Ultra HD 4K Blu-ray

[Henry88]

Ultra HD 4K Blu-ray spec is about "more than resolution"
http://www.whathifi.com/news/ultra-hd-4 ... n-says-bda

better be.

[jellydonut25]

Sounds like a bunch of stuff the average person won't be able to see.

[XvGojira]

[canofhumdingers]

I don't think they would put stuff at less than 4k on there without labeling it as such (much like they will label bonus features as being in SD on blurays).

I mean, Ultra HD is being adopted as the official name of the 4k standard format spec for home video. Much like HiDefinition or HD is the official name of the home video spec for 720i/p and 1080i/p. This should actually be less confusing as it appears there won't be multiple resolutions and interlaced or progressive all within the same label.

Still, the resolution is overkill for the vast majority of TV sets. The increased dynamic range and color gamut should be nice though. Personally, I'd still rather they focus on getting rid of compression over increasing resolution...

[Tom R VanSlambrouck]

We have a 4K set on display at work and really the only difference I can tell is that it looks sharper when you stand closer to it. However if you stand a distance way from the 1080p sets they look just as good as the 4K set.

[John Schuermann]

"Still, the resolution is overkill for the vast majority of TV sets. The increased dynamic range and color gamut should be nice though."

Canofhumdingers has it exactly right

High dynamic range and increased color gamut is something EVERYONE can see (unless they are literally blind, or at least color-blind), and it will be as dramatic an improvement over today's HD as HD itself was over standard definition. The increase in resolution (the 4K that everyone gets hung up on) is the LEAST of the quality improvements. In that, Jellydonut is correct - 4K resolution is "stuff the average person won't be able to see." However, don't discount High Dynamic Range or the wider color gamut. Those are impressive, substantial improvements in picture quality.

Part of my day job has led me to getting involved in some of the development of new UHD specs. If anyone has any questions about this stuff I am happy to answer them. I have seen most of this technology in action and can give a good overview from my own (very skeptical) eye.

[John Schuermann]

[John Schuermann]

Here are excerpts from a much longer article I wrote about this stuff for a different outlet:

Much of what is discussed here has to do with resolution in terms of pixel counts and potential resolutions, but there are numerous hard facts of the movie-making and post-production processes we keep coming up against. One of the things we are discovering is that 35mm film really does not support much in the way of visible picture detail at scans much above 2K (essentially 1080P), especially if the original was shot Super 35mm (4K scans are likely overkill). Scope films shot anamorphically, on the other hand, do have a bit more visible (and therefore usable) resolution. I've sat in on comparisons between film sourced 4K scans and 2K down-rezzed versions, and the visual difference is almost zero. Unless the film in question was shot with a native 4K / 5K camera or sourced from 70mm, there seems to be little visible benefit to going to resolutions much higher than 1080P.

I also quite often hear from people who (quite understandably) would like to see their favorite blockbusters released in 4K. However, we now come up against another limitation in terms of how movies are typically assembled in post-production. In the case of almost every FX heavy movie over the last 10 years right up until today, the FX have been rendered at 2K. So even if you went back and re-scanned the film at 4K, you would have to totally recreate every CGI effect and composite from scratch at 4K resolution - something that would be incredibly expensive and time consuming. As others have pointed out, even those films that possess very little in obvious FX work are edited and graded at 2K resolution levels. Even the average romantic comedy can have numerous CGI fix-ups, composites for lighting alteration, adding or subtracting buildings, changing parts of locations, etc. It will perhaps be the rare movie which *doesn't* have any 2K rendered FX elements incorporated. The downside here is that any movie that was finished in 2K will need to be totally re-assembled in 4K with all new FX renders. All this means time and money.

It is true that post-production suites are moving toward 4K capabilities, but this will only help us in terms of future content. If a movie was shot digitally in 4K and transferred in 4K AND the FX / composites were rendered in 4K, yes, they might be more impressive at 4K / 5K resolutions assuming that you are standing less than 2 picture heights away from the screen (once you get more than 2X the screen height away, the difference between HD and 4K becomes very difficult to discern). Remember, the difference between HD and 4K is in fine detail, not picture sharpness. You can simply make out more fine detail in a 4K image than a 1080P image, again assuming you are close enough to the screen for your eye to even make out that level of detail. (BTW, the number of movies shot and finished in 4K is extremely small - most of them are Sony titles.)

Here's where it gets even more complicated. At 4K resolutions we are literally getting to the limits of what not only the human eye can perceive on a display at reasonable seating distances, you are also getting to the limits of what can be resolved on the source medium. For example, if you move the camera (especially at 24 frames per second, the motion picture standard), motion blur becomes such an issue that fine detail gets destroyed. If your shot is even slightly out of focus, fine detail gets destroyed. If you aren't using camera lenses that resolve 4K resolution, those fine details won't even be captured. If you are shooting a landscape on a hazy day, if the camera shakes, if your shutter speed is too long, if the photosensors in the camera don't actually resolve 4K, the list of things that can destroy fine detail levels goes on and on.

If you look at the 4K demo clips TV manufacturers use on their sets, you will notice that they all feature ROCK STEADY high frame rate footage of picture subjects that possess fine patterns and betray very little movement. Of course, your typical Hollywood movie features quick cutting, a moving camera, etc, so therefore the likely visible benefit of 4K is greatly diminished. All of this is precisely why Hollywood is looking to things like High Dynamic Range and an expanded color gamut for next generation video and theatrical formats, as the benefits of these technologies are obvious at ANY seating distance and with any material. That's where most of the real picture improvements will come from.

All of that said, there are cases where a film shot in 4K or with high resolution film stock WILL definitely benefit from higher resolution technology. Films shot in 70mm, such as Patton, 2001, The Sound of Music, or Interstellar (some shot in IMAX) would definitely benefit, as there are often nice long static shots in those films and the film stock itself supports high detail. Films shot 1.85:1 or anamorphic 2.40:1 35mm could also benefit, but to a lesser degree.

[XvGojira]

So, in dummy McDdum-dum terms (which I'll heartily say I fall into that category in terms of the deep technical bits), this 4K stuff, resolution-wise, really only affects current and future films since only a rare few movies would have the ability and reason to completely redo their effects to make it look good *cough*starwars*cough* or have and will be filmed at and have their FX done at 4k. But even then it's not so much of an improvement unless you're going all forensic on the film, like say a fan prop maker gleaning details and different angles on the prop.

But the real improvement, that the commoners would notice is the better color range, correct? I think I get it, but it really seems like it something that I'd need to see side by side comparisons to really understand. In my mind I'm just seeing someone making some alterations to the film that I could make by just adjusting settings on my TV.

[Tom R VanSlambrouck]

[XvGojira]

[canofhumdingers]

I think at least part of the confusion lies in the fact that, yes, 35mm film has the POTENTIAL to resolve more than 2k resolution but it rarely actually DOES that. Yes, if you go back to the original camera negative of even old films, you can actually pull out much more detail than people saw on the films original release. A good example being the wires for things like the lions tail in wizard of oz or the wires for the Martian ships in war of the worlds. But the things is, filmmakers would use things like that knowing that the film printing process would make them all but invisible on the actual release print that went to the movie theater. When a film was made, it created the original camera negative which was then used to make an inter positive which was then used to make an inter negative which was then used to strike the release prints that were sent to movie theaters. That's at LEAST four photochemical printing processes before you got the copy that would actually be shown to the public. And with each generation of printing you loose detail so things like tiny wires practically disappear.

TL;DR: 35mm has the potential to resolve more than 2k but usually doesn't. When you see a 35mm print you are literally watching a copy of a copy of a copy. At best.

[Legion]

How much clearer do people really need their movies to be...?

[John Schuermann]

[John Schuermann]

[John Schuermann]

[John Schuermann]

[XvGojira]

[John Schuermann]

[jellydonut25]

I still wonder how much of that I'm going to be able to SEE. And honestly, I don't even know if a side-by-side comparison would really SELL me...because of course the BETTER thing is going to look BETTER when compared directly to its inferior SIDE BY SIDE. Put $51 right next to $50 and of course I'll grab the $51, but hand me $51 and I won't necessarily find it to be THAT much more than $50, if that metaphor makes sense.

I'd want to see a movie I've seen many times before on blu-ray, on Ultra MegaMax 4K High Super Def Boomstick disc and see if I notice a difference.

[John Schuermann]

[jellydonut25]

Curved TVs also strike me as bull$***.

[John Schuermann]

[XvGojira]

The New Curved TV for people who don't care that their friends at the sides of the room can't see half the picture. It's like the old projection TVs but more dick-ish.

[John Schuermann]