True 4k-blu-ray players/discs-coming to store shelves Christmas 2015

4k? Who cares? How much bigger does our screen need to be to appreciate the difference? Blu- Ray is a great format. Streaming HD is ok.

How about better new movie content. No more Transformer movies. This summer was bad for movies because the movies were bad. Not because of Streaming or Blu Ray rentals.

 

It's possible, but bear in mind that becomes a whole new format.

 

Sadly, that is very true. The major studios' home video departments now have temporary mid-level executives viewing it as a career dead-end, since Hollywood's revenues are in great decline in that area. They have little connection to the products they control except as numbers in a spreadsheet, so release decisions and the quality of releases themselves are done in a strict, numbers-oriented analysis. The ones that shepherded those studios through the DVD boom years are gone now, as they got too expensive with increasing seniority and experience. Hollywood only seems to work very well when revenues are exploding, but that hasn't been true now for a decade.

 

Think of it in terms of pixels per inch (ppi). If you think a 40" HD screen looks pretty good, then we can do an analysis (horizontal dimension):

40" at 1920 pixels = 48ppi (pixel pitch or actual resolution)

Now consider an 80" screen also at HD:

80" at 1920 pixels = 24ppi.

So you've actually halved the actual screen resolution (ie, the pixel pitch or ppi). If we want to retain the same 48ppi as the smaller 40" screen had, you would need:

80"x 48ppi = 3840 pixels across. Effectively, this is 4k.

 

Bottom line...if you're not interested in an upgrade to larger screen sizes(65"+), 4k video ain't for you...if you ARE, it makes a significantly noticeable difference in terms of picture quality...as I stated earlier in this thread, my current screen consists of a 56" Samsung non-3D DLP rear projector...it suits my CURRENT need, but I plan to upgrade to something that has 3D capability and will be reasonably future-proof in terms of overall resolution...the standards are being set by the industry and will be implemented by this time next year...I won't criticize anyone who doesn't feel this is a necessary upgrade, as everyone has different requirements and standards of quality...

 

Have you had an eye test in the last few years (( serious)), I can sit 20 feet away and see the difference of 1080p versus 480 quite easily on my 50" Plasma.

With 4K Stuff, I did see a nice increase in details up very close, with still images mostly, and it was nice to not see pixels really up close, but at any actual normal viewing distance, it looked "Nice" for sure, but mostly cause the demo material was great looking and not what was playing on the sets on either side of the 4K Demo!

In other words, not sure at any "real" viewing distance, it would be a game changer at all.

 

Not so sure..............((And yes, normally I would jump all over stuff like this...for real!!))

I think you need to add, "If you upgrade to a much larger screen, AND sit very close, AND, happen to come across some demo material that is very well done, it can make a significant difference...etc"

I have serious doubts, about the "real world" difference most will actually perceive.

Most people seem to not bother having eye sight checked often enough to see very fine detail, AND do not sit close enough for fine detail to even be perceived.

Up close from about 4-5 feet away ( a very un-natural viewing distance ) sure it looks fantastic, but who sits that close?

 

He actually agrees with you. I made the same mistake reading the part you bolded. He meant you'd have to sit ridiculously close to a 4K monitor to perceive any improvement over 1080p vs. the relatively easy task of perceiving the improvement of 1080p over 480p. It was worded weird to me.

 

Yes It was worded oddly.

I spent a bit of time checking them out at a few stores, but stores are not the best way to really tell how something looks.

I did really like the smaller pixels up close. Would be great to view up close hi-res photos or text or something for sure.

But on actual video, sitting at a truly normal distance, really pushing the limit of usefulness I think....IMHO.

 

From my christmas extra money I just bought a Sony 4k 55" kd55x9005a TV and I have to say that the mastered in 4k Sony BDs are really looking amazing. I watched Ghostbusters, because it´s one of my all time favorites, I watched it dozent of times and therefor know quite well the different looks of that film on home video devices throughout the years (from video to DVD to BD to ´Mastered in 4K´ BD). Really amazing! Even if it´s still not a real native 4K release. Also the 3D feature is much better as from me expected - and I think better as most of the cinema experiences I had throughout the last years. I read that 4K projection is the first way to see 3D movies in Full HD and mostly the DCPs are just screened in 2K; maybe that´s the reason, that it looks better on my Sony screen...

One question: I tried to find out, what scan would be ideal for movies shot on 35mm. It seems, that´s a tricky question. Most people say, it depends on the material and the condition of the film itself - but as a broad rule a 4K scan should be done at least. Maybe ideally up to 6K or 8K; but after that the analog print would normally not provide anymore image informations. But nowadays current movies are mostly shot completely digital. Now my question: Is there a maximum a digital scan can reach or is it theoretically infinite in the making - even if the human eye wouldn´t see any difference or the rendering times of the effect shots would be not manageable anymore ? I found nothing about a potentially scanning limit...

 

Yep, compression will squeeze the crap out of it so it will run at lesser internet speeds.

 

4K? . How about better content.

 

There is probably only 4K worth of actual resolution on a 35mm film print, 8K for larger film formats. Though if 4K media truly hits the market, I wouldn't necessarily dismiss the benefits of downsampling from 8K.

 

Not sure what you mean by scanning limit for content shot digitally. For such content, the limit is the sensor resolution in the digital camera. In theory that resolution could be almost anything within the bounds of the technology of the day. However, the practical limit would be that based around the acuity of the human eye. I would think 6-8k would exceed that limit. The flip side of the coin is color resolution and digital noise. Once you get to those types of spatial resolutions the only way to further improve picture quality is through wider and deeper color gamuts, dynamic range, noise reduction/light sensitivity.

 

Though you're still not seeing true 4K. We've been mastering images from 4K-derived scans for more than 10 years now.

When I worked for Kodak from late 2001-2004, they told me they felt that modern 35mm emulsions like 5219 were capable of 6K' worth of data, with 16-bit linear color. At the time, all we could do practically was 2K 10-bit log, which is still the standard for most productions today. They readily admitted that the moment you make a copy of the negative, you lose more than 25% of the information, and by the time a traditional photochemical print made it to the theater, it was barely reproducing 2K. This is one reason 2K was the initial goal for D-Cinema.

Lots of software is "resolution independent," so they can theoretically keep upping the resolution forever. I honestly think a 2K camera is probably sufficient for most productions. I've seen many, many digital productions on a big screen where you could count the pores and nose hairs of actors. How sharp does it need to be?

In truth, there are a dozen factors that go into image quality, and I'm not convinced that sharpness (the "K") is the single most important. Color accuracy is a much more difficult factor to deal with.

 

To begin with: Thank you for your comprehensive and precise reply! Right, it´s still not true 4K. But that´s making the experience even more breathtaking for me. I was aware of that and thought, these Sony Mastered in 4K BDs wouldn´t look that much better as normal BDs, if those were also based on 4K Masters. But really, they do so in the combination of a Sony BD-Player and a Sony 4K TV. I read something about special algorithms that were used for the compression down to the Full HD standard and that the same algorithms can now be used for the upscaling if you have the right Sony Player and Sony 4K TV. I watched the same Ghostbusters Mastered for 4K BD a couple of months ago on my old LG and it looked nothing like that on my older system. That´s so surprising for me...

I read that the Harry Potter Movies were digitally shot with 2K cameras; am I right assuming that those movies will never have the possibility to be presented as true 4K releases, because the original digital material has only a 2K resolution ?

I´m totally with you regarding the sharpness. I watched a couple of current 4K trailers via YT (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator, Mad Max) and if I put up the sharpness to a maximum they don´t look cinematic to me anymore. But it´s not only sharpness. It´s also the color range and the grade of details. Like the Ghostbusters release. The first BD issue had very grainy parts, the colors were kind of subtle and it wasn´t sharp at all. This mastered in 4K looked a bit better on my older LG. But now on my Sony it just looks amazing. Now every detail is recognizable, and I can come very close to the screen if I want to. Actually I can not believe, that the true 4K should look any better on that size of a screen than those Mastered in 4K BDs already do...

 

Forget it. Enough is enough. I don't need to be able to see a spec of dirt on Mel Gibson's ass to enjoy a movie. I'm not buying anything else.

 

By the way, does anybody know why many current TV-series aren´t released on blu ray, even if they´re shot in HD (like HIMYM or Two Broke Girls)? That´s a total bummer for me, because I can see those shows only in HD via Sky but not through a proper BD release. Seems kind of wasted for me..

 

The 4K discs will hold 100g + but the studios will still put TV shows in 6 discs sets and charge 3 times what they should. Batman 1966, Twin Peaks and Star Trek TOS/TNG are already on BD so the only way I would even consider this new format is if the non-ruined Star Wars Original Trilogy was to be released only in 4k.

 

The economics of television on Blu-ray preclude anything less than the absolute biggest hits, like The Big Bang Theory. The studios are satisfied with pushing consumers to streaming copies for television content these days.

 

You can't fit 1080p with a good bitrate of an entire TV season on a single disc. You could probably fit 480p on a single disc, but who would buy that? Same thing will apply to 4K.

 

Most of my favorite films are from the 60s and 70s and sometime the upgrade from DVD to Bluray seems so minimal I'm really skeptical of how much better 4K can render them.

 

I'm very happy with the current resolution level. If they'd just get rid of region coding, I'd be EXTREMELY happy. Luckily, there are ways around that...anyway, if it means cheaper secondhand Blu Ray discs, I'm all for it !

 

I don't think there are any 'special algorithms' as such. What you probably read was that they were using the new H.265 spec for video compression which, compared to the previous H.264 spec (and still overwhelmingly in use) has better compression levels for the same image quality. This means that you can cram more video (ie, bigger files) onto the same sized media and get a better visual result on playback.

However, the quality of scaling, or interpolation (up or down) is also a factor when the video doesn't fit your screen at exactly 1:1.

 

As usually, I use to agree with you and this is no exception. I bought two days ago (a self-X'mas present) a new 40'' Philips 4K 3D T.V. set, not because it's 4K or I intend to buy into 4K BD when it's out, but because it looks wonderful coupled with my Oppo BDP-93 upscalling to 4K. I like how it looks, BD is good enough for me, it's becoming cheaper and cheaper, and I got this new 4K T.V. set from Philips for a fair price, 40'' for 700€, that is around 855$, which is cheap for a consumer electronics product of this kind in Spain.