List of UHDs that utilize 4K or Higher Masters

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Annihilation is 4K:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=22

unless I sped through that too quickly and missed something (which is possible), what does that prove? all I saw was talk of 4k+ shooting and nothing at all about the final finish

edit: ok so I skipped the last paragraph and that was the one, go figure:
"The colorist says he used about 20 windows to grade the first close-up of the Shimmer wall to “focus the eye onto the right places for it to be as impressive as possible.” Shoul worked with 10-bit DPX files on a FilmLight Baselight system, with non-visual-effects files at 4K resolution and visual-effects shots at 2K."

but do we know it didn't get dumped to 2k at the end anyway? theaters seemed to only get 2k

I dunno, at least in the scenes caps-aholic chose, it sure doesn't bump much any detail over the blu-ray. Maybe they chose bad scenes. Maybe any scene with any FX at all ended up 2k (which would seem to me to be a ton of the movie). I don't know. Ex Machina seemed to get a much more noticeable bump in res for some stuff than I see from caps aholic for Annihilation.

When I get a chance I'll try my own comparison.

[Pieter V]

More caps:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=892

The intro text is 4K rendered,

The movie has a soft look, but through that look, I do see the native 4K images. Especially the last screenshot detail wise. It has that typical sharp look.

[miccheck]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

More caps:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=892

The intro text is 4K rendered,

The movie has a soft look, but through that look, I do see the native 4K images. Especially the last screenshot detail wise. It has that typical sharp look.

such a massive improvement!
Day and night difference!

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

so few shots though (what is it like maybe 2 shots out 20 so far?) where you can see the difference and even then it's on the rather weaker extra detail side of things only 1 of the 2 even begins to make you think just maybe maybe maybe it could be 4k, perhaps 4k, but an awfully weak uptick for almost all of the movie it seems; even plenty of stuff with pure for sure 2k finishes like say Alien Covenant often shows more detail uptick UHD vs. blu-ray than this one does other than for perhaps the extremely odd exception and many shots show nothing at all, zero, not even typical 2k DI vs. blu-ray little uptick

and nothing in Annihiliation looks like Passengers

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

the HDR and wide gamut colors are a very big difference though, but 4k master or not, the detail so far seems barely above the blu-ray, weaker than even many 2k DI UHD vs. blu-ray upticks for most scenes it seems

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

the HDR and wide gamut colors are a very big difference though, but 4k master or not, the detail so far seems barely above the blu-ray, weaker than even many 2k DI UHD vs. blu-ray upticks for most scenes it seems

A movie can have a 4K finish/master without the original photography necessarily containing much information above 2K.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

and nothing in Annihiliation looks like Passengers

Why would they? The two movies were shot on different cameras by different DPs with VASTLY different lenses and about the only thing that links them is the 4K finish. It's asinine to even compare the two.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Why would they? The two movies were shot on different cameras by different DPs with VASTLY different lenses and about the only thing that links them is the 4K finish. It's asinine to even compare the two.

it's not asinine when you are trying to make the point that it rarely every shows what detail 4k is capable of showing

(nor even when the filmakers keep going on about 4k and 4k+ cameras and then produce something that is mostly not much above 2k in details)

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

A movie can have a 4K finish/master without the original photography necessarily containing much information above 2K.

well that it is certainly true

and if this is a 4k master then this rather goes to prove that, it is somewhat unusual though when shot on 4k and 4k+ digital cameras (not that they all produce the same degree of getting near perfect 4k (heck look at how squishy native 1080p is from a Canon DSLR compared to a Sony AR7 series 1080p, etc. etc. etc. of Cnaon DSLR 4k compared again to Sony AR7 series 4k), but they tend to pretty much all be able to deliver well above max 2k look detail)

anyway, even if I was wrong about it not having a 4k master, it still stands that it's overall among the most tepid 4k masters I've ever seen (in terms of amount of detail in an average scene; the wide color gamut and HDR are made tremendous usage of) with many scenes not even getting the standard little bump over 2k DI UHD over their blu-rays (even if the film does seem to have a select few little bits that do begin to rise a bit above)

[Geoff D]

The type of camera used and how many K's it has means nothing without taking the LENSES into account. On Annihilation they chose a type of lens called 'anamorphic' which can give a much softer look than the spherical glass used on Passengers. Aesthetics are not about getting "near perfect 4K" but about getting whichever look the director and DP are after.

[multiformous]

Obligatory Steve Yedlin Resolution Demo link.

[Pieter V]

New:

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The type of camera used and how many K's it has means nothing without taking the LENSES into account. On Annihilation they chose a type of lens called 'anamorphic' which can give a much softer look than the spherical glass used on Passengers. Aesthetics are not about getting "near perfect 4K" but about getting whichever look the director and DP are after.

yeah but an anamorphic lens is still usually pretty crisp near the center at least

and yeah you may go for a different sort of look

but I was just saying to go on and on about 4k and 4k+ if are then NOT going for a crisp look just seemed a bit curious

[Geoff D]

Loads of different types of anamorphic lenses. On most major movies that use them they're often reworked with different coatings and different elements to provide whatever look the filmmakers are after. Shooting in 4K or higher will still capture every bit of spatial information coming through even if it's not intended to be as "crisp" as the viewer wants/expects it, and it can't be denied that there are some clear differences in the resolution of the BD and UHD of Annihilation even though it's not "crisp" overall. Detail and sharpness are not the same thing.

Something else to keep in mind with most modern cameras is that they don't capture full resolution chroma, using Bayer array sensors as they do, but the F65 Sony cameras that DP Rob Hardy likes have an 8K sensor with which they can deliver a supersampled 4K output, rendering out a higher chroma resolution than what shooting on a 4K sensor and outputting in 4K would provide. Just because it's not "crisp" doesn't mean there aren't lots of little benefits being considered by the filmmakers.

[Geoff D]

PS

While looking for something else I came across an article that interviewed Dan Sasaki, chief lens guru at Panavision, and Michael Cioni, Senior VP of Innovation at Panavision, about their latest range of cameras (8K DXL) and lenses. Won't quote the whole thing though it's well worth a read if you want to get more of a handle on this stuff, but here's a snippet which sums up precisely what I'm trying to get across here:

We have to work harder to make sure that our unique characteristics translate. That’s why we talk about 8K from its magnification properties and detailed clarity properties, not in its resolution or sharpness. I don’t think you’ll find a quote anywhere of me talking about sharpness as an advantage. I talk about 8K and large format as workflow and creative tools.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

I have a good handle on all that stuff. I do tons of photography, some video, use all sorts of different RAW converters, regular lenses, soft focus lenses, MTF at different scales, micro-contrast vs. detail, luma, chroma, using things for detail vs. digital magnification and reframing, etc. etc.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

[Show spoiler]New:

Done.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

I have a good handle on all that stuff. I do tons of photography, some video, use all sorts of different RAW converters, regular lenses, soft focus lenses, MTF at different scales, micro-contrast vs. detail, luma, chroma, using things for detail vs. digital magnification and reframing, etc. etc.

Which makes your obdurate fascination with 4K rez and 4K rez alone even more puzzling. Such is the Internet.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Which makes your obdurate fascination with 4K rez and 4K rez alone even more puzzling. Such is the Internet.

I'm not fascinated with that alone. I even said, again and again, things like, however the UHD for Annihilation still features vastly better colors and expanded dynamic range. But even 4k alone it can be a huge difference and the way some poo-poo that is "such is the internet".

[TheWildWhelk]

I'm no longer buying new UHD titles if the source isn't 4K or above. Would i buy a blu ray film if it was sourced from a 720p source? Or a dvd sourced from 540 lines? Why bother investing in the format unless it is treated to a Master that delivers what the format is about!