List of 4K film transfers on Blu-ray shot on film (non-digitally shot)

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by 42041

Few movies shot on the 4K Red/5K Red Epic have actually been finished in >2K resolution.

I have found this frustrating for years. I know the studios do this to pinch pennies, but finishing them at 4K or 6K would make them more money in the long run.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

35mm is closer to 6k than 4k

Hardly. Maybe a raw frame on the finest stock. Or on a STILL FRAME camera.

But a film? Lucky if there's more than 3K of information to be captured after all is said and done.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Even though The Hobbit was shot in 5k? Doesn't make sense.

That’s been covered on other parts of the forum in an excruciatingly detailed fashion. Read the link in the first paragraph listed in this post - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...le#post7361454

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

The Hobbit looks amazing on Blu-ray and I cannot imagine it looking any better.

The Blu-ray of The Hobbit looks better than did the 3D theatrical presentations which, for about the first half hour of the flick, showed the skin tones washed out and there were blown highlights.

Although I believe that weird appearance was more of a technical deficiency with the state of HFR post rather than an intended, deliberate color grading choice for *the look* , see last paragraph here - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...on#post6986041

[shesha]

I m seeing a list of all these movies coming out next week with a 4k scan...........Any info?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by shesha

I m seeing a list of all these movies coming out next week with a 4k scan...........Any info?

There's info plastered all over the site about them.

[Penton-Man]

b.t.w. if anyone is interested in the specs of a 4K file of a feature film, in particular its size (GB) in general. For instance, The Dark Knight Rises which went out to their local commercial D-Cinema theater at the time that flick was playing …

The Dark Knight Rises
4K DCP
Scope 4096 x 1716 (2.39:1)
5.1
302GB
1st Credit Offset: 02:36:40
Total Run Time: 02:44:18

[Penton-Man]

L'armée, you forgot to add Bad Teacher.

[Penton-Man]

^
Or if you didn’t like that entry , by a more ‘cerebral’ Director, namely this retired filmmaker guy( https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...eo#post7486732

And lensed by this cinematographer guy, namely, Peter Andrews (http://vimeo.com/62226526# )

You can add to the list - Ocean’s Twelve

[L'armée des ombres]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^
Or if you didn’t like that entry , by a more ‘cerebral’ Director, namely this retired filmmaker guy( https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...eo#post7486732

And lensed by this cinematographer guy, namely, Peter Andrews (http://vimeo.com/62226526# )

You can add to the list - Ocean’s Twelve

Been busy trying to say something about that Great Escape fiasco
But that's like pissing in the wind.

[JohnnyPresley21]

So bottom line are these 4K release worthy picking up or not ? are their any new features or are they the same just with a little bit better picture quality ? I am thinking of picking up Glory(one of my top three favorite films) and Ghostbuster but really want to know if its worth the double deep.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by JohnnyPresley21

So bottom line are these 4K release worthy picking up or not ? are their any new features or are they the same just with a little bit better picture quality ? I am thinking of picking up Glory(one of my top three favorite films) and Ghostbuster but really want to know if its worth the double deep.

Ghostbusters is for $10 or less IMHO, but keep the 2009 BD because this 4K master release is devoid of extras.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

b.t.w. if anyone is interested in the specs of a 4K file of a feature film, in particular its size (GB) in general. For instance, The Dark Knight Rises which went out to their local commercial D-Cinema theater at the time that flick was playing …

The Dark Knight Rises
4K DCP
Scope 4096 x 1716 (2.39:1)
5.1
302GB
1st Credit Offset: 02:36:40
Total Run Time: 02:44:18

8k for IMAX SHOTS

Looks like blu ray will be the last format

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by joliefan

...Looks like blu ray will be the last format

You mean HD Blu-ray?

Don’t count it out (i.e. 4KBD)…..if the consortium thinks there is any money to be made with the endeavor. Despite their initial slow disinterested response, a GREAT deal of momentum has been building with everything 4K, from the professional motion picture to consumer electronics businesses.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by L'armée des ombres

Been busy trying to say something about that Great Escape fiasco
But that's like pissing in the wind.

Well, that is/was a very popular movie for its time and I am sure (like with Ghostbusters) that some of the old-timers out there who watched several theatrical screenings multiple times whether as a paying audience member or a projectionist will probably eventually contribute their thoughts as to the authenticity of the home media incarnation. Glad I have no horse in that race.

Anyway, The Great Escape reminds me of Steve McQueen (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ey#post7512821 )

Which reminds me of another addition for your 4K list, a flick which I thought he was quite good in, even though he didn’t ride a motorcycle at all in this one -

The Sand Pebbles (OCN scanned with a Northlight 1, graded by David Bernstein)

[Penton-Man]

L'armée , you can add The DaVinci Code.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Hardly. Maybe a raw frame on the finest stock. Or on a STILL FRAME camera.

But a film? Lucky if there's more than 3K of information to be captured after all is said and done.

Funny that ARRI and Robert Harris say that 16mm is closer to 3k and 35mm is 6k, but what would they know?
Oh its you, so you are going with Reliance saying anything over 4k is a waste

[42041]

There is really no one number you can put to the resolution of film.
Depending on how generous you are and what standard you measure against, both 3K and 6K are potentially valid numbers. Personally I think 6K is extremely generous. A 6K scan of a super35 frame (remember that any discussion on 35mm resolution in context of photography will be referring to Vistavision-sized still frame) will not be anywhere close to an image from a 6K digital sensor, or a 6K scan of 70mm film. It'll be very grainy and very soft in comparison, any actual 6K components will be grain and extremely faint traces of a recorded image. And that's with modern emulsions; a color negative from, say, 1972 would be much softer.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Funny that ARRI and Robert Harris say that 16mm is closer to 3k and 35mm is 6k, but what would they know?
Oh its you, so you are going with Reliance saying anything over 4k is a waste

[citation needed]

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

[citation needed]

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/truth-about-6k

Plus on AVS he confirmed it to me, but the search is a mess on the new site.

I stand slightly corrected when 4k is 6k but is not???:

But the actual scan is still roughly 4k, as the actual area scanned for 65mm is 8192 x 3584. The scanned area for 35mm 4k is 4096 x 3144.

The scan of a large format production affects viewing pleasure precisely the same way that it would in film projection. With an image that is enlarged only half as much as standard 35mm, resolution, dependent upon the quality of projection and optics, should be at least three times the quality, and possibly more than an anamorphic 35mm image.


Just for fun, let's make things just a bit more complex.


VistaVision is usually scanned at 4k, which is more than enough to capture the image. But some post facilities or marketing firms will refer to it as a 6k scan.


Which is it.


But isn't.


A VVLA scan is still 4096, but with twice the area, now 4096 x 6144.


Hence... 6k.


Sort of.


But not really.