List of UHDs that utilize 4K or Higher Masters

[vargo]

The Martian should not be included on this list (yet) because I believe Finn - a marketing guy - used language that was deliberately open to misinterpretation. Wait for a more detailed explanation of the process without ambiguous language.

[Geoff D]

What do you find ambiguous about it?

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What do you find ambiguous about it?

Everything. We start with X & Y. From there we make Z.

If you don't find that deliberately ambiguous then you don't know enough marketing guys. I can start with solid mahogany and still make a table out of driftwood. "I never said I put the mahogany in the table guys...!"

Just wait. Better to be patient than to be wrong.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by vargo

The Martian should not be included on this list (yet) because I believe Finn - a marketing guy - used language that was deliberately open to misinterpretation. Wait for a more detailed explanation of the process without ambiguous language.

It sounds like it's a hybrid, what's important is that they've made the effort to provide everything they can in 4K, instead of upconverting the lot and slapping HDR on it.

I'm still on the fence on upscaled effects, but if I remember a few shows opted against them because they were too sharp at 1080p (I might be thinking about a Star Trek series?). If people enjoy 4K screenings upscaled with 2K effects then I can't see it been that different on home video. I do think there should be a Certified 4K certificate for titles and a Faux-K™ disclaimer for others, but the proof on upscaled effects will be in the pudding. I don't think it's going to be as bad as SD to HD upscales.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by chip75

I'm still on the fence on upscaled effects, but if I remember a few shows opted against them because they were too sharp at 1080p (I might be thinking about a Star Trek series?). If people enjoy 4K screenings upscaled with 2K effects then I can't see it been that different on home video. I do think there should be a Certified 4K certificate for titles and a Faux-K™ disclaimer for others, but the proof on upscaled effects will be in the pudding. I don't think it's going to be as bad as SD to HD upscales.

Trouble is people have gotten "upscaled" effects since the beginning, despite the delivery medium (film). Toy Story, Jurassic Park, etc. didn't even have 2K effects quality - are we supposed to consider those Blu-rays not true 1080p?


BTW: the "1080p is too sharp" excuse was from Battlestar Galactica. Truth was they didn't have the budget/rendering power for that resolution. Star Trek Enterprise started out 480p and ended up 1K by the third season and their effects were done by the same people.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by chip75

It sounds like it's a hybrid, what's important is that they've made the effort to provide everything they can in 4K, instead of upconverting the lot and slapping HDR on it.

I'm still on the fence on upscaled effects, but if I remember a few shows opted against them because they were too sharp at 1080p (I might be thinking about a Star Trek series?). If people enjoy 4K screenings upscaled with 2K effects then I can't see it been that different on home video. I do think there should be a Certified 4K certificate for titles and a Faux-K™ disclaimer for others, but the proof on upscaled effects will be in the pudding. I don't think it's going to be as bad as SD to HD upscales.

Dude, what you and almost everyone else still don't realise is that upscaled 2K effects have been part of the 4K mastering process since the outset and that the practice has continued to this day. Hell, VFX for pre-DI photochemical features was usually rendered out at a maximum of 2K (as Peter notes above, CG started out at way less, I think Jurassic Park's stuff was 1K) so what happens when those original filmed-out negatives are newly scanned in 4K? That's right, you're essentially upscaling the VFX.

Therefore the upscaling of 2K VFX for a 4K rebuild is a COMPLETE non-issue IMO. It's end-to-end 2K upscales that I'm as concerned about as everyone else, but if Finn is to be believed then The Martian is every bit as '4K' as it would've been were it finished at 4K in the first place! Speaking of which...

Originally Posted by vargo

Everything. We start with X & Y. From there we make Z.

If you don't find that deliberately ambiguous then you don't know enough marketing guys. I can start with solid mahogany and still make a table out of driftwood. "I never said I put the mahogany in the table guys...!"

Just wait. Better to be patient than to be wrong.

I've got a degree in marketing, thanks (for all the good it's done me, I shoulda spent less time in the snooker hall). He says that they used 2K assets and raw 5K camera files to rebuild the movie in 4K, seems pretty damned straightforward to me.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dude, what you and almost everyone else still don't realise is that upscaled 2K effects have been part of the 4K mastering process since the outset and that the practice has continued to this day.

I know that, Geoff D. That was what I was trying to say, that we've watching hybrids with different resolutions for years in theatres since the inception of CGI. Just because a UHD BD is 2K effects with 4K live-action it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom. I'd just like the studios to be transparent about it, but because of the doom and the gloom I doubt they will. People seem to sound like they're been cheated (which I've read a lot on other forums), when they really aren't.

I think people should know what they're getting, but I don't think upscaled effects are going to be a huge issue when we actually get around to seeing them in the flesh. If I remember there was talk a few years ago of certain films effects looking slightly off on Blu-ray, whether that was early masters I'm not sure, but they seemed to stand out more, you don't really hear people mention it these days. I think people are worried that there will be something similar with the new format.

[Geoff D]

Fair enough chip. But seeing as people have been watching said films in theatrical presentations (whether photochemical or 4K) without much complaint re: the VFX thus far then I don't think it'll make a huge amount of difference on UHD Blu. When I saw the remastered Titanic in 15/70 some of the digital people looked like stick figures, sure, but then they always had done to me so it wasn't some horribly jarring effect. Besides, old-school opticals display their own noticeable drop in quality (obvious to me even on DVD, never mind HD or UHD) so even if 2K VFX suddenly stands out like sore thumb then it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Also: by necessity a lot of VFX these days is for big, fast-paced action scenes where the temporal resolution is hit badly by the 24fps acquisition and regulation 180-degree shutter angle (motion blur etc), so even on a movie which DID have 4K VFX (Tomorrowland) they also snuck some 2K stuff in there for the simple reason that they could not tell the difference.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What do you find ambiguous about it?

Cool Hand Luke: Failure to Communicate - YouTube

What we had here last week – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post11753639

[Geoff D]

Just gettin' some water, boss!

[cms382]

I can't really put it into words but the Mastered In 4K versions of Men In Black and The Fifth Element look "edgy" even in the scenes without CGI. What's going on there?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by cms382

I can't really put it into words but the Mastered In 4K versions of Men In Black and The Fifth Element look "edgy" even in the scenes without CGI. What's going on there?

Sharpness too high?


Watched both of these projected as well as on my UHD set, I've never seen them look better.
Whatever "enhancement" Fifth Element has looks baked into the source.

[Geoff D]

I don't like the way that TFE looks but MIB Mi4K is much better, the edginess is mostly on the VFX shots which also have a weird colour balance, they look kinda yellow. I remember reading that ILM were doing their VFX in a linear colour space (not log) at that time which is why the colour goes kinda hinky. It's not the only film I've seen from that time which has that look to the CG VFX so it's not a big deal, just an observation.

[antovolk]

FWIW - Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2 was mastered in 4K (despite being shot on the Alexa)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by antovolk

FWIW - Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2 was mastered in 4K (despite being shot on the Alexa)

Yes, the same as Mockingay 1.

2 also got a Dolby Vision HDR finish.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't like the way that TFE looks but MIB Mi4K is much better, the edginess is mostly on the VFX shots which also have a weird colour balance, they look kinda yellow. I remember reading that ILM were doing their VFX in a linear colour space (not log) at that time which is why the colour goes kinda hinky. It's not the only film I've seen from that time which has that look to the CG VFX so it's not a big deal, just an observation.

The second looks terrible in actual 4kay

[Derb]

I don't see notes in the first post.

So are these all 4K?

Or up converts?

Or is still undecided?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Derb

I don't see notes in the first post.

So are these all 4K?

Or up converts?

Or is still undecided?

The Sony discs are either all 4k, or 4k finished with some upscaled effects

[Derb]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

The Sony discs are either all 4k, or 4k finished with some upscaled effects

Thanks, I want a native 4K master for my first UHD purchase, Prefebley a Movie, no nature docs.

[jaaguir]

It's been interesting to read this thread.

I love the idea of UHD, and I plan on jumping onboard as soon as I can (not too soon, I'm afraid), but many things about it seem a bit funny. Funny in a mostly benign and bearable way, not sad and tragic like the blu-ray/hd-dvd launch.

For starters, the format is here, but it's like the proper content for it isn't.
Well, I would think there are plenty of movies shot on film and finished photochemically, using the best film stocks before the digital age arrived (I'm talking about 1990s movies, I guess), that would benefit from UHD's added resolution and improved contrast. But of course studios have no interest in releasing those movies on UHD. They learnt with blu-ray that deep catalog sells poorly.
It's the blockbusters and popular franchises of the past ten years that they want to sell, understandably. But ironically, it seems like those movies, of the digital age, are the least prepared for the format, with their ubiquitous 2K DI-s! For example, the here much talked about "The Martian" sounds like an upconvert to me, overall. I mean, how many shots without vfx can there be in that movie?

Having said that, shouldn't 4K upscaled from 2K always look better than 1K downscaled from 2K anyway (which is what we've got with blu-ray now)?

I'm not a tech expert so I may have gotten some facts wrong. Also, sorry for my jumbled English.