A Few Words About A few words about…™ Spartacus - in 4k UHD Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Josh Steinberg]

Giant billboards for advertising, big screens for stadium sports replays and concerts, that sort of thing too.

 

[Kyle_D]

Unless you are watching large format films on a true IMAX screen (i.e. originally designed for 15/70 film projection) at true IMAX viewing angles, I can't conceive of a scenario where 8K would appreciably benefit motion picture content. IMO, there's far more room for appreciable video improvement in the areas of light output, contrast, color sampling/bit depth, compression, and processing.

 

[Robert Harris]

Giant billboards for advertising, big screens for stadium sports replays and concerts, that sort of thing too.

Back c.1989 I was visiting friends in Toronto, and they took me to the stadium. They had arranged to run a few minutes on the Jumbotron. Each pixel was probably an inch, but from 80 or 100 feet away it looked absolutely - okay.

 

[Carlo_M]

A young salesman at BB who seemed, at least, to be caught up on his reading of Sound & Vision Magazine, launched into making a claim about the visual benefit I'd supposedly get from viewing some of the 49 movies that I've gotten on 4k UHD BD so far, by viewing such material on an 8k flat panel like a $7,000 85" Samsung mini LED TV he was pushing. (Yup I know, mini LED is only a TV's back-light scheme) Anyway, the BB associate told me that a high quality, well transferred movie on 4k Blu-ray such as Interstellar, No Time To Die, or "even Spartacus", would look smoother on a high quality 8k TV than it would look on a top of the line 4k TV.

Did the salesperson look and sound a little something like this?
WARNING: Profanity used in the last 30-40 seconds or so, so don't play the video if you're sensitive to that.

Whatever you buy, make sure it has enough quads per channel.

 

[Mike Boone]

4k movies will appear slightly more highly resolved on a 8k flat panel if you’re viewing 18 inches from the screen. Works if you’re also using the panel to get warm.

My Fair Lady was re-finished - all of my files. - in 8k and that’s nice, but the film doesn’t have 8k resolution.

I’ll bet that the panels at BB weren’t calibrated.

No one needs more than 4k. If it’s the same price, great. My JVC projector is 4k with the high-end optics and does 8k pixel shift. Tried it with Lawrence. With my face to the screen and knowing what to look for, I kind of, sorta could maybe see a difference. But it processes the image. Turned it off. Left it off.

Thank you very much RAH, for a quite exacting, as well as entertaining answer.

But I'm old enough to remember back when a little 9 inch black & white CRT TV was a much better source of heat for me than a modern flat panel TV would have been. Because I watched The Bridge On The River Kwai, when it premiered on ABC, with that little TV sitting right in front of me, with it placed right on top of my bed blanket, as I still managed to enjoy what had to be even worse than the definition of a poor man's way of trying to view a fine Cinemascope film. But here's the thing, strangely enough, though that little 9" TV was made by General Electric, it was sold under GE's Hotpoint brand name that was put on various appliances that the company sold. So it seems that the brand name for that TV was perfect, as it gave me heat in my cold bedroom.

So thanks RAH, for making me smile by bringing back that memory of the Hotpoint TV that a dear Aunt had given to me, as I was entering my teens.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Back c.1989 I was visiting friends in Toronto, and they took me to the stadium. They had arranged to run a few minutes on the Jumbotron. Each pixel was probably an inch, but from 80 or 100 feet away it looked absolutely - okay.

I remember back in 1997, I saw U2 at Giants Stadium and they had the first prototype of a large scale LED screen that spanned with width of the stadium - it looked awesome when they had animations of pop art from Roy Lichtenstein, and a little less so with actual live video of the band playing.

Saw them again 20 years later, at whatever they call the new Giants Stadium, and they had an 8K screen that was somehow even larger, showing beautiful footage shot by Anton Corbijn that was stunning in its detail and clarity.

Amazing how far this stuff has come. I would've loved to have watch a movie on that screen after the show.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Also, don't forget/overlook that higher rez allows greater flexibility revolving around cropping/resizing of images, which any still photog knows full well.

Having 8K (or greater) rez doesn't mean you must always only use the full 8K image (as 8K... whether during the shoot or in post or possibly even much later) afterall... though this aspect is, of course, far more limited/restricted and so less desirable (if ever used at all) for motion picture (let alone HT itself) than for stills.

For instance, Nikon mirrorless cameras always leveraged their much higher rez sensors when used for video... whether it's just 2K or even 4K. Even my relatively lowly, ~25MP Z6 makes full use of its ~6K sensor to yield better 4K video than some of their competitors (at least when they first came out, assuming their competitors have caught up in this)...

And of course, this is just speaking of 35mm imaging. There's pretty much always been much larger imaging too, eg. large format(s) and medium format (for stills)... though I haven't heard of (or at least paid attention to) any (commercial) use of large(r than 4x5) format (stills) version of digital imaging sensors.

And actually, it doesn't take a large billboard size application to make meaningful/good use of 8K. A high quality, photographic enlargement to typical poster size could already make use of 8K.

A good photographic print could easily use 300ppi (or higher) afterall -- and everyone should be able to see the diff between 200ppi vs 300ppi... though not everyone would necessarily care. And it only takes 27 inches at 300ppi for an image to reach 8K rez.

Billboards (and typical posters) don't generally need that kind of ("photographic") quality of course, but yes, billboards need to be large enough nonetheless. It all comes down to the actual intended application (and quality expectation), including the particular medium (probably including digital flat panel vs projection in the HT setting).

And of course, at the actual shooting/production end, having the most (feasible) flexibility in rez can often be very desirable (at least) in still photography because you often don't know how exactly the final results will (need to) be used in part because the uses can be quite varied/diverse in that realm (unlike in motion picture)... But even for motion picture purposes, having higher rez (particularly if it comes w/ larger imaging area... like in large format film) can likely allow greater quality even if you don't end up using the images in full native rez, eg. 65mm films downsized to 35mm projection/usage, the whole fine vs distracting coarse grain issue when blown up big, possibly better color depth/saturation capability (certainly in digital imaging anyway), etc.


In any case, I mainly just wanted to make sure some aren't just assuming 8K is never ever needed/relevant for any (real/meaningful) reasons/purposes at all (given what some started to say)... even though, yes, it's certainly not needed/meaningful for practical HT output -- and for that matter, as RAH (often) pointed out, even 4K might not really be that needed/meaningful for most consumers most of the time... though some aspects of the 4K media format(s) itself could benefit even 2K end-results, eg. color depth, compression/encoding, including much higher bitrates, HDR if/when applicable, etc.

_Man_

PS: Oh, and BTW, there's also the (so far unspoken) complication that not all Ks are actually equal (whether 2K, 4K, 8K or more) in the real world, especially in the current state of digital realm -- you already have hints of that from the "some aspects" of media formats mentioned, but there are actually more... some of which even goes all the way back to the original/old notion/tech of how color can be (re)constituted from 3 B&W image elements/channels/whatever-one-calls-it (often, but not always, corresponding to RGB) that most of today's digital imaging tech employ, but we (consumer level) end-users typically take for granted...

 

[Robert Harris]

Also, don't forget/overlook that higher rez allows greater flexibility revolving around cropping/resizing of images, which any still photog knows full well.

Having 8K (or greater) rez doesn't mean you must always only use the full 8K image (as 8K... whether during the shoot or in post or possibly even much later) afterall... though this aspect is, of course, far more limited/restricted and so less desirable (if ever used at all) for motion picture (let alone HT itself) than for stills.

For instance, Nikon mirrorless cameras always leveraged their much higher rez sensors when used for video... whether it's just 2K or even 4K. Even my relatively lowly, ~25MP Z6 makes full use of its ~6K sensor to yield better 4K video than some of their competitors (at least when they first came out, assuming their competitors have caught up in this)...

And of course, this is just speaking of 35mm imaging. There's pretty much always been much larger imaging too, eg. large format(s) and medium format (for stills)... though I haven't heard of (or at least paid attention to) any (commercial) use of large(r than 4x5) format (stills) version of digital imaging sensors.

And actually, it doesn't take a large billboard size application to make meaningful/good use of 8K. A high quality, photographic enlargement to typical poster size could already make use of 8K.

A good photographic print could easily use 300ppi (or higher) afterall -- and everyone should be able to see the diff between 200ppi vs 300ppi... though not everyone would necessarily care. And it only takes 27 inches at 300ppi for an image to reach 8K rez.

Billboards (and typical posters) don't generally need that kind of ("photographic") quality of course, but yes, billboards need to be large enough nonetheless. It all comes down to the actual intended application (and quality expectation), including the particular medium (probably including digital flat panel vs projection in the HT setting).

And of course, at the actual shooting/production end, having the most (feasible) flexibility in rez can often be very desirable (at least) in still photography because you often don't know how exactly the final results will (need to) be used in part because the uses can be quite varied/diverse in that realm (unlike in motion picture)... But even for motion picture purposes, having higher rez (particularly if it comes w/ larger imaging area... like in large format film) can likely allow greater quality even if you don't end up using the images in full native rez, eg. 65mm films downsized to 35mm projection/usage, the whole fine vs distracting coarse grain issue when blown up big, possibly better color depth/saturation capability (certainly in digital imaging anyway), etc.


In any case, I mainly just wanted to make sure some aren't just assuming 8K is never ever needed/relevant for any (real/meaningful) reasons/purposes at all (given what some started to say)... even though, yes, it's certainly not needed/meaningful for practical HT output -- and for that matter, as RAH (often) pointed out, even 4K might not really be that needed/meaningful for most consumers most of the time... though some aspects of the 4K media format(s) itself could benefit even 2K end-results, eg. color depth, compression/encoding, including much higher bitrates, HDR if/when applicable, etc.

_Man_

PS: Oh, and BTW, there's also the (so far unspoken) complication that not all Ks are actually equal (whether 2K, 4K, 8K or more) in the real world, especially in the current state of digital realm -- you already have hints of that from the "some aspects" of media formats mentioned, but there are actually more... some of which even goes all the way back to the original/old notion/tech of how color can be (re)constituted from 3 B&W image elements/channels/whatever-one-calls-it (often, but not always, corresponding to RGB) that most of today's digital imaging tech employ, but we (consumer level) end-users typically take for granted...

Which is why I currently elect to shoot with an a7Riv, which gives me 61 MP to play with as needed.

It’s also why beautiful extractions can be had from the latest 8k “film” cameras from Panavision, Arri et al.

But there is no gain from extractions (blow-up, cropping) on an 4 or 8k flat panel, as what you get is what was dropped into the bucket.

 

[Alan Tully]

I was a bit late to the 4K party. My beloved plasma packed-up & I'd had the new telly (OLED) for a few months before I realized that I was now 4K compliant. The screen isn't that huge, 47" (I can't project, I have a small odd shaped lounge). I haven't looked at any 4K yet, but I have bought a few discs, ones where I thought I'd see a difference, like: Spartacus, Die Hard, Batman & Batman Returns, Alien & a couple of others (& the complete Game Of Thrones, but that was me being unable to resist a bargain). I might have my own little 4K festival this December.

 

[Johnny Angell]

4k movies will appear slightly more highly resolved on a 8k flat panel if you’re viewing 18 inches from the screen. Works if you’re also using the panel to get warm.

 

[JediFonger]

let's not forget most humans have a little bit of vision and hearing loss due to the incredible amount of audiovisual pollution we have today & it continues to increase.

by the time anyone is able to actually afford the equipment we've got even more vision/hearing loss than before. and yes, that's life, isn't it? hahaha

From what I understand, the human eye is barely able to discern the detail in a 4K image. All those pixels in 8K imagery aren't going to look appreciably better.

 

[Robert Harris]

Don’t tell the sales professionals at Best Buy. 8k also necessitates the Platinum extended warranty

 

[dpippel]

Don’t tell the sales professionals at Best Buy. 8k also necessitates the Platinum extended warranty

"Sales professionals"...

 

[ToEhrIsHuman]

Mr. Harris, I assume that you concur that sadly the "footage did not survive"?!

Link possibly NSFW:

Jean Simmons: My Spartacus Beauty

Jean Simmons is my idea of the perfect pin-up. She was curvaceous, sexy and could turn the world on with a million-watt smile. I first met her in a Roman riverbank thanks to AMC (back when classic …

iheartingrid.wordpress.com

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Harris, I assume that you concur that sadly the "footage did not survive"?!

Link possibly NSFW:

Jean Simmons: My Spartacus Beauty

Jean Simmons is my idea of the perfect pin-up. She was curvaceous, sexy and could turn the world on with a million-watt smile. I first met her in a Roman riverbank thanks to AMC (back when classic …

iheartingrid.wordpress.com

I adored Jean. A wonderfully, kind, slightly bawdy lady.

I did find a reference to the nude scene in original neg, but no can in inventory. It was foreign version.

 

[ToEhrIsHuman]

i was about to make a comment about "missing can(s)" but then thought better of it...perhaps a bit too bawdy.

one can only live in hope that somebody perhaps squirreled the footage away for safe keeping in a personal collection to be one day rediscovered. i would assume that had it been up to Mr. Kubrick it would have been destroyed however.

I adored Jean. A wonderfully, kind, slightly bawdy lady.

I did find a reference to the nude scene in original neg, but no can in inventory. It was foreign version.

 

[Robert Harris]

i was about to make a comment about "missing can(s)" but then thought better of it...perhaps a bit too bawdy.

one can only live in hope that somebody perhaps squirreled the footage away for safe keeping in a personal collection to be one day rediscovered. i would assume that had it been up to Mr. Kubrick it would have been destroyed however.

Actually, I believe it was stolen.

 

[ToEhrIsHuman]

Actually, I believe it was stolen.

The plot thickens... Thank you very much for your responses and insight.

 

[haineshisway]

I adored Jean. A wonderfully, kind, slightly bawdy lady.

I did find a reference to the nude scene in original neg, but no can in inventory. It was foreign version.

I, too, adored her. I got to act with her in Beggarman, Thief, a two-part TV movie. I wasn't going to do it - just one scene but the director really liked me and just asked for me - I was about to turn it down, but had enough brains to ask who the scene was with. Jean Simmons was the answer and I said yes instantly. I remember being in her trailer running lines and because I was sort of comedy relief she couldn't keep a straight face with me - so much fun.

 

[mskaye]

I, too, adored her. I got to act with her in Beggarman, Thief, a two-part TV movie. I wasn't going to do it - just one scene but the director really liked me and just asked for me - I was about to turn it down, but had enough brains to ask who the scene was with. Jean Simmons was the answer and I said yes instantly. I remember being in her trailer running lines and because I was sort of comedy relief she couldn't keep a straight face with me - so much fun.

She was also great in an episode of ... The Odd Couple ! Seriously wonderful. Season 3, episode 3 - "The Princess." I saw her as a kid and was charmed by her forever. Now back to Spartacus.