Why only scan at 2K? - Blu-ray Forum

Count Orlok · 03-22-2016, 08:15 AM

I hope this doesn't come off as a stupid question, but I was curious.

Since we're starting to see 4K in the home, why are some movies finished or scanned only at 2K? Nosferatu was given a 2K scan, while The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was given a scan at 4K. I can assume Nosferatu was only given a 2K job as the print is generations away from the court ordered destroyed original negative, while there are no release prints of Caligari at all.

Scream Factory does this as well. Warner Brothers even scanned Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz in 8K.

Is money a factor in it? Mad Max and The Martian were finished at 2K, which were slightly upscaled to 4K for their UHD BD releases.

What usually determines the choice between scanning at 2K/4K/8K?

BozQ · 03-22-2016, 08:30 AM

It largely depends on production workflow, budgets, resources, deadlines, type of content and the list goes on.

There is no one fixed answer to determine the decisions made behind the scenes.

But more often than not, productions today usually involve many different cameras and visual effects are done by more than one company. Each camera offers different resolution capabilities, each visual effects house utilize different rendering software.

So the producer has to decide very early on the DI resolution in order to meet the deadline set by the studios for release.

While older films are scanned at 4K or 8K is because the film is complete. A larger scan can be afforded for clean up and home release.

I doubt we will see true 4K blockbuster production from start to finish without any compromises for a while. Not when many cinemas are still projecting in 2K. Including "Digital IMAX"

I KEEL YOU · 05-23-2016, 01:41 PM

1. It's cheaper
2. If there is no access to the original camera negatives or they have been destroyed/lost, then there is not much advantage in scanning at 4K anyway so you might as well scan at 2K. The same goes if it's a 16mm film. Not saying that there are no benefits at scanning 16mm OCN at 4K over 2K (proper modern 2K scan, that is), but they are very small.

You'd be surprised at how many original camera negatives have been lost. Someone mentioned that Jurassic Park had its OCN lost. I don't know if that is true.

42041 · 05-23-2016, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

You'd be surprised at how many original camera negatives have been lost. Someone mentioned that Jurassic Park had its OCN lost. I don't know if that is true.

It isn't.

Brightstar · 05-23-2016, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Orlok

I hope this doesn't come off as a stupid question, but I was curious.

Since we're starting to see 4K in the home, why are some movies finished or scanned only at 2K? Nosferatu was given a 2K scan, while The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was given a scan at 4K. I can assume Nosferatu was only given a 2K job as the print is generations away from the court ordered destroyed original negative, while there are no release prints of Caligari at all.

Scream Factory does this as well. Warner Brothers even scanned Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz in 8K.

Is money a factor in it? Mad Max and The Martian were finished at 2K, which were slightly upscaled to 4K for their UHD BD releases.

What usually determines the choice between scanning at 2K/4K/8K?

It costs alot of time and money thats why its cheaper to scan in 2k

ZoetMB · 05-23-2016, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

You'd be surprised at how many original camera negatives have been lost. Someone mentioned that Jurassic Park had its OCN lost. I don't know if that is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42041

It isn't.

Regardless, Martin Scorsese has said that 50% of all films produced before 1950 have been completely lost.

And even big award-winning films like Lawrence of Arabia, West Side Story and The Godfather were in incredibly horrible condition before they were restored. In fact, it's been said that the more popular the film, the worst condition the negative is going to be in because they would have kept going back to make more prints.

We've become so used to quality Blu-rays, that we forget how bad the prints were when we went to revival theaters or used to see many older films on TV that used old TV prints. When I was a kid, no one wanted to seriously look at silent films because the TV and revival prints were normally in such bad condition (and in the case of silent films, usually projected at the wrong speed).

Coenskubrick · 06-26-2016, 05:41 AM

Why is it so much cheaper to scan in 2k though. Like once the initial investment in 4k scanners has been made, surely the difference in cost between scanning at the 2 resolutions would be the cost of a larger hard drive to store the resulting film on?

CuriousGamer · 06-26-2016, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

Why is it so much cheaper to scan in 2k though. Like once the initial investment in 4k scanners has been made, surely the difference in cost between scanning at the 2 resolutions would be the cost of a larger hard drive to store the resulting film on?

It's not just about the scanning process, though 2K in theory is faster to scan than 4K.
After than each frame takes up a quarter of the drive space and requires less work to clean up, repair, etc.

Geoff D · 06-26-2016, 11:02 AM

^ correct, it's not the scan itself so much but what comes later: there's 4x the storage space needed, with much more bandwidth required for the remastering pipeline itself (when Lowry restored the Terminator at 4K they used up to 40TB), and even the 4K frames themselves will take longer to dust-bust because they're physically 4x larger than 2K.

It all adds up in terms of time and cost, and then there are some films (and indeed film sources, like IPs or INs) which really won't give you much more than 2K's worth of raw information anyway. Yeah, DAT FORKAY is what we're conditioned to accept as the holiest of holies for 35mm, but plenty of factors affect the sheer resolution of the end product like the lenses, the lighting, the film stock, lab development and so on. Sure, scanning at >2K is essential when doing proper restoration projects, but more often than not the downsampled 2K end product has most of the detail, it's just got less finely resolved grain.

CyberpunkCentral · 07-03-2016, 08:20 PM

I heard The Rocky Horror Picture Show was scan in both 2K and 4K. Is this true? If so, why not go all out with either one?

CuriousGamer · 07-04-2016, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

I heard The Rocky Horror Picture Show was scan in both 2K and 4K. Is this true? If so, why not go all out with either one?

It was and it wasn't, the 2000 DVD was made from a 1080i master but for Blu-Ray it was scanned at 4K and downsized to 2K.

03-22-2016, 08:15 AM	#1
Count Orlok Blu-ray Ninja Top contributor Member since:Sep 2012 Location:41.7325° N, 49.9469° W Home Theater Gallery:42 4K collection:383 Blu-ray collection:2416 DVD collection:88 MA collection:211 Digital collection:421 iTunes collection:6 Blu-ray reviews: 10 Trading Score:182	Why only scan at 2K? I hope this doesn't come off as a stupid question, but I was curious. Since we're starting to see 4K in the home, why are some movies finished or scanned only at 2K? Nosferatu was given a 2K scan, while The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was given a scan at 4K. I can assume Nosferatu was only given a 2K job as the print is generations away from the court ordered destroyed original negative, while there are no release prints of Caligari at all. Scream Factory does this as well. Warner Brothers even scanned Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz in 8K. Is money a factor in it? Mad Max and The Martian were finished at 2K, which were slightly upscaled to 4K for their UHD BD releases. What usually determines the choice between scanning at 2K/4K/8K?

05-23-2016, 01:41 PM	#3
I KEEL YOU Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:May 2011 4K collection:67 Blu-ray collection:458 DVD collection:42	1. It's cheaper 2. If there is no access to the original camera negatives or they have been destroyed/lost, then there is not much advantage in scanning at 4K anyway so you might as well scan at 2K. The same goes if it's a 16mm film. Not saying that there are no benefits at scanning 16mm OCN at 4K over 2K (proper modern 2K scan, that is), but they are very small. You'd be surprised at how many original camera negatives have been lost. Someone mentioned that Jurassic Park had its OCN lost. I don't know if that is true. Last edited by I KEEL YOU; 05-23-2016 at 01:47 PM.

03-22-2016, 08:30 AM	#2
BozQ Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Jun 2007 Location:Singapore 4K collection:- Blu-ray collection:-	It largely depends on production workflow, budgets, resources, deadlines, type of content and the list goes on. There is no one fixed answer to determine the decisions made behind the scenes. But more often than not, productions today usually involve many different cameras and visual effects are done by more than one company. Each camera offers different resolution capabilities, each visual effects house utilize different rendering software. So the producer has to decide very early on the DI resolution in order to meet the deadline set by the studios for release. While older films are scanned at 4K or 8K is because the film is complete. A larger scan can be afforded for clean up and home release. I doubt we will see true 4K blockbuster production from start to finish without any compromises for a while. Not when many cinemas are still projecting in 2K. Including "Digital IMAX"

06-26-2016, 05:41 AM	#7
Coenskubrick Blu-ray Guru Member since:Apr 2015 4K collection:3 Blu-ray collection:558	Why is it so much cheaper to scan in 2k though. Like once the initial investment in 4k scanners has been made, surely the difference in cost between scanning at the 2 resolutions would be the cost of a larger hard drive to store the resulting film on?

06-26-2016, 11:02 AM	#9
Geoff D Blu-ray Emperor Top contributor Member since:Feb 2009 Location:Swanage, Engerland 4K collection:1348 Blu-ray collection:2525 Blu-ray reviews: 6 Trading Score:33	^ correct, it's not the scan itself so much but what comes later: there's 4x the storage space needed, with much more bandwidth required for the remastering pipeline itself (when Lowry restored the Terminator at 4K they used up to 40TB), and even the 4K frames themselves will take longer to dust-bust because they're physically 4x larger than 2K. It all adds up in terms of time and cost, and then there are some films (and indeed film sources, like IPs or INs) which really won't give you much more than 2K's worth of raw information anyway. Yeah, DAT FORKAY is what we're conditioned to accept as the holiest of holies for 35mm, but plenty of factors affect the sheer resolution of the end product like the lenses, the lighting, the film stock, lab development and so on. Sure, scanning at >2K is essential when doing proper restoration projects, but more often than not the downsampled 2K end product has most of the detail, it's just got less finely resolved grain.

07-03-2016, 08:20 PM	#10
CyberpunkCentral Banned Member since:Apr 2009 Blu-ray reviews:6	I heard The Rocky Horror Picture Show was scan in both 2K and 4K. Is this true? If so, why not go all out with either one?

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals