4K Movies Releases

[C.C. 95]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Wrong. At least 25% of the of the announced BD's have 4k DIs.

Also, they are using the raw files to create the uhd version. Alot of the good movies have raws that are 4-6k. The DI is NOT the main source they use. They go raw 1st, DI 2nd.

It's gonna get annoying correcting every person who parrots this with no actual knowledge of how these are made.

Actually, yeah I do.
Here's just one article that spills the truth.
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ul...not-always-4k/

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by C.C. 95

Actually, yeah I do.
Here's just one article that spills the truth.
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ul...not-always-4k/

Yea I've already seen this article, what's your point? The article is actually based off of misinformation and speculation.

Dolby and fox have both already stated that they start with the RAW files. Not the DI. Yet the article is insinuating that all that matters is the DI. Do you understand this?

They didn't interview any of the production companies to ask how these uhd movies are built. They are ASSUMING that all that is used is the DI. Which is not true.

So your article isn't "spilling" anything, just spreading misinformation and I hope they either fix their article or write a new one when they actually get the facts straight, that'd be great!

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by C.C. 95

Actually, yeah I do.
Here's just one article that spills the truth.
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ul...not-always-4k/

Btw, mad max was shot with the arrii Alexa p which is a 2.8k camera, not 2k like the article says.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

@7:10 for those concerned with artistic intent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3z1...ature=youtu.be

We've heard that already, the bit about the "delegates" coming in to approve it. And for the moment that's simply not an issue because the relevant parties are available to supervise and/or approve the work (at the minimum). As we keep saying over and over and over: it's older movies where the talent is long gone that are the main concern.

As an aside, I'm still puzzled by these guys talking about Dolby Vision's dual layer tech in relation to SDR and HDR when it simply doesn't work that way on UHD Blu (at least according to the White Paper from September last year, it's a HDR10 base layer plus the DV enhancement layer).

Sure, I suppose that because the question isn't about the UHD Blu implementation specifically he can just reel off the standard spiel about the SDR/HDR dual layer system, but then again Dolby are very confident that their CMU (content mapping unit) metadata can remap the image to whatever the capabilities of the display are, including a 100-nit standard version.

That's all well and good, but as these discs aren't even being encoded to disc with Dolby Vision and the initial players won't support DV anyway then we're back around to how the players can remap the HDR10 output again.

[Rick Grimes]

I assume 4K UHD will be useless for a Star Wars Episode 1-3 release... Unless they do a good job with upscaling.
IMHO, current BD 4K upscalers and/or internal 4K upscaling sucks. With evidence of macro blocking and other anomalies rife on larger TVs.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Rick Grimes

I assume 4K UHD will be useless for a Star Wars Episode 1-3 release... Unless they do a good job with upscaling.
IMHO, current BD 4K upscalers and/or internal 4K upscaling sucks. With evidence of macro blocking and other anomalies rife on larger TVs.

Phantom menace will be fine, but that DNR

[dubious]

All I know is somebody is going,

YOU NEED THIS, HAVE THIS SUPERIOR FORMAT, FOR YOUR DISMALLY INADEQUATE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY, BECAUSE WE ALREADY KILLED PLASMA!!! MUHAHAHHAAHAHA!!!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Phantom menace will be fine, but that DNR

Virtually every single shot has a CG element which was finished at 2K, and ILM can't re-render them because they don't have the appropriate tech to read the CG files any more (which they found out when prepping the 3D version). So I'd say a 4K rebuild is off the table for Ep I.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Virtually every single shot has a CG element which was finished at 2K, and ILM can't re-render them because they don't have the appropriate tech to read the CG files any more (which they found out when prepping the 3D version). So I'd say a 4K rebuild is off the table for Ep I.

As you have pointed out before they can like T2 and JP have enough sources and ways of scanning.
It's too early a film for a rebuild

[Penton-Man]

Peter, where art thou?.....get fired up

RUBINROT | Musikvideo „Faster" (Sofi de la Torre) - YouTube

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ray0414

RAW files

The highlighted SStP aside, the selection of which reminds me of a Japanese restaurant menu at times...yous got your Sony RAW, your Arri RAW and your RED (note: R3D is RED’s Redcode RAW offering)

[Penton-Man]

UKers, reminder……

BVE 2016, vivist www.bvexpo.com to regisiter to your interest - YouTube

4K and HDR will be there. Registration is free - https://registration.n200.com/survey...444.1453314679

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Peter, where art thou?.....get fired up

RUBINROT | Musikvideo „Faster" (Sofi de la Torre) - YouTube

Neat. Please tell me what's title a movie?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

As you have pointed out before they can like T2 and JP have enough sources and ways of scanning.
It's too early a film for a rebuild

T2 and JP have a literal handful of CG shots compared to Ep I so there's still plenty of 'raw' resolution to work from, even something like Titanic only has about 500 VFX shots which is why the majority of that 4K remaster looks so stunning. When they move into the realm of 2000+ VFX shots which are locked at 2K there's virtually no point in doing a raw rebuild because so much of it would need to be upscaled anyway.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

T2 and JP have a literal handful of CG shots compared to Ep I so there's still plenty of 'raw' resolution to work from, even something like Titanic only has about 500 VFX shots which is why the majority of that 4K remaster looks so stunning. When they move into the realm of 2000+ VFX shots which are locked at 2K there's virtually no point in doing a raw rebuild because so much of it would need to be upscaled anyway.

I thought they made a 4k master when they did the 3d conversion

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Yea I've already seen this article, what's your point? The article is actually based off of misinformation and speculation.

Dolby and fox have both already stated that they start with the RAW files. Not the DI. Yet the article is insinuating that all that matters is the DI. Do you understand this?

They didn't interview any of the production companies to ask how these uhd movies are built. They are ASSUMING that all that is used is the DI. Which is not true.

So your article isn't "spilling" anything, just spreading misinformation and I hope they either fix their article or write a new one when they actually get the facts straight, that'd be great! [bold mine]

Speaking of vifx . . . I'm not sure I understand how your emphasizing some Dolby and Fox statement (link?) that the original digital data or RAW files is the mastering source for UHD BD titles (as opposed to the DI) can be anything other than a disingenuous statement by those companies or a misreading on your part.

The original image capture, whether on film or digital, won't reflect all of the myriad color corrections done at the DI stage, often at 2k rez. So going back to the camera negative gets us to the maybe higher rez, but it doesn't reflect everything that changed further downstream. Heck, the RAW files won't even reflect the vifx (which may have been rendered at 2k). A true 4k presentation of especially a vifx heavy picture would require re-rendering all those effects. I don't see that happening except for the biggest movies from the biggest directors who have a significant relationship with the studio where the picture was made.

I think this is part of the point Josh Zyber is making (and BTW I've been reading Josh since the days of the format "war"; IMO he usually is on point/knows his stuff).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

I thought they made a 4k master when they did the 3d conversion

Of what, Phantom Menace? First I've heard of it. When the Blu-rays were announced they made a big thing about going back to the original 2K files and bypassing any filmed out elements completely (which is what the DVD was derived from).

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Of what, Phantom Menace? First I've heard of it. When the Blu-rays were announced they made a big thing about going back to the original 2K files and bypassing any filmed out elements completely (which is what the DVD was derived from).

I may be wrong, it would break my being right streak tho

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

Speaking of vifx . . . I'm not sure I understand how your emphasizing some Dolby and Fox statement (link?) that the original digital data or RAW files is the mastering source for UHD BD titles (as opposed to the DI) can be anything other than a disingenuous statement by those companies or a misreading on your part.

The original image capture, whether on film or digital, won't reflect all of the myriad color corrections done at the DI stage, often at 2k rez. So going back to the camera negative gets us to the maybe higher rez, but it doesn't reflect everything that changed further downstream. Heck, the RAW files won't even reflect the vifx (which may have been rendered at 2k). A true 4k presentation of especially a vifx heavy picture would require re-rendering all those effects. I don't see that happening except for the biggest movies from the biggest directors who have a significant relationship with the studio where the picture was made.

I think this is part of the point Josh Zyber is making (and BTW I've been reading Josh since the days of the format "war"; IMO he usually is on point/knows his stuff).

I could be wrong but if that's what Josh is saying then he's missed the point spectacularly (and it wouldn't be the first time, gawd love him), as the film can be rebuilt from the 'raw' materials using metadata derived from the original grading/editing sessions, preferably in conjunction with the original colourist. So decisions about framing (with >4K shows usually shooting for a 4K extraction, as per the Light Iron tutorial of Ender's Game), split-screening of takes, power windows and all the other subtleties present in the original grade aren't just thrown out, they're used to rebuild the movie whilst simultaneously applying the new HDR grading.

Now, we've got no guarantees that this is being done for EVERY 4K HDR movie, I'm not naive enough to assume that, and (as was said above) films with wall-to-wall VFX or those that are entirely CG animated will have mostly upscaled content. That much is true. But for films that ARE properly rebuilt, as The Martian was, they're effectively getting a brand new 4K DI. (Yeah, the VFX will still be 2K but this is par for the course for first-run 4K finishes anyway, and will be for a while yet.)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

I may be wrong, it would break my being right streak tho

It's gotta end sometime bro, the 'O' must go!