4K - Too Lifelike?

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

The shops are starting to have demo 4K TV's in them now showing off breathtaking views of the Grand Canyon/helicopter flights through city centres or close up of Lions and Tigers (sorry love that link!)

So 4K for natural history programs seems great and I guess this is the same argument I have against Blue-Ray....but for the eventual action movies?....

Will it be too realistic and spoil the film?....36mm films old skool stylee seem to have some 'magic' that evaporates when watched in ultra ultra high def etc....

Are you looking forward to Die Hard 8 in 4K?

So, 4K and 35mm are somewhat comparable in effective resolution. 4K definitely better, especially when you consider prints of prints. But, I don't recall anyone really complaining about too much resolution in 70mm films, which (were) as good or better than 4K. Soft focus lenses can work wonders on ageing actors when necessary.

I have heard people complain about excessive realism at 2K HDTV, but, it isn't watching actors, it is watching baseball players sweating.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that the TVs you are seeing are running at 120Hz or 240Hz which utterly destroys the look of a movie. Have you ever seen an IMAX movie? IMAX equates to about 6K yet it still looks movie-like. There also might be sharpening and other processing done by the TV that makes it 'pop' in a show room even though it butchers the original look of the footage in the process.



4K and 5K are starting to be used a bit but the finishing is still typically done at 2K. They shoot at a higher resolution so they can reframe in post, get extra pixels for FX work, etc.,. For what it's worth 35mm film is somewhere between 3K-4K but is typically transfered to digital at 2K for budget reasons.

I'm not quite following you, but, I have seen flat-looking effects where there wasn't enough effort spent on textures. Sort of half-textured; it looks flat but still textured, like some video games. It looks strange when you see actors in full-res with a semi-flat scene behind.

It is the frame rate. My seiki 4k TV does not look life-like at all (running at 30Hz). But my friends 1080P 120Hz TV did have that weird "everything looks glossy like a commercial" feel to it.

Can you give me a TV product line that looks like this?

 

[simon48]

I'm just hoping 4k at 60fps becomes the standard. 24-30fps is just not enough, especially at theaters.

 

[Bishope1999]

I'm just hoping 4k at 60fps becomes the standard. 24-30fps is just not enough, especially at theaters.

24fps gives movie a certain look. It's fine for those few movies in which the director wants to film at 48fps or 60fps to enhance the 3D I guess, but it would be a shame if other films took that route. 24fps is perfectly fine for films.

 

[Bishope1999]

The high budget films are shot in 4k because they need different cameras. As said 35mm can be transferred easier to 4K because it has more detail. This is why they can take all of the older negatives and rescan them into 4K.

If you took 1080p and looked at it through a true 4k screen it would look like crap. 1080 looks awful on a true hi-res screen. It is like watching I love Lucy on an HD screen vs something on Blue Ray on a 4K screen.

Speaking of I Love Lucy, it will be getting a Blu-ray release. Most likely at a 4k scan since it was filmed in 35mm.


Blu-ray won't look very good on a 4k tv, but it will upconvert better than the 480i DVD's did, they won't look as bad. Maybe they will look somewhat similar to playing 720p content on a 1080p tv Thankfully, the BDA is preparing for 4k Blu-ray, so the transition from 2k/1080p to 4/2160p will be faster than the transition from SD to HD.

 

[cube]

I'm just hoping 4k at 60fps becomes the standard. 24-30fps is just not enough, especially at theaters.

If you want video, watch soap operas at home.

 

[simon48]

24fps gives movie a certain look. It's fine for those few movies in which the director wants to film at 48fps or 60fps to enhance the 3D I guess, but it would be a shame if other films took that route. 24fps is perfectly fine for films.

At 24fps the lack of smoothness is really noticeable at theaters. You have someone onscreen fairly close running across the screen it gets really bad.

If you want video, watch soap operas at home.

What!?

 

[Bishope1999]

At 24fps the lack of smoothness is really noticeable at theaters. You have someone onscreen fairly close running across the screen it gets really bad.



What!?

But it will change the look of movies. It will more feel like you're watching a live broadcast instead of a movie. The example he gave is a bit accurate. If the frame rate is increased to 60fps, it will look more like a soap opera than a film. The increase frame rate may work well for 3D, i don't know, but as far as 2D goes, 24fps is the best experience.

 

[cube]

But it will change the look of movies. It will more feel like you're watching a live broadcast instead of a movie. The example he gave is a bit accurate. If the frame rate is increased to 60fps, it will look more like a soap opera than a film. The increase frame rate may work well for 3D, i don't know, but as far as 2D goes, 24fps is the best experience.

No, the first Hobbit in IMAX HFR 3D was a horrible experience, as expected, even if I go to IMAX and 3D whenever I can.

It might work for non-realistic animated movies.

 

[Bishope1999]

No, the first Hobbit in IMAX HFR 3D was a horrible experience, as expected, even if I go to IMAX and 3D whenever I can.

It might work for non-realistic animated movies.

Oh ok. That's what I figured but I never saw that film.

 

[cube]

Oh ok. That's what I figured but I never saw that film.

I read that consciousness seems to work at 40 moments per second, and apparently this is where HFR is getting in trouble.

 

[simon48]

I read that consciousness seems to work at 40 moments per second, and apparently this is where HFR is getting in trouble.

Is makes no sense and the human eye can see a lot faster then that.


I don't understand why so many people don't want higher frame rate films. I looks so much better. People keep saying it looks too real, this is the most short sighted and undescriptive response. They said color film looked too real. Why is 3D a thing if people don't want films to look more realistic? A 2D IMAX movie at 60 fps would look awesome!

 

[LethalWolfe]

I don't understand why so many people don't want higher frame rate films. I looks so much better. People keep saying it looks too real, this is the most short sighted and undescriptive response. They said color film looked too real. Why is 3D a thing if people don't want films to look more realistic? A 2D IMAX movie at 60 fps would look awesome!

It's subjective. Is a photograph better than an painting because the photograph looks more real?

 

[simon48]

It's subjective. Is a photograph better than an painting because the photograph looks more real?

That's not a fair comparison at all. All I'm changing is frame rate and you are changing mediums. A lot of what you appreciate in a painting is different then in a photograph.

 

[cube]

Is makes no sense and the human eye can see a lot faster then that.


I don't understand why so many people don't want higher frame rate films. I looks so much better. People keep saying it looks too real, this is the most short sighted and undescriptive response. They said color film looked too real. Why is 3D a thing if people don't want films to look more realistic? A 2D IMAX movie at 60 fps would look awesome!

It is not about what the eye can see, but about perception of reality.

Above 40 moments per second, there would be no suspension of disbelief it seems.

Some people might have this mechanism impaired, and that's why HFR might look better to them. They might not be really enjoying traditional cinema the way it's supposed to. An alternative would be that they can enjoy it, but they can also suspend disbelief in the real world because of playing too many video games, for example.

 

[LethalWolfe]

That's not a fair comparison at all. All I'm changing is frame rate and you are changing mediums. A lot of what you appreciate in a painting is different then in a photograph.

So a painting meant to look as real as possible vs an impressionist painting. It's still 100% subjective as to which one is 'better'.

For a century people have been condition to expect movies to have the look/motion characteristics of being recorded at 24 frames per second with a 180 degree shutter so when you drastically alter that it's no surprise that people would react negatively to it.

It is not about what the eye can see, but about perception of reality.

Above 40 moments per second, there would be no suspension of disbelief it seems.

I hadn't heard that before. Kinda like an 'uncanny valley' but for perception of motion.

 

[cube]

Or maybe the people who like HFR are the same consumers that think a photo is good if everything is sharp.

 

[phrehdd]

The situation with "HD" movies is often confusing to many.

1) Frame rate - typical movies on blu ray are 24 fps. This could change as we are seeing movies done with faster frame rates which has less blur but for some it looks un-natural.

2) More screen pixels doesn't equal always sharper. It really depends on the original medium and how it is transferred as well as depth of field when shot.

3) While plasma in general can play 24 fps in a more natural looking state, most TVs sold are not plasma. LCD as example has to do various forms of interpolation and at times ends up with the soap opera effect. HD TVs again, can be subject to a similar experience and it would be even more noticeable. If the HD TV was playing HD video at 24 fps (if original media was 24 fps) one might have a sharper clearer image.

There are several things to consider and it is not just more pixels means better. One has to 'pay attention to the man behind the curtain' or rather, pay attention to everything that comes before the HD TV to get the most out of the TV. For me, I am very happy with 1080p when done well at 24 fps on a plasma. It gives me a very nice movie experience and regular TV at its usual 720p and 1080i upconverted to 1080p also looks fine.

For those wanting higher def imaging, enjoy it all when it comes out in full force. Just be aware of one thing - we already have seen that both DVD and Blu Ray "transfers" can at times suffer. While the studios were busy with their greed and forcing us into a locked world of HDMI, they did nothing to create a standard of quality of transfer to those mediums. Nothing worse than buying a disc only to find it is crap because of no standards set forth. Yes, I do blame the studios for not approaching this form of customer good will.

 

[cube]

Not properly labelling a screening as HFR or non-HFR is making some people not to go because we don't know what we are getting.

 

[djtech42]

The problem with getting a 4K set right now is the technology will be obsolete by the time 4K content is actually available.

 

[SactoGuy18]

A couple of comments about Ultra HD, as 4K TV is now officially known:

1. DO NOT get an Ultra HD TV set if it does not sport HDMI 2.0 connections. HDMI 2.0 may be necessary when the successor to the Blu-ray disc and the new Ultra HD broadcast standard being worked on by the Advanced Television Standards Committee (ATSC) arrives in the 2015-2016 time frame.

2. Many movies are shot with 4K cameras nowadays. Peter Jackson uses 4K 48-frame per second 3-D cameras to shoot the three Hobbit movies, movies that can be a bit unnerving to watch because at 48 fps, it has a "videotape" look people are not used to.

3. Ultra HD--unlike 3-D--will be adopted far more universally for one reason: no need to wear special glasses to enjoy the experience.