4K Ultra HD releases not offering the quality of what the format is capable of

[HDTV1080P]

Hopefully studios well start to improve on 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray releases, since many have 2K digital intermediates that have no better picture quality when compared to the standard Blu-ray disc (A select few 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray titles have a much better picture quality when compared to the standard Blu-ray disc). Some 11.1 Dolby ATMOS and 11.1 DTS X soundtracks have poor mastering quality for the height channels. Some studios do a proper job when mastering the height channels for Dolby ATMOS and DTS X.

The following are select word for word quotes from page 8 of the June 2018 Widescreen Review magazine

“And Dolby Atmos so far seems to be leading the pack of low-quality immersive Sound soundtracks,”



“As a result, the height channels are horrible, literally, on 90 percent or more of the UHD movies released with impressive Sound soundtracks so far. DTS X sounds a little better, but they have the same issue. Studios just won’t spend money on UHD disc soundtracks to make the soundtrack right,”


“But there’s no indication that more movie studios are moving to 4K digital intermediates anytime soon. That means 100 percent of the movies from Paramount, Universal, Warner Bros, and other related studios are not really UHD resolution AND they rarely have soundtracks worthy of the technology capabilities of any immersive Sound format.”


“Sony and associated studios did switch to 4K digital intermediates some time back, and Lionsgate seems to release about half of their movies with 4K digital intermediates, but those and IMAX are about the only titles you’ll get that do the format justice-“

[ROSS.T.G.]

[MattPerdue]

2K DIs are great and making 4K DIs is expensive as hell. Especially since a lot of studios still do 3D conversions which jack up costs further.

[Geoff D]

blah blah blah, upscales blah blah,

[Jar Jar Stinks]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

blah blah blah, upscales blah blah,

So, by the number of likes your comment got, I'm assuming 2K upscales are a-ok? Are 4K discs as good as they can be?

I don't know much about 4K. Don't have a player and I haven't viewed a 4K disc.

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

So, by the number of likes your comment got, I'm assuming 2K upscales are a-ok? Are 4K discs as good as they can be?

I don't know much about 4K. Don't have a player and I haven't viewed a 4K disc.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...6&highlight=2k

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

So, by the number of likes your comment got, I'm assuming 2K upscales are a-ok? Are 4K discs as good as they can be? I don't know much about 4K. Don't have a player and I haven't viewed a 4K disc.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

So, by the number of likes your comment got, I'm assuming 2K upscales are a-ok? Are 4K discs as good as they can be?

I don't know much about 4K. Don't have a player and I haven't viewed a 4K disc.

It's not a simple case of 2 kays bad, 4 kays good, and never has been. People keep searching for a binary yes/no answer on this but it's not that easy because so much more makes up the quality of a film's visuals rather than solely the amount of pixels it was mastered with. More pixels are all that some people are looking for, hence articles like the one which was used to launch this thread, but UHD is also based upon better pixels and it really does seem to be a Marmite thing as to whether people can appreciate those pixels or not, that's if they even acknowledge their existence in the first place.

Having both is of course the ultimate goal, the combination of enhanced resolution and range, but we're dealing with the stark reality that most movies made over the last 15+ years were finished in 2K. That's just a fact. What muddies the waters is that even if a movie had a 4K finish, the chances are that the visual effects work was done in 2K and then upscaled anyway, which is why such VFX heavy stuff as Marvel movies are still routinely finished at 2K, i.e. even if they were done in 4K the vast majority of the final product would be upscaled 2K! Guardians Vol. 2 had only 58 shots without VFX in the entire film, for example.

The studios are not going to spend thousands of dollars upgrading each and every one to 4K, so it's either cut off the last decade and a half of movies from this new format or release them regardless and try to do what they can with the HDR, 4x chroma resolution, wider colour gamut, more efficient compression and other such features that an upscaled 4K HDR disc can bring to the table. Some upscaled discs even have improved spatial resolution because of whatever filtering was done to the original Blu-ray version.

TL;DR

It's a case of suck it and see. No "fake 4K" should be written off sight unseen, just as no "real 4K" should be assumed as being a massive upgrade.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not a simple case of 2 kays bad, 4 kays good, and never has been. People keep searching for a binary yes/no answer on this but it's not that easy because so much more makes up the quality of a film's visuals rather than solely the amount of pixels it was mastered with. More pixels are all that some people are looking for, hence articles like the one which was used to launch this thread, but UHD is also based upon better pixels and it really does seem to be a Marmite thing as to whether people can appreciate those pixels or not, that's if they even acknowledge their existence in the first place.

Having both is of course the ultimate goal, the combination of enhanced resolution and range, but we're dealing with the stark reality that most movies made over the last 15+ years were finished in 2K. That's just a fact. What muddies the waters is that even if a movie had a 4K finish, the chances are that the visual effects work was done in 2K and then upscaled anyway, which is why such VFX heavy stuff as Marvel movies are still routinely finished at 2K, i.e. even if they were done in 4K the vast majority of the final product would be upscaled 2K! Guardians Vol. 2 had only 58 shots without VFX in the entire film, for example.

The studios are not going to spend thousands of dollars upgrading each and every one to 4K, so it's either cut off the last decade and a half of movies from this new format or release them regardless and try to do what they can with the HDR, 4x chroma resolution, wider colour gamut, more efficient compression and other such features that an upscaled 4K HDR disc can bring to the table. Some upscaled discs even have improved spatial resolution because of whatever filtering was done to the original Blu-ray version.

TL;DR

It's a case of suck it and see. No "fake 4K" should be written off sight unseen, just as no "real 4K" should be assumed as being a massive upgrade.

Agent Kay best

[imsounoriginal]

[Geoff D]

Love that "100 percent of the movies from Paramount, Universal, Warner Bros, and other related studios are not really UHD resolution" quote, you've just got to love well-informed journalism like this. It literally reads like some mook who's just bought a 4K TV who's wondering why UHD doesn't look as good as a Blu-ray on Torch mode.

This is precisely why I don't listen to the established "voices" in the tech community: they keep proving themselves to be complete IDIOTS.

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Love that "100 percent of the movies from Paramount, Universal, Warner Bros, and other related studios are not really UHD resolution" quote, you've just got to love well-informed journalism like this. It literally reads like some mook who's just bought a 4K TV who's wondering why UHD doesn't look as good as a Blu-ray on Torch mode.

This is precisely why I don't listen to the established "voices" in the tech community: they keep proving themselves to be complete IDIOTS.

I have seen some 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray titles that are really 2K quality and upscaled to 4K Ultra HD, but because of HDR and because HEVC being a better codec those titles sometimes look around 5% better when compared to the standard 1080P Blu-ray release.


As technology improves and storage gets more cheaper, I am sure one day all studios well use 4K or higher digital intermediates like Sony currently does (and 50% of Lionsgate titles do). On a side note since the 1939 Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind received a 8K scan of the original film negative, those two titles would be ideal for release on the 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray format.


According to Joe Kane in another article (pages 42,44, and 45 in the June 2018 issue) one needs a 6 foot image to properly see what is in a 1080P image and a 12 foot wide image to see what is in a 2160P image. And a 24 foot image is needed to see all the detail in a 4360P image. So most people well be able to see a better picture from a 720P HDR image when compared to a 2160P image that does not use HDR. Yes HDR is more important for picture quality when compared to resolution detail.

It sounds like sometimes the images we are getting on 4K Ultra HD come from 480i and 720p source material and not even 1080P quality.

Here is a few interesting quotes from page 44 and page 45:


"A lot of what follows supports the presenter's position that resolution above 1080p isn't important. I am expanding on this parameter because I want 720p and 1080p and 2160p to be part of UHD and HDR."


"You could have a 2160p image with only 720p resolution in the content. That's how I justify wanting 720p to be part of consumer HDR. I don't see a lot of program content remotely approaching 2160p in real resolution, let alone 1080p."

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

According to Joe Kane in another article (pages 42,44, and 45 in the June 2018 issue) one needs a 6 foot image to properly see what is in a 1080P image and a 12 foot wide image to see what is in a 2160P image. And a 24 foot image is needed to see all the detail in a 4360P image.

Well, Joe Kane is an NOT an idiot.
Just because he's published words on a website doesn't mean he's an authority on the subject.

I'll make it really simple:
- My grandma wouldn't care, or notice a difference between watching Maury Povich on a 27" CRT in standard def versus seeing it on a 200" screen in 6k with balanced HDR.
I can. Big time.

- My dad can't notice the difference between frame interpolation being ON, versus being OFF.
Frame interpolation gives me a headache, and it looks like shit.

- My cousin couldn't tell the boost in audio fidelity when I switched from Layer Cake's DTS (auto started at that setting) track, to PCM.
For me, it was night and day. Immediately.

- A 1080p presentation at 65" has a lot to offer versus 720p. From ten feet away. For me.
For my grandma, she could be 5 feet away and still wouldn't know which is which.

... So, for that Joe Kane dude to make all these pointless comparisons with arbitrary numbers and comments... it's based on the concept that everyone can perceive details with the same scrutiny.


I love HDR, but it can be a botch job.
However, my grandma would say "What?! HD-WHAT?! I don't know. Can I watch my Maury now?!"

[nick4Knight]

Actually Joe Kane is a supremely knowledge video consultant.. lol So I mean he's done more than "published words on a website" on the matter of 4K. Yes, there could still be professional differences as far as the science behind this stuff. But far as I know he is involved on some level in the association on specs/standards.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

Just because he's published words on a website doesn't mean he's an authority on the subject.

No, not because of that. He is an authority on the subject, though.

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

... So, for that Joe Kane dude to make all these pointless comparisons with arbitrary numbers and comments... it just makes him look stupid. From my perspective.

Speaking of comments making people look stupid, I would recommend a little more research into "that Joe Kane dude's" work before you continue to spout opinions about it. "Pointless comparisons with arbitrary numbers" it is not.

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

Well, Joe Kane is an idiot.
Just because he's published words on a website doesn't mean he's an authority on the subject.

I've visited Joe Kane's website and bought his video essentials calibration discs.

http://www.videoessentials.com/

Where can I find your work on the topic? Not saying there shouldn't be a sound or healthy disagreement....but calling Joe Kane an idiot....well....

[jibucha]

far from it and extremely unfair (that's extremely disrespectful as he has contributed so much over the years to the benefit to the consumer electronics industry and consumers)

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

Well, Joe Kane is an idiot.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by jibucha

far from it and extremely unfair (that's extremely disrespectful as he has contributed so much over the years to the benefit to the consumer electronics industry and consumers)

He is very far from an idiot, he is stuck in the past and out of touch tho.

[Fendergopher]

Those quotes sound pretty loony to me. Sure, it would be nice to live in a world filled exclusively with 4K DIs but that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

[imsounoriginal]

People lie and misinform and are somehow still allowed to spew nonsense that other people mistakenly take to heart. With all the nonsense about UHD out there, it's astounding that the format is actually doing well.