List of UHDs that utilize 4K or Higher Masters

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials was 2K.. Even Dolby Vision is no guarantee.


http://www.avsforum.com/the-martian-...d-atmos-sound/

This review is meh.. not a real improvement.

http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/306...rchtrials.html

Ok, but at this point, I would create a separate list with Dolby Vision HDR titles (theatrically) in the first post

For this format HDR is even more important than resolution.... Move The martian and the titles I posted, there...

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Ok, but at this point, I would create a separate list with Dolby Vision HDR titles (theatrically) in the first post

For this format HDR is even more important than resolution.... Move The martian and the titles I posted, there...

Then we need a new topic, if you really want to know which film had a Dolby Vision release. Since First Post is growing and a 4K Master vs HDR are two different things.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by JJ

Clarification:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=188

While that sounds cool and all, and I don't necessarily disagree with some of what he says, I will disagree that it can be truly called '4k' if the source material is 2k. I don't care how wonderfully it was upscaled and how much better than blu-ray it looks...

Is anyone maintaining a list of UHD discs where the entire process from filming to disc never went below 4k? Those are the titles I'd really be interested in examining. HDR is awesome, sure, but HDR+ _true_ 4k source would be even better... (I can let 3.8k filming slide... But anything shot on 2.8k or less wouldn't be included.)

And, yeah I know, specs alone don't mean awesome disc, it's just more about curiosity and how many of the discs are TRULY 3.8k or higher.

[applemac]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

While that sounds cool and all, and I don't necessarily disagree with some of what he says, I will disagree that it can be truly called '4k' if the source material is 2k. I don't care how wonderfully it was upscaled and how much better than blu-ray it looks...

Is anyone maintaining a list of UHD discs where the entire process from filming to disc never went below 4k? Those are the titles I'd really be interested in examining. HDR is awesome, sure, but HDR+ _true_ 4k source would be even better... (I can let 3.8k filming slide... But anything shot on 2.8k or less wouldn't be included.)

And, yeah I know, specs alone don't mean awesome disc, it's just more about curiosity and how many of the discs are TRULY 3.8k or higher.

Agreed. Martian is not 4K.

[jibucha]

Martian is not 4K? :: this depends entirely on your 'interpretation of the 'facts' :: all that i have read and understand; i would disagree - it is definitely '4K' :: it's a shame that this is being disputed, given the outstanding efforts of 20th Century Fox :: confusion reigns

Originally Posted by applemac

Agreed. Martian is not 4K.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

...I will disagree that it can be truly called '4k' if the source material is 2k.

This may help to mitigate your disagreement, start here…. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...m#post11748904

[elwaylite]

As with every new format, and even when things aren't new anymore, people live an uninformed life. Opinions are fine I guess, even when they are wrong...

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by jibucha

Martian is not 4K? :: this depends entirely on your 'interpretation of the 'facts' :: all that i have read and understand; i would disagree - it is definitely '4K' :: it's a shame that this is being disputed, given the outstanding efforts of 20th Century Fox :: confusion reigns

No, it isn't. The _entire film_ is not a 4k representation, as certain elements of it where upscaled from 2k source material. Most of it may be true 4k, but not all of it, so it's not 100% true 4k.

I _am_ impressed that they went to a 4k DI for the UHD release, that is pretty awesome. As a result, I'd assume it's not possible to make the film look any better with existing assets. That's bound to be worlds better than just taking the 2k DI and upscaling it (and probably looks better than the DCP used in most theaters... ), which I'm sure will happen with a lot of movies...

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

This may help to mitigate your disagreement, start here…. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...m#post11748904

I was only going by the quote above from the film makers. 'We started with 2k assets up-converted to 4k'. Whatever that is referring to is NOT 4k, that is up-scaled 2k. Based on your post in the link, that sounds like all the special effects were done in 2k. Hopefully that just means strictly rendered CGI, and not any shot that was digitally manipulated, otherwise that's most of the movie probably. And if the visual effect was applied to live-action footage, was the effect upscaled first, then applied to 4k footage, or was that whole shot just upscaled from 2k? (Sounds like the first option, but I'm not 100% sure.)

So, many (most?) aspects of Martian sound to be true 4k, but many aspects of it would not be. Thus, while I'm sure it looks awesome, and all the 4k parts are amazing (and the 2k upscales probably look good too), it is _not_ a 100% 4k source film. The film makers clearly state that in the image above.

Keep in mind, I'm not ripping on the movie or the studio in any way. I was simply curious about a list of movies that are 100% 4k (3.8k or higher) during every step of the development process, for every asset used (filming, vfx, etc). Based on what the film makers themselves have said, Martian simply does not meet that requirement, regardless of how good it looks. I'm not boycotting films that have any 2k elements or anything, I'm just curious about it... I guess that would be the difference between my list and the one this thread is for- I want 4k throughout it's creation, not just the master used for the UHD.

[vargo]

The Martian has over a thousand vfx shots.

[guth]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

Is anyone maintaining a list of UHD discs where the entire process from filming to disc never went below 4k?

http://realorfake4k.com/

I have no idea how accurate it is, though.
Note their requirement for calling a title "Real 4K":

Everything was digitally shot or the original film negative was scanned in 4K, the effects were rendered in 4K, and all the mastering/editing was done in 4K.

The Martian is listed as "Nearly".

(I completely agree with you, btw. The Martian is definitely not true 4K.)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

Keep in mind, I'm not ripping on the movie or the studio in any way. I was simply curious about a list of movies....

Me too.

Keep in mind, what I said in the first sentence of that original post as a preface…..”why isn’t the martian on your list? especially given the fact that sicario is.”

For the list, do people value uprezing all of open gate Alexa XT capture recording in arriraw (Sicario) by for instance a Lanczos or Mitchell resize filter over at least some higher than 4K camera raw from The Martian as a source?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by vargo

The Martian has over a thousand vfx shots.

There were over 1,500 vfx shots in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (which is on the list), all of which were created in 2K and then uprezed to 4K for the finish. At least Tomorrowland (~ 1,100 vfx shots) had some *pure* 4K vfx.

Where does one draw the line for making or not making this list? Maybe we need clear cut standards for the list.

[applemac]

Originally Posted by jibucha

Martian is not 4K? :: this depends entirely on your 'interpretation of the 'facts' :: all that i have read and understand; i would disagree - it is definitely '4K' :: it's a shame that this is being disputed, given the outstanding efforts of 20th Century Fox :: confusion reigns

No, the entire movie is almost entirely effects shots at 2K.

That is not 4K.

2K != 4K.

[applemac]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

There were over 1,500 vfx shots in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (which is on the list), all of which were created in 2K and then uprezed to 4K for the finish. At least Tomorrowland (~ 1,100 vfx shots) had some *pure* 4K vfx.

Where does one draw the line for making or not making this list? Maybe we need clear cut standards for the list.

Agreed.

Make a section for 4K
and a section for 2K VFX Upscaled to 4K DI

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by elwaylite

Opinions are fine I guess...

Between all the factual, non-speculative information provided, I think I have good opinions at times. See my next post on the 4K Movies Releases thread.

[JediFonger]

i agree with this.

also it will be very difficult to find unless you had industry insiders how films are shot and what is used.... not all of us subscribe to american cinematographers society (ASC) therefore we dont have a list of technical stuff behind the scenes and imdb is not always accurate.

Originally Posted by applemac

Agreed.

Make a section for 4K
and a section for 2K VFX Upscaled to 4K DI

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JediFonger

i agree with this.

also it will be very difficult to find unless you had industry insiders how films are shot and what is used....

search words can be helpful...https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...n#post11956225

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by JediFonger

i agree with this.

also it will be very difficult to find unless you had industry insiders how films are shot and what is used.... not all of us subscribe to american cinematographers society (ASC) therefore we dont have a list of technical stuff behind the scenes and imdb is not always accurate.

Even with the lesser known motion pictures, I'm always willing to help out when I can
or, in other words, you won’t find that Insider tech ^ spec info in American Cinematography Magazine

nor imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872570/...ef_=tt_dt_spec), nor on any website that I know of….at least prior to the date and time that was posted exclusively on Blu-ray.com

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Even with the lesser known motion pictures, I'm always willing to help out when I can
or, in other words, you won’t find that Insider tech ^ spec info in American Cinematography Magazine

nor imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872570/...ef_=tt_dt_spec), nor on any website that I know of….at least prior to the date and time that was posted exclusively on Blu-ray.com

And, while it's much appreciated here, this is also a fine microcosmic example of the failings of transparency in this industry. It shouldn't be so difficult for consumers to find this information (with confidence and without contradiction). We shouldn't have to rely on someone like Penton, posting exclusive information on a one-off basis, in order to educate ourselves about what we can actually expect from our video products.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

And, while it's much appreciated here, this is also a fine microcosmic example of the failings of transparency in this industry. It shouldn't be so difficult for consumers to find this information (with confidence and without contradiction). We shouldn't have to rely on someone like Penton, posting exclusive information on a one-off basis, in order to educate ourselves about what we can actually expect from our video products.

Maybe that's the whole point?
If the studios reveal every specific details of their production and educate the public, they won't make that many sales.

And it's not just Blu-rays. Just about anything to do with business. Hard truths.