4K Movies Releases

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Heh. It's funny that the two movies announced by Samsung for that pack which WERE actually finished at 4K (Wolverine Origins and Night at the Museum) have been dropped, leaving only the upconverts.

Geoff, the marketing-speak is getting better as they take on new partners….”or pre-processed from licensed content partner source files and optimized for image clarity, detail and texture on televisions like Samsung UHD TVs.”…. http://www.twice.com/news/video/m-go...r-4k-vod/54902

[Penton-Man]

4K….from Hollywood to the Interventional (Radiology) suite, the cath lab and the OR ….http://www.ravepubs.com/hollywood-4k...gical-imaging/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I think it pisses off the naysaying haters that 4K/UHD is actually being adopted quicker than HD was. So, in that regard, you can get some relief/joy out of posting articles like this when the opportunity arises….http://www.twice.com/news/statistics...year-npd/54818

Day by day, it only gets better in the land of high resolution consumer displays.
Something to piss off the ‘pixel counting police’ who have this aversion to rounding up a little by also applying the term ‘4K’ for consumer devices.

There is now multi-organizational agreement as to the terminology used in educational and promotional efforts related to the emerging category of display products with more than eight million pixels….. http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2014/...t-4k-ultra-hd/

[Penton-Man]

4K movie release coming next spring (late spring)…

Tomorrowland - US Teaser Trailer - YouTube

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

To singhcr:

Got cold and snow?

Oh yes, plenty of it. We had an ice storm on the 10th and it's hovering around 20 F for high temps.

It makes it all the more fun to sit in a warm IMAX theatre and see a movie.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Oh yes, plenty of it. We had an ice storm on the 10th and it's hovering around 20 F for high temps.
It makes it all the more fun to sit in a warm IMAX theatre and see a movie.

If you don’t happen to be treating yourself to a new 4K TV or projector this coming holiday season, but plan on purchasing a new car or truck instead, heads-up….try giving this dealer (Apple Ford Lincoln) your business, as they care about folks - http://www.kare11.com/story/news/loc...ries/17788323/

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

If you don’t happen to be treating yourself to a new 4K TV or projector this coming holiday season, but plan on purchasing a new car or truck instead, heads-up….try giving this dealer (Apple Ford Lincoln) your business, as they care about folks - http://www.kare11.com/story/news/loc...ries/17788323/

They are an excellent dealership and we've been there many times. This is welcome news but not a shock.

[Penton-Man]

While enthusiasts are waiting on 4K Blu-ray…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...247826&page=37

Here’s a nice easy-to-read compilation of choices for the interim for those who just can’t wait…. http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-th...ontent-new-tv/

[Spike M.]

I travelled a good three hours to Seattle to see Interstellar at the Boeing IMAX underneath the Space Needle. Second viewing, first was in a rather unsavory digital IMAX in Portland (despite being a larger digital venue at 40x60, the acoustics are terrible to the point of echoing, and the theater design is wonky as it wasn't a stadium theater originally). The resolution in 15/70mm was insanely impressive, however otherwise the image quality was poor. A green hue accompanied with washed out white and black levels. Likely a lens issue, but it was unfortunate.

Penton, do you think on these more massive screens (Boeing is 60x80, so in that range plus), the 4K laser systems will be able to fill the screen without any screen door nonsense? The 15/70mm filmed content was, as I said, remarkably impressive, particularly with how is seamlessly fills the screen without any sign of the resolution being tested.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

Penton, do you think on these more massive screens (Boeing is 60x80, so in that range plus), the 4K laser systems will be able to fill the screen without any screen door nonsense?...

I don’t know. Next time you’re in the area, why don’t you or someone else in the meantime first test by viewing some Christie 6P laser projected 4K DCP content at Seattle’s Cinerama movie theater on their what? ~ 30x90 ft. screen from one of the front rows and report back to us with the findings.

[Penton-Man]

Live 4K/UHD concert broadcast by satellite tomorrow….http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2014/20362143

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

I travelled a good three hours to Seattle to see Interstellar at the Boeing IMAX underneath the Space Needle. Second viewing, first was in a rather unsavory digital IMAX in Portland (despite being a larger digital venue at 40x60, the acoustics are terrible to the point of echoing, and the theater design is wonky as it wasn't a stadium theater originally). The resolution in 15/70mm was insanely impressive, however otherwise the image quality was poor. A green hue accompanied with washed out white and black levels. Likely a lens issue, but it was unfortunate.

Penton, do you think on these more massive screens (Boeing is 60x80, so in that range plus), the 4K laser systems will be able to fill the screen without any screen door nonsense? The 15/70mm filmed content was, as I said, remarkably impressive, particularly with how is seamlessly fills the screen without any sign of the resolution being tested.

Went and saw this last night at the Boeing theater. Honestly, it was embarrassing that so many preach that this is the way to see the film. Sure the screen is big but the contrast of that projector is horrible, the 35mm blow up sequences looked as bad as my old tube TVs did in the early 90's and the true IMAX scenes didn't help much. The 35mm scenes looked incredibly flat and the poor black levels and shadow detail made the image look washed out. The DMR process also leaves it looking hard and over processed. The only 70mm section that really impressed me was the wormhole sequence. Most of the other spots were too back and forth with the 35mm cut ins. This was by far the worst of Nolan's films for 70mm, in the past he seemed to let the scenes play out better with less 35mm cut ins. This one continually had me scratching my head as to why it was 35mm for one scene and 70mm for the other (even within the same sequence and location). I understand the limitations of filming with IMAX but this seemed like a movie that could have been done with the 70mm cameras without much issue. I can't imagine Nolan not having the clout to pull it off (or the budget).

Having now seen the film in true IMAX 70mm and digital IMAX I definitely preferred the digital presentation for both video and audio but I have a sneaking suspicion that I would prefer a well setup 4K digital presentation more. Neither of the IMAX presentations looked as sharp, dynamic and dimensional as I typically see with a 4K digital presentation, even when the movie was shot on film. I'm all for large format capture for films and I hope to see more of them (preferably with the ENTIRE film captured that way) but I see no reason at all to continue to see anything projected on film.

[Kris Deering]

I haven't decided yet for sure but I am going to be in Hawaii this weekend and I may try and see Interstellar at the Ward theater in Honolulu. They use very well setup Barco 4K projectors and they have Interstellar playing. The new Hunger Games movie is playing in their big house with Atmos sound but I may wait to see that with the wifey. The real crux is that another theater that is geared more toward indie films (but still uses great Barco projectors that are setup well) is showing both Birdman and Whiplash, which are two films I'm excited to see and aren't very convenient for me at the moment. Decisions, decisions, decisions...............

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Went and saw this last night at the Boeing theater. Honestly, it was embarrassing that so many preach that this is the way to see the film. Sure the screen is big but the contrast of that projector is horrible, the 35mm blow up sequences looked as bad as my old tube TVs did in the early 90's and the true IMAX scenes didn't help much. The 35mm scenes looked incredibly flat and the poor black levels and shadow detail made the image look washed out. The DMR process also leaves it looking hard and over processed. The only 70mm section that really impressed me was the wormhole sequence. Most of the other spots were too back and forth with the 35mm cut ins. This was by far the worst of Nolan's films for 70mm, in the past he seemed to let the scenes play out better with less 35mm cut ins. This one continually had me scratching my head as to why it was 35mm for one scene and 70mm for the other (even within the same sequence and location). I understand the limitations of filming with IMAX but this seemed like a movie that could have been done with the 70mm cameras without much issue. I can't imagine Nolan not having the clout to pull it off (or the budget).

Having now seen the film in true IMAX 70mm and digital IMAX I definitely preferred the digital presentation for both video and audio but I have a sneaking suspicion that I would prefer a well setup 4K digital presentation more. Neither of the IMAX presentations looked as sharp, dynamic and dimensional as I typically see with a 4K digital presentation, even when the movie was shot on film. I'm all for large format capture for films and I hope to see more of them (preferably with the ENTIRE film captured that way) but I see no reason at all to continue to see anything projected on film.

I mean, the issues at Boeing are native to the theater... it really isn't much different than seeing a shoddy digital presentation. Projectionist error can't be put on the format as a whole.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Went and saw this last night at the Boeing theater. Honestly, it was embarrassing that so many preach that this is the way to see the film. Sure the screen is big but the contrast of that projector is horrible, the 35mm blow up sequences looked as bad as my old tube TVs did in the early 90's and the true IMAX scenes didn't help much. The 35mm scenes looked incredibly flat and the poor black levels and shadow detail made the image look washed out. The DMR process also leaves it looking hard and over processed. The only 70mm section that really impressed me was the wormhole sequence. Most of the other spots were too back and forth with the 35mm cut ins. This was by far the worst of Nolan's films for 70mm, in the past he seemed to let the scenes play out better with less 35mm cut ins. This one continually had me scratching my head as to why it was 35mm for one scene and 70mm for the other (even within the same sequence and location). I understand the limitations of filming with IMAX but this seemed like a movie that could have been done with the 70mm cameras without much issue. I can't imagine Nolan not having the clout to pull it off (or the budget).

Having now seen the film in true IMAX 70mm and digital IMAX I definitely preferred the digital presentation for both video and audio but I have a sneaking suspicion that I would prefer a well setup 4K digital presentation more. Neither of the IMAX presentations looked as sharp, dynamic and dimensional as I typically see with a 4K digital presentation, even when the movie was shot on film. I'm all for large format capture for films and I hope to see more of them (preferably with the ENTIRE film captured that way) but I see no reason at all to continue to see anything projected on film.

It's a pity you didn't see the 15/70 version at a better theater, as I thought the large format sequences were stunning and the 35mm looked about as good as I'd expect, with some excellent detail in some of the close-ups. As for the shot choices with the IMAX stuff, it seemed like it was less random than his previous films (like using it for a shot of a TV hanging on the wall in Gordon's hospital room in TDKR).

[Penton-Man]

Sharp involved at the grass roots (Indie) level of 4K filmmaking -
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...ZicqmC6LrVJsy7

And the winners of the 2nd annual 4K film festival are….
http://sharpartofamazing.com/

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Went and saw this last night at the Boeing theater. Honestly, it was embarrassing that so many preach that this is the way to see the film. Sure the screen is big but the contrast of that projector is horrible, the 35mm blow up sequences looked as bad as my old tube TVs did in the early 90's and the true IMAX scenes didn't help much. The 35mm scenes looked incredibly flat and the poor black levels and shadow detail made the image look washed out. The DMR process also leaves it looking hard and over processed. The only 70mm section that really impressed me was the wormhole sequence. Most of the other spots were too back and forth with the 35mm cut ins. This was by far the worst of Nolan's films for 70mm, in the past he seemed to let the scenes play out better with less 35mm cut ins. This one continually had me scratching my head as to why it was 35mm for one scene and 70mm for the other (even within the same sequence and location). I understand the limitations of filming with IMAX but this seemed like a movie that could have been done with the 70mm cameras without much issue. I can't imagine Nolan not having the clout to pull it off (or the budget).

Having now seen the film in true IMAX 70mm and digital IMAX I definitely preferred the digital presentation for both video and audio but I have a sneaking suspicion that I would prefer a well setup 4K digital presentation more. Neither of the IMAX presentations looked as sharp, dynamic and dimensional as I typically see with a 4K digital presentation, even when the movie was shot on film. I'm all for large format capture for films and I hope to see more of them (preferably with the ENTIRE film captured that way) but I see no reason at all to continue to see anything projected on film.

Wow. My viewing is complete opposite of yours.

To me the 35mm scenes looked perfect blown up to IMAX size. Real high quality image.


I posted this at AVS-


"So a movie that is ment to be seen in native 35mm and 70mm you see in a fake imax theater....with digital projection??? And say the quality is that not great??? Ok???

I can tell you right now there's a BIG difference in seeing this in fake imax vs a real imax screen playing film. Size of the screen and the quality of the prints matters alot.

As i mentioned, the first time i saw this at regal cinema i wasn't impressed at all. The 35mm scenes looked rough and the 70mm scenes looked no better than a bluray. Turns out the theater didn't have the original imax screen size. They changed it to fit digital projection. I don't even know if they were really showing it in film based on the quality. I did see some dirt crawling over screen a few times but who knows. Seeing it again at a AMC theater that has a real imax, and is the largest in NA, was something ridiculous. I had to shake my head as i marveled at the size of the screen and wondering why fake imax theaters exist and all the people spending money not seeing it the way it's suppose to be seen.

The quality of the picture between my first viewing and second was night and day. You haven't seen this movie until you've seen in a proper imax showing a proper print. It was like i went from bluray to 16K resolution. Seriously. The 35mm scenes scaled beautifully from edge to edge top to bottom. Just an all around rich and insanely detailed presentation.

The audio was basically perfect except for the part where jessica chastain is yelling at casey affleck. The highs were harsh and it clipped and distorted a few times. Other than that i thought it lived up to what imax audio is about.

See Interstellar properly people. Please."




It seems you don't like film presentations in general. It could be the prints you're seeing or projectionest not doing his job right. I assure you Nolan has captured some of the best 70mm footage since i saw TDK back in 2008. The 35mm scenes are way superior to his other movies. They did it right this time. The transition between the 70mm scenes wasn't jarring at all.


I'm happy Paramount distributed the movie in the U.S. instead of WB. We're going to get a good looking bluray with a high bitrate.

[Geoff D]

Yup, it looked glorious. And I'd completely forgotten about the Blu-ray distribution, I'm gonna have to import the US one to avoid the domestic Warners release.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...I thought the large format sequences were stunning and the 35mm looked about as good as I'd expect, with some excellent detail in some of the close-ups. As for the shot choices with the IMAX stuff...

Originally Posted by saprano

To me the 35mm scenes looked perfect blown up to IMAX size. Real high quality image....
I'm happy Paramount distributed the movie in the U.S. instead of WB. We're going to get a good looking bluray with a high bitrate.

Well, I’m happy to learn that from you guys, for honestly, my experience had been that no matter which theatrical incarnation I viewed, with the exception of the IMAX captured shots, a significant portion of the 35mm imagery looked fuzzier than I would have expected.
So much so, that it actually had me wondering if Chris N. was purposely using selective defocus a la Grey’s Anatomy (but in the case with Interstellar, during acquisition) as a stylistic choice, like with his sound mixing decision….

http://www.businessinsider.com/inter...ritics-2014-11

I don’t plan on seeing this motion picture yet another (which would make it a total of 4) time at a commercial theater so at least there is now hope that the soft look I viewed is not baked into the imagery and thusly, the Blu-ray edition may turn out being the best looking (in terms of overall detail) of any incarnation that I will have seen for the motion picture in its entirety.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

It seems you don't like film presentations in general. It could be the prints you're seeing or projectionest not doing his job right. I assure you Nolan has captured some of the best 70mm footage since i saw TDK back in 2008. The 35mm scenes are way superior to his other movies. They did it right this time. The transition between the 70mm scenes wasn't jarring at all.

You don't know who Kris Deering is methinks.