UHD Are There Going To Be Ulta HD Blu Rays For Ultra HD TV (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

Part of the "great myth" is that pixels have NOTHING to do with resolution. People interchange pixel and resolution, or even say "This has X pixels of resolution"...

Huh?

 

[Scott Calvert]

twice the linear resolution. Four times the total pixel count

As long as we are playing semantics it's really 4x the "linear" resolution as well (if you are not specifying horizontal or vertical). Which is just a fancy way of saying 4x as many pixels...or resolution (despite whatever Shan is talking about).

 

[schan1269]

Yeah, I was in a hurry when I typed that...
The "myth" is that pixel=resolution.
They have nothing to do with each other except marketing stupi...I mean hype...

 

[Scott Calvert]

Yeah, I was in a hurry when I typed that...
The "myth" is that pixel=resolution.
They have nothing to do with each other except marketing stupi...I mean hype...

Why is that a myth?

 

[Vincent_P]

Well, first...
A movie SHOT on a digital camera doesn't need to be SCANNED INTO THE DIGITAL REALM.
Only those movies shot on film do. Pretty much EVERY 65mm movie has been scanned at 4 or 8k. (if you doubt that read up on Galt)
Ben Hur was scanned at 8k. So were the "vast majority" of the "epic" movies.
Part of the "great myth" is that pixels have NOTHING to do with resolution. People interchange pixel and resolution, or even say "This has X pixels of resolution"...

Yeah, I know that most 65mm films are scanned at those resolutions, but most 35mm movies are not. As for your comment re: movies shot digitally, WHAT'S YOUR POINT (since you like to shout)? I was pointing out that even if they are shot at 4 or 5K, they're almost always downrezzed to 2K for finishing, so the final result is still a 2K DI. I never once mentioned "scanning" when it came to digitally shot movies, I was talking about the resolution they are finished at in the DI stage.
Vincent

 

[Scott Calvert]

Yeah, I know that most 65mm films are scanned at those resolutions, but most 35mm movies are not. As for your comment re: movies shot digitally, WHAT'S YOUR POINT (since you like to shout)? I was pointing out that even if they are shot at 4 or 5K, they're almost always downrezzed to 2K for finishing, so the final result is still a 2K DI. I never once mentioned "scanning" when it came to digitally shot movies, I was talking about the resolution they are finished at in the DI stage.
Vincent

I think Schan is deeply confused.

 

[Rick Thompson]

The only problem I see with Ultra HD is the size of screen you'd need to actually see a difference. I don't know if 62" (my screen) would be enough, and the guideline for watching that already has me well over halfway across a family room that's 22 feet long. How big a screen would I need to see a difference, and would I have to sit across the street to view it?

 

[schan1269]

The point is...
People are "confused" when it comes to "mastering a movie" for 4K. Well, it has already been done. They don't need to go back to the movie to create "better than 1080P".
Movies like Ben Hur don't need a new scan if 4K actually makes an appearance. 4K, as of now, is a by-product of being able to do 1080P 3D. Once 4K is no longer a "by-product"...and standing on its own, then a "source" can show up to take advantage. That source would be(as yet un-named) "BD on steroids".
And my point about pixels.
Greater pixel does not create greater resolution. Yet, how often do you hear, especially in still photography, "My camera has great resolution because it is 10MP"???
Way too many times. That is the myth I'm talking about. Pixels equate to greater resolution.

 

[Worth]

I agree with most of the points made in this article:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

...You'd need a 2,160p TV over 154 inches diagonal before you'd be able to see the pixels. On a 4K 50-inch TV, the pixels would be roughly 0.011 inch wide. Where's the crossover where 1080p and 4K become noticeable? It's not exact because of all the above mentioned variables, but suffice it to say at 10 feet, it's somewhere well above 77 inches.
Let's put this in the real world. I sit 9 feet away from a 102-inch screen. At that distance, I can't see the pixel structure of a 1080p projector. If I lean forward a bit, so my eyes are 7 to 8 feet from the screen, I can see pixels on bright images. If I zoom the projector out to fill all 127.75 inches of my 2.35:1 screen, I can sometimes see pixels depending on the projector.
At this extreme size, and seated far closer than most people would feel comfortable, I would probably be able to see a difference with 4K. When I reviewed JVC's DLA-X90R, I sure didn't see an increase in resolution. Admittedly, this is far from conclusive, as there's no native 4K content readily available (and the JVC can't accept it even if there was). If I sat about 5 feet from the screen, I could just make out the pixels. As more 4K displays come available, I'll see if I can find that sweet spot of viewing distance.
So that's the advantage of 4K: you can sit way closer to your television (which no one will), or you can get a way bigger television (also unlikely). When you increase the resolution so significantly (and again, this is all assuming native 4K content, which hasn't been discussed), factors like the contrast ratio, the brightness, and in cases of projectors, the lens and screen material, all become significantly bigger issues.
A few years ago I did a TV face-off with trained TV reviewers and untrained participants with Pioneer's Kuro plasma (768p) against several 1080p LCDs and plasmas. Not one person noticed the Kuro wasn't 1080p. In fact, most lauded it for its detail. Why? Its contrast ratio was so much better than on the other TVs that it appeared to have better resolution. The difference between light and dark is resolution. If that difference is more pronounced, as it is on high-contrast ratio displays, they will have more apparent resolution.

And according to Panavision's VP of Digital Imaging, 65mm IMAX has a real-world resolution of less than 4K:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

The 4K system that most people know is IMAX -- and it doesn't quite make 4K, which is a surprise to people. "How can that possibly be?," you say...When you take the entire system into account - from the lens of the camera, to the the movement of the light through the projector, all slightly reducing resolution -- you wind up with less than the full resolution you started with.
A number of years ago some IMAX engineers - and I don't think IMAX ever let these guys out of their lab again -- did this wonderfully elegant experiment at the Large Film Format Seminar at Universal Studios Imax theatre. They showed this film they made that began with 2 rows of 2 squares: black white, white black, as if you had 4 pixels on the screen.
Then they started to double and double and double the squares. Before they got to 4K the screen was gray. Do you know what the means? There was no longer any difference between black and white, which is what allows you to see sharpness. It's the contrast that we see, not the actual information. Technically, the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) was zero at 4K!
Let's just pretend for a moment that IMAX truly is 4K. You watch IMAX at between one and one and a half picture heights from the screen. But in order to get to appreciate 4K on a regular movie screen, you would have to sit much closer than normal. In other words, when you go to a movie theater, and most of the modern theaters with stadium seating are designed so that the middle of the theater is 2 ½ to 3 picture heights from the screen, for most of us who watch movies, that's pretty where we want to be sitting. Maybe just a little bit closer from some of us who do this for a living, because we're maybe looking for artifacts or issues. If you sit much closer than 2 ½ picture heights, that's what you're seeing, artifacts, not movies!
So if you had true 4K resolution in your local theater, everybody would have to sitting in the first 6 rows. Otherwise they wouldn't see any extra detail. Their eyes wouldn't LET them see it. You know this intuitively from passing by these beautiful new monitors at trade shows. You find yourself getting absolutely as close as possible to see the detail, and to see if there are any visible artifacts. At normal viewing distances, you can't.
So the whole 2K 4K thing is a little bit of a red herring.

And if large-format IMAX isn't even truly 4K, what's the point of having it at home?

 

[Scott Calvert]

The point is...
People are "confused" when it comes to "mastering a movie" for 4K. Well, it has already been done. They don't need to go back to the movie to create "better than 1080P".
Movies like Ben Hur don't need a new scan if 4K actually makes an appearance. 4K, as of now, is a by-product of being able to do 1080P 3D. Once 4K is no longer a "by-product"...and standing on its own, then a "source" can show up to take advantage. That source would be(as yet un-named) "BD on steroids".
And my point about pixels.
Greater pixel does not create greater resolution. Yet, how often do you hear, especially in still photography, "My camera has great resolution because it is 10MP"???
Way too many times. That is the myth I'm talking about. Pixels equate to greater resolution.

I still don't know what the heck you are talking about. I think a lot of people understand (especially on these forums) that there are lots of movies shot on film that have already had 4K digital masters created. I'm not sure what you are arguing here.
And your point about pixels still doesn't make any sense. More pixels=greater resolution, considering whatever source you are using actually contains the information (be it a film cell or digital image capture).

 

[schan1269]

I agree with most of the points made in this article:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
And according to Panavision's VP of Digital Imaging, 65mm IMAX has a real-world resolution of less than 4K:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
And if large-format IMAX isn't even truly 4K, what's the point of having it at home?

Exactly
Because 3D is a fart in the wind...and the CE manufacturers need a "next big thing"...
They invested in 3D, so they need money from the investment.

 

[Scott Calvert]

I agree with most of the points made in this article:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
And according to Panavision's VP of Digital Imaging, 65mm IMAX has a real-world resolution of less than 4K:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
And if large-format IMAX isn't even truly 4K, what's the point of having it at home?

Is he talking about film-based IMAX or digital IMAX?

 

[schan1269]

Is he talking about film-based IMAX or digital IMAX?

Why would that make a bit of difference?
Digital will never catch film in resolution. So, the point is moot.
So, when you digitize film, you always lose resolution.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Why would that make a bit of difference?
Digital will never catch film in resolution. So, the point is moot.
So, when you digitize film, you always lose resolution.

Wrong.

 

[schan1269]

Wrong?
What is wrong?
Film is infinite resolution. So when you "digitize" film, you go from infinite to 8k(at best).

 

[Scott Calvert]

Wrong?
What is wrong?
Film is infinite resolution. So when you "digitize" film, you go from infinite to 8k(at best).

Film is not infinite resolution. The resolution is limited to the visual information created by the silver halide crystals in the celluloid frame.
Now if you are saying 4K or 8K or whatever isn't enough to capture clear images of bacteria emedded in the crystals, then yeah, it's not.
And you still haven't explained what you mean when you say greater pixels does not equal greater resolution.

 

[schan1269]

"And you still haven't explained what you mean when you say greater pixels does not equal greater resolution."
That is because greater pixel has NOTHING to do with greater resolution. Period.
And "film not being infinite"...
Depends on the film. 35mm "mass produced consumer" film is not infinite.
Large format film has greater detail. Large format digital has better color. Which one do you want?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

 

[lukejosephchung]

No less an authority than HTF member/film restoration specialist Robert Harris says that 4k video has more than enough resolution to capture 70mm full-motion film in all its glory, even on a commercial-sized projection screen...just look at what Sony was able to do this year with "Lawrence Of Arabia"...

 

[Scott Calvert]

"And you still haven't explained what you mean when you say greater pixels does not equal greater resolution."
That is because greater pixel has NOTHING to do with greater resolution. Period.

You can keep saying this over and over as many times as you like, and it will still be wrong.

And "film not being infinite"...
Depends on the film. 35mm "mass produced consumer" film is not infinite.
Large format film has greater detail. Large format digital has better color. Which one do you want?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

Film isn't infinite resolution, no matter which format.

 

[schan1269]

It is generally agreed that 4k is enough to get all the information from 35mm. I'm not saying it isn't.
It is generally agreed that 8k scanning is enough for archiving 65mm.
Enough does not mean equal.
Also, why do I have to keep saying "pixel has nothing to do with resolution"?
This...
"PIXELS AND RESOLUTION
Another problem with a message built on "marketing pixels" is that it confuses pixels and resolution. They don't have anything to do with each other. What defines the resolution, quite frankly, is the optics more than the sensor."
Is from this...
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels