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

[42041]

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.

With anamorphic, the resultant quality is quite dependent on how the DPs actually use the lenses. From various DP comments I gather that their performance is really poor at wide-open apertures compared to normal lenses, but they get a lot sharper when they're stoppped down a good bit, so sharp photography needs lots of light. They also have half the depth of field of a normal lens with a comparable field of view, so they're trickier for the focus pullers. I've seen carefully photographed films made on modern anamorphic glass and fine-grain film that could certainly pass for 70mm... but that requires some effort on the DP's part, and I don't get the sense that Nolan's DP is particularly interested in that kind of photography. He tends to shoot with low light levels, wide apertures/shallow DoF, and favors shooting hand-held with older, more compact lenses. A 4K transfer from the camera negative will tighten up the grain, refine some detail, but it won't make Batman Begins look like The Thin Red Line.

[Geoff D]

That is a good point - does Nolan and Pfister's gloomy aesthetic even allow for pin-sharp anamorphic detail in the first place? The dark, dank interiors of something like Alien certainly look wonderful on Blu-ray (from a 4K transfer), which is a terrific achievement given that it was shot with the slower anamorphic lenses of the period. So, for the sake of argument, I'd love to see what a fat high-res scan off the neg and digital grade would do for something like BB. It wouldn't be transformed into a glorious sun-lit 70mm epic, but the results would be interesting I'm sure.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So, for the sake of argument, I'd love to see what a fat high-res scan off the neg and digital grade would do for something like BB. It wouldn't be transformed into a glorious sun-lit 70mm epic, but the results would be interesting I'm sure.

The existing transfer with high bitrate encode would be a big improvement. The BD is made from an encode that had to fit over 2 hours video, lossless audio, dub tracks, a DVD's worth of extras, and PiP in less than 30GB!

[Geoff D]

There is that too, yep. It'd be nice if Warners went back and redid a few more of those legacy HD DVD encodes. Mad Max 2 showed that there can be an improvement, however small.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There is that too, yep. It'd be nice if Warners went back and redid a few more of those legacy HD DVD encodes. Mad Max 2 showed that there can be an improvement, however small.

Mad Max was already fantastic, BB can barely resolve over 720p

[Penton-Man]

From a conversation during a conference about the first 4K DI which Laser Pacific did (in 2006) which I attended back in the day, words from recent birthday boy Vilmos Z. ( http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,6114921.story ) on how and why he fell in love with Super 35 (after having been a longtime fan of anamorphic…

http://www.hdexpo.net/virtual/panels/dahliaC_600.html < there might be a slight delay before the clip runs, so be patient, it's worth it.

^ Additionally, for background, something which might not be clear to listeners is Vilmos’s answer to the question posed by the moderator near the end of the clip. Namely, the mod was referring to the fact that when you shoot Super35 and used a photochemical lab process, there was an extra optical step involved. You are using spherical lenses so the images have to be optically *squeezed* into anamorphic format which added an extra generation of film and thusly produced some degradation of image quality which cinematographers felt unacceptable.

Whereas with a DI, the negative is scanned and converted to digital files without that same extra generational image degradation as seen with a photochemical workflow.

[PeterTHX]

Well, you like Super35, I find it a "cheat" and very video looking. Anamorphic productions have an "epic" look I find most Super35 shows fail to replicate, not to mention the composition issues.

Some of my favorite filmmakers like Eastwood, Nolan, Abrams...they all love anamorphic photography.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, you like Super35, I find it a "cheat" and very video looking. Anamorphic productions have an "epic" look I find most Super35 shows fail to replicate, not to mention the composition issues.

Some of my favorite filmmakers like Eastwood, Nolan, Abrams...they all love anamorphic photography.

Terminator 2 does not look epic?

Look at This Means War, a terrible film but a beautiful image I was shocked to find out with s35

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, you like Super35, I find it a "cheat"...

You must have run the clip in FF.
Minutes from an old SMPTE Hollywood Section meeting from a decade ago. Salient point…”There were no volunteers.”

HOLLYWOOD SECTION MEETS WITH CINEMATGORAPHERS
TO DISCUSS PAST AND FUTURE OF WIDE-SCREEN FORMATS
By Bob Fisher

Four of the motion picture industry’s most respected cinematographers participated in an evocative and engaging discussion about the art and craft of wide-screen movie production during the November meeting of the SMPTE Hollywood section. Some 230 members and guests jammed into the Gene Autry Hollywood Museum Theater to hear John Bailey, ASC, Kees Van Oostrum, ASC, Theo Van de Sande, ASC and John Hora, ASC explain when and why they believe it is appropriate to produce films in either anamorphic or Super 35 format, and how they differentiate between those two mediums. Bev Wood, vice president, technical services for Deluxe labs, and Dave Kenig, director, camera systems for Panavision, also provided insight

The meeting was co-sponsored by the American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) and the International Cinematographers Guild (ICG). SMPTE Hollywood Section Chair Dick May opened the session by explaining that the seminar was an educational initiative designed to enhance communications between the creative and technical communities. He noted that SMPE (no television in those days) was founded in 1916 for the purpose of working with cinematographers and the studios to define the need for and propose technical standards that supported the art form and provided economies of scale.

The audience represented a broad cross-section of the industry, including managers and technicians from various studios, labs and postproduction houses, equipment rental facilities, camera crewmembers and film school faculty and students.

"For me, it is simple," Van de Sande said, illustrating by using both hands to frame the edges of his peripheral vision. "Do you see the frame I have created? It is approximately the same as the 2.4:1 aspect ratio. The wide-screen aspect ratio comes much closer to the way we see and experience life. It also gives filmmakers the freedom to compose close-ups with one or more characters in the foreground and their environment or related action in the background. It’s a richer experience."

Van Oostrum added, "I’ve used anamorphic lenses recently on both a dramatic film and an epic. It gives you so many more options. You don’t have to move the camera to show the audience the background, and you can let the characters move in the frame, which is more unobtrusive…which is sometimes appropriate."

The four cinematographers brought diverse backgrounds and opinions to the discussion, however they shared common ground in agreeing that both wide-screen formats offer creative flexibility and provide a more engaging and satisfying cinematic experience for audiences. All of them also made it clear that they generally prefer the image rendering qualities of anamorphic lenses.
"Although you get the same wide-screen image size with Super 35, you have more control of depth of field with anamorphic lenses, and more freedom for using selective focus to draw the audience’s attention to people or objects," Bailey said.

A little history: The quest for a wider aspect ratio is almost as old as the motion picture industry. During the mid-1890s, Woodville Lathman developed a camera and projector that he called the Eidolscope, which offered a two-inch wide frame. In 1899, Hopwood’s Living Pictures Magazine published ads listing camera and projector systems providing seven different aspect ratios determined by the size and shape of the frame with the widest format being two-and-three-quarter inches.

Bailey noted that the first anamorphic lens was invented in France during the 1920s. By the end of that decade, every Hollywood studio was experimenting with wide-screen films in proprietary formats. The experiments were put on hold during the 1930s because of the economic depression and need to invest in outfitting theaters for sound.

Various wide-screen formats made a comeback in Hollywood during the early 1950s when the studios were vying with television for audiences. There was a flurry of interest in 3-D films beginning with the release of Bwana Devil in 1952. This is Cinerama also premiered in 1952 and 20th Century-Fox produced and release The Robe and How to Marry a Millionaire in CinemaScope format with a 2.55:1 aspect ratio.
"The original aspect ratio was actually 2.66:1, combined with double system sound," Hora explained, "but by the time the pictures were released, a magnetic track was added to the edge of the frame, making the image area 2.55:1.That was still approximately twice the width and screen size of conventional movies at that time."

Fox licensed the use of its CinemaScope lenses, but most of the other studios opted to develop their own wide-screen formats, including Todd-AO, VistaVision and Technirama. All of these proprietary formats were based on using larger image areas, from 55 to 65 mm wide, as well as wider aspect ratios. During the next 20 or so years, approximately 40 wide-screen "road show" films were produced, including such classics as 2001, Oklahoma, Ryan’s Daughter and Around the World In 80 Days. The common denominators were that they were all epics, mainly with awesome exterior locations.
In 1954, an aspiring filmmaker named Robert Gottshalk organized Panavision for the purpose of designing a lens, which could be used to project wide-screen images. The Panatar lens was less costly and more flexible than the special lenses required for CinemaScope, because a variable prism could be adjusted for aspect ratios as wide as 2.66:1. Panavision ultimately sold some 15,000 Panatar lenses to exhibitors.

Two years later, Panavision introduced the company’s first anamorphic camera lenses, which optically "squeezed" the images recorded on the negative into a wide-screen aspect ratio, initially 2.35:1, which was later adjusted to 2.4:1.
"It wasn’t just for epic films," Bailey commented. "When I was a student, Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut and other New Wave filmmakers in France were shooting Breathless, Four Hundred Blows and Shoot the Piano Player and other films made on minimalist budgets in wide-screen aspect ratios. I also remember seeing films from Japan in a theater on the corner of LaBrea and 9th Street (in Los Angeles) in a format called Tohoscope. I think it was 2.55:1."
Bailey also described his experiences shooting a black-and-white 16 mm student film in anamorphic format some 40 years ago. He used a spherical lens with an anamorphic attachment held in place with gaffer tape. Bailey said he had to be careful when he followed focus so the anamorphic element didn’t swivel.

Van de Sande related similar experiences at the dawn of his career, shooting short films in 35 mm two-perf Technoscope format using the Technicolor dye transfer process to produce what he described as very satisfactory prints. He lamented that when the lab closed the dye transfer plant, the format withered because the prints were too grainy.
Kenig illustrated the evolution of wide-screen format with a series of PowerPoint slides comparing the different wide-screen formats.
"There is a general misconception today, mainly by financial people at the studios who believe that anamorphic movies are more expensive to produce because they require more lighting or you need to build bigger sets," Hora observed.

Bailey interjected that he had recently completed shooting a small comedy for Paramount Studios. Both he and the director felt that they could enhance the story by composing it in anamorphic format, but they hit a solid wall of resistance at the studio where management insisted that they compose the film 1.85:1 format.
"I’ve heard that the same thing has happened on several other films," he said, "but I’ve never been able to find out why—whether they thought it was going to cost more, or maybe they had a bad experience with critical focus on an anamorphic movie. Is there anyone in the audience from Paramount who can answer that question?"


There were no volunteers.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Terminator 2 does not look epic?

Expensive and slick, but not epic. T2 looks great, but it also looks pretty much the same in 1.78 and not cramped in 1.33, which is why Cameron used it: less compromise for home video viewing.

For me there's always something missing in 2.40 Super35 compared to true anamorphic photography. People complain digital cameras, even the 4K ones, are inferior to film. Well, it's the same thing with me and Super35 vs true 'scope.

[PeterTHX]

Bailey interjected that he had recently completed shooting a small comedy for Paramount Studios. Both he and the director felt that they could enhance the story by composing it in anamorphic format, but they hit a solid wall of resistance at the studio where management insisted that they compose the film 1.85:1 format.
"I’ve heard that the same thing has happened on several other films," he said, "but I’ve never been able to find out why—whether they thought it was going to cost more, or maybe they had a bad experience with critical focus on an anamorphic movie. Is there anyone in the audience from Paramount who can answer that question?"


There were no volunteers.

Probably the the suits didn't want to admit that they were more concerned with how it would play on home video. Anamorphic automatically meant pan & scan (people forget before DVD, a movie in OAR was rare and usually only found on the niche LaserDisc format).

I remember when it came time for David Carson to shoot STAR TREK: GENERATIONS, that same studio (Paramount) pressured him to shoot it Super35 like the previous movie had been. He stood firm and was able to shoot the film the way he wanted to. And it shows: GENERATIONS looks great. Say what you will about the script/story but the lighting and composition of the film is first rate.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

From a conversation during a conference about the first 4K DI which Laser Pacific did (in 2006) which I attended back in the day, words from recent birthday boy Vilmos Z. ( http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,6114921.story ) on how and why he fell in love with Super 35 (after having been a longtime fan of anamorphic…

http://www.hdexpo.net/virtual/panels/dahliaC_600.html < there might be a slight delay before the clip runs, so be patient, it's worth it.

^ Additionally, for background, something which might not be clear to listeners is Vilmos’s answer to the question posed by the moderator near the end of the clip. Namely, the mod was referring to the fact that when you shoot Super35 and used a photochemical lab process, there was an extra optical step involved. You are using spherical lenses so the images have to be optically *squeezed* into anamorphic format which added an extra generation of film and thusly produced some degradation of image quality which cinematographers felt unacceptable.

Whereas with a DI, the negative is scanned and converted to digital files without that same extra generational image degradation as seen with a photochemical workflow.

I thought that the Super 35 squeeze was done during the transfer from IP to IN, i.e. it's not an extra printing step as such [edit: as far as the photochemical process is concerned] but it does of course rely on good optics to maintain the quality, a point which Russell Carpenter underlines here: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec97.../pgs35/pg1.htm.

[Brightstar]

what about ALIEN 3 AND AR? i would love to see another Alien box set in 4k

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

what about ALIEN 3 AND AR? i would love to see another Alien box set in 4k

2k A3 old HDTV for AR more than likely 1080p and not correctly colour timed either

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

...suits...

Tell that to Emmerich…http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,6834765.story

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I thought that the Super 35 squeeze was done during the transfer from IP to IN, i.e. it's not an extra printing step as such [edit: as far as the photochemical process is concerned] but it does of course rely on good optics to maintain the quality, a point which Russell Carpenter underlines here: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec97.../pgs35/pg1.htm.

Okay, perhaps poor wording on my part in my haste to type and then get on over (and even find) the neglected 4K digital sister thread to contribute something to. How’s this…doing the *squeeze* produced some degradation in image quality like adding an extra generation of film.

This was somewhat mitigated over the years more so with the development of finer grain negative and intermediate stocks than with advances in optics used by major labs of the day.

[42041]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Terminator 2 does not look epic?

Well, it definitely looks like a Super35 show... very appreciable levels of grain.
I've got nothing against the format myself. To say it's "less 4K" than anamorphic is silly when it's got more horizontal resolution. It might require a more delicate touch as far as grain goes but I've seen great looking analog Super35 prints, I've seen messy looking anamorphic movies.

[Penton-Man]

L'armée, the pixel people are seeing no love. Don’t understand what I’m talking about? Read back a little… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...rm#post7708100

P.S.
Or to be clearer, pixel people = Cinema Pixel on the Westside...http://www.cinemapixel.com/home.html

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 42041

Well, it definitely looks like a Super35 show... very appreciable levels of grain.
I've got nothing against the format myself. To say it's "less 4K" than anamorphic is silly when it's got more horizontal resolution. It might require a more delicate touch as far as grain goes but I've seen great looking analog Super35 prints, I've seen messy looking anamorphic movies.

It's horses for courses, innit? Film makers should be permitted to use whatever format they prefer - within reason, natch. I love anamorphic but I've spent the last couple of pages eulogising about how much sharper Super 35 can appear to be [edit: especially on video, which was my starting point for this discussion]. Even in the photochemical realm it's capable of producing lovely images as long as you follow the gospel of JC (Cameron, not Christ), i.e. shoot the shit out of your negative and make sure it's handled with appropriate care in the lab.

But the DI has been a great leveller, freeing up S35 from the optical jiggery pokery needed to convert it to 2.35, and allowing every last bit of that finer, glossier detail to be wrung from anamorphic.

[L'armée des ombres]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

L'armée, the pixel people are seeing no love. Don’t understand what I’m talking about? Read back a little… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...rm#post7708100

P.S.
Or to be clearer, pixel people = Cinema Pixel on the Westside...http://www.cinemapixel.com/home.html

Don't worry Penton...gotcha!