Why stilll use 2k scans?

[20th Century Boy]

Sorry if there's a dedicated thread elsewhere but I didn't see one via search. Anyway just curious, I see some new transfers are being done in 2k. How come? I'm under the impression that 4k scans have come down in price. And wouldn't it be smarter to "future proof" for UHD should the format take off (which I doubt, but...)

And also haven't all blus been 2k scans? Or has there been something below 2k for scanning purposes?

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

I'm under the impression that 4k scans have come down in price.

2K scans are still cheaper.

If the original camera negatives are available, then 4K would be best decision. Second generation prints, interpositives, etc. being scanned in 2K isn't a big deal.

[spiderfan1985]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

Sorry if there's a dedicated thread elsewhere but I didn't see one via search. Anyway just curious, I see some new transfers are being done in 2k. How come? I'm under the impression that 4k scans have come down in price. And wouldn't it be smarter to "future proof" for UHD should the format take off (which I doubt, but...)

And also haven't all blus been 2k scans? Or has there been something below 2k for scanning purposes?

That depends entirely on the film itself. If a film was finished at a 2K intermediate then it would have to be down-converted to 1080p. Likewise for 4K Blu it would have to be up-converted. It also depends on the studio releasing the Blu. Shout Factory for instance is too small a studio to afford doing 4K scans of films that are considered niche at the very best. And that comes down to the studio the film really belongs to as Shout just licenses it and the studio provides the master.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Because 2K scans are said to be significantly cheaper to perform than 4K scans. Also, there isn't much sense in scanning IPs and internegatives in 4K due to the drop-off in resolution from the original negative, which is why I'm puzzled that SF is still doing some 4K IP scans.

[HD Goofnut]

If you don't know the reason chances are it's because of money like in this case.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by spiderfan1985

That depends entirely on the film itself. If a film was finished at a 2K intermediate then it would have to be down-converted to 1080p. Likewise for 4K Blu it would have to be up-converted. It also depends on the studio releasing the Blu. Shout Factory for instance is too small a studio to afford doing 4K scans of films that are considered niche at the very best. And that comes down to the studio the film really belongs to as Shout just licenses it and the studio provides the master.

If they put their money into actual PQ instead of slipcovers, posters, newly commissioned art, and new interviews that are rarely very interesting they could easily do 4K scans. But they choose swag instead.

[OI8T12]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

If they put their money into actual PQ instead of slipcovers, posters, newly commissioned art, and new interviews that are rarely very interesting they could easily do 4K scans. But they choose swag instead.

Isn't that what the masses want? How many times have you read in numerous threads, that people want slipcovers and interviews? I have read many threads that say this.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

If they put their money into actual PQ instead of slipcovers, posters, newly commissioned art, and new interviews that are rarely very interesting they could easily do 4K scans. But they choose swag instead.

I doubt people who want to buy something like "Mac and Me" would care about a 4K scan that would need downgraded anyway to go onto a BD.

But to get a poster or an interview? For a long forgotten ET ripoff? Heck yeah.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

If they put their money into actual PQ instead of slipcovers, posters, newly commissioned art, and new interviews that are rarely very interesting they could easily do 4K scans. But they choose swag instead.

Cheap slips and tat pay for themselves if you look at the posts of the many people here who purely buy BDs for that reason. A 4K scan however is considerably more expensive and is generally not profitable for the relatively limited runs a company like Shout produces.

Obviously you know a lot more about their profit margins than they do. It's amazing how much more profitable Hollywood studios and independent labels would be if they were run by the armchair specialists on this forum, rather than by the people who have been doing these jobs for decades.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Because 2K scans are said to be significantly cheaper to perform than 4K scans. Also, there isn't much sense in scanning IPs and internegatives in 4K due to the drop-off in resolution from the original negative, which is why I'm puzzled that SF is still doing some 4K IP scans.

Agreed, when using film elements that are further down the line than the camera negative (IP or IN) then a >2K scan (3K minimum) for a 2K finish will usually yield something that gets you most of the way there thanks to the benefits of the oversampling.

[Poya]

https://theasc.com/articles/a-clear-...-of-resolution

[Worship.my.wreck]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

If they put their money into actual PQ instead of slipcovers, posters, newly commissioned art, and new interviews that are rarely very interesting they could easily do 4K scans. But they choose swag instead.

I'd rather take a slipcover or fancy packaging or "swag" over slightly better PQ. There's nothing wrong with most if not all 2K scans. Yeah, PQ can always be improved, but by how much? Are any of you ever satisfied with a release?

[Ed Strakers Wig]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

Sorry if there's a dedicated thread elsewhere but I didn't see one via search. Anyway just curious, I see some new transfers are being done in 2k. How come? I'm under the impression that 4k scans have come down in price. And wouldn't it be smarter to "future proof" for UHD should the format take off (which I doubt, but...)

And also haven't all blus been 2k scans? Or has there been something below 2k for scanning purposes?

The studios won't be in any rush because there's far too many suckers out there telling everyone how great an upscaled 2k version looks on UHD.
Some do look good but obviously 4k would be even better.
There's a few recent titles where full 4k isn't possible but generally continuing to use 2k is a scam

[Ed Strakers Wig]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

Obviously you know a lot more about their profit margins than they do. It's amazing how much more profitable Hollywood studios and independent labels would be if they were run by the armchair specialists on this forum, rather than by the people who have been doing these jobs for decades.

It's a myth that Bates Motel seems to want to perpetuate if you look at many of his posts.
Glad I'm not the only one to spot this

[Ed Strakers Wig]

Originally Posted by Worship.my.wreck

I'd rather take a slipcover or fancy packaging or "swag" over slightly better PQ. There's nothing wrong with most if not all 2K scans. Yeah, PQ can always be improved, but by how much? Are any of you ever satisfied with a release?

I think the point is that a UHD can be improved upon.
I agree that with a standard Bluray 2k is usually enough

[babybreese]

Originally Posted by Worship.my.wreck

I'd rather take a slipcover or fancy packaging or "swag" over slightly better PQ.

This is one of the dumbest things I have read yet on this forum.
Congratulations.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ed Strakers Wig

The studios won't be in any rush because there's far too many suckers out there telling everyone how great an upscaled 2k version looks on UHD.
Some do look good but obviously 4k would be even better.
There's a few recent titles where full 4k isn't possible but generally continuing to use 2k is a scam

I take it you've read the article below?

Originally Posted by Poya

https://theasc.com/articles/a-clear-...-of-resolution

[solarrdadd]

[AgentOrange]

2K scans don't bother me. Just about all of the Warner Archive releases are 2K, and they almost all look spectacular to me, and as many of those are from inter-positives it probably doesn't matter much. A 2017 "2K scan" is generally going to be miles better than whatever DVD era master the had from the early 2000's or before. The bigger benefit is from getting the newly scanned and restored master.

There might be some subtle benefits to "oversampling" at 4K and then downsampling to blu-ray. But not a big deal to me, we are talking 99% improvement vs. 100% improvement. I am almost half-way relieved when I see a blu-ray is 2K scan, that means at least the double dip isn't totally inevitable. If a blu-ray is 4K scanned, especially by a major studio, my question is "where is the UHD?".

[Ed Strakers Wig]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I take it you've read the article below?

Had a quick scan but wasn't really convinced.
When a UHD looks almost the same as a Bluray I'm not happy.
End of story

But I think this thread is really arguing the case for 4k scans on Bluray which isn't really an issue for me.
When I see stats that say the Bluray uses a 4k scan I assumed they were simply future proofing the product.
So few UHD discs have given me the wow factor the only one I recall is Planet Earth 2. I've sold off many of the others