8K discussion thread

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

Earlier today, Geoff D was talking about material shot at high frame rate being a promising advance in quality for us video enthusiasts. However, considering the fact that in the past several years, the couple of cases of theatrical movies having been shown at high frame rates basically left audiences cold, with many people complaining about the sterile, video-like look of those high frame rate movies, that amount of rejection by the public, seems to have frozen the movement toward any major implementation of HFR by movie producers.

HFR isn't for movies, it's for sports.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

There is the factor of shooting in 8K to produce better 4K. It should also be noted that Warner scanned The Wizard Of OZ in 8K, which not only sets a precedent for their classic titles. But also, possibly, current productions.

Scottishguy, speaking of 8k scanning of classic films, in 2012, Sony carefully did a somewhat risky 8k scan of each frame of Lawrence of Arabia, a movie that, unlike The Wizard of Oz, was shot on very large format film.

One can read about how Robert A Harris, who was responsible for the original physical restoration of "Lawrence", in 1988, was very excited to learn in early 2012, that Grover Crisp, of Sony, had decided to go for the last percentile in quality, to preserve the best possible look of the film for posterity, by taking the risk of putting the film's original camera negative through a scanner.

Then, in his November 2012 article about the long awaited Blu-ray release of Lawrence of Arabia, Mr Harris included the following comment when discussing what he described as Sony having just achieved a miracle, as Mr Harris wrote: "When Mr. Crisp informed me that he intended to move forward with the OCN, I was both thrilled and concerned. Thrilled that it would have a chance to go through the centuries in it's finest possible form, and yet concerned that it might not make it through the scanner in one piece."

But the OCN of "Lawrence" did get through 8k scanning without coming apart, which had then led to a lot of digital clean-up work having needed to be done to the gigantic digital file that the scanning generated. And that clean-up job had to be accomplished through the efforts of a number of vendors.

Then after detailing Sony's extensive 2012 restoration of "Lawrence", Mr Harris wrote these comments about the final result, itself: "Having seen the final image in 4k at Lincoln Center, I knew that the miracle had been accomplished.
Today, with the arrival of "the big box," (the deluxe Blu-ray edition) I can tell you that the miracle has been down-rezzed to Blu-ray proportions with perfection. As to specifics, image quality in terms of overall resolution is other-worldly. Color is dead-on perfect. Shadow detail, superb, along with image steadiness. Grain structure properly represents the film elements."
(And due to his great amount of experience with Lawrence of Arabia, over the years, Harris knows as well as anyone, exactly how the film should look.)

And since this is the Blu-ray.com website that I'm writing on, I want all of my fellow forum members here to know, if they've never seen it, that the Blu-ray of Lawrence of Arabia is absolutely magnificent looking. There's a somewhat annoying member of my wife's family, who acts like he's never impressed with anything, and thinks of the High-Def TVs that he, & the members of his large family, all have, as presenting picture quality that is just routine. But when I put on the Blu-ray of "Lawrence" on our then new 80 inch home theater screen, in January of 2015, that man and his wife, were soon remarking about how amazing the image was that they were seeing, (even on "lowly 1080p" Blu-ray) with the picture looking much better to them, than anything then being shown on HD cable channels.

Anyhow, in these years since the 4k digital version of "Lawrence" was created, due to the amazing looking 4k Digital Cinema Packages that have been made, with the aid of 8k scanning, to produce 4k versions of large film format movies like My Fair Lady and Lawrence of Arabia, the terrific looking results achieved when 4k commercial projectors present those DCPs, caused Robert Harris to comment, a couple years ago, that 4k Digital projection, even on quite large commercial movie theater screens, in his opinion, yields an essentially perfect recreation of the look that pristine condition large format prints of those films displayed. But we must remember that even a 1st generation print made from a film's original camera negative, has lost some of the resolution the negative originally possessed. And, as moviegoers, we have rarely, if ever, viewed any film print, which was a 1st generation print.

Anyway, a few months ago, on the day preceding Labor Day, I personally spent about 4 hours (including intermission) on a Sunday afternoon, testing Robert Harris's opinion about the quality of 4k presentations of large format films.
Because I was fortunate enough to see a showing of Lawrence of Arabia via 4k projection, on a huge Cinemark XD screen in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. Naturally, my mere memory of having seen "Lawrence", presented as a 70mm print, in Cleveland, back in 1989, following the film's 1st restoration, is hardly as good of a guide in helping to evaluate the ultimate quality presented by a 4k version of the film, as some type of side by side comparison would be. But suffice it to say that viewing the movie (can no longer call it a film) from Row G, the 7th row from the screen, "Lawrence of Arabia" looked as sharp and detailed as I could have wanted, on that gigantic screen, presented in "good old lowly 4k".

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Movies are often scanned on 6K or higher datacines (Northlight II is 8K, Arriscan is 6K in double flash mode), we just don't hear about it in the marketing bumpf. Warners also did the same 'scanned in 8K' schtick when they did the 2009 4K restorations of both Oz and GWTW, the industry joke being that you could now see the amoebas swimming about in the grain. It's the finishing in 8K that's the deciding factor and AFAIK there hasn't been much on that front because of the hideously huge amounts of data that would need to be piped around. As with early 4K restorations using 2K proxies then the same could apply with using 4K proxies for 8K, but until there's a pressing need to remaster films actually *in* 8K - and IMO there's no pressing need for 4-perf 35mm and below in 8K - then it's a non-starter.

rather old news but I guess good for reinforcing old concepts presented in threads like 4K Movies Releases, months/years ago, on the other hand, determining/mitigating unproductive causes of noise is the most current scanner topic – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...e#post17150000

and with regards to noise, also what is currently of interest to studios now is learning what ISOs a camera system shouldn’t be chosen, unless the DP is purposely going for an extreme mosquito infested look.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

4K Movies Releases, months/years ago,

To date, the contributors on that ^ long running (since 2011) multi-million viewership thread being
….. https://forum.blu-ray.com/misc.php?d...osted&t=189830

Use search words like Northlight, Scanity, Arriscan, etc. for the documentation

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

....

you shouldn’t have deleted your post John AV , as his constant referencing to Bob is a bit creepy

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

you shouldn’t have deleted your post John AV , as his constant referencing to Bob is a bit creepy

The whole part concerning Sony promising and never releasing LoA in UHD BD that is unsettling. Yes that has been creepy but I thought I let others be the judge which is why it was removed.

[Bluyoda]

Colur me ignorant, but as someone who only cares about movies, nature documentaries, and some TV series, I see absolutely no need for 8K, and believe that the TV manufacturers are not doing themselves any favours by going form 4K to 8K so quickly.

1. There isn't enough true 8K content that would entice people to upgrade.

2. Most people don't even have enough space for screens large enough to warrant this kind of resolution.

3. Most VFX movies are still rendered at 2K, and won't look very good at 8K.

4. Many people still by DVDs, which will look disgusting in 8K.....they already do in 2K most of the time.

5. Other than TV makers wanting to sell you something new, there is zero need to do 8K, unless it's for special venues, e.g. concert halls, etc., but not regular consumers. In short, it's all about making more money, and selling you new TVs all over again.

6. How about getting Blu-ray and UHD right first, eh?

For me the biggest argument is that most films won't look very good upconverted this much. UHD is already the breaking point for many films, so

[Scottishguy]

All very good questions. I think once we get the resolution pecking order of 1080p, 4K, 8K all established. They will all benefit each other.

I mean say what you will about 4K on a 48" screen. I've got plenty to gripe about concerning that.

But a 1080p consumer of film's is going to benefit from that increased pixel count, even if they are 9ft away. Plus processing power. For under 1000 whatever currency, that's a win.

[PaulGo]

Samsung just debuted a new QLED 8K TV, and you might actually want this one

My buying advice for 8K TVs is basically "don't," but Samsung is debuting an 8K model that's about more than resolution at CES 2020. The world's biggest TV maker's best new 2020 TV, the Q950TS, has a superthin frame around the picture. When I looked at it straight on, it was really tough to make out any bezel at all. The effect replicated a disembodied moving image, except this was a bright TV, not a projector. Samsung says the set is 99% picture compared to 95% for most TVs, and yes, that 4% made a big difference.

Samsung achieved the superthin 2.3mm bezel by eliminating the black matrix around the edge of the panel so the picture goes basically right up to the metallic edge. The TV itself is only 15mm deep, despite housing a full-array local dimming LED backlight -- the hallmark of a good LCD TV, QLED or otherwise.

Don't care about 8K resolution? Try this

So yeah, 8K TVs are expensive, the image quality improvement they provide over 4K models is modest, at best, and the kicker: There's no 8K content available now and little possibility of it coming this year (2020 Olympics, PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X notwithstanding). Those are some of the reasons experts expect 8K sales to remain tepid for the next few years.

https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-de...want-this-one/

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

you shouldn’t have deleted your post John AV , as his constant referencing to Bob is a bit creepy

Penton-Man, your bio info identifies you as a "Retired Hollywood Insider", so I think it's likely that the Bob you referred to is film restoration expert Robert A Harris, and that you were making an unnamed reference to me with the phrase "his constant referencing to Bob is a bit creepy".

Yes, I sure don't mind saying that I've often mentioned the valuable work, as well as some important findings, that Mr Harris has accomplished, in a number of my posts, written for this forum. Since the vast amount of experience that Mr Harris has with film, as well as the related matters of clarity and resolution, obviously makes him more knowledgeable about movies and resolution than about any person you're likely to find on a home theater/video forum, it sure strikes me as truly weird that anyone could find my referencing of Mr Harris's vast treasure trove of knowledge to be "creepy". Seems to me that the only thing that could have made such references creepy, is if I'd neglected to give Robert Harris due credit for the knowledge that I've gotten from him.

BTW, on a number of occasions, on a different audio/video/movie website, I've exchanged posts, back and forth, with Mr Harris, and was truly honored to have him personally answer my questions, as well as him commenting about some of my own conclusions, that I'd reached.

Anyhow, since Robert A Harris is such a revered figure inside film circles, being considered creepy for referencing the man's knowledge, and even directly quoting the man, seems to be very similar to someone on a forum devoted to nuclear physics being called "creepy" for often referencing Albert Einstein.

Well folks, at least my good Sunday mood wasn't affected enough by someone incorrectly defining me as "creepy", to annoy me enough to have wanted to respond by resorting to communication that could have been just as creepy.

Because Blu-ray.com has a very enjoyable forum, which I recommend to a lot of friends & people in my family, so I want ALL of us to have a great time here!

And as my wife tells everyone, I'm a laid back guy, who simply doesn't waste his declining energy holding grudges, so I'd like to let bygones be bygones.

[Schwartzy]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

For me the biggest argument is that most films won't look very good upconverted this much. UHD is already the breaking point for many films, so

Big reason is that studios dont "want" remaster their films properly... Just use old master and slap hdr on it style.

How much does proper remastering cost vs upscaling the old master?

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-de...want-this-one/

It's funny to me how much reaching that article does and still doesn't make me want one. They even directly referenced a complete lack of content as a big reason to not want one. Not only that, the gimmick of "No Bezel!! ZOMG!" is even tacked on. To me, if 8K is to become a thing, the contents got to be there first and foremost. Then we can focus on picture quality with Micro LED quantun dots and OLEDs galore being the big hitters to watch that content on.

I genuinely don't think people have a problem with the typical bezel sizes found on most modern TVs. It's just a redundant marketing trick reaching for buzz points and hack journos riding coat tails of Samsung etc. to get invited to more shmoozed up CES events. It's kind of a joke how far they sell out.

[PaulGo]

Narmak I agree. Most of the time I watch in a dim environment so I don't even see the bezel. Even in a bright room I never notice it. The total lack of 8K content is another factor.

[koberulz]

For some reason the Australian NBL games on ESPN air at somewhere around 1.82, letterboxed at the bottom. It shits me enough even with a bezel to make it less obvious, watching it with no bezel would be incredibly annoying. Films in 1.85 wouldn't look great either. Once you get to 2.x, or your 1.6s or so, the black bars are thick enough that they're just there, but having the picture go almost all the way to the edge would be irritating.

[JohnAV]

First look at ALL of LG's newest TVs - YouTube

LG's 8K and 4K OLED TVs at CES 2020 - YouTube

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

Narmak I agree. Most of the time I watch in a dim environment so I don't even see the bezel. Even in a bright room I never notice it. The total lack of 8K content is another factor.

To me, i feel like we're really now at a point where for maybe the next 3-5 years there's nothing of note releasing. OLED is the current king of image quality imo. The perfect blacks make that image pop a lot more. Yes the peak brightness on LCDs can reach higher when LED equipped but the blacks aren't as pure as OLED which means it can lose a little bit of that impact as a result imo and 3K nits like for like on an OLED would blow you away.

Now, i don't maybe expect OLED to reach 2K nits anytime soon but Samsung are possibly releasing quantum dot versions next year which might push us over that 1K nits by 2021. However that's still an OLED. So the actual tech i'm really referring to for 3-5 years is Micro LEDs equipped with quantum dots. Apparently Samsung has achieved 5K nits peak brightness on them in concept form. When those come to market, i'm expecting we'll basically have LCD be the cheapest low run TVs, OLED become the LED LCD types right there in the middle and have Micro LEDs assume the top picture quality role. Kinda like the 3 tiers we had back when Plasma was still going.

Truth is that right now no tech seems to combine the best of LCD & OLED on the horizon than Micro LEDs. However that's probably gonna be a TV i upgrade to much down the line when 8K becomes more mainstream. Hell, maybe we'll have a PS6 and actual 4K 120hz gaming then lol

[Blu-rayNut51]

Originally Posted by koberulz

HFR isn't for movies, it's for sports.

OK, so realistically, what are the chances that the TV networks which cover sporting events, like NFL games, are suddenly going to start telecasting those games at a higher frame rate which the current tuners of almost all of America's TVs could not handle? Because unfortunately, a switch to higher frame rates would not be a comparable situation to when America's TV networks changed from black & white to color broadcasting, with all of the millions of black & white TVs that Americans then owned, still being able to display color signals as b & w pictures.

[Blu-rayNut51]

Actually, IMO, today's TV coverage of sporting events looks pretty damned good.
And think about this: slow motion instant replays, that Americans like so much, are really an example of folks putting a lot of value in seeing things at a SLOWER FRAME RATE!

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

Actually, IMO, today's TV coverage of sporting events looks pretty damned good.
And think about this: slow motion instant replays, that Americans like so much, are really an example of folks putting a lot of value in seeing things at a SLOWER FRAME RATE!

Meanwhile on this island

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=232I...ature=youtu.be

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Blu-rayNut51

Actually, IMO, today's TV coverage of sporting events looks pretty damned good.
And think about this: slow motion instant replays, that Americans like so much, are really an example of folks putting a lot of value in seeing things at a SLOWER FRAME RATE!

You know that slow motion works by having a HIGHER frame rate at point of capture, right?