4K Movies Releases

[img eL]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Japan to hold 'world's first' 4k streaming trial to set-top box

Japan has alot better internet infrastructure than the U.S., 4K streaming will work alot better there.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by img eL

Japan has alot better internet infrastructure than the U.S., 4K streaming will work alot better there.

Will 4k streaming effectively be 1080p streaming? The reason I ask is that current HD 720 or 1080p streaming looks like up converted dvd with slightly stronger colours in my opinion.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I continue to receive PMs about this topic from people who seem confused about scanning, digital intermediate pipelines and DCPs, for context I’ll quote an excerpt from yesterday’s latest PM… “Penton, when is the movie industry going to develop the infrastructure needed to distribute 4K DCPs”.

To be clear…the industry has had the infrastructure to distribute 4K DCPs for years and I’ve posted the actual specs of numerous examples of 4K DCPs for a variety of motion pictures (dating back to 2010) which have been delivered to local commercial theaters. The *making of the DCP deliverable* is not really the key issue. The issue is whether the movie production decided to FINISH i.e. MASTER the movie in 4K (which generally has been more expensive) than a 2K FINISH. The VAST majority of movies by the motion picture industry to date have been mastered in 2K, even if the camera acquisition was 4K or 35mm so as to avoid the extra expense of a 4K DI.

The deliverable or *DCP part of the equation* is not the bottleneck because all DCI compliant playback server and projection systems, no matter if 2K or 4K, are required (i.e. DCI compliant) to support the playback of both 2K and 4K DCPs. In a nutshell, the way it works is that the 4K DCP contains a 2K image plus the differences between the 2K and the 4K image. During playback of a 4K DCP, a 2K projection system only reads and decodes the 2K part of the compressed image and ignores the additional information for the 4K part. A 4K system can read and decode *the 4K layer* of information on a 4K DCP.

A concern which has been expressed by D-Cinema professionals is the recent tendency they’ve noticed of 4K DCPs getting more and more compressed (see a couple of my past listed examples for recent 4K DCP file sizes) and question whether these newest DCPs are not as visually lossless as earlier 4K DCP movies in the past have been (based on GB size) and whether this practice is being done in order to cut down on the copy time over normal USB 2.0 and also to take up less server space at the theater. This alleged deficiency may not be apparent on the smaller screens at your local Cineplex, but more than a few industry watchers believe that the greater compression has lead to decreased visual quality on the larger theatrical screens.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Now, whether theater patrons have been getting 4K resolution out of that 4K DCP from the 4K projector at their local Cineplex that has 4K projection capability…..well that, is an entirely different matter as I explained in this post from a series of replies to Pie concerning this topic from last May….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ss#post7546009

So, you see, the making, distributing….reading, decoding and projecting of 4K DCPs is (and has been) in place in commercial theaters for a long time with DCI compliant projector systems. The inhibiting factor has not been dealing with or distributing the D-Cinema deliverable (the 4K DCP), but rather getting the people (studios, etc.) who finance the particular motion picture to pony up the extra cash for a 4K DI to produce a 4K master.

As an example, a plethora of motion pictures have been shot with some version of a RED camera but only a miniscule amount have been finished in 4K because they didn’t go through a 4K DI in the first place. The ‘DCP’ aspect of it is not the choke point.

On the other hand, there are real (rather than fictitious) issues concerning DCPs, but implementing ‘4K’ DCP is not one of them. For example, real issues include *encouraging* all studios to have the mastering facilities they employ to put hearing impaired tracks and closed captions on all (be it 2K, 4K, 2D, 3D) released DCP content (which can be technically challenging)….and not just the feature film itself, but also trailers. Now granted there are some studios that manage to get this content on most of their DCPs but it is, and has been, an on-going issue.

Another project in early development involving “infrastructure and DCPs” is despite the fact that 96K audio is in spec, not all manufacturers’ projector system media blocks handle 96K the same and perhaps just as importantly, there are B Chain (see the 1 minute mark of this clip)

SMPTE Standards Update Webcast: Cinema Sound Systems - YouTube

issues with DCP 96K audio.

And, on a more complex esoteric note, in the future with regards to dealing with variable frame rate content (which Douglas Trumbull is a proponent of) on DCPs…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...le#post6994149

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Japan to hold 'world's first' 4k streaming trial to set-top box

You’re going to see a lot of news on the 4K distribution front in the months to come. Such as, from just yesterday….http://www.fiercecable.com/story/com...m/2013-06-11-0

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by img eL

Japan has alot better internet infrastructure than the U.S., 4K streaming will work alot better there.

They do have some quite enviable stuff over there - http://translate.google.com/translat...ce%2Fhikari%2F

[Penton-Man]

^ background article - http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/16/w...n-sony-so-net/

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

issues with DCP 96K audio.

Anyone else appreciate the irony of someone trying to discuss high fidelity audio while speaking via a cell phone or the worst microphone possible?

[MattW]

I haven't bought Amazing Spiderman yet. Should I get the 3D version or is the 4K version worth getting.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And, on a more complex esoteric note, in the future with regards to dealing with variable frame rate content (which Douglas Trumbull is a proponent of) on DCPs…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...le#post6994149

That was a great summary of the issues, including many I wasn't aware of. Thank you.

As far as Trumbull is concerned, I attended a SMPTE session last year with Trumbull and while everything he talked about concerning variable frame rate sounded great, when he showed his demo, I was notoriously underwhelmed because it had the usual problem: at high frame rates, it looked like soap opera video and not a movie. HFR gets rid of the blur but in order for it to look like a movie, we need the blur.

So personally, I hope the industry gets away from high frame rate. Seems to me that if they're over-compressing 4K, they're concerned about total file size (if only for transfer speed reasons). If that's the case, why would they move to high frame rates? Are they going to go 4K HFR and then compress the hell out of it to make it really look like total crap? Is this a secret plot by web sites, TV producers and home theatre manufacturers to keep people from going to the movies?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

That was a great summary of the issues, including many I wasn't aware of. Thank you.

As far as Trumbull is concerned, I attended a SMPTE session last year with Trumbull and while everything he talked about concerning variable frame rate sounded great, when he showed his demo, I was notoriously underwhelmed because it had the usual problem: at high frame rates, it looked like soap opera video and not a movie. HFR gets rid of the blur but in order for it to look like a movie, we need the blur.

So personally, I hope the industry gets away from high frame rate. Seems to me that if they're over-compressing 4K, they're concerned about total file size (if only for transfer speed reasons). If that's the case, why would they move to high frame rates? Are they going to go 4K HFR and then compress the hell out of it to make it really look like total crap? Is this a secret plot by web sites, TV producers and home theatre manufacturers to keep people from going to the movies?

That is how I feel. Anything that takes me out of the movie is a bad thing. Super smooth panning and movement just looks odd. It's like trying to reset your vision when your brain is telling you not to.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Anyone else appreciate the irony of someone trying to discuss high fidelity audio while speaking via a cell phone or the worst microphone possible?

I didn’t think anyone here would actually listen to that SMPTE clip much beyond the 1 min. mark.

Hey, 96kHz audio aside, I have some good news which should bring music to your sensitive ears. Remember how I used to tease you with the vuvuzela
(https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...la#post5906794 ), well, lucky for you, the Brazilian version of the vuvuzela, namely the caxirola -

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...a-8586881.html

here be an audio aid, if you’re unfamiliar with its particular sound –

The official instrument of the 2014 World Cup - YouTube

anyway, those ^ musical instruments have been banned from the soon-to-start Confederations Cup (http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2...want-to-watch/ ) because of fans doing naughtier things than simply shaking their caxirolas.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by MattW

I haven't bought Amazing Spiderman yet. Should I get the 3D version or is the 4K version worth getting.

That’s a personal decision based upon your personal priorities so all I can offer you are some general guidelines. If you are the type of person who goes ga-ga over anything in 3D (you almost always purchase the 3D version of movie rather than the 2D version), well the 3D in the action scenes of ASM is superb, BUT if you are more discerning with your 3D viewing experience, it pains me to say that overall most of the movie (non-action scenes) is pretty damn flat.

So, that leaves you to choose which 2D version to purchase. If you enjoy viewing Special Feature and Extras, go for thee old standard… https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-A.../22855/#Review

If you don’t care much for extras and simply desire to own and know you own the best possible picture quality of the movie available (even if it is only minimally better than the original version) then go with the Mastered in 4K edition.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

That was a great summary of the issues, including many I wasn't aware of. Thank you.

As far as Trumbull is concerned, I attended a SMPTE session last year with Trumbull and while everything he talked about concerning variable frame rate sounded great, when he showed his demo, I was notoriously underwhelmed because it had the usual problem: at high frame rates, it looked like soap opera video and not a movie. HFR gets rid of the blur but in order for it to look like a movie, we need the blur.

So personally, I hope the industry gets away from high frame rate. Seems to me that if they're over-compressing 4K, they're concerned about total file size (if only for transfer speed reasons). If that's the case, why would they move to high frame rates? Are they going to go 4K HFR and then compress the hell out of it to make it really look like total crap? Is this a secret plot by web sites, TV producers and home theatre manufacturers to keep people from going to the movies?

lol, well I wouldn’t call it a plot or conspiracy, as the motion picture business is a…..business….and some businesses strive for convenience and mediocrity rather than the highest quality, esp. when consumers of those goods (theater patrons in this case) are pretty much clueless to things like overly compressed JPEG2000 producing softer images.

This kind of thing occurs at every level of the game. For instance, I made some observations a few weeks after DCI came out with its latest recommendation (read the bottom half of this past post… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ci#post6639136 ). What I didn’t mention at the time (but is true) was that many folks in the technical and creative fields believe that the proposed compression bit rate of 500 Mb/sec is NOT enough for all of the frame rates listed, including 4K 60fps.

And that the reason why that number was chosen by the DCI was that the majority of the projector systems in the field would then be backwards compatible….which, is essentially a business-derived decision.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That is how I feel. Anything that takes me out of the movie is a bad thing. Super smooth panning and movement just looks odd. It's like trying to reset your vision when your brain is telling you not to.

Well, for everything but movies, I’m a big advocate of HFR, especially for 4K (esp. for sports programming) and have been since studies like these began appearing in the literature…see the hyperlinks in this post - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...er#post7221029

As for movies, the issue is more complicated especially when you factor in the *generational* factor of having seen movies look a certain way for years but, who knows what movies will look like in decades to come when you and I are in heaven with our dog(s) and other loved ones. To understand what I mean, I strongly recommend you view this entire clip (“The Look of HFR”) to the very end because eventually it discusses The Hobbit and a retrospective tweet from 2009….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHibh...ature=youtu.be

[Nick4Melissa]

The part of the argument I don't get is...how could poor quality "soap operas with a video like look" represent the latest high resolution cameras shooting at high frame rates.

What soap operas do that?? For that matter what is "video like" Ive never heard anyone properly articulate it. They just say film is a movie and video look is what happens with it doesn't look like film.

On that basis alone I find it a really silly position that reads more like "I'm so used to what I know, i'll make up anything to justify why this new thing is off"

[ramicio]

People are stupid and think literally all it takes for something to look like a cheap soap opera is a higher frame rate than 24 fps.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Nick4Melissa

The part of the argument I don't get is...how could poor quality "soap operas with a video like look" represent the latest high resolution cameras shooting at high frame rates.

What soap operas do that?? For that matter what is "video like" Ive never heard anyone properly articulate it. They just say film is a movie and video look is what happens with it doesn't look like film.

On that basis alone I find it a really silly position that reads more like "I'm so used to what I know, i'll make up anything to justify why this new thing is off"

I presume because a lot of soaps have very obvious 'sets' and the high frame rates make interior shots look fake and studio like. That's my feeling anyway. Regardless, I hate it with a passion.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, for everything but movies, I’m a big advocate of HFR, especially for 4K (esp. for sports programming) and have been since studies like these began appearing in the literature…see the hyperlinks in this post - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...er#post7221029

As for movies, the issue is more complicated especially when you factor in the *generational* factor of having seen movies look a certain way for years but, who knows what movies will look like in decades to come when you and I are in heaven with our dog(s) and other loved ones. To understand what I mean, I strongly recommend you view this entire clip (“The Look of HFR”) to the very end because eventually it discusses The Hobbit and a retrospective tweet from 2009….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHibh...ature=youtu.be

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/13/44...sive-implosion

We may not have a industry at all if you go along with what these two industry stalwarts are saying.

[Penton-Man]

Yeah, the topic from the soothsayers even made the Today Show (which is National) this morning… http://www.today.com/video/today/52202951#52202951

And I’m told is also scheduled for a segment on Good Morning America (ABC). Personally, I would welcome their prediction of fewer and fewer theaters and of only the ‘expensive/elite’ class because it would kind of remind me of what it was like to fly in a plane in ‘coach’ when I was a young whippper-snapper with my parents. It was a truly special experience (good service, leg room, beautiful stewardesses, etc.) whereas now if you fly in ‘coach’ it’s more akin to a cattle car ….but possibly worse because I don’t think there are any drunk, nutty cattle on those cattle trains.

I’m just not so sure that their theatrical forecasts are going to come true to the extent the Lucas/Spielberg panel predicts…at least not on any soon-to-come timetable. Currently, there are about 250 PLF (http://apps.warnerbros.com/greatgatsby/plf/us/ ) screens (exclusive of IMAX) for which the industry claims they are bringing in about 4-8% of the revenue.

And as far as that comment at the very end of the Verge article which you linked, i.e. "It's because all the gatekeepers have been killed!"
Well, ‘The Brotherhood’ is a hearty lot and will invariably come out on top no matter what the future brings…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post7312640

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...I’m just not so sure that their theatrical forecasts are going to come true to the extent the Lucas/Spielberg panel predicts…at least not on any soon-to-come timetable...

What I mean is that I’m wondering if perhaps the Lucas/Spielberg panel is placing too much emphasis on the first part of 2013 and completely ignoring the record-breaking year of 2012 - http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture...ear-for-movies

Point being, I think *traditional* theaters still have some life in them yet and things are not as acutely dire as the panel portends.