UHD I compiled a simple list separating 2K uhd blurays and actual 4K blurays (1 Viewer)

[Alan Tully]

It's all a bit complicated. Reading various sites, it's obvious that most people aren't seeing any further than the numbers: 4K better than 2K (in fact twice as good), 8K better than 4K (twice as good & four times better than 2K). Good luck with all that.

 

[Worth]

If a film was shot on film, then 2K is not its full quality. Therefore, I think something is very wrong with 2K DIs, for films that were shot at greater resolution than that. If a movie like "The Martian" or "Exodus: Gods and Kings" is shot in 5K, then a 2K DI is most certainly NOT reproducing that film at full quality. And neither is any movie that was shot with 35mm film. I'm really confused.

Remember, there are two things at play here, especially when dealing with 35mm. There's what the camera actually records on the negative, and there's what you see projected in the cinema. The original negative may contain up to 4K worth of detail, but it's not something you would have ever seen in the theatre prior to digital projection.

Once you factor in generation loss - going from negative, to IP, to IN to release print - a 35mm print isn't any more detailed than 2K. And film projection results in even more loss of detail, once you account for things flicker, gate weave etc. So, you're seeing something sub-1080p with a typical release print.

 

[Robert Harris]

It's all a bit complicated. Reading various sites, it's obvious that most people aren't seeing any further than the numbers: 4K better than 2K (in fact twice as good), 8K better than 4K (twice as good & four times better than 2K). Good luck with all that.

4k is four times the resolution of 2k. 8k, as it applies to large format, is equal to 4k.

RAH

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

How long until we get more than just single digit k? I mean really we need to push this to special k...or imagine triple digit triple k...oops, no that would be kkk...not so good.

OK...I guess that's enough.

 

[Dave Upton]

I recall an interesting conversation @Kevin Collins and I had with Joe Kane and CEDIA back in 2014, before this format was defined. Joe was already concerned that they (studios and hardware manufacturers) were chasing resolution and not color space when defining the HDMI 2.0+ standards. That dire fate has definitely changed somewhat, now that we can look backwards and the alliance made the move to certifying the ULTRA HD PREMIUM standard to require 10-bit signal support (and 10-bit panels), and the BT.2020 color space. That last part is way more significant than the extra pixels, as I personally get a lot more excited about pushing for P3/12-bit panels and color bit-depth than any resolution past 4K.

Don't get me wrong - I love 4K at home, I already purchased a very expensive Sony 4K projector to do just that, however what I really want is the expanded color gamut - because that is far more noticeable to the eye than a few million more pixels.

 

[FatherMurphy]

No. 4k is fine for theatrical, on a huge screen.

Can you see a difference between 8 and 4, under examination? Yes.

But in the real world, it adds virtually nothing.

I disagree sir.
We must push.
I was against digital cinema at first. But after hearing George Lucas champion The format in Keanu Reeves documentary "Side By Side"
I was inclined to agree with him as his argument for the future of digital cinema was essentially:
Shouldn't we help to encourage digital technology push forward since it's the future, instead of hindering its evolution?

I've never looked at it the same since.

but...
Because you're the king...
I'll digress...

We're going to need a bigger screen.

It's as simple as that

4-perf 35mm film is generally thought to have somewhere between 3-4K of real image detail. The law of diminishing returns kicks in very quickly once you get past 2K.

https://library.creativecow.net/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/1

 

[FatherMurphy]

No. 4k is fine for theatrical, on a huge screen.

Can you see a difference between 8 and 4, under examination? Yes.

But in the real world, it adds virtually nothing.

Dear Mr. Harris,
Actually have a question for you on this matter;
Would you like to restore an 8K rescanned negative of your favorite film?

The Alamo I know is a passion project for you.

With with the added detail provided by an 8K scan, the faults of the negative will be doubled...true...but the glory will also be that much detailed.

I've seen my digital photographs , shot between 4000 w x 2800 h on a 1080P monitor, and I can retouch and edit on a 21" screen very wel. Images look fantastic.

But now I shoot at 5500 w x 3700 h...
And while I thought it look excellent as well on my 21"1080P screen,
I then had a chance to work on a 5K 28" screen with the photographs

And it was astonishing.

If I could see that amount of detail and clarity, the colors... The blacks on black and whites....

If I could see that on a 28" 5K screen...
And this is a photograph...

You would be able to do amazing things with those tools I would think.

Do you?

This is a photo from Yosemite last year.

This was what I saw in 5K...

So 8K
Stuffs here by the way.

Http://wescandelaphotography.com

 

[Robert Harris]

Dear Mr. Harris,
Actually have a question for you on this matter;
Would you like to restore an 8K rescanned negative of your favorite film?

The Alamo I know is a passion project for you.

With with the added detail provided by an 8K scan, the faults of the negative will be doubled...true...but the glory will also be that much detailed.

I've seen my digital photographs , shot between 4000 w x 2800 h on a 1080P monitor, and I can retouch and edit on a 21" screen very wel. Images look fantastic.

But now I shoot at 5500 w x 3700 h...
And while I thought it look excellent as well on my 21"1080P screen,
I then had a chance to work on a 5K 28" screen with the photographs

And it was astonishing.

If I could see that amount of detail and clarity, the colors... The blacks on black and whites....

If I could see that on a 28" 5K screen...
And this is a photograph...

You would be able to do amazing things with those tools I would think.

Do you?

This is a photo from Yosemite last year.

This was what I saw in 5K...

So 8K
Stuffs here by the way.

Http://wescandelaphotography.com
View attachment 30235

Beautiful image, reminds me of Mr. Adams' work.

Although we can scan 35mm easily at 6k, oversampling toward work and preservation at 4, when we discuss a 65mm 8k scan, it's actually 4k, with width doubled, referenced as 8.

At that resolution, were capturing everything on the negative, at least for older film stocks.

New Eastman stocks. Good question, but I know someone who can answer.

RAH

 

[PMF]

At any rate, the only circumstance I can imagine an 8K display being a benefit in the home would be if you lived in a castle large enough to accomodate a full-size IMAX screen.

Actually, that's not such a bad idea.
Is there any chance we could all pool our sources together to capture that castle and create an HTF time-share kinda deal?

 

[Dave Upton]

Fine, but I get dibs on the moat design. I've always wanted a moat...

 

[PMF]

Fine, but I get dibs on the moat design. I've always wanted a moat...

The moat the merrier.

 

[Worth]

For now, you could just get one of these, if you have a spare $2 million lying around:

http://www.imaxprivatetheatre.com/en/index.html

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For now, you could just get one of these, if you have a spare $2 million lying around:

http://www.imaxprivatetheatre.com/en/index.html

Wish I did!

 

[PMF]

Beautiful stuff is ahead.
But, if I did have an extra million lying around...
I would split the difference and give half of it to Film Preserve; no joke.

 

[skylark68]

Beautiful stuff is ahead.
But, if I did have an extra million lying around...
I would split the difference and give half of it to Film Preserve; no joke.

Don't get me started... If I won the big Powerball lottery I'd go ahead and see if I could commission a proper restoration of a few films...

To the original topic, the site is helpful for me. It's interesting to me that Exodus: Gods and Kings is a "fake" 4K title.

 

[PMF]

What's even more interesting is that "Exodus: Gods and Kings" is also a "fake" as a film entire, IMO.

And yes, I think its a great site that can only get better and better, as things get clarified.

 

[DavidMiller]

I'm just going to say it now I have 13 UHD disks now I would say that several of the "Fake" ones look better then the real ones. Hancock for example looked no better then the bluray. In fact it would be the worse one of the 13 I own. So this whole fake vs. real stuff is irrelevant if they still do a lousy job.