List of 4K+ Masters for Digitally Shot Films

[Pieter V]

New and upcoming: John Wick

They beta tested the new workflow by grading a Calvin Klein commercial, shot on Red Epic monochrome, and the NAB 2014 Red Dragon demo short film. “We did a 6K conform and a 4K finish, and that really helped us explore that the system worked,” recalls Cioni. They also did 4K digital intermediates on The Expendables 3 and John Wick.

http://postperspective.com/gone-girl...chers-path-6k/

More background info here: (great website as source)

https://www.arri.de/news/news/alexa-xt-on-john-wick/

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

New and upcoming: John Wick


http://postperspective.com/gone-girl...chers-path-6k/

More background info here: (great website as source)

https://www.arri.de/news/news/alexa-xt-on-john-wick/

Done.

[Pieter V]

[Penton-Man]

Coming in a couple weeks - https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/On-An...8810/#Overview

Background - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post10107534 along with some details as to all of the acquisition for the sake of completeness and transparency… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...e#post10112285 humbly provided for your enlightenment as this information is not included in the imdb spec listings as of today....and doubtful that one can find it by googling some website.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Coming in a couple weeks - https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/On-An...8810/#Overview

Background - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...y#post10107534 along with some details as to all of the acquisition for the sake of completeness and transparency… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...e#post10112285 humbly provided for your enlightenment as this information is not included in the imdb spec listings as of today....and doubtful that one can find it by googling some website.

Done.

[Pieter V]

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb

Done.

[Pieter V]

Annie (2014)

http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/di...ies-annie-2014

Runtime 1 hr 58 min (118 min)
Sound Mix SDDS | Datasat | Dolby Digital
Color Color
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Sony CineAlta F65, Panavision Primo Lenses
Sony CineAlta PMW-F55, Panavision Primo Lenses
Laboratory ColorWorks, Culver City (CA), USA (digital intermediate)
DeLuxe, New York (NY), USA (dailies)
Film Length 3.243,24 m (6 reels)
Negative Format AXSM
SRMemory
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
F55 RAW (4K) (source format)
F65 RAW (4K) (source format) (high-speed shots)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383)
D-Cinema

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1823664/...ef_=tt_dt_spec

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Annie (2014)

http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/di...ies-annie-2014


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1823664/...ef_=tt_dt_spec

Done.

[Pieter V]

Wedding Ringer, The

http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/di...ng-ringer-2015
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0884732/...ef_=tt_dt_spec

Runtime 1 hr 41 min (101 min)
Sound Mix Dolby Digital | SDDS | Datasat
Color Color
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Sony CineAlta F65, Leica Summilux-C, Fujinon Premier and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
Sony CineAlta PMW-F55, Leica Summilux-C, Fujinon Premier and Angenieux Optimo Lenses
Negative Format AXSM
SRMemory
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
F55 RAW (4K) (source format)
F65 RAW (4K) (source format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic)
D-Cinema

Chappie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1823672/...ef_=tt_dt_spec
http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/di...s-chappie-2015

Sound Mix Dolby Digital | Datasat | SDDS
Color Color
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Red Epic, Panavision C-, E- and G-Series Lenses
Sony PMW-EX3
Negative Format Redcode RAW
Video (HD)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Panavision (anamorphic) (source format)
Printed Film Format D-Cinema

Future-oriented titles.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Wedding Ringer, The

http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/di...ng-ringer-2015
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0884732/...ef_=tt_dt_spec




Chappie

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1823672/...ef_=tt_dt_spec
http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/di...s-chappie-2015


Future-oriented titles.

Done.

[Bk_Tan]

Can anyone explain this to me:

https://thedissolve.com/features/exp...eservation-20/

It is apparently more likely for a digital film to be lost forever than a one on film stock because of the way it is currently preserved. I don't get it.

It's digital. What we have on the Blu-Ray is the film itself isn't it? There's no original film, so have we not really preserved it forever by it simply being on Blu-Ray? They talk about file formats and whatnot, but aren't most of the formats simply stuff like .mp4 which hasn't changed for years and why would they change it? I don't get the LTO magnetic tape and so on, so forth.

[saprano]

It's right there in the artical-


The drives that read the tapes are also subject to obsolescence. Since 2000, new generations of LTO technology have been released every two years or so—new tapes and new drives—and they’re only backward-compatible for two generations. So a film that was archived to tape in 2006 using then-state-of-the-art LTO-3 tapes can’t be read by the LTO-6 drives that are for sale today. In other words, the tape drive that created an archival copy of Skyfall in December 2012 wouldn’t be able to read the original 2006 copy of Casino Royale—the technology becomes obsolete faster than James Bond is recast. To read one of these tapes, even if the data is in pristine condition, you’d have to find an older drive.

The practical result of this is that a digital film archive needs to invest heavily in data migration to maintain its assets. Every five years or so, each film needs to be copied to new media, in a constant race against magnetic-tape degradation and drive obsolescence. This requires time and money: new tapes, new drives, staff to copy and verify the data. It’s worth it to studios, as long as they continue to make money from their libraries. But a studio that stops migrating its data will lose it quickly. If the last decade has taught us nothing else, it’s that our system rewards executives who make horrible long-term decisions for short-term results. (See Jamie Dimon.) In the analog world, most of the cost of preservation is paid when the archival print is created. But for a digitally preserved film, the cost of migration shows up every five years. Postponing it is going to be tempting, especially during buyouts, changes in management, or any of the near-constant corporate turmoil that puts huge short-term pressure on cost-cutting. Films that continue to make money are probably safe, but for bombs—whether they were genuinely terrible or interesting failures—the incentives are all wrong. Putting a significant part of our cultural heritage in a system where a five-year gap in funding means catastrophic, irrevocable loss seems to guarantee we’ll lose some of it.



Worse still, if the studio’s copies of a Digital Source Master are lost, another copy isn’t likely to appear. The Digital Cinema Packages that are distributed to theaters are encrypted with keys that will only work for a limited period of time—after the key expires, the data is irretrievable. So the days of a pristine print being found in the basement of a small-town theater are over—at best, trash-pickers would find hard drives with files they couldn’t play back. Even if they found a way to crack the encryption and extract the data, the DCP is compressed—like Blu-Rays and DVDs, not all of the image information in the DSM is present.



The industry would love for everyone to think digital archives are safe and better than film but that's not true. For preserving PQ as the day it was shown, yes. For preserving a movie for centuries, nope.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by saprano

It's right there in the artical-


The drives that read the tapes are also subject to obsolescence. Since 2000, new generations of LTO technology have been released every two years or so—new tapes and new drives—and they’re only backward-compatible for two generations. So a film that was archived to tape in 2006 using then-state-of-the-art LTO-3 tapes can’t be read by the LTO-6 drives that are for sale today. In other words, the tape drive that created an archival copy of Skyfall in December 2012 wouldn’t be able to read the original 2006 copy of Casino Royale—the technology becomes obsolete faster than James Bond is recast. To read one of these tapes, even if the data is in pristine condition, you’d have to find an older drive.

The practical result of this is that a digital film archive needs to invest heavily in data migration to maintain its assets. Every five years or so, each film needs to be copied to new media, in a constant race against magnetic-tape degradation and drive obsolescence. This requires time and money: new tapes, new drives, staff to copy and verify the data. It’s worth it to studios, as long as they continue to make money from their libraries. But a studio that stops migrating its data will lose it quickly. If the last decade has taught us nothing else, it’s that our system rewards executives who make horrible long-term decisions for short-term results. (See Jamie Dimon.) In the analog world, most of the cost of preservation is paid when the archival print is created. But for a digitally preserved film, the cost of migration shows up every five years. Postponing it is going to be tempting, especially during buyouts, changes in management, or any of the near-constant corporate turmoil that puts huge short-term pressure on cost-cutting. Films that continue to make money are probably safe, but for bombs—whether they were genuinely terrible or interesting failures—the incentives are all wrong. Putting a significant part of our cultural heritage in a system where a five-year gap in funding means catastrophic, irrevocable loss seems to guarantee we’ll lose some of it.

The industry would love for everyone to think digital archives are safe and better than film but that's not true. For preserving PQ as the day it was shown, yes. For preserving a movie for centuries, nope.

Why can't the digital films be stored on multiple hard drives?

[saprano]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Why can't the digital films be stored on multiple hard drives?

HDD's aren't exactly reliable.That's the worst option.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by saprano

HDD's are exactly reliable.That's the worst option.

That's why I said multiple ones.

[ghornett]

Doesn't matter how many copies you have because hard drives wont last 100+ years like a print will.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by ghornett

Doesn't matter how many copies you have because hard drives wont last 100+ years like a print will.

I've got one hard drive that has lasted over a decade and I have three more that are close to that so we will see.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by ghornett

Doesn't matter how many copies you have because hard drives wont last 100+ years like a print will.

This is the main point. These things don't last and having to keep copying and copying a movie is not the best way for preservation and has its own issues as pointed out in the artical.

[Dragun]

Even if you have multiple hard drives, good luck reading one of those in 20-30 years, or even 10. You can't just copy the data to drives, let them sit on a shelf untouched for years or decades, and open them later. One, the hard drives themselves may not physically work by then, and two, the hardware and software to read them may be hard to find. This is why the data has to be constantly migrated to a new platform every few years. With film, as long as the stock is stable and put into climate-controlled storage, it can be left with minimal maintenance and retrieved years later.

Even movies shot and/or finished digitally should have YCM separation masters made.

Digital is no panacea to storage problems, and it has its own problems.