4K Movies Releases

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

To say you'll never get that with digital is short sighted. Audiophiles swore the same thing with audio when CD came out and now the entire industry is high res digital. Sure there's still vinyl addicts but they're about as common as Siberian Tigers.

Surely you aren't comparing sound to something much more complex and data intensive as film? Nah, you're that crazy.

I'm sure all that extra grain and optical degradation would have made it "more realistic". A digital source through digital post straight to a 4K projector is inferior to a 35MM print at least 2 generations away from the original?

IMO, YES! Film has a certain look to it that digital just can't replicate.

Stuff like this

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...038&position=4

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...38&position=14

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...38&position=11

And this

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...661&position=2

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...661&position=8

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...61&position=14


Absolutely destroys stuff that looks like this

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...811&position=7

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...11&position=11

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...11&position=15


https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...744&position=7

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...44&position=12

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...744&position=8


The Amazing Spider Man is another movie i don't like the look of. Spiderman 3 has a much more pleasing look to it. You can't get that special texture film has with digital cameras. Sorry.

And let me know when we can get a digital camera that can replace 70mm film. 2 2K projectors for IMAX doesn't even remotely count. And that's still more than half the resolution.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

Surely you aren't comparing sound to something much more complex and data intensive as film? Nah, you're that crazy.

It's not crazy. Crazy is ignoring technological advances and claiming something isn't as good or will never be good, yet the industry as a whole has seen fit to switch to it. You dodged the question about audio the same way those audiophiles of the 80s did.

The Amazing Spider Man is another movie i don't like the look of. Spiderman 3 has a much more pleasing look to it. You can't get that special texture film has with digital cameras. Sorry.

Apples and oranges comparing 2 different movies with 2 different directors and cinematographers. Besides, how was the 3D quality of Spider-Man 3? Oh, that's right...

And let me know when we can get a digital camera that can replace 70mm film. 2 2K projectors for IMAX doesn't even remotely count. And that's still more than half the resolution.

How much is actually shot in native IMAX each year?

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Take that film and run it through the projector 200 times.

Then take a digital 2K "print" and run it 10000 times.

What do you think will still look like new after that?

We haven't even talked about which format has uncompressed sound either.

Misinformation, just like your DTS is not 6-tracks.

In Toronto, Canada, the Glendale Cinema ran 2001 in 70mm for 3 shows a day for 2 years straight, on the original movie print that was issued to the theatre. Granted, the magnetic track wore about but they were still using the original print.

I can tell you are not sure of this subject because if anyone has handled film the "correct" way will know that film can be just as good on 200th run just like the first.

Now, there are some advantages to 2K or 4K digital, but digital is not yet superior than 35mm....and there is no point even comparing digital to 70mm.

Originally Posted by saprano

Have you seen a quality 35mm print? Or IMAX? If you have you wouldn't be saying this. Yes, film print degrades so what? It may not be as consistent as digital but when new, or even old IMO, it has a quality and look to it that you can NEVER get with digital.

Skyfall is my favorite digitally shot movie but i know for damn sure if it was shot on film it would've looked so much better and more realistic.

Film does not degrade or get dirty if handle correctly. This is well know to those who have handled film properly. Unfortunately, the cinema chains lowered the standards of how film was used in their cinemas giving off the impression that degradation is as bad as it looks.

Film also can reproduce colors in a broader spectrum than digital, someone who has been around film long enough and has also seen it long enough should know this.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Misinformation, just like your DTS is not 6-tracks.

In Toronto, Canada, the Glendale Cinema ran 2001 in 70mm for 3 shows a day for 2 years straight, on the original movie print that was issued to the theatre. Granted, the magnetic track wore about but they were still using the original print.

I can tell you are not sure of this subject because if anyone has handled film the "correct" way will know that film can be just as good on 200th run just like the first.

Now, there are some advantages to 2K or 4K digital, but digital is not yet superior than 35mm....and there is no point even comparing digital to 70mm.

I was not aware that prints would last that long if they were taken care of. I suppose it's like vinyl records where if you keep them clean and use a good stylus they will last for many years to come.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Misinformation, just like your DTS is not 6-tracks.

Oh please.

We're not talking a 70MM print of 2001 in Toronto.

We're talking about your CURRENT average 35MM print

And 5.0 IS NOT 6 TRACKS!

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I was not aware that prints would last that long if they were taken care of. I suppose it's like vinyl records where if you keep them clean and use a good stylus they will last for many years to come.

Exactly, film needs to be handled a certain way. A properly trained projectionist will know this. I have seen many prints last 500+ runs without any dirt or scratches.

Scratches and dirt only happen because of operator error and or carelessness.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by saprano

IMO, YES! Film has a certain look to it that digital just can't replicate.
.

Yes you are 100% correct, film does have a look that digital cannot replicate. Maybe one day it will, but not currently.

Originally Posted by saprano

And let me know when we can get a digital camera that can replace 70mm film. 2 2K projectors for IMAX doesn't even remotely count. And that's still more than half the resolution.

Nothing comes close to 70mm. There is no substitute to 70mm.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Oh please.

We're not talking a 70MM print of 2001 in Toronto.

We're talking about your CURRENT average 35MM print

You said take film and run it through a projector 200 times....

Even a 35mm print is a higher quality than a 2K and even 4K digital film. I only used the 2001 example because it is one of the examples of the longest runs of a movie at a theatre with one single print. Film does not degrade if handled and projected correctly, that is a fact....Human error or carelessness is the cause of film degradation, if you have been exposed to 35mm you would clearly understand this.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And 5.0 IS NOT 6 TRACKS!

You are the only who seriously believes this....Right on the website as well as the physical disc is stated that DTS is "6 tracks"....I can't talk the side of someone who claims digital filming and projection is superior to 35mm film.

PeterTHX....Do you have any experience with 35mm film?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Even a 35mm print is a higher quality than a 2K and even 4K digital film. I only used the 2001 example because it is one of the examples of the longest runs of a movie at a theatre with one single print. Film does not degrade if handled and projected correctly, that is a fact....Human error or carelessness is the cause of film degradation, if you have been exposed to 35mm you would clearly understand this.

4K direct digital is superior to any 35MM print today. As it's been posted by Penton you're lucky to get 2K out of your average 35MM print.

Film is a physical medium. It degrades the more it's used.

Having assisted projectionists in the 80s I have handled film.

And no matter what DTS puts on their literature or film cans: it's encoded as a 5.0 signal. Period. End of story.

[pagemaster]

And no matter what DTS puts on their literature or film cans: it's encoded as a 5.0 signal. Period. End of story.

Would you mind posting some proof of this?

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

To be fair, RED has improved their camera and workflow since TSN.

It’s difficult to totally minimize the difference in resolution between 4K and 1.3K, from http://filmmakermagazine.com/68031-b...meras-in-2013/

“Here’s a fun fact: the count of 4096 pixels across derives from a 1980s Kodak study of the resolution necessary to preserve all the detail in a frame of Super 35mm color negative during a digital scan.

How much of that 4K resolution ever made it to the big screen? Given that a 35mm master positive was first struck on a contact printer (from an Academy frame with fewer than 4096 pixels across), then a dupe neg was struck from the master positive for release printing, then the release print was struck from the dupe neg? Let’s not forget projector jitter, gate buckle, out-of-sync pulldown, an oil-splattered lens not sharp across the screen, keystoning and that smudged port glass!

Answer: never more than 1.3K”

(which ^ was reiterated at an SMPTE section meeting about a year ago…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ol#post5981959

Or, for people who would like to read the classic ITU study…http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

^ which essentially found, in summation, that -
1. MTF resolution of release prints measured out (using a microdensitometer scan of the film element in the lab) at only 1000 lines of resolution.

2. the highest resolution that the expert assessors could still discern in the sharpest part of the screen in the most performing movie theater was about 875 lines/PH

3. the average resolution in the sharpest part of their screen of the six movie theaters was about 750 lines/PH

All 3 findings ^ being pretty wanting in comparison to 4K projection (if the bitrate of the DCP is high enough, which is a concept best left for another time).

There is more to the whole debate of 35mm vs digital than just simple K. I have seen 4K of Samsara, it was close to 35mm but the look of 35mm is still better

[Steedeel]

It is surely all about convenience. The same crappy reason we are heading towards bit rate starved streaming of movies in the home (as a population, not me). The same crappy reason that many people now listen to compressed, tinny sounding music on phones and such like. It seems quality is a relic as we move to the future.
For the record, I much prefer the look of film, but that is coming from someone who remembers queuing around the block to see a movie, shown at a cinema with only one screen. I have not seen a single digitally shot movie that looks better than a film print. People use the excuse of digital being a 3D enabler. So what! I would gladly sacrifice 3Dto have film prints.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Would you mind posting some proof of this?

From their technical FAQ:

One note about the present DTS six-track system: In order to avoid overloading the vast
majority of the existing installed surround speakers (not ours, of course), the bass octave
is rolled off in the surround channels. The subwoofer information is then stored in the
bottom octave of the left and right surround channels. Thus the six-track storage system
is, for the time being, actually a five channel recording.

From the Wiki:

Unlike Dolby Digital and SDDS, or the home version of DTS, the theatrical DTS system only carries 5 discrete channels on the CD-ROMs. The .1 LFE subwoofer track is mixed into the discrete surround channels on the disc and recovered via low-pass filters in the theater.

You can also find it in back issues of Widescreen Review.

DTS: Predicting The Audio Signal
We will start with DTS, since the processes in data compression are relatively simple, compared to SDDS and Dolby Digital. The digital data for DTS is stored on and played back from a CD-ROM (typically 2 CD-ROMs are required for a full-length movie feature). A digital SMPTE 24-bit time-code, located on the film adjacent to the optical analog soundtrack, is used to synchronize the CD player on the DTS cinema processor with the projector. Although digital cinema sound predominantly utilizes 5.1 channels ;5 full frequency range plus the ".1" LFE (Low Frequency Effects) ;DTS encodes only 5 discrete channels, unlike SDDS and Dolby Digital.

WTF more do you want?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by KRW1

Vinyl addict right here. You can still buy pretty much every new release on vinyl, so I wouldn't say we're quite that rare yet. Looking forward to the new Daft Punk next month.

talking about that, it is record store day today
http://www.recordstoreday.com/Home

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It is surely all about convenience. The same crappy reason we are heading towards bit rate starved streaming of movies in the home (as a population, not me). The same crappy reason that many people now listen to compressed, tinny sounding music on phones and such like. It seems quality is a relic as we move to the future.
For the record, I much prefer the look of film, but that is coming from someone who remembers queuing around the block to see a movie, shown at a cinema with only one screen. I have not seen a single digitally shot movie that looks better than a film print. People use the excuse of digital being a 3D enabler. So what! I would gladly sacrifice 3Dto have film prints.

Yes it is all about convenience and nothing more. Sadly, the movie going population actually thinks that they are seeing a superior product when watching a digital movie. It really is a shame what the movie studios have done to 35mm film. For example, Oblivion is less than 1080p when you watch the movie a 2K cinema...

Currently, digital projectors are limited in the color the projector can reproduce as well as the size of the screen being used. Look at IMAX struggled to convince the well informed that their digital projection is as good as their 15/70 prints.

Now, there is some truth in that digital projection does not lose the generation loss when creating a DCP, however, 35mm prints can be achieved in a way that the generation loss is minimal. Anyone watching the Master will understand this.

If handled correctly, the film image will not degrade as some of the people on here incorrectly give false information about.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

From their technical FAQ:


From the Wiki:


You can also find it in back issues of Widescreen Review.


WTF more do you want?

PeterTHX... STOP reading Wiki for information....

Read the following information form Widescreen Review, when they interviewed the president of DTS who is named Terry Beard

WSR Reber: Why did you choose to cause such confusion for moviegoers with two DTS systems and marketing that did not differentiate between the two at the 1,000 or so theatre installations across the country? This situation continues to persist in newspaper theatre advertisements.

Terry Beard: Weíre not the sharpest marketing company on the planet. Our objective from the very beginning was to have a discrete 5.1 release format and every one of the DTS two-track systems are designed to be upgraded. We make a kit available to those theatres that want to upgrade to the discrete format. Our belief was that it would be difficult to get the theatres to go to discrete systems. When we released Jurassic Park we had a constrained dynamic range digital stereo version of the mix that had a 12 dB dynamic range above reference. The six-track 5.1 discrete version was just slamming to the walls dynamic range with 20 dB of headroom above the standard optical track. Our feeling was that the stereo version was the conservative version that we knew would play without creating a lot of problems in current stereo optical theatres. And one of the things that we wanted to avoid was having theatres with a lot of blown-out speakers and people complaining. These theatres are going to upgrade we think when they realize that they can get the same discrete track performance as the very best theatres in Los Angeles. Any theatre in the country can have that performance. They can achieve that by just plugging in this extra card and CD-ROM drive. What we found is that the theatres wanted to install six-track versions immediately. They said that ëyou mean youíre selling these things for $3,500 for the full discrete 5.1 channel system? We want them.í We sold every one of those right off. In addition we converted 150 in-house that we thought would go out as digital two-track stereo versions to the 5.1 discrete version. It was just the press of getting these things out. We have another 150 theatres that at this time have ordered upgrade kits. And now we are building all 5.1 discrete channel units.

We had a number of PR problems because we are just inexperienced. We are an engineering company and we had no PR people. Every one of the 3,000 prints of Jurassic Park was the same. Every one of those prints could have been played as a digital print. They were all time coded. They all had the DTS swirling logo on the front end of the print. The understanding was that if a theatre was not a DTS theatre they were to cut the front-end logo off. And we found that some theatres didnít. There were theatres around the country that were playing stereo optical and didnít have a DTS system that left the logo on the front of the print. I had friends call me up and tell me that they saw Jurassic Park and it sounded like a regular optical track. This happened in at least three cases that I checked up on. I mean this was even worst than what you were talking about (see ìSound Wars At A Theatre Near Youî Issue 4, July/ August 1993). People were playing optical soundtracks and because they were playing the DTS logo there was the assumption that it was DTS. The DTS logos that were supposed to be used for the ad billings and the billboards were a DTS-S and a DTS-6 to define the difference between the two. There was a communication problem and that wasnít done. Thereís just a huge difference between stereo matrix and discrete tracks. We know that as you know it. Our objective was and is to have all theatres playing discrete, and again all the systems were made to be upgraded to that. Even if they are not splitting the surrounds they can play with mono surrounds. The discrete system was designed to accommodate that as well. Many theatres are equipped to play split surrounds. But even with four-track discrete with mono surrounds plus a subwoofer it is far better than matrixed standard optical.

WSR Reber: What films have been mixed in the DTS six-track discrete format from the very beginning thus far?

Terry Beard: Jurassic Park is the only one.

WSR Reber: What exactly is DTS? What does the DTS system consists of? How does DTS electronics interface with the theatreís sound system?

Terry Beard: DTS means Digital Theater Systems, the name of our company. It is a privately held corporation with about a dozen stockholders. We have a joint venture relationship with Steven Spielberg and Universal Studios who are minority shareholders with small pieces of the company.

The product is a CD-ROM-based dual system. The digital audio information is stored on the CD-ROM in a DOS file format, which runs under the DOS operating system. Because it uses the CD-ROM data format, the data is extremely reliable. DTS prints have a 24-bit time code track consisting of 20 bit data and 4 bits of sync, and includes reel and frame number. It is 30 frames per second code and is recorded on the optical soundtrack negative at the same time that the stereo optical analog soundtrack is being recorded. We designed it so that it can be printed in any laboratory in the world with no changes to their printers. So there are no retrofitting or modifications or special requirements. It is a gigantic code that is very easily recorded and read. You can hold it up and see it with your eye. In the theatre, the code is read by a head that mounts on top of the projector so it knows about a second and a half to two seconds before the film gets to the projection aperture what sound it is going to have to play. It takes that sound and loads it, and when the picture gets there it plays it. So it will handle any kind of edits, or reel jumps, or you can start anywhere in the picture and it will play instantly. The disc access time is 300 mS.

The CD-ROM discs that have the motion picture soundtrack on them also have the DTS operating system, so it is very simple to upgrade the system. The motherboard's primary function is moving data. A time code card has a phase locked loop master clock that keeps the system synced up to the film and that in turn provides clock to the output cards. The CD-ROM SCSI system is controlled through the computer, which moves the data from the CD-ROMs onto the D/A playback converters, which convert the digital data to standard analog audio. It's an integrated system. If you take one of our CD-ROMs and put it into a CD player it won't do anything at all. It uses a special format and is encoded using the APT100 compression process. The output levels are typical line level outputs that are designed to interface the converted digital to analog output to a Dolby CP200 or CP65, Ultra Stereo, Kintek or Smart, or any of the processors out there that can handle the 5.1 format.

The output is in the 5.1 format, left, center and right with split surrounds and a subwoofer boom channel. The split surrounds are discrete and full range channels. Our policy has been to provide full range split surrounds but because theatre surround systems usually do not have good low frequency response we send the low frequency energy of the surrounds to the subwoofer output. As you are aware, a very effective way to use surrounds amongst the people who are now mixing for the format is to provide an ambience that puts the audience into an environment. Whether it is in a rain forest, or in an automobile, or in a bathroom or on a basketball court there is a sound feeling for the scene. These ambient channels really can do that. And the same thing is true for real subwoofer. The subwoofer that we use in our system is 50 Hz and down. We restrict it to very low frequencies because it is meant to be a non-directional effects channel. The information on a surround channel can be directional but not something that you would attend to. If you're watching a movie and you hear somebody talk out of a surround channel your attention can be drawn from the screen. Surround channels should set the ambience, set the environment, and the same thing is true of the subwoofer channel. Of course the left, center, and right screen channels are full bandwidth reproduction channels, which ideally should go down to 25 Hz. The 80 Hz and down subwoofer is picked off of the split surround channels. The subwoofer frequencies are taken out of the full bandwidth surround channels for theatrical because theatre surround loudspeakers just won't handle the low frequencies. Theatre surround loudspeakers are not designed to go much further down than 80 Hz or 50 Hz because these are not large low frequency capable loudspeakers. So the subwoofer information which is on both of those surrounds channels are directed to the dedicated subwoofer channel. The ideal situation would be to in fact have that bass energy there on the surround channels. IF you want the bottom line the ultimate would be to have that energy there and have the entire room move with it.

http://widescreenreview.com/surround...errybeard.html

[Penton-Man]

So, spanning the news, this prediction from last month….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ty#post7279123

appears to be coming true ….
https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=10961

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I must say I’m confused as to why you are mad...

As a joliefan, do you mean Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel being referred to as “Smart, Sexy and Action Packed” in a tagline on movie merchandise? (Stee, I’ve got front fanny and back fanny on my mind now, thanks to you ).

OR

Are you suggesting a type of baloney from SONY – http://my.opera.com/jonimueller/blog/show.dml/109683

Jolie, I posted 2 educational links on the last page which detail what xvYCC color (or colour ) is and its potential applications. If you are suggesting that the software in the pictured Blu-ray cases was not encoded with this expanded color then….wouldn’t that be intentionally deceptive marketing?

P.S.
This “color” talk reminds me of a past post which Flatnote quoted…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...on#post6879516

And with regards to that and ^ ‘color scientists’, I noticed while eagerly checking the RED forum this morning if there was any formal legal response posted yet to the previously referenced Sony lawsuit alleging patent infringement by RED), I came across a thread over there entitled “What is 'color science' and how does a 'color scientist' go about their job? “

It seems that the RED folks are sort of clueless as to what a color scientist based at a major Hollywood studio or post production house, actually does (no, it’s not color grading in the DI suite). When I get more time I should address that topic by answering that question for members here by adding a little bit more practical information to this old job posting, for starters -
https://ocio-dev.googlegroups.com/at...&view=1&part=2

I’ve got more time now.

In short, a color scientist (in a broad role at a Hollywood studio or even a cutting edge post production house) manages the color pipeline of major motion pictures.

To elaborate…he/she helps the D.P. (during camera testing) choose the camera to be used by determining the attributes and limitations of each particular camera… develops LUTS for look creation and helps design a consistent color pipeline so that what the Director and D.P. see on-set looks like the dailies…looks like editorial…looks like the D.I….looks like what’s shown in the theater.

Also, in order to prevent problems from occurring during the production…he/she proactively handles the communications between VFX and the film dept., editorial, so that everyone understands exactly what they are getting and when they will be getting it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Exactly, film needs to be handled a certain way. A properly trained projectionist will know this...

but, rumor has it that Deci ( https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ed#post7335329 )
Always had the film tension on his projectors set at > 16 oz-ft. but, I personally don’t believe that rumor.

Although, I do believe the rumor he was the turkey bowling champion in his neck of the woods every Thanksgiving they had the competition.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

...If handled correctly, the film image will not degrade as some of the people on here incorrectly give false information about.

In the real world….seems a lot of folks are handling film incorrectly -

“In order to minimize wear and tear on our archival prints, films may generally be screened no more than three times on any loan. Requests for additional screenings will be considered on a case-by-case basis”…
http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/collectio...nt-loan-policy