"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

What's wrong with 4K for 35mm from the 50s?

See BluDomain and Deci’s comments, as I’m unsure of the resolution of the film stock of that particular 1950’s film, or perhaps more importantly from a limiting factor, the resolution of the camera lense(s) they used for the shoot –despite the capability of the camera negative.
But I can tell you that current Kodak film stocks are around 6K or higher.
(6K = about 150 line pair per mm, Deci ? – I’ve always been terrible with dem numbers and such)

Anyway, back in 2002, Roger Morton (from Kodak) published a paper in the SMPTE journal proving that t-grain film stock at that time held detail greater than 5.5K.
The process of printing and projection lowers the resolution ultimately.
Technically, for digital archiving (financial considerations aside), I don’t think it makes much sense to set the resolution level for digital work at a lower level than the 35mm camera negative despite current limitations in projection, whether theatrical or at home.
But I think you already know all this.

What you and others may now be asking/thinking is if there is a true *qualitative gain* in perception in going from 4k to 6k. Well, that all probably depends on who you talk to. I guess some would say that there is a definite but subtle image improvement and others would say the difference is nearly invisible, unless you’ve got some Falcon or Eagle optical system in you. I say, the bottom line is that it all depends on screen size, distance from the screen and brightness as to whether you’ll ever discern any appreciable difference....plus starting at the highest resolution possible will most likely result in less sharpening by others further on down the line.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

I'm greener than Kermit right now.

Well, one of our moderators plans on being there (isn’t it amazing the variety of events our mods attend as they are surely not just *policeman*) so, you can ask all about the nitty-gritty of Saturday’s keynote here, on this thread after the conference, if you so choose.
I shall be there for at least a portion of the program.

Plus, allow me to enlighten you in regards to something else, unless of course you’ve already considered it while watching the snow flakes fall on the Eiger or some other Suisse mountaintop while the rest of us poor blokes are fighting the freeway traffic.

Many of the movies of the last several years that have been produced via a 2k digital intermediate have essentially been created digitally with a lot of post work done to the 2k digital scans (and is some cases, there isn’t even a conformed negative that exists) so, now and probably in years to come, it will be difficult to redo the work at a higher resolution by simply scanning the useable film element in 4k.

So, with films like A Star is Born, it is actually easier* to create a 6k master for a movie that didn't go through a D.I. process, compared to those as described above.

*discounting the pain in moving those big file sizes around

P.S.
b.t.w. – See my answer to your astute observation back on the “grain” thread…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...d=1#post908089

because it took me nearly three minutes to type up the darn thing……….and as Rob Tomlin knows, time is money – were talking billable hours here!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Sky showed it in HD, but alas I was getting drunk in the pub, which don't have it in HD, but they do put the big screen up.

Doesn't matter though, the match was entertaining enough so the lack of HD won't bother you too much...

Well, it was broadcast here in HD but, in retrospect, overall you may be right. However, it was neat to be able to sometimes see the back-spin on the ball and also to definitively identify whether or not the ref made the correct call or flubbed it. Plus, until that game, I never really appreciated how tall/big Ferdinand is compared to a lot of the other players !

On the game itself, I was happy Man. U. scored after about 20 min. or so because up until then everybody was too tight and there was no good back and forth rhythm to the game. I do dislike however that these things have to end in penalty kicks as it seems such a chessy way to win it esp. since it looked to me like Terry slipped on the wet turf as he banged his shot --which would have produced an entirely different result.

P.S.
I never knew that “twinkle toes” was so good in the air, either !

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

What do you know about this place penton? http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1028209

just curios have you ever been?

No, sorry as the only theaters which I’ve been to in the UK are here –
http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/awards/volver.html
(scroll down to “London”)

*Exception being some theater that I went to with a “bored girlfriend ” at Piccadilly Circus back in the day when I was a wee yungin footloose and fancy-free.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Paradiso

Thanks P-Man. Right back at you!

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

But I can tell you that current Kodak film stocks are around 6K or higher.
(6K = about 150 line pair per mm, Deci ?

Yeah that's about it. The exact figure will depend on the definition of what area exactly the "6K" is and the format. (And of course what's the digital equivalent to analog (optical) line pairs per mm in fixed pixels per mm.)

In case Penton's film terminology is unfamiliar to video enthusiasts:

Line pairs per mm, or cycles per mm (lp/mm or c/mm) means one black line + one white line recorded (<- a line pair, or one cycle) on film, while common consumer terminology like dpi (dor per inch) spi (samples per inch) or ppi (points/pixels per inch) or even p/mm (pixels per mm) mean one point/dot/line recorded. So they should think of 1 lp/mm or c/mm as 2 p/mm (a simplification, as analog recorded optical "points of light" are infinitely positionable on the emulsion, while digital pixels are fixed in position, so there's a fudge factor). A 6K scan (6144 pixels) across a Super 35 Full Camera Aperture width scans aprox 250 p/mm while if you could make a dedicated 6K scan that covers just the 0.825" Academy Sound Projector Aperture width common to both anamorphic and flat non Super 35 then it comes to about 290 p/mm which rounds to about 150 lp/mm.

(When photography magazines used to routinely examine real resolution created on film by lenses stopped down set on a tripod wih the mirror locked up under a 25x microscope onto the finest grained, slowest b/w pictorial film at the time (ASA 32), out of hundreds of test results I only saw a couple of times something going much higher above 70 lp/mm (think the highest was 89 or 100 lp). Today we have T-grains, more advanced optics/scanning and digital tools which will help preserve even what the naked eye can't see. I think Kodak's Tech-Pan's emulsion spec reached 320 lp/mm but that's a "specialty" film )

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

So, with films like A Star is Born, it is actually easier* to create a 6k master for a movie that didn't go through a D.I. process, compared to those as described above.

Sure. You can scan at 12K if you like, till every single binary grain is covered with several pixels. But it's a futile excercise in excess and waste of ressources. What does not contribute to visible useful detail in the picture is unnecessary baggage. Scanning 6K is fine for a full res 4K final master. A 6K final master will not show more detail.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

But I can tell you that current Kodak film stocks are around 6K or higher.

Depends on where you set the cutoff for the MTF. The reality is that nothing even remotely full res 4K reaches an interpositive or any release prints. And from there to the cinema screen it's yet another story.

[Mr. Cinema]

Another question about pricing. Disney and Warner Brothers used to price most, or all?, of their catalog titles at $29.99.

Suddenly, upcoming Disney titles like Signs, Gangs of New York, The Recruit, and others have list prices of $34.99. Why? Is raising list prices on old catalog titles supposed to help people jump to BD? I can see paying maybe $10 more for the BD version, but now in some cases, they're asking us to pay $20 more. Is this going to help BD?

Warners is slowly creeping up retail pricing as well it seems on catalog titles. Beetlejuice is headed to BD in September with a list price of $34.99. Twister is a newer film than Beetlejuice and has a $29.99 list price. Why the $5 difference?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Sure. You can scan at 12K if you like, till every single binary grain is covered with several pixels. But it's a futile excercise in excess and waste of ressources. What does not contribute to visible useful detail in the picture is unnecessary baggage. Scanning 6K is fine for a full res 4K final master. A 6K final master will not show more detail.

You’re correct. I misspoke or mistyped.
Instead of typing “create” a 6K master I should have said...“scan at 6k”.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Depends on where you set the cutoff for the MTF. The reality is that nothing even remotely full res 4K reaches an interpositive or any release prints. And from there to the cinema screen it's yet another story.

That’s not the context in which I was thinking. I was thinking about digital archiving or what Ned refers to in Carolyn’s article as “film preservation” with later digital theatrical projection based on a scan of the OCN of a particular film. Obviously there are loses via the photochemical path.

One benefit in starting with a 6k scan is its use in super sampling the original element. Downsizing to a 4K image should improve edge detail with no *artificial sharpening* applied further on down the line by someone who is not the original creator of the film.

Back in ’04, tests were done (as part of ASC-DCI) in which original film elements were scanned at 6K and 16-bits per component on a Northlight scanner. The DCI always tilted toward making 6k scanning with 4k projection as part of their ultimate goal.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Another question about pricing. Disney and Warner Brothers used to price most, or all?, of their catalog titles at $29.99.

Suddenly, upcoming Disney titles like Signs, Gangs of New York, The Recruit, and others have list prices of $34.99. Why? Is raising list prices on old catalog titles supposed to help people jump to BD? I can see paying maybe $10 more for the BD version, but now in some cases, they're asking us to pay $20 more. Is this going to help BD?

Warners is slowly creeping up retail pricing as well it seems on catalog titles. Beetlejuice is headed to BD in September with a list price of $34.99. Twister is a newer film than Beetlejuice and has a $29.99 list price. Why the $5 difference?

I have nothing to do with pricing these things.
Wicky?
Max?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Just took a look at those, I have been to a couple of those. Freebie tickets are awesome!

I used to work near one of them.

You should definitely go to the Odeon in Leicester Sq. next time you are in town. It is the single best theatre in Europe and definitely worth going to. I just wish they would do more special screenings of older movies since they have the best 70mm projection in the country...

Thanks for the heads-up.

[WickyWoo]

No idea. I could hypothesize that the poor sales on catalog titles have resulted in a short term price hike to get the "gotta have it" people, with the intention of putting them on sale a lot as well with a drop 6-8 months down the line

[Penton-Man]

O.K. Rob,
This be for you as I know it’s one of your favorite westerns (and mine).
"I like my water fresh".

http://www.oscars.org/events/onceuponwest/index.html
Get your ticket(s) now as I wouldn’t be surprised if this also sells out – given it being the 40th anniversary and a new restoration.

For local reviewers, I think it be particularly advantageous to attend this screening so that you have a recent memory of the theatrical presentation when comparing it to the eventual Blu-ray edition to asses for things such as digital noise reduction, color timing, etc. rather than relying upon old memories or unreliable viewing perceptions.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

No idea. I could hypothesize that the poor sales on catalog titles have resulted in a short term price hike to get the "gotta have it" people, with the intention of putting them on sale a lot as well with a drop 6-8 months down the line

Wicky, I also think it's important to note that Buena Vista (Disney) started releasing their catalog titles at $34.99 MSRP, and later started releasing them at $29.99 MSRP.

WB however...

~Alan

[Penton-Man]

Oh ~Alan, I just relinked that screenwriters thing to you on the "grain" thread for fun...........to see if it really does *brainwash* people.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Oh ~Alan, I just relinked that screenwriters thing to you on the "grain" thread for fun...........to see if it really does *brainwash* people.

Thanks! I was a little confused... I did get it right, though?

~Alan

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Thanks! I was a little confused... I did get it right, though?

~Alan

Yeah, I just find the thing quite hypnotic.

[Penton-Man]

And a heads-up for Deci ……………………….
http://www.oscars.org/events/minwaza/index.html