List of UHDs that utilize 4K or Higher Masters

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It could be, for the most part, if they mastered it right. Not the shots with CG VFX, though.

You'll be very pleased to note that IMAX VFX usually comes in at 5.6K or even 8K depending on the nature of the shot. And a lot of what's left in Interstellar's visuals is actually miniature work shot in 8/35 VistaVision (you know, like them olden dayses!) and live projection from giant rigs outside the full-size spacecraft set was captured in-camera, so I presume that that would be enough to qualify for your illustrious "fourkay or the highway" list? Same goes for the two IMAX Dark Knight features too.

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It could be, for the most part, if they mastered it right. Not the shots with CG VFX, though.

Geoff is right. If/when Interstellar comes out, it would be one of the very rare films that is 4k through and through. The fx for the 35mm portions were fully rendered at 4k. And the 65mm portions were rendered at 5.6k.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by puddy77

Geoff is right. If/when Interstellar comes out, it would be one of the very rare films that is 4k through and through. The fx for the 35mm portions were fully rendered at 4k. And the 65mm portions were rendered at 5.6k.

Was it shot on film? I bet the widescreen shots were scanned at 2k. Could be wrong

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Was it shot on film? I bet the widescreen shots were scanned at 2k. Could be wrong

Yes, it was shot on film. Luckily, Nolan has different standards and aesthetics than Snyder. And the scans actually depend on the format. For the Imax version, the 65mm was scanned at 8k and the 35mm was scanned at 6k (and Imax's DMR process kept the 35mm at 6k). But for the non-aspect ratio changing theatrical 4k DI/DCP, the 35mm was scanned at 4k and the 65mm at 8k.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Same goes for the two IMAX Dark Knight features too.

There was a surprising amount of CG in The Dark Knight Rises actually.

[mttmax]

I thought Nolan doesn't use a DI?

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by mttmax

I thought Nolan doesn't use a DI?

Hi didn't. It was all finished photochemically. I was just referring to the process to create the digital versions.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

There was a surprising amount of CG in The Dark Knight Rises actually.

Yep, there was loads of tweakery just to remove the rig supporting The Bat.

[EinCB128]

Is there steel books that have the 4K version? American or otherwise? What are those films? Thanks in advance!

[RockyIII]

BvS is a good film, but the 4K quality was very disappointing to me...At times the scenes looked like they were in 780p with an ugly yellow hue and lots of 'moving grain' on faces and walls

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by puddy77

Yes, it was shot on film. Luckily, Nolan has different standards and aesthetics than Snyder. And the scans actually depend on the format. For the Imax version, the 65mm was scanned at 8k and the 35mm was scanned at 6k (and Imax's DMR process kept the 35mm at 6k). But for the non-aspect ratio changing theatrical 4k DI/DCP, the 35mm was scanned at 4k and the 65mm at 8k.

Nice. Should make for a visually-impressive UHD disc. *ahem* Too bad about the film itself.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep, there was loads of tweakery just to remove the rig supporting The Bat.

Not just that, stuff like large sections of the plane being hijacked either being CG or CG replaced, large sections of Gotham, the stadium destruction, the ending chase & fly-away, alterations to the bridges, etc.

[Geoff D]

The stadium bit is some mad CG skills right there.

Article on the work it took to finish the IMAX CG in The Dark Knight, in case anyone thinks I'm talking a load of rot: http://www.studiodaily.com/2008/07/d...e-dark-knight/

[RockyIII]

I think good TVs like Oled make CG too easy to spot

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

I think good TVs like Oled make CG too easy to spot

I always find this criticism particular since even in a lot of the best practical effects there were often telltale signs something was "off" - a puppet that moves too stiffly or doesn't look "alive". Matte lines. Obvious matte paintings or miniatures. Heavier grain from generation loss or large differences in contrast or color. Yeah, there's plenty of bad CG out there but darned if it isn't PERFECT people still claim "bad CGI" or "I could tell it was CG" like it was a terrible thing that makes them dismiss it altogether.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I always find this criticism particular since even in a lot of the best practical effects there were often telltale signs something was "off" - a puppet that moves too stiffly or doesn't look "alive". Matte lines. Obvious matte paintings or miniatures. Heavier grain from generation loss or large differences in contrast or color. Yeah, there's plenty of bad CG out there but darned if it isn't PERFECT people still claim "bad CGI" or "I could tell it was CG" like it was a terrible thing that makes them dismiss it altogether.

We've been on this rodeo so many times before, but there's still something that's so thoroughly organic about ye olde pre-digital VFX that it makes them easier for people to accept in spite of the seams. To paraphrase Batman: they - as in the audience - know something's off...they just don't care.

But I think the more salient point has ALWAYS been that because modern movies **** the frame with so many effects it makes it that much easier to pick out a duff shot, along with the uptick in resolution and lack of optical generational loss on CG VFX anyway.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I always find this criticism particular since even in a lot of the best practical effects there were often telltale signs something was "off" - a puppet that moves too stiffly or doesn't look "alive". Matte lines. Obvious matte paintings or miniatures. Heavier grain from generation loss or large differences in contrast or color. Yeah, there's plenty of bad CG out there but darned if it isn't PERFECT people still claim "bad CGI" or "I could tell it was CG" like it was a terrible thing that makes them dismiss it altogether.

CGI has ruined cinema, let's face it. There is 'use' and there is 'abuse'. Most studios seem to prefer the latter: just get some green screen and you got yourself the next blockbuster hit

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

CGI has ruined cinema, let's face it. There is 'use' and there is 'abuse'. Most studios seem to prefer the latter: just get some green screen and you got yourself the next blockbuster hit

Funny, I always thought the script and direction made a film good or bad.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

CGI has ruined cinema, let's face it. There is 'use' and there is 'abuse'.

There's been abuse of poor VFX since literally day one of the motion picture medium; the advent of CGI couldn't have any bearing on that if it tried.

[puddy77]

I will copy the proof I just posted in the Ex Machina thread:

This had a 4k DI with a 2k DCP. I just updated IMDb (changes take anywhere from a day to a couple weeks).

American Cinematographer said this had a 4k workflow with a 2k DCP:

Molinare’s post pipeline for Ex Machina was set up for a 4K workflow, while visual effects from Double Negative were handled at 2K, the resolution of the final 2:40:1 DCP.

This is corroborated (and clarified thanks to American Cinematographer's typical ambiguous, afterthought style in regards to DIs) by a Definition Magazine article:

Screen writer Alex Garland has now become a Director and he brings us a suitably twisted branch of the three pronged 'love' story. Ex-Machina couldn’t be anything else but a digital movie being shot and finished in 4K.

Ex Machina was the second film Molinare has posted in 4k. Although both Belle and Ex Machina were to be delivered 2k, they decided to complete all work at 4k as they knew this would soon be common practice and wanted to ensure their workflow. Asa Shoul of Molinaire: “With the Baselight grading system being resolution independent, 4k isn’t a big step up for us; we’ve recently worked on Halo Nightfall with 6k material and Hockney with up to 9k images.

Edit: I also got confirmation from the colorist Asa Shoul via Molinare, the studio that did the DI:

we kept all drama material at 4K and VFX at 2k. The film was shot at 4K with 2:1 anamorphic lenses and with the sensor of the Sony F55 and F65 at 1.9:1 (I believe) it produced an almost 3:1 ratio. Zooming in to create 2.39 gave us 2880 pixels across. So basically 4K acquisition, kept at 4K throughout the DI with an active picture area of 2880 across. So a 4K pipeline (also useful for 16:9 pan and scan) with VFX at 2048 across.