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

[Poya]

Originally Posted by 42041

I saw Inherent Vice on 35mm (clearly not a print off the negative) and while in terms of colors it was quite lovely, it was much softer than a good DCP.
Whatever its other qualities, 35mm film lost the resolution wars long ago.

It was intentionally soft to emulate "The Long Goodbye" look. It really helped the cinematography. Good cinematography doesn't mean making every single thing detailed and sharp (Do you really want to see the pores on an actor's/actress's face?).

The 35mm prints that are delivered these days come from a sophisticated print stock that Kodak has spent years on mastering: the Kodak 2393.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploa...ab_h12393t.pdf

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Did you see Oblivion in IMAX? It was amazing.

The film was composed for Scope. Making it taller didn't do any wonders for it.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Poya

The film was composed for Scope. Making it taller didn't do any wonders for it.

It did plenty for me.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Poya

It was intentionally soft to emulate "The Long Goodbye" look. It really helped the cinematography. Good cinematography doesn't mean making every single thing detailed and sharp (Do you really want to see the pores on an actor's/actress's face?).

The 35mm prints that are delivered these days come from a sophisticated print stock that Kodak has spent years on mastering: the Kodak 2393.

It was not photographic softness, it was the softness of generation loss and mushy grain.

It's interesting you bring up the print stock. Inherent Vice was actually printed on 2383, Kodak's normal print stock. 2393 is their premium, high-contrast, high-saturation print stock that is more expensive due to the greater amounts of silver it requires to manufacture its thicker emulsion, hence it was almost never used for wide release prints back when that was still a thing, which speaks to another problem with film projection - the prints are very hefty physical objects. They are expensive to make, they are expensive to distribute. With DCPs, you just stick it on a hard drive, and I suspect digital projection is not many years removed from exceeding the contrast and color saturation of even the best print films (though at present, that is digital cinema's great remaining shortcoming). Of course, at this point, film projection is dead, so it's a moot point.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by 42041

It's interesting you bring up the print stock. Inherent Vice was actually printed on 2383, Kodak's normal print stock. 2393 is their premium, high-contrast, high-saturation print stock that is more expensive due to the greater amounts of silver it requires to manufacture its thicker emulsion, hence it was almost never used for wide release prints back when that was still a thing, which speaks to another problem with film projection - the prints are very hefty physical objects. They are expensive to make, they are expensive to distribute. With DCPs, you just stick it on a hard drive, and I suspect digital projection is not many years removed from exceeding the contrast and color saturation of even the best print films. Of course, at this point, film projection is dead, so it's a moot point.

That's the thing. Even if you send the best, sexiest, most-awesomest film print to a movie theater, the quality degrades as soon as the projectionist touches the film and assembles it. The film print is damaged as soon as it's threaded through the projector. The film tape that holds reels together will either melt or dry up/crack, thus requiring human hands to touch the film print again to re-assemble the movie. Dust will settle on the film print due to simple exposure to air.

This nostalgia for film projection is not only outdated but also absurd.

[Geoff D]

I'd love to get me a look see at IMAX's laser set-up, but that'll have to wait until the BFI IMAX in London gets the upgrade.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by 42041

It was not photographic softness, it was the softness of generation loss and mushy grain.

It's interesting you bring up the print stock. Inherent Vice was actually printed on 2383, Kodak's normal print stock. 2393 is their premium, high-contrast, high-saturation print stock that is more expensive due to the greater amounts of silver it requires to manufacture its thicker emulsion, hence it was almost never used for wide release prints back when that was still a thing, which speaks to another problem with film projection - the prints are very hefty physical objects. They are expensive to make, they are expensive to distribute. With DCPs, you just stick it on a hard drive, and I suspect digital projection is not many years removed from exceeding the contrast and color saturation of even the best print films (though at present, that is digital cinema's great remaining shortcoming). Of course, at this point, film projection is dead, so it's a moot point.

Really? Well, darn, I wish they would release those prints. That amount of silver could really help the look of film. It's a well-known fact that studios are pushing for DCPs for convenience rather than quality, similar to the VHS vs Betamax war.

Originally Posted by jscoggins

That's the thing. Even if you send the best, sexiest, most-awesomest film print to a movie theater, the quality degrades as soon as the projectionist touches the film and assembles it. The film print is damaged as soon as it's threaded through the projector. The film tape that holds reels together will either melt or dry up/crack, thus requiring human hands to touch the film print again to re-assemble the movie. Dust will settle on the film print due to simple exposure to air.

This nostalgia for film projection is not only outdated but also absurd.

There are plenty of ways to handle the film for projection right. It's not recommended to touch the prints with your bare hands but to use specially-equipped gloves to not damage it or what have you. Plus, the material to splice reels has greatly improved since the 90s, so they are less prone to crack. Not to mention it is important to put the prints back into a specifically marked storage to make sure it's good for another day and not be prone to dust or, again, what have you. How do I know about this? I've asked a film projectionist who unfortunately got laid off recently.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For that same reason: that it's so different. It's the contrast between classical anamorphic and the astonishing clarity of IMAX which is what makes it really pop, although both formats share similar issues with shallow depth of field so there's still a subliminal kind of visual familiarity when cutting between them.

BTW: Spielberg's gone back to anamorphic for the first time since Hook (Crystal Skull was only shot anamorphic to match the rest of the Indiana Jones films)

Bridge of Spies Official Trailer #1 (2015) - Tom Hanks Cold War Thriller HD - YouTube

IMDB says it's got a 4K DI

[42041]

Originally Posted by Poya

Really? Well, darn, I wish they would release those prints. That amount of silver could really help the look of film. It's a well-known fact that studios are pushing for DCPs for convenience rather than quality, similar to the VHS vs Betamax war.

I saw Magnolia printed off the negative on 2393 once, it was gorgeous - not a subtle difference. Compared to regular print film, it's like going to a Panasonic/Pioneer plasma from an LCD, and makes DLP's contrast look like a joke. But hopefully, laser projection can bring that quality to digital.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Poya

There are plenty of ways to handle the film for projection right. It's not recommended to touch the prints with your bare hands but to use specially-equipped gloves to not damage it or what have you. Plus, the material to splice reels has greatly improved since the 90s, so they are less prone to crack. Not to mention it is important to put the prints back into a specifically marked storage to make sure it's good for another day and not be prone to dust or, again, what have you. How do I know about this? I've asked a film projectionist who unfortunately got laid off recently.

There will be dust and projector scratching, period. It simply cannot be avoided.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by L'armée des ombres

I would think both since they were released around the same time.
I have the japanese one in the list because it's confirmed
As we know 4K shit in, 4K shit out

Regarding Big - 25th Ann....Yeah, it kind of surprised me as a 4K scan. I'm speculating this was done on an older 4K scan machine using an IP. Sometimes the image is over-sharpened which can give a bit of a digital look in some scenes. Kind of mixed. Other scenes look fine and more natural. All in all, it's a decent offering for a title of this nature but not on the level of newer/better remastered 80s catalogs, for example. Grabbed it for $5 from Best Buy the other day. Fun movie and still holds up well.

[tama]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Regarding Big - 25th Ann....Yeah, it kind of surprised me as a 4K scan. I'm speculating this was done on an older 4K scan machine using an IP. Sometimes the image is over-sharpened which can give a bit of a digital look in some scenes. Kind of mixed. Other scenes look fine and more natural. All in all, it's a decent offering for a title of this nature but not on the level of newer/better remastered 80s catalogs, for example. Grabbed it for $5 from Best Buy the other day. Fun movie and still holds up well.

Same goes for the 86' version of The Fly. I'm still saying "no way."

[L'armée des ombres]

Updated

[L'armée des ombres]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

This has been added, weeks ago. But listed under the "T" which is an error. Should be under the "S" of Schwarze

The original title of this film is La Tulipe Noire....so that's why it's under T

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by 42041

Of course it's limited by resolution. 35mm has fairly modest resolution by modern standards to begin with, and you take a big hit every time you print one piece of film to another. A print off the negative is the only thing that can even outmatch 2k digital, and that's completely incompatible with wide release. Your typical 4th generation print has something more akin to 720p's worth of resolution, minus the pixel artifacts.

You know, pixelless 720p with great colour and contrast isn't all that bad.
And I think this is 10+ years old number, it would have been better than that is some theaters even back then (and worse in others, I admit). Current negative, intermediate and print stocks have no doubt improved on that number. I think think it's easy to see why some filmmaker might prefer that form of presentation, many of them probably don't care nearly as much about resolution or sharpness as some videophiles do.

There will be dust and projector scratching, period. It simply cannot be avoided.

Frankly, I don't remember any dirt or scratches in my cinema back in film days. I know there must have been some but I don't remember. I presume the projectionist kept his machine clean and stayed sober on work.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Trax-3

And I think this is 10+ years old number, it would have been better than that is some theaters even back then (and worse in others, I admit). Current negative, intermediate and print stocks have no doubt improved on that number. I think think it's easy to see why some filmmaker might prefer that form of presentation, many of them probably don't care nearly as much about resolution or sharpness as some videophiles do.

Not a great deal has happened in the world of film in the last 10 years, really (aside from its creeping obsolescence).
The improvements in film stock quality have been largely incremental since the early 90s (high-speed film has improved quite a bit, but only to the extent that a movie shot on ISO500 negative in 2015 would look a lot like one shot on a ISO200 negative in 1993). Kodak haven't designed a new release print stock since 1998. Low-speed negatives have barely changed since 1989 (in fact, Back to the Future pt. 3 used the same iso50 negative as Pirates of the Carribean pt. 3 for daylight scenes), and the last visually significant improvement in high-speed film was Vision2 500T which came out in the first few years of the 00's. I'm not familiar with intermediate stocks, but since they can be as slow as you please, I doubt things have improved a great deal there either.

[Geoff D]

The stocks themselves were still being tweaked and improved though, even if there were no officially noted revisions. Productions often made sure to buy stock from the same batch in case there were any such hidden tweaks, especially during the start of the high speed era. But yeah, in recent years, not so much.

[Trax-3]

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Kodak is contantly tinkering with the emulsions even if they don't change the name or number. I've read in plenty of places that the latest crop of Vision3 stocks (and still photography films based on same technology) is pretty miraculous stuff that blows away anything that came before.

[42041]

That may be true to some extent, but any tweaks are just that, not sweeping improvements. in terms of grain or resolution, I'd be hard-pressed to distinguish scans of rolls of Portra 400 I shot in 2013 (ostensibly based on Kodak's Vision3 technology) from rolls of the Kodak Gold 200 I'd buy at walmart in the mid-90s. Heck, a 35mm film from the mid-70s is still (on average) not subtly-at-all sharper and less grainy than a super16 film from the last few years. And at this point, the technology is essentially tapped out... who would bother investing serious R&D into film? What rockstar engineers are going to work at a Kodak tenuously clinging on to life?

[Poya]

Originally Posted by 42041

That may be true to some extent, but any tweaks are just that, not sweeping improvements. in terms of grain or resolution, I'd be hard-pressed to distinguish scans of rolls of Portra 400 I shot in 2013 (ostensibly based on Kodak's Vision3 technology) from rolls of the Kodak Gold 200 I'd buy at walmart in the mid-90s. Heck, a 35mm film from the mid-70s is still (on average) not subtly-at-all sharper and less grainy than a super16 film from the last few years. And at this point, the technology is essentially tapped out... who would bother investing serious R&D into film? What rockstar engineers are going to work at a Kodak tenuously clinging on to life?

Kodak recently signed a deal to expand its lifespan by a significant amount.

[Pieter V]

Ôshima's breakthrough portrait of alienated youth comes courtesy of the 2014 Shochiku 4K scan that resurrected the film's glorious color palette, recently described by critic and programmer James Quandt as "running riot with retro: pulsing neon, turquoise telephones, hair teased into shellacked grandeur." The Masters of Cinema Series is proud to present Cruel Story of Youth in a Dual Format edition, for the first time on Blu-ray in th

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cruel-Master...18862&sr=1-204

Rebel auteur Nagisa Oshima’s groundbreaking second feature gets a 4K restoration makeover (supervised by cinematographer Takashi Kawamata) that breathes new life into the film’s vibrant colors and unhinged widescreen photography.

http://www.japansociety.org/event/cr...4k-restoration

Also the UK version of "Medium Cool" is 4K, just like US which is already on the list.

Gorgeous 1080p presentation of the film on Blu-ray from the 4K digital film transfer approved by director Haskell Wexler