Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 4K vs. 2K - Do you see better image quality?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 4K vs. 2K - Do you see better image quality? (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: 4K vs. 2K - Do you see better image quality?

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 05-16-2007 08:43 PM

Normally we keep 30-50 CP-650's at Hadden so we don't have supply problems. More when contracts demand.) Louis

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-17-2007 03:26 AM

Why repair a Sony than replace it? That is easy...because a FRB board is under a grand and a new CP650 (or even a Dolby alternative) is knocking in the 10-grand department, depending on the system and reader.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-17-2007 08:25 AM

I think it has more to do with an excuse to standardize formats(at least for one of the chains we service) at a given location than anything else but it also has to do with compatability and servicability into the future.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Dick Vaughan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1032
From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 05-28-2007 03:55 AM

Well finally got to see the 4k presentaion in Guildford on Thursday last week sadly one day too late to do a direct film vs 2k vs 4k comparison as POTC 3 had taken over the film and 2k screens.

I was impressed by the amount of general detail, the flesh tones and also the detail in the blacks. The contrast range was very good.

One disappointing aspect was the sound drifted in and out of sync throughout the movie. It was in sync most of the time ,at some points 2 or 3 frames out but at one point, when the maitre de blows his whistle in the restaurant, somewhere between 6 and 10.

This apparently has been there since day 1 on both 2k and all 4k screens [thumbsdown]

Anyone else running this noticed a sync problem?

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-28-2007 05:35 AM

quote: Dick Vaughan
I was impressed by the amount of general detail, the flesh tones and also the detail in the blacks. The contrast range was very good.

Would you say 4k provides a much better cinema experience than good 35mm? How would you rate 4K compared to the best 70mm blow-ups you have seen? Was the screen where you saw 4K bigger than Pictureville's flat screen? Finally, how much better would you rate a new 70mm print like Hello Dolly (Todd-AO, which is a 50s technology) compared to 35mm in 4K (a 21st century technology)? Thank you

Thank you

| IP: Logged

Ben Wales
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 602
From: Southampton. England
Registered: Jul 99

posted 05-28-2007 05:58 AM

I belive and seen the Sony 4K and was improved over 2K & 35mm prints, with "Spiderman 3" it was filmed on Super 35mm, I was told that Sony claim if it was Filmed on 65mm or HD would be even more superior than the exampled being screened in 4K when I was there.

But the 4K Projectors are far more expensive at about £80K and having the costly Dual Xenon Lamp so adding the operation costs for the Theatre owners.

Perhaps they could be used at Premier Locations like 70mm was used a few years ago.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-28-2007 02:26 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
RE: The 8 channel mixes... We have both 2000 and 3000 units doing 8 channel and we primarily strive to maintain those units before all the others... And where is DTS in all this... The XD-10 does 10 channels out of the box! Will they ever get with it???

I had hoped Universal Pictures would support the XD-10 when it was brand new by having a 10 channel mix for Hulk (the studio's big summer release that year). Nothing materialized. I've read comments in other threads about some 8-channel discs and uncompressed LPCM audio tracks being delivered to some XD-10 theaters. But largely, I would say the huge amount of capability in the XD-10 has gone unused. That's a shame.

Audio doesn't get as much hoopla on d-cinema as it did with 35mm. That seems contradictory since the audio is typically 24-bit, uncompressed LPCM 5.1 (not sure about the sample rate, 48kHz?). It's a big step above lossy Dolby Digital, SDDS and DTS. Since there's no fancy logos or other promotional stuff for the sudio on d-cinema I don't expect to see any big push for more discrete audio channels above 5.1 for quite some time. DCI specs provide room for more audio channels though.

quote: Dick Vaughan
One disappointing aspect was the sound drifted in and out of sync throughout the movie. It was in sync most of the time ,at some points 2 or 3 frames out but at one point, when the maitre de blows his whistle in the restaurant, somewhere between 6 and 10.

Sounds a bit like the Sony DVD player I bought several years ago.

quote: Ben Wales
I belive and seen the Sony 4K and was improved over 2K & 35mm prints, with "Spiderman 3" it was filmed on Super 35mm, I was told that Sony claim if it was Filmed on 65mm or HD would be even more superior than the exampled being screened in 4K when I was there.

Some effects background shots in Spiderman 2 were filmed in 65mm.

Any movie production that chooses to shoot on larger formats like 5/65mm and VistaVision will have a product that can adapt to more demanding presentation environments and formats in the long term.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-28-2007 03:17 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
But largely, I would say the huge amount of capability in the XD-10 has gone unused. That's a shame.

I would agree.. DTS seems to be just completely lost these days supporting stuff that no theater that I work with utilizes.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-28-2007 03:17 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
But largely, I would say the huge amount of capability in the XD-10 has gone unused. That's a shame.

I would agree.. DTS seems to be just completely lost these days supporting odd stuff that no theater that I work with would ever utilize. On the other hand of they did support 8 channel mixes I would happily tear out every Sony left in the Mountain States and replace them with XD-10's. There are quite a few 8 channel systems out here...

Mark

| IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-28-2007 03:59 PM

I don't really get it. I mean, we still see movies released for SDDS-8. Are there DTS-8 versions? We sure don't seem to hear about it. What's the story there?

--jhawk

| IP: Logged

Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-28-2007 05:05 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Audio doesn't get as much hoopla on d-cinema as it did with 35mm. That seems contradictory since the audio is typically 24-bit, uncompressed LPCM 5.1 (not sure about the sample rate, 48kHz?). It's a big step above lossy Dolby Digital, SDDS and DTS. Since there's no fancy logos or other promotional stuff for the sudio on d-cinema I don't expect to see any big push for more discrete audio channels above 5.1 for quite some time. DCI specs provide room for more audio channels though.

The only thing about that is while theoretically, the digital presentations should have better sound, I've always perceived them to be inferior. Now I'll admit that my mid-high-frequency hearing isn't what it used to be, but I always find the digital presentations to have sound that seems metallic and shrill as compared with DTS or Dolby Digital. I'd love to hear an A-B comparison one day.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-28-2007 07:00 PM

quote: John Hawkinson
I don't really get it. I mean, we still see movies released for SDDS-8. Are there DTS-8 versions? We sure don't seem to hear about it. What's the story there?

Sure and there are still occasional 8 track mixes too but SDDS is just not where its happenning these days. DTS could easily pull this off with the XD-10. One of their selling features was "10 channels out of the box". Not so for the older DTS units which are only 6 track.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-29-2007 09:27 AM

On the other hand, the general public pretty much has gotten jadded with the continual hype of new new new. After all, how revolutionary have they been hyping digital and the public goes in and everything looks pretty much the same as it always did. Pretty much a letdown. You can't do that to the public over and over without them just tuning it out. After all, how many channels past good stereo surround do you really need to appreciate a film soundtrack? And will 8 channels be a kickass number that will make people seek out a theatre with 8 track playback as opposed 6 or even 5.1? It's dubious, especially given the extra expense of mixing different track mixes. You KNOW a theatre that has more ushers who are attentive to patron disturbances and where the bathrooms are cleaner and the auditoria have clean floors, this will be much more attractive to the public who routinely complain about these issues. You don't hear them saying that they really couldn't enjoy PIRATES this weekend because it was only playing in 6 channel sound and if only it had 8 channels.

It's like the Extreme razors from Gillette and Schick. First they gave us two blades, then they upped it to three blades, then four, now freakin five....pretty soon as far as marketing potential and influencing the public, those numbers becomes useless. You can reach a saturation point and go past the point of no return. In fact, it can even backfire if people's perception is that the ever multiplying numbers are basically just meaningless hype. People start mocking your product.

SNL did a mock ad based on the burgoneing multitude of blades on those Schick and Gillette razors...the guy is shaving and reveals his new shaver which has something like 20 blades in the head, which procede to slice his face to ribbons. I am sure that wasn't something either blade company was happy to see.

Neither would it be a good thing if the public started thinking that way about the multitude of cinema sound channels -- over your head, above the screen, below the screen, five across the rear of the theatre and one under your seat -- the UYA channel or better known among industry insiders as the Up-Your-Ass Channel. [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 05-29-2007 10:59 AM

I don't expect most people in a movie theater audience to ever understand the differences between THX, Dolby Digital, LPCM 5.1 and a lot of other tech-head oriented stuff.

It should also be said that if we had to wait for the general public to be able to properly understand the significance of something new before delivering it to the marketplace most movie theaters would still be running in mono or no more than basic 2 channel stereo.

5.1 audio doesn't work all that great in a lot of larger movie theaters. Unless you're sitting in one of the few seats in the theater's sweet spot you're just going to hear a left wall and right wall effect when the surrounds are used.

With more discrete channels added to the surround array transient fly by effects and other panning and circling effects would be a lot more convincing. Depending on the theater you visit, normally the effect just sounds stupid. It doesn't pan the way it should. Add to that the common problem of many movie theaters having poorly maintained sound systems and the problem just compounds itself.

I think a great deal of the public doesn't get excited about improved audio quality and audio effects capability because most movie theater sound systems just aren't working like they should.

It's a shame the home theater environment is actually doing more to address that specific problem. No one is delivering things like DTS-ES 6.1 Discrete audio tracks to commercial movie theaters. We're not getting any discrete 6.1 LPCM audio tracks in d-cinema either. It only seems to be for the home environment.

As to the issue of mixing expense and complexity, I think the newer digital audio editing tools are making the process a lot easier. You can literally draw a path of where you want the audio element to be imaged in the sound field and map its position and intensity changes on the time line. It can be folded down or blown up to as many channels as needed. A bunch of that stuff can be scripted to automate repetitive tasks.

The big problem with movie sound editing and mixing is lack of time. That job is one of the last things completed on a movie production and its amazing a lot of those guys are able to put together a decent mix with such stupidly short deadlines. But then they'll get to go back and tweak things to how they really want the audio track to sound for the DVD release.

| IP: Logged

Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 05-29-2007 02:30 PM

quote: Frank Angel
And will 8 channels be a kickass number that will make people seek out a theatre with 8 track playback as opposed 6 or even 5.1? It's dubious

With a properly recorded orchestra, five channels behind the screen, if there is a big screen, make a huge difference. I love 5 channels behind the screen, especially on those films from the 60s when they did amazing recordings (Todd-AO quality)

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.