werthliving.com


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Coverting movies to consumer formats

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

    Default Coverting movies to consumer formats

    werthliving.com

    Quote Originally Posted by SpHeRe31459 View Post
    Technically correct. 4k refers to the DCI standards for theatrical digital cinema exhibition.

    However, 1080p (1920x1080) is the consumer format equivalent to the 2k DCI (2048x1080) format specs as Ultra HD (3840x2160) is to 4k DCI (4096x2160), so they're very similar in resolution (just different aspect ratio combinations). Of course this ignores the other issues, like DCI is much higher quality, it uses very different compression and higher chroma sampling than the consumer formats, but that's outside the scope of the raw resolution comparison.

    Really, if we follow the existing conventions, we should be calling UltraHD 2160p.

    It's pretty clear the marketers think 4k sounds better than the official term of "Ultra HD", which I can't say I blame them, UHD still sounds like it might be some kind of a gimmick enhancement to a normal 720p/1080p TV (ala Quatron, etc.).
    So was it a cost issue not to implement true 4K? Make it UHD kind of like 2K vs 1080p?

    Also, how will 4K content be handled? Joe Kane was saying it has to be either downsampled or cropped to fit UHD. Not sure how they handle 2K for Blu-ray today - cropped slightly to fit the resolution?

  2. #2
    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
    Why didn't they just make these displays actual 4K and call it a day?

    Also, how is actual 4K content going to be handled for all of these UHDs? Joe Kane was talking about this recently too. Actual 4K content will have to be downscaled or slightly cropped to fit the pixel resolution of UHD. Which will it be? I rather see it slightly cropped, or better yet, let's have actual 4K displays!
    The problem is there is no consumer 4k, 4k is a DCI standard that encompasses two aspect ratios (2.35:1 and 1.85:1), neither of which is 16:9, which is crucial for compatibility with the established consumer HDTV format. So to show DCI movies without any kind of scaling you'd need a 2.35:1 native display, but then there would be the dreaded black bars for 1.85:1 movies, and even bigger ones for existing 16:9 HD content. This is fine for cinemas which use projectors and they use masking for different ratios, but not so good for the average Joe and his new TV.

  3. #3
    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
    So was it a cost issue not to implement true 4K? Make it UHD kind of like 2K vs 1080p?
    You posted this as I was replying to your other comment.
    As I said, it seems to me that it's the compatibility with the consumer standard 16:9 aspect ratio, not really cost related.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
    Also, how will 4K content be handled? Joe Kane was saying it has to be either downsampled or cropped to fit UHD. Not sure how they handle 2K for Blu-ray today - cropped slightly to fit the resolution?
    Think of how it is today. We don't get cropped Blu-rays, we get them presented for 16:9 (scaled slightly) with the appropriate width black bars on the tops or sides depending on the aspect ratio. This would be no different when preparing UHD movies from a 4k source.

  4. #4
    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
    So was it a cost issue not to implement true 4K? Make it UHD kind of like 2K vs 1080p?

    Also, how will 4K content be handled? Joe Kane was saying it has to be either downsampled or cropped to fit UHD. Not sure how they handle 2K for Blu-ray today - cropped slightly to fit the resolution?
    This really all has to do with aspect ratios, and the solutions are the same as now. Essentially all mainstream movies made today are either 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. The 1.85:1 ratio is nearly the same as the 1.78:1 ratio of 16:9 displays. Near as I can tell, these films are usually transferred to HD video with a small amount of zoom (cropping) to make them 1.78:1, though I have seen some that were letterboxed, with tiny bars at the top and bottom. (The latter may actually be more common than I think -- not something I normally focus on -- because so many TVs overscan slightly be default, which would make the mismatch invisible.) The 2.35:1 features are letterboxed, so you get bars at the top and bottom. No reason for any of this to change.

  5. #5
    Casual HD User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MDRiggs View Post
    I think you can count on all 16:9 "4K" displays having 3840 x 2160 pixel arrays.


    "Full HD" is marketing-speak for 1080p.
    I think you're right it will most likely be 3840 x 2160 (UHD).
    Sadly this means that recorded movies at DCI 4K (4096 x 2160) will have to be rescaled slightly to fit in 3840x2025 meaning not a 1:1 transfer and a border of 135 pixels heigh. (68 top, 67 bottom)

  6. #6
    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 geert_d View Post
    I think you're right it will most likely be 3840 x 2160 (UHD).
    Sadly this means that recorded movies at DCI 4K (4096 x 2160) will have to be rescaled slightly to fit in 3840x2025 meaning not a 1:1 transfer and a border of 135 pixels heigh. (68 top, 67 bottom)
    Or they could be very slightly cropped which would maintain the 1:1 transfer.

  7. #7
    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
    Or they could be very slightly cropped which would maintain the 1:1 transfer.
    Don't say that, why would you want cropping? OAR please.

    Furthermore as we have said, there is no reason for it, will just be scaled slightly. Just as its now with 1080p movies. The resolution change doesn't suddenly change the way movies are prepared for home video release. The differences in aspect ratios are the same before.
    Last edited by SpHeRe31459; 01-24-2014 at 12:39 AM.

  8. #8
    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 geert_d View Post
    I think you're right it will most likely be 3840 x 2160 (UHD).
    Sadly this means that recorded movies at DCI 4K (4096 x 2160) will have to be rescaled slightly to fit in 3840x2025 meaning not a 1:1 transfer and a border of 135 pixels heigh. (68 top, 67 bottom)
    FYI: Your scaling numbers aren't correct. It actually isn't as bad as that because of the way they designed the format.

    The DCI standard did something pretty cool, they have two aspect ratios that needed to put into a standardized video container, so there had to be a slight give and take on the pixel arrangement. Look at the actual pixel resolutions for 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. 1.85:1 movies uses the full vertical resolution of 1080 (2k) or 2160 (4k), while they do not use the entire width (1998px for 2k or 3996px for 4k). Conversely, 2.35:1 movies use the full horizontal resolution of 2048 (2k) or 4096 (4k), but because of being slightly wider they do not use the full vertical resolution (858px for 2k or 1716px for 4k).

    So the DCI standard picked an in-between native pixel ratio (~1.9:1) for their a container, one that would acceptably contain both standard theatrical ratios without too much resolution loss for any given one.

    If you look the resolution of a 1.85:1 movie is darn near the resolution of the consumer format equivalent:
    2K Flat (1.85:1) presentation 1998x1080 (very close to Full HD 1920x1080)
    4k Flat (1.85:1) presentation 3996x2160 (very close to Ultra HD 3840x2160)

    So the amount of scaling would be very minimal.

    As MDRiggs pointed out the aspect ratio of 1.85:1 is so close 16:9 (1.78:1) it's often cropped to it or [even better] the film matte is opened up just slightly to make the 16:9 shape when it's released on Blu-ray.
    Last edited by SpHeRe31459; 01-24-2014 at 02:47 PM. Reason: Fixed number transposition

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

    cajieboy (01-24-2014), geert_d (01-24-2014)

  10. #9
    HDJ Platinum Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    222
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 34 Times in 26 Posts
    Rep Power
    5

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

    4k Flat (1.85:1) presentation 3996x2160 (very close to Ultra HD 3048x2160)
    About a 30% difference on the Horizontal so not that close. But most directors plan shots so losing a bit on the sides is of little consequence.

  11. #10
    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 SpHeRe31459 View Post
    Don't say that, why would you want cropping? OAR please.

    Furthermore as we have said, there is no reason for it, will just be scaled slightly. Just as its now with 1080p movies. The resolution change doesn't suddenly change the way movies are prepared for home video release. The differences in aspect ratios are the same before.
    But how much resolution are we losing with scaling? This is Joe Kane's concern.

  12. #11
    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 geert_d View Post
    I think you're right it will most likely be 3840 x 2160 (UHD).
    Sadly this means that recorded movies at DCI 4K (4096 x 2160) will have to be rescaled slightly to fit in 3840x2025 meaning not a 1:1 transfer and a border of 135 pixels heigh. (68 top, 67 bottom)
    Unless DCI 4K is based on rectangular, rather than square, pixels, 4096 x 2160 works out to an aspect ratio of about 1.9:1. Not sure how they arrived at that odd-duck ratio, but it's a reasonable fit to 1.85:1 (with a little masking in cinema presentation), and I guess they still shoot 2.35:1 with anamorphic lenses. In any event, I think the strategy will remain what it is today, with either slight cropping or slight letterboxing, which will require scaling. (And unless you have a projector with an anamorphic lens, 2.35:1 will always require scaling either in the player or the display.) The alternative is to go to wider screens for TVs, which is not generally going to be a good idea, if only because you then wind up stretching or pillarboxing all broadcast TV. When scaling is required, it will be of exceedingly high quality on the transfer side, and since you can't come close to fully resolving 4K visually on anything other than a huge screen (big front projection) or at ridiculously close range, you'll never see any difference as a result anyway.
    Last edited by MDRiggs; 01-24-2014 at 01:34 PM. Reason: Correcting myself.

  13. #12
    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
    But how much resolution are we losing with scaling? This is Joe Kane's concern.
    But it's a moot point, we're loosing proportionally the same resolution right now with 2k to 1080p.

    It's really not that big of a deal, it's still very high quality. Again you're getting hung up on something that no one had an issue with for 1080p, so I'm not sure now that it's suddenly relevant. It simply a matter of scaling the image to fit a 16:9 shape. That's how it's always been done for home video formats. Either way what we're getting is comparatively high resolution as a consumer.

    Kane's bigger concerns aren't about resolution in-and-of-itself, rather the fact that the consumer formats use pretty poor chroma subsampling and only store color data as 8-bits, so a simple pixel increase to UHD from Full HD still doesn't solve the key issues he has with the consumer formats.

    http://www.highdefjunkies.com/conten...ate-of-UltraHD

    Since DCI movies are shipped on big encrypted hard drives, space isn't an issue, DCI specs use higher quality chroma subsampling, 10 or 12-bits per color, and very low compression in the form of individual frames being stored as JPEG 2000 images. That's an order of magnitude less compressed than we can even imagine on the consumer side.
    Last edited by SpHeRe31459; 01-24-2014 at 01:27 PM.

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

    MDRiggs (01-24-2014)

  15. #13
    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 best View Post
    About a 30% difference on the Horizontal so not that close. But most directors plan shots so losing a bit on the sides is of little consequence.
    UHD is 3840 x 2160. I think he just transposed some numbers accidentally (typing 3048 instead of 3840). So the difference really is very small.

  16. #14
    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 MDRiggs View Post
    UHD is 3840 x 2160. I think he just transposed some numbers accidentally (typing 3048 instead of 3840). So the difference really is very small.
    Yep I transposed... I fixed it in my original post. And yes the difference is rather small 3996px vs. 3840px. A difference of 4%.

    Similarly, a 2.35:1 resolution movie never uses the full vertical resolution of the DCI nor the consumer formats, but it does use the entire width for both respective formats. So for a 2.35:1 movie the difference between 4096 and 3840 is a difference 7%.

    So really it's hardly a big deal, we loose, let's round up and say, 5%-10% of the resolution when scaled from DCI to it's consumer equivalent. Can you detect a difference in 10% of 2 million pixels (Full HD) or, even harder, in 8 million pixels (Ultra HD)?

    For example: having overscan turned on in a TV set makes a 5%-10% (depending on the TV) change in the image, but I'd hardly call a TV with overscan on less sharp. Sure we know it's technically a bad idea, but you'd be hard pressed to see it without a side-by-side up-close comparison.

    And as I pointed out Joe Kane isn't really all that concerned about resolution for resolution's sake. He's interested in the actual data of the pixels getting more accurate due to better data sampling (higher resolution chroma subsampling, deeper bitdepth, wider color gamut).
    Last edited by SpHeRe31459; 01-24-2014 at 03:02 PM.

  17. #15
    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 SpHeRe31459 View Post
    But it's a moot point, we're loosing proportionally the same resolution right now with 2k to 1080p.

    It's really not that big of a deal, it's still very high quality. Again you're getting hung up on something that no one had an issue with for 1080p, so I'm not sure now that it's suddenly relevant. It simply a matter of scaling the image to fit a 16:9 shape. That's how it's always been done for home video formats. Either way what we're getting is comparatively high resolution as a consumer.

    Kane's bigger concerns aren't about resolution in-and-of-itself, rather the fact that the consumer formats use pretty poor chroma subsampling and only store color data as 8-bits, so a simple pixel increase to UHD from Full HD still doesn't solve the key issues he has with the consumer formats.

    http://www.highdefjunkies.com/conten...ate-of-UltraHD

    Since DCI movies are shipped on big encrypted hard drives, space isn't an issue, DCI specs use higher quality chroma subsampling, 10 or 12-bits per color, and very low compression in the form of individual frames being stored as JPEG 2000 images. That's an order of magnitude less compressed than we can even imagine on the consumer side.
    The issue with 4K being scaled is a big concern of Joe Kane because of how it would mathematically be accomplished. He says it "destroys" the 3840 system. When you try to scale every 106 lines (4K) into 100 (UHD), it will soften the image.

    Take a look at this at 8:50.

    http://www.avsforum.com/t/1471727/joe-kane-on-4k
    Last edited by DavidHir; 01-24-2014 at 03:48 PM.

  18. #16
    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!

    Just to add regarding 1080p, he says (and I have heard this before) studios are using 2K transfers (which scale nicer from 4K - at least when a movie is scanned at 4K) and do center cuts to preserve more resolution vs scaling from 4K to 1080p. So, we are already losing a bit of picture information along the sides.

  19. #17
    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
    The issue with 4K being scaled is a big concern of Joe Kane because of how it would mathematically be accomplished. He says it "destroys" the 3840 system. When you try to scale every 106 lines (4K) into 100 (UHD), it will soften the image.

    Take a look at this at 8:50.

    http://www.avsforum.com/t/1471727/joe-kane-on-4k
    I fail to understand how this is any different than doing a 2k DCI to 1080p conversion. It's already a "problem" with 1080p transfers. Since it's about the other theatrical aspect ratios and fitting in 16:9, regardless of resolution. 4k DCI isn't suddenly unique, 2k DCI already had the same issues.

    I fail to understand the big issue with a 6% downscale, when it's already done for 2k DCI to 1080p. At 12:32mins in the video he says he made 2k to 1080p conversion examples that demonstrate it, I'd like to see that.

    So again, he considers the 6% downscale detrimental (regardless of resolution - 2k to 1080p or 4k to 2160p), I must say we keep seeing stunning BD transfers of movies, so I think Kane may be overstating the image loss and/or every recent movie by all studios has been center-cut by 6% (which I admit is possible, we'd hardly miss it). Kane's a perfectionist (which I understand and appreciate), but he also known for being a bit pedantic.

    I guess I just find it interesting this is suddenly an issue, when it's always been one. Changing resolutions from 1080p to 2160p doesn't really change anything about this issue. So why the cries like this is unique to Ultra HD?

  20. #18
    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 SpHeRe31459 View Post
    I fail to understand how this is any different than doing a 2k DCI to 1080p conversion. It's already a "problem" with 1080p transfers. Since it's about the other theatrical aspect ratios and fitting in 16:9, regardless of resolution. 4k DCI isn't suddenly unique, 2k DCI already had the same issues.

    I fail to understand the big issue with a 6% downscale, when it's already done for 2k DCI to 1080p. At 12:32mins in the video he says he made 2k to 1080p conversion examples that demonstrate it, I'd like to see that.

    So again, he considers the 6% downscale detrimental (regardless of resolution - 2k to 1080p or 4k to 2160p), I must say we keep seeing stunning BD transfers of movies, so I think Kane may be overstating the image loss and/or every recent movie by all studios has been center-cut by 6% (which I admit is possible, we'd hardly miss it). Kane's a perfectionist (which I understand and appreciate), but he also known for being a bit pedantic.

    I guess I just find it interesting this is suddenly an issue, when it's always been one. Changing resolutions from 1080p to 2160p doesn't really change anything about this issue. So why the cries like this is unique to Ultra HD?
    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.

  21. #19
    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
    The issue with 4K being scaled is a big concern of Joe Kane because of how it would mathematically be accomplished. He says it "destroys" the 3840 system. When you try to scale every 106 lines (4K) into 100 (UHD), it will soften the image.
    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?

  22. #20
    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
    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.
    There would be no need to use 2K as an intermediary. They could crop the 4K and scale directly to 1080p.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •