werthliving.com


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Coverting movies to consumer formats

  1. #21
    HDJ Platinum Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,144
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked 94 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: PANASONIC INSIDERS THREAD -rumors hints and info!

    werthliving.com

    Quote Originally Posted by MDRiggs View Post
    Yes, it will soften the image slightly, but there will be so much more information on the screen than you can actually see that it won't matter. Unless you have a really huge front-projection screen. And even then ... As SpHeRe noted, the process is essentially the same as is in place now. Do your Blu-rays look soft to you?
    Not sure of the reason for what seems to be a sarcastic question, but, no - Blu-ray does not look soft - at least with some transfers. Other transfers (older) look very soft and remastered releases of these prove it's not necessarily the way the movie was originally filmed. Is this because of older scanners doing work at 2K or because of downscaling algorithms? But to answer your question further : 8 bit doesn't seem too shabby either nor does AVC encoding - but what we are looking for or should be is the potential to optimize the next format and not just settle necessarily on what we have been doing. UHD is going to be less forgiving at the proper seating distance and screen size, as well, just like how Blu-ray can be less forgiving compared to, say, HD broadcasts, etc. Either way, I am just asking questions and digging into how the process is actually being done today.

  2. #22
    HDJ Platinum Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,144
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked 94 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: PANASONIC INSIDERS THREAD -rumors hints and info!

    Quote Originally Posted by MDRiggs View Post
    There would be no need to use 2K as an intermediary. They could crop the 4K and scale directly to 1080p.
    Do you have a source for this, or is this just mere speculation? Logical (and likely) speculation to be sure, but I am trying to find an actual source as to how it's been done today.

  3. #23
    MODERATOR
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,256
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 208 Times in 181 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: PANASONIC INSIDERS THREAD -rumors hints and info!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
    I would like to get confirmation as to how this is actually working within studios today - especially with newer 4K sourced Blu-rays. Are they just scaling from 4K to 1080p, or are they scaled from 4K to 2K and center cut? Or, is it both just depending on the studio or third party company doing the work? Maybe I can ask one of the insiders on the forums that work with studios.
    That's a good question, if you have some contacts to find out I'd be interested to hear.


    Quote Originally Posted by MDRiggs View Post
    There would be no need to use 2K as an intermediary. They could crop the 4K and scale directly to 1080p.
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
    Do you have a source for this, or is this just mere speculation? Logical (and likely) speculation to be sure, but I am trying to find an actual source as to how it's been done today.
    I just can't imagine why they would need to do an extra conversion before going to 1080p. That would seem to defeat the purpose of using as high quality a source as possible, and then downscaling from it, which is usually the goal. It also doesn't make sense to do the 2K as an intermediary in the face of things like Sony's "Mastered in 4k" releases.

    I think it's more likely that most films had a 2K transfer in the first place, so they used it. From what I hear most movies are still 2k releases. They may start life at 4k but when they go though the Digital Intermediary stage it's often at 2K.
    As 4k native masters are slowly becoming more common it seems likely to me that they'll start with that for their home video release.

  4. #24
    HDJ Platinum Club Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    2,683
    Thanks
    54
    Thanked 482 Times in 413 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: PANASONIC INSIDERS THREAD -rumors hints and info!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
    Not sure of the reason for what seems to be a sarcastic question, but, no - Blu-ray does not look soft - at least with some transfers. Other transfers (older) look very soft and remastered releases of these prove it's not necessarily the way the movie was originally filmed. Is this because of older scanners doing work at 2K or because of downscaling algorithms? But to answer your question further : 8 bit doesn't seem too shabby either nor does AVC encoding - but what we are looking for or should be is the potential to optimize the next format and not just settle necessarily on what we have been doing. UHD is going to be less forgiving at the proper seating distance and screen size, as well, just like how Blu-ray can be less forgiving compared to, say, HD broadcasts, etc. Either way, I am just asking questions and digging into how the process is actually being done today.
    Sorry if that came off wrong. Anyhow, I think folks are making way more of the resolution increase than is warranted. It will be difficult -- probably impossible -- to see that difference on normal-size screens at typical viewing distances. If the screen is huge or you're right on top of it, maybe, but it will also depend on the content having very fine detail. So in that regard, UHD is more forgiving than HD, because the image can be softened more before the degradation becomes noticeable. Changes that would yield more readily visible improvements include, in approximate order of significance, use of a larger color space, increased color depth (10- or 12-bit), and perhaps application of less aggressive chroma subsampling. I'm not totally sold on the last, and 4:4:4 certainly would be overkill, but it's possible that going to 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0 would be beneficial.

  5. #25
    HDJ Platinum Club Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    2,683
    Thanks
    54
    Thanked 482 Times in 413 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: PANASONIC INSIDERS THREAD -rumors hints and info!

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
    Do you have a source for this, or is this just mere speculation? Logical (and likely) speculation to be sure, but I am trying to find an actual source as to how it's been done today.
    I don't know whether 2K intermediaries are ever used -- just don't see why they would be. It seems like a superfluous step.

  6. #26
    MODERATOR
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,256
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 208 Times in 181 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: Coverting movies to consumer formats

    Since this topic ended up dominating the Panny Insiders thread for a few days, I figured I'd move it out to it's own thread.
    I don't know about the rest of the guys who ended up involved in this discussion, but it's been interesting and I'd like to know more about the current industry practices, since we know that we either get a 6% resolution down-convert or a bit of pixel cropping. So if people have more info, ideally from people who work in the authoring of the content in the industry, it would interesting to know more.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to SpHeRe31459 For This Useful Post:

    MDRiggs (01-29-2014)

  8. #27
    HDJ Platinum Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,144
    Thanks
    213
    Thanked 94 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    8

    Default Re: Coverting movies to consumer formats

    This was a response I got from another forum by a poster. The insider agreed with it.

    "Well, cropping would be preferable to scaling. A 1.85 2K DCP comes in at 1998x1080, so you'd only have to lose about 78 horizontal pixels for it to 'fit' the HD resolution. Widescreen 2.39 is a little more at 2048x858, so you'd have to crop 128 pixels. (Double those pixel counts for 4K to UHD.)

    As to who's doing what, I don't know for sure; it depends on whoever's doing the Blu-ray mastering and what their personal picture peccadilloes are. Some may prefer to crop, others to scale. But I don't think it's a coincidence that a great many new Blu-ray transfers tend to lose slight amounts of picture info compared to older transfers... "

    Insider:
    "In a word, I suspect most content creators of packaged media deliverables in Hollywood facilities will produce 4K BDs which come from 4K DIs, similar to how they now make 1080p BDs from 2K DIs…..

    Crop."

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DavidHir For This Useful Post:

    CC (01-31-2014), SpHeRe31459 (01-31-2014)

  10. #28
    MODERATOR
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,256
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 208 Times in 181 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: Coverting movies to consumer formats


    Great thanks for that DavidHir.

    The amount lost to cropping would be really hard to detect in the grand scheme of things.

    A few days ago I went through and grabbed some random screenshots from Blu-ray.com of different movies (since they provide full 1080p shots to registered users), and tried to see if I could figure out if any cropping went on (i.e. the aspect ratio wasn't perfectly in a standard ratio). But the reality is with so few pixels missing (78px or 128px), it just wouldn't dramatically affect the aspect ratio to the point where it's actually noticeable.

    I was also noticing something I never really paid much attention to (because again it's effectively a non-issue) which is that a lot of 2.39:1 films are then put onto BD as 2.40:1, I gather because it makes for a nice whole numbered pixel arrangement of 1920x800. This slight change may also help conceal the 128px crop, if used. The other thing that certainly I knew of, but hadn't really taken count of, is that it's become increasingly more and more common to just crop to 1.78:1 for the BD release of newer 1.85:1 movies, so that changes the pixel arrangements anyway.

    My are notes below if interested:

    2.35:1 = 0.426

    2.39:1 = 0.418

    2.40:1 = 0.416 (the rounding to 2.40 for BD is a less than a 1% difference from the 2.39:1 original ratio)

    1.85:1 = 0.541

    1.78:1 = 0.56

    BD advertised as "2.40:1" from an original 2.39:1 source - 1920x800 = 0.416

    BD advertised as "2.35:1" - 1920x814 = 0.424 (somewhere between 814-816px is ~2.35:1)

    BD advertised as "1.85:1" - 1920x1034 = 0.54

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SpHeRe31459 For This Useful Post:

    CC (01-31-2014), DavidHir (01-31-2014)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •