4K Movies Releases

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bolty

How come the many catalog movies with recent 4K transfers don't bother to release in UHD?

They are selling every single recently in theaters movie (except from Disney) on UHD. Are all these recent releases expected to sell better than Titanic or Robocop or Aliens or Star Trek II would if they came to UHD?

Why doesn't any new format see the release of loads of catalogue crown jewels first up? Because the studios don't want to give you the good stuff all at once, see. And even now an HD transfer isn't a guarantee of a Blu-ray release, so a 4K transfer isn't a guarantee of a UHD one.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Episode VIII was rumored to be filming some scenes near me around the first of the year, but with production having wrapped, I'm thinking the rumor was just that.

A shame, I wanted to try and be an extra...

You guys offer good tax credits….http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/01/atlan...ilm-mecca.html

For another production there’s a casting call for a doorman up in Conyers….http://www.projectcasting.com/castin...g-call-doormen

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

ATTENTION Hollywood locals....freebie –> Eat, Drink, And Be...Naughty!
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/eat-dri...f=erelpanelorg

For those who missed the Panasonic Hollywood Holiday Party and the panel discussion with Theo (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005856/), with regards to Bad Santa 2 , here’s a decent catch-up (without the food, drinks and fine in person socializing)…. http://www.panasonicforbusiness.com/...inema-cameras/

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...with regards to Bad Santa 2 , here’s a decent catch-up (without the food, drinks and fine in person socializing)…. http://www.panasonicforbusiness.com/...inema-cameras/

That's odd. In that article he says Amazon forced him into using a 4k sensor:

“When Amazon Studios asked me what camera I wanted to use, I said, ‘That’s simple, because we have very little prep time, I want to use the [ARRI] Alexa.’ I know this camera well, and also my assistants know it well,” explains Van de Sande. “But they told us that the camera needed to have 4K resolution or more.”

But then I also just saw this Arri article touting their collaborations with Amazon:

Having successfully trialed an ALEXA-based technical workflow on three pilots last summer, Amazon Studios is capturing with ALEXA in ProRes 3.2K, finishing in UHD and grading for HDR on its shows PATRIOT, GOOD GIRLS REVOLT and Z: THE BEGINNING OF EVERYTHING, and is planning to implement the same workflow for upcoming seasons of established productions such as HAND OF GOD and THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE. So why is ALEXA the camera of choice for Amazon Studios? While initially they recommended cameras with 4K sensors for UHD productions, several factors made them reconsider. First and foremost, their creatives and producers kept asking for ALEXA due to the overall image quality, flexible workflows and system reliability. Their decision to promote and deliver HDR content, and ALEXA's superior dynamic range, was an additional factor; and finally the introduction of ProRes 3.2K recording with ALEXA allowed them to capture at native resolution, conform in UHD and grade on an HDR display, all with a very streamlined workflow.

Maybe Amazon changed their mind after his film started production?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by puddy77

Maybe Amazon changed their mind after his film started production?

Yes, that would make sense as to the disparity you mentioned especially since that requirement by Amazon Studios for the pilot was stipulated to Theo in 2014.

[trippledx3]

I have to ask because i am not too good at google apparantly. I do like the "soap opera effect" my tv has (motion something on) when watching films, but i understand its not the way to watch movies, i just wonder why?? Why do i like it better then, i understand the movies was shot at 24fps and that the motion enhancer stuff is fake frames, but if it makes the movie look better then why am i wrong for liking it? Again, im just asking because i am not too good with this

[MarekM]

hmm 125 titles? hmm


http://variety.com/2016/digital/news...hd-1201934739/

Google is finally diving into 4K Ultra HD movies: Starting Tuesday, Dec. 6, Google Play Movies now offers about 125 titles for purchase in 4K, which offers four times the resolution of 1080p HD.

But for now, the 4K movies available only to consumers in the U.S. and Canada, and only on a small number of playback devices — and as much as anything else, the push looks aimed at driving sales of Google’s 4K-enabled Chromecast Ultra, which went on sale last month.

Movies now available for purchase in 4K on Google Play include: “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (pictured above), “Ghostbusters,” “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation,” “Captain Phillips,” “10 Cloverfield Lane,” “Lucy,” “Everest,” “The Lego Movie,” “The 5th Element” and “The Amazing Spider-Man.”

[mttmax]

Upcoming 4K movies:
The Great Wall, Underworld 5 (my local theatre lists them having 4K)
The Circle (4K trailer listed in Deluxe website)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by trippledx3

....I do like the "soap opera effect" my tv has (motion something on) when watching films, but i understand its not the way to watch movies, i just wonder why?? Why do i like it better then, i understand the movies was shot at 24fps and that the motion enhancer stuff is fake frames, but if it makes the movie look better then why am i wrong for liking it? ...

You are not ‘wrong’ for liking it…as it’s your personal preference for movies. As to ‘why’, it’s probably because you personally prefer less motion blur over the value of the *cinematic look* of 24fps. I suspect *cinephiles* as well as the filmmakers e.g. https://www.change.org/p/hdtv-manufa...g-on-all-hdtvs would not share your viewing choice and be quite unsympathetic, but whatever makes you happy is what matters. Not what other people may think or prefer or 'like'.

Movies aside, with regards to imagery characterized by a lot of motion and/or panning like with sports, scientific testing (SAMVIQ subjective testing method (ITU-R BT. 1788) data tallied from 31 observers pre-screened for normal vision) has shown an appeal/value for native high frame rate as opposed to motion interpolation (rust colored bar graphs) and 50Hz….



^ thusly, HFR being a significant component of UHD-1 Phase 2 - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...2#post12824043 .




A couple of illustrative pics with regards to 60Hz vs. native high frame rate (120Hz) display from another collaboration….

[tenia]

You know, not every person defending the historic 24fps will be doing it in an unsympathetical way. It's actually not very nice to suggest so.
I know some people like the HFR look, which I dont, maybe because I'm not used to.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

with regards to imagery characterized by a lot of motion and/or panning...

As to movies and native high frame rate, some observers personally feel that dramatic scenes even involving relatively slow motion provided a greater quality of experience as opposed to the traditional frame rate….http://www.schubincafe.com/2016/11/2...two-sides-now/ .

It’s unfortunate that so few had the opportunity to see the HFR (120 fps version) of BLLHW. There is still time for Sony to redeem itself and do the right thing when the movie is distributed to the U.K. and other European countries next year.

[trippledx3]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You are not ‘wrong’ for liking it…as it’s your personal preference for movies. As to ‘why’, it’s probably because you personally prefer less motion blur over the value of the *cinematic look* of 24fps. I suspect *cinephiles* as well as the filmmakers e.g. https://www.change.org/p/hdtv-manufa...g-on-all-hdtvs would not share your viewing choice and be quite unsympathetic, but whatever makes you happy is what matters. Not what other people may think or prefer or 'like'.

Movies aside, with regards to imagery characterized by a lot of motion and/or panning like with sports, scientific testing (SAMVIQ subjective testing method (ITU-R BT. 1788) data tallied from 31 observers pre-screened for normal vision) has shown an appeal/value for native high frame rate as opposed to motion interpolation (rust colored bar graphs) and 50Hz….



^ thusly, HFR being a significant component of UHD-1 Phase 2 - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...2#post12824043 .




A couple of illustrative pics with regards to 60Hz vs. native high frame rate (120Hz) display from another collaboration….

Thank you very much, i appreciate it a lot! I can finally watch them like that without feeling guilty anymore Been bugging me a lot not being sure what it all meant and if i was doing something wrong.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by tenia

You know, not every person defending the historic 24fps will be doing it in an unsympathetical way.

Excellent ! In your mind, feel free to change my above post from “I suspect *cinephiles*” to the phrase “I suspect some *cinephiles*.

Originally Posted by tenia

It's actually not very nice to suggest so.

I see nobody chimed in to help trippledx3 with his expressed conundrum. So much for ‘sympathy’ and 'niceness' by others. Be it frame rate, color, etc. I personally prefer integrity to creative intent as recently evidenced by one of many posts, e.g. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...t#post12917887

but I try not to be too judgmental as to other viewers’ preferences with entertainment.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by trippledx3

Thank you very much, i appreciate it a lot! I can finally watch them like that without feeling guilty anymore Been bugging me a lot not being sure what it all meant and if i was doing something wrong.

Different strokes for different folks…whatever floats your boat.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by trippledx3

I have to ask because i am not too good at google apparantly. I do like the "soap opera effect" my tv has (motion something on) when watching films, but i understand its not the way to watch movies, i just wonder why?? Why do i like it better then, i understand the movies was shot at 24fps and that the motion enhancer stuff is fake frames, but if it makes the movie look better then why am i wrong for liking it? Again, im just asking because i am not too good with this

You like it because HFRs makes motion look alive, more real just like higher image resolution/more dynamic range/stereo surround etc improves the reality/presence of a motion picture/program.

Many people don't like motion interpolation because it's not the original form (In other words they feel it's akin to "fake liveliness" just like "electronically enhanced stereo" or they associate this "liveness" with years of seeing cheap video camera TV like standard definition soap operas, game shows, concerts and sports which they compared to watching 35mm films in theaters with their 24fps "air condtioned" look but much higher image fidelity otherwise.

Even if the high frame rates weren't intepolated there is something about their immediacy that many people do not associate it with movie storytelling, kind of as if the 24fps rate lets one step back and relax and watch the movie instead of live in it? Also just like high resolution might bring pores and fake set paint to the fore by its clarity, high frame rate might be too revealing about the acting, camera movements, constructed set pieces, etc. etc, as by making the "window" be displayed more realistically, you might see more of the artifice of the movie being shot. Realism that on the other hand for things like sports and concerts actually works to their adavantage as it give you more of a you are there quality.

I like HFR since i started noticing decades ago commercials shot in 30fps looked more vibrant and in one nature documentary that I was watching one day I felt the animals looked alive as if they were there in the savanna inside my 25" CRT as opposed to documentaries shot in regular 24fps in which they looked more dreamy, the I'm in an "air conditioned box" place look.

So nothing wrong for liking more realism in our media and I think its great that we have now a video format (UHD) that can have true 50fps and 60fps native rates. UHD Showscan.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Different strokes for different folks…

Although not HFR, due to the principal photography and finishing (http://www.company3.com/videos/narcos-2/), the look of Narcos is also different from the cinematic look that most folks are accustomed to.

Watch for it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

ATTENTION locals, unless you have a pass to the premiere, avoid this area…http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/12/05/...ting-down-hol/

and if you're still compelled to catch the festivities....http://www.ew.com/article/2016/12/09...re-live-stream

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...with regards to imagery characterized by a lot of motion and/or panning like with sports, scientific testing (SAMVIQ subjective testing method (ITU-R BT. 1788) data tallied from 31 observers pre-screened for normal vision) has shown an appeal/value for native high frame rate as opposed to motion interpolation (rust colored bar graphs) and 50Hz….

For the sake of completeness, regarding the bolded above, I will mention that the MCFI solution chosen for the experiment was from - http://www-dev.snellondemand.com/pro...-od/technology

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

You like it because...

thanks for chiming in

[trippledx3]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

You like it because HFRs makes motion look alive, more real just like higher image resolution/more dynamic range/stereo surround etc improves the reality/presence of a motion picture/program.

Many people don't like motion interpolation because it's not the original form (In other words they feel it's akin to "fake liveliness" just like "electronically enhanced stereo" or they associate this "liveness" with years of seeing cheap video camera TV like standard definition soap operas, game shows, concerts and sports which they compared to watching 35mm films in theaters with their 24fps "air condtioned" look but much higher image fidelity otherwise.

Even if the high frame rates weren't intepolated there is something about their immediacy that many people do not associate it with movie storytelling, kind of as if the 24fps rate lets one step back and relax and watch the movie instead of live in it? Also just like high resolution might bring pores and fake set paint to the fore by its clarity, high frame rate might be too revealing about the acting, camera movements, constructed set pieces, etc. etc, as by making the "window" be displayed more realistically, you might see more of the artifice of the movie being shot. Realism that on the other hand for things like sports and concerts actually works to their adavantage as it give you more of a you are there quality.

I like HFR since i started noticing decades ago commercials shot in 30fps looked more vibrant and in one nature documentary that I was watching one day I felt the animals looked alive as if they were there in the savanna inside my 25" CRT as opposed to documentaries shot in regular 24fps in which they looked more dreamy, the I'm in an "air conditioned box" place look.

So nothing wrong for liking more realism in our media and I think its great that we have now a video format (UHD) that can have true 50fps and 60fps native rates. UHD Showscan.

THIS! Thank you!!!