Watching Farpoint on a 4K TV

[RAMA]

Since I'm watching the Star Trek pilots in honor of the new show, I watched EaF last night, and it was a bluray uprezzed to 4k. I thought there would be issues with this, particularly with grain but it looked better than ever. The other test I did was to watch it "zoomed" on a cinema setting and that also looked great for a bigger picture. I would highly recommend viewing it this way.

 

[Kor]

What size is your TV?

For my smallish screening room, I can't really go with a bigger TV than 40" or so. At that size, I don't think there would be any noticeable difference between 1080p and 4K.

Kor

 

[Trekker4747]

Watching the BD on a 4K TV doesn't magically give the images on the disc all of the new information to fill the 4K screen; which has some 4x the picture information as regular HD. Even if your player or TV "upscales."

This is just like when HDTVs and Blu Ray were coming around and people and products were boasting about "up converting."

Up converting doesn't work like that. When a picture is upconverted it's made to "fill the screen" of the larger-resolution TV. But if the source is 1080 pixels wide now going to over 4,000 pixels wide mean that's three new pixels between pixels that have to be something and there's no way to know what this is. So the up converting software makes a "best guest" between pixels to sort-of come with a logical conclusion on what those pixels might be.

But this is different than what they might actually *are.*

This is why the picture looks more grainy, the estimations and natural grain of the picture are compounding to create this effect. This is apposed to, however, the picture being a small box on the center of your screen.

To truly take advantage of a UHDTV the source needs to be true UHD content, meaning instead of those new pixels being "best guesses" there's actual information on what they actually are. But, as you can imagine this means that the content is going to be a filesize at least 4x greater, and likely even more. Presently, there's really no form of physical media that can contain meaningful lengths of UHD content while still being cost-effective. Even putting it on a flashdrive would be wildly expensive. IIRC, most UHDTVs come with some-kind-of server or similar device with pre-loaded UHD content on it that's a remarkable and stunning improvement over HD content. It looks like looking through a window.

Fortunately, for most studios who created HD content they did it in a manner that easily allows for creating UHD content. This would apply to TNG, when they reassembled the episodes and took from film negatives they have an "unlimited resolution" version of the episodes (analog, that is) to which to make digital content from. Every film and TV show has this advantage. When the films were re-scanned the files would have been compressed to BD/HD resolution, now they can simply be compressed to UHD resolution. The information is there.

So, it's great that this "upconverting" translates well to UHD TVs this is no different than VHS being watchable on HDTVs, with maybe the advantage of DVSs and BDs not being analog and thus not looking very blurry on better TVs.

But this is hardly a "way to watch it" because nothing is being gained from it. It just means the viewing experience isn't being lost by the higher-resolution TVs. (It could be done, but watching VHS on an HDTV was a nightmare because of the massive resolution shift.)

 

[Kor]

Yes, all that 4K scenery of Tuscany and the Grand Canyon looks wonderful on the UHD TVs on display in the store. But they never show what it looks like to upscale a 1080p source.

I am a bit curious about Sony's "Mastered in 4K" line of blu ray movies. They are supposed to be somehow "optimized" for up-scaling to 4K (on a Sony brand TV, of course).

Kor

 

[RAMA]

What size is your TV?

For my smallish screening room, I can't really go with a bigger TV than 40" or so. At that size, I don't think there would be any noticeable difference between 1080p and 4K.

Kor

I've heard these media reports that 4K doesn't make much a difference, and granted that may be the case with smaller tvs, but I can easily see the difference. I have a 60" TV

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Watching the BD on a 4K TV doesn't magically give the images on the disc all of the new information to fill the 4K screen; which has some 4x the picture information as regular HD. Even if your player or TV "upscales."

This is just like when HDTVs and Blu Ray were coming around and people and products were boasting about "up converting."

Up converting doesn't work like that. When a picture is upconverted it's made to "fill the screen" of the larger-resolution TV. But if the source is 1080 pixels wide now going to over 4,000 pixels wide mean that's three new pixels between pixels that have to be something and there's no way to know what this is. So the up converting software makes a "best guest" between pixels to sort-of come with a logical conclusion on what those pixels might be.

But this is different than what they might actually *are.*

This is why the picture looks more grainy, the estimations and natural grain of the picture are compounding to create this effect. This is apposed to, however, the picture being a small box on the center of your screen.

To truly take advantage of a UHDTV the source needs to be true UHD content, meaning instead of those new pixels being "best guesses" there's actual information on what they actually are. But, as you can imagine this means that the content is going to be a filesize at least 4x greater, and likely even more. Presently, there's really no form of physical media that can contain meaningful lengths of UHD content while still being cost-effective. Even putting it on a flashdrive would be wildly expensive. IIRC, most UHDTVs come with some-kind-of server or similar device with pre-loaded UHD content on it that's a remarkable and stunning improvement over HD content. It looks like looking through a window.

Fortunately, for most studios who created HD content they did it in a manner that easily allows for creating UHD content. This would apply to TNG, when they reassembled the episodes and took from film negatives they have an "unlimited resolution" version of the episodes (analog, that is) to which to make digital content from. Every film and TV show has this advantage. When the films were re-scanned the files would have been compressed to BD/HD resolution, now they can simply be compressed to UHD resolution. The information is there.

So, it's great that this "upconverting" translates well to UHD TVs this is no different than VHS being watchable on HDTVs, with maybe the advantage of DVSs and BDs not being analog and thus not looking very blurry on better TVs.

But this is hardly a "way to watch it" because nothing is being gained from it. It just means the viewing experience isn't being lost by the higher-resolution TVs. (It could be done, but watching VHS on an HDTV was a nightmare because of the massive resolution shift.)

Trust me, I was prepared for the upscaling worst, and so far, I have been surprised at the 4-5 blurays I've watched, including STNG. I can see a difference in detail and clarity.

 

[Ryan8bit]

But if the source is 1080 pixels wide now going to over 4,000 pixels wide mean that's three new pixels between pixels that have to be something and there's no way to know what this is.

1080 is the height. 4k refers to the approximation of the width. So it's only really ~2x as big.

And despite what you might think, there are some pretty crazy algorithms out there that can preserve edge details and reduce noise. Yeah, they're not getting the real data, but you're getting more than just a standard bicubic upscale where pixels are blended together. I don't know what TVs themselves can do in real time, but there is definitely software that handles this kind of thing very well. That best guess is actually a really good guess, and in most cases most people can't tell the difference.

That said, on a 60" screen, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 4k unless they were like 5 ft away.

 

[Doug Otte]

I am a bit curious about Sony's "Mastered in 4K" line of blu ray movies. They are supposed to be somehow "optimized" for up-scaling to 4K (on a Sony brand TV, of course).

Kor

I don't think I've ever read that. I thought the intention of scanning at 4K is so you get more of the film resolution in your master before you have to downconvert to 1080p. Supposedly starting w/ a 4k master produces fewer artifacts at 1080p.

The master resolution wouldn't affect how the 1080p image is then displayed on a 4k display. I could easily be wrong, so please correct me.

 

[Kor]

I am a bit curious about Sony's "Mastered in 4K" line of blu ray movies. They are supposed to be somehow "optimized" for up-scaling to 4K (on a Sony brand TV, of course).

Kor

I don't think I've ever read that. I thought the intention of scanning at 4K is so you get more of the film resolution in your master before you have to downconvert to 1080p. Supposedly starting w/ a 4k master produces fewer artifacts at 1080p.

The master resolution wouldn't affect how the 1080p image is then displayed on a 4k display. I could easily be wrong, so please correct me.

Well, this is specifically a Sony thing, and doesn't apply to any non-Sony releases where the movie was scanned at higher resolutions (for example, Criterion Collection).

Sony has a small line of about fifteen movies (maybe twenty or so by now) that are labeled as "Mastered in 4K" and "Optimized for 4K Ultra HD TVs."

I only vaguely remembered the details, so I looked this up. Specifically, these particular Sony releases are encoded using extended color XvYCC (whatever that means), which other blu ray releases don't have. So it's supposed to take advantage of the color display capabilities of blu ray players and UHD TVs that have that spec, though the up-scaling to the higher resolution will be just like normal.

So it's like the blu ray equivalent of the "Superbit" DVDs (which was also a Sony thing). For example, there is the normal blu ray release of Spider-Man (2002), and then there is the "Mastered in 4K" version, which costs twice as much as the "normal" version but has no special features at all.

Kor

 

[RAMA]

But if the source is 1080 pixels wide now going to over 4,000 pixels wide mean that's three new pixels between pixels that have to be something and there's no way to know what this is.

1080 is the height. 4k refers to the approximation of the width. So it's only really ~2x as big.

And despite what you might think, there are some pretty crazy algorithms out there that can preserve edge details and reduce noise. Yeah, they're not getting the real data, but you're getting more than just a standard bicubic upscale where pixels are blended together. I don't know what TVs themselves can do in real time, but there is definitely software that handles this kind of thing very well. That best guess is actually a really good guess, and in most cases most people can't tell the difference.

That said, on a 60" screen, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 4k unless they were like 5 ft away.

My question is...WHO THE HELL watches tv from 5 feet away?? Ive never seen anyone do that. Its not even safe. I'm always 9-10 feet away

 

[Trekker4747]

There's nothing unsafe about watching a TV from a short distance, in spite of the warnings your mother gave you. You don't go blind from using your eyes. The worst that can happen is eye strain which results in sore eyes and headaches. Easily solved by relaxing the eyes by putting less strain on them and/or closing them.

 

[JesterFace]

I have a 21 inch tube telly and DVDs played by PS2, I can enjoy TNG and other programs with that combo... Watching distance about 1 meter.

And this is not because some might suspect I'm from a poor backwards country, why upgrade when that TV still works just fine...

 

[Kor]

For home theater aficionados, a 21-inch CRT television does not quite work for a theatrical experience.

Kor

 

[f14peter]

[

1080 is the height. 4k refers to the approximation of the width. So it's only really ~2x as big.

.

well, technically it is 4-times as "big", or rather 4-times the data.

"native" 4k is a smidge over 4000 pixels wide (4090 or something like that, x2160), while "Ultra HD" is a smidge under (around 3900) ... around 2-times HD. Whichever one chooses, it's in essence doubling both dimensions (width and height) so there are roughly four times as many pixies.

whether 4K or UHD is twice or four times better ... jury is still out.

 

[tomswift2002]

I don't think I've ever read that. I thought the intention of scanning at 4K is so you get more of the film resolution in your master before you have to downconvert to 1080p. Supposedly starting w/ a 4k master produces fewer artifacts at 1080p.

The master resolution wouldn't affect how the 1080p image is then displayed on a 4k display. I could easily be wrong, so please correct me.

Well, this is specifically a Sony thing, and doesn't apply to any non-Sony releases where the movie was scanned at higher resolutions (for example, Criterion Collection).

Sony has a small line of about fifteen movies (maybe twenty or so by now) that are labeled as "Mastered in 4K" and "Optimized for 4K Ultra HD TVs."

I only vaguely remembered the details, so I looked this up. Specifically, these particular Sony releases are encoded using extended color XvYCC (whatever that means), which other blu ray releases don't have. So it's supposed to take advantage of the color display capabilities of blu ray players and UHD TVs that have that spec, though the up-scaling to the higher resolution will be just like normal.

So it's like the blu ray equivalent of the "Superbit" DVDs (which was also a Sony thing). For example, there is the normal blu ray release of Spider-Man (2002), and then there is the "Mastered in 4K" version, which costs twice as much as the "normal" version but has no special features at all.

Kor[/QUOTE]

I've seen the Mastered in 4K Blu-Rays and it's really just marketing hype. It's the same as when you picked up a DVD (such as Star Trek The Animated Series) and it says "Mastered in 1080p High Definition. The DVD is not giving you a 1080p image, what it is giving is an SD 480i/p image that is of higher quality due to it being derived from a 1080 source rather than a 480, possible analog, source.

And Sony's claim about increasing the color is interesting, as a Blu-Ray stores it's color in the 4:2:0 manner, just like AVCHD and SD DVD's, but then the player (and on some players you can turn this off) upon playback converts it to a 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 (on a PS3 this is under the Video Settings: BD/DVD-Video Output Format (HDMI) setting where you can leave it at Automatic, or you can go to RGB [4:4:4] or Y Pb/Cb Pr/Cr [4:2:2]) color space.

 

[FreddyE]

Fortunately, for most studios who created HD content they did it in a manner that easily allows for creating UHD content. This would apply to TNG, when they reassembled the episodes and took from film negatives they have an "unlimited resolution" version of the episodes (analog, that is) to which to make digital content from. Every film and TV show has this advantage. When the films were re-scanned the files would have been compressed to BD/HD resolution, now they can simply be compressed to UHD resolution. The information is there.

No...actually they didn´t. They were stupid enough to scan the films in 2K only instead of 4K.

 

[Kor]

...as if the human eye can even notice a difference between 2K and 4K.

Kor

 

[Trekker4747]

Fortunately, for most studios who created HD content they did it in a manner that easily allows for creating UHD content. This would apply to TNG, when they reassembled the episodes and took from film negatives they have an "unlimited resolution" version of the episodes (analog, that is) to which to make digital content from. Every film and TV show has this advantage. When the films were re-scanned the files would have been compressed to BD/HD resolution, now they can simply be compressed to UHD resolution. The information is there.

No...actually they didn´t. They were stupid enough to scan the films in 2K only instead of 4K.

Yikes. Well, maybe they have the episodes re-assembled, and kept that way, so it'll be less of an undertaking if/when they decide to scan it into 4K.

 

[TheSeeker]

Yeah, I was surprised that they only scanned in the negatives at 2k as well. I believe one of our more knowledgeable posters said that the cost and time required to scan in 4k was just too much.

 

[RAMA]

Exactly so, eye strain and headaches are huge issues, especially for people who are prone to headaches(like myself). I never said anything about going blind.

There's nothing unsafe about watching a TV from a short distance, in spite of the warnings your mother gave you. You don't go blind from using your eyes. The worst that can happen is eye strain which results in sore eyes and headaches. Easily solved by relaxing the eyes by putting less strain on them and/or closing them.

This is what I mean. A DVD will generally not uprez very well in an up-scaling bluray player(2x resolution). But using the same source 1080p disc on the bluray player, the uprez works fine on the 4K tv(almost 4x). In other words, there are no noticeable issues, and although native 4K would probably look slightly better still(yes I've seen native 4k to compare), the picture DOES look better. Not magically transcendent, but better.

http://www.cnet.com/news/can-4k-tvs-make-1080p-look-better/

Watching the BD on a 4K TV doesn't magically give the images on the disc all of the new information to fill the 4K screen; which has some 4x the picture information as regular HD. Even if your player or TV "upscales."

This is just like when HDTVs and Blu Ray were coming around and people and products were boasting about "up converting."

Up converting doesn't work like that. When a picture is upconverted it's made to "fill the screen" of the larger-resolution TV. But if the source is 1080 pixels wide now going to over 4,000 pixels wide mean that's three new pixels between pixels that have to be something and there's no way to know what this is. So the up converting software makes a "best guest" between pixels to sort-of come with a logical conclusion on what those pixels might be.

But this is different than what they might actually *are.*

This is why the picture looks more grainy, the estimations and natural grain of the picture are compounding to create this effect. This is apposed to, however, the picture being a small box on the center of your screen.

To truly take advantage of a UHDTV the source needs to be true UHD content, meaning instead of those new pixels being "best guesses" there's actual information on what they actually are. But, as you can imagine this means that the content is going to be a filesize at least 4x greater, and likely even more. Presently, there's really no form of physical media that can contain meaningful lengths of UHD content while still being cost-effective. Even putting it on a flashdrive would be wildly expensive. IIRC, most UHDTVs come with some-kind-of server or similar device with pre-loaded UHD content on it that's a remarkable and stunning improvement over HD content. It looks like looking through a window.

Fortunately, for most studios who created HD content they did it in a manner that easily allows for creating UHD content. This would apply to TNG, when they reassembled the episodes and took from film negatives they have an "unlimited resolution" version of the episodes (analog, that is) to which to make digital content from. Every film and TV show has this advantage. When the films were re-scanned the files would have been compressed to BD/HD resolution, now they can simply be compressed to UHD resolution. The information is there.

So, it's great that this "upconverting" translates well to UHD TVs this is no different than VHS being watchable on HDTVs, with maybe the advantage of DVSs and BDs not being analog and thus not looking very blurry on better TVs.

But this is hardly a "way to watch it" because nothing is being gained from it. It just means the viewing experience isn't being lost by the higher-resolution TVs. (It could be done, but watching VHS on an HDTV was a nightmare because of the massive resolution shift.)