Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo
Oh wait??? I thought the 2k/4k thing was referring to the vertical resolution, not the horizontal.........
It refers to the horizontal resolution.
, “4k” refers to 4,096 pixels across the image and “2k” has 2,048 pixels across the image. But the vertical resolution in k’s is quite variable. For instance, a 4k scan of the whole 35mm film frame is 4,096 x 3112 whereas a 4k image for 1.85:1 output would be 4096 x 2214 whereas a 4k image for 2.39:1 output could be 4096 x 3112 or 4096 x 1714 depending on whether it is anamorphic or not.
Adding to the numbers complexity is the fact that when we talk about scanning 35mm film at “4k”, in actuality, we don’t. Post production facilities typically scan perforation to perforation but, the actual Academy Aperture is 3,456 pixels - which is quite less than 4k.
Keep in mind that the real determining factor as to how ‘sharp’ your Blu-rays will appear at home, is much more
dependent upon the camera lenses, lighting and digital intermediate processing (if applicable) than what “k” the film was harvested at with your scanner. Example being, The DaVinci Code
, as I said before, had a 4k digital master. So did, for that matter, Hancock
, despite the fact that it was never *advertised* as such in the imdb. I suggest you watch both movies back-to-back and compare for ‘sharpness’.
One thing which is being totally overlooked in discussion of this particular re-mastering, and probably is of greater home viewing practical significance
because it theoretically should provide a more accurate *look* to the Blu-ray edition of Minority Report
compared to the release prints which some folks saw at their local Multiplex, really has little at all to do with the 4k re-mastering pipeline but, is more related to the digital
re-mastering process itself…..regardless of whether it had been done at 4k or 2k resolution.