A Few Words About A few words about...™ 4k UHD - First Impressions (1 Viewer)

[Carabimero]

4K appeals more to me as a film*MAKER*. How cool is it to shoot a master and then be able to reframe closeups with virtually no loss in quality? To me, that's the value of UHD: pushing shots.

 

[Jeff F.]

I, too, have been thru VHS, laserdisc, DVD and Blu Ray, but i'm not planning on upgrading to this format. Just not enough of a wow factor.

 

[Robert Harris]

4K appeals more to me as a film*MAKER*. How cool is it to shoot a master and then be able to reframe closeups with virtually no loss in quality? To me, that's the value of UHD: pushing shots.

Not quite no loss. I shoot stills with a Nikon 810 and a SONY A7R ii, as they replicate the 35mm VistaVision format. I've not yet experimented with the Canon.

Those, because of their huge, essentially medium format resolutions, allow reframing, as long as you can keep them in focus.

To enable true reframing, one would have to shoot above 4k, and selectively frame, much as some TV shows shoot Panavision, and then establish their desired image.

 

[Carabimero]

Not quite no loss. I shoot stills with a Nikon 810 and a SONY A7R ii, as they replicate the 35mm VistaVision format. I've not yet experimented with the Canon.

Those, because of their huge, essentially medium format resolutions, allow reframing, as long as you can keep them in focus.

To enable true reframing, one would have to shoot above 4k, and selectively frame, much as some TV shows shoot Panavision, and then establish their desired image.

I was thinking about shooting at 4k, reframing in post and then mastering to 1080. Since everything would be reduced to 1080, would the reframing still be noticeable? Now that I think about it, I can see how it might, since un-reframed shots around the reframed shot could still be noticeable by comparison, even when reduced to 1K.

 

[DFurr]

As a long time film collector, I've never been the biggest fan of digital projection, more specifically the lack of the depth of field. The reason I do enjoy digital projection is the huge diversity of classic titles offered on Blu Ray. My Epson 5010 along with my Oppo 103 puts as sharp of a picture as my eyes can discern. How much "clearer" do you want a picture? I'd rather invest the money required to upgrade to 4K equipment on purchasing classic BD titles, especially 3D disc along with other "gadgets" that makes my presentation a "reel" show!! Truth is some of the DVD titles look pretty darn good and although I've double dipped with Blu Ray, I'll never triple dip buying into the 4K technology. I'm very happy with the setup I currently have.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

They're HD with a pixel shift, which seems to take down, and make the pixels less obvious.

Yes, but the end result is simply not HD, visually and measurably. Or 4K. It's in between.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

As a long time film collector, I've never been the biggest fan of digital projection, more specifically the lack of the depth of field. .

Digital projection is not related to depth of field. Digital origination can be depending on sensor size.

 

[OliverK]

I can only suggest to everybody to check out the new technology from time to time.

Currently one may not find 4k UHD impressive but we still are lacking standards and the only currently available player does a funny thing or two when connected to some HDR capable displays and projectors. Things may look quite a bit better come christmas time when the initial dust has setlled both with regard to hardware AND software.

When it comes to catalog titles and older classics I would not expect too much though - most titles will have limited potential and the titles that have more potential are not available in proper digital form. Movies like Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus or Ben-Hur are the exception, not the norm.

 

[Robert Harris]

I can only suggest to everybody to check out the new technology from time to time.

Currently one may not find 4k UHD impressive but we still are lacking standards and the only currently available player does a funny thing or two when connected to some HDR capable displays and projectors. Things may look quite a bit better come christmas time when the initial dust has setlled both with regard to hardware AND software.

When it comes to catalog titles and older classics I would not expect too much though - most titles will have limited potential and the titles that have more potential are not available in proper digital form. Movies like Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus or Ben-Hur are the exception, not the norm.

There is an interesting library of titles restored or mastered at 4k at all levels.

Work goes back to the concurrent work that Mr. Crisp and I were performing on both coasts, with The Godfathers in LA, and Strangelove scanned in NY.

There is eight years of continuous 4k work since then, with every title available for UHD release.

 

[Allansfirebird]

While I'm excited to bring 4K quality movies into my home eventually, I think it's still too new of a technology to adopt for myself yet. I'm gonna give it a couple years for setup to get easier, and prices to come down a bit for equipment. I've got no qualms about adding to my VHS/LD/DVD/BRD collection .

 

[DFurr]

Digital projection is not related to depth of field. Digital origination can be depending on sensor size.

Depth of field would not be a accurate description of the point I was attempting to make. My point is that what I see on the screen from a digital projector does not have the "look" of depth that film has. Sorry for the incorrect use of the term depth of field.

 

[Chris Will]

I refuse to get into UHD BD until there is a calibration standard.

There is no way to accurately calibrate for HDR and until that happens, I will be waiting it out.

I'd like to hear more about this, there really isn't an accurate way to calibrate for HDR? So, what are the studios using as their basis for calibration when creating the material?

 

[Bryan^H]

I went over and saw a friend's 4K set up. It's nice, but my eyes don't see the jump in quality that I saw from DVD to BD. I can see improvements in dynamic range more than clarity. But I think I'm stopping with BDs too. I will say this: I got the new BD of MY FAIR LADY and the trickle down from the 8K transfer definitely survived to delight me on the BD. Wow. So in that sense, I embrace the new technology, especially when 8K or 4K masters make for better BDs.

I'm getting pulled in that direction as well. I had such a positive outlook for UHD, but that has changed. By the time The Panasonic UHD player launches we should know a lot more about the future of UHD disc VS. UHD Streaming.

 

[PMF]

There is an interesting library of titles restored or mastered at 4k at all levels.

Could you steer me towards a credible link or site that comprehensibly lists the current library of 4K titles?

 

[Mike Frezon]

I think this week's RoundUp lists all of them.

But I'm not certain.

 

[PMF]

Thank You.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Depth of field would not be a accurate description of the point I was attempting to make. My point is that what I see on the screen from a digital projector does not have the "look" of depth that film has. Sorry for the incorrect use of the term depth of field.

Maybe you are talking about the effect of black level? Higher black levels reduce apparent image depth, but are not an issue with all digital projectors, cinema or at home. The Dolby Vision cinemas have superb black levels below any film print and even home cinema projectors.

 

[PMF]

I think this week's RoundUp lists all of them.

But I'm not certain.

Mike,
Maybe I misunderstood. I was wondering if there were a list of BD's from these past few years.
Many on the back covers of the slipcases boast "Mastered in 4K"; but there are also many that are "Mastered in 4K", yet no mention is made on the back cover synopsis.
Anyway, I was wondering if there were a comprehensive list out there that captures each and every BD title that is "Mastered in 4K".

 

[PMF]

Recently discovered at a Best Buy that the much touted Samsung 55/65" panels @ 3-4 grand are now revealing problems after wear.
The color on the sides have shown signs of fading/dimming lights; with the prices going down.
So it seems that Sony's 4K panels remain the best bet, short of one purchasing the OLED.
Meanwhile, if I am reading this thread correctly, RAH is saying that some panels are "faux" 4K's.
"Faux" is for YUCK.
Any votes on the best 4K panel screens?
Meanwhile, I'll keep saving for a projector. Hopefully, by then, we will know more as all gets settled.

 

[KMR]

since un-reframed shots around the reframed shot could still be noticeable by comparison, even when reduced to 1K.

I think you probably meant 2K? (since the "...K" designations measure width, not height...)