List of UHDs that utilize 4K or Higher Masters

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by GP Legend

Glad they are doing the smart thing and releasing combo packs right off the bat. I can then watch the bluray and then have the 4K Ultra HD bluray waiting for whenever I decide to go 4K.

any idea if and when a 3D disc is released, it will also be included in the UHD edition --- it would seem stupid not to.

[m3racer123]

In the OP, it might be best to separate films shot natively in 4K or higher and ones shot in 2.8K.

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by m3racer123

In the OP, it might be best to separate films shot natively in 4K or higher and ones shot in 2.8K.

It's not quite that simple.... with the ALEXA alone you have at least three different ways of "achieving" a 4K file...

1. Shooting with "open gate" (3.4K) and upressing at the first stage (or in camera) and doing a 4K end-to-end.

2. Shooting old-fashioned ALEXA 2.8K raw and up-ressing to 4K then doing all of your VFX/post work.

3. Films shot in 2K/1080P in camera or finished that way with the upres applied to the final 2K export.

Method 1 replaced Method 2 when it became available (a couple of years ago) but even now I would wager a huge amount of stuff is shot/posted/mastered/whatever at 2K/1080P.

The strangest thing about the 4K business is that it is being driven by home users, not cinemas.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

It's not quite that simple.... with the ALEXA alone you have at least three different ways of "achieving" a 4K file...

1. Shooting with "open gate" (3.4K) and upressing at the first stage (or in camera) and doing a 4K end-to-end.

2. Shooting old-fashioned ALEXA 2.8K raw and up-ressing to 4K then doing all of your VFX/post work.

3. Films shot in 2K/1080P in camera or finished that way with the upres applied to the final 2K export.

Method 1 replaced Method 2 when it became available (a couple of years ago) but even now I would wager a huge amount of stuff is shot/posted/mastered/whatever at 2K/1080P.

The strangest thing about the 4K business is that it is being driven by home users, not cinemas.

I would love to see sales figures for 50" and above TV's and the resolution %
Problem is that all these 2k masters will make people say "I can't see the diffrence" and they may be correct

[JayEmm]

For TVs sold as of last year, I bet the 4K uptake above 42" is very high. If for no other reason than have you tried finding a TV which isn't 4K now? It's made quite difficult in some shops. Like when 3D came out - I spent ages trying to find a panel which wasn't 3D.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

For TVs sold as of last year, I bet the 4K uptake above 42" is very high. If for no other reason than have you tried finding a TV which isn't 4K now? It's made quite difficult in some shops. Like when 3D came out - I spent ages trying to find a panel which wasn't 3D.

Agreed I spend a few months in a UK retailer and (anecdotal I know) but over half being sold were 4k

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Agreed I spend a few months in a UK retailer and (anecdotal I know) but over half being sold were 4k

I would also argue 42" is probably the most popular, perhaps second most popular size of TV? I guess 32" probably still outsells it but 42" is hardly the exotic beastie it once was

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

I would also argue 42" is probably the most popular, perhaps second most popular size of TV? I guess 32" probably still outsells it but 42" is hardly the exotic beastie it once was

To an extent , but to be honest most were 49-55

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by eriaur

if artwork tba covers belong on the list

yup i saw it I love artwork. CHAPPiE !@!

[AaronY]

Originally Posted by spectre08

I don't usually shy away from double dipping, as any of the 4 copies of Drive that I own.

But on this I am generally avoiding the releases that are already announced for UHD blu-ray or even newer blu-ray releases with 4K masters or remasters.

I'm making some exceptions though. I really wanted Kingsmen when it came out, and I'll be getting the Fantastic Four steelbook.

Fantastic Four? Dear God, why?

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by Opips3

HD Goofnut,

I not know that. I want to know...which maze runner is

Cinematographic Process ARRIRAW (2.8K) (source format)
CineForm RAW (2K) (source format) (some shots)
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Redcode RAW (5K) (source format) (visual effects)

I would take this to mean the film was shot predominantly in ARRIRAW. May have been 2.8K, might have been 3.4K (open gate), but I imagine they might have used an SI-2K or other similar camera for some shots (that's the cineform stuff) and then they used the RED @ 5K for certain things - probably plates and whatnot. Possibly aerials.

This is then all mastered at 4K. Personally I hate the use of "digital intermediate" because it doesn't apply to film shot digitally, really. But that's what that lot most likely means.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

I would take this to mean the film was shot predominantly in ARRIRAW. May have been 2.8K, might have been 3.4K (open gate), but I imagine they might have used an SI-2K or other similar camera for some shots (that's the cineform stuff) and then they used the RED @ 5K for certain things - probably plates and whatnot. Possibly aerials.

This is then all mastered at 4K. Personally I hate the use of "digital intermediate" because it doesn't apply to film shot digitally, really. But that's what that lot most likely means.

DI = color grading. Digitally shot films don't just look like the final product right away.

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by Poya

DI = color grading. Digitally shot films don't just look like the final product right away.

A DI isn't a colour grade though, is it? The term is useful when referring to productions shot on film to differentiate between those having a DI and those undergoing a photochemical finish - although the latter are becoming extremely rare.

If the film's shot digitally it doesn't "undergo" a digital intermediate, it simply IS digital.... semantics I guess.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

A DI isn't a colour grade though, is it? The term is useful when referring to productions shot on film to differentiate between those having a DI and those undergoing a photochemical finish - although the latter are becoming extremely rare.

If the film's shot digitally it doesn't "undergo" a digital intermediate, it simply IS digital.... semantics I guess.

It's more the marriage of what was shot to the digital cgi elements

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

It's more the marriage of what was shot to the digital cgi elements

I mean, I understand what they mean by the term I just think a better/different term should be used when referring to digital movies. To me it's a bit like calling everything shot in 2.39 "anamorphic".

I suppose it would be possible to create a fairly genuine 4k film from an Alexa if the film was a star-wars (Lucas prequel) cgi fest, although no one in their right mind would probably use that kind of camera for that kind of film.... You'd hope.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

I mean, I understand what they mean by the term I just think a better/different term should be used when referring to digital movies. To me it's a bit like calling everything shot in 2.39 "anamorphic".

I suppose it would be possible to create a fairly genuine 4k film from an Alexa if the film was a star-wars (Lucas prequel) cgi fest, although no one in their right mind would probably use that kind of camera for that kind of film.... You'd hope.

Yeah was not implying you didn't, more its muddied as its more the locking down of what will be the dcp and is not a DI anymore its kind of the final pass

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

If the film's shot digitally it doesn't "undergo" a digital intermediate, it simply IS digital.... semantics I guess.

Have seen this for sometime now and always thought how funny it was after I found out what folks were actually referring to. The first time I saw those terms used I assumed data was actually recorded onto the film.

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Yeah was not implying you didn't, more its muddied as its more the locking down of what will be the dcp and is not a DI anymore its kind of the final pass

Yeah - the term is changing but it winds me up because the term should be fairly clear. I mean... it's digital intermediate.

Digital = Bits of data

Inter = Between

Mediate = Formats

Eg. A digital step between analog (film in) and analog (film out).

*sigh*

I think several of the studios have basically abandoned film prints now, not sure who still does it.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Have seen this for sometime now and always thought how funny it was after I found out what folks were actually referring to. The first time I saw those terms used I assumed data was actually recorded onto the film.

It's an english turn of phrase we call them films more than movies

[JayEmm]

Ha, yeah. Movie is probably a more accurate term TBH!

As it happens there is a process of getting data onto film Wendell - you use a laser printer (for high end stuff) which is very common now most films are scanned and edited/vfx/finished/coloured in the digital world. It used to be only digital effects-heavy portions of films got this treatment, but eventually the whole film got scanned and now it's quite normal. That's the origin of the term "digital intermediate". Except now most films don't ever go back out to film even if they started that way