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

[dvdmike]

.

[HeavyHitter]

6K seems like it's the safe route leaving no doubts.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

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???:

VistaVision in not the same as 35MM! It has TWICE the negative area of standard 35MM film, and the film is run horizontally through the camera, and why ILM used it as their choice of film capture.

By the way IMAX is basically VistaVision applied to 65MM film.

As I said, you're lucky if there's more than 3K of info on your standard 35MM film IP.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

VistaVision in not the same as 35MM! It has TWICE the negative area of standard 35MM film, and the film is run horizontally through the camera, and why ILM used it as their choice of film capture.

By the way IMAX is basically VistaVision applied to 65MM film.

As I said, you're lucky if there's more than 3K of info on your standard 35MM film IP.

You reread my post before posting? you saw the edit right???

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

35mm is closer to 6k than 4k

Nope. ITU testing (which is considered correct by the imaging community) has shown that Kodak Vision 200T color negative film 5274 holds a tad more than 4K worth of data, i.e. 2400 lines/PH. See Figure 2 - http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

Give me a moment to find a white paper which may be a bit easier for you to comprehend.

[Penton-Man]

^ Here ya go….open in a new tab this link http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf

b.t.w., if you like real names Matt Cowan is ACTIVELY working day-to-day in the business as the RealD chief scientific officer

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

L'armée , you can add The DaVinci Code.

^ graded at EFILM by Steve Bowen

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Nope. ITU testing (which is considered correct by the imaging community) has shown that Kodak Vision 200T color negative film 5274 holds a tad more than 4K worth of data, i.e. 2400 lines/PH. See Figure 2 - http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

Give me a moment to find a white paper which may be a bit easier for you to comprehend.

Didn't read my post either? I already said I was wrong and misread it as far as Robert Harris goes, AIRI still said it was 6k but their brochure is now offline
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread....tion+35mm+film

I do find it odd that a lot of the list shot 35mm is scanned at 6k...........
But hey, what do they know, right?

[DoubleGulpShrimp]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nein. They were all finished at 2K, as was The Hobbit.

Thats just not true.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

Thats just not true.

Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Redcode RAW (5K) (dual-strip 3-D) (source format)

[DoubleGulpShrimp]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Redcode RAW (5K) (dual-strip 3-D) (source format)

Lol. There are many masters made. 4k, 4k 3d, 2k, 2k 3d, 4k hfr 3d. 2k normally made for blu-ray masters (although sony is going to start using 4k masters for there blu-rays) and some 35mm prints. But there is no way that Imax could show a 2k image. It would be a bit like trying to play a vhs on an hdtv. If you would like to see what a 2k image looks like in a digital theater go to a fathom event for star trek tng.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

Lol. There are many masters made. 4k, 4k 3d, 2k, 2k 3d, 4k hfr 3d. 2k normally made for blu-ray masters (although sony is going to start using 4k masters for there blu-rays) and some 35mm prints. But there is no way that Imax could show a 2k image. It would be a bit like trying to play a vhs on an hdtv. If you would like to see what a 2k image looks like in a digital theater go to a fathom event for star trek tng.

You do know that Attack Of The Clones, shot at 1080p, was blown up to 15/70 IMAX? I don't like being outwardly rude to people on forums, but please come back when you've got a clue. Thanks.

Dig this interview with The Hobbit's editor (the relevant quote is below): http://www.definitionmagazine.com/jo...rame-game.html

We did not do the DI at 4K at all. This was primarily due to cost and time for the VFX shots if they had been done at 4K (it is four times the data of 2K).

The DI was conformed at Park Road Post using an array of SGO Mistikas, it was all 2K and was primarily done at 48fps 3D with the other versions, 24fps 3D and 24fps 2D derived from that.

Just because something is shot at x resolution, doesn't mean that it'll be finished at x resolution.

[L'armée des ombres]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^ graded at EFILM by Steve Bowen

It's added Penton

[42041]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

Lol. There are many masters made. 4k, 4k 3d, 2k, 2k 3d, 4k hfr 3d. 2k normally made for blu-ray masters (although sony is going to start using 4k masters for there blu-rays) and some 35mm prints. But there is no way that Imax could show a 2k image. It would be a bit like trying to play a vhs on an hdtv. If you would like to see what a 2k image looks like in a digital theater go to a fathom event for star trek tng.

Sorry but that is very wrong. IMAX blowups from >2K masters are the exception, not the rule. And yes, they look pretty shoddy if you're sitting up close to the screen, which is one of the reasons I rarely bother. The majority of what you see in any digital theater are 2K images. The fact that you're not aware of this should suggest the reason why 4K mastering is still used for a minority of new films.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

...AIRI still said it was 6k but their brochure is now offline...

As PeterTHX and the late John Lowry noted in that consumer electronics magazine article, for capturing moving pictures with a film camera in the real world (not raw negative stock like the ITU study, nor producing super sharp subtitles for some movie), that the effective resolution is even lower than 4K….more like in the 3’s.

The *debate* if you will, comes to how much ‘scanner resolution’ (and how best to accomplish it) is needed in order to capture (and transfer) all the inherent detail of the film image and at the same time produce a digital image that is natural and authentic to the film source…..rather than for instance disproportionately magnifying the appearance of film grain.

As to the Arri article, I haven’t gone through the whole thing in a long time but, I think you’re also misreading their findings (and intention) in that you’re confusing the measured resolution of 35mm film for what Arri claims is needed to digitize and transfer the resolution of that film image with a scanner and best avoid aliasing. “At the moment, a correctly exposed and 6K/4K scanned 35mm film negative is the only practical, existing acquisition medium for moving pictures that come close to this requirement.”

As an aside, it is/was no coincidence that as I stated sometime in Club Penton back in 2010 that the ArriScan was being marketed as a 6K scanner (despite the fact that 3k is the native optical resolution and 6k is achieved by offsetting the sensor by a half-pixel in four directions).Other manufacturers have different solutions, for example with regards to the Northlight 2 scanner, its 8K CCD line arrays produce true 4K resolution data files.

All this does not mean that 35mm exposed film has 8K resolution (nor 6K if you like the ArriScan) as some people (other than you) on the internet like to proclaim every several months on some film-oriented thread….as, overall most images probably measure about 3K-ish worth of effective resolution with real world acquisition. This is something that I think needed to be made clear to pixel followers.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Didn't read my post either? I already said I was wrong and misread it as far as Robert Harris goes...

Mike, I read this post which started the discussion and I found to be misleading…

Originally Posted by dvdmike

35mm is closer to 6k than 4k

As far as Bob goes, I find it ironic that you choose to quote or refer to someone I’ve read on another forum who in the past (when 4K scanning was rarer) has shown a definite proclivity to making subtle statements dismissive or marginalizing the value of 4K scanning of 35mm for Blu-ray, not archiving mind you, but for Blu-ray movies….with the attitude that 2K scanning was/is good enough. I suppose he’s now, finally, jumped on the 4K scanning (for Blu-ray deliverables) bandwagon.

Good for him.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by L'armée des ombres

It's added Penton

And another….Lincoln
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...29#post7528259

P.S.
eh, disregard Lincoln as I now see that one’s already made your list.
Okay, then add Straw Dogs (2011)

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As PeterTHX and the late John Lowry noted in that consumer electronics magazine article, for capturing moving pictures with a film camera in the real world (not raw negative stock like the ITU study, nor producing super sharp subtitles for some movie), that the effective resolution is even lower than 4K….more like in the 3’s.

The *debate* if you will, comes to how much ‘scanner resolution’ (and how best to accomplish it) is needed in order to capture (and transfer) all the inherent detail of the film image and at the same time produce a digital image that is natural and authentic to the film source…..rather than for instance disproportionately magnifying the appearance of film grain.

As to the Arri article, I haven’t gone through the whole thing in a long time but, I think you’re also misreading their findings (and intention) in that you’re confusing the measured resolution of 35mm film for what Arri claims is needed to digitize and transfer the resolution of that film image with a scanner and best avoid aliasing. “At the moment, a correctly exposed and 6K/4K scanned 35mm film negative is the only practical, existing acquisition medium for moving pictures that come close to this requirement.”

As an aside, it is/was no coincidence that as I stated sometime in Club Penton back in 2010 that the ArriScan was being marketed as a 6K scanner (despite the fact that 3k is the native optical resolution and 6k is achieved by offsetting the sensor by a half-pixel in four directions).Other manufacturers have different solutions, for example with regards to the Northlight 2 scanner, its 8K CCD line arrays produce true 4K resolution data files.

All this does not mean that 35mm exposed film has 8K resolution (nor 6K if you like the ArriScan) as some people (other than you) on the internet like to proclaim every several months on some film-oriented thread….as, overall most images probably measure about 3K-ish worth of effective resolution with real world acquisition. This is something that I think needed to be made clear to pixel followers.

Lowry loved DNR also so I would not quote him wildly, plus they loved 2k to keep overheads down

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

Lol. There are many masters made. 4k, 4k 3d, 2k, 2k 3d, 4k hfr 3d. 2k normally made for blu-ray masters (although sony is going to start using 4k masters for there blu-rays) and some 35mm prints. But there is no way that Imax could show a 2k image. It would be a bit like trying to play a vhs on an hdtv. If you would like to see what a 2k image looks like in a digital theater go to a fathom event for star trek tng.

No the DI that which all masters were struck from is 2k.
Sony have not only just started using 4k for blu-ray they have since the start where a master was available

[L'armée des ombres]

There seems to be a serious doubt that The Great Escape blu is a 4K scan after all