4K Movies Releases

[Penton-Man]

Hmm, I notice that film image revisionism remains alive and well for Blu-ray home media versions-
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=198176

Whether it be by the Director, D.P. or the owner/rights holder (studio), Night of the Living Dead (1990) stand up, be counted and take your honorable place in line behind other altered (from the original) filmic art.

Historical accuracy be damned. Evolving creative license by Studio and/or Director trumps you.

I wonder if 4K Blu-ray will usher in yet a new era in film revisionism like that of 1080p movies?

Flash forward to the latter half of this decade. I can just foresee the official and unofficial reviews in print…..’this 4K Blu-ray of xxxx looks better than it ever has on home video …sharper, more detailed, better contrast, inky blacks, etc…..even though it now boasts a brand new blue/green/dark/ bright white (like a busted Ghost) appearance. This version is a highly recommended buy to all but those familiar with the original theatrical presentation, who as ‘purists’, they hold as the original work of art and thusly may experience troublesome viewing with the Blu-ray incarnation’.

Any internet rebellion?

No problemo. Issue an official statement either directly or through an intermediary or subcontractor that is already canned in the system from the good ole days of 1080p Blu-ray.

Official statement – ‘The studio is proud to announce that our 4K Blu-ray is indeed the *approved* transfer from 2016 generated for the film’s 15th anniversary and done *in consultation* with the film’s director of photography….rumors that he was only physically present in the mastering suite for about 15 minutes are totally unfounded. Also, as you have seen on the internet (Twitter II and Facebook II), the Director has now had a chance to view the end product and declared it ‘4K fantastic’.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hmm, I notice that film image revisionism remains alive and well for Blu-ray home media versions-
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=198176

Whether it be by the Director, D.P. or the owner/rights holder (studio), Night of the Living Dead (1990) stand up, be counted and take your honorable place in line behind other altered (from the original) filmic art.

Historical accuracy be damned. Evolving creative license by Studio and/or Director trumps you.

I wonder if 4K Blu-ray will usher in yet a new era in film revisionism like that of 1080p movies?

Flash forward to the latter half of this decade. I can just foresee the official and unofficial reviews in print…..’this 4K Blu-ray of xxxx looks better than it ever has on home video …sharper, more detailed, better contrast, inky blacks, etc…..even though it now boasts a brand new blue/green/dark/ bright white (like a busted Ghost) appearance. This version is a highly recommended buy to all but those familiar with the original theatrical presentation, who as ‘purists’, they hold as the original work of art and thusly may experience troublesome viewing with the Blu-ray incarnation’.

Any internet rebellion?

No problemo. Issue an official statement either directly or through an intermediary or subcontractor that is already canned in the system from the good ole days of 1080p Blu-ray.

Official statement – ‘The studio is proud to announce that our 4K Blu-ray is indeed the *approved* transfer from 2016 generated for the film’s 15th anniversary and done *in consultation* with the film’s director of photography….rumors that he was only physically present in the mastering suite for about 15 minutes are totally unfounded. Also, as you have seen on the internet (Twitter II and Facebook II), the Director has now had a chance to view the end product and declared it ‘4K fantastic’.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by Constitution 101

The difference between 4k/1080p is greater than 720/1080 isn't it?

On paper, yes, but how many people:

1) Will have screens large enough to where they can tell the difference

and

2) Care?

I'd love a 4K TV, but IMO with these larger resolutions we are approaching niche territory and a point of diminishing returns for the average non-videophile viewer. I doubt it will be like the jump from VHS to DVD or DVD to Blu-Ray for the average viewer. I am all for 4K and higher for movie theaters, though for most home displays the difference won't be as apparent. When people seem to be fine with watching 2K at theaters, I don't know if they'll care about 4K on much smaller displays. I sure hope I am wrong!

[Dubstar]

I must interject and say even though 'Lawrence of Arabia' was shot in 70mm - the 4K presentation I saw this afternoon set the bar very high in how good a 70mm film, when transferred right - can look in 4K digital DCP form.

truly amazing!

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by Dragun

On paper, yes, but how many people:

1) Will have screens large enough to where they can tell the difference

and

2) Care?

I'd love a 4K TV, but IMO with these larger resolutions we are approaching niche territory and a point of diminishing returns for the average non-videophile viewer. I doubt it will be like the jump from VHS to DVD or DVD to Blu-Ray for the average viewer. I am all for 4K and higher for movie theaters, though for most home displays the difference won't be as apparent. When people seem to be fine with watching 2K at theaters, I don't know if they'll care about 4K on much smaller displays. I sure hope I am wrong!

All true, but then again the niche people are always the 1st to jump in b4 it's commonplace(HDTV, HD broadcasts, etc.)...

[Brightstar]

you guys should wait another 10 years

[ay221]

Originally Posted by starfantasy

you guys should wait another 10 years

In 10 years I want the holodeck. It will be the only way to truly experience movies.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

You’ve got to know the *corporate speak* words ….”official”, “approved”, “supervised by”, because by implication, the masses will then assume that the project is therefore correct…. not characterized by any error in technical transference (machine) or mistake in human/moral judgment….i.e., this was ‘approved’ by xxxx who 'supervised' the study/project and since he is ‘officially’ qualified, ergo there must be no mistake or moral error.

Hardly, at least not as far as history is concerned or for the sciences. I’ll tell you a non-cinematic life story. I had an *official* scan done of the organ which eventually was replaced with a transplant because it was failing. The images were *approved* by my physician (he viewed the images and signed the report). The actual study was performed by a technician but, it was done *in consultation with* my physician who set up the protocol for the study and it was performed under his *supervision*, i.e. he walked into the room for 2-3 minutes and glanced at the monitor displaying the images.

Well, to make a long story short, problem is he didn’t cater that current imaging study to a previous scan I had because the earlier scan was done at one of their satellite facilities and the images of that scan were either not readily available in my medical records (due to network problems), or they were available, at least at the on-site server and he just didn’t apply even a minimum amount of effort to have them retrieved, or he just totally disregarded the original scan and unfortunately for me, his written notes didn’t include the finding…just a several word summary. To this day, I don’t know the answer as we’re not talking and I’ve changed doctors.

Anyway, later on down the line, I *nudged* others to track down the images of my previous scan by having my attorney file written complaints to other officials both within this particular hospital/medical center and outside agencies – because Medical Records was not complying with my formal written request (their form), which by law, they were required to do.

Bottom line, if this physician had been successful in tracking down my previous scan and closely examining it, it probably would have made a significant difference in my subsequent medical/surgical management. So, despite an *official* scan being done which was *approved* and performed *under the supervision* of arguably the person most familiar with my case, that didn’t necessarily mean that no mistakes or errors in judgment were made….as a big *fan* (ME) of the project (MY HEALTH) later discovered, in retrospect.

The expert, and his technician, for that matter, in this non-cinematic specialty should have compared the scan to my previous study. And even if he/they had…but totally disregarded the previous scan, then he still would have been wrong to have done so.

Sorry, if I’m coming off as some kind of revised Dracula.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You’ve got to know the *corporate speak* words ….”official”, “approved”, “supervised by”, because by implication, the masses will then assume that the project is therefore correct…. not characterized by any error in technical transference (machine) or mistake in human/moral judgment….i.e., this was ‘approved’ by xxxx who 'supervised' the study/project and since he is ‘officially’ qualified, ergo there must be no mistake or moral error.

Hardly, at least not as far as history is concerned or for the sciences. I’ll tell you a non-cinematic life story. I had an *official* scan done of the organ which eventually was replaced with a transplant because it was failing. The images were *approved* by my physician (he viewed the images and signed the report). The actual study was performed by a technician but, it was done *in consultation with* my physician who set up the protocol for the study and it was performed under his *supervision*, i.e. he walked into the room for 2-3 minutes and glanced at the monitor displaying the images.

Well, to make a long story short, problem is he didn’t cater that current imaging study to a previous scan I had because the earlier scan was done at one of their satellite facilities and the images of that scan were either not readily available in my medical records (due to network problems), or they were available, at least at the on-site server and he just didn’t apply even a minimum amount of effort to have them retrieved, or he just totally disregarded the original scan and unfortunately for me, his written notes didn’t include the finding…just a several word summary. To this day, I don’t know the answer as we’re not talking and I’ve changed doctors.

Anyway, later on down the line, I *nudged* others to track down the images of my previous scan by having my attorney file written complaints to other officials both within this particular hospital/medical center and outside agencies – because Medical Records was not complying with my formal written request (their form), which by law, they were required to do.

Bottom line, if this physician had been successful in tracking down my previous scan and closely examining it, it probably would have made a significant difference in my subsequent medical/surgical management. So, despite an *official* scan being done which was *approved* and performed *under the supervision* of arguably the person most familiar with my case, that didn’t necessarily mean that no mistakes or errors in judgment were made….as a big *fan* (ME) of the project (MY HEALTH) later discovered, in retrospect.

The expert, and his technician, for that matter, in this non-cinematic specialty should have compared the scan to my previous study. And even if he/they had…but totally disregarded the previous scan, then he still would have been wrong to have done so.

Sorry, if I’m coming off as some kind of revised Dracula.

damn, sorry to hear that Penton, but to a very lesser extent (Sorry for my bad english) I know what you mean. Things like that really shouldn't happen. Am just glad that your road to full recovery is going well.

And as far as the topic, you really had me cracking up, as so many ads came to mind. It's really sad though as many will fall for that. We here are lucky because there are people who know what they're talking about, but for the general pop, it sucks.

[srinivas1015]

If 4K comes out, will it utilise HDMI or HDBaseT?

[keb33509]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

If 4K comes out, will it utilise HDMI or HDBaseT?

HDMI, there are HD 4k displays already available and they use HDMI. You can find audio receivers and blu ray players that can transmit 4k. However, the blu ray players only up convert to 4k, as there are no true 4k players. The PS4 is said to be 4k compatible.

[Livelong420]

Originally Posted by ay221

In 10 years I want the holodeck. It will be the only way to truly experience movies.

I was thinking it'll play out and we will be inside the action. 3D? People will laugh when they take for granted the 360D experience. 1K 2K 4K 8K, 2D, 3D, 4D, 360D- it makes sense.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

If 4K comes out, will it utilise HDMI or HDBaseT?

4k is a format/resolution, so what you will end up using to connect two devices can't realy be known at this point since that would depend on the manufacturers of the devices.

That being said, HDMI high-speed (basically the cable introduced in 1.3) has the BW necessary for 4K and 4K was officially added to the specs in HDMI 1.4 specs/HW. So technically if you bought a 4K display and device to replace what you have now chances are that you could use the same HDMI cable..

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

damn, sorry to hear that Penton, but to a very lesser extent (Sorry for my bad english) I know what you mean. Things like that really shouldn't happen. Am just glad that your road to full recovery is going well.

And as far as the topic, you really had me cracking up, as so many ads came to mind. It's really sad though as many will fall for that. We here are lucky because there are people who know what they're talking about, but for the general pop, it sucks.

Well, some things (like medical scans and accurate to the original theatrical presentation *Director approved* Answer prints, etc.) should be available and secured to all parties who have the right and responsibility to view them….

But, on the other hand, other imaging really should be erased before one sells the old device (which has it stored on) to someone who will then sell the device on ebay (run the YouTube clip to get my Pixar drift)….

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ACCOM-RTD-42...E:B:SS:US:1123

oops.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Hmm, I notice that film image revisionism remains alive and well for Blu-ray home media versions-
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=198176

Whether it be by the Director, D.P. or the owner/rights holder (studio), Night of the Living Dead (1990) stand up, be counted and take your honorable place in line behind other altered (from the original) filmic art.

Historical accuracy be damned. Evolving creative license by Studio and/or Director trumps you.

I wonder if 4K Blu-ray will usher in yet a new era in film revisionism like that of 1080p movies?

Flash forward to the latter half of this decade. I can just foresee the official and unofficial reviews in print…..’this 4K Blu-ray of xxxx looks better than it ever has on home video …sharper, more detailed, better contrast, inky blacks, etc…..even though it now boasts a brand new blue/green/dark/ bright white (like a busted Ghost) appearance. This version is a highly recommended buy to all but those familiar with the original theatrical presentation, who as ‘purists’, they hold as the original work of art and thusly may experience troublesome viewing with the Blu-ray incarnation’.

Any internet rebellion?

No problemo. Issue an official statement either directly or through an intermediary or subcontractor that is already canned in the system from the good ole days of 1080p Blu-ray.

Official statement – ‘The studio is proud to announce that our 4K Blu-ray is indeed the *approved* transfer from 2016 generated for the film’s 15th anniversary and done *in consultation* with the film’s director of photography….rumors that he was only physically present in the mastering suite for about 15 minutes are totally unfounded. Also, as you have seen on the internet (Twitter II and Facebook II), the Director has now had a chance to view the end product and declared it ‘4K fantastic’.

Glad to see you sharing your insight. I always pay more attention to what is not said that to any "official" statement by a corporation or individual.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Glad to see you sharing your insight. I always pay more attention to what is not said that to any "official" statement by a corporation or individual.

Oh yes, it is not uncommon for there to be more to the story than presented in *official* statements. But don’t get me all riled up because it’s bad for my heart. Anyway, back to NotLD (1990)…it is a slippery slope when you change things from the original.

By slippery slope, what I mean is, those apologetic and accepting of the color and brightness changes of Night of the Living Dead (1990) do not have the right to then condemn or belittle those who have been accepting of Blu-ray DNR-ed revisions of other motion pictures. For….some movie fans who don’t give a hoot about historical accuracy to the original, may dislike grain…and find the presence of any grain to be personally distracting and wouldn’t mind at all in having a smoother ‘revised’ look than that of tiny ditsels bouncing around on their screens.

Hey, and while we’re at it, for those older pictures which were originally shot ‘a little soft’, let’s pep ‘em up with some sharpening (EE), because a sharper *look*, even at the risk of some ‘edginess’ or outright haloes, appears much better in some mainstream viewers’ minds than a fuzzy, soft look…..especially if they never saw the original theatrical presentation, or if they did, just don’t mind a little digital look to those oldie motion pictures as long as it was done *in consultation with* the D.P.

I don’t know when the word ‘transfer’ failed to mean ‘transfer’ and became the phrase ‘transfer with manipulation’, but honestly, if you have an accurate template like the interpositive or an Answer print faithful to the theatrical presentation, a trained chimp with good eyes can do most of these transfers without the need or ‘consultation’ from one of the original filmmakers. The involvement of the later just offers the studio *legitimacy* as to the end product and also plausible deniability (hey, it was HIM, not ME) just in case something (color, brightness, contrast, grain, sharpness, etc.) is changed from the original theatrical presentation (by the mastering technician or the filmmaker) and some knowledgeable die-hard fans of the movie subsequently revolt when viewing the altered home media incarnation.

If you don’t think so, then I guess all those Blu-rays and DVDs of innumerable other motion pictures in which the D.P. or Director did not ‘consult’ or ‘supervise’ the transfer are really not accurate to the original theatrical presentation and what people have been viewing for years on Blu-ray and DVD have been inaccurate products in regards to the original theatrical presentation.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by keb33509

HDMI, there are HD 4k displays already available and they use HDMI...

Yes, and in the interval since I posted this last April –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...er#post6008683

A reasonably priced Mini Converter SDI to HDMI 4K converter box has been announced –
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/pres...eleaseID=32224
and apparently will be shipping in December –
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/prod...iniconverters/

The HDMI 4K support includes 3840x2160p23.98, 3840x2160p24, 3840x2160p25, 3840x2160p29.97, 3840x2160p30, 4096x2160p24.

[Bk_Tan]

Doesn't matter. People haven't even completely bought into Blu-Ray.

Furthermore, studios are still shoveling out DVD masters (Disney) so it's not like there'll be a huge upgrade in quality when everyone's still cutting corners and trying to make a quick buck.

And at the end of it all, the only people who will fork out the cash to get the newest, flashiest screens and players, are a minority and who probably are cinemaphiles which the studios are ignoring with the 255354th release of Batman in a new slipcover, steelbook, fancy mask edition.

That's the reality.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

Doesn't matter. People haven't even completely bought into Blu-Ray.

Furthermore, studios are still shoveling out DVD masters (Disney) so it's not like there'll be a huge upgrade in quality when everyone's still cutting corners and trying to make a quick buck.

And at the end of it all, the only people who will fork out the cash to get the newest, flashiest screens and players, are a minority and who probably are cinemaphiles which the studios are ignoring with the 255354th release of Batman in a new slipcover, steelbook, fancy mask edition.

That's the reality.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

Doesn't matter. People haven't even completely bought into Blu-Ray.

Okay…well then, how ‘bout a brief commercial break to endorse something that does matter.

Namely, a motion picture which will never make it natively to 4K Blu-ray but, still looks gorgeous …. although I must disagree with all the early online reviews () I’ve read (from the film critics who attended its world premiere last month at the New York Film Festival) with regards to its 3D.

Originally Posted by U4K61

+1

You deserve the distinction of responding with + 3.14159 to anyone you agree with.
U4K61, your avatar ( π ) reminds me of the upcoming film, Life of Pi…https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=9576
Since I don’t see any thread on the forum started/dedicated to this particular upcoming motion picture (probably because of the fact it hasn’t been released yet in the U.S.) I’ll offer a little free advice here which some theater-going folks may find useful.

Specifically, if any readers happen to be 3D enthusiasts who like (or especially, demand) depth to their 3D movies...and you are thrifty with your money, then you should consider saving your hard earned cash, or at least the inconvenience of wearing those 3D glasses, and if offered, simply attend the 2D theatrical presentation of Life of Pi.

Overall, Life of Pi is as flat (meaning [narrow] interaxial settings) as the non-action scenes in the vast majority of The Amazing Spider-Man…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...29#post6535229

Perhaps The Amazing Spider-Man is a bit flatter than Life of Pi ?...I’m not certain, as I wasn’t doing an objective comparison between the two 3D films in my mind at the time of the recent west coast screening I attended because I was enjoying Life of Pi too much. Anyway, when the flick does get a widespread release, it should become apparent to knowledgeable 3D viewers that the movie really doesn’t demonstrate that much *3D effect*, especially for strong parallax lovers. “Subtle” would be a very kind way of describing the overall 3D. Don’t believe me?...then view the 3D theatrical presentation and take off your 3D glasses during the show and you will soon discover that much of the movie is totally watchable without wearing the 3D glasses.

On the other hand, in just plain ol’ 2D, the imagery is sublime , especially with its contrasts in color. Plus, the CG animation of the Bengal tiger rivals the best ever produced in the motion picture business. I suspect there will be more than one Academy award nomination for this motion picture both in ‘technical’ (like Cinematography, Visual Effects) as well as ‘non-technical’ (Best Director?) categories…..and deservedly so, imho – but not for its 3D.The enhancement contribution of the 3rd dimension, I feel is marginal and certainly not “a remarkable breakthrough” as claimed in the *official* news announcement linked to in the first paragraph.

For locals, the American Film Institute has announced the Centerpiece Galas and Special Screenings for its annual festival, which takes place from Nov. 1-8 in Hollywood, Calif. and one of the Centerpiece Galas is Life of Pi.