Are Blu-ray remasters future proof?

[Blu Man]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

35mm is scanned at 4K which is close enough to it's actual resolution. Because when the 35mm records scenes with poor lighting or at night it only records about 2 megapixels of information. Which is the equivelent on Blu-rays max resolution. So when you are watching a dark scene on Blu-ray you are pretty much seeing an exact replication of what the uncompressed image would look like. But basically beyond 4K or 35mm you don't really see anymore details the only difference you would probably see is the grain structure.

How do you know all this stuff?

[RiseDarthVader]

I'm just a movie buff that is more on the technical side of things. Especially since I want to be a director myself I read up on this stuff.

[#Darren]

Apparently stuff scanned at 4 k still looks noticably better on Blu ray.

[singhcr]

A 35mm negative has an effective resolution of 4k. 4k is roughly 4000x2000 pixels. There are many factors that go into how detailed the final film will be, but 4k is basically as good as it gets for scanning purposes for a high quality 35mm film.

Most movies these days, if they are shot on 35mm film, have the film scanned into the computer at 2k (2000x1080 pixels, roughly) and all of the editing, CG, and color correction are done at this resolution. So the final movie is "locked in" at 2k even if the film used as a source had an effective resolution of 4k. Think about using a DV camera to shoot raw footage for a movie but you did all of the editing on your computer and recorded it to a VHS tape. Your final copy is now stuck at VHS quality, even though your source material was of a far higher quality.

So pretty much any movie made from 2000 to today has basically half of its effective detail thrown away. Most movies that were shot digitally are 1080p or 2k. More movies these days are shot at 4k or higher, but that's only the raw footage. I assume the final product (called the DI or digital intermediate) will still be at 2k.

It is ironic that the original Tron was shot on 70mm film that has an effective resolution of 6 or 8k but the newer sequel was shot with 1080p digital cameras, making the older movie about 3-4 times more detailed than the newer one. The original Star Wars trilogy was shot on very fine-grained 35mm film, yet the final version that Lucas has settled upon is locked in at 1080p.

Even when we start to get 4k playback at home, almost every movie made in the last decade or so will have a maximum resolution of 2k, which isn’t that much higher than 1080p. I’m sure it could look a little better if it were thrown on a 100GB disc with less compression, but I think the modern movies we collect on Blu-ray today essentially look as good as they can.

Now, a 4k home release of Lawrence of Arabia (70mm negative) would look significantly better than a 1080p Blu-ray release. It is funny how we have gone backwards in movie quality!

[danielsan4610]

There was an industry wide "digital conversion" project that happened before DVD became standard. Nearly every studio involved scanned their entire catalog at 2k (2048×1556) resolution.

With Blu-ray being at 1920x1080, it's as close as possible to the source scan.

With 4k TVs looming, we are pretty safe with our Blu-ray purchases. The 4k scanning procedure is a very long process, expensive and even though it's typically pretty gentle, you risk damaging the print scanning it. The 2k digital conversion project was a big deal and I don't see a lot of the smaller studios being able to afford the procedure. Even now, people are still content with 853×480 DVDs so there isn't much of a market or profit for 4k.

As movies move more towards being shot digitally rather than on film, 4k will definitely become commonplace but we are only talking about new films. Our older films will be safe at 1080p. Unless it's Star Wars, The Godfather or something in that league, chances are you aren't going to see a 4k version.

I expect 4k content to be very similar to how 3D content is now on Blu-Ray. A tiny little aisle of expensive movies that cater to a very small niche of movie watchers.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by danielsan4610

There was an industry wide "digital conversion" project that happened before DVD became standard. Nearly every studio involved scanned their entire catalog at 2k (2048×1556) resolution.

With Blu-ray being at 1920x1080, it's as close as possible to the source scan.

With 4k TVs looming, we are pretty safe with our Blu-ray purchases. The 4k scanning procedure is a very long process, expensive and even though it's typically pretty gentle, you risk damaging the print scanning it. The 2k digital conversion project was a big deal and I don't see a lot of the smaller studios being able to afford the procedure. Even now, people are still content with 853×480 DVDs so there isn't much of a market or profit for 4k.

As movies move more towards being shot digitally rather than on film, 4k will definitely become commonplace but we are only talking about new films. Our older films will be safe at 1080p. Unless it's Star Wars, The Godfather or something in that league, chances are you aren't going to see a 4k version.

I expect 4k content to be very similar to how 3D content is now on Blu-Ray. A tiny little aisle of expensive movies that cater to a very small niche of movie watchers.

You mean 720.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by morriscroy

720x480 is a 1.5 ratio, which appears to be the ratio that a lot of content is encoded on dvds.

853x480 is approximately a 16:9 ratio.

If they're scanning a 16:9 ratio movie in non-anamorphic form with 480 vertical lines without any large black bars at the top/bottom of the screen, then the horizontal lines should be around 853.

I just checked several sites and not one says anything about 853.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by morriscroy

If you ever tried re-encoding an 16:9 movie encoded as an anamorphic 720x480 mpeg2 source, into a non-anamorphic 16:9 ratio image with 480 vertical lines, you will have to set the horizontal lines to around 853.

I guess I'll take your word for it. I don't hardly watch or buy DVDs anymore unless the particular title is not available on BD.

[PuppyJonathan]

Disney does 4k restorations, it just depends on the release/company

[thebard]

Originally Posted by singhcr

It is ironic that the original Tron was shot on 70mm film that has an effective resolution of 6 or 8k but the newer sequel was shot with 1080p digital cameras, making the older movie about 3-4 times more detailed than the newer one.

Tron was shot in 70mm because they knew the majority of the film would have effects. Opticals roughly half the resolution, so it's misleading to say that Tron has an effective resolution matching, say, Lawrence of Arabia.

[otheronenroehto]

I don't see much point in a 4k format, especially for older 35mm films. If the studios are scanning them and applying DNR in varying amounts anyway then wouldn't 1080p look just as nice? For me 1080 is where it ends a 60" TV is as big as I want and I just don't like sitting close enough to see all the detail on 60 inches at 4k.

[lcummins]

Originally Posted by Kynch

I'm sorry people but I don't know what 2k and 4k stand for. I know it's 2000 and 4000 something, but what does it specifically refer to? Cheers.

Originally Posted by mpresiv1

i assume it's viewable resolution? with standard def being 420 and hi-def being 1080. debating whether in the future will they have higher-def and highest-def resolution?

Originally Posted by saprano

It has to do with resolution, 2 million pixels, 4 million pixels.

somebody corect me if im wrong.

2K and 4K refer to the resolution in pixels... they picked the names 2K and 4K because that is the approximate resolution of the longest side... that is to say, a 2K scan (depending on the format) is usually 2048 pixels and a 4K scan is usually 4096 pixels. Check the site below for a chart of 2K/4K Resolutions...

http://www.celco.com/formatresolutiontable4k.asp

...and this site for an in-depth explanation about true 2K/4K pixel resolution...

http://magazine.creativecow.net/arti...ture-of-pixels

[Clark Kent]

No, existing Blu-ray masters for the most part are not future proof. The scanning technology is simply getting better and cheaper every year, in line with Moore's Law. A 4K scan today will not match the quality of a 4K scan in 10 years due to a number of factors and most 35mm film productions can easily produce 4k quantized information.

We are hitting the limits of visible information on 16mm transfers and anything of course in SD resolution.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by thebard

Tron was shot in 70mm because they knew the majority of the film would have effects. Opticals roughly half the resolution, so it's misleading to say that Tron has an effective resolution matching, say, Lawrence of Arabia.

I understand that, but the source (70mm) is far higher than the 1080p cameras used for the sequel. I didn't want to get into a lot of technical details like generational loss from opticals.

[jjbsn5192]

Originally Posted by DonRSD

how much better can it get?

we already get the directors audio(cant get any better) & fantastic hd picture quality

oh yeah! blu has always amazed me with each purchase of a movie i owned years ago on DVD it makes me so happy

[budious]

Originally Posted by morriscroy

720x480 is a 1.5 ratio, which appears to be the ratio that a lot of content is encoded on dvds.

853x480 is approximately a 16:9 ratio.

If they're scanning a 16:9 ratio movie in non-anamorphic form with 480 vertical lines without any large black bars at the top/bottom of the screen, then the horizontal lines should be around 853.

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I just checked several sites and not one says anything about 853.

The encoded video on all dvd's is 720x480. If it is flagged for display on a 4:3 screen then the pixel aspect ratio is 8:9; 720 x (8:9) = 640 pixels horizontal, 480 pixels vertical; thus 640x480 (4:3) display. If it is flagged for display on a 16:9 screen then the pixel aspect ratio is 32:27; 720 x (32:27) = 853.33~ pixels horizontal, 480 pixels vertical; thus 853x480 (16:9) display. The content itself is anamorphic and always encoded at 720 pixels horizontally, the scaling is done internally by the dvd player.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by singhcr

A 35mm negative has an effective resolution of 4k. 4k is roughly 4000x2000 pixels. There are many factors that go into how detailed the final film will be, but 4k is basically as good as it gets for scanning purposes for a high quality 35mm film.

Most movies these days, if they are shot on 35mm film, have the film scanned into the computer at 2k (2000x1080 pixels, roughly) and all of the editing, CG, and color correction are done at this resolution. So the final movie is "locked in" at 2k even if the film used as a source had an effective resolution of 4k. Think about using a DV camera to shoot raw footage for a movie but you did all of the editing on your computer and recorded it to a VHS tape. Your final copy is now stuck at VHS quality, even though your source material was of a far higher quality.

So pretty much any movie made from 2000 to today has basically half of its effective detail thrown away. Most movies that were shot digitally are 1080p or 2k. More movies these days are shot at 4k or higher, but that's only the raw footage. I assume the final product (called the DI or digital intermediate) will still be at 2k.

It is ironic that the original Tron was shot on 70mm film that has an effective resolution of 6 or 8k but the newer sequel was shot with 1080p digital cameras, making the older movie about 3-4 times more detailed than the newer one. The original Star Wars trilogy was shot on very fine-grained 35mm film, yet the final version that Lucas has settled upon is locked in at 1080p.

Even when we start to get 4k playback at home, almost every movie made in the last decade or so will have a maximum resolution of 2k, which isn’t that much higher than 1080p. I’m sure it could look a little better if it were thrown on a 100GB disc with less compression, but I think the modern movies we collect on Blu-ray today essentially look as good as they can.

Now, a 4k home release of Lawrence of Arabia (70mm negative) would look significantly better than a 1080p Blu-ray release. It is funny how we have gone backwards in movie quality!

Technically, 35mm has an effective resolution closer to 6K, but it all comes down to the stock. And 8K for IMAX/70mm.

http://www.digital-intermediate.co.u...lutionsize.htm

"The very fluffy and somewhat evasive answer is that there are in excess of 25 million pixels in a top quality 35mm image, which equates to around 6K, or 6144 x 4668 pixels."

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by retablo

Technically, 35mm has an effective resolution closer to 6K, but it all comes down to the stock. And 8K for IMAX/70mm.

http://www.digital-intermediate.co.u...lutionsize.htm

"The very fluffy and somewhat evasive answer is that there are in excess of 25 million pixels in a top quality 35mm image, which equates to around 6K, or 6144 x 4668 pixels."

I did not know that, thanks!

All the more reason to prefer film over digital for recording purposes...

[benricci]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I did not know that, thanks!

All the more reason to prefer film over digital for recording purposes...

Unfortunately, film is a lousy long-term storage medium. It degrades immensely over time, leading to necessary time-consuming and expensive restoration work.

Resolution isn't everything. All the more reason to prefer digital over film.

[Dragun]

Benricci, film is the best medium we have. We can still see surviving films from 100 years ago. With digital files, there are so many cameras, so many post workflows, file formats, etc. that who knows how many of those will be readable in 20+ years? These files would have to be migrated to new formats every so often, but film can be preserved in proper conditions with little maintenance.

I don't know how many studios are doing this, but even the films that go through DI's can be archived with YCM separations on black-and-white film, which is more stable than color film.