List of UHDs that utilize 4K or Higher Masters

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You needed a credit check for your job?

Yus, nearly all of the last 5 have I think

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No, my 2014 TV has HDCP 2.2. For all of the initial worries about that and HDMI 2.0, they've proved to be just the tip of the iceberg. *Geoff howls at the moon for being blindsided by the industry's shift to HDR*

According to my new Roku 4 only inputs 1 & 2 are HDCP 2.2 compliant.


Also: make sure you get GOOD HDMI CABLES. Most of my cables failed. Only a high-bandwidth rated (and expensive) cable finally gave me a picture at 2160p. So much for the hipster "any HDMI cable will do, it's just 1s and 0s." Seriously.

[Visionist]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, Fox are wheeling out Hitman and Fantastic Four real quick like, so you never know, Lionsgate may have Dredd on their launch slate too!

I'd buy that and I don't even have any 4K gear yet!

[applemac]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

According to my new Roku 4 only inputs 1 & 2 are HDCP 2.2 compliant.


Also: make sure you get GOOD HDMI CABLES. Most of my cables failed. Only a high-bandwidth rated (and expensive) cable finally gave me a picture at 2160p. So much for the hipster "any HDMI cable will do, it's just 1s and 0s." Seriously.

Any cable to spec will work. If the cable is out of spec of course it won't work.

I see this in longer distances and interference with Cat5, 5e, 6, 6e cable with gigabit throughput. There are different spec HDMI cables. Any brand in that spec for individual wire thickness and conductivity will work fine for 4K.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

How's that? UHD Blu has two resolutions, 1920x1080 and 3840x2160. Best you could hope for is a UHD upscale from the 2K master that utilises those precious extra 128 horizontal pixels (or a mere 78 in the case of flat 1.85) but even so, going from actual 2K to UHD isn't directly proportional so the potential is there for scaling artefacts. I'd rather they upscaled 2K to 4K 'like for like' and then crop the master down to UHD res.

What I wish was they did the 2K -> 1920 crop on Blu-rays so more BDs wouldn't end looking like out of focus/720ps. Cropped trailers look sharper than the discs.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Agreed. The 4K not really being 4K thing doesn't bother me at all. 1.85 4K DCPs are actually 3996x2160, so shall we call them 3.99K while we're at it?

Now, will they crop 4K masters 3996 to 3840, or downscale them 4%, like 2K on 1080p BDs, and therefore make "consumer 4K" then look like out of focus/1440p discs instead, on 2160p UHDs?

Originally Posted by Lazarus Dark

About those 2k mastered films. See, if it's 2k, that means it has to be downscaled to be put on your regular Bluray. Then you have to upscale it to 2160p. Is that really the best way? Master->dowscaled->upscaled? Or would it be better to simply have the studio upscale the 2k to 2160p and you just display it?

Master->dowscaled->upscaled, that would be horrible, you'd end up with a ~720p image in a 2160p container.

Now upscale 2K directly to 3840 would be better that that ^ but not quite 2K as it would be about a 1.92x upscale, not 2X, so the pixels would still merge and fuzz more than they need to. Best would be to do 2X and then crop the sides to 3840 like Geoff D mentions above. You'd get the full 1080p x 2K quality, w/o pixelation if you watched it big, plus the other benefits: less compression from the UHD disc bitrate, expanded gamut, levels, and other magical mirrors of HDR grading.

But since I'm not confident we'll get true 2160p quality 100% of the time from 4K masters unless they dare crop the 4% sides after a decade of Blu-ray watching, well, I'm even less sure how they'll handle the 2Ks to "consumer 4K"






Pixels in 4% resize from 2K->1920 (or from 4k-> 3840) :

->

Cropping 2K to 1920 or 4K to 3840 is better



2K to 4K upscale then crop to 3840 . . . . . . . . vs . . . . . . . . 2K upscale to 3840 :

2k to 4k upscale.jpg vs 2k to 3840 upscale.jpg

[Poya]

Originally Posted by applemac

Any cable to spec will work. If the cable is out of spec of course it won't work.

I see this in longer distances and interference with Cat5, 5e, 6, 6e cable with gigabit throughput. There are different spec HDMI cables. Any brand in that spec for individual wire thickness and conductivity will work fine for 4K.

I don't get it. I thought the HDMI site said that any cable will work, it's the device that needs to have a 2.0a input/output to do all this spectacular stuff. Please explain to me, I'm not that smart.

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by Poya

I don't get it. I thought the HDMI site said that any cable will work, it's the device that needs to have a 2.0a input/output to do all this spectacular stuff. Please explain to me, I'm not that smart.

HDMI 2.0a cable input on UHDTV for (high dynamic range). A UltraHD player key open to code use HDMI 2.0a cable for HDR. If UltraHD 4K disc has HDR is code key opened use HDMI 2.0a cable.

HDMI 2.0 without "a" can't open code key for HDR. It possible updates fireware for code key.

[applemac]

Originally Posted by Poya

I don't get it. I thought the HDMI site said that any cable will work, it's the device that needs to have a 2.0a input/output to do all this spectacular stuff. Please explain to me, I'm not that smart.

You will want to look at the gauge of the cabling.

The higher the gauge number, the thinner the cable is, and thus the less distance the signal will go/the less surface area around the cabling that electrons are able to travel, and thus less signal will actually get through at distance.

Get a lower gauge cable (monoprice lets you select this) which provides thicker wiring, allowing more surface area for electrons to travel and thus will allow a longer distance and higher signal rate.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by applemac

You will want to look at the gauge of the cabling.

The higher the gauge number, the thinner the cable is, and thus the less distance the signal will go/the less surface area around the cabling that electrons are able to travel, and thus less signal will actually get through at distance.

Get a lower gauge cable (monoprice lets you select this) which provides thicker wiring, allowing more surface area for electrons to travel and thus will allow a longer distance and higher signal rate.

Excellent info. Thank you so much. BTW, there are HDMI cables from Amazon that claim to be high speed and up to date for the best devices right now, an they're about $10 and they've gotten great customer reviews. Think it's a scam? I mean, Monster promises the same thing with prices more than twice as much.

[applemac]

Originally Posted by Poya

Excellent info. Thank you so much. BTW, there are HDMI cables from Amazon that claim to be high speed and up to date for the best devices right now, an they're about $10 and they've gotten great customer reviews. Think it's a scam? I mean, Monster promises the same thing with prices more than twice as much.

As long as they show they show good reviews and people comment on using them with 4K/3D/etc, you're good! For short distances, most any HDMI cable should be ok, as long as its not a random issue with manufacturing on that specific cable or it hasn't been damaged. I usually avoid the dirt cheap options and opt for something a little more expensive, $10 sounds like a good price for under 10 ft cable.

[ray0414]

Excellent interview here with the rep from DOLBY talking with avforums.

In this interview, the dolby rep says that when they are done grading the movie, the director himself or an appointed person from very high up from the film production must go and approve the dolby graded movie to ensure that it meets the directors intent. They also mention that someone who was involved in the movie helps out with the grading process too. they call it "artistic approval"

he also explains the procedure for how they go about getting the correct file to use.

he says they would go after the negative or the raw file. so in the case of pacific rim, even though the master format is 2k, the negative is redcode raw in 5k. so this would not be a 2k upscale correct?

"if you shoot raw, store the raw, and have access TO the raw, that is the perfect starting point for dolby vision"

https://www.avforums.com/video/video...ces-2016.12260

[MisterXDTV]

If you start from RAW then what happens for the Special Effects? Upscaled?

[eriaur]

Originally Posted by ray0414

https://www.avforums.com/video/video...ces-2016.12260

Thanks, i have been waiting on information about this.

Originally Posted by eriaur

Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Redcode RAW (5K) (source format)

Movies and series with RAW 4K+ as source format, can be 4K remastered later, right? (if archived in 4K)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by eriaur

Thanks, i have been waiting on information about this.

It's no different than with a 'regular' 4K rebuild, the situation hasn't changed: the raw resolution/range will exist on the untouched RAW/negative footage, yes, but when VFX and other digital tweakery becomes involved - having been output at 2K, for the most part - the decision is whether to upscale from the 2K .dpx/.mxf files directly (which has been pretty much standard for 4K finishes so far, believe it or not) or to re-render outright. It'd be a brave exec who'd approve a 4K re-render for something as VFX heavy as LOTR or The Hobbit...

[elwaylite]

Originally Posted by saprano

This is an open forum. You can't expect everyone to agree on everything. There's going to be differences of opinions and feelings. What you want, elwaylite, is not possible and frankly doesn't make any sense.

Besides, i'm not seeing anyone trying to sabotage 4KBD around here. There's just a myriad of questions and maybe a little doubt. Rightfully so.

Oh, you must be missing DVD Mike post "HDR sigh" every other post (exaggeration)...

That is exactly what Im talking about. Opinions are fine, but the usual suspect dead horse beating is ridiculous. I know another way to fix this issue however and I will proceed with that route.

[elwaylite]

Originally Posted by ray0414

https://www.avforums.com/video/video...ces-2016.12260

Thanks!


Edit: Loved the discussion about artistic intent, and how it can't be automated. That is what matters to me, we are seeing it as close as possible to how the Director intended.

[eriaur]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's no different than with a 'regular' 4K rebuild, the situation hasn't changed: the raw resolution/range will exist on the untouched RAW/negative footage, yes, but when VFX and other digital tweakery becomes involved - having been output at 2K, for the most part - the decision is whether to upscale from the 2K .dpx/.mxf files directly (which has been pretty much standard for 4K finishes so far, believe it or not) or to re-render outright. It'd be a brave exec who'd approve a 4K re-render for something as VFX heavy as LOTR or The Hobbit...

I guess the hollywood studios are ok with the focus being on HDR/WCG being more of a game changer than the 4K. (businesswise)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by eriaur

I guess the hollywood studios are ok with the focus being on HDR/WCG being more of a game changer than the 4K. (businesswise)

Oh, they're not just okay with it, they're fully aware that 4K spatial resolution provides the least visual improvement for the biggest amount of bandwidth compared to what WCG/HDR can do, especially in tandem.

[eriaur]

Yes, made me think of FOX and this HDR demo:

Mike Dunn the President of Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment and someone who Variety has called the leading futurist in the home entertainment sector.

an executive from another studio who in response to film makers pushing to have their titles released in 4k/UHD had them come in and played 4K and BD side by side and no one was able to tell the difference. Mike Dunn even told us that he can't tell the difference. Enter HDR. When you take the 4K master and add HDR to it, now there is a dramatic increase in color and brightness and that is where you see the huge improvement over Blu-ray.
Because you need HDR to really get the improvement, Fox at this point has only announced releases that will include HDR. The oldest catalog title they mentioned scheduled to get this treatment so far is Independence Day.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh, they're not just okay with it, they're fully aware that 4K spatial resolution provides the least visual improvement for the biggest amount of bandwidth compared to what WCG/HDR can do, especially in tandem.

Plus cost of new masters when they can adjust a few bits on a mixing desk on their old 2k masters