Why UHD Blu-rays aren’t actually 4K (1 Viewer)

[PaulGo]

Why UHD Blu-rays aren’t actually 4K | Upscaled
For high-resolution video and TV, 4K has pretty much become the default, but not for long. At IFA in 2018 we even saw companies talking about 8K, and Japan’s public broadcaster, NHK, has promised to film and broadcast the 2020 olympics in 8K
With all these pixels, you might be surprised to learn that most movies and TV shows are still edited at a measly 2K, even for big budget extravaganzas like Aquaman or Avengers. Often, that shiny Blu-ray you bought or the 4K HDR stream you’re about to watch was actually artificially upscaled from normal dumb HD. So what’s going on?

Continue reading...

 

[TonyD]

Oh boy.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Is there anyone on this board who doesn't already know lots of films are finished in 2K?

 

[Tino]

Umm.......Duh.

 

[Mark-P]

And I thought your thread title was referring to the fact that UHD Blu-ray is only 3840 pixels instead of 4096!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

And I thought your thread title was referring to the fact that UHD Blu-ray is only 3840 pixels instead of 4096!

I was waiting for that too!

 

[Todd Erwin]

Move along. Nothing to see here.....

 

[Stephen_J_H]

There are several reasons why its called UHD 4K and not just 4K.

 

[Todd Erwin]

This video popped up in my Google feed the other day, and I kind of had to laugh, but the guy does *finally* make the point that UHD Blu-ray isn't all about the pixels, it's about the quality of them and how well HDR is used to increase depth, color, and contrast.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think the people in charge of branding were really dumb to call it 4K UHD instead of just UHD. If you call it just UHD, you get to define what that means (better colors, better compression, etc) instead of creating debates over whether a master is actually 2K or 4K.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

That being said, it's extremely frustrating that the major studios haven't moved to exclusively 4k workflows.

At this point, something designed to be streamed via Netflix on a 40-inch screen is far more like to be completed at "real 4k" resolution than something designed to be projected onto a 40-foot screen in multiplexes.

What really kills me is when they upscale 1080p content and release it on UHD, like Captain America: The First Avenger. Literally all of the "improvements" are artificially created after the fact.

 

[jcroy]

Wonder how soon anybody will be doing 8K workflows, whether Netflix or somebody else?

 

[Robert Harris]

That being said, it's extremely frustrating that the major studios haven't moved to exclusively 4k workflows.

At this point, something designed to be streamed via Netflix on a 40-inch screen is far more like to be completed at "real 4k" resolution than something designed to be projected onto a 40-foot screen in multiplexes.

What really kills me is when they upscale 1080p content and release it on UHD, like Captain America: The First Avenger. Literally all of the "improvements" are artificially created after the fact.

4k isn’t necessary unless the project calls for it. And 2k works just fine theatrically, especially when projected in 4k.

It’s an added unnecessary expense.

8k, even more so.

Sorry to be the naysayer, but the eyes have it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

4k isn’t necessary unless the project calls for it. And 2k works just fine theatrically, especially when projected in 4k.

It’s an added unnecessary expense.

8k, even more so.

Sorry to be the naysayer, but the eyes have it.

Yeah, I would think adding that kind of expense would cut into the profit margin especially considering how much of a difference it would make presentation-wise for most of us. Furthermore, I seriously doubt many of us could see much of a difference on our displays.

 

[Alan Tully]

I think the 4K legend on the cover of Blu-rays help sales, which is no bad thing. The press release on the new Shout Factory, This Island Earth Blu-ray release says: Brand new 4K remaster of the film from an interpositive. Great, but it won't look any better than a 2K scan, but I'm sure it will help sell a few more copies.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Yeah, I would think adding that kind of expense would cut into the profit margin especially considering how much of a difference it would make presentation-wise for most of us. Furthermore, I seriously doubt many of us could see much of a difference on our displays.

Well obviously not if the human eye can't even see 4k as has been pointed out here several times by others already.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Well obviously not if the human eye can't even see 4k as has been pointed out here several times by others already.

Speak for yourself - I can see at least 378 Ks, maybe more!!!

 

[Alan Tully]

Well obviously not if the human eye can't even see 4k as has been pointed out here several times by others already.

Ha, well my 68 (soon to be 69) year old eyeballs certainly aren't 4K, I'd be surprised if they were even 2K by now.

 

[jcroy]

At times I wonder if the 8K "marketing" has more to do with something being a "status symbol", than anything technical based or practical reality. Basically something to attract first adopters for bragging rights among other technical nerdy/geeky types.

 

[Robert Harris]

At times I wonder if the 8K "marketing" has more to do with something being a "status symbol", than anything technical based or practical reality. Basically something to attract first adopters for bragging rights among other technical nerdy/geeky types.

I can see a use for 8k in medical technology. Possibly.