krohm Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 hiya all, just signed up recently. first question i have is: are these new blu ray movies you can now buy the final highest quality versions of the movies? i started a dvd collection initially but stopped 5 or so years ago knowing blu ray was the future. i havent really read up much on blu ray but was told it is essentially a format of high definition and it is how most movies have been filmed since superman. so that being said any movie you buy you are buying an original highest quality copy of the movie? am i right in this or are their audio and visual considerations in the future that bluray is unable to exploit? any clarification here would be good, unfortunately dont have the time to read all the literature on bluray atm, but any link that can explain this or someones good explanation would be much appreciated..
SDL Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 hiya all, just signed up recently. first question i have is:are these new blu ray movies you can now buy the final highest quality versions of the movies? i started a dvd collection initially but stopped 5 or so years ago knowing blu ray was the future. i havent really read up much on blu ray but was told it is essentially a format of high definition and it is how most movies have been filmed since superman. so that being said any movie you buy you are buying an original highest quality copy of the movie? am i right in this or are their audio and visual considerations in the future that bluray is unable to exploit? any clarification here would be good, unfortunately dont have the time to read all the literature on bluray atm, but any link that can explain this or someones good explanation would be much appreciated.. No, they are the highest quality you can get right now. Who knows what they will do in 10 years time? Film can be transferred at higher than 1080p but you won't have commercial display devices higher than that for a while yet and there are diminishing returns in terms of how much more resolution you can visbly notice. Lossless audio again is extremely high quality but who knows again what they will do in film. Right now and for the next 5-10 years Blu-Ray is the highest quality we are likely to see for home use.
bevancoleman Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) ...are these new blu ray movies you can now buy the final highest quality versions of the movies? i started a dvd collection initially but stopped 5 or so years ago knowing blu ray was the future. i havent really read up much on blu ray but was told it is essentially a format of high definition and it is how most movies have been filmed since superman. ... Movies have, and never will be filmed in the BluRay format. And most films are still shot on film because the higher resolution aviliable in that format. What normaly occurs is the film is then scanned at 4k or 6k resolution and then edited/processed/distrobuted in digital form. However it is true that 2k digital cameras have been used in many films (not so strangly, many of Sony's films), however to say they are simular to BluRay is quite incorrect. For one BluRay is highly compressed, and digital film is not.. The data-rate of a RAW digital camera means that you could only fit 5 mins onto a 50GB BluRay disc, plainly you are seeing some major loss when converting to BluRay! (and thats *only* 2k... 4k and 6k are in the few seconds range). Even using compressition they are many times the bitrate aviliable on BluRay For two, digital film uses the entire frame, BluRay does not. This means that 2k digital film will use 1920*1080 regardless of ratio, where as BluRay will only use 1920x800 (for a typical film ratio) and use black borders to fill in missing rows. Thats means 2.1MP vs ~1.5MP resolution. In addition modern films are quickly moving to 4k cameras, 2k only ever being a temp stop while technology caught up and price droped (pro digital camera are *very* expressive). 4k camera are considered to be as good as film, where as 2k was always considered to be of lower resolution. In actul fact you may not get the full detail of film untill 6k, but that is a case of much reduced returns at that point. Edit. One other point... BluRay is 1920x1080, where as 2K is 2048x1152. A minor diff, but it means that teh images has to be resamples down to go onto BluRay. Edited May 21, 2008 by bevancoleman
Guest Cap'n Jack Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Then of course on top of that they will be re released in Directors cut, special edition, ultimate special edition, ultimate collectors special directors uncut digitally remastered limited edition as well
IanD1503559705 Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Edit. One other point... BluRay is 1920x1080, where as 2K is 2048x1152. A minor diff, but it means that teh images has to be resamples down to go onto BluRay. Are the images actually resampled down, or are they just cropped? Maybe the cameras are framed so that the required image is in the 1920x1080 field.
krohm Posted May 21, 2008 Author Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) For one BluRay is highly compressed, and digital film is not.. The data-rate of a RAW digital camera means that you could only fit 5 mins onto a 50GB BluRay disc, plainly you are seeing some major loss when converting to BluRay! For two, digital film uses the entire frame, BluRay does not. This means that 2k digital film will use 1920*1080 regardless of ratio, where as BluRay will only use 1920x800 (for a typical film ratio) and use black borders to fill in missing rows. Thats means 2.1MP vs ~1.5MP resolution. In actul fact you may not get the full detail of film untill 6k, but that is a case of much reduced returns at that point. Edit. One other point... BluRay is 1920x1080, where as 2K is 2048x1152. A minor diff, but it means that teh images has to be resamples down to go onto BluRay. ok, thanks for the detailed response. exactly what i was after, cheers so essentially all major movies are filmed in 4k and soon to be 6k? how much data would it take for a lossless quality (audio and video) reproduction of a 4k camera recorded film? so we're not going to get a lossless reproduction of the film for many years due to media limitations then. Edited May 21, 2008 by krohm
momaw Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 This is one of the things that always mystified me about both HD formats. Why not have all content recoded at 1920x1080 and then flagged appropriatly to display in the correct aspect ratio of the screen. This would have future proofed HD a little more as it won't be long before screens are able to be produced at commercial levels with greater resolution that 1920x1080. It would make better economic sense from the screen producers as well. they could sell greater resolution tv's easier on the basis that there would be a quality increase when displaying films with an aspect ratio higher than 16:9.
bevancoleman Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Are the images actually resampled down, or are they just cropped?Maybe the cameras are framed so that the required image is in the 1920x1080 field. Who knows, thats really upto the movie studio when they make teh BluRay master. Note, resaming is not a bad thing, in many aspects it better then just croping.
bevancoleman Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 ok, thanks for the detailed response. exactly what i was after, cheersso essentially all major movies are filmed in 4k and soon to be 6k? how much data would it take for a lossless quality (audio and video) reproduction of a 4k camera recorded film? so we're not going to get a lossless reproduction of the film for many years due to media limitations then. Loss-less audio already exists, however compaired to teh data requirements for lossless video it's insignificant. Raw Video, even at 1080p requires 150MB/s, that means only 5.5 mins on a 50GB disc. 4k requires 680MB/s, thats only 1.2 mins per 50GB disc. And this is before we start considing 10 and 12bit colour (i.e. deep colour). So no... we are not going to see lossless video anytime soon.
bevancoleman Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 This is one of the things that always mystified me about both HD formats. Why not have all content recoded at 1920x1080 and then flagged appropriatly to display in the correct aspect ratio of the screen. Now wouldn't that have been a clever thing to do... not only could you see the extra res if you zoomed but the new quad screens being made. It's not like DVDs didn't already have this functionality.... Samsung have been showing off their 3820x2160 (4x 1080p) LCD this month (expected this year for commerical customers), along with their 240hz LCDs (2011 for retail customers). high res LCDs though are not new, Westinghouse have been selling a commerical Quad Full-HD for good year now, and PCs have had high res LCDs for ages too.
iainl Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 All the above is true, but how big is your TV and how close do you sit? The proportion of your field of vision a 1080p image needs to fill before you can tell the difference between it and a higher-resolution image is pretty big.
krohm Posted May 21, 2008 Author Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) high res LCDs though are not new, Westinghouse have been selling a commerical Quad Full-HD for good year now, and PCs have had high res LCDs for ages too. yeh but pc lcd monitors still have a long way to go. as do lcd tvs. they still run less res and hz then top of the line crt monitors. selling my 19inch 2ms 75hz viewsonic vx922 to get an old sony 21crt. does higher res and twice the hz. unfortunately weighs 30kgs. but i have the desk space so wont bother me Edited May 21, 2008 by krohm
bevancoleman Posted May 22, 2008 Posted May 22, 2008 yeh but pc lcd monitors still have a long way to go. as do lcd tvs. they still run less res and hz then top of the line crt monitors. selling my 19inch 2ms 75hz viewsonic vx922 to get an old sony 21crt. does higher res and twice the hz. unfortunately weighs 30kgs. but i have the desk space so wont bother me Hz doesn't matter so much with LCD (hz not being related to pixel refresh), but CRTs def have the lead in terms of resolution (and pixel fade). One comment I would make though... old CRTs fade after time. You may find it's not as bright or vibrant as you may want if it's 10+ years old.
MACCA350 Posted May 22, 2008 Posted May 22, 2008 This is one of the things that always mystified me about both HD formats. Why not have all content recoded at 1920x1080 and then flagged appropriatly to display in the correct aspect ratio of the screen. This would have future proofed HD a little more as it won't be long before screens are able to be produced at commercial levels with greater resolution that 1920x1080.It would make better economic sense from the screen producers as well. they could sell greater resolution tv's easier on the basis that there would be a quality increase when displaying films with an aspect ratio higher than 16:9. I still can't believe they didn't do this, maybe there is a possibility for them to implement this in the future, were Anamorphic DVD's in the spec at the beginning?Could you imagine though if a 2.40:1 BD was flagged as 1.85:1 or the other way around, they would need to have the ability to override the embedded flag just encase the studio stuffed it up cheers
Recommended Posts