Is 4K a game changer?

[Tekka]

Originally Posted by Blades1370

^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.

Arri camera corporation wrote a white paper back in the mid 2000s that said the maximum amount of resolution you can get out of 35mm is around 6k and for 16mm was 3k. Kodak has written similar papers, but I've not come across them.

The quality of the film has some baring on how much detail you can get since newer film stocks are much more advanced than the ones from decades ago. It is easier to get a 6k scan on say... a Michael Mann movie from the 2000s like Ali. That modern film stock is clean and highly detailed. Compare that to say... A boy and his dog from the 70s. That is not exactly clean even though there is plenty of detail. Going above 4k might be pointless in that case. There was also some discussion about massively increasing the color gamut of film scanners instead of only going for resolution since film contains such an incredibly wide color gamut. It is far closer to what the human eye picks up than we realize with the limited color gamut we are used to seeing on tvs and computer monitors.

65mm and IMAX 15/70mm are a heck of a lot trickier to deal with since even an 8k scan (which is over 33 million pixels) of these formats is only a fraction of the detail you can get out of the negatives. Newer hardware and software would be needed to grab the estimated 18k (252 million pixels) resolution of IMAX 15/70 film. Normal 65mm film wouldn't need to be scanned that high, but the resolution would still be nearly as insane.

[Tekka]

Originally Posted by frogmort

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

Yeah, 4k isn't entirely about resolution. It is also about increasing the color gamut and allowing for much higher frame rates.

The 8K broadcast and film standard we'll be seeing as we approach 2020 is pushing for a 120fps. That should be interesting since it the Japanese are going full steam ahead with 8K 120fps and 22.2 audio and will make it happen no matter what. I'm pretty astounded they've been able to broadcast this stuff over the air and keep improving it. lol

[Blu-21]

Anyone that thinks 4K will be anything more then a niche is kidding themselves. It's taken long enough for Blu-Ray to catch on, and even then people will happily concede quality (Blu-Ray) for convenience (streaming/downloading)..

[Tekka]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Anyone that thinks 4K will be anything more then a niche is kidding themselves. It's taken long enough for Blu-Ray to catch on, and even then people will happily concede quality (Blu-Ray) for convenience (streaming/downloading)..

4k won't be a niche. All the television makers are transitioning to 4k and 8k televisions. In ten years you might not even see 1080p televisions sold anymore. The 4k and 8k tvs will be sold like the 720p and 1080p tvs are today.

[scorpiontail60]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Anyone that thinks 4K will be anything more then a niche is kidding themselves. It's taken long enough for Blu-Ray to catch on, and even then people will happily concede quality (Blu-Ray) for convenience (streaming/downloading)..

Yes, I'm sure in a hundred years from now we're still going to be watching everything on 1080p TVs. My grandchildren are going to be watching videos at the same resolution I watch them at now. Yep. Sounds about right.

This is it folks. We've reached the end game. Video display technology will never progress past Blu-ray according to Mr. Blu-21 here. Humans in the year 3000 will still be sitting around watching 'high definition' TVs. There will never be a higher resolution format ever in all of mankind's future. We're never going to see 4K or 8K become widespread and we're never getting holodecks.

So I guess we better pack it up folks, because it looks like we're in for the long haul.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Tekka

4k won't be a niche. All the television makers are transitioning to 4k and 8k televisions. In ten years you might not even see 1080p televisions sold anymore. The 4k and 8k tvs will be sold like the 720p and 1080p tvs are today.

Using the "sold in stores" argument doesn't prove much. They always sell the newest technology in stores. Forget 10 years, they don't sell TV and computer models that are more than a couple of years old in an electronics store.

But the amount of people who will be buying new TVs in order to replace their old TVs will be much smaller than the transition from the old bulky tube SD TVs to current HD TVs. People were selling off or even throwing away their old TVs to get the HD flatscreens. This won't be the case nearly as much with the transition to 4K TVs and way more people will only buy a new TV if their old one breaks down and dies.

Also, much like the transition from DVD to blu ray wasn't as big as the transition from the huge VHS tapes to much smaller DVD discs, the physical and aesthetic difference won't be as big as the difference between the old chubby TVs and flat screens. This time, it will be a transition from flat screens to flat screens.

It's easy for people who consider themselves videophiles to post on a niche forum and get high off each other's comments about how 256K TVs will dominate in 3 years, but the fact of the matter is the average consumer doesn't give nearly as much **** as you would like them to. See the continuous success of DVDs nearly a decade after the release of the blu ray format. Not to mention the success of streaming even though the quality is crap compared to blu ray.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Yes, I'm sure in a hundred years from now we're still going to be watching everything on 1080p TVs. My grandchildren are going to be watching videos at the same resolution I watch them at now. Yep. Sounds about right.

This is it folks. We've reached the end game. Video display technology will never progress past Blu-ray according to Mr. Blu-21 here. Humans in the year 3000 will still be sitting around watching 'high definition' TVs. There will never be a higher resolution format ever in all of mankind's future. We're never going to see 4K or 8K become widespread and we're never getting holodecks.

So I guess we better pack it up folks, because it looks like we're in for the long haul.

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Using the "sold in stores" argument doesn't prove much. They always sell the newest technology in stores. Forget 10 years, they don't sell TV and computer models that are more than a couple of years old in an electronics store.

But the amount of people who will be buying new TVs in order to replace their old TVs will be much smaller than the transition from the old bulky tube SD TVs to current HD TVs. People were selling off or even throwing away their old TVs to get the HD flatscreens. This won't be the case nearly as much with the transition to 4K TVs and way more people will only buy a new TV if their old one breaks down and dies.

Also, much like the transition from DVD to blu ray wasn't as big as the transition from the huge VHS tapes to much smaller DVD discs, the physical and aesthetic difference won't be as big as the difference between the old chubby TVs and flat screens. This time, it will be a transition from flat screens to flat screens.

It's easy for people who consider themselves videophiles to post on a niche forum and get high off each other's comments about how 256K TVs will dominate in 3 years, but the fact of the matter is the average consumer doesn't give nearly as much **** as you would like them to. See the continuous success of DVDs nearly a decade after the release of the blu ray format. Not to mention the success of streaming even though the quality is crap compared to blu ray.

But he makes a valid point, the manufacturers, not us, decide what is to come. Technology as far as I know will not stop and whether you and most agree with UHDTV or not really doesn't matter. You buy what is available as you can't get a custom made TV. UHDTV is now only maybe 10% of them, by 2015 it will most probably be the tech for mid to high end and so on. Give it 5 years and unless you go with a 32" (which might stay at 1080P) you just won't have the choice.

Also, and this is not wishful thinking but reality, many more important technologies will show up which will make the need for UHD real. And, contrary to our good old CRTs, sets today don't have nearly as long a lifespan as they did. With LCD I see many changing within a max of 10 years (and in my surroundings it's closer to 6-7), not 30 like it was then, so whoever has to change will have to buy what's available, and soon that will be UHDTV, so the upgrade will happen, like it or not.

Most also seem to think streaming will never improve, never ever. Just look back 10 years ago (do a search if need be) and realize how many things we take for granted now and really couldn't live without didn't even exist then, you might be real surprised at what we didn't yet have. 1 Gb ISPs are slowly showing up and will only improve. so what is a hurdle today (bandwidth) will soon be of history.

Think of it like this: Do you honestly believe that companies like Sony for instance who are now playing their whole future on this, pushing the boundaries of PQ and AQ (just like they did with 1080p and Blu-ray, unless everyone here would still prefer to go back to VHS ) are going to invest such money to develop better tech, but will never develop a better "format and delivery model" to fully enjoy it.

What is so darn scary to you guys. I don't get it. BD was here for the masses in 2006, but it took at least another few years to have really good content (so many horrible early transfers it's not funny). How some can pass such affirmative judgement on something that is yet to show up is beyond my comprehension. Maybe many here have just reached the "good enough" stage but I know that even if I think BD is great, I have really not even started to feel that "good enough" stage and don't think I ever will, other wise might as well sell my 4th gen i7 PC and my 2 GPUs and revamp my old 386, at one point it wasn't just good enough, it was tha bomb.

End of Rant lol

[42041]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

dumb argument. Do people have a choice (can you go to the theatre and demand that they have a better presentation)?

Sure. They could insist on going to screens with 4K projectors. They could boycott digital IMAX. They could write long-winded letters to whoever runs the theaters about how dissatisfied they are with the 2K presentation quality, they could write letters to the studios about how unhappy they are with the continued widespread use of 2K mastering.
But they don't. I've never heard anyone bring up the matter outside these forums. Every time I go to a digital IMAX or a 2K->70mm blowup IMAX show it's packed. Because 2K looks just fine for 99% of the movie-watching population.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by 42041

Sure. They could insist on going to screens with 4K projectors. They could boycott digital IMAX. They could write long-winded letters to whoever runs the theaters about how dissatisfied they are with the 2K presentation quality, they could write letters to the studios about how unhappy they are with the continued widespread use of 2K mastering.
But they don't. I've never heard anyone bring up the matter outside these forums. Every time I go to a digital IMAX or a 2K->70mm blowup IMAX show it's packed. Because 2K looks just fine for 99% of the movie-watching population.

No doubt people were just fine with the horse and carriage. Doesn't mean we shouldn't progress.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 42041

Sure. They could insist on going to screens with 4K projectors. They could boycott digital IMAX. They could write long-winded letters to whoever runs the theaters about how dissatisfied they are with the 2K presentation quality, they could write letters to the studios about how unhappy they are with the continued widespread use of 2K mastering.
But they don't. I've never heard anyone bring up the matter outside these forums. Every time I go to a digital IMAX or a 2K->70mm blowup IMAX show it's packed. Because 2K looks just fine for 99% of the movie-watching population.

again, this makes no sense.

1) There might be a choice (4k) and the person might know it exists, but the choice is not everywhere and not obvious even when available

2) even if someone knows and cares, if he is the only one in his group and all his friends want to go see film X at place Y that is not 4K the person won't have the choice to go along (unless that person is Sheldon)

3) people that want quality don't go to the theatre for quality, they build an HT (like myself). Every time I go to the theatre (for a none kid movie) the majority of people are teens more interested in kissing the person they are with than watching a movie, they are looking for a relatively cheap dark place to be with their GF/BF.

4) the last paragraph is the most ridiculous part, why would you hear complaining at the theatres, obviously the person going there has made a conscious decision to go there and had already decided he was willing to live with what is there. There would be little use to them to complain to you about it. The last movie I went to see at the theater we really tried to get D-box seats (especially since one of my friends has never tried them) but they were sold out so we bought different tickets, did we spend the whole evening complaining about it? no we just tried to enjoy the movie (then you go on a forum and ***** about it).

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Tekka

Arri camera corporation wrote a white paper back in the mid 2000s that said the maximum amount of resolution you can get out of 35mm is around 6k and for 16mm was 3k. Kodak has written similar papers, but I've not come across them.

I have read that the resolution of 35mm film is 2K to 3K when there is slight camera movement.

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Anyone that thinks 4K will be anything more then a niche is kidding themselves. It's taken long enough for Blu-Ray to catch on, and even then people will happily concede quality (Blu-Ray) for convenience (streaming/downloading)..

If convenience was the only thing that was important than Netflix would still be limited to 480p.

Originally Posted by Tekka

Going above 4k might be pointless in that case. There was also some discussion about massively increasing the color gamut of film scanners instead of only going for resolution since film contains such an incredibly wide color gamut. It is far closer to what the human eye picks up than we realize with the limited color gamut we are used to seeing on tvs and computer monitors.

The DCI P3 color space is fairly small and that has been a limiting factor for movies over the last decade. Even movies that were shot entirely on film almost always get a digital intermediate that uses the DCI P3 color space.

[reanimator]

I’ll do you one better: I don’t care if 4K fails to catch on with the masses. I only care that it catches on with me.

Niche format? So what. Laserdisc was a “niche format” that never caught on with the masses – but that didn't stop me from owning every movie I could ever want on laser. For those that missed out, that was their loss – not mine.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Using the "sold in stores" argument doesn't prove much. They always sell the newest technology in stores. Forget 10 years, they don't sell TV and computer models that are more than a couple of years old in an electronics store.

But the amount of people who will be buying new TVs in order to replace their old TVs will be much smaller than the transition from the old bulky tube SD TVs to current HD TVs. People were selling off or even throwing away their old TVs to get the HD flatscreens. This won't be the case nearly as much with the transition to 4K TVs and way more people will only buy a new TV if their old one breaks down and dies.

Way too limited view. The first "HDTVs" (and HD channels)came out in the 80's, and flat panel displays have existed even longer. It took a long time for people to replace their Cathode ray tube. The reality is that the big push happened recently and it was more because the government pushed broadcasting from NTSC (or what ever people have where they are) to ATSC (or what ever you have). And so some people debated keep the old TV and get a converter or buy a new TV and then you had others that just saw the adds and thought they would be affected and others that wanted to keep up with their neighbours.

The guy did not say over night everyone will move to 4K, I always find it ridiculous when people believe that. It always takes decades for everyone to drop some old TV standard.

What you are forgetting is the obvious, that sooner or later everyone will either replace their TV (even if it is when the TV brakes) or they will be dead (i.e. the TV outlived the person). And so if someone is buying a new TV in the store at that point in time what is sold in stores is the only thing that counts.

Now if the guy said by 201X (or maybe even an early 202x)everyone would be watching on a 4K TV because they will soon only be selling 4K TVs in store, your comment might make sense but if (his comment) by mid 202X all new TVs are > 1080P what do you think it would mean for the TVs owned by the mid 20X or 204x or.....?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

No doubt people were just fine with the horse and carriage. Doesn't mean we shouldn't progress.

Frankly, 4K isn't the automobile. I have nothing against progress, but companies aren't going to release movies in 4K for charity's sake. If no one cares, the format will flounder.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Tekka

Arri camera corporation wrote a white paper back in the mid 2000s that said the maximum amount of resolution you can get out of 35mm is around 6k and for 16mm was 3k. Kodak has written similar papers, but I've not come across them.

The resolution of 35mm is tricky to quantify, since it's more like an analog frequency response (which begins to rapidly roll off at a certain point, and that point is before you even hit 1080p). It may still resolve something at the full extent at 4K or 6K, but at that point it'll be very faint and buried in grain. Then there's the grain itself, which you'll be still be resolving well after you've run out of actual image detail. So you could draw the line pretty much anywhere between 3K and 8K depending on what information you feel is actually worth scraping off a negative. And that's completely ignoring the effects of lenses (including scanner optics), movement, etc.

The problem with 35mm for the purposes of 4K is that whatever its measurable resolution may be, a 4K transfer from 65mm or 8K digital acquisition will still mop the floor with it. You'll get a slightly tidier image with better-rendered grain, but for the vast bulk of movies ever filmed, there won't be that immense jump in quality you get going from SD to HD compared to just a well-mastered 1080p blu-ray.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

[/URL].If convenience was the only thing that was important than Netflix would still be limited to 480p.

What I meant is that a large majority of people are perfectly contented with the quality Netflix and other HD streaming services provide regardless of how compressed the HD picture and sound is.

So yeah people would prefer to watch something in HD, but they don't care or are ignorant to the fact that BD is technically better because the added convenience of streaming/downloading will override that.

[scorpiontail60]

Originally Posted by 42041

Frankly, 4K isn't the automobile. I have nothing against progress, but companies aren't going to release movies in 4K for charity's sake. If no one cares, the format will flounder.

PC gaming will drive 4K display adoption and in turn this will cause people to be interested in 4K video.

Once PC gamers get used to gaming at 4K they're going to watch some videos in plain 'ol 1080p and start thinking "...well this looks like shit. Why the hell doesn't this look as good as my games?"

Eventually the console peasants will catch up and 4K will be pushed even more mainstream. With every video game being rendered in 4K it would be quite silly for video to be stuck at 1080p forever. I guarantee you video game players also like to watch movies.

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by Tekka

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.

It seems like you're not understanding the point people are making about "resolving individual pixels". If you're not sitting close enough to a 2K screen to resolve individual pixels, then you will not "see significantly more detail" if you replace that 2K screen with a same-sized 4K screen at the same distance. Of course you could always make the screen bigger or sit closer to it, and that way you'd see more detail then would be possible on 2K screen, but in that case you would resolve individual pixels with a 2K screen at the same distance/size.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blades1370

^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.

Many confuse scanning resolution (i.e. the resolution that a film scanner needs to be in order to capture all the detail off Super 35 and to prevent aliasing) for being the same number of K’s as the effective or measured (true) resolution of Super 35 original camera negative, which it is not. The former is much higher due to Nyquist’s oversampling recommendation.

Although it is variable due to film stock, exposure, camera movement, prime (or not) lensing, testing has shown, generally, that the effective (true) resolution of Super 35 film to be in the range of the low 3-ish K’s -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...so#post5695796

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

It seems like you're not understanding the point people are making about "resolving individual pixels". If you're not sitting close enough to a 2K screen to resolve individual pixels, then you will not "see significantly more detail" if you replace that 2K screen with a same-sized 4K screen at the same distance. Of course you could always make the screen bigger or sit closer to it, and that way you'd see more detail then would be possible on 2K screen, but in that case you would resolve individual pixels with a 2K screen at the same distance/size.

I think you are missing his point. Let me try differently.

Video is (sometimes highly) lossily compressed. This means that some pixels in the frame won't be correct. Some people out there will look at something with atrocious compression artefacts and say "it looks OK", why? because our mind is extremely good at deluding itself and it dismisses stuff that look like they are mistakes because it is assuming the eye is making those mistakes (it is also the reason there is all those optical illusions). On the other hand that same person might look at a film with a lot very fine film grain and he will see it even if it is less glaring resolution/colour wise because now his eyes are seeing that detail but his brain (because it is everywhere unilaterally but yet randomly and changing) is not working hard at trying to dismiss it.

That is why when you see something like


2 looks to be a lot lighter than 1 but since they are both the exact same colour there is no way your eyes are seeing something different and it is your brain going into over time thinking "that cylinder is casting a shadow and so 2 must be lighter since with the shadow they are the same.

or



the two lines are the same length but when you add the rest your brain thinks the top line must be farther and so they can't be the same length

Now those are man made illusions, but you can have similar natural optical illusions like magnetic hill in New Brunswick

Magnetic Hill, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada - YouTube

. Where it appears that you are at the bottom of a small hill but you are not and you are rolling down hill.

That is why "If you're not sitting close enough to a 2K screen to resolve individual pixels" can be a lot misleading, how do you judge that? is it the same judgment that leads one to believe squares 1&2 are different shades? that the two lines are different lengths? that the car is going up hill when it is going down hill? that is his point. People assume they can resolve a lot less than they actually can because the brain is built to try and dismiss it because of the way the brain works.