criterionforum.org

There are other factors at work there apart from interlaced vs. progressive scan. The extreme compression of streaming and/or cable broadcast, for starters. Most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 1080i image and a 1080p image in motion if all circumstances were equal (e.g. if both were on Blu-ray discs with equivalent bitrates).

cpetrizzi wrote:

Roger Ryan wrote:

cpetrizzi wrote: I know we all see the difference in 1080i and 1080p?

Not me. Typically it is interpolated and impossible to spot.

For example, look at a movie streamed from cable that's in 1080i, then switch to the blu-ray of it in 1080p. I think you'd see a difference, right?

I did not say this, "Zot!" did.

By the way, I apologize if my comments steered the thread in this disappointing direction. Can we talk about aspect ratios again?

Roger Ryan wrote:I did not say this, "Zot!" did.
By the way, I apologize if my comments steered the thread in this disappointing direction. Can we talk about aspect ratios again?

Matt sums up the interlacing concern handily, but why do you assume it was in question who said this? Everybody loved my comments, it was Anamorphic WS that they were teasing.

edit: Sorry, I see that you were misquoted.

Roger Ryan wrote:By the way, I apologize if my comments steered the thread in this disappointing direction. Can we talk about aspect ratios again?

I apologize for misdirecting the thread, wasn't my intention.

To follow-up on the 4K discussion a couple of pages back, I had a question about this & also wanted to get others opinions on that format (if that's the correct term):

I was in an electronics store several months ago and noticed that Taxi Driver was being sold on both regular BD & 4K BD (for the same price). I then went to the TV section, and noticed a very impressive 4K TV with stunning PQ, for roughly $7,500. I asked the salesman about this, and he said that it would only be worthwhile to buy a 4K BD film if you had a 4K TV. Is this true, or is it just a sales pitch designed to get consumers to shell out the dough for this extremely expensive TV?

Note that I'm not planning on buying the 4K TV; for that much money, I would not only need to watch TV on this, but it would have to cook, do laundry, pay my bills, and vacuum - LOL. However, I am intrigued by this format, and wondered what others thought about this: Do you think this is something that will eventually catch on as the 4K TV's inevitably go down in price?! Or, is it just a fad that will eventually go by the wayside (like Laser Discs, HD-DVD's, etc.)?! I understand that the 4K PQ is incredible, but IMHO this is way too expensive of a format for most consumers....

I was in an electronics store several months ago and noticed that Taxi Driver was being sold on both regular BD & 4K BD (for the same price).

They weren't selling it on 4K BD - that's a godawful marketing ploy by Sony which is going to be confusing once the actual 4K discs appear. The "4K" one is MASTERED in 4K.

I asked the salesman about this, and he said that it would only be worthwhile to buy a 4K BD film if you had a 4K TV. Is this true,

No. Higher resolution film scans are still beneficial even if the final delivery mechanism is 1080p, the same way DVDs derived from HD sources could have an advantage over 100% SD ones. That's not to say that every one of the Sony "Mastered in 4K" range shows an improvement over the original release though, lots of which were already excellent.

Do you think this is something that will eventually catch on as the 4K TV's inevitably go down in price?

Yes, of course.

Excellent - Thanks for the quick response & clarification. This is great to know.

David- I saw something a while back that said for most people, the change from blu-ray to 4k isn't even noticeable until you get to around 80 or 100 inch screen size. How accurate is this?

jindianajonz wrote:David- I saw something a while back that said for most people, the change from blu-ray to 4k isn't even noticeable until you get to around 80 or 100 inch screen size. How accurate is this?

From what I understand, that is being pretty generous. I've seen the math point to 125".

It all has to do with viewing distance. I'm sure if you're stood in front of a 65 inch UHDTV in a store, the difference compared to the HDTV next to it will be obvious. But then you get it home, and you place it where your old HDTV was, which just happens to be 15 feet away from where you sit, and well, suddenly the difference is less obvious.

jindianajonz wrote:David- I saw something a while back that said for most people, the change from blu-ray to 4k isn't even noticeable until you get to around 80 or 100 inch screen size. How accurate is this?

It depends on the content and your eyesight. I've personally stood 40 feet away from a prototype 65"-70" (I forget which) OLED panel and could tell the resolution was much higher than 1080p.

With that said, the content was 100% digitally shot with very sharp optics and was specially designed to show off ultra-high res devices. For most films (where selective focus is the norm) the jump won't be as visible.

But it's coming, and while I'm not clamoring for it, I don't understand why some people have a vested interest in fighting it. More resolution is always nice, even if it's not the most important attribute of pq.

I'm glad you posted that. I'm always puzzled by these discussions because you clearly see differences in resolution even on small screens, such as iPads and laptops, but of course that will be down to viewing distance.

Irony in all of this: If you live in a small apartment like myself, there's probably more benefit to something pricey and extravagant like a 4K television, but if you've got a nice large home theater room where you're a good distance from the screen, and have the cash to throw at a 4K television, there's arguably less benefit depending on the size of the screen.

OK - this is excellent information, everyone. Thanks for taking the time to post. To sum it up, here is the way I see this - please correct me if I'm wrong/misinformed here:

4K PQ is superior to 1080p - however, you need a very wide/large TV to see the difference. Also, though the difference is notable if you have a very large TV, it is not as obvious as, say, the superior PQ distinction when comparing BD's (or most BD's) to regular DVD's.

I guess the issue I have with 4K is this: How much better does PQ actually need to get? It may also be a matter of perspective on my part: I grew up with VHS tapes, and when I saw my first DVD in 2000, I was stunned at how much better the picture was when compared to VHS. Then, when I saw my first BD years later, I was equally stunned at the improved PQ over DVD's. My point is that the PQ of most BD's on an HD TV are fine with me.

Plus, there is such a thing as PQ being too good. I noticed that the CGI in some flicks looks even worse in HD since the picture is so clear & distinct (however, this usually this occurs with 10+year old CGI-heavy films when the technology wasn't as good). And, at times I do like to see some film grain in older films; the Taxi Driver BD has the perfect balance of excellent PQ & some film grain...

My point is that the PQ of most BD's on an HD TV are fine with me.

Well done BD is enough for me, also. I'm very happy that we surpassed the resolution of release prints (not that those were ever a benchmark, but they were still the best available to us for awhile).

I'm not sure what the point of the question is though. 1080p is not going to be the highest resolution around forever. We don't need higher, we don't NEED HDTV, and we don't *need* TV at all.

Plus, there is such a thing as PQ being too good. <...> And, at times I do like to see some film grain in older films; the Taxi Driver BD has the perfect balance of excellent PQ & some film grain...

I'm not sure why you'd think that 4K is somehow the antithesis to film grain, or are you suggesting that film grain is a detriment to picture quality? That's certainly not the case. Higher resolution better resolves and preserves grain.

You would certainly enjoy seeing Taxi Driver in 4K. Maybe not *that* much more than in 1080p. I don't understand why anyone would have a vested interest in fighting or saying 'no' to technological progress though.

Sorry if I'm coming across as grumpy here, but I sat through the exact same discussions when 1080p was up and coming and I'm surprised at how short sighted the AV press in particular can be: "what's the point", "we'll need huge screens", "720p is good enough" etc etc. It's coming and will one day be the standard, and you'll surely own a 4K display some day.

David M. wrote:Well done BD is enough for me, also. I'm very happy that we surpassed the resolution of release prints (not that those were ever a benchmark, but they were still the best available to us for awhile).

BD cant really can't compare to a release print though David? Perhaps you mean a 16mm release print?

I should be less specific perhaps and say "cinema experience". When there were still films projected from 35mm here, I saw some truly crap presentations which were absolutely worse than BD (in most ways).

Interesting piece from Kevin Drum today about what is apparently region-coding in E-Books (that's a thing?). If I'm reading this right, Masters of Cinema has to change their region coding screen!

Yes, it's true. I can't buy UK Kindle books because I joined the US side. You can change your address back and forth but it destroys the convenience which was supposed to be the entire point.

David M. wrote:I'm not sure why you'd think that 4K is somehow the antithesis to film grain, or are you suggesting that film grain is a detriment to picture quality? That's certainly not the case. Higher resolution better resolves and preserves grain.

Yes, absolutely. This is why you ideally need to go as high as 8K (I've met one archivist who says 16K) to be sure of preserving everything, because even if 35mm's resolution is notionally nearer 4K than 8K, the grain structure is different across the two media - with digital media, it's a perfect grid, and with a chemical medium, it isn't.

So in order to genuinely preserve every speck of information on the chemical medium, you ideally have to whack the resolution of the digital medium up to what initially seems to be a much higher level than you nominally need, just to make allowances for this.

MichaelB wrote:

David M. wrote:I'm not sure why you'd think that 4K is somehow the antithesis to film grain, or are you suggesting that film grain is a detriment to picture quality? That's certainly not the case. Higher resolution better resolves and preserves grain.

Yes, absolutely. This is why you ideally need to go as high as 8K (I've met one archivist who says 16K) to be sure of preserving everything, because even if 35mm's resolution is notionally nearer 4K than 8K, the grain structure is different across the two media - with digital media, it's a perfect grid, and with a chemical medium, it isn't.

So in order to genuinely preserve every speck of information on the chemical medium, you ideally have to whack the resolution of the digital medium up to what initially seems to be a much higher level than you nominally need, just to make allowances for this.

As someone who is no where near an expert in this area, I would have thought the opposite. The higher the res the more of a chance the grain can overwhelm the picture. When you talk 8K and higher is there that possibility of this?

The grain is the picture.

The higher the res the more of a chance the grain can overwhelm the picture.

Not really. A low-light scene shot on high speed film is going to have a lot of grain regardless of the resolution it's been scanned at. Higher resolution scanning will give you higher resolution details, and that also means higher resolution grain - but not more of it.

You might be thinking of old SD telecine transfers where the grain was reduced as a matter of routine (in part because older telecine designs themselves added their own noise). Fortunately that isn't the way any more.

David M. wrote:I should be less specific perhaps and say "cinema experience". When there were still films projected from 35mm here, I saw some truly crap presentations which were absolutely worse than BD (in most ways).

Ah, I understand, yes, definately. Honestly even dvd was far preferable to the missing reels, unreadable subs, and faded and damaged prints I've seen projected at times.