4K Movies Releases

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Product placement and food for thought for newbies…..



15,000+ feature films served (scroll down to mid-page), e.g. - http://www.prasadcorp.com/#header

Wait, there's a question? I only see...a nice set of...

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Wait, there's a question? I only see...a nice set of...

You aren't the only one ... !

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Wait, there's a question? I only see...a nice set of...

Naughty boys, how you been Esox?

Survey says:
2 thumbs up for mammary glands (implication being by appearance, there are implants)
also,
1 thumb up for 4K, 1 thumb up for 6K for ‘true 4K’
4 thumbs up for 6K
5 thumbs up for 8K
2 thumbs up for 12K
1 thumb up for 8K-12K
1 thumb up for 12 K-16K

after equivocation as seen in some of the below 'professional' opinions-

Two things here, the maximum resolution of the film is down to the size of the silver-halide particles - for unprocessed film they vary between 0.2 and 2 microns based on the emulsion layer - however, once processed they swell and so become bigger. Multiple layers of different resolutions makes it very difficult to assess the overall resolution - well exposed 50D is probably about 8K, BUT secondly, nyquist theory suggests we should oversample at minimum of 2x highest frequency -so would we get better results by scanning at 12 or 16k - almost certainly yes! Now if we want to go a a few steps further than any ‘video’ camera - 65mm film really does win the resolution war.....but that then opens up a different world of depth of field, dynamic range and very special lenses based on the emulsion layer - however, once processed they swell and so become bigger. Multiple layers of different resolutions makes it very difficult to assess the overall resolution - well exposed 50D is probably about 8K, BUT secondly, nyquist theory suggests we should oversample at minimum of 2x highest frequency -so would we get better results by scanning at 12 or 16k - almost certainly yes! Now if we want to go a a few steps further than any ‘video’ camera - 65mm film really does win the resolution war.....but that then opens up a different world of depth of field, dynamic range and very special lenses.
--------------------------------------------
50 ISO camera stocks and fine grain dupes could be generally translated into 8K to 12K. But this is really the maximum possible resolution. For prints 4K is mostly enough.
------------------------------------------------------------
Theoretically the information of the film in digital is way beyond on exactly representing the latitude & info. Considering the limitations to process & store the same, acquisition at 8K can help, Getting 12K as some better encoded form to decode at a lower data rate, analysing the pixel information can be best possible today. Nevertheless, personally for workflow considerations 8K can help better. I’ll happy to find a way to distinguish between 12K & 8K technically to see the benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6K is the maximum scan res. of 35mm film.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8K should be good enough
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea
-------------------------------------
6k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12K
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of factors in play here, 12K could be a good generic place to be. Do we ever think about acuity of the eye when talking resolutions and relevance?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends on the capture lens and if the camera is locked off or not. Zoom lenses and panning shots, all bets are off. But if it’s a prime lens and locked off and perfectly exposed 4K for 35mm but a 6k scan would be required to get true 4K. However Film image capture is not always about the tech specs and numbers, sometimes it’s because it just looks better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on pigments in a 35mm film, actual resolution is less than 4k (35mm wide about 3.2k). For panavision & 70mm I think it can go to 6.5 to 9k. Going by that, maybe imax can be close to 12k. But there are technologies that can sharpen/extrapolate pixels to get final output better than original resolution in the film.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s 6K
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Geoff D]

Which is exactly what some of us have been saying for a while: at its absolute theoretical maximum with the slowest stock and finest glass then 35mm film could do 4K, but movies are not shot with theoreticals, they're shot in real world conditions that burn off spatial detail at a rate of knots. By all means oversample the transfers at 6K or 8K in order to resolve that 4K detail, but actually finishing them at those resolutions is overkill.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Which is exactly what some of us have been saying for a while:

signaled by some since way before 2014, as older quotes are being referenced here – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...nt#post9991943

not to mention introducing food for thought as to the value of scanning and outputting 16bit DPX in order to harvest all the dynamic range of film, esp. Kodak Vision 3 stock, which these days with dynamic range all the rage, is considered to now be of equal import as to meeting Nyquist’s oversampling recommendation for harvesting preceived resolution.

[Doctorossi]

Ok, I'll bite... 'dynamic range oversampling'? How would that work?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Ok, I'll bite... 'dynamic range oversampling'? How would that work?

Months after my above referenced post from 2014, see published on Feb. 22, 2015 - CineAlta Issue 5 – Excerpt HDR explained -

https://issuu.com/sonyprofessional/docs/ca_hdr_excerpt
specifically, starting at middle of this page and proceeding to the next –




On a side note, something which may at first seem counterintuitive to some and relates to the dynamic range of film is that camera neg DMax hovers around 2.0, whereas the highest density of I/P film is 4.5-5.0 which means it can be up to 1000x darker (more shadow detail) than the darkest camera neg. And when it comes to restoring old movies it’s not that uncommon for some portions of the original camera negative to be lost, thusly requiring using the I/P as a source to be substituted for the missing portions.

Experience has shown that when it comes to I/Ps, high dynamic range is of much greater impact on final picture quality than meeting nyquist's oversampling recommendation for harvesting resolution.

[Geoff D]

Why not both?

[punisher]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The Deer Hunter - new 4K restoration - official trailer - YouTube

It's certainly a great movie and great to see the restoration, I just don't know how that will translate to a 4K disc. The 4k restoration for a film like this might look better on an SD blu ray. I'm sure there will be some eye pooping scenes along with some really dark hard to see scenes. Either way as I said b4, great to see them restoring THE DEER HUNTER.

[Pieter V]

Eighth Grade (2018) - 4K DCP
Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot (2018) - 4K DCP
Muse: Drones (2018) - 4K DCP

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Ok, I'll bite... 'dynamic range oversampling'? How would that work?

good talk

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

good talk

Sorry, I don't think I have much to contribute. Thank you for posting the details, though.

[Sulderp]

Hot Summer Nights (2018) - 4K DCP

[Penton-Man]

https://twitter.com/alfonsocuaron/st...21194126958592

[Quint van der Vaart]

Studio: SONY PICTURES
Rating File: SlenderMan_RTG_S_EN-XX_US- 13_MOS_4K_SPE_20180722_DTB_SMPTE_OV
Feature Run Time: 01:33:04
Start of End Credits: 01:28:18
End Credit offset: 00:04:46
Image Format: 4K Scope
Audio Format: 5.1
File Size: 84 GB
KR#: 344896

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Quint van der Vaart

Studio: SONY PICTURES
Rating File: SlenderMan_RTG_S_EN-XX_US- 13_MOS_4K_SPE_20180722_DTB_SMPTE_OV
Feature Run Time: 01:33:04
Start of End Credits: 01:28:18
End Credit offset: 00:04:46
Image Format: 4K Scope
Audio Format: 5.1
File Size: 84 GB
KR#: 344896

where are you finding this information online? cause Deluxe completely revamped it's website, and finding such information is now gone to the common person.

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

where are you finding this information online? cause Deluxe completely revamped it's website, and finding such information is now gone to the common person.

https://cinema.dcinema.com

[Geoff D]

Thanks puddy!

[Geoff D]

Gotta love those differences in file sizes though, 84GB for the 4K Slender man and 216GB for the 2K BlacKkKlansman! The former is a shorter movie than Klansman but even so, that's a hell of a discrepancy. Both are 2D 'scope with plain 5.1 audio too.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Gotta love those differences in file sizes though, 84GB for the 4K Slender man and 216GB for the 2K BlacKkKlansman! The former is a shorter movie than Klansman but even so, that's a hell of a discrepancy. Both are 2D 'scope with plain 5.1 audio too.

BlacKkKlansman actually has a 7.1 audio option.