Are Blu-ray remasters future proof?

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by benricci

Unfortunately, film is a lousy long-term storage medium. It degrades immensely over time, leading to necessary time-consuming and expensive restoration work.

Resolution isn't everything. All the more reason to prefer digital over film.

Actually, archivists say film is better because (a) they know how to keep film preserved in the right environment, (b) electronic archives are not yet as reliable as film archives, and (c) film is not likely to be made unreadable by future technology upgrades. AMPAS (yes, the folks behind the Oscars) has released two reports on this problem since 2007 under the name "The Digital Dilemma"; both are available on the Academy's website (free after registering your email address).

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Blu Man

Wouldn't you still have to buy a new player? And the minimum amount of space the disk could have would be just over 1 trig. 200 GB's wouldn't cut it for uncompressed video.

They say that the new generation of codecs will be much more efficient than the current ones - offer more picture information per mbps than the current codecs. If this is true and if we really could have 200GB blu rays, then we could have 4K on a blu ray. If The Shining can look this good on a measly 15mbps, then I think that we could get proper looking 4K on 38mbps. We would have to upgrade or buy new blu ray players, but the blu ray format wouldn't die.

[42041]

Originally Posted by benricci

Unfortunately, film is a lousy long-term storage medium. It degrades immensely over time, leading to necessary time-consuming and expensive restoration work.

Resolution isn't everything. All the more reason to prefer digital over film.

It is fine when properly cared for. Problem was, no one really bothered to do so for much of cinematic history. Modern color film stocks can last centuries in climate-controlled environments. Black and white film (including 3-strip technicolor and color separation masters) can last indefinitely.

[nando820]

Originally Posted by singhcr

A 35mm negative has an effective resolution of 4k. 4k is roughly 4000x2000 pixels. There are many factors that go into how detailed the final film will be, but 4k is basically as good as it gets for scanning purposes for a high quality 35mm film.

Most movies these days, if they are shot on 35mm film, have the film scanned into the computer at 2k (2000x1080 pixels, roughly) and all of the editing, CG, and color correction are done at this resolution. So the final movie is "locked in" at 2k even if the film used as a source had an effective resolution of 4k. Think about using a DV camera to shoot raw footage for a movie but you did all of the editing on your computer and recorded it to a VHS tape. Your final copy is now stuck at VHS quality, even though your source material was of a far higher quality.

So pretty much any movie made from 2000 to today has basically half of its effective detail thrown away. Most movies that were shot digitally are 1080p or 2k. More movies these days are shot at 4k or higher, but that's only the raw footage. I assume the final product (called the DI or digital intermediate) will still be at 2k.

It is ironic that the original Tron was shot on 70mm film that has an effective resolution of 6 or 8k but the newer sequel was shot with 1080p digital cameras, making the older movie about 3-4 times more detailed than the newer one. The original Star Wars trilogy was shot on very fine-grained 35mm film, yet the final version that Lucas has settled upon is locked in at 1080p.

Even when we start to get 4k playback at home, almost every movie made in the last decade or so will have a maximum resolution of 2k, which isn’t that much higher than 1080p. I’m sure it could look a little better if it were thrown on a 100GB disc with less compression, but I think the modern movies we collect on Blu-ray today essentially look as good as they can.

Now, a 4k home release of Lawrence of Arabia (70mm negative) would look significantly better than a 1080p Blu-ray release. It is funny how we have gone backwards in movie quality!

that's pretty interesting, so basically every movie that was edited using computers has a 2k quality in the best case scenario

[Vw Driver]

I really wanna see how this 4k can fix Leaving Las Vegas lol. Basically it'll be useless for the old stuff.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by goresnet

Are studios making these in 2k or 4k, so they don't have to do it again, or are they just going for 1080 now?

I would say yes and no, some movies like the recent older 007 movies got a 4K scan and remaster. These movies are already done in 4k so when the time comes to release the movie in 4k it can be easily done.

Something without a big studio backing would likely have to be done again with a 4k scan to be able to be release in 4K.

I assume 4K will be the next big thing for home cinema, so there will be new 4k releases of already existing blu ray titles.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by Vw Driver

I really wanna see how this 4k can fix Leaving Las Vegas lol. Basically it'll be useless for the old stuff.

I think Leaving Las Vegas was shot on 16mm or Super 16, so 4K would be overkill. Older films shot on 35mm can still benefit from 4K scans, especially if the negatives are in good shape.

Originally Posted by nando820

that's pretty interesting, so basically every movie that was edited using computers has a 2k quality in the best case scenario

It has nothing to with being edited on computers and everything to do with being color graded on computers. Even in the 90s, when films were graded optically, people were usually cutting on, say, Avid.

A common misconception with computer editing seems to be that the film is edited, then those files are what end up on movie screens. When a movie is edited on a computer, the film is edited with low-quality proxy files. From there the negative (if shot on film) is conformed to the edit, and then prints can be made the traditional way, from an internegative. Or, in the case of digital intermediates (whether shot on film or digitally), the shots used in the edit are brought online at to create a full-quality version of the film, which is then graded.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Vw Driver

I really wanna see how this 4k can fix Leaving Las Vegas lol. Basically it'll be useless for the old stuff.

1995 is old

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Dragun

A common misconception with computer editing seems to be that the film is edited, then those files are what end up on movie screens. When a movie is edited on a computer, the film is edited with low-quality proxy files. From there the negative (if shot on film) is conformed to the edit, and then prints can be made the traditional way, from an internegative. Or, in the case of digital intermediates (whether shot on film or digitally), the shots used in the edit are brought online at to create a full-quality version of the film, which is then graded.

So you're saying that movies like LOTR were all scanned in at 4k to keep the full detail of the 35mm negatives and then downgraded to 2k for the DI? To my knowledge, the movie's final form is at 2k, just like the Star Wars OT special editions are all at 1080p as that's what the final versions were saved to when they were done.

[42041]

Originally Posted by singhcr

So you're saying that movies like LOTR were all scanned in at 4k to keep the full detail of the 35mm negatives and then downgraded to 2k for the DI? To my knowledge, the movie's final form is at 2k, just like the Star Wars OT special editions are all at 1080p as that's what the final versions were saved to when they were done.

What he's saying is that movies aren't edited with the final 2K or 4K data. Lower-quality scans are used for editing, and then the full-res scans (or analog negative cut) are made according to the edit. So a movie being "edited with computers" doesn't really mean much of anything. A movie can be edited with computers then be printed photochemically, scanned in 4K, 2K, whatever.

[Brian81]

nothings future proof

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Dragun

I think Leaving Las Vegas was shot on 16mm or Super 16, so 4K would be overkill. Older films shot on 35mm can still benefit from 4K scans, especially if the negatives are in good shape.

There's a difference between 16mm and Super 16mm. Leaving Las Vegas was shot Super 16, which is larger than regular 16 but smaller than 35. Super 16 = roughly the size of 4K, while 35mm = roughly the size of 6K. So 4K would NOT be overkill.

On a side note, with the recent development of digital intermediate workflows, it is now possible to digitally enlarge Super 16mm to 35 mm with virtually no quality loss (given a high quality digital scan).

[AmrlKJaneway]

When a film is shot, scanned and finished at 4K, are the scenes with CGI rendered at that resolution? Or do we see 2K monsters fighting 4K humans?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

When a film is shot, scanned and finished at 4K, are the scenes with CGI rendered at that resolution? Or do we see 2K monsters fighting 4K humans?

From everyone I've seen and talked to in the biz, most films are finished at 2K, including FX. Which is why it might be hard for 4K to ever take off. It could be up to 4K by now, but definitely the first decade and more of CGI wasn't rendered in 4K — and some, even less than 2K.

[42041]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

When a film is shot, scanned and finished at 4K, are the scenes with CGI rendered at that resolution? Or do we see 2K monsters fighting 4K humans?

Usually I think they're done at the same res (2K, not many effects films are done at 4K) but there are exceptions. One I know of is Spiderman 2, which had a 4K DI but all the VFX work was upscaled from 2K. Skyfall was a bit of an odd case, since it was shot on 2.8K cameras, had a 4K digital master, but its visual effects were finished at 2K.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by benricci

Unfortunately, film is a lousy long-term storage medium. It degrades immensely over time, leading to necessary time-consuming and expensive restoration work.

Resolution isn't everything. All the more reason to prefer digital over film.

I would actually prefer to film with 35/70 mm film and then convert to a digital 6K/12K master file with redundant masters as backup, then seal off the film master in a vacuum to prevent as much degradation as possible.

At least, if I happened to be a creator of great works of theatrical art.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by retablo

From everyone I've seen and talked to in the biz, most films are finished at 2K, including FX. Which is why it might be hard for 4K to ever take off. It could be up to 4K by now, but definitely the first decade and more of CGI wasn't rendered in 4K — and some, even less than 2K.

Computational power has easily increased to the point where 4K rendering would be possible, it's just up to the companies to buy the hardware necessary to do the rendering.

Companies, unfortunately, rarely provide their employees with proper tools to stay on the cutting edge, with rare exception.

[Nisei]

Imagine; a movie like Sin City, being high tech when released, will go down in history as a low tech blockbuster. It'll never be possible to upgrade it to future standards without upscaling since it was shot in 1920x1080

[mdonovan]

Film is film ... What resolution it is scanned into a digital format is a limitation of technology. All this 4k, 6k stuff is somewhat incorrect.

It gets graded after it is scanned at a resolution determined by technology.

At some point resolution won't matter ... Years ago everyone thought HD would be the acceptable output resolution for the masses ... I do not believe they were completely wrong ...

Then ... Studios realized that once the saturation point was hit on HD , they would need a new way to make money ... Hence 4k ....

Will there be a noticeable difference between 2K and 4K .. Yes ... Will it severely alter my viewing pleasure ? Not enough to justify a 30,000 dollar reinvestment in my hardware and movie collection ...

At least that is how i feel right now.