List of UHDs that utilize 4K or Higher Masters

[Geoff D]

My distaste for that website is well known but even I've gotta admit that when they're getting emailed by PR people to correct their information then it's got a life of its own now. Not a surprise that it's some little indie outfit that contacted them though, the major studios' own mouthpieces don't know their arse from their elbow w/ref to such technical morsels of information.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

My distaste for that website is well known but even I've gotta admit that when they're getting emailed by PR people to correct their information then it's got a life of its own now. Not a surprise that it's some little indie outfit that contacted them though, the major studios' own mouthpieces don't know their arse from their elbow w/ref to such technical morsels of information.

My disdain toward that site isn't so much the lists they're compiling together, but the horse shit name for their domain.

It does a disservice to the format by calling it 'Fake 4K'.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

I knew upon watching the 4K UHD of Cell Block 99, there was no way it was an upscale of a 2K master. The detail was far too crisp looking for it to be a 2K upscale.

Most of the native 4K masters on the 4K UHDs i've seen (Stranger Things, Allied, What Happened to Monday/Seven Sisters, Starship Troopers and Bad Santa 2, to name a few) have far better detail than you would see on a 1080p blu-ray and Brawl in Cell Block 99 is clearly in the same company.

Yep. I think we're all guilty of clapping our hands when we see a good 2k upscale but when we see native 4k it just has some extra zing to it. Viewing distances can kiss my ass too.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Yep. I think we're all guilty of clapping our hands when we see a good 2k upscale but when we see native 4k it just has some extra zing to it. Viewing distances can kiss my ass too.

I'll clap all day long for that 2K shit when there IS an appreciable difference (see the I am Legend review wot I just posted ) so I'm not "guilty" of anything apart from championing this fine format. I'd love a 4K finish for every mother-lovin' disc that we get, we ALL would, but the stark reality of the past 15-odd years of filmmaking is that 2K finishing has dominated this era, and it continues to do so. We can either take a dump on every one of those movies in UHD sight-unseen - which is of course partly what irks me so much about the site that's being discussed - and kiss goodbye to the majority of motion pictures made in that time, or we can take them as they come and assess them on their own merits. Crazy, I know.

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

My disdain toward that site isn't so much the lists they're compiling together, but the horse shit name for their domain.

It does a disservice to the format by calling it 'Fake 4K'.

VERY good point, that's my biggest beef here, the sheer semantics of it. Such a simple thing but also potentially damaging - hence them being informed about Brawl without even asking for it - and if the site is gaining enough cred to be noticed by the industry then what does that say about the kind of effect it's having on punters at large? Too late now though.

[benji888578]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

You can't expect modern, VFX-heavy movies to be 4K mastered

Yes we can!

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not really a question of money any more, it's time. These kinds of giant blockbusters demand 2000+ VFX shots all year round, years ago you'd have had maybe one or two such movies every year but now it's like half a dozen and the demands this places on turnaround time are immense. If you're a busy VFX house then you can't just down tools for weeks while your systems are upgraded for this amazing faster tech that everyone keeps chirping about, not that I think they're running pitiful portable picnic players as it is.

So while 4K or higher VFX is eminently possible, it's just not practical for most productions given the demands of big budget filmmaking as they exist today. It's all well and good that Disney are richer than Croesus but that means dick because they actually don't own a VFX house which they can shower with money to upgrade its gear on their own time.

And the next person who mentions Dunkirk or the Nolan films in particular is getting a virtual slap. His films do have more CG than one may expect BUT we're talking hundreds of shots rather than thousands, and even then it's often more about augmenting what's there (like the still propeller and lowering landing gear on Tom Hardy's gliding Spitfire in Dunkirk) or removing visible means of support (The wire rigs in Inception, the structure 'driving' The Bat along in TDKR, the human performers of CASE and TARS in Interstellar etc) rather than creating thousands of synthetic elements and indeed entirely synthetic shots outright. There are moments of extravagance like the stadium bombing in TDKR for sure but they're few and far between which is exactly what permitted them to be 5.6K or 8K VFX renders in the first place.

But, Inception 4K (or better) VFX, was created in 2010, that is EIGHT YEARS AGO, why can't these VFX houses be doing 4K VFX today? It can't be money, it has to be the studios being in too much of a hurry.

I'm not buying any excuses, if 4K VFX was being done, in small or large, EIGHT YEARS AGO, 4K VFX should be the standard now!

Home playback media has jumped ahead this time. TV manufacturers are introducing 8K panels. 4K has gone full throttle for home use, but, the content is bottlenecked at 2K. We're still seeing movies playing at 2K on 4K projectors that were installed years ago in the cinemas. The studios need to slow the f down and (help the VFX houses) upgrade already. Or, do more live action, more makeup, etc.

Honestly, the first trailer I saw for the next Marvel Avengers movie looks like it has too much CGI, doesn't look real, looks like CGI. They need to slow down or do less CGI, more live action. Delay movie dates if they have to.

- The Orville, (no, not 4K, but to make a point), has gone backward a bit using models for many shots, and not just CGI to add realism. Yes, they have models of the ship and shuttle and IDK what else. ...If you want I can link an interview where they talk about it.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

It does a disservice to the format by calling it 'Fake 4K'.

Oversimplification, in general, is the enemy informed enthusiasts have been battling since the web went mainstream. A/V can get complicated real quick. It's not easy to have a civil discussion when nuances must be carefully considered.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by benji888578

Yes we can!

But, Inception 4K (or better) VFX, was created in 2010, that is EIGHT YEARS AGO, why can't these VFX houses be doing 4K VFX today? It can't be money, it has to be the studios being in too much of a hurry.

I'm not buying any excuses, if 4K VFX was being done, in small or large, EIGHT YEARS AGO, 4K VFX should be the standard now!

IT WAS A NOLAN FILM. So here's your slap:



In case it's not clear: The guy does as much in-camera as is physically possible, still using things like miniatures and back projection wherever he can rather than CG and green screen. So it's precisely BECAUSE of the comparatively few VFX shots that he uses vs Marvel Movie™ #17 that they have more time to execute those shots at a higher resolution, i.e. they're not having to turn around 2000 of the bastards inside of a year AND worry about a 3D conversion (which may/may not have native stereo rendering for the VFX which could literally double the rendering workflow, your 2000 shots just became 4000, b*tch!)

And, in case you didn't know, many of the showier shots in Inception were captured on 5-perf 65mm like when Ariadne steps into the Parisian street and starts to 'bend' it for the first time, so Nolan insisted that the VFX be finished to a similar quality which is why we also get 5.6K and 8K VFX for true 15-perf IMAX from him. Yes, TDK had some 8K VFX back in 2008! TEN YEARS, MAN! TEN! YEARS! TEN YEARS! It's got to be of good enough quality to cut seamlessly back into a film negative that will be the permanent master copy, rather than a 2K movie that exists solely on LTO tape or a raided HDD array.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'll clap all day long for that 2K shit when there IS an appreciable difference (see the I am Legend review wot I just posted ) so I'm not "guilty" of anything apart from championing this fine format. I'd love a 4K finish for every mother-lovin' disc that we get, we ALL would, but the stark reality of the past 15-odd years of filmmaking is that 2K finishing has dominated this era, and it continues to do so. We can either take a dump on every one of those movies in UHD sight-unseen - which is of course partly what irks me so much about the site that's being discussed - and kiss goodbye to the majority of motion pictures made in that time, or we can take them as they come and assess them on their own merits. Crazy, I know.

The only 2k movies I actually wait for reviews on are those 35mm 2k up scales. The rest are fair game that hopefully we're at the minimum downscaled from a 6k source. Having a good hdr tv, I'm usually good even with a 2k movie. But I do wish every movie looked like Bladerunner 2049.

[TheSweetieMan]

I'm not overly concerned with whether or not VFX are done at 2K or higher. But I still have no idea how Disney doesn't have more 4K-DIs for their overall films, when plenty of other, cheaper studios, still have 4K-DIs for films with a bevy of 2K-VFX.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

I'm not overly concerned with whether or not VFX are done at 2K or higher. But I still have no idea how Disney doesn't have more 4K-DIs for their overall films, when plenty of other, cheaper studios, still have 4K-DIs for films with a bevy of 2K-VFX.

I'm going to guess Disney has tighter schedules to get stuff done while riding that line of being over budget from the start.

[Geoff D]

Yeah, when you consider how many of these hyper-blockbusters that Disney are shitting out each year under their various auspices (Disney themselves then Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm!) it's a wonder that Rogue One and Ep VIII were finished at 4K at all.

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, when you consider how many of these hyper-blockbusters that Disney are shitting out each year under their various auspices (Disney themselves then Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm!) it's a wonder that Rogue One and Ep VIII were finished at 4K at all.

That's a shame, though.

Only because both GOTG Vol. 2 and Pirates 5 are outstanding looking discs. Every bit as impressive as Sony's transfers so far. So, I would really like to see them utilize more 4K-DIs. I know that's wishful thinking, but a man has to dream.

I haven't seen The Last Jedi yet. I bet that disc is going to be an absolute jaw-dropper when it releases.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by TheSweetieMan

That's a shame, though.

Only because both GOTG Vol. 2 and Pirates 5 are outstanding looking discs. Every bit as impressive as Sony's transfers so far. So, I would really like to see them utilize more 4K-DIs. I know that's wishful thinking, but a man has to dream.

I haven't seen The Last Jedi yet. I bet that disc is going to be an absolute jaw-dropper when it releases.

I saw it in 4K at my local Cinemark and it was gorgeous. It's going to be awesome on UHD.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by benji888578

Honestly, the first trailer I saw for the next Marvel Avengers movie looks like it has too much CGI, doesn't look real, looks like CGI. They need to slow down or do less CGI, more live action.

Thing about CG is you can keep refining the shots almost up until release date.
The shots in the new Avengers trailer are WIP, incomplete. They have to show something in the trailer so they'll show shots in progress. Happens all the time - ESPECIALLY for Marvel movies.

[benji888578]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Thing about CG is you can keep refining the shots almost up until release date.
The shots in the new Avengers trailer are WIP, incomplete. They have to show something in the trailer so they'll show shots in progress. Happens all the time - ESPECIALLY for Marvel movies.

[Show spoiler]

I understand that, but, even in the last movie with the stone faced alien, (whatever his name is), it didn't look realistic to me.

Well, the general public doesn't demand quality, many still buy DVDs, so, it's not like the studios will get demand from the public to increase the quality. However, if they keep increasing the amount of CG in the marvel movies, without increasing quality, it will wear the franchise down, eventually people will begin to lose interest.

The only reason we have all these live action movies based on comics is because of the breakthrough of CG for VFX. But, they can't just keep going and going without upping the ante, more CG at current standards won't cut it, one day they have to stop and VFX houses have to take some time to update, or otherwise find a way to transition.

All my ranting aside, some movies have looked fantastic on the big screen, even though they are only 2K.

I'm not saying that movies that have been upscaled for 4K/UHD release are bad, some are done well, and an improvement over standard HD blus...but, the potential isn't being utilized or fully realized.

One thing most people don't realize is that an upscaled 4K/UHD disc is upscaled from a 2K DI, which is not to say it is upscaled from 1080p, as 2K for the movie theater is slightly larger than 1080p. (2K DCI (cinema) is measured horizontally, 2048 wide, vertical is going to be variable depending on aspect ratio. HD/2K/1080p for home is measured vertically, but, fits into 1920x1080 before any letter boxing.) So, for HD/1080p, the 2K DI is actually downscaled. (4K DCI is 4096 wide, home UHD(4K) is vertical 2160, or 3840x2160.)

And, that being said, HDR & WCG are more important improvements, again, people don't realize, because we have been measuring from digital to digital, film had better color and dynamic range than current digital cinema. HDR & WCG get the color quality closer to that of film, not better than. Unless you're talking about a 60 year old movie. But, this is heading off-topic, so, I digress.

[Geoff D]

Movies are ultimately output at 2048x858 for 'scope and 1998x1080 for 1.85 for 2K theatrical exhibition. We can either crop or scale those masters for the fixed 16:9 home video container, most studios like to scale to maintain the aspect ratio which has a greater impact on detail than most folks think, you're not simply losing a fixed number of lines (as with a crop) but the whole image may be adversely filtered to some degree so as to avoid aliasing and whatnot.

The heck of it is that home 4K is still having to face that choice of downscaling or cropping from the 4K master - be it native or uprezzed - because 4096x1716 or 3996x2160 into 3840x2160 doesn't go. BUT it appears that the 4K downscale for consumer 2160p UHD is usually much less destructive to a 2K upscale than having that 2K master be scaled down slightly for 1080p HD, no doubt helped by other things too like UHD's more efficient compression, higher luma/chroma resolution and so on. There are always exceptions though as the actual 2K upscale itself needs to be of good quality to begin with, *cough* Oblivion

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Movies are ultimately output at 2048x858 for 'scope and 1998x1080 for 1.85 for 2K theatrical exhibition. We can either crop or scale those masters for the fixed 16:9 home video container, most studios like to scale to maintain the aspect ratio which has a greater impact on detail than most folks think, you're not simply losing a fixed number of lines (as with a crop) but the whole image may be adversely filtered to some degree so as to avoid aliasing and whatnot.

The heck of it is that home 4K is still having to face that choice of downscaling or cropping from the 4K master - be it native or uprezzed - because 4096x1716 or 3996x2160 into 3840x2160 doesn't go. BUT it appears that the 4K downscale for consumer 2160p UHD is usually much less destructive to a 2K upscale than having that 2K master be scaled down slightly for 1080p HD, no doubt helped by other things too like UHD's more efficient compression, higher luma/chroma resolution and so on. There are always exceptions though as the actual 2K upscale itself needs to be of good quality to begin with, *cough* Oblivion

But I got Oblivion on BD for $6 USD! AND Pacific Rim 3D lazy conversion for only $4 USD! I'll rent those "pesky" UHD 2K upscaled titles when they're available through Redbox.

At least BLADE RUNNER is full blown native 4K since everything 35mm was scanned in 4K and VFX in 6K-8K from 65mm-70mm, from my recollection. Wonder if BLADE RUNNER 2049 has its VFX in 2K or 4K or what, even though it's Native 4K. THE MARTIAN: Extended Edition is considered Native 4K even though VFX are 2K. Would like more titles verified such as ASSASSIN'S CREED since it says Native 4K in the title listing but it's not in the first post ITT.

Yes, I know how picky I am for my UHD collection but I'm not going into that mess again.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers

Wonder if BLADE RUNNER 2049 has its VFX in 2K or 4K or what, even though it's Native 4K.

Blade Runner 2049 was shot in 3.4K and the vfx were rendered at the same resolution. It's 3.4K, upscaled to 4K, across the board.

[gates70]

Yawn....

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Blade Runner 2049 was shot in 3.4K and the vfx were rendered at the same resolution. It's 3.4K, upscaled to 4K, across the board.

I think Deakins actually confirmed on his forum that the VFX were native 4K.

Unlike 'Sicario', this was the first time for him where despite not shooting at 'full 4K'--the entire post production process was handled in 4K across the board.