4K Blu-ray content on the horizon?

[blueshadow | Kosty]

Thanks for the link Penton-Man.

Sony
Sony was the clear winner at CEDIA this year with the introduction of their new, consumer grade, 4K front projector, the VPL-VW1000ES. Boasting a native resolution of 4,096 x 2,160, the VPL-VW10000ES is a true 4K projector that can also scale legacy sources (DVD, broadcast and Blu-ray) to 4K via its internal scaler. The VPL-VW1000ES has a reported brightness of 2,000 ANSI lumens with a 1,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio. On top of being a native 4K product the VPL-VW10000ES is also a 3D capable projector, though Sony was not demonstrating its 3D prowess during the show. Sony says the VPL-VW1000ES will be available later this year, think December, and will retail for a little under $25,000 - not bad, considering the nearest 4K option not named the VPL-VW1000ES starts north of $100,000.

I sat for a demo of the VPL-VW1000ES and came away very impressed. Its upscaling prowess was brilliant and showcased nicely via a clip from Resident Evil: Afterlife on Blu-ray disc. Sony did head to head comparisons of 1080p versus 4K using still photos captured on a large format still camera and again the differences in resolution were readily apparent and far from subtle. In terms of showcasing 4K in its native form, Sony had the trailer for the new Spider Man film for our eyes to feast upon, though if I'm honest the 1080p upscaled demo of Resident Evil: Afterlife was actually more impressive for it really highlighted, at least for me, why one could benefit from owning a 4K projector now versus in the future.

No word on when native 4K content will be available for home consumption, though there is a rumor swirling around CEDIA, mainly the Sony booth, that Sony is working on a new compression standard to fit 4K content onto Blu-ray discs. If this is true (and if it can be done), then 4K may be closer to becoming reality than any of us, present company included, ever thought.

JVC
JVC had a few new projectors on hand for CEDIA, two of which were being touted as 4K capable models. The DLA-RS65 and RS55 D-ILA projectors both claim to be 4K capable, though closer inspection actually revealed them to be "faux K" projectors, each possessing resolutions of 3,840 x 2,160 - not true 4K. Both the RS65 and RS55 projectors upscale legacy sources to "faux K" via JVC's e-Shift technology, which basically duplicates pixels and offsets them slightly to create a 4K-like pixel density. The RS65 will retail for a little under $12,000 whereas the RS55 will have retail price just shy of $8,000. Both projectors are 3D capable and are THX and ISF Certified.

I got up close and personal with the RS65 and found its performance to be quite good - okay, amazing - though I came away somewhat upset for once again (due to a lack of corporation among the manufacturers), we appear to have two competing standards, true DCI compliant 4K and consumer "faux K." I know why JVC has chosen to make a pit stop short of the true 4K goal - I'm just not sure it was the right move, thanks in part to another projection company named Epson.

[Steedeel]

Let it be true.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Let it be true.

If only to get Universal to redo most of their lackluster Blu-rays .

[Steedeel]

True!

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

A new codec in the works that should be able to handle 4k and 3d. Will be some time until we see it though. Apparently it is aiming to halve the bit rate of the current mpeg4 standard but still manage comparable picture quality.

It seems inconsistent that you should champion lower bitrates and higher compression given everything that you have said in the past.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

It seems inconsistent that you should champion lower bitrates and higher compression given everything that you have said in the past.

In what part of that statement do i 'champion' it? Just repeating what i had heard.

[PRO-630HD]

I would personally love to see 4K content and Europe is getting a 4K display this xmas, a 55in. Toshiba. Also with 4K glasses aren't needed for 3-D. 4K is far more applicable to film as anything shot on 35mm needs a 4K scan to capture all the picture information. There is as ton of 4K content already out there far, far outnumbering 3-D titles from blurays with 4K masters that would simply need to be ported over to the new format. I would also say 100gb discs are needed at a minimum and obviously new players. It would be a niche market much like laserdisc, but one I would gladly join.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

I would personally love to see 4K content and Europe is getting a 4K display this xmas, a 55in. Toshiba. Also with 4K glasses aren't needed for 3-D. 4K is far more applicable to film as anything shot on 35mm needs a 4K scan to capture all the picture information. There is as ton of 4K content already out there far, far outnumbering 3-D titles from blurays with 4K bluray masters that would simply need to be ported over to the new format. I would also say 100gb discs are needed at a minimum and obviously new players. It would be a niche market much like laserdisc, but one I would gladly join.

couldn't agree more.

[kristoffer]

How much room does a 4K movie at same compression as the best BDs today need?
200 GB?

Also how big a improvement will 4K be for movies shot on 35mm.
I was of the understanding that you need a at least 80" to take advantage of 4K and that you would have to sit really close to the screen.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

How much room does a 4K movie at same compression as the best BDs today need?
200 GB?

Also how big a improvement will 4K be for movies shot on 35mm.
I was of the understanding that you need a at least 80" to take advantage of 4K and that you would have to sit really close to the screen.

From what I have been told, going from ~2k on BD to 4k doesn't necessarily require a doubling of the file size and/or bitrate.

The 2k files you see at movie theaters vary greatly in size. My friend was a projectionist and told me that for a 2 hour movie they varied from 50 (Warner)-120GB (typically Sony, like Casino Royale). Considering that you can fit a 2 hour movie in the 20-35 GB range with lossless audio, I imagine a 100 GB disc would be sufficient for 4k. Since we also need a new BD player to play these discs as the current BD spec doesn't allow for anything higher than 50 GB discs to be read (a 100 GB disc has 4 layers, a 50 GB has 2), maybe a new BD player with the 100GB spec would also have a new compression codec that would cut down on the file size needed even more. MPEG-5, perhaps?

Considering that almost every movie made with a DI was done at 2k and this practice is a standard from the mid 2000s to today, the majority of BD discs that you have won't need to be replaced. Classic movies shot on 70mm film and any movie shot on 35mm film that has the negative scanned at 4k like Gladiator will see an improvement, as well as any new 4k content. If you have any movies shot in 16mm or HD cameras (the majority of them anyway) your BDs are as good as they will get. I would gladly upgrade my classic movies to 4k. In one sense it is unfortunate that many modern classics like LOTR are locked in at 2k, but in another sense it is kind of a good thing because my large BD collection won't become entirely obsolete overnight.

While you need a larger screen to appreciate 4k as you need a larger screen to appreciate BD, it isn't a must. I see a huge difference in PQ when watching movies on my 21" 16:10 CRT monitor that's used for my computer when going from HDTV to BD, let alone DVD to BD. I have a 65" projection TV and I imagine I could see a notable increase in quality when going to 4k at that size, although I'd have to upgrade my TV. At least the HDMI spec allows for 4k transmissions.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by singhcr

From what I have been told, going from ~2k on BD to 4k doesn't necessarily require a doubling of the file size and/or bitrate.

The 2k files you see at movie theaters vary greatly in size. My friend was a projectionist and told me that for a 2 hour movie they varied from 50 (Warner)-120GB (typically Sony, like Casino Royale). Considering that you can fit a 2 hour movie in the 20-35 GB range with lossless audio, I imagine a 100 GB disc would be sufficient for 4k. Since we also need a new BD player to play these discs as the current BD spec doesn't allow for anything higher than 50 GB discs to be read (a 100 GB disc has 4 layers, a 50 GB has 2), maybe a new BD player with the 100GB spec would also have a new compression codec that would cut down on the file size needed even more. MPEG-5, perhaps?

Considering that almost every movie made with a DI was done at 2k and this practice is a standard from the mid 2000s to today, the majority of BD discs that you have won't need to be replaced. Classic movies shot on 70mm film and any movie shot on 35mm film that has the negative scanned at 4k like Gladiator will see an improvement, as well as any new 4k content. If you have any movies shot in 16mm or HD cameras (the majority of them anyway) your BDs are as good as they will get. I would gladly upgrade my classic movies to 4k. In one sense it is unfortunate that many modern classics like LOTR are locked in at 2k, but in another sense it is kind of a good thing because my large BD collection won't become entirely obsolete overnight.

While you need a larger screen to appreciate 4k as you need a larger screen to appreciate BD, it isn't a must. I see a huge difference in PQ when watching movies on my 21" 16:10 CRT monitor that's used for my computer when going from HDTV to BD, let alone DVD to BD. I have a 65" projection TV and I imagine I could see a notable increase in quality when going to 4k at that size, although I'd have to upgrade my TV. At least the HDMI spec allows for 4k transmissions.

Exactly. Despite what people try to tell everyone the benefits will be there for all to see. Bring it on!

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by singhcr

From what I have been told, going from ~2k on BD to 4k doesn't necessarily require a doubling of the file size and/or bitrate.

The 2k files you see at movie theaters vary greatly in size. My friend was a projectionist and told me that for a 2 hour movie they varied from 50 (Warner)-120GB (typically Sony, like Casino Royale). Considering that you can fit a 2 hour movie in the 20-35 GB range with lossless audio, I imagine a 100 GB disc would be sufficient for 4k. Since we also need a new BD player to play these discs as the current BD spec doesn't allow for anything higher than 50 GB discs to be read (a 100 GB disc has 4 layers, a 50 GB has 2), maybe a new BD player with the 100GB spec would also have a new compression codec that would cut down on the file size needed even more. MPEG-5, perhaps?

Considering that almost every movie made with a DI was done at 2k and this practice is a standard from the mid 2000s to today, the majority of BD discs that you have won't need to be replaced. Classic movies shot on 70mm film and any movie shot on 35mm film that has the negative scanned at 4k like Gladiator will see an improvement, as well as any new 4k content. If you have any movies shot in 16mm or HD cameras (the majority of them anyway) your BDs are as good as they will get. I would gladly upgrade my classic movies to 4k. In one sense it is unfortunate that many modern classics like LOTR are locked in at 2k, but in another sense it is kind of a good thing because my large BD collection won't become entirely obsolete overnight.

While you need a larger screen to appreciate 4k as you need a larger screen to appreciate BD, it isn't a must. I see a huge difference in PQ when watching movies on my 21" 16:10 CRT monitor that's used for my computer when going from HDTV to BD, let alone DVD to BD. I have a 65" projection TV and I imagine I could see a notable increase in quality when going to 4k at that size, although I'd have to upgrade my TV. At least the HDMI spec allows for 4k transmissions.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

[/B]

Exactly. Despite what people try to tell everyone the benefits will be there for all to see. Bring it on!

That's not what was said. It depends upon the quality of the source material and what it was scanned at. The argument pretty much said that if it was scanned at 4K, then a 4K storage and repro format isn't going to make a difference. And most pros feel that 4K is only necessary for 65/70mm source material, of which there are only about 60 films actually shot (as opposed to blown-up) in 65mm, IIRC.

For over a year, I've been trying to sell off my DVDs and I haven't watched any and I've double-dipped many, replacing them with BD, which I originally swore I wouldn't do. I recently bought a new system that is reputed to do a really good job with upscaling. So I threw in a DVD the other day and I was shocked just how good it looked upscaled. Did it look every bit as good as a Blu-ray? No, but on most of the several films I tested, it was suprisingly close and for films that I wouldn't watch more than once every few years, I decided that I probably wasted some money re-buying them on BD in spite of the better sound quality. I doubt whether a neophyte user would be able to tell the difference on first viewing.

In a theatrical situation, with a 30' to 60' screen, there is definitely a big difference between 2K and 4K. But in the home, I really wonder how much better it would look, except perhaps when using a projector and a 10' screen or larger.

And the fastest way to kill an industry is to start claiming that something better is coming soon. I think most people think that BD will be the last physical format in spite of the backlash against Netflix for emphasizing their download program over the physical. BD is still a niche format. A new 4K format would be even more niche. That's not to say I wouldn't support it, but looking at it from a business standpoint, you have to deal with reality. And at launch, both hardware and software would be very expensive, something that doesn't fly well in a weak worldwide economy. The other reality is that most people don't give a crap about PQ and SQ. They're perfectly content watching movies on their smartphones or Pads.

[Pondosinatra]

And as soon as everyone's done replacing their Blu-rays with the 4k versions, 8k will come out.....etc. etc. etc.

How many times is one going to buy Star Wars? 4? 10? times?

[scorpiontail60]

4k is four times the resolution of 1080p so it will require four times the bitrate to look acceptable. The majority of Blu-rays seem to be settling for 20-30 Mbps AVC which looks pretty good.

These new "4k Blu-rays" will need a bitrate of at least 80 - 120 Mbps using the H.264/AVC codec. Obviously, no current player can handle this and the current capacity of BD-50 simply isn't enough. The 8 layer, 200 GB Blu-rays will need to be introduced for flawless image quality to be attained; otherwise the 4k home video releases are going to be a bitrate-starved mess. The D-Theater tapes and HDTV broadcast equivalents of 4k.

4k is basically going to require a completely new format. I hope they take into account higher framerates than 23.976 as well; The Hobbit is being filmed at 48 fps. Right now, the only way to release it at that framerate on Blu-ray will be 720p only as the format does not support 1080p48 video.

Assuming they can get High Efficiency Video Coding out the door anytime soon, which is supposed to be twice as efficient as H.264, then 4k video will only require twice the bitrate of current 1080p AVC video.

The projected timeline for this new codec to be finalized is in 2013.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

And as soon as everyone's done replacing their Blu-rays with the 4k versions, 8k will come out.....etc. etc. etc.

How many times is one going to buy Star Wars? 4? 10? times?

As I said earlier, practically all movies made from the mid 2000s to today were finalized at 2k by scanning the 35mm negatives, and BD is essentially 2k.

4k is the resolution that is equivalent to an original 35mm negative. 35mm has been used for basically every movie made to date. Any movie that didn't use a 2k digital intermediate would max out at 4k resolution.

16mm movies, however rare, top out at roughly 1080p resolution.

70mm/65mm/IMAX movies are roughly equivalent to 8k. There are only a handful of these movies made.

So in the history of movies, you get this very rough breakdown:

35mm [4k]: (1898-2005), ~95% of all movies made
Digital Intermediate (DI) [2k scan of 35mm negative] (2005-present) ~4% of all movies made
70mm [8k] (1960s-1980s) <1% of all movies made
IMAX [8k] (1990)<1%
16mm [1080p] <1%

As I said earlier, with the exception of 70mm/IMAX and new content, 4k covers essentially all movies made to date. TV shows also top out at 4k if they were shot on 35mm film, like Star Trek: TNG.

Star Wars was shot on 35mm film. It will get no more detailed than 4k. Once you buy that, you've essentially bought the original negative. This makes me wonder if studios will ever release a home copy of a movie where you'd never need to upgrade again.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

How many times is one going to buy Star Wars? 4? 10? times?

As many times as people wish to buy it as long as they are not asking you to pay for it

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by singhcr

35mm [4k]: (1898-2005), ~95% of all movies made
Digital Intermediate (DI) [2k scan of 35mm negative] (2005-present) ~4% of all movies made
70mm [8k] (1960s-1980s) <1% of all movies made
IMAX [8k] (1990)<1%
16mm [1080p] <1%

.

Uhh... really?

16mm films were considered the alternative, cheaper way to shoot movies, usually done in television productions, as well as a high end choice for documentary filmmakers and home movies. 16mm format benefits from portability compared to larger 35mm cameras while giving out more detail than the cheaper 8mm option. Bigger studios use 35mm, however the larger 70mm (as well as IMAX) were really for experimental use only to drive larger theater venues (still is awesome though).

Even with blu ray, there never can or will be a "master" copy of the film (I don't mean by resolution) since they all have gone through some conversion filter and compression technology to fit inside a blu ray disc. Blu ray format still uses compression techniques that DO detriment the picture and the original data files are significantly bigger than the blu rays we buy. It doesn't mean we'll notice or even be bothered by it, but it still uses compression.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

Uhh... really?

16mm films were considered the alternative, cheaper way to shoot movies, usually done in television productions, as well as a high end choice for documentary filmmakers and home movies. 16mm format benefits from portability compared to larger 35mm cameras while giving out more detail than the cheaper 8mm option. Bigger studios use 35mm, however the larger 70mm (as well as IMAX) were really for experimental use only to drive larger theater venues (still is awesome though).

Even with blu ray, there never can or will be a "master" copy of the film (I don't mean by resolution) since they all have gone through some conversion filter and compression technology to fit inside a blu ray disc. Blu ray format still uses compression techniques that DO detriment the picture and the original data files are significantly bigger than the blu rays we buy. It doesn't mean we'll notice or even be bothered by it, but it still uses compression.

Is 16mm in that much use compared to 35mm in the history of film? In any event it was just an estimate.

For archival purposes, 1080p is about all you're going to get for 16mm film, and unless lossless video technology comes out, the 4k files for the new 4k Blu-ray won't be a perfect copy of the master as you said. However, for all practical intents and purposes, they will be.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

That's not what was said. It depends upon the quality of the source material and what it was scanned at. The argument pretty much said that if it was scanned at 4K, then a 4K storage and repro format isn't going to make a difference. And most pros feel that 4K is only necessary for 65/70mm source material, of which there are only about 60 films actually shot (as opposed to blown-up) in 65mm, IIRC.

Studios are not remastering 70mm films in 4K, They are in most every case getting a 6K or 8K scan. Many 35mm films have gotten 8K scans as well such as GWTW and TWOO.

Most 35mm films are being remastered in 4K, if it is a 2K scan it is because it is more than likely a master for dvd that is dated.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

And as soon as everyone's done replacing their Blu-rays with the 4k versions, 8k will come out.....etc. etc. etc.

How many times is one going to buy Star Wars? 4? 10? times?

No, 35mm films are native 4K, an HD or 1.9K scan will never capture all the picture information in the frame. For 16mm films bluray is as good as it gets. Vistavision is best with 6K scans and 70mm best with 8K. Depending on the source as well being an OCN, IP, IN or theatrical print will make a difference. King Kong which was scanned at 4K doesn't show a tremendous difference from the dvd as it was sourced several generations away from the OCN.