List of UHDs that utilize 4K or Higher Masters

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by AML

Thats the problem, too many 2k DI's/not enough 4k DI's.

Let 'em know, baby! Let 'em know!

[Herr Eickhorn]

I much proud read all 69 page take 4 day! Learn many much! Now I know Martian fake but upscale real. Take now off list. Nite late I come back 12 bit tomorrow.

[AML]

Originally Posted by Herr Eickhorn

I much proud read all 69 page take 4 day! Learn many much! Now I know Martian fake but upscale real. Take now off list. Nite late I come back 12 bit tomorrow.

The Martian isnt fake.
The movie was shot in 5k, but the CG was done in 2k.
Im not sure what the digital intermediate is...Can anyone clarify?

According to the Real or Fake web site, it was a 4k DI.

http://realorfake4k.com/my-product/the-martian/

[legends of beyond]

Originally Posted by AML

The Martian isnt fake.
The movie was shot in 5k, but the CG was done in 2k.
Im not sure what the digital intermediate is...Can anyone clarify?

According to the Real or Fake web site, it was a 4k DI.

http://realorfake4k.com/my-product/the-martian/

It had a 2K DI, but as Fox's flagship title during the launch of the format, they went back and re-did all of the non-CGI shots in 4K. All of the CG shots are 2K upscales.

[Shimshuta]

I wish B-R.com would have the DI resolution in the video information on the disc page. I would be willing to bet a good portion of the 4K users on here would like it to be easier to find.


Edit: And I just noticed the link in AMLs post. This website is pretty much exactly what I have been looking for haha.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by AML

The Martian isnt fake.
The movie was shot in 5k, but the CG was done in 2k.
Im not sure what the digital intermediate is...Can anyone clarify?

According to the Real or Fake web site, it was a 4k DI.

http://realorfake4k.com/my-product/the-martian/

Theatrical release was finished at 2192x1156. That information comes from the American Cinematographer article.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Shimshuta

I wish B-R.com would have the DI resolution in the video information on the disc page. I would be willing to bet a good portion of the 4K users on here would like it to be easier to find.


Edit: And I just noticed the link in AMLs post. This website is pretty much exactly what I have been looking for haha.

This is one of the many reasons I keep the lists that I do. The most important information in a handful of lists.

[AML]

So, the extended edition re-release has the 4k di? (That's the one I got)

https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=th...HOuGjJqRUkISM:

[Coenskubrick]

Why isn't Lawrence Arabia out in 4k yet? It's the gold standard for high quality movies shot on film and only a year or 2 ago had an immaculate 4k restoration, but it's only been released in HD?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Coenskubrick

Why isn't Lawrence Arabia out in 4k yet? It's the gold standard for high quality movies shot on film and only a year or 2 ago had an immaculate 4k restoration, but it's only been released in HD?

Good question. It really deserves an 8K scan just like 2001 since they are both 65mm films.

[legends of beyond]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Good question. It really deserves an 8K scan just like 2001 since they are both 65mm films.

It has an 8K scan, which was used to restore the movie in 4k, and has been released on digital 4K. We're just waiting on a disc.

[TheSweetieMan]

According to IMDb, 'Blade Runner 2049' is using a 4K-DI.

No idea how reliable that is, though.

[Geoff D]

Roger Deakins usually insists on a 4K finish (not kidding, go and check his filmography) so for once I'd take the early IMDB info to be true.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

According to IMDb, 'Blade Runner 2049' is using a 4K-DI.

No idea how reliable that is, though.

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Blade Runner 2049 is getting a 4K DI. Confirmed by Roger Deakins.

And:

https://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/d...nner-2049-2017

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Roger Deakins usually insists on a 4K finish

Which is a little curious in light of his long-time persistence with 2K cameras, but he has his (well-educated) reasons.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Which is a little curious in light of his long-time persistence with 2K cameras, but he has his (well-educated) reasons.

If you mean the Alexa it still captures much more information that straight 2K as I'm sure you well know (2.8K/3.4K Open Gate, 2.8K anamorphic which uses up to 6M pixels) so it's not so curious. He wants to capture everything that he can from the camera, and that he persists with the Alexa is because it's not JUST about resolution, as has been discussed ad infinitum.

Hell, when it comes to 35mm he's made it plain that 4K finishing will often only give you finer grain rather than the promised fourfold increase in detail, but he persists with 4K there as well in order to capture everything.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If you mean the Alexa it still captures much more information that straight 2K as I'm sure you well know (2.8K/3.4K Open Gate, 2.8K anamorphic which uses up to 6M pixels) so it's not so curious. He wants to capture everything that he can from the camera, and that he persists with the Alexa is because it's not JUST about resolution, as has been discussed ad infinitum.

Hell, when it comes to 35mm he's made it plain that 4K finishing will often only give you finer grain rather than the promised fourfold increase in detail, but he persists with 4K there as well in order to capture everything.

Yep.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hell, when it comes to 35mm he's made it plain that 4K finishing will often only give you finer grain rather than the promised fourfold increase in detail, but he persists with 4K there as well in order to capture everything.

Hoyte on Spectre:

Why did you do the DI in 4K?

Van Hoytema: 2K is not enough resolution to render the shape and depth of the grain. I love grain. It’s very organic; it feels round. In my opinion, if you render grain in 2K, it turns into noise — some sort of digital interpretation of grain.

You feel that you need the 4K to render the grain even though you’re going to go back out to 2K later?

Van Hoytema: Yes, it’s better to oversample. It’s a lot of data, but it’s totally doable. To be honest, I think it’s quite strange that the 2K workflow has held on for so long. For a lot of post houses, it’s cheaper business-wise, but I think that the 2K format is not going to last, because it’s not enough resolution.

~ASC November 2015

[AML]

Could "Life" be added to this list?
Looks like it was shot at 6k, vfx at 3.2k and the di at 3.2k, which is still a big improvment over 2k blu Rays, even if technically it's not a 4k master. (But close)

http://realorfake4k.com/my-product/life/

If you prefer not to add, maybe we could have another thread with all the "near" 4k masters. There are quite a few now. Deadpool, sicario, revenant, etc.
The "real or fake" web site has separated into 3 sections, "real", "Nearly real" and "fake".

[Geoff D]

Hah! So even realorfake has had to add something in-between? Imagine that. It's almost as if it's not so easy to simply say "2K bad 4K good" and label every title according to the same dogmatic views. Heck, why not add another category for 4K finishes that actually have 4K VFX so we know we're getting REALLY TRULY REAL 4K?