Re: S&V article on HD discs. 4k downrez to HD media is better than 2k film telecines.

JediFonger · 08-28-2006, 01:16 PM

a recent article in S&V discussed future HD medias that make 1080p look primitive.

they quoted video essential's ken (laser ken back then) saying that 4k downrez to 1080p looks better than a direct 1080p take off from film.

what do you guys think of that? lowry digital even throws their opinion in about this.

Ed St. Clair · 08-28-2006, 01:21 PM

Dah!
Makes sense to me.
Bring it! :-)

JediFonger · 08-28-2006, 01:25 PM

but if the original film element is already "4k", isn't a direct 1080p (2k) telecine equivalent to downrez?

ChristopherDAC · 08-28-2006, 01:51 PM

I can give you a lot of technical talk about passband flatness, MTF, aperture correction, and so on, or you can accept that, due to the particular properties of optical and opto-electronic systems, a down-conversion from a higher-resolution scan has higher image quality than a native resolution scan, under certain circumstances. It's an issue of higher contrast ratio of the fine detail, and it can be described as performing the anti-alias filtering in the digital domain (with sharp-cutoff filters).
This topic has been discussed repeatedly here, and at one point I gave a very detailed explanation.

Dave Moritz · 08-28-2006, 02:09 PM

IMHO 1080 HD formats should be allowed to stick around for a minimum of 10 years or more before we start seeing new formats. I would not be against 20 years before the next format release. Then I wouldn't mind seeing a 4k format to replace the current HD format. I have seen what a really good 4x line double would do for dvd video. Imagine what that would do for 1080p HD video. I would have no desire to upgrade from HD for many years to come. Especially since a large chunck of my current HT is going through a major upgrade.

**HTF Ads**

JediFonger · 08-28-2006, 03:51 PM

what types of thread title could i search under for previous discussions? admins, please merge if you feel appropriate. man we should get more stickies =).

re: another format. imho, i think HD discs are the last POPULAR physical video media. beyond this, i think we'll see more adoption of VOD either on internet or closed service provider networks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Moritz

I would not be against 20 years before the next format release.

Paul_Scott · 08-28-2006, 05:37 PM

yes, this has already been the source of conjecture as to what we can expect in the future in regards to double dips for what are already seemingly 'perfect' A/V presentations.
Fine detail migrates down, and future 4K transfers, coming at a time when more people will have or are about to have 1080p displays (as opposed to most which I would expect are 720p's now) and that enhanced level of detail will come thru.

of course, there are a lot of other things that could go wrong along the way- The newest Bond SEs are from 4K scans

Michel_Hafner · 08-29-2006, 05:22 AM

The difference between 2K and 4K from 35mm originals is pretty small. There is not a lot new detail on the 4K master compared to the 2K. The main difference is that at 4K you can render the detail with additional smoothness, in a more analogue looking way, without jaggies and visible pixels (generally: aliasing) even when the material is critical (text, straight lines, sharp edges, very fine detail) while upholding the sharpness of 35mm negatives. That's why 4K is the 35mm gold standard in digital cinema. For home cinema it's overkill. With 70mm originals 4K versus 2K reveals also a lot more detail. 2K becomes fuzzy looking in comparison. And 8K would relate to 4K for 70mm as 4K to 2K for 35mm.

JediFonger · 08-29-2006, 09:17 AM

interesting. i don't get why a 2k telecine wouldn't reveal additional smoothness to begin with as opposed to a 4k cap downrez.

Ed St. Clair · 08-29-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner

The difference between 2K and 4K from 35mm originals is pretty small. There is not a lot new detail on the 4K master compared to the 2K. The main difference is that at 4K you can render the detail with additional smoothness, in a more analogue looking way, without jaggies and visible pixels (generally: aliasing) even when the material is critical (text, straight lines, sharp edges, very fine detail) while upholding the sharpness of 35mm negatives. That's why 4K is the 35mm gold standard in digital cinema. For home cinema it's overkill. With 70mm originals 4K versus 2K reveals also a lot more detail. 2K becomes fuzzy looking in comparison. And 8K would relate to 4K for 70mm as 4K to 2K for 35mm.

4K beats 2K in StandardDef, let alone HD.
"CK" was a highly praised/reviewed as a 2K transfer SD DVD. However, less than two years later, they (Lowery?) thought they could do much better, with a 4K transfer.
As you say;
"The main difference is that at 4K you can render the detail with additional smoothness, in a more analogue looking way, without jaggies and visible pixels (generally: aliasing) even when the material is critical (text, straight lines, sharp edges, very fine detail) while upholding the sharpness of 35mm negatives. That's why 4K is the 35mm gold standard in digital cinema. For home cinema it's overkill. With 70mm originals 4K versus 2K reveals also a lot more detail. 2K becomes fuzzy looking in comparison."