Speaking of calibration -
Here is a video that shows some of the process.
All the Best, Jeff
2 Thanks
Which in my opinion make a bigger difference than resolution to PQ.
1 Thank
It’s hard for me to choose, I really like the detail too. But the funny part is how people who haven’t done the research assume both HDR and Wide Color Gamut are meaningless marketing buzzwords. When I try to describe the advantages of 4k to a certain person I know their eyes glaze over and eventually they tell me that they can’t see a difference in 4k content.
I think too many sources claim to be 4k when they really aren’t. Netflix charges for 4k but only a small fraction of their library is in 4k. A lot of people probably don’t notice the little icon that signals which programs are 4k, plus, the ones that are “4K” have a criminally low bitrate. Then there are all of the 4k blurays that just upscales of 2k digital intermediaries. Seems like it was the norm to finish films at 2k for quite a while after 4k became a format so a lot of semi-recent stuff is just an upscale and you won’t find that advertised on the case.
I would argue that if you want to see the difference you should really be starting with a better source. Jurassic Park is an amazing film, and looks great, but due to its age shouldnt be used for a comparison. There are so many areas of that film that are low quality and cannot be made better, let alone the CGI was never done in a very high definition.
If you want a true comparison i would get a modern true 4k movie, maybe something like the latest Avatar, or better may be a less-CGI centered movie. Alternately I would expect that online one could download a very high quality HDR high-bitrate true 4k video.
From there that exact same movie should be converted into lower resolutions, but still with high bitrates.
Even very high quality rescans and re-releases often times are not a true 4k. To get a true sense of resolution you need to start with a true high quality source and then downgrade it, changing resolution but not changing other aspects that also affect picture quality.
1 Thank
Actually some of the most impressive 4k disks out there are of old movies that were shot on 35mm film and re-scanned to a higher standard. It depends on how well the movie was shot and what condition the physical film is in. Also, CGI would normally need to be re-made to get it to a true 4k resolution, so the CGI sections of movies tend to stick out in a bad way in 4k remasters because those elements are just upscaled in contrast to the actual film elements.
In the best-case scenario of an old movie being filmed well and preserved too, a 4K transfer should make it look like it could have been filmed yesterday. In fact, with a complete lack of digital tampering they might look better
1 Thank
A lot depends on the size and viewing distance.
The “recommended” screen size is larger than most folks want to deal with.
In our case the chart says we should be watching a 98 inch screen.
Marked that out with some tape on the wall. There is room to fit it, but holy pixel mania Batman, it’s huge!
Any imperfections would be super noticeable.
Stuff that was a little annoying or ignored on the old 55” are more intrusive on the new 85”.
Viewing vs TV size from Crutchfield:
|TV Screen Size|Viewing Distance for 4K|
|40"|3.3 - 5 feet|
|43"|3.6 - 5.4 feet|
|50"|4.2 - 6.3 feet|
|55"|4.6 - 6.9 feet|
|60"|5 - 7.5 feet|
|65"|5.4 - 8.1 feet|
|70"|5.8 - 8.75 feet|
|75"|6.3 - 9.4 feet|
|80"|6.7 - 10 feet|
|83"|6.9 - 10.3 feet|
|85"|7.1 - 10.6 feet|
|98"|8.1 - 12.25 feet|
“How distance impacts picture quality
Back in the day, if you parked yourself too close to an old-school tube TV, you’d end up seeing scan lines. Similarly, with HDTVs running 1080p or lower, you’d end up noticing rows and columns of pixels, the tiny dots that make up your picture. We’re way past both of those problems with 4K now. Getting too close is less of an issue than sitting too far away, and missing out on the details and picture quality you paid for.
4K Ultra HD TVs have a much higher resolution than HDTVs — up to four times the level of detail of a 1080p screen. Because UHD pixels are so small, it’s hard to pick out individual pixels even if you’re right in front of the screen. This gives you the freedom to sit about as close as you’re comfortable, and if you’re rocking out an 8K TV you can get even closer.
If you need to sit farther from your TV, though, you totally can. Even when you sit farther away than the distances recommended, a 4K TV will still look pretty sharp. Nowadays, almost all 4K TVs support HDR (High Dynamic Range), which extends contrast and color ranges when you’re watching HDR-encoded content. The improvements from HDR are pretty easy to notice, even from across a room.”
Embedded links go to Crutchfield. Too much of a pain in the butt to edit them out.
All the Best, Jeff
1 Thank
Sure, but which are those, and which scenes. And was it fron 35mm, or 16mm? Did they use any crop for certain scenes? Etc.
Im not saying that 35mm to 4k isnt awesome, just pointing out that you dont know exactly which that is.
A better comparison to use for comparing resolution is to use a known quantity, which is to use a native 4k source and then downsample that. Anything else has the potential for ambiguity.
I’m not sure what you’re referencing with regards to cropping. Pan and scan was more about lazy companies scanning a 16:9 frame out of a 4:3 intermediary instead of the 16:9 original source. That hasn’t really been an issue since the switch from VHS to DVD. Nowadays arguments of aspect ratio tend to be about very minute changes that a normal person would never notice.
35mm film is the most common format that was used and it’s still used. Oppenheimer was filmed on 35mm stock. The amount of data present on a frame of 35mm film is equal to about 6k.
You can search up what kind of film stock was used for a movie, and there is usually discussion on forums about the scan when a new disk releases. (Who did the scan, do they have a good track record, what exactly was scanned, the original or an intermediary etc) But to save time, there are also several websites where people review new releases. (blu-ray.com, ultrahd.highdefdigest.com, probably more) It’s not difficult to find a “reference quality” disk among older films. In fact, due to survivorship bias, there are probably more reference quality classic films on 4k disks.
Jurassic Park is a perfect example.
There is a specific scene where Hammon, Ian, and Genarrio are talking in a dark room (found it on YT)
Even when watching the 25th aniversiary release in theater this was very grainy and it appeared that for artistic reasons when filming they had appeared to film with a wider shot but had cropped in on a character(s) for the final release.
As i said before, im not arguing that films cannot be scanned for 4k release. But if you are conducting a scientific test you have to control the variables. You dont want to use a source that COULD have been manipulated, or cropped, or switched between 15mm and 35mm, etc. So for scientific testing of resolution differences control for that and use a native 4k source and convert to a lower resolution so that you know exactly what you are starting with for your comparison.
1 Thank
Ah I see, I don’t imagine that is very common though which is why you find people writing about it.
I get what you’re saying but I don’t think there is nearly as much uncertainty as you’re making out. Normally directors do not mix formats, switch formats, or physically zoom in on an existing physical frame. On the other hand, with a newer movie there are almost definitely digital sets, digital backdrops, CGI props, etc. In order for high amounts of detail to be caught, there needs to be a realistic amount of detail in the first place. This is another reason why I think a perfect classic film is a better reference disk than a modern film. Older movies rely more on physical sets, practical effects, and on-location filming so if they were filmed properly they’ll always look better.
I use the rule of thumb 1.0 to 1.2 X the diagonal in inches = the viewing distance in feet. So for a 65" screen it is about 6.5 feet for the sweet spot.
Yes but if we are just talking about detail, no matter what is done in remastering you can’t get more out that what was there originally. The film grain and original camera lenses will determine what you see.
That’s why I said if they were filmed properly. People get excited for the 4K release of specific movie titles that are known to have awesome cinematography for exactly that reason.
Sure, but now that requires yet another rabbit hole to dive down to ensure the film you are using was in fact filmed properly.
And where is the guarantee that a movie filmed with a digital camera is filmed properly?
1 Thank
What guarentee do you provide that a movie filmed with 35mm was filmed properly?
I thought I’d already conveyed that, the benefit of getting transfers of classic films is that their credentials are already well-known…
I get it, but properly is relative. Many directors chose film grain, soft focus, and even color shading to convey their artistic intent. Generally people like these to be maintained in any remaster. While they may be great for conveying artistic intent, they are not great for comparing what the best 4K HDR wide color gamut renditions are capable of. Doesn’t mean I don’t like them, just that they may not be the best source material for demonstrating what the state of the art is in display technology.
But you cannot get the credentials off new movies?
What are you trying to say? All I’m saying is that finding a demo-worthy disk of a classic film is just as easy if not easier due to the way they receive more attention and care.