"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 42041

Aren't high-end 2K DIs often downsampled from a 4K scan? I recall reading a blurb to that extent somewhere on the EFilm website.

Yes, commonly by facilities that don’t have a complete 4k workflow in place, which fortunately Sony Colorworks....does . Additionally, keep in mind that even those projects which are scanned at 8k (at 16-bit native scanning resolution at 200+ lp/mm) with a Northlight 2 scanner, for instance, the files are downsampled to the working software (4k) resolution.

The key is to try to scan at twice the predicted resolution of the film source in order to comply with Shannon-Nyquist to prevent aliasing.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by juanell

I can guess which ones may have been shot 65mm, but i could'nt tell from what i saw in 35mm or Imax.

As per a post I made back on 5/8 (to give a shout-out to Michel)….long before the film had premiered-
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3246086

To elaborate further, one action scene which used the above camera was the shot of the fire coming up the elevator shaft. I think that fireball scene is in one of the movie trailers showing on TV, so that shouldn’t require the use of any spoiler.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Based on colors alone, but of course it isn't a technical one. I'm not a big enough fan of TFE to pay for an import, especialy when I find the domestic remaster more than adequate.

[Penton-Man]

Must end the day with a tie into Comic-Con, scrotums and 3D conversions….

http://io9.com/5594856/green-hornet-...ing-3d-visuals

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

In jest, Wally has claimed he has a drinking problem and ergo, by watching anything in 3D causes him to get extremely nauseated.

It should be interesting to see any push and pull between Chris N. and Wally P. in regards to their next major motion picture which WB distributes.
Anyway, from your theatrical viewing could you clearly differentiate the material which was shot on large format?

Wait, this was my point, I saw no footage that looked like it was shot with an IMAX camera, or at least shot with the IMAX aspect (the even easier way to notice, when the frame opens up).

So, no I'm confused, an idiot, or both - WAS some of the film shot for IMAX (like Dark Knight)? For those sequences for DK, it was more than obvious, like suddenly opening the shears from in front of a window. I didn't have that experience with this film, despite being fairly open to notice it. I did notice many of the establishing shots looked much better than some of the interior, and there seemed to be much more detail in some scenes compared to others, but the first time through I was spending the majority of my time just, you know, enjoying the flick

Spoiler tags please, if there are any, can anybody note specific sequences that were shot with large format film?

***

Oh, wait:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/25/...g-development/

So, he didn't shoot IMAX (ie., using IMAX cameras with the taller aspect and ridiculous clarity), but he shot 65mm, and integrated that into the aspect. You can see why I was confused, especially as I'm seeing the film digitally blown up to an IMAX DMR (no, not DNR, or DVNR) print... My brain hurts sometimes with all this stuff

So, no, first time through I couldn't tell you, but it certainly wasn't as revelatory/jarring (depending on your POV) as the 35/IMAX split of Dark Knight, nowhere close.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Yes, commonly by facilities that don’t have a complete 4k workflow in place, which fortunately Sony Colorworks....does . Additionally, keep in mind that even those projects which are scanned at 8k (at 16-bit native scanning resolution at 200+ lp/mm) with a Northlight 2 scanner, for instance, the files are downsampled to the working software (4k) resolution.

That is an interesting topic. Do you know which downsampling algorithms are usually used for 8k -> 4k and for 4k -> 2k? The reason I'm asking is that I've seen a difference in grain structure between the Minority Report BDs from Paramount (USA BD) and Fox (EU BD). My impression is that Paramount used a downscaling algorithm like Lanczos or Sinc (there's a ringing line at the top/bottom border of the cinemascope window), while Fox used something different, maybe even simple decimating. Not sure, though...

[Penton-Man]

So, this morning I find this link in my e-mail box….
http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/07/...grade-fatigue/

John, it’s ‘upgraditis fatigue’(kinda like diverticulitis, pancreatitis,etc.)…..from last March -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3011261

Secondly, if you really think your version of the anaglyph 3D system will gain any traction…
http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2009/11/...gs-up-a-storm/

well then, I wish you all the luck in the world with that venture.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by madshi

That is an interesting topic...

Maybe for you, Spears and Deering. Everyone else wants to know when *xyz* title is coming out on Blu-ray .

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Spoiler tags please, if there are any, can anybody note specific sequences that were shot with large format film?

Dude, I already gave you one 65mm. scene (see above) i.e. the fire in the elevator. I’ve got to dole this stuff out in an installment plan in order to keep ‘em coming back for more. Another is the action scene with the van/bridge. Plus, as I said back in early May, the aerials were shot in Vistavision.

If you get a chance to view Inception at a theater (non-IMAX) with something like a 2k digital projector or a film projector, tell me if you can differentiate which scenes were shot on large format from those that weren’t. It's not a trick question or exercise. I'm just wondering if people in the typical Multiplex marketplace are easily appreciating the resolution difference between the different acquistions.

I'll tell you one thing, if the rolling credits don't look soft to you, then you'll never be able to tell what are the large format shots/scenes.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

My brain hurts sometimes with all this stuff

Remember I posted before that Wally P. commented back in June (during his anti-DI rant) that he said if he was ever forced to do a motion picture using the digital intermediate process, then he would retire.

Well, another gem was that he said watching 3D films was analogous to taking LSD. So, I imagine if anyone “forced” him to do a motion picture in 3D, he would do something more drastic than retiring. Maybe pick up and move to the Himalayas to become a Tibetan monk.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

no, not DNR, or DVNR

“DVNR” is not acceptable verbiage in these modern mastering times. Please see my post about the *black box* on the previous page. I’ll take degrain or denoise software or even ‘DNR’ but not “DVNR”.

Another acceptable phrase would be “a grain reduction tool” because Roger uses it in his post (fourth from the top) here....
http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/v...php?f=5&t=1333

This Roger….
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005683/

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Maybe for you, Spears and Deering.

LOL, probably true...

[Penton-Man]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3542230

^ Bump.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lge_m...eature=related

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Another acceptable phrase would be “a grain reduction tool” because Roger uses it in his post (fourth from the top) here....

Interesting post by Roger:

> The strange thing is that grain will appear less on
> a 2K scan than on a 4K scan. The fact is film grain
> is finer than a 2K pixel and that is why I insist on
> 4K scans, as I like any grain that there is to be
> sharp and the image also. Some would say that you
> need a 6K scan to see the full detail/fine grain in a
> 35mm or anamorphic negative and I believe they
> would be right.

Which again confirms that these coarse grain structures seen on many catalog Blu-Rays these days do not show how grain naturally looks like. On many Blu-Rays it looks like the grain particles are larger than a pixel, which can not be natural if the grain is finer than 2K...

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Dude, I already gave you one 65mm. scene (see above) i.e. the fire in the elevator. I’ve got to dole this stuff out in an installment plan in order to keep ‘em coming back for more. Another is the action scene with the van/bridge. Plus, as I said back in early May, the aerials were shot in Vistavision.

If you get a chance to view Inception at a theater (non-IMAX) with something like a 2k digital projector or a film projector, tell me if you can differentiate which scenes were shot on large format from those that weren’t. It's not a trick question or exercise. I'm just wondering if people in the typical Multiplex marketplace are easily appreciating the resolution difference between the different acquistions.

I'll tell you one thing, if the rolling credits don't look soft to you, then you'll never be able to tell what are the large format shots/scenes.

Credits from DMR always look soft, but I take it you're again referring to the non-IMAX version. As I said, I spent much of the time waiting for that sudden "WOAH!" moment as the frame opened up to IMAX proportions, and was entirely engrossed in the actual story the rest of the time. Not, of course, that this is some sort of test.

So, did you like the film?

[42041]

I couldn't tell the acquisition formats apart in Inception either, in both 35mm and 4K projection. I had a slightly easier time noting some unusually crisp-looking shots in Shutter Island, so I guess making the digital master from the 35mm IP equalized the quality. For some reason these things are easier to see on my TV than a huge cinema screen.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

If you get a chance to view Inception at a theater (non-IMAX) with something like a 2k digital projector or a film projector, tell me if you can differentiate which scenes were shot on large format from those that weren’t. It's not a trick question or exercise. I'm just wondering if people in the typical Multiplex marketplace are easily appreciating the resolution difference between the different acquistions.

There is a cinema with Sony 4k projection about half an hour from me, is there a 4k DCI file for this movie?

It would definitely be interesting to compare this to the look of a standard release print.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by madshi

Interesting post by Roger:

> The strange thing is that grain will appear less on
> a 2K scan than on a 4K scan. The fact is film grain
> is finer than a 2K pixel and that is why I insist on
> 4K scans, as I like any grain that there is to be
> sharp and the image also. Some would say that you
> need a 6K scan to see the full detail/fine grain in a
> 35mm or anamorphic negative and I believe they
> would be right.

Which again confirms that these coarse grain structures seen on many catalog Blu-Rays these days do not show how grain naturally looks like. On many Blu-Rays it looks like the grain particles are larger than a pixel, which can not be natural if the grain is finer than 2K...

2k is not that bad - if you properly bring it down from 4k.
There are many movies that show this nicely.

Of course I was always in favour of 4k projectors and software to be finally above the resolution limits of the human eye even at 1 screen width seating distance and then we could have had 6k scans brought down to 4k

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

John Galt will be happy then too………..
http://www.amianet.org/events/theree...stracts09.html

While he is certainly right for certain hardware there is that nice paper from Arri where they show a 2k, a 4k and a 10k scan from 35mm and the 10k scan looks substantially more detailed than the 4k scan - I wonder though if this is some kind of prototype as I never heard of 10k scanning for 35mm. They also convieniently did not show the 6k and 8k scan that certainly would be closer to the results achieved with the 10k scan.

[madshi]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

While he is certainly right for certain hardware there is that nice paper from Arri where they show a 2k, a 4k and a 10k scan from 35mm and the 10k scan looks substantially more detailed than the 4k scan

Is that paper available for public download somewhere?