Re: S&V article on HD discs. 4k downrez to HD media is better than 2k film telecines. (1 Viewer)

[JediFonger]

a recent article in S&V discussed future HD medias that make 1080p look primitive.

they quoted video essential's ken (laser ken back then) saying that 4k downrez to 1080p looks better than a direct 1080p take off from film.

what do you guys think of that? lowry digital even throws their opinion in about this.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Dah!
Makes sense to me.
Bring it!

 

[JediFonger]

but if the original film element is already "4k", isn't a direct 1080p (2k) telecine equivalent to downrez?

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I can give you a lot of technical talk about passband flatness, MTF, aperture correction, and so on, or you can accept that, due to the particular properties of optical and opto-electronic systems, a down-conversion from a higher-resolution scan has higher image quality than a native resolution scan, under certain circumstances. It's an issue of higher contrast ratio of the fine detail, and it can be described as performing the anti-alias filtering in the digital domain (with sharp-cutoff filters).
This topic has been discussed repeatedly here, and at one point I gave a very detailed explanation.

 

[Dave Moritz]

IMHO 1080 HD formats should be allowed to stick around for a minimum of 10 years or more before we start seeing new formats. I would not be against 20 years before the next format release. Then I wouldn't mind seeing a 4k format to replace the current HD format. I have seen what a really good 4x line double would do for dvd video. Imagine what that would do for 1080p HD video. I would have no desire to upgrade from HD for many years to come. Especially since a large chunck of my current HT is going through a major upgrade.

 

[JediFonger]

what types of thread title could i search under for previous discussions? admins, please merge if you feel appropriate. man we should get more stickies =).

re: another format. imho, i think HD discs are the last POPULAR physical video media. beyond this, i think we'll see more adoption of VOD either on internet or closed service provider networks.

 

[Paul_Scott]

yes, this has already been the source of conjecture as to what we can expect in the future in regards to double dips for what are already seemingly 'perfect' A/V presentations.
Fine detail migrates down, and future 4K transfers, coming at a time when more people will have or are about to have 1080p displays (as opposed to most which I would expect are 720p's now) and that enhanced level of detail will come thru.

of course, there are a lot of other things that could go wrong along the way- The newest Bond SEs are from 4K scans

 

[Michel_Hafner]

The difference between 2K and 4K from 35mm originals is pretty small. There is not a lot new detail on the 4K master compared to the 2K. The main difference is that at 4K you can render the detail with additional smoothness, in a more analogue looking way, without jaggies and visible pixels (generally: aliasing) even when the material is critical (text, straight lines, sharp edges, very fine detail) while upholding the sharpness of 35mm negatives. That's why 4K is the 35mm gold standard in digital cinema. For home cinema it's overkill. With 70mm originals 4K versus 2K reveals also a lot more detail. 2K becomes fuzzy looking in comparison. And 8K would relate to 4K for 70mm as 4K to 2K for 35mm.

 

[JediFonger]

interesting. i don't get why a 2k telecine wouldn't reveal additional smoothness to begin with as opposed to a 4k cap downrez.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

4K beats 2K in StandardDef, let alone HD.
"CK" was a highly praised/reviewed as a 2K transfer SD DVD. However, less than two years later, they (Lowery?) thought they could do much better, with a 4K transfer.
As you say;
"The main difference is that at 4K you can render the detail with additional smoothness, in a more analogue looking way, without jaggies and visible pixels (generally: aliasing) even when the material is critical (text, straight lines, sharp edges, very fine detail) while upholding the sharpness of 35mm negatives. That's why 4K is the 35mm gold standard in digital cinema. For home cinema it's overkill. With 70mm originals 4K versus 2K reveals also a lot more detail. 2K becomes fuzzy looking in comparison."

 

[Ed St. Clair]

As far as DD are concerned, just buy 4K's. ;-)

What's "wrong" with JB?
I believe, you would be speaking about the SD versions, correct?
Thanks.

 

[Brandon Pop]

This makes sense to me, although I've never actually seen a direct comparison between a 4k scan downrez versus a 2k scan of the film print, that this would be true.

Only problem is that not all films are scanned and graded at 4k rez and thus only a limited number of films would ever benefit from this.

 

[Paul_Scott]

To be honest, I doubt much of anything is wrong with them- tho I haven't seen them, it appears some people are having fits over the R2 editions- color timing changes, cropping, etc.
To me, the original SE are so riddled with problems, including nasty compression artifacting and aliasing, that it would be hard for these not be a major improvment.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

One has to be careful here not to mix up technical resolution with methods of achieving that resolution. 4K and 2K look identical as

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Your not saying a 2K transfer from 2K "looks the same on DVD", as 2K transfer from 4K, are you?

 

[Michel_Hafner]

They don't look necessarily the same when the two 2K versions don't. It depends how different the 2K versions (would) look. The point was that 2K defines an upper limit of quality and once it is reached it will look the same as 2K (and DVD) whether the original was 4K, 8K or 16K. When it's coming from > 2K you can expect at 2K less noise and a smoother picture with less/no aliasing but still sharp. Jarhead HD-DVD comes from 1080p which comes from 4K DI. I heard it's often practically noise/grain free. Is it?

 

[Lew Crippen]

I can understand no noise, but why would you want the picture to be grain free?

 

[Michel_Hafner]

I don't want it grain free on principle but film can look practically grain free (if it's shot that way) and then I want it that way and with no digital noise as well.

 

[Brandon Pop]

Film grain has more to do with either, lighting on set or enhancement during transfer. Grain is inherent with the medium and it seems to be more apparent in higher resolution (HD) but there are very expensive devices that reduce the appearance of this grain during transfer and/or DI scans.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Thanks Brandon—I actually do know what film grain is, but my question is, "why is it a good thing to remove the grain?"

If the film is shot with little apparent grain (and the very nature of film means that there is no such thing as no grain), then one would wish to see that represented in the transfer. But on the other hand, if the grain was very apparent in the movie, then it should be equally apparent in the transfer.