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

[Brightstar]

Gone with the wind has a Aspect Ratio: 1.37 : 1 and we will still see black bars on both sides even if scanned in 4k .

[L'armée des ombres]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Gone with the wind has a Aspect Ratio: 1.37 : 1 and we will still see black bars on both sides even if scanned in 4k .

eehm ok
It's scanned in 8K so your point is?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by L'armée des ombres

...

Moi aussi

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You’ve motivated me . I can think of 3 to add to the list, just have to make sure there was no digital acquisition involved during principal photography.

I would nominate Inception to the list but I really don’t know for 100% certainty if the HD master originated from a 4K file source (like for the DCP) or some lower rez file source. The post production was extremely complex.

P.S.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to several members who refuse to recognize the strengths AND weaknesses in people because of blinded fanboyism.

Being a Nolan film, I would expect there to be an entirely photochemical workflow with digital scans of the negative for BD/DCP usage.

[42041]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Being a Nolan film, I would expect there to be an entirely photochemical workflow with digital scans of the negative for BD/DCP usage.

Nolan's films use color-timed interpositives as the source for the digital scans, not the negative, pretty much nullifying whatever benefit doing them at 4k might have.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Being a Nolan film, I would expect there to be an entirely photochemical workflow with digital scans of the negative for BD/DCP usage.

His vitriol about all photochemical is mostly just words.
If inception is 4k its the ugliest one on disc, I thought it was 2k workflow with a DMR upscale

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by 42041

Nolan's films use color-timed interpositives as the source for the digital scans, not the negative, pretty much nullifying whatever benefit doing them at 4k might have.

I didn't know that, that's an odd thing to do.

However, his movies on BD look quite excellent save for the first two Batmans. How much of a quality loss do you get going from the OCN to an IP?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

How much of a quality loss do you get going from the OCN to an IP?

Using a purely objective parameter (MTF measured with a microdensitometer), 2100 lines/PH -> 1400 lines/PH = 33% drop in rez.

This ^ is based upon the classic study of 2001 for 35mm film resolution which the ITU commissioned…. http://tutorial8.com/i/image-resolut...-w4549-pdf.pdf

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

His vitriol about all photochemical is mostly just words.
If inception is 4k its the ugliest one on disc, I thought it was 2k workflow with a DMR upscale

Inception was edited on film. http://www.studiodaily.com/2010/07/e...emical-finish/

As 42041 said, the images you see on BD for Nolan's movies come from timed IPs, which is why most of the 35mm footage carries the same sort of overtly soft look (which is on top of the usual foibles of anamorphic). Going to DI straight off of the neg has given anamorphic a real shot in the arm these last few years, delivering sharpness and detail to rival the average Super 35 show, but Nolan and Pfister are quite happy with that traditionally soft appearance - though it looks ever more incongruous when intercut with the astonishing clarity of 15/70 IMAX.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Inception was edited on film. http://www.studiodaily.com/2010/07/e...emical-finish/

As 42041 said, the images you see on BD for Nolan's movies come from timed IPs, which is why most of the 35mm footage carries the same sort of overtly soft look (which is on top of the usual foibles of anamorphic). Going to DI straight off of the neg has given anamorphic a real shot in the arm these last few years, delivering sharpness and detail to rival the average Super 35 show, but Nolan and Pfister are quite happy with that traditionally soft appearance - though it looks ever more incongruous when intercut with the astonishing clarity of 15/70 IMAX.

Where did I say it was not edited on film?

[Geoff D]

What was with the "2k workflow" comment then? If you were just talking about the VFX shots then I've got no idea what they were finished at.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

delivering sharpness and detail to rival the average Super 35 show

Other than 40+ percent of the frame being lopped off? Super35 simply can't deliver the 4K capability of 35MM in OAR.

Anamorphic gives you the entire frame, minus soundtrack area. There are plenty of "sharp" looking anamorphic titles out there.

[Geoff D]

Ah, I knew I'd hook someone with that line. Don't get me wrongo, I'm as big a fan of anamorphic as you can get. But using the entire frame doesn't count for a great deal if the optics are less than stellar, as was the case before Panavision's last big breakthrough with the E-series lenses.

For sheer acreage anamorphic undoubtedly wins out over Super 35, yet with the lower resolution of home video, anamorphic has always suffered a little bit in comparison IMO, not having the aggressive (some might say exaggerated) sharpness of a Super 35 show.

But that's all changed with the DI process, resulting in the sharpest, cleanest, most detailed anamorphic shows I've ever seen on video. Compare the Blu-ray of something like X-Men First Class (2K DI) to one of Nolan's recent anamorphic movies (transferred from an IP) and the difference in sharpness is quite obvious.

IMO there's a certain brick wall of detail that Nolan's 35mm footage hits because it's limited by the photochemical process. Even though the anamorphic sections in the Batman films are scanned at 6K for the IMAX version, they come from IP and all the DMR enhancement in the world can't bring back detail that isn't there, which was excruciatingly obvious to me on the 15/70 presentation of TDKR.

As I said, that's exactly what Nolan and co. want the 35mm sections to look like - heck, some cinematographers still like to use older Panavision glass because of its idiosyncratic performance - so fair play to them. But as a fan of anamorphic it pains me to see it fall short of its full potential, at least as far as home video is concerned.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by geoff d

what was with the "2k workflow" comment then? If you were just talking about the vfx shots then i've got no idea what they were finished at.

vfx

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ah, I knew I'd hook someone with that line. Don't get me wrongo, I'm as big a fan of anamorphic as you can get. But using the entire frame doesn't count for a great deal if the optics are less than stellar, as was the case before Panavision's last big breakthrough with the E-series lenses.

For sheer acreage anamorphic undoubtedly wins out over Super 35, yet with the lower resolution of home video, anamorphic has always suffered a little bit in comparison IMO, not having the aggressive (some might say exaggerated) sharpness of a Super 35 show.

But that's all changed with the DI process, resulting in the sharpest, cleanest, most detailed anamorphic shows I've ever seen on video. Compare the Blu-ray of something like X-Men First Class (2K DI) to one of Nolan's recent anamorphic movies (transferred from an IP) and the difference in sharpness is quite obvious.

IMO there's a certain brick wall of detail that Nolan's 35mm footage hits because it's limited by the photochemical process. Even though the anamorphic sections in the Batman films are scanned at 6K for the IMAX version, they come from IP and all the DMR enhancement in the world can't bring back detail that isn't there, which was excruciatingly obvious to me on the 15/70 presentation of TDKR.

As I said, that's exactly what Nolan and co. want the 35mm sections to look like - heck, some cinematographers still like to use older Panavision glass because of its idiosyncratic performance - so fair play to them. But as a fan of anamorphic it pains me to see it fall short of its full potential, at least as far as home video is concerned.

What about films like Braveheart that were anamorphic 35 and completed entirely photochemically? That BD almost reminds me of 70mm at times due to the combination of looking both incredibly detailed yet it had a naturally soft look at the same time.

I also think that Nolan's The Prestige and Insomnia are reference BDs, what do you think about them?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by singhcr

What about films like Braveheart that were anamorphic 35 and completed entirely photochemically? That BD almost reminds me of 70mm at times due to the combination of looking both incredibly detailed yet it had a naturally soft look at the same time.

I also think that Nolan's The Prestige and Insomnia are reference BDs, what do you think about them?

What version of Insomnia? http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

The Prestige and most 35mm Nolan movies are super soft and lack detail, people can blame analogue workflows all they want, but I am pretty sure that The Evil Dead had an analogue workflow and looks miles better than both.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

What about films like Braveheart that were anamorphic 35 and completed entirely photochemically? That BD almost reminds me of 70mm at times due to the combination of looking both incredibly detailed yet it had a naturally soft look at the same time.

I also think that Nolan's The Prestige and Insomnia are reference BDs, what do you think about them?

Sorry, I'm not explaining myself very well. It's Nolan's preference for using timed IP material for transfer rather than the negative which is my main bugbear. If I had to guess, I'd say that Braveheart came straight off the neg with all of the digital mastering that entails, which is why it looks as beautiful as it does, whereas most of Nolan's anamorphic 35mm transfers are from a generation further down with the colour timing already baked in.

Those timing decisions are achieved with photochemical means which perhaps lack the finesse of digital tools, and there's no changing them when laying them down onto video because Nolan has made it quite clear that that's what he wants his 35mm to look like. Nolan is seemingly so strict about it that they won't even use scans of the 35mm negative for the 15/70 conversions, and given the myriad steps that the footage has to go through during that process I thought they'd want to start off with every bit of detail they could get.

The point I've been trying to make is that digital grading directly off of the neg has renewed the anamorphic format and given it a new lease of life IMO, be it on a brand-new show or just a new transfer of an existing movie. But Nolan craves that fusty old-timey look, and to my eyes Prestige is just as soft as Batman Begins and the 35mm sections of Inception, TDK and TDKR. Haven't seen Insomnia.

[singhcr]

Ah, I see what you mean now. I agree that not using the OCN when it's available for a digital scan is stupid. I know Nolan's a perfectionist and is after quality presentations of his movies so his insistence on using IPs for scanning purposes is quite odd indeed.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Using a purely objective parameter (MTF measured with a microdensitometer), 2100 lines/PH -> 1400 lines/PH = 33% drop in rez.

This ^ is based upon the classic study of 2001 for 35mm film resolution which the ITU commissioned…. http://tutorial8.com/i/image-resolut...-w4549-pdf.pdf

Thank you once again for the nugget of info, my friend.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Thank you once again for the nugget of info, my friend.

I try to diversify the dispersed info as different members have different interests, for example sometimes I even do book recommendations - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...3d#post7704305

And I always try to keep PeterTHX up-to-date with soccer news whether it’s related to 4K acquisition/delivery…..or not.

Which reminds me of something to post on the ‘4K tech thread’.