UHD 4k Ultra HD Preorder Thread (1 Viewer)

[Persianimmortal]

Yes, one of the things that annoys me is that some people are acting like UHD BD needs HDR in order to be legitimate. As far as I'm concerned, getting a 4K master in 4K resolution, in the highest quality and with lossless audio, is more than enough, even if that makes for a "small" difference.

If you're referring to me, I'm not "acting" any particular way. I'm logically concluding that if people who know what they're talking about - like RAH - say that 4K resolution is basically virtually indistinguishable from 2K resolution on TVs at normal viewing distances, then HDR is the only real drawcard for these UHD titles. This is further compounded by the fact that the majority of these titles aren't even from 4K masters.

You may well be happy to pay handsomely for barely noticeable improvements in video quality, but I guarantee you that most people are not. This is why, as Mr Finn has clearly indicated, HDR is essential to the studios' marketing strategy for UHD content.

 

[Robert Harris]

UHD presents an interesting problem.

Disparate elements, all potentially parts of the same whole, but in an environment where mixing and matching will be essential to proper and viable releases.

The first problem is to get past the sizzle, and go to facts.

Examples:

Take a production finished as a 2k DI. Kingsman, for example, coming from Fox. A controlled uprez to 4k, should appear better than what one gets from a TV or player. Add to that, the full color gamut, unseen in HD, plus HDR, and better product will emerge.

For fans of that film, and I'm one of them, that's a buy, and for valid reasons.

For those with monitors under 60" or so, will there be a rise in perceived quality? Color, yes, resolution not necessarily, unless one is pixel peeping.

For any modern productions, finished in 4k, 4-4-4, HDR, there's no contest, as one would be replicating the theatrical experience more precisely...

presuming that displays are properly calibrated.

Take a look at the first Lionsgate offerings - Expendables 3, Sicario - pure 4k.

For productions photographed in any of the large format processes, be they 35/6, 65/5, 35/8 or larger, again a no brainer in UHD, but keep in mind that for older films, HDR may not be viable, or may be inappropriate.

This is the situation in which HDR needs to be separated from UHD. Where it works, as with the first group of Fox films noted by Mr. Finn, wonderful.

But HDR is not essential to UHD, and there should be no perceived connection. It's a wonderful added option, that works when it can, and for the record, HDR is great.

UHD allows wonderful attributes for home theater enthusiasts, and releasing UHD, along with BD, allows consumers to future-proof, and I love the concept, as it permits those who may not yet have 4k monitors to view what they can with immediacy, while not having to re-purchase when they make the move upmarket.

Bottom line, there are differences between UHD releases for modern or new productions, vs older catalog titles, as to what elements offered by UHD are in the mix. Keep in mind, that like VHS, Beta, DVD and BD, UHD is nothing more than a bucket, into which data is placed.

The selection of initial programming by each of the studios seems to be in typical fashion, with, at least to my mind, Fox giving it proper thought, while Sony seems to be thinking PlayStation. But all of this will be forgotten, once the really good stuff begins to arrive.

Large format productions, on UHD, projected or viewed on larger flat panels. That's the stuff that dreams are made of...

Am I in for UHD?

You'd better believe it!

RAH

 

[Charles Smith]

Funny how things are so easily understood when explained clearly.

Thank you, sir!

 

[McCrutchy]

If you're referring to me...for UHD content.

I was not referring to anyone in particular. But it is rather exhausting to have people (again, no one in particular) make so many negative assumptions about UHD BD before the vast majority have even seen a public demonstration, much less added a player and discs into their (hopefully properly calibrated) system at home. Blu-ray was similarly bashed a decade ago, and more recently, so were 4K remasters. Yet, now, we see both advancements for what they are, and most Blu-ray consumers are overjoyed when a new catalog Blu-ray comes from a 4K master. To me, UHD BD without HDR (or with HDR, should the filmmaker wish, and it not destroy the integrity of the film) is simply the next logical advancement. I am excited for it, and more than willing to buy the discs before I can get the hardware I want. I accepted long ago that I am a junkie-not for discs, or for any format, but for physically owning high quality versions of films, and even some good television.


Another thing I have recently decided is that I am done tearing my hair out over being a "minority" and what the "average consumer" does. These topics are really only the concern of the content producers themselves, and most of the time, when they are discussed at the consumer level, rampant speculation and hypotheses rule the day.


Charles Smith, on 13 Jan 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:
Funny how things are so easily understood when explained clearly.

Thank you, sir!


Agreed, that was a very helpful post from RAH.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I was not referring to anyone in particular. But it is rather exhausting to have people (again, no one in particular) make so many negative assumptions about UHD BD before the vast majority have even seen a public demonstration, much less added a player and discs into their (hopefully properly calibrated) system at home. Blu-ray was similarly bashed a decade ago, and more recently, so were 4K remasters. Yet, now, we see both advancements for what they are, and most Blu-ray consumers are overjoyed when a new catalog Blu-ray comes from a 4K master. To me, UHD BD without HDR (or with HDR, should the filmmaker wish, and it not destroy the integrity of the film) is simply the next logical advancement. I am excited for it, and more than willing to buy the discs before I can get the hardware I want. I accepted long ago that I am a junkie-not for discs, or for any format, but for physically owning high quality versions of films, and even some good television.


Another thing I have recently decided is that I am done tearing my hair out over being a "minority" and what the "average consumer" does. These topics are really only the concern of the content producers themselves, and most of the time, when they are discussed at the consumer level, rampant speculation and hypotheses rule the day.

The only negative I really see coming from people is buyer fatigue from having to update their HT systems once again with a more expensive investment. Many of us are just saying we'll wait a while before making such a commitment. Others are saying they won't make such an investment, but lets face it, they could change their minds down the road. From my standpoint, I don't understand why you or anybody else have any concern for such posted comments. It's all a personal choice anyhow.

 

[Dr Griffin]

rampant speculation and hypotheses rule the day.

Just imagine how boring it would be around here if that wasn't the case. Seriously, I am in for 4K too, just not right away.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Just imagine how boring it would be around here if that wasn't the case. Seriously, I am in for 4K too, just not right away.

Yup! This speculation and hypotheses is no different than when DVD and BD came into the marketplace. Such discussion will continue for every new HT format that presents itself to us, the consumers. In the end, we'll each make the choice to invest in that format or not.

 

[Worth]

I was not referring to anyone in particular. But it is rather exhausting to have people (again, no one in particular) make so many negative assumptions about UHD BD before the vast majority have even seen a public demonstration, much less added a player and discs into their (hopefully properly calibrated) system at home. Blu-ray was similarly bashed a decade ago, and more recently, so were 4K remasters. Yet, now, we see both advancements for what they are, and most Blu-ray consumers are overjoyed when a new catalog Blu-ray comes from a 4K master. To me, UHD BD without HDR (or with HDR, should the filmmaker wish, and it not destroy the integrity of the film) is simply the next logical advancement. I am excited for it, and more than willing to buy the discs before I can get the hardware I want. I accepted long ago that I am a junkie-not for discs, or for any format, but for physically owning high quality versions of films, and even some good television.

If there is a certain amount of apathy or negativity about this format, I think it's largely because most members of this forum are chiefly interested in older films, which will see the least benefit from it. Unlike previous home video formats, the technology this time around has largely surpassed the source material.


35mm film is generally thought to have somewhere between 3-4K of real image detail on the negative, but that's not something you would have ever seen in the cinema. By the time it went from OCN to IP to IN to a release print projected onto a screen, you were seeing an image with a resolution of somewhere between 720p-1080p. My Holy Grail for home theatre was always to be able to see a film as the audience did when it was first released. A good blu-ray in most respects already surpasses what 99% of the audience would have seen on opening night.


I have nothing against UHD, but I suspect catalogue titles will be scarce, to say the least. I don't really need to see every last speck of grain fully resolved and I'd imagine the expanded colour gamut will make little difference, unless you're doing a direct A-B comparison. I may buy into the format eventually, but I'm in no hurry to do so.

 

[Dr Griffin]

If there is a certain amount of apathy or negativity about this format, I think it's largely because most members of this forum are chiefly interested in older films, which will see the least benefit from it. Unlike previous home video formats, the technology this time around has largely surpassed the source material.


35mm film is generally thought to have somewhere between 3-4K of real image detail on the negative, but that's not something you would have ever seen in the cinema. By the time it went from OCN to IP to IN to a release print projected onto a screen, you were seeing an image with a resolution of somewhere between 720p-1080p. My Holy Grail for home theatre was always to be able to see a film as the audience did when it was first released. A good blu-ray in most respects already surpasses what 99% of the audience would have seen on opening night.


I have nothing against UHD, but I suspect catalogue titles will be scarce, to say the least. I don't really need to see every last speck of grain fully resolved and I'd imagine the expanded colour gamut will make little difference, unless you're doing a direct A-B comparison. I may buy into the format eventually, but I'm in no hurry to do so.

To expand on this a little, the films being released on Blu-ray from Kino and Olive are in the catagory of replicating the original theatrical look, and in my case with a second run neighborhood theater in my youth, they look more like what I saw than the highly resolved studio high dollar digital restorations. There is the idea that once you see what is possible on home video, with the likes of Spartacus' remaster, you'd like to see every title look like that of course, but if a theatrical look, in say 1977 for instance, is what you are after, as long as they don't smooth it over, you're getting that and more already.

 

[OliverK]

To expand on this a little, the films being released on Blu-ray from Kino and Olive are in the catagory of replicating the original theatrical look, and in my case with a second run neighborhood theater in my youth, they look more like what I saw than the highly resolved studio high dollar digital restorations. There is the idea that once you see what is possible on home video, with the likes of Spartacus' remaster, you'd like to see every title look like that of course, but if a theatrical look, in say 1977 for instance, is what you are after, as long as they don't smooth it over, you're getting that and more already.

I guess it depends, premiere prints would mostly look better than most of the stuff in neighborhood theaters so one should at least go for the quality that one could get with a contact print from the OCN as that is what would often be shown at big and important venues.


I also think that several Olive releases have more of a look of an old HD master than the look of a vintage film print so there is some room for improvement. The general rule that with a 4k scan from the negative we are going beyond what could be seen back in the day on 35mm prints still holds true though.

 

[OliverK]

For productions photographed in any of the large format processes, be they 35/6, 65/5, 35/8 or larger, again a no brainer in UHD, but keep in mind that for older films, HDR may not be viable, or may be inappropriate.


[...]


Large format productions, on UHD, projected or viewed on larger flat panels. That's the stuff that dreams are made of...

Amen to that.


I hope to build a nice library of UHD releases of movies scanned in 4k or more that were shot in large format. Hopefully the studios will see some value in offering what I want.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I guess it depends, premiere prints would mostly look better than most of the stuff in neighborhood theaters so one should at least go for the quality that one could get with a contact print from the OCN as that is what would often be shown at big and important venues.


I also think that several Olive releases have more of a look of an old HD master than the look of a vintage film print so there is some room for improvement. The general rule that with a 4k scan from the negative we are going beyond what could be seen back in the day on 35mm prints still holds true though.

Well, they are video masters after all. No one is intentionally going for a second run theatrical look, but some of these licensed films don't have the cleanup of the big studio releases, there are bits of dirt, weave, maybe more than a couple missing frames, that's all I'm saying.

 

[OliverK]

Well, they are video masters after all. No one is intentionally going for a second run theatrical look, but some of these licensed films don't have the cleanup of the big studio releases, there are bits of dirt, weave, maybe more than a couple missing frames, that's all I'm saying.

I completely agree that a bit of dirt and scratches is not that bad, my problem is more with the often rather low resolution achieved by ancient scanning equipment, a good example would be The Grass is Greener.

 

[Reed Grele]

I have nothing against UHD at all. I welcome any and all new HT technological improvements. Bring it on. But I will not be an early adopter. Been there, done that.


When there are a goodly number of correctly mastered catalog titles to chose from, the 3D situation is sorted out, and projector prices come down to affordable levels, then.... Maybe.


Oh, just a few more important things:

Physical media.

Physical media.

Physical media.

 

[Persianimmortal]

My negativity towards UHD BD doesn't come from a fear of change. The 4K transition is a natural evolution of video content. It is inevitable and completely unavoidable that we will all eventually have to adopt 4K hardware, whether we want to or not, because when our current equipment dies, the electronics manufacturers will only be selling 4K alternatives.


I'm actually eagerly anticipating getting a good 4K TV - once the standards are all firmed up, and the hardware-based features, like HDR, mature of course. In particular I'm hoping for a good, affordable (flat, not curved!) OLED TV when the time comes, even though I know it's a longshot. In any case, once the hardware is sufficiently mature, aside from the cost, there are no downsides to buying a 4K display. More pixels can't hurt, and an expanded color gamut along with greater dynamic range (HDR) will only make the image look nicer, even if it may only be a subtle improvement in many cases.


So it all comes down to content, and that's where UHD BD is extremely troublesome, especially for classic movie lovers, like me. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it borders on madness to suggest that the UHD BD format will ever receive anything remotely resembling a decent number of catalog releases. If catalog failed to sell well on BD, even after 9 years, during the heyday of physical disc, what on Earth would make anyone think the studios will bother with anything more than a few of the biggest catalog titles on UHD BD, in what are now the twilight years of physical disc?


Thus the burden would fall almost entirely on the boutique providers, and just how many major titles will they be allowed to license, and how many could they possibly release in a reasonable period of time? Especially given the relatively poor prospects of recouping their costs from a niche market that's even smaller than BD.


Lastly, there's the critical question of just how much of a noticeable improvement a classic movie on UHD BD will be over its standard BD equivalent. Since there is no classic content on UHD BD yet, it's true that we can only speculate. But based on what RAH says, if I'm interpreting it properly, unless we're talking about large format films, or people using 120"+ screens, and given a lack of HDR, the improvement would be quite subtle in most instances.


So I'm somewhat surprised to see people talking about UHD BD as though it will be a long-lived fully-fledged format on its own. Aside from my own guess that it will eventually die off, at best it's a format primarily designed to sell newer releases, largely on the visual impact of HDR, and I suppose we can also hope for some large format classics to arrive at some point if we're lucky.

 

[Osato]

Enjoying the discussion and information on this thread. I'm interested in the format but will not adopt this year. I will keep an eye out for new releases with uhd, bd combos.

I'm looking forward to some of the James Bond films, which many of the early films were scanned at 4K in 2004-2005. There has been some discussion that many of the later films have received new transfers as well. It will be interested to see how this and he format continues to develop!!

 

[jcroy]

And who in their right mind is going to pay almost $40 to see Fantastic Flop (2015)?
You'd get more entertainment if you simply set fire to $40 worth of $1 bills in the backyard.

The only reason I would buy this hunk of junk, is if the sequel turns out to be decent and Fox includes this 2015 flop as a free "bonus" disc (whether 2k or 4k).


Though if I found it in the local dump bins (or dollar stores) for less than $5, I may pick it up just to watch it as a guilty pleasure or as an example of "it's so bad, that it's good".

 

[jcroy]

At the present time, my #1 priority in regard to UHD bluray is to see whether the optical drive manufacturers ever release some 4K bluray-rom computer drives. (HDR color, 3D, etc ... are much lower on my priority list).


Basically I have an irrational paranoia of random bad sectors on optical discs due to manufacturing defects and crappy quality control. This is the main reason why I immediately check every newly purchased dvd and bluray disc on the computer, to see whether there are any bad sectors. (Deliberate bad sectors drm is an entirely different matter, which are easily handled independently).


If there is no way of checking UHD bluray discs on the computer, then I will probably not buy many UHD bluray discs (if any for that matter).

 

[Robert Crawford]

My negativity towards UHD BD doesn't come from a fear of change. The 4K transition is a natural evolution of video content. It is inevitable and completely unavoidable that we will all eventually have to adopt 4K hardware, whether we want to or not, because when our current equipment dies, the electronics manufacturers will only be selling 4K alternatives.

If we live long enough, it's a sure thing for displays, but I'm not sure about investment in players or software. Hell, I still have never used HD DVD players in boxes so I can do the same with BD players. With that said, I'll be upgrading, but I'm taking my old sweet time in doing so. I see no reason to rush out and buy a bunch of stuff in 2016.

 

[jcroy]

Thanks for the offer James, especially considering you hosted some of us back in October to see not just the lab but some VR content too. Speaking for just myself I wasn't all that excited about 4K, until I saw the HDR encoded content side by side against non-HDR 4K. What a difference!

(This may sound really silly).


Wonder if pornographic movies would look a lot better in 4K HDR (or better).