ray. The simple reason... cost, at $100k+ per new scan (perhaps more depending on any extra restorative work), it's simply not feasible that companies like Warner, Universal, Fox, etc are going to rescan EVERY single title in their catalog simply because a new format is out.

Don't believe me, take a look at some of the recent older catalog titles from the major studios, Weird Science from Universal used an ancient master, Cat People released by Shout! used an old Universal master, One Hour Photo and That Thing You Do released by Fox both used older masters.

Just because a title is released on a new format does not automatically mean it's going to look amazing, the source used, and the condition of the print used at the time mean every to overall picture quality. Not to mention WHEN the master was produced (i.e. 5, 10, 15+ years ago) that was used for said format.

[JimShaw]

Last week I asked Robert Zohn owner of Value Electronics and the Flat Panel Shootout whether I would notice and PQ difference by my sitting 15 1/2 feet from a 77' 4K OLED set.

Here is his reply...


Hi Jim,

Nice hearing from you!

Most video professionals would say you would not see the advantages of Ultra HD resolution on a77" display from 15.5' from the screen. However, I believe with good 4K content you would see the advantages of the higher resolution, but at 15.5' it's defiantly not a big advantage.

However, UHD is not limited to higher resolution. I just came back from the professional and TV Broadcast convention and the content creators, broadcasters and video professionals all say they want to implement HDR, (High Dynamic Range) to greatly increase the contrast ratio and likely include rec.2020 color pallet whenever possible. So with these enhancements the overall picture quality of what I like to call "Full Ultra HD" will be easily seen and it will be a much bigger advantage than the constrained contrast and color space the the current ATSC HD image delivers.

The new standards in HDMI 2.0 have provisioned for BT.2020 color space and HDR so when content, transmission and your new 4K TV all permit the new standards of HDR and rec 2020 we'll all be enjoying all of the picture performance we've been waiting for and you will clearly see the advantages of 4K from 15.5'.

Finally, OLED panels themselves deliver a much improved picture quality than PDP so just from that perspective you will love an upgrade to an OLED display.

All my best,

-Robert

[Blades1370]

Originally Posted by franken_psycho1990

Exactly. Hell, I even heard Warner Bros are scanning the 1966 Batman TV series in 4k... People act like old movies and shows cannot be 4k. If it is on film, Most likely it can be 4k.

If there is money to be made then yes, for older high demand movies and TV shows that they can recoup the cost of a 4k scan, those titles will likely be "properly" released on the format. But I don't see a huge market for Ernest Goes to Camp, or tons of other niche and low budget affair movies that these will ALL make it miraculously to 4K. It's just not reasonable or cost effective for the studios to do this.

[scorpiontail60]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

If 4K is 8 MP, and my camera can take 12 MP...

4K movies would look like junk compared to still images in motion from my camera

EXACTLY. Which is why we need to eventually progress to 8K, which is a whopping 32 megapixels (!).

However, because 8K is such a gigantic resolution leap, hardware and bandwidth is still so far away from being able to push 8K video. Even the highest end graphics cards have difficulty playing 4K games @ 60 FPS; for 8K it would be a slideshow. You have to SLI multiple GTX 780 Tis just to get something like Crysis 3 to run at a solid 60 FPS at 4K on medium settings.

As far as bandwidth goes, as 8K video is 16x the resolution of 1080p it would require 8x the bitrate of a well mastered 1080p Blu-ray if you were using the HEVC codec (HEVC is twice as efficient as AVC, which is what Blu-ray uses.) Most BDs are authored at 20-30 Mbps so 8K will require bitrates around 200 Mbps using HEVC. 4K on the other hand could easily manage 50 Mbps bitrates.

So you can see 4K is a very important stepping stone to 8K just like 720p was a stepping stone to 1080p. 4K is very doable with current tech which is why we need to be launching it now so we can be ready for 8K another 5-10 years from now.

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Why do you keep using this flawed and flat out WRONG argument?

I love how you say that 1080p is "only" six times the resolution of SD, yet 4K is four times the resolution of 1080p but it will somehow be "an even bigger leap".

Uh.... HOW may I ask exactly??? Last time I checked (in first grade math), 6 is a bigger number than 4, so if 1080p has 6 times the pixels of SD and 4K has 4 times the pixels of 1080p, then how will 4K be an "even bigger leap"? Please explain this to me. And I'm only talking on a purely technical level (numbers), and not even taking the human factor/diminishing results, which is also very relevant to this discussion.

Since you obviously are incapable of comprehending how big a leap this is in text form then perhaps you should look at a graphical representation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:8K...FHD_and_SD.svg

If you still don't get it, well, you're helpless and I have nothing further to say to you.

[42041]

Originally Posted by franken_psycho1990

Exactly. Hell, I even heard Warner Bros are scanning the 1966 Batman TV series in 4k... People act like old movies and shows cannot be 4k. If it is on film, Most likely it can be 4k.

You can scan it at 16K if you want, but whether it'd actually produce the kind of visual quality people buy expensive upgrades for is another question. The benefit of 4K over well-mastered 1080p for stuff shot on 35mm is not going to be astonishing.
The kind of material that would really sell 4K TVs is not yet being made in meaningful quantities.

[Blades1370]

Originally Posted by 42041

You can scan it at 16K if you want, but whether it'd actually produce the kind of visual quality people buy expensive upgrades for is another question. The benefit of 4K over well-mastered 1080p for stuff shot on 35mm is not going to be astonishing.
The kind of material that would really sell 4K TVs is not yet being made in meaningful quantities.

^this

Plus if I am not mistaken, as I do not claim to be an expert, the limit on scans for 35mm film is 4k, 8k is primarily for 65/70mm. And if memory serves me correct from what I have read, the actual 4k scan on 35mm is closer at 3k give or take a bit. Anything higher then 4k either does not work, or does not yield any more significant information, please correct me if I am wrong, sources provided to strengthen or oppose what I have written would be appreciated.

[richieb1971]

Not as much as 480i was when AVI's were downloadable for free.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Since you obviously are incapable of comprehending how big a leap this is in text form then perhaps you should look at a graphical representation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:8K...FHD_and_SD.svg

If you still don't get it, well, you're helpless and I have nothing further to say to you.

I have seen that graph a million times. And no, I still don't get how the hell it proves that 4K will be "an even bigger leap" over 1080p than 1080p was compared to SD.

The graph clearly shows that the difference between the tiny SD area and the FHD area is bigger than the difference between the FHD and 4K SHD area, so again, how is it "an even bigger leap"?

And by your flawed logic, the leap between 8K and 4K would be even more ginormous, with the leaps getting bigger and bigger compared to the previous generations as we pile up the "K"s.

[theprestige85]

Well, I don't know too much about 4K, but it certainly sounds more appealing to me than '3D', that's for sure. I'm sure there will be an appreciable difference on decent sized TVs, however, how many households will have the space (and money) to buy 80 inch plus televisions in order to get the full benefits of 4K??? And even more importantly, as others have highlighted, how many films will actually see a genuine upgrade? Hollywood blockbusters, that's it.

At the end of the day, 4K scans of 1080p blus are FANTASTIC and cheap and affordable right now. 4K will require people to spend a small fortune to really get the most out of it and that's the biggest issue, I believe.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

I think you mean "as much a game changer as Blu-ray was"

****ing LOL @ Blu-ray aficionados talking shit about 4K... you guys are as bad as the DVD peasants back in 2006 complaining about how "we don't need Blu-ray! DVD is JUST fine!"

Congrats, you've officially become the luddites you despised less than a decade ago.

I like Blu-ray and all but I'm not an idiot. I always welcome continued improvements to technology. I thought DVD was pretty neat when it first launched too. Now I despise the format. I'm sure I'll have the same sentiment about Blu-ray a decade from now when 4K has saturated the market and Blu-ray is still overstaying its welcome just like DVD is right now.

4K video is an even bigger leap forward in A/Q quality than Blu-ray was. It is 24 times the resolution of standard definition. 1080p is only six times the resolution of SD.

I hope that better puts things into perspective for you.



Was this article written by the same idiots who said you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p unless you have a 80" TV or more just a few years ago?

Agree 100%

[Steedeel]

It's not just films that will benefit from 4k.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 42041

It's all a matter of viewing distance. Fun fact: most movie theaters have 2K projection (and the ones with 4K projection mostly show 2K movies). No one seems to mind.

dumb argument. Do people have a choice (can you go to the theatre and demand that they have a better presentation)? that would be the same as arguing no one should ever have a raise since they are accepting of what their employer is paying them now And to be more precise (since your argument was not all but most) no one should be paid more a bit more than the national average since "most people" don't seem to mind what they are paid.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Firecrackker

Are we going to be seeing everything released in 4K? Is there really a huge difference for 50" TVs? I haven't really tried out 4K yet so I was wondering what some of you thought.

Your first question has been answered numerous times on other threads in the forum. Pretty much same thing for the second, but the following post links to an outside test involving 50 unbiased participants and should give you an overall handle on the complete situation….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...st#post8868563

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by franken_psycho1990

I suppose you are a fortune teller now? What ever new format comes (4k it looks like) it will eventually become the norm. VHS did, DVD did and BD did. Tell me why 4k won't? It may not happen over night, But it will happen. What, Do you think they will forever release BD's? Nope, It will slowly become 4k or whatever is up next. One day DVD will finally die out, Then BD will eventually... That is just the way it is. No reason to argue about it.

there are two mistakes in your thinking.

1) 4k is not a format but a resolution, so treating it as one does not make sense. There might be 4K BD, there might be 4k streaming, there might be 4K DL or there might be 4k on a new physical format that we don't know yet.

This is an important difference, for example if the extras on a BD are SD it won't magically turn the BD into a DVD it is just a BD with SD content. The same is true here, if 4K BD becomes a future norm there could still be titles that come out in HD on those BDs since they will be BDs.

2) if we are talking movies pre 1980's it is not an issue since they would be shot and manipulated on film (there were some simple CGI in some films pre-1980 but even then it was very limited and not worth discussing here) and so they can be re-scanned at any resolution (assuming the film stock exists). But in the 80's real CGI started in the film industry and latter we have DI (even when CGI was not used) and digital cameras. And so the topic gets tricky. If a film was shot on a 1080p camera you can't get real 4k from it, if a movie was shot on film but after the negative there is some CGI (such as some characters or backgrounds or effects) and so it was scanned at below 4k resolution to add those special effects) again you can't get real 4K. So it is possible that such movies will be on future formats but they will be in what ever resolution they are now. So I agree in that respect with HD goofnut they are unlikely to be re-released in 4k.


Now don't get me wrong, I am all for high quality professional up scaling, but studios appear to be reluctant to go that route today with converting stuff from SD to HD so I doubt they will be less reluctant doing it for HD to 4K up scaling.

[Tekka]

Originally Posted by 42041

err, of course it does
If someone can't resolve 1080p's worth of detail, they fundamentally cannot resolve 4K's worth.

The narrow focus people have about resolving individual pixels doesn't take into account that you can and do see significantly more detail as you increase the resolution of a screen. This is assuming the source material is 4k or above.