4K Movies Releases

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by STD

So they are going to skip 2k and jump straight to 4k for the next generation blu ray? I am surprised.

Blu-ray as we know it now is pretty much 2k. Well close to it, there isn't exactly one set resolution meaning blu-ray at 1920x1080 is close to 2k. 2k also refers to 2048 X xxxx depending on the aspect ratio. So really it is more of a range that is consider 2k, same goes for 4k at 4096x xxxx

[saprano]

Originally Posted by STD

So they are going to skip 2k and jump straight to 4k for the next generation blu ray? I am surprised.

Bluray is pretty close to cinema 2K.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

It's 4X the resolution! VHS to DVD was a 2.25X increase in resolution. Also many HDTV's in peoples homes are not 1080p. There are many 1080i and 720p sets still in peoples homes and compared to a 1080i set that is a 8X increase in resolution over a 1080i set and that is what the jump will be for me.

Actually the difference from VHS to DVD was more then 4 fold. VHS - 320 x 240 versus 720 x 480 for DVD. That still seems less then the jump to 1920 x 1080 Blu-Ray gives but there is a diminishing returns effect with increased resolution especially when one of the big benefits DVD had over VHS was the lack of quality degradation that came from repeated viewings of tapes

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Blu-ray as we know it now is pretty much 2k. Well close to it, there isn't exactly one set resolution meaning blu-ray at 1920x1080 is close to 2k. 2k also refers to 2048 X xxxx depending on the aspect ratio. So really it is more of a range that is consider 2k, same goes for 4k at 4096x xxxx

Yes-

Digital Cinema 2K 2048 × 858 2.39:1 1,757,184

Digital Cinema 2K 1998 × 1080 1.85:1 2,157,840

Academy 2K 1828 × 1332 1.37:1 2,434,896

Full Aperture Native 2K 2048 × 1556 1.32:1 3,186,688

Digital cinema 4K 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544

Digital cinema 4K 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360

Academy 4K 3656 × 2664 1.37:1 9,739,584

Full Aperture 4K 4096 × 3112 1.32:1 12,746,752

IMAX Digital 5616 × 4096 1.37:1 23,003,136


Were going to be getting 3840x2160p. I thought it would be the full 4K resolution.

[Monkey]

Ah, so exactly double current blu's resolution. Thanks.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Actually the difference from VHS to DVD was more then 4 fold. VHS - 320 x 240 versus 720 x 480 for DVD. That still seems less then the jump to 1920 x 1080 Blu-Ray gives but there is a diminishing returns effect with increased resolution especially when one of the big benefits DVD had over VHS was the lack of quality degradation that came from repeated viewings of tapes

Wrong. VHS has always been 480i, it has to be to match the NTSC standard. VHS is in pixels 480 x 320. 480 x 240 in lines of resolution.
DVD in pixels is 480 x 720. 480 x 540 in lines of resolution.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by saprano

Were going to be getting 3840x2160p. I thought it would be the full 4K resolution.

I asked Penton-Man about the full res. 2160 x 4096 17:9 aspect ratio of 4K for displays and his responce was it will be 16:9 at 3.8K. It is a better idea as 17:9 fits films better, but like 10 bit color it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by saprano

...I know my post in these 4K threads seems like im saying 4K is not worth it, but im really not if people can read. I welcome 4K, especially if it helps the continuation of hard media. I only question the difference and the need for it so soon. Theres already talk of 8K. Time to change our equipment again.....and again.

Yeah...but I think that's a good thing.

I don't know about you but I tend to buy a new TV for family viewing every 3 to 5 years. I think that's about average. So, at any given time, there's a whole lot of people buying new sets. And with every purchase, I notice improved PQ.

I also notice that manufacturers today where possible tend to integrate new technology (3D anyone) as standard equipment on their mid to higher end sets as opposed to years past where new technology had separate production runs and price reductions depended on how well the new product sold. Damn...it seemed like it took 10 years for Laserdisc players to get off that 1k price point and down to affordable $400 levels. In comparison...look at how the price of a Blu ray 3D player has fallen in just 1 year.

No reason to think that this same approach wont be used to further 4k adoption. In a few years, who wouldn't want to future proof their new purchase by buying a 2k/4k capable set over a 1080p only purchase for just a little more money.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by saprano

Yes-


Academy 2K 1828 × 1332 1.37:1 2,434,896
Full Aperture Native 2K 2048 × 1556 1.32:1 3,186,688

Where are you getting these from? There's only 1080 vertical pixels.

Originally Posted by saprano

Digital cinema 4K 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544

It's actually 1716 on the Sony, but who's counting?

Originally Posted by saprano

Academy 4K 3656 × 2664 1.37:1 9,739,584

Full Aperture 4K 4096 × 3112 1.32:1 12,746,752

No..there's only 2160 vertical pixels on the 4K projectors.

Originally Posted by saprano

IMAX Digital 5616 × 4096 1.37:1 23,003,136

My understanding is that IMAX digital uses 2 2K projectors projected over each other to obtain desired brightness. This does not double the resolution so the actual resolution would be the same as a cropped 2K image, right? Other sites have quoted the IMAX digital resolution as 2160 X 2048.

[saprano]

Did you look at the aspect ratio? I think it depends on that.

I looked around before posting and everything came up the same. In fact there are many other different resolutions.

And i never heard of imax resolution being that low.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PRO-630HD

I asked Penton-Man about the full res. 2160 x 4096 17:9 aspect ratio of 4K for displays and his responce was it will be 16:9 at 3.8K. It is a better idea as 17:9 fits films better, but like 10 bit color it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

Yeah 17:9 would be better for true 4K, but i highly doubt they're going to change the 16:9 standard anytime soon. So then why call it 4K?

http://hometheaterreview.com/why-fau...-over-full-4k/

It's also dumb that we're still going with 8bit color. It looks like they're just adding more pixels i guess. Great.

[Penton-Man]

I doubt most people will be concerned over the relative decrease in pixels from ‘theatrical 4k’ to the proposed ‘consumer 4k’ when you’re dealing with something on the order of 8 million pixels to begin with. That’s not the key issue. The more significant observation is how, with the theatrical source, do studios/content providers plan to do the 4000 -> 3840 conversion step?

#1 Rescaling, for example, 1.85 4000 x 2160 pixel and 2.39 4000 x 1674 pixel Projector Aperture extractions by 0.96x down to a 3840 pixel width,

or…

#2 Cropping the 4000 pixels to 3840?

How this conversion step is performed will affect picture quality.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

I know my post in these 4K threads seems like im saying 4K is not worth it, but im really not if people can read. I welcome 4K, especially if it helps the continuation of hard media. I only question the difference...

I wouldn’t be surprised if several consumers (and/or their wives) said nearly the same thing if, back in the day, you (or a similar Kuro buyer) purchased his Kuro 151FD off the floor at some retailer and there were also several much more moderately priced 55” or 60” 1080p TV’s on display along the wall adjacent to it, i.e....

“Just don’t see much of a difference Dear, to justify spending so much money on that expensive Kuro when the much cheaper LCD looks pretty much just as good to me.”

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Actually the difference from VHS to DVD was more then 4 fold. VHS - 320 x 240 versus 720 x 480 for DVD. That still seems less then the jump to 1920 x 1080 Blu-Ray gives but there is a diminishing returns effect with increased resolution especially when one of the big benefits DVD had over VHS was the lack of quality degradation that came from repeated viewings of tapes

Euchhhhh....numbers! Marketing people can twist 'em to suit whatever purpose they want. Don't trust 'em. They can be used loosely as a ruler of sorts, but for most folks...it boils down to just a simple eye test when we go shopping for a new TV.

For me when I get approach my 60 inch 1080p HDTV to watch something interesting as we all do sometimes... it starts to look terrible and the closer you get...the more terrible it looks.

My understanding is that with 4k you can get as close as you want and the resolution is such that it looks like you're looking out a window. I don't know if many of you have had the fortune to regularly look out a picture window at some sort of gorgeous view, but invariably... you wish you had gotten a BIGGER picture window. Imo...that picture window scenario is going to play out across AV retail stores in the next few years and is going to sell a lot of bigger 4k capable TV sets.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

My understanding is that IMAX digital uses 2 2K projectors projected over each other to obtain desired brightness. This does not double the resolution so the actual resolution would be the same as a cropped 2K image, right? Other sites have quoted the IMAX digital resolution as 2160 X 2048.

correct

Initially IMAX and AMC wanted to use Sony 4K systems but that did not have enough lightout put for the larger screens, in fact, that's been the case with most of the larger non-IMAX screens in AMC's chain, Christie DLP systems were used instead of Sony's.

the conversion of the IMAX (15/70) screens to IMAX-Digital conversion that will begin next year, will implement the new 4K DLP chip that Texas Instruments has developed. Again as in current IMAX-Digital screens two projectors are used.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I wouldn't be surprised if several consumers (and/or their wives) said nearly the same thing if, back in the day, you (or a similar Kuro buyer) purchased his Kuro 151FD off the floor at some retailer and there were also several much more moderately priced 55" or 60" 1080p TV?s on display along the wall adjacent to it, i.e....

"Just don't see much of a difference Dear, to justify spending so much money on that expensive Kuro when the much cheaper LCD looks pretty much just as good to me."

Haha, wow. Thats true i guess. Thats probably one of the main reasons the kuro didn't sell well enough to stay in business. Nobody saw a difference. But the difference was clearly there. I saw it immediately back in the summer of 08. Even to this day i prefer it over anything else. Even the new sharp elite.

So i assume you think i'll notice the difference with 4K in the same way? 4K display= kuro 2K display = everything else.

We'll see.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

correct

Initially IMAX and AMC wanted to use Sony 4K systems but that did not have enough lightout put for the larger screens, in fact, that's been the case with most of the larger non-IMAX screens in AMC's chain, Christie DLP systems were used instead of Sony's.

the conversion of the IMAX (15/70) screens to IMAX-Digital conversion that will begin next year, will implement the new 4K DLP chip that Texas Instruments has developed. Again as in current IMAX-Digital screens two projectors are used.

I thought imax resolutions were high than that?

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by saprano

I thought imax resolutions were high than that?

I'm going to check out this newly discovered "bad boy" for comparison purposes after I see my first IMAX 3D presentation on a trip we're taking next week.

Films come to life on a five-story giant screen complete with digital surround sound.

Digital 3D is Here!

With partners D3D Cinema, Barco, and Dolby, the enhanced large-format Lockheed Martin DynaTheater now features the world's first 2D/3D digital 4K dual projection system. The system features two new projectors, new digital surround sound, and a new five story white screen. With optimum viewing throughout the renovated theater, there isn't a bad seat in the house!

http://nmnaturalhistory.org/dynatheater

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by saprano

I thought imax resolutions were high than that?

it is - even 4K can't do IMAX shot film justice. Remember 70mm films like 'Baraka' has scans for hidef bluray at 8K.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

it is - even 4K can't do IMAX shot film justice. Remember 70mm films like 'Baraka' has scans for hidef bluray at 8K.

Ok im confused. So why the use of 2 2K projectors and the said resolution? Are you talking about fake imax? Not that i've ever seen one. My regal theater has the real deal.