Large Format/"Premium" Theaters (IMAX 15/70, Digital IMAX, XD, ETX, RPX, etc.)

[ITDEFX101]

All this talk about up-scaling and reading the reviews of 4k movies on here are probably the reasons why I am holding out as long as I can on moving to 4k....

I have never seen a 1080p movie on a 4k TV...so I don't know if rebuying the same presentation at a 4k price would justify the price they are asking. But from those interviews with John Knoll around the time of Rogue One, it would have been incredible if A New Hope was remastered for 4k and released for the 40th anniversary. The technology is available, the money is available , there is a strong interest from the fan base...but sadly it's a missed opportunity.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

All this talk about up-scaling and reading the reviews of 4k movies on here are probably the reasons why I am holding out as long as I can on moving to 4k....

I have never seen a 1080p movie on a 4k TV...so I don't know if rebuying the same presentation at a 4k price would justify the price they are asking. But from those interviews with John Knoll around the time of Rogue One, it would have been incredible if A New Hope was remastered for 4k and released for the 40th anniversary. The technology is available, the money is available , there is a strong interest from the fan base...but sadly it's a missed opportunity.

I don't think Fox wants to support the Star Wars brand enough to do an undertaking like that on the one film they still completely own.

Frankly, having the Disney-Fox acquisition go through would be the best chance for something like that (and I imagine Disney getting A New Hope for future releases and their streaming service is a factor in their interest in Fox).

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I have never seen a 1080p movie on a 4k TV...so I don't know if rebuying the same presentation at a 4k price would justify the price they are asking.

There would likely be some benefit. At the very least, it would probably eliminate any color banding, and the upscaling algorithm they use would likely be better than what your player does. But those upgrades would be very minor, and most people would probably never notice them.

Originally Posted by xbs2034

I don't think Fox wants to support the Star Wars brand enough to do an undertaking like that on the one film they still completely own.

At the same time, though, they still make money off the releases. And I think Disney actually owns the raw assets from the films, and Fox just has distribution rights. So it's in Fox's best interest to support a UHD release of the SW films, since they're definitely gonna sell like crazy (which would generate a considerable profit for little effort on their part) and it would also probably lead to greater adoption of UHD players (which would increase the potential audience of other Fox UHD releases).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Considering they don't do that for any other movie, they're not gonna do it for the prequels. Actually, I'd argue that re-doing the CGI at 4K would only serve to highlight the limitations of the digital cameras they were working with at the time, especially in Episode II.

Speaking of Episode II, considering that the film was shot in 1080p to begin with and the camera does not have the extra dynamic range for a real HDR presentation, would anyone else feel okay with having Episode II remain 1080p on UHD and using the extra disc space for alternate cuts and special features? I'd be very interested to see the shorter IMAX cut, and any upgrade that upscaling to 4K provides would probably be imperceptible for most people anyway.

Sure, II was shot in 1080p rec.709 but so much of it is digitally manipulated - which will have had its own custom gamut - that I reckon there'd still be a certain amount of dynamic range for them to exploit, same goes for III which was shot using far better examples of the Sony CineAlta cameras too.

Bottom line is that II and III were ultimately finished in the conventional 2K DCI-spec format so they'd be just as suitable for a 4K upscale as anything else, no heroics need to be done. And with the more efficient compression, wider gamut and higher dynamic range of 4K UHD I reckon they've still got more to give, especially III which already looks very tasty as it is on 1080p BD.

[ITDEFX101]

Episode 3 was completely shot in digital? So....it was compressed using whatever compression method was used back then...then if you take it to 4k, wouldn't that be adding more compression? I am thinking when the 50th anniversary of Star Wars rolls around, Disney is gonna put out a mega box set with every star wars movie out there and anything else star wars related but if the only thing not shot in digital is the original trilogy then it's just going to look *ok* in whatever standard is out there in the home market in 10 years...The original trilogy will most likely stand out and supersede the other movies in the series as all they have to do is rescan the negatives. I wish there was a way to find out what is the real status of all the negatives from the original trilogy.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Episode 3 was completely shot in digital? So....it was compressed using whatever compression method was used back then...then if you take it to 4k, wouldn't that be adding more compression? I am thinking when the 50th anniversary of Star Wars rolls around, Disney is gonna put out a mega box set with every star wars movie out there and anything else star wars related but if the only thing not shot in digital is the original trilogy then it's just going to look *ok* in whatever standard is out there in the home market in 10 years...The original trilogy will most likely stand out and supersede the other movies in the series as all they have to do is rescan the negatives. I wish there was a way to find out what is the real status of all the negatives from the original trilogy.

It's possible that Ep. 2 & 3 have 35mm film negative backups because back then because digital projection was just in its early stages and had to make film prints to get them into the theaters.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

It's possible that Ep. 2 & 3 have 35mm film negative backups because back then because digital projection was just in its early stages and had to make film prints to get them into the theaters.

And no one bothered to ask Lucas if a 35mm back up exists of Ep 2 and 3 all these years?

I know he was pushing for digital but still...you need a backup in case something goes wrong.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

I'm aware on how the Alexa works but it still outputs a 2K image from that recorded 3.4K source, hence its distinguishing contrast and color.
These Ultra 4K Blu-Rays are still upconverting these 2K masters and making a few tweaks to fit the 4K format.
Arri has made new Alexas that can now record and output the full 3.2K via Arriraw or ProRes.

The Alexa hasn't been limited to 2K recording since the original Alexa. It's been 5/6 years since the Alexa Plus came out with 2.8K RAW recording, which is twice the resolution of 2K.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Episode 3 was completely shot in digital? So....it was compressed using whatever compression method was used back then...then if you take it to 4k, wouldn't that be adding more compression?

Not really. It's possible that they shot uncompressed digital files (which was how Russian Ark was shot on an earlier Sony camera 3 years earlier), but even if they were shooting compressed files, we're still talking about bitrates far beyond a Blu-Ray.

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

It's possible that Ep. 2 & 3 have 35mm film negative backups because back then because digital projection was just in its early stages and had to make film prints to get them into the theaters.

Scanning a film-out makes no sense. You're getting grain that shouldn't be there, and you're not getting any additional resolution.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

The Alexa hasn't been limited to 2K recording since the original Alexa. It's been 5/6 years since the Alexa Plus came out with 2.8K RAW recording, which is twice the resolution of 2K.

Not too many movies used that 2.8K RAW option unless you had a bigger budget or projects with lots of VFX work. Many either used the ProRes option like Moonlight did or in the early stages, record on HDCAM-SR. But these were used mostly by indie films or television programs. But even at 2.8K, it still had to be downsampled for a 2K D.I.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Not really. It's possible that they shot uncompressed digital files (which was how Russian Ark was shot on an earlier Sony camera 3 years earlier), but even if they were shooting compressed files, we're still talking about bitrates far beyond a Blu-Ray.

Scanning a film-out makes no sense. You're getting grain that shouldn't be there, and you're not getting any additional resolution.

Hey I will take *some* grain back any day...makes the movie so it doesn't have this drab grey/blue look to it where every movie looks like it was shot in overcast lighting.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Hey I will take *some* grain back any day...makes the movie so it doesn't have this drab grey/blue look to it where every movie looks like it was shot in overcast lighting.

But it's not supposed to be there. It's no different from applying DNR to movies shot on film to make them look more like digital. I love the look of grain too, but if the movie shouldn't have grain, then it shouldn't have grain.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

But it's not supposed to be there. It's no different from applying DNR to movies shot on film to make them look more like digital. I love the look of grain too, but if the movie shouldn't have grain, then it shouldn't have grain.

You are going to have grain no matter what...that's the trade off with film. Some films have an acceptable amount that you barely notice, others are like wtf?!?!? But still with all that film at least there is no overcast looking outside shots. I am serious this year I have seen so many films were everything shot outside looked like it had over cast lighting and those films that actually had a pretty sky background just felt like a digital enhancement which is pretty much possible these days.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

You are going to have grain no matter what...that's the trade off with film.

But Episodes II and III weren't shot on film. So they shouldn't have grain. I expect that there would be sensor noise (haven't watched either movie on Blu-Ray, and don't care to either), particularly on Episode II, but that's not the same thing as grain.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

But Episodes II and III weren't shot on film. So they shouldn't have grain. I expect that there would be sensor noise (haven't watched either movie on Blu-Ray, and don't care to either), particularly on Episode II, but that's not the same thing as grain.

I remember seeing a film print of Episode III on the largest screen in my city and the images was so razor sharp, any grain was non-existent.
But the cameras that were used for that were different than the Panavision Genesis which came after and those filmouts had more filmic elements along with razor sharpness as well.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

I remember seeing a film print of Episode III on the largest screen in my city and the images was so razor sharp, any grain was non-existent.
But the cameras that were used for that were different than the Panavision Genesis which came after and those filmouts had more filmic elements along with razor sharpness as well.

Okay? So what are you getting at? You agree that the film shouldn't have grain, but you like the look of film prints for movies shot on different cameras?

[CelluloidPal]

What I'm getting at is that the film should've had some grain to have some form of dimension to it.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

But Episodes II and III weren't shot on film. So they shouldn't have grain. I expect that there would be sensor noise (haven't watched either movie on Blu-Ray, and don't care to either), particularly on Episode II, but that's not the same thing as grain.

I was talking about the possible 35mm film back up that was mentioned before. Lucas couldn't have shot the movie completely on digital without a film backup....the technology was still fairly new so he would have had to have shot it on film as a backup as well.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

What I'm getting at is that the film should've had some grain to have some form of dimension to it.

I don't care whether you think it "should've had some grain." It wasn't supposed to have grain, and even you admit that the film didn't have grain in its original theatrical exhibition. So it shouldn't have grain, period.

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I was talking about the possible 35mm film back up that was mentioned before. Lucas couldn't have shot the movie completely on digital without a film backup....the technology was still fairly new so he would have had to have shot it on film as a backup as well.

Except he didn't. Not a single frame of 35mm film was shot for either Episode II or III.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

I don't care whether you think it "should've had some grain." It wasn't supposed to have grain, and even you admit that the film didn't have grain in its original theatrical exhibition. So it shouldn't have grain, period.

Then I pose this question, if you believe that digitally shot movies aren't supposed to have grain, why to so many add grain to them in post?