I like Chappie, too. That's the only one out of the bunch I would even consider.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The first 4k Blu-Rays suck
- Thread starter Wag
- Start date
- Status
I like Chappie, too. That's the only one out of the bunch I would even consider.
At least we have a preview of what Star Wars Musou would look like!
It's sad how actual Star Wars movies have some of ILM's worst work. Anyone that actually hired ILM would consider that wookie shot unacceptable. What is that shit.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Quoted for new page because people probably don't know a lot of this stuff.
I think there's a lot of people who believe the jump to 4k blu-ray automatically means all their favorite films are going to look 2x as good as their blu-rays, because OF COURSE studios can just go back to the movie and simply rescan everything the way it needs to be. I'm starting to wonder if it might not be a better use of the space to simply allow for way higher bitrates on the 2k material. Essentially make the discs closer to the equivalent of the DCPs issued to theaters.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Even the non-vfx shots aren't universally finished in 4K. Far from it. Some of the announced titles were even shot in sub-4K. Plus a few of them were shot in 3D and that's gone.
DiscoNaldo
Member
Pineapple Express came out 7 years ago...
For some reason, I'm affected by that.
For some reason, I'm affected by that.
Wow this is worse than i imagined. People were really slow and hard to convinced HD was better than dvd to begin with (when it was incredibly obvious with simple comparisons).. The 4K difference is going to be reallly hard to get, when this time, 2k sources will look super good upscaled on a 4k tv, and most 4k sources will be mixed of different things..
Also i fear about the hd effect bluray had at first. You nkow, when we saw for the first time hd transfers of some movies, and we discovered how grainy and crappy was the iq. In 4K we will now see every shot that is not 100% focused correctly and that's more often than it should be in movies. Also the difference in sharpness between special effects and live footage (not specially gfx being 2k, but gfx being super sharp versus live footage not so much). I remember seeing a 4k Transformer demo that gave me that exact feeling.
Now Fincher movies will look good, for sure
Also, will animated cgi movie be rendered again at 4k ? I guess that's super costly. Anyway I'm firmly waiting for the first dvd beaver comparisons!
Also i fear about the hd effect bluray had at first. You nkow, when we saw for the first time hd transfers of some movies, and we discovered how grainy and crappy was the iq. In 4K we will now see every shot that is not 100% focused correctly and that's more often than it should be in movies. Also the difference in sharpness between special effects and live footage (not specially gfx being 2k, but gfx being super sharp versus live footage not so much). I remember seeing a 4k Transformer demo that gave me that exact feeling.
Now Fincher movies will look good, for sure
Also, will animated cgi movie be rendered again at 4k ? I guess that's super costly. Anyway I'm firmly waiting for the first dvd beaver comparisons!
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Avatar was shot and finished in 1080p. Not 2K... 1080p.
While that can be done, you have to remember HD content for even BD is still limited to some pretty now-antiquated standards. Rec 709 color, 8-bit depth, a gamma curve that peaks at 100 nits luminance.
Even 35mm film captures a much larger color gamut and dynamic range. Same can be said with even many older digital cameras. Hell the sensors in our phones probably have a better dynamic range.
So even if legacy content doesn't always fully saturate where HDR and the other features of UHD are going, that doesn't mean there isn't a significant increase in image quality versus what we are used to.
And the important thing to remember is stuff like color and contrast are actually more important than resolution when it comes to perceived image quality. Especially at the FOV most people vote content.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
It was shot with 1080p cameras, but not in 4:4:4 color like RotS.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Sony has been pushing hard for the major motion picture studios to move to 4K pipeline and finish films with a 4K DI (Digital Intermediate) but the major studios really don't want to spend the money to move their whole goddamn pipeline to 4K after they've already spent more than decade's worth of money getting onto a fully digital filmmaking process all the way from shooting the movie to uploading the film to the server for the theaters equipped with 4K Digital Cinema projectors to download and present.
Movies shot on film can be remastered for 4K, which is why 4K Blu-ray is going to be an incredible format for movies which predate the digital cinema era. Blade Runner was originally made entirely on film,with physical and optical effects and will only look better the higher the resolution gets. Lawrence of Arabia was completely restored and remastered in 4K a few years ago, I've seen it as it's an available movie for my Sony FMP-X10. It's nothing short of mind-blowing. (Yes, I spent the $500 on that thing. It's a 4K media player where you download the movies onto a hard drive since they are way too big to stream. No, I have no regrets.) The Godfather, Goldfinger, King Kong (original, not Peter Jackson's), Dr. Strangelove, and The Wizard of Oz have all been restored and remastered in 4K or higher and will look amazing as well when released.
A few more recent films were made in 4K from camera files to finished picture. I have Elysium on my X10, the movie is crap but it is truly a 4K motion picture which went through a full 4K pipeline with 4K VFX to a 4K DI. Some other movies went through a 4K DI process but VFX were rendered in 2K and upscaled for the 4K DI process, Spider-Man 2 and 3 are examples of this. Live-action shots of those movies are truly 4K, any CG is however upscaled 2K. The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons are like this too.
Real 4K content is, as you say, going to be scarce in the early going. Once they get those 4K remasters going for movies shot on film, there will be many visible benefits. But The Lord of the Rings for example will never look any better than it does on Blu, there's only 2K DI's of that trilogy. Oh well.
exmachina64
Banned
Bravo.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
What's the difference?
Is't 2K actually 1920x1080?
4K is 3840x2160
*edit* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution
I honestly believe that to be a misconception, at least in case of 35mm movies. While it's true that 35mm film theoretically should offer resolution higher than 1080p, all I've seen from movies shot on that film is struggle to get them to appear sharp even in 1080p. Be it the scanning process, camera optics focus or whatever else, that's what the result looks like. Doubly so for older movies where the chemical decomposition has started taking its toll and that were shot on lower quality film.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
edit: nevermind, you caught it already.
Nerdkiller
Membeur
When it comes to Pixar (and probably Disney), it seems like almost a guarantee. If I recall, the BD release of first two Toy Story's were both based off of a 4k render from the render farm of Toy Story 3. Hell, they managed to get Toy Story 1 to render in real time under it.
Other CG movies on the other hand...probably doubtful in DreamWorks' case, given their animation division's financial struggles as of late. Not to mention when doing the 3D re-releases for the first three Shrek movies and the original Kung Fu Panda, unlike Pixar who gave their re-releases a proper 3D render, DreamWorks Passed them on to Legend 3D for conversion work, i.e. converted in the same way flatly shot live action movies do when they're prepped for 3D. So if that's the case for Dreamworks (and potentially a lot of others like Blue Sky), it would seem doubtful outside of Disney.
I don't really think sharpness is that big of a deal when it comes to movies in a higher resolution format. What really matters to me is just how much extra detail we can see from them. If every movie had to be all about presenting sharpness in home media, we'd be seeing a lot more edge enhancement than we already have to put up with.
Agreed. Even Blade Runner itself, it looks pretty soft and grainy on BD most of the time. I'm not convinced it will be that much of an improvement at 4K.
The Godfather was also mentioned. It also looks really soft on BD. It's really going to depend on each movie individually. Being shot in 35mm is not a catch-all guarantee of eye-opening IQ at 4K. Guess they could re-remaster to try and squeeze better video quality out of some of them.
Then there are other movies on BD that are screaming for being remastered again, like 2001. Despite being shot in 70mm, it also look soft as fuck.
PdotMichael
Banned
Nerdkiller
Membeur
It went through a 4k scan and was stuck on disc with a VC-1 encode with a 13.39Mbps average bitrate in an era where the 30GB HD DVD format shared the HD market. Sure, it already looks good, but why shouldn't it be better than what we already have?
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
That's what I meant. You can't see the detail if the transfer looks blurry. Now, stuff shot on 70mm film is another story for sure, but those movies are pretty rare (and as Jett mentioned above, even then there's no guarantee that you'd get perfect transfer from them).
There error in this is assuming resolution is the most important aspect of image quality that UHD offers
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Just give me 4K Fury Road please.
The softness in the current release of 2001 is beyond the effects of a low bitrate. Someone just fucked up somewhere down the chain. During the mastering process, the transfer, the encode, or wherever. It'll probably have to be remastered again, who knows. I don't really know. Probably owes its crap quality to it being an early HD-DVD release, like you mentioned. Honestly, a lot of WB releases from that time look really soft and sometimes downright blurry. I guess people just didn't know what the fuck they were doing back then.
Hah. That's another 2K movie.
Attack on the Clones was shot on a pretty early digital camera, so 1080p was the highest resolution available on state of the art camera tech at the time. Makes the movie look (more) crap now, but it was a pretty big step for digital film at the time.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
You are ruining my hype for 4k.
Nerdkiller
Membeur
I know that. I was just referring to the guy who claimed that Clones was shot with sub HD cameras.
Unknown Soldier
Member
WB likes to use de-graining filters and edge enhancement on their encodes. That's what makes them soft and lacking in texture.
Even The Dark Knight had some EE and grain removal going on, this was totally unnecessary for a Blu-ray which integrated the 70mm IMAX sequences but they did it anyways. Keep up the good work, WB.
Messofanego
Banned
Observe and Report, Eastbound and Down, Prince Avalanche. Tim Orr is damn good.
oh my b
I just watched that Keanu Reeves documentary about digital film on netflix and wanted to look smart
Yeah that's it. The Matrix trilogy is another casualty. I would actually qualify that whole thing as looking like proper shit. I loathe EE and DNR. I don't think they do that anymore, though. Mad Max FR looks pristine at least.
Unknown Soldier
Member
There will always be an inherent softness to the movies shot on film with anamorphic Panavision lenses. Some directors liked Panavision, others preferred Super 35 which has the grainy hard-edged look many people associate with Hollywood blockbusters. Either way, you're seeing the movie as it was intended by the director.
Older movies need recovery of negatives and other footage in the best condition it can be found in and then very extensive restoration has to be done before a new master can be struck. But then you look at a film like Blade Runner, that movie looks like it was shot yesterday on The Final Cut Blu-ray. The restoration work done on that film was amazing. Lawrence of Arabia got the same love.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Dammit.
manzoman96
Member
Talledega Nights isn't in the launch lineup. You done goofed Sony.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Downsampled to 1080p from 4K. Usually studios don't mention it on the package when they do that.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
True, the HDR would be too, but that's also done in some kind of post-conversion on these movies, I think?
The past decade+ of digital filmmaking is doing it.
Usually when judging blurays it's about video and sound quality and how good the mastering job is. It also includes specifics about additional content.
Whether or not the movie is any good is irrelevant, since if you're just basing it on quality you can watch it regardless of format.
Whether or not the movie is any good is irrelevant, since if you're just basing it on quality you can watch it regardless of format.
- Status