4K Movies Releases

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Bloody hell, that's a chunky file size for Django although it is a long film, at that...

Well, for his sake, we didn’t want it to look like a “fu*king DVD”….
http://www.laweekly.com/publicspecta...beverly-cinema

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...Dark Knight Rises was 302GB so they'd be selling Interstellar short if it was anything less...

Correct, back in the day, I posted the DCP specs (file size, image format - Scope 4096 x 1716 (2.39:1) for The Dark Knight Rises somewhere on this ‘List’ thread ….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=218262

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...Even though Interstellar is a similar length I don't think it'll get as much love, so I'm betting it'll be between 225-250GB.

You’ve got a good crystal ball.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You’ve got a good crystal ball.

I wonder how large the uncompressed film scans are...

I am getting the Blackmagic Intensity Shuttle capture device for my computer to archive and digitize my rare laserdiscs and Video8 home movies. One big reason why I wanted this was because it allows for hardware based uncompressed video capture whereas most devices automatically capture in MPEG-2 and I wanted to use H.264. The disk space requirements are insane and this isn't close to what the film scans are at quality wise! For a 90 minute LD I'm looking at a ~150 GB raw capture. Despite the fact that lossy audio compression is utterly useless, thank goodness we have high quality lossy video compression right now.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

My advice would be to attempt to see Interstellar in as many formats as you can because this represents one of those rare opportunities for cinephiles to view and experience the differences (pluses and minuses) of each type of presentation and then judge for themselves as to which exhibition they feel is *best*…..and to what comparative degree, i.e. *splitting hairs* or *knock your socks off* difference.

The only caveat I would add is that for folks to see the celluloid versions first, or at least, soon, so as to view a fresh print (an opportunity which in itself is quite rare for theatergoers), and also try to pick a theater that has previously demonstrated some fairly recent past expertise with film projection; otherwise, you pays your money and yous take your chances . For the digital cinema version, try to pick an auditorium known to have a 4K projector system installed, and most preferably, one whose management takes the time to remove any 3D lens apparatus.

Good point, this should only have had 6 screenings by the time I get to see it. I scored Tuesday night 2nd showing also but it was right by the wall and only 3rd row up which is way too close to the screen for me.

I went to see Taxi Driver in 4K and that cinema now (used to be AMC and is now a Cineplex) only lists Interstellar as "digital". I must call them to ask, there are definitely several 4K Digital-equipped cinemas within 100km of Toronto but none are coming up in the withgoogle or "get tickets" options.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, for his sake, we didn’t want it to look like a “fu*king DVD”….

http://www.laweekly.com/publicspecta...beverly-cinema

I think digital will always look like DVD to dear old Quentin. Still, when someone's got IB Tech prints of the entire Dollars trilogy it's kinda hard to argue with that.

[Spike M.]

The 4K DCP for Interstellar is 226 GBs, as confirmed by Deluxe.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

The 4K DCP for Interstellar is 226 GBs, as confirmed by Deluxe.

And it'll be OK for the eventual home 4K disc version to be a measly 50GB - 66GB ?! Wouldn't that be a severe gimp job even taking into account reduction in spec? Surely these file sizes motivate 3-layer 100GB discs.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I wonder how large the uncompressed film scans are...

I am getting the Blackmagic Intensity Shuttle capture device for my computer to archive and digitize my rare laserdiscs and Video8 home movies. One big reason why I wanted this was because it allows for hardware based uncompressed video capture whereas most devices automatically capture in MPEG-2 and I wanted to use H.264. The disk space requirements are insane and this isn't close to what the film scans are at quality wise! For a 90 minute LD I'm looking at a ~150 GB raw capture. Despite the fact that lossy audio compression is utterly useless, thank goodness we have high quality lossy video compression right now.

I guess the one advantage for streaming would be uncompressed data. I think only Japan has the network that can deliver this now.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Well, for his sake, we didn’t want it to look like a “fu*king DVD”….
http://www.laweekly.com/publicspecta...beverly-cinema

Music to my ears that interview.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Teazle

And it'll be OK for the eventual home 4K disc version to be a measly 50GB - 66GB ?! Wouldn't that be a severe gimp job even taking into account reduction in spec? Surely these file sizes motivate 3-layer 100GB discs.

Christ, it's like people have forgotten how compression works or something. 2K DCPs usually come in at around 100GB (inc. PCM audio), yet you can get a fantastic looking HD Blu-ray encode of a 2+ hour movie packed into 20GB of space these days. Exact same sort of ratio will apply to home 4K.

BTW I don't doubt that the 100GB discs will be needed, especially once the format gets hot and heavy with HDR, HFR and whatnot, but 66GB should be enough to get started with.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Teazle

And it'll be OK for the eventual home 4K disc version to be a measly 50GB - 66GB ?! Wouldn't that be a severe gimp job even taking into account reduction in spec? Surely these file sizes motivate 3-layer 100GB discs.

I was under the impression the HEVC compression accounts for most of the reduction, with minimal quality loss. A DCP is using pretty unpractical compression techniques.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

The 4K DCP for Interstellar is 226 GBs, as confirmed by Deluxe.

Spike, you stole me thunder….

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As we get a little closer to the release date, I’ll post the total file size of the 4K DCP version...

Not to mention the fact that Deluxe has screwed up before with the specs listed on their paperwork.

Well, okay then no big-ee, now that we have the file size nailed, tell us which company packaged the DCP, which type of standard format and package format is the DCP?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Christ, it's like people have forgotten how compression works or something....

Enviable hydraulics…. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...cs#post9575271

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Spike, you stole me thunder….


Not to mention the fact that Deluxe has screwed up before with the specs listed on their paperwork.

Well, okay then no big-ee, now that we have the file size nailed, tell us which company packaged the DCP, which type of standard format and package format is the DCP?

They screwed up the specs this time around too. File size indicates 4K, and the actual file title specifies 4K, but they list the resolution as 2048x858.

http://digitalcinema.bydeluxe.com/si...28-14_DCDC.pdf

[Geoff D]

Putting 4K aside for the moment:

I had a quick gander (translation: look) at the deluxe site, I find it interesting that there are 3D DCP's of varying brightness levels (I'm sure you've mentioned it before Penton but I'd clean forgotten). I wonder if those decisions are filtering down into the disc mastering stages, because some studios seem to release 3D Blu-rays with the same sort of relative brightness and gamma as the 2D version, whereas other studios are noticeably bumping the brightness of their 3D discs.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

I was under the impression the HEVC compression accounts for most of the reduction, with minimal quality loss. A DCP is using pretty unpractical compression techniques.

I must be confused .... I assumed the theatrical file is already compressed quite similarly to HEVC, i.e. similar algorithms tho' different codec. I thought that the main diff. (apart from color space and chroma res) was (or would be) just rate of compression, further trading quality for file size. But apparently this is wrong.

So that 226gb is by a codec more similar to mp4 than HEVC I infer. Or maybe it's rather that the compressed file has not been remotely optimized for size, for speed I guess.

So in effect theatrical compression rates (at least for this 226gb 2hr flick) are needlessly light (from PQ standpoint). Is that the moral?

Also, why didn't they compress this one as highly as Expendables 3?

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Christ, it's like people have forgotten how compression works or something. 2K DCPs usually come in at around 100GB (inc. PCM audio), yet you can get a fantastic looking HD Blu-ray encode of a 2+ hour movie packed into 20GB of space these days. Exact same sort of ratio will apply to home 4K.

BTW I don't doubt that the 100GB discs will be needed, especially once the format gets hot and heavy with HDR, HFR and whatnot, but 66GB should be enough to get started with.

Ok, but my recollection was that for real reference-quality mp4 1080p encodes on Blu-ray, c. 15 GB / hr or even higher is more typical. Anyway I just don't want to feel that I will lose too much PQ due to gimpage when the whole point of 4k is to deliver insane PQ.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Teazle

And it'll be OK for the eventual home 4K disc version to be a measly 50GB - 66GB ?! Wouldn't that be a severe gimp job even taking into account reduction in spec? Surely these file sizes motivate 3-layer 100GB discs.

As explained in this post there is a huge difference between HEVC and JPEG2000. JPEG2000 was used for digital movies since the studios cared more about error tolerance than they cared about bit rate.

Originally Posted by Teazle

I must be confused .... I assumed the theatrical file is already compressed quite similarly to HEVC, i.e. similar algorithms tho' different codec.

JPEG2000 is mainly used for images and even when used with video each frame is encoded separately.

Originally Posted by Teazle

So that 226gb is by a codec more similar to mp4 than HEVC I infer.

JPEG2000 has a lower compression ratio than MPEG-1. JPEG2000 needs a very high bit rate for video which is why it isn't used in consumer video formats.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

They screwed up the specs this time around too. File size indicates 4K, and the actual file title specifies 4K, but they list the resolution as 2048x858.
http://digitalcinema.bydeluxe.com/si...28-14_DCDC.pdf

That’s actually quite pitiful, given the PR marketing…. http://www.interstellarmovie.com/formats/ . Anyway, since you’re a new name to the thread, I continue to wonder if you can fill in the blanks to the questions which I posed in post #4172? What be your degree of D-Cinema savvy-ness sir? Do you need help or do you know?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Putting 4K aside for the moment:

I had a quick gander (translation: look) at the deluxe site, I find it interesting that there are 3D DCP's of varying brightness levels (I'm sure you've mentioned it before Penton but I'd clean forgotten). I wonder if those decisions are filtering down into the disc mastering stages, because some studios seem to release 3D Blu-rays with the same sort of relative brightness and gamma as the 2D version, whereas other studios are noticeably bumping the brightness of their 3D discs.

Geoff, first you take away my ASS - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ss#post9449589
Now you take away my 4K, what the hell is the world coming to?

Anyway, the answer to your query is….Yes.