[Dansky+HD]

Just a quick question which I'm sure some if the more astute will be able to answer.

With regard to the upscaling of movies to Blu ray that were maybe made in the 50's to more recently in the 80's 90's etc will the same job of upscaling 1080 HD be able to be done to the higher resolution of 4k and 8k.

Saw the 84inch lg 4k LED TV today it was stunning!!!

[David (2)]

Yes same idea. Just dont expect stunning pics on upscaled current HD or SD. Infact without a source of 4/8k material i dont see much point in having such a screen.

[Chris Frost]

The thing is, film is potentially higher resolution than 4K-8K. In fact, when transferring film to digital files for editing the equipment used can scan at up to 8K resolution. So the idea of "scaling up" film to DVD or Blu-ray is kind of backwards. It's scaled down.

Current film production shot on digital has a resolution of about 4K. That's bound to change in the future. But at 4K it'll match the display resolution of these super HD TVs. The question is, will post production be able to maintain a 4K resolution by the time FX have been added.

[Sexbomb]

I bet if you tried to play a video or DVD on a 4K tv the picture will look horrendous.

[fmradiotuner1]

Wonder how big a film would have to be for 4K and 8K? I am guessing 120GB and maybe 200GB per disc when they are made?
Blu Rays are 25GB to 50GB.

[XxBlaKOuTZxX]

Originally Posted by Dansky+HD

Just a quick question which I'm sure some if the more astute will be able to answer.

With regard to the upscaling of movies to Blu ray that were maybe made in the 50's to more recently in the 80's 90's etc will the same job of upscaling 1080 HD be able to be done to the higher resolution of 4k and 8k.

Saw the 84inch lg 4k LED TV today it was stunning!!!

stunning price too lol

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/lg-84lm...93541-pdt.html

[bobcar]

Originally Posted by Sexbomb

I bet if you tried to play a video or DVD on a 4K tv the picture will look horrendous.

I bet it would look pretty similar to a standard 1080p TV if both are viewed at the same sensible distance/size ratio for such a source.

[Kenny Maclean]

Originally Posted by Dansky+HD

Just a quick question which I'm sure some if the more astute will be able to answer.

With regard to the upscaling of movies to Blu ray that were maybe made in the 50's to more recently in the 80's 90's etc will the same job of upscaling 1080 HD be able to be done to the higher resolution of 4k and 8k.

Saw the 84inch lg 4k LED TV today it was stunning!!!

New Blu-Ray discs offering four times hi-def due out in 2013(appologies for posting a Daily Mail link )

Jaws Blu-ray: New 4K transfer delivers more detail than ever before

[grahamlthompson]

Originally Posted by Kenny Maclean

New Blu-Ray discs offering four times hi-def due out in 2013(appologies for posting a Daily Mail link )

Jaws Blu-ray: New 4K transfer delivers more detail than ever before

The disc was mastered from a 4K source. It's still 1080p24.

If it wasn't nobodys player would play it.

[Kenny Maclean]

Originally Posted by grahamlthompson

The disc was mastered from a 4K source. It's still 1080p24.

If it wasn't nobodys player would play it.

I know, but (in response to the O.P.) i was pointing out that they have made a new 4K transfer from an 80s film.

[David (2)]

even with a source of native 4 and 8k material, on home tvs from 32-42in would there be a significant difference over current HD on the same size screen.....i have my doubts. There isnt much wrong with current HD at regular sizes. Is the move to 4K and 8K just an upgrade that in normal situations the human eye wont see. What is the point in having more pixels if you cant tell any difference in quality, apart from "keeping up with the neighbours". We see this situation already with many people not being able to see much improvement from SD to current HD. Most people i know are in this boat, and they dont think the extra quality is worth paying for (eg SKY + BluRay player).

The only situation where i think we will see a massive jump in quality is with wall size tv's where the screen is big enough to show the limitations of current HD. So that will be outdoor public displays, and people who want a tv in their home that fills an entire wall.

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by David (2)

even with a source of native 4 and 8k material, on home tvs from 32-42in would there be a significant difference over current HD on the same size screen.....i have my doubts. There isnt much wrong with current HD at regular sizes. Is the move to 4K and 8K just an upgrade that in normal situations the human eye wont see. What is the point in having more pixels if you cant tell any difference in quality, apart from "keeping up with the neighbours". We see this situation already with many people not being able to see much improvement from SD to current HD. Most people i know are in this boat, and they dont think the extra quality is worth paying for (eg SKY + BluRay player).

The only situation where i think we will see a massive jump in quality is with wall size tv's where the screen is big enough to show the limitations of current HD. So that will be outdoor public displays, and people who want a tv in their home that fills an entire wall.

If you sit close enough, you will see the improvement any decent quality 4K screen. My 27 inch 1080p computer monitor looks sharper on HD material than my 42 inch HD TV, when both are viewed from my normal viewing distance for each screen.

Also, down scaled 4K TV content may look better on a 1080p screen than normal 1080p material - but the improvement isn't huge (tested that by downloading 4K but admittedly low bitrate Youtube video).

It will hardly be cost-effective to do that though (when Sky start their inevitable 4K channel in a few years time!).

[anthony david]

Almost all current main stream feature films are post produced in 2K format. Camera negative (where still used) is often scanned at 4K but then converted to 2K as this apparently gives a better result than scanning in 2K. The reason being the vast amount of digital storage space and rendering time required for 4K post production, the cost is only justifiable for films such as Sky Fall at the present time. Many cinemas have Sony 4K projectors but at present they mainly upscale 2K files. Prior to digital intermediate post production, most suburban release prints were hardly good enough for HD, some I've transferred were barely good enough for SD! This is why so few classic films are available on BD, even the Broadway/West End prints have deteriorated so you have to go back to pos or neg laboratory intermediates to find the required quality and this is seldom financially justifiable as a lot of post production is then involved. 4K demonstrations will use carefully selected specially shot material, just like the HD demos of a few years ago, so will look perfect. You will need a huge screen to do it justice which will look hideous in the living room for most of the day. I assume some of you are bachelors, you will never get it past your wife/partner/girlfriend!
The Digital Cinema Initiative, Arriflex and Sony Professional sites have useful information on them.

[justjax]

Originally Posted by Dansky+HD

Saw the 84inch lg 4k LED TV today it was stunning!!!

Out of curiosity, where did you see the 4K demo?

[emptybox]

Originally Posted by David (2)

even with a source of native 4 and 8k material, on home tvs from 32-42in would there be a significant difference over current HD on the same size screen.....i have my doubts. There isnt much wrong with current HD at regular sizes. Is the move to 4K and 8K just an upgrade that in normal situations the human eye wont see. What is the point in having more pixels if you cant tell any difference in quality, apart from "keeping up with the neighbours". We see this situation already with many people not being able to see much improvement from SD to current HD. Most people i know are in this boat, and they dont think the extra quality is worth paying for (eg SKY + BluRay player).

The only situation where i think we will see a massive jump in quality is with wall size tv's where the screen is big enough to show the limitations of current HD. So that will be outdoor public displays, and people who want a tv in their home that fills an entire wall.

I don't think you need a "wall size" screen to see the limits of 1080P.
Just display your computer desktop on any 40" 1080 screen and you'll see all the pixels that make up the picture. Makes text look much more jagged than on a smaller monitor.

[anthony david]

The BBC Click programme had an item about 8K TV development in Japan. NHK said that the intended viewing angle was 110 degrees, taking up your entire field of vision. The screen was wall sized and the presenter was less than 2 meters from it, he said it was like looking out of a window and seemed like 3D although it was not. Like genuine IMAX productions, material shot this way would look wrong on normal sized screens, everything would look too small or far away.

[technologist]

Originally Posted by anthony david

The BBC Click programme had an item about 8K TV development in Japan. NHK said that the intended viewing angle was 110 degrees, taking up your entire field of vision. ... .

More Details at http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super_hi/index.html
and also a write up on the Olympics http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researcha...hi-visio.shtml

[Chris Frost]

Huge 4K or 8K TVs would make some sense if the general public could be persuaded that black bars are okay and that all pictures do not have to fill the entire screen.