4k…Okay, Now I Get It! (1 Viewer)

[Mark-P]

I would not be surprised at all to see a big show of Disney in 4K at the Keynote on the 12th. Fingers crossed

I would be very surprised. Disney and Apple have been at a stalemate on this issue. Disney does not want previous purchases magically upgraded to 4K. They want everyone to have to repurchase everything in 4K. Meanwhile Apple wants to stand by their pledge that all previous HD purchases get upgraded to 4K for free whenever the 4K version debuts on the platform.

We will see!

Okay Sam, I don't have the time or interest to sit through the nearly 2 hour keynote address. Did Apple announce Disney 4K or not?

 

[TonyD]

Today’s event was all Apple Watch and iPhone. That’s it.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

That's good to hear. My major concern with an eventual "upgrade" to 4K has been that my existing DVD collection will look worse on a 4K TV than on my current television, which is a 73" DLP set on which most of my DVDs look very good.

---------------

I went from a 67-inch DLP set to a 70-inch 4K LED display, and also am a fan of older films. If your DVD looked acceptable on your DLP, it should look at least as good on a 4K display. If not, then either your disc player or display isn't doing its job properly. The Sony 4k UHD player I am using to upconvert DVDs to 4K does an excellent job, as long as the DVD has a quality transfer. Nothing is going to turn a lousy DVD transfer into something beautiful, though.

 

[ScottHM]

If your DVD looked acceptable on your DLP, it should look at least as good on a 4K display.

That's reassuring. I've never seen a DVD played on a 4K screen so wasn't really sure what to expect. Thanks.

---------------

 

[Matt Hough]

I remember I was worried about that, too, before I got my OLED. So many of my favorite films (particularly from the 1930s and 1940s) haven't been upgraded from DVD, and the thought of not wanting to see them any more due to poor presentation filled me with dread. I was pleasantly relieved how good almost all of my favorites looked.

 

[Todd Erwin]

Definitely depends on how good the player and/or display is at upscaling.

In my office setup, DVDs look horrible when upscaled to 1080p on my Panasonic DMP-BD60 Blu-ray player, but most look much better when upscaled to 2160p on my Sony BDP-X800, both outputting to my 4K UHD Sony TV.

 

[ghostwind]

It's funny Ron, my old 1080p LCD died this past August, and after some research I also purchased the 65" LG C8. Right away the superb blacks and off-axis viewing were a huge welcome. And I started getting some 4K discs and was initially impressed. I then had a professional calibration done. But it was because of that calibration (which was done by a pro who knew his stuff, but showed inherent issues with calibrating HDR/DV), that I started to dig deeper into things. And the more I dug, the more I realized that 4K UHD is all over the place and not worth chasing. Whatever standards exist cannot be properly implemented on consumer displays. And each display behaves differently with how they try to implement the standards. For example, no consumer display can display the correct colors of the wider color gamut, no consumer display can do 4000nits (or even 1000 properly), and no consumer display can do a proper tone mapping of the EOTF curve. I can go on an on, and it's just issue after issue. And the more you know, the more you will be disappointed. At the end of the day, 4K UHD discs, whether HDR or DV, are a crap shoot. They look different on different displays, and no display can be calibrated for HDR or DV (which is why any 4K UHD review is not very meaningful). That's just the truth, and it's sad. 4K without HDR/DV would be nice, but it exists on only a handful of discs (50 to be more precise). The uptick in resolution, when done properly, is a big thing, but the HDR/DV eye-candy stuff attached with it is what markets 4K - not the resolution. So the reality is that when you watch 4K content, you have no idea how it was intended to look by the creators, because your display is consumer and not a $30,000 studio mastering monitor. And again, an LG will look different from a Sony, from a Panasonic, or even from prior year LG. And nobody will agree (or even can agree) which is the correct one (answer is none . So after looking more and more into this, I just gave up because I realized I would never get an accurate image from a 4K UHD/HDR/DV disc, stream, etc. So I focused on how to get the best 1080p image I could, because every display out there can reproduce the color gamut of REC.709 and the peak white of 100nits at which 1080p films are mastered. So I know I'm seeing exactly what was indented by the creators. Especially after calibrating with a 3D LUT - what Hollywood studios use. But I do get to keep the nice blacks of OLED, the off-axis viewing of OLED, and the great 4K upscaling of 1080p material. So for me, a new 4K display IS worth it, but not to watch native 4K UHD material if that makes sense. This post may sound strange, and I can go into details, but it's just how things are.

 

[JediFonger]

i tend to think 4k, 8k, xk resolution is the marketing gimmick...

*NOT* HDR. if anything (like you've researched) it is too confusing so the customer stays away.

which why CE mfr never learn, stay away for multiple standards, just use one and customers will be happy.

HDR10, HDR10+, HLG, DV, avg joe doesn't really care, it just has to work.

but because of the complexity, they stay away from it altogether.

It's funny Ron, my old 1080p LCD died this past August, and after some research I also purchased the 65" LG C8. Right away the superb blacks and off-axis viewing were a huge welcome. And I started getting some 4K discs and was initially impressed. I then had a professional calibration done. But it was because of that calibration (which was done by a pro who knew his stuff, but showed inherent issues with calibrating HDR/DV), that I started to dig deeper into things. And the more I dug, the more I realized that 4K UHD is all over the place and not worth chasing. Whatever standards exist cannot be properly implemented on consumer displays. And each display behaves differently with how they try to implement the standards. For example, no consumer display can display the correct colors of the wider color gamut, no consumer display can do 4000nits (or even 1000 properly), and no consumer display can do a proper tone mapping of the EOTF curve. I can go on an on, and it's just issue after issue. And the more you know, the more you will be disappointed. At the end of the day, 4K UHD discs, whether HDR or DV, are a crap shoot. They look different on different displays, and no display can be calibrated for HDR or DV (which is why any 4K UHD review is not very meaningful). That's just the truth, and it's sad. 4K without HDR/DV would be nice, but it exists on only a handful of discs (50 to be more precise). The uptick in resolution, when done properly, is a big thing, but the HDR/DV eye-candy stuff attached with it is what markets 4K - not the resolution. So the reality is that when you watch 4K content, you have no idea how it was intended to look by the creators, because your display is consumer and not a $30,000 studio mastering monitor. And again, an LG will look different from a Sony, from a Panasonic, or even from prior year LG. And nobody will agree (or even can agree) which is the correct one (answer is none . So after looking more and more into this, I just gave up because I realized I would never get an accurate image from a 4K UHD/HDR/DV disc, stream, etc. So I focused on how to get the best 1080p image I could, because every display out there can reproduce the color gamut of REC.709 and the peak white of 100nits at which 1080p films are mastered. So I know I'm seeing exactly what was indented by the creators. Especially after calibrating with a 3D LUT - what Hollywood studios use. But I do get to keep the nice blacks of OLED, the off-axis viewing of OLED, and the great 4K upscaling of 1080p material. So for me, a new 4K display IS worth it, but not to watch native 4K UHD material if that makes sense. This post may sound strange, and I can go into details, but it's just how things are.

 

[ghostwind]

i tend to think 4k, 8k, xk resolution is the marketing gimmick...

*NOT* HDR. if anything (like you've researched) it is too confusing so the customer stays away.

which why CE mfr never learn, stay away for multiple standards, just use one and customers will be happy.

HDR10, HDR10+, HLG, DV, avg joe doesn't really care, it just has to work.

but because of the complexity, they stay away from it altogether.

Well 4K is 4K - a resolution. How can that be a gimmick? But to sell 4K, they needed to add eye candy via HDR, DV, etc., because most people CAN see those even on a 40-55" monitor, less so the 4K resolution. Even if the colors are way off, the black levels wrong, the EOTF tracking curve off, RGB separation bad, etc., it doesn't matter - you can show it. Of course the differing standards are another mess, I agree with you.

 

[JediFonger]

avg joe cant tell between 480,720 v 1080 and now you add upscalin its all not a big diff.the industry should focus on pushing a single hdr standard. like when cd came out it was one standard and thats it

Well 4K is 4K - a resolution. How can that be a gimmick? But to sell 4K, they needed to add eye candy via HDR, DV, etc., because most people CAN see those even on a 40-55" monitor, less so the 4K resolution. Even if the colors are way off, the black levels wrong, the EOTF tracking curve off, RGB separation bad, etc., it doesn't matter - you can show it. Of course the differing standards are another mess, I agree with you.

 

[DaveF]

Well 4K is 4K - a resolution. How can that be a gimmick? But to sell 4K, they needed to add eye candy via HDR, DV, etc., because most people CAN see those even on a 40-55" monitor, less so the 4K resolution. Even if the colors are way off, the black levels wrong, the EOTF tracking curve off, RGB separation bad, etc., it doesn't matter - you can show it. Of course the differing standards are another mess, I agree with you.

There are two competing (but complementary) approaches for video improvements: more pixels and better pixels. 4K UHD is attempt to do a lot of both. Quadruple the pixels from 1080p. But also much better pixels, with high dynamic range, and wide color gamut.

Everything I’ve read the past decade or more says that “better pixels” is more useful than “more pixels”. Blind testing has shown that people prefer darker blacks and better contrast over higher resolution per se. This is the explanation for why Pioneer’s Kuro plasma sets got the best reviews circa 2007 even though they were only 720p-ish competing against 1080p LCD displays.

It seems something’s gone wrong between spec creation and media authoring, and the reality that most or all displays still can’t achieve the assumed performance. And it’s buzzword soup confusing even the enthusiasts, much less normal people.

 

[ghostwind]

avg joe cant tell between 480,720 v 1080 and now you add upscalin its all not a big diff.the industry should focus on pushing a single hdr standard. like when cd came out it was one standard and thats it

The comparison to the CD doesn't work. As people tend to buy larger screens each year, 4k does count. In any case, it's technically there and possible. HDR in any format is not. There is no consumer hardware that can meet any of the HDR standards (HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision, etc.). I am all for one standard, but it has to work with available hardware.

 

[ghostwind]

There are two competing (but complementary) approaches for video improvements: more pixels and better pixels. 4K UHD is attempt to do a lot of both. Quadruple the pixels from 1080p. But also much better pixels, with high dynamic range, and wide color gamut.

Everything I’ve read the past decade or more says that “better pixels” is more useful than “more pixels”. Blind testing has shown that people prefer darker blacks and better contrast over higher resolution per se. This is the explanation for why Pioneer’s Kuro plasma sets got the best reviews circa 2007 even though they were only 720p-ish competing against 1080p LCD displays.

It seems something’s gone wrong between spec creation and media authoring, and the reality that most or all displays still can’t achieve the assumed performance. And it’s buzzword soup confusing even the enthusiasts, much less normal people.

An increase in resolution to 4k, 8K, is something the hardware manufactures can easily do as technology progresses and display sizes get larger. So for me, more pixels is not a bad thing, because even if you may not notice it on your display size, at least it's implemented correctly, etc. Even if there is no content, it's fine, because upscaling on a large display is always a good thing. In other words, I don't see 4K (or resolution increase) as a competing approach to UHD, and I don't see it hurting anyone. So I see them as separate things. A lot of 4K HDR is mastered on 1080p HDR monitors for home release So we can separate resolution from color space, gamut, dynamic range, etc.

Yes, what's gone wrong is that the hardware necessary for displaying proper 4K UHD (per spec) with whatever HDR flavor you want, is not there yet in the consumer space. And the way hardware manufacturers are going about displaying those standards is with band-aid solutions. To make the proper hardware is very expensive, and I don't see any incentive for the display manufacturers to do it. People seem fine with HDR, judging from what I read on this and other forums. And this is a small sample of enthusiasts too! So why would the display manufacturers care? What percent of TV buyers even bother to calibrate their TVs at a very basic level? A tiny one, so they are fine with the products they are releasing. It's these band-aid solutions that are causing a lot of confusion too, as each manufacturer does things differently.

So yeah, the future is bleak IMHO. When HD came out, it came out and worked with the displays. REC.709, 100nits, etc. - they worked. UHD, works with 0 displays

Now, there IS a better way to "better pixels", and that's exactly the approach I've taken by using a 3D LUT calibration and box. A lot of people can get "better pixels" today by calibrating to standards their displays can handle. 1080p Blu-rays have never looked better than on my 4K 65" LG C8. They literally look amazing. When I switch to a 4K UHD content, it look horrible in comparison. It has more detail, and that I wish I could get. That's the only thing.