4K Movies Releases

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...-again/265184/

Ooooooh that was a hard read.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...-again/265184/

Oh man.

I don't understand how any movie lover can praise this on going change to digital and not see the affect it's having on film. Reading that is sad.

What's Christopher Nolan going to do in a few years?

I prefer the look of film over digital 100%. Especially 65/70mm. Digital can't replicate that soft textured analog look and feel.

[Flatnate]

The only point that I might take exception to is that really two terabytes of data in terms of archiving a 2k film is really not that costly in terms of storage (well I guess it is compared to a few cubic feet of shelf space over the years). At this point digital storage cost really shouldn't be used as an excuse here, especially when comparing it to the cost of striking a new print. I mean no arguing that other issues still exist, its just that maintaining a large digital archive shouldn't be the reason we lose these films to history.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

The only point that I might take exception to is that really two terabytes of data in terms of archiving a 2k film is really not that costly in terms of storage (well I guess it is compared to a few cubic feet of shelf space over the years). At this point digital storage cost really shouldn't be used as an excuse here, especially when comparing it to the cost of striking a new print. I mean no arguing that other issues still exist, its just that maintaining a large digital archive shouldn't be the reason we lose these films to history.

Its not just the storage space; its the maintenance.

You can't just copy a film onto a 2TB drive and call it a day. That might be how a consumer does it but professional digital archiving is much more complex, resource intensive and costly.

Compared to storing a cannister of film there is a lot more potential for things to go wrong, and should somebody stop maintaining the archive (due to war, catastrophe, bankruptcy etc) film has a much better chance of surviving a period of years un-supervised.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by vargo

Its not just the storage space; its the maintenance.

You can't just copy a film onto a 2TB drive and call it a day. That might be how a consumer does it but professional digital archiving is much more complex, resource intensive and costly.

Compared to storing a cannister of film there is a lot more potential for things to go wrong, and should somebody stop maintaining the archive (due to war, catastrophe, bankruptcy etc) film has a much better chance of surviving a period of years un-supervised.

Thanks vargo, I mean yeah I get that too. I actually used to be the guy who backed up my Universities servers on to magnetic tape and bring them in and out of the vault. However, today a lot of these processes are automated with redundant backups and the cost has still fallen dramatically. I mean I could envision this all being outsourced to a third party vender who specializes in storing these kinds of data files. Yeah it is way more costly than some cans sitting on a shelf but the storage cost can not be what stops this kind of digital preservation from happening. When cutting a single print costs $50 grand, it kinda puts the digital storage cost in to perspective, and I know storage is just a small piece of the overall preservation cost pie here, but I still maintain that considering the parties involved 2tB or even 4tB a film is not all that much.

What concerns me most is the apparent lack of will to tackle the problem in some places. This Thanksgiving I'm thankful for folks like Grover Crisp at Sony who is in charge of Asset Protection and Film Restoration/Preservation. Its just a shame more films don't fall under that kind of protective umbrella elsewhere.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...-again/265184/

I like this moniker…”The Last Lab Standing” –
https://www.facebook.com/LastLabStanding

Lots of sad stories out there related to the demise of film…national as well as local - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...-new-beverly-c

Geez Deci, I was already feeling depressed this morning after a fellow animal lover sent me a link to Fiona Apple’s ( http://www.examiner.com/article/fion...or-best-friend ) recently composed moving letter -

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=3&theater

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Oh man.

I don't understand how any movie lover can praise this on going change to digital and not see the affect it's having on film. Reading that is sad.

What's Christopher Nolan going to do in a few years?

I prefer the look of film over digital 100%. Especially 65/70mm. Digital can't replicate that soft textured analog look and feel.

Good news. It aint no classic but, you should like the acquisition and post –http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/No...ster/page3.php

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by vargo

Its not just the storage space; its the maintenance.

You can't just copy a film onto a 2TB drive and call it a day. That might be how a consumer does it but professional digital archiving is much more complex, resource intensive and costly.

Compared to storing a cannister of film there is a lot more potential for things to go wrong, and should somebody stop maintaining the archive (due to war, catastrophe, bankruptcy etc) film has a much better chance of surviving a period of years un-supervised.

plus one film 2TB is putting it mildly. Large studios have thousands and tens of thousands of films. Then there is also the question of how much of the extra stuff that was on the cutting room floor do you keep, any extra footage (i.e. interviews.... things that might be used in a featurette), one copy in one location is always a dangerous ( how many films were lost due to a fire or an earthquake.... before VHS and studios realizing that there could be money in old films)... and what about 4k or 8k or something like that.....

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

The only point that I might take exception to is that really two terabytes of data in terms of archiving a 2k film...

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...and what about 4k or 8k or something like that.....

For a 4K scan (of a color film), it requires approximately 128 MB/frame. If a general motion picture contains 160,000 frames, the math works out to 24 TB per film, which just includes the raw data. If you do any processing like dust busting or other digital restoration processes, these produce additional data files and most astute *men/women in charge* save both the initial scans and the final processed files.

So….now you’re up to around 48 TB per film taking that into consideration, where applicable.

Being a "retired" Hollywood Insider means I’m not actively *in the loop* anymore and I seldomly receive any perks from Hollywood studios anymore as in the past…perks like free tickets to special theatrical showings, free Blu-rays, complimentary meals, special invitations to exclusive events in Las Vegas and elsewhere….not to mention, a many longtime readers’ favorite…regular access to candid Inside information but, I can tell you that I still keep my nose to the wind and I’ve heard early mixed feelings about the new Kodak Color Asset Protection Film (briefly mentioned in the article which Deci posted on the last page) -

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Produ...Films/2332.htm

which Kodak claims is an affordable option for protecting valuable motion picture assets but others claim that despite correctly applying a 3D LUT for color correction, as indicated by the company, it is not ideal for the level of color accuracy, linearity and range required for accurate archiving.

So, I don’t know whom to believe in regards to this newest preservation solution.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by vargo

Its not just the storage space; its the maintenance.

Not to mention the fact that there is general agreement in the archival community that you should migrate the data to the newest/best digital thing at least every 5 years.

Plus, you always need a back-up copy and some people say you even need two back-up copies.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Will21st

I feel you Penton,this year for me has been very similar to yours.... better times ahead!

Thanks .

It also became the year that I ceased being an Arsenal fan as I said *Enough is Enough* and I finally realize that “at the top of the game” means the goal is 4th place in the Prem and no silverware of any type is completely acceptable to the business organization -
http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,16429,00.html

And if the following video still no longer plays (*due to technical reasons*),
http://www.skysports.com/video/inlin...202374,00.html

then this guy’s plea sums it up for me –
http://justarsenal.com/calling-arsen...a-change/18017

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

heard early mixed feelings about the new Kodak Color Asset Protection Film (briefly mentioned in the article which Deci posted on the last page) -

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Produ...Films/2332.htm

which Kodak claims is an affordable option for protecting valuable motion picture assets but others claim that despite correctly applying a 3D LUT for color correction, as indicated by the company, it is not ideal for the level of color accuracy, linearity and range required for accurate archiving.

So, I don’t know whom to believe in regards to this newest preservation solution.

What about the solution I think it was Bruno George of Pacific Title and Art Studio presented in the ReelThing of preserving the Ks into b/w film separations. With sequential frames (like in animation) to avoid differential separations shrinkage and specifying the contrast curve and tri-color filters as the RGB display xy coordinates the b/w film if properly developed fixed cleaned (+ archival toned) should last a looong time in a cool place

and even printing horizontally a 4K wide scan into the film (so the image 2160 or 3556 pixels height goes into 24mm of film image height) for even a cleaner record and prevent optical loses from the sight "lossy" analog film conversions

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Thanks .

It also became the year that I ceased being an Arsenal fan as I said *Enough is Enough* and I finally realize that “at the top of the game” means the goal is 4th place in the Prem and no silverware of any type is completely acceptable to the business organization -
http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,16429,00.html

And if the following video still no longer plays (*due to technical reasons*),
http://www.skysports.com/video/inlin...202374,00.html

then this guy’s plea sums it up for me –
http://justarsenal.com/calling-arsen...a-change/18017

Try supoorting Sunderland. Now that's hard!


Penton Man, you have to be a true fan man! It is either all in or all out. It is in my blood so no escape!

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For a 4K scan (of a color film), it requires approximately 128 MB/frame. If a general motion picture contains 160,000 frames, the math works out to 24 TB per film, which just includes the raw data. If you do any processing like dust busting or other digital restoration processes, these produce additional data files and most astute *men/women in charge* save both the initial scans and the final processed files.

So….now you’re up to around 48 TB per film taking that into consideration, where applicable.

Ha! Yup 2TB is nothing in the commercial world, but 48TB! I stand corrected. 48TB over several thousand films is a behemoth investment and operation.

I forgot all about Julie Marchese and her film about film and the New Beverly. I saw the Kickstarter back in April, but that was the last time I heard anything. Good to see progress made with that. Very cool.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Wow, that ^ brings back memories, as at least someone learned something from my posts over the past few years in regards to the value of higher resolution (> 2K) digital scanning of film source after my quoting collaborative references from individuals at a notable post production facility, a leading European camera manufacturer and at least one Hollywood studio.

I am glad to brighten your day

I thank you for the information you've provided me as it is quite fascinating and very informative. At the same time, it saddens me when I learned that some of my favorite movies are "locked in" at 2k despite having a 4k source in the 35mm film negatives. Somehow, I doubt that Casino Royale or Return of the King will have their live-action scenes re-scanned, re-timed, etc at 4k any time soon. Then again, considering the work done on Star Trek TNG, maybe I will see a 4k version of these films some time in my life.

As for the Atlantic article posted, I too found it hard to read. I've had the chance to see many classic films in my life through DVD and Blu-ray (for example, I saw the 1974 classic The Odessa File with my father who originally saw it in India) but I hate to think of all the movies I could have seen on film. For example, while I really do appreciate the 4k restoration of Lawrence of Arabia and the 4k DCP was very detailed, it did not stand up to the 70mm print I saw a year earlier. It is so hard to find movies on film anymore (let alone ones even shot on it these days) that I am trying to watch as many as I can. I know there's a BD of Ben-Hur availiable but I really want to see it on 70mm. I would also like to see Patton, 2001, Grand Prix, etc on film as my father did. He reminds me of this every time we see these movies.

For example, the Lagoon theater in St. Paul, MN is running a Hayao Miyazaki 35mm film festival with the vast majority of his films in Japanese with English subtitles. I gathered my friends and we are going to see Princess Mononoke next week. I have seen his movie Nausciaa on BD (excellent transfer, BTW) but I think there's still something magical about seeing it on real film. I've seen Mononoke on DVD many times, but seeing the real film print will be special. At the tender age of 28 I feel that I will be telling my children about how I was old enough to see projected film "back in the day" and why I still cling to my reel to reel tapes and vinyl records in the age of MP3 audio and streaming video. That is a very sad thought.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

What about the solution I think it was Bruno George of Pacific Title and Art Studio presented in...

Deci, I really can’t comment because I haven’t spoken to any users of that particular solution. Seems every other year or so, someone at some conference toots their own horn as to the ultimate newest archival method, like so -

http://www.point360.com/forms/visionaryarchive2011.pdf

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Try supoorting Sunderland. Now that's hard!

Penton Man, you have to be a true fan man! It is either all in or all out. It is in my blood so no escape!

Yeah, but Stee, as far as I understand the Sunderland organization is not exploiting its fans, as indicated with the Arsenal… http://justarsenal.com/calling-arsen...a-change/18017

I think it might be quite liberating to root for underdogs and hopeful ‘giant killers’ in the bottom half of the table because at least they don’t always sell all their extremely talented players for one reason or another and bring in players of lesser quality as replacements….and, in so doing, purposely make the company more profitable, as I am not an owner or shareholder, but a fan….or at least, was.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I am glad to brighten your day

I thank you for the information you've provided me as it is quite fascinating and very informative...

Well, you’ve got to calls ‘em as you sees ‘em…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...66#post6782166

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Deci, I really can’t comment because I haven’t spoken to any users of that particular solution. Seems every other year or so, someone at some conference toots their own horn as to the ultimate newest archival method, like so -

http://www.point360.com/forms/visionaryarchive2011.pdf

Heh that seems a way of complicating things over using sequential RGB over 3 frames in the same film like I suggested above to avoid the three separations' differential shrinkage

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Yeah, but Stee, as far as I understand the Sunderland organization is not exploiting its fans, as indicated with the Arsenal… http://justarsenal.com/calling-arsen...a-change/18017

I think it might be quite liberating to root for underdogs and hopeful ‘giant killers’ in the bottom half of the table because at least they don’t always sell all their extremely talented players for one reason or another and bring in players of lesser quality as replacements….and, in so doing, purposely make the company more profitable, as I am not an owner or shareholder, but a fan….or at least, was.

Not really liberating as we are a well supported club home and away with a fantastic stadium and board, BUT we have been starved of success for forty years and the level of unrest at the moment in my opinion is in no way enjoyable.
The point i was trying to make is that true fans cannot walk away. It is just part of their\my life. Football is not just about the good times, it is about loving the club no matter what. It could be argued that players themselves exploit football clubs by swearing their loyalty and then moving on for bigger wages a shirt time after. Again, just my opinion.