True 4K Blu-ray - why I will mostly skip if released

[Wendell R. Breland]

I have seen the Sony 4K LCD demo and think it is stunning (there are some shortcomings as well). Hope there is a moderately priced 4K projector in the works. IIRC, a poster on AVS has said Blu-ray's played via his Sony 4K projector looked better than any other projector he had owned and I believe this guy has owned many.

IMO, 2.40:1 (2.35:1) content will be one of the biggest benefactors of 4K

[Ruined]

If BluRay discs looked better on the 4k projector it was not due to the 4k resolution as you cannot invent new detail reliably upscaling.

Put the Sony 4k up against a sim2 1080p and it will be a different story...

[DoctaJones]

Yeah, I'm not really excited about 4K either...You have to have an impractically large TV to even get the benefits of it...I just feel like it is unnecessary. 1080p looks amazing as it is. I really don't see any reason to upgrade...especially since people are just now getting used to blu-ray...

[Derb]

Just make 4k upscaling BD players.

I think it was the widescreen review on the Sony UHD 65 set where they couldn't point out why, but they thought viewing 1080 BDs looked better on the 4k set. (4086x2160) they didn't care for the gaming picture quality.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Derb

Just make 4k upscaling BD players.

I think it was the widescreen review on the Sony UHD 65 set where they couldn't point out why, but they thought viewing 1080 BDs looked better on the 4k set. (4086x2160) they didn't care for the gaming picture quality.

There are many things in a set than can impact PQ. The only way you can say "BDs look better because of 4k" is if you have two sets with very similar quality components with the exception of the screen resolution, and I doubt that was done in WSR. Most likely Sony put top components in their 4K set which was not in their 1080p sets the site compared them to. Put up Sony's 4K projector against of one of Sim2's 1080p projectors and my bet is the Sim2 1080p will win with BD by a landslide.

Theoretically, given the same quality components there should be no difference in 1080p vs 4k sets with BD because upscaling does not create additional detail; in fact, in cheaper solutions upscaling actually harms the PQ. The best you can accomplish is the same quality as the source as you cannot invent new detail via upscaling - and if you try to all you do is add artifacts (like EE). The only reason upscaling actually exists is because digital displays are fixed resolution, therefore requiring upscaling.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Ruined

There are many things in a set than can impact PQ. The only way you can say "BDs look better because of 4k" is if you have two sets with very similar quality components with the exception of the screen resolution, and I doubt that was done in WSR. Most likely Sony put top components in their 4K set which was not in their 1080p sets the site compared them to. Put up Sony's 4K projector against of one of Sim2's 1080p projectors and my bet is the Sim2 1080p will win with BD by a landslide.

Theoretically, given the same quality components there should be no difference in 1080p vs 4k sets with BD because upscaling does not create additional detail; in fact, in cheaper solutions upscaling actually harms the PQ. The best you can accomplish is the same quality as the source as you cannot invent new detail via upscaling - and if you try to all you do is add artifacts (like EE). The only reason upscaling actually exists is because digital displays are fixed resolution, therefore requiring upscaling.

Given your expertise in theoretical assumption, if you don’t believe in the merits of up-conversion, feel free to enlighten other attendees in the demo room of the SMPTE Tech Conference in October - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post7948551

I don’t think you really understand up-conversion - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...on#post7581588 similarly to how you don’t understand camera or object movement beyond a certain threshold with 4K acquisition…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ed#post7942755 . Of course up-conversion doesn’t create more ‘native’ detail. The point is, good imaging processing/up-converting algorithms applied at the proper *strength* will remove unwanted noise and jaggies from the original content. This is not theory, it is proven and has been shown publically to hundreds of professionals with side-by-side imaging demos of *pre* and *post* footage by several companies with their own proprietary solutions. For instance, to name a few -

by Sony at HPA back in 2010, by Cube Vision just last year at HPA (which I attend yearly) (http://hopa.memberclicks.net/assets/...chnologies.pdf ) and by Technicolor ( http://www.technicolor.com/en/soluti...-certification ) last June at Pepcom in N.Y.

This is complicated stuff and the quality can vary widely among different vendors (those mentioned above are top drawer) but if done right, the results can show a definite improvement in perceived detail of up-converted 1080p source. A big challenge is to put an excellent imaging processing/upconversion engine in a consumer device without it being costly (to consumers)….which is one reason why the Seiki 4K tvs are so economical.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Given your expertise in theoretical assumption, if you don’t believe in the merits of up-conversion, feel free to enlighten other attendees in the demo room of the SMPTE Tech Conference in October - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post7948551

I don’t think you really understand up-conversion - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...on#post7581588 similarly to how you don’t understand camera or object movement beyond a certain threshold with 4K acquisition…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ed#post7942755 .

Wow lots of assumptions here, and links irrelevant to my original statements. yeah, you need to upconvert fx rendered at 2K (done so b/c its cheaper) to 4K to get it to work with a 4K capture... because otherwise it would be too small! You can't take a 2k digital effect and just copy/paste into a 4k file without processing otherwise it will obviously take up a fraction of the visual space it is supposed to. And if you do a dodgy job of upconversion it will look poor. Another option could be downconverting the film to 2K. But this has nothing to do with my statements, so I am not sure why you posted a link to it.

And what does "4K acquisition" and advancements in 4K cameras over 2K cameras have to do with 4K Blu-ray? Nothing, because you can downcovert a 4K master to 2K/1080p and gain most of the benefits of shooting with a brand spanking new 4K camera and mastering in 4K on regular 2K Blu-ray (aside from the extra resolution, of course).

It really seems like this 4K for home theater is a solution trying desperately to find a problem that does not exist.

Of course up-conversion doesn’t create more ‘native’ detail.

Yes, which is the point. This thread is about Blu-ray Discs, and now the concept of them looking somehow better upconverted on a 4K display than they would on an equal quality 2K display. Your link about upconverting FX so they match the resolution of the rest of the movie does not relate to this point in any way as there are not multiple elements of mismatched resolution on a Blu-ray Disc.

The point is, good imaging processing/up-converting algorithms applied at the proper *strength* will remove unwanted noise and jaggies from the original content. This is not theory, it is proven and has been shown publically to hundreds of professionals with side-by-side imaging demos of *pre* and *post* footage by several companies with their own proprietary solutions. For instance, to name a few -

If the 2K image is mastered properly to begin with there should not be significant noise and jaggies. And if its not you don't need to upconvert an image to do image processing on it; you can DNR and EE all you like with any signal of any resolution, although yes at higher res it can be done more delicately. Still, a lot of people don't like extra applications of DNR and EE, though - the best solution is to get a disc that was mastered properly and does not need additional processing by the consumer.

by Sony at HPA back in 2010, by Cube Vision just last year at HPA (which I attend yearly) (http://hopa.memberclicks.net/assets/...chnologies.pdf ) and by Technicolor ( http://www.technicolor.com/en/soluti...-certification ) last June at Pepcom in N.Y.

This is complicated stuff and the quality can vary widely among different vendors (those mentioned above are top drawer) but if done right, the results can show a definite improvement in perceived detail of up-converted 1080p source. A big challenge is to put an excellent imaging processing/upconversion engine in a consumer device without it being costly (to consumers)….which is one reason why the Seiki 4K tvs are so economical.

Just like any other image processing solution, there are going to be good ones and bad ones. Luckily 1080p > UHD is an easier upconvert than 480p > 1080p was as H/V ratio of pixels is equal. Still, even current consumer-grade UHD upconversion solutions like the popular Marvell QDEO are weaker at upconversion than more expensive solutions.

But in the end, if you have a solid 1080p BD disc to begin with, you would not be worrying about issues as the format has proven to offer truly beautiful discs when they are mastered properly. Even some of the most difficult material to compress looks fantastic when the format is utilized to its fullest (i.e. look at Miami Vice).

You may find a lot of benefits to shooting and mastering in 4K, but many of those will trickle down to a 1080p downconvert if it is done properly. And, the primary one that will not (resolution) will not be detectable to most home theater enthusiasts given the average size of a home theater enthusiast's screen & the seating distance... If a 4K video format does come out, the biggest bonus will be studios potentially spending money on new masters for some of the loser Blu-rays out there (mostly Universal's catalog DNR/EE messes, but all studios have some).

[Penton-Man]

I’m at a loss in how to explain this further to you. Look, it is undeniable that 4K appears better than 2K (the only thing of *debate* is at what screen size (Joe K.) or at what distance (the retina experts).

You’ve already had one at least one review from one consumer rag saying that up-converted 4K was nearly indistinguishable from native 4K…..https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...th#post7929944

If that’s ^ the case, then Blu-ray movies up-converted to 4K can look better…..or maybe all the Blu-ray discs that the home theater guy brought with him to the demo were flawed .

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m at a loss in how to explain this further to you. Look, it is undeniable that 4K appears better than 2K (the only thing of *debate* is at what screen size (Joe K.) or at what distance (the retina experts).

You’ve already had one at least one review from one consumer rag saying that up-converted 4K was nearly indistinguishable from native 4K…..https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...th#post7929944

If that’s ^ the case, then Blu-ray movies up-converted to 4K can look better…..or maybe all the Blu-ray discs that the home theater guy brought with him to the demo were flawed .

Upconverted 4K looking indistinguishable from native 4K does *not* prove that upconverted 4K looks better than 2K/1080p (due to the fixed resolutions of digital TVs)... Because of the fixed resolution it is impossible to compare a native 1080p signal vs a 1080p signal upconverted to 4K on a 4K set, because displaying a native 1080p signal at full size without any processing on a 4K set is impossible.

All this proves is that native 4K does not look any better than upconverted 1080p on the TV observed - which again proves fruitless the effort of releasing 4K-encoded Blu-ray discs (the topic of this thread).

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I’m at a loss in how to explain this further to you.

IMO, you are wasting your time with this poster. Many of these post are just like the ones from the late 90's into the 2000's. There was (is) a lot of resistance to HDTV and 16X9.

In the meantime I await a affordable 4K ($7K to $9K) projector and 4K Blu-ray disc.

BTW, some folks are upset that 3840 x 2160 is being called 4K. Maybe we should stick with the official CEA name of UHDTV.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

BTW, some folks are upset that 3840 x 2160 is being called 4K. Maybe we should stick with the official CEA name of UHDTV.

Really? It's a marketing term. Technically yes it's 4k's closest cousin. Who's getting upset?

I still say take the 1080p signal & alter the $h1t out of it so we can see 3840x2160 on UHD through dedicated BD up-converts.

[Kusanagi356]

Can someone clarify something for me: "Digital" films (probably on DCPs) shown on digital cinema screens are 2K, and are theoretically only a little bit better than a 1080p Blu-ray you watch at home?

Also, how many "K" or what resolution is an IMAX digital film?