First Blood / Rambo: First Blood Part II / Rambo III 4K UHDs (1982-1988)

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Brian81

I can't agree with that as the typical 35mm presentation I have seen has the detail of a good BD. Typical, not state of the art. Certainly more detail than 0.6K. You can read letters on packaging and signs that are not legible on a DVD.

You really think that a 4th generation projected 35mm print has similar detail to BD (roughly 2K from OCN)?

For everyone else, 0.6K of resolution is the absolute max possible for projected 35mm print. You can bet on it. And it works fine, even on a huge screen.

Under no circumstances do we ever need more than 1K of resolution at home. But this is what marketing does. Let’s worry about 8K now, right? Instead of actually making movies look faithful and good at home. There are no bigger nutters than resolution nutters.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

You really think that a 4th generation projected 35mm print has similar detail to BD (roughly 2K from OCN)?

For everyone else, 0.6K of resolution is the absolute max possible for projected 35mm print. You can bet on it.

Yes, when was the last time you saw 35mm? I used to go to quite a few repertory screenings, about a decade ago. I don't know why you think 35mm even a few gens removed is barely better than a VHS tape.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Brian81

Yes, when was the last time you saw 35mm? I used to go to quite a few repertory screenings, about a decade ago. I don't know why you think 35mm even a few gens removed is barely better than a VHS tape.

Less than a week ago. And what are you even talking about? 0.6K of resolution versus 240 horizontal lines of VHS is a massive difference.

[Brian81]

I call bullshit probability at least 90%. Nearly all art institutes, universities, and indie theaters have gone all digital by this point in time.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Brian81

I call bullshit probability at least 90%. Nearly all art institutes, universities, and indie theaters have gone all digital by this point in time.

Let’s bet $10K and I’ll send you a ticket stub for tonight’s showing of 70mm projected print.

After doing more studying, projected 35mm print is more like 0.4K max resolution or equivalent to 600 horizontal lines. 70mm roughly doubles to 1200 horizontal lines.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

As I mentioned earlier, the 70MM & 35MM stereo tracks for Rambo II are missing. I imagine it's the same for First Blood.

That explains why they sound so anemic. Too bad they didn't just "upmix" the pre-existing 2.0 tracks from the old DVDs and the 2011 Studio Canal Blu-Rays instead of creating the lousy 5.1 mixes -- or at least include those 2.0 tracks from an endless selection of exterior sources. Nothing was stopping them from doing so.

[Chen Chow Mein]

So are the Rambo 4ks worth it? I'm a big fan of all the Rambo films except Last Blood. I can't believe a movie that cheap looking made it to theaters

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by Chen Chow Mein

So are the Rambo 4ks worth it? I'm a big fan of all the Rambo films except Last Blood. I can't believe a movie that cheap looking made it to theaters

Yes, even with faults, transfers are much better than the previous blus.

[MrMahn]

Originally Posted by Brian81

I call bullshit probability at least 90%. Nearly all art institutes, universities, and indie theaters have gone all digital by this point in time.

Tell that to the Licorice Pizza 70mm print I'm about to see. Film projection is still relatively easy to find if you're in a big city and you're actively looking for it.

[Biniaris]

sorry if this has been brought up before...long thread here. but has the poor encoding on the US disc been talked about? i see a lot of discussion on new color timing, etc.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...2&l=0&i=0&go=1

There's a newer Italian release pressed on a 100gb disc with 30% more bitrate that doesn't seem to have the same ultralow bitrate early on and retains much better grain later on in the movie as well.

[DMRI2006]

Yes it has been talked about for many pages already. The Studio Canal version has better encoding than the Lionsgate release also.

[Biniaris]

Originally Posted by DMRI2006

Yes it has been talked about for many pages already. The Studio Canal version has better encoding than the Lionsgate release also.

oof. insane that transfers like this get approved.

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

For everyone else, 0.6K of resolution is the absolute max possible for projected 35mm print.

Under no circumstances do we ever need more than 1K of resolution at home. But this is what marketing does. Let’s worry about 8K now, right?

i'm a bit confused here. what is your source for a 35mm print only resolving to roughly 0.6k? and you're saying you can't see the difference between 1k and say, 4k?

i dont think anyone is really pushing for 8k. 4k makes sense. 8k doesn't.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Biniaris

oof. insane that transfers like this get approved.



i'm a bit confused here. what is your source for a 35mm print only resolving to roughly 0.6k? and you're saying you can't see the difference between 1k and say, 4k?

i dont think anyone is really pushing for 8k. 4k makes sense. 8k doesn't.

I don’t have one source that would encompass everything which I could share here. But there have been several studies done. Decades ago now. I followed this through the 90’s. SMPTE being one organization doing this. Projectors have a massive amount of jitter. And 35mm prints suffer further from speed printing. So while the actual 35mm film can resolve fine detail, maybe even up to 4K worth, once it’s printed to a print and projected on screen, effective resolution drops significantly.

I may be wrong in regards to 0.6K worth of resolution. It’s possibly even less. Effective resolution that you see with your eyes when projected is something like 600 lines horizontal and 700 lines vertical. It’s not that much.

[Biniaris]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

I don’t have one source that would encompass everything which I could share here. But there have been several studies done. Decades ago now. I followed this through the 90’s. SMPTE being one organization doing this. Projectors have a massive amount of jitter. And 35mm prints suffer further from speed printing. So while the actual 35mm film can resolve fine detail, maybe even up to 4K worth, once it’s printed to a print and projected on screen, effective resolution drops significantly.

I may be wrong in regards to 0.6K worth of resolution. It’s possibly even less. Effective resolution that you see with your eyes when projected is something like 600 lines horizontal and 700 lines vertical. It’s not that much.

still a bit confused. your are saying that that originally, in the theater, on 35mm, these would have been effectively 0.6k res and anything higher than that we wouldn't be able to see? as is you think you cant see higher res? or are you saying that we shouldn't be able to have access to higher res versions and you only care about having it as close to the original experience?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by biniaris

still a bit confused. Your are saying that that originally, in the theater, on 35mm, these would have been effectively 0.6k res and anything higher than that we wouldn't be able to see? As is you think you cant see higher res? Or are you saying that we shouldn't be able to have access to higher res versions and you only care about having it as close to the original experience?

please, for the love of god, don't feed!!

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Biniaris

still a bit confused. your are saying that that originally, in the theater, on 35mm, these would have been effectively 0.6k res and anything higher than that we wouldn't be able to see? as is you think you cant see higher res? or are you saying that we shouldn't be able to have access to higher res versions and you only care about having it as close to the original experience?

Projected 35mm print has a max visible 600 lines of horizontal resolution. Not sure what you’re confused about.

As for what resolution we should have at home, it’s hard to answer. I sometimes like seeing all of these new details, but at other times they can certainly detract too. All of the imperfections in special effects, wires, makeup, etc. that are visible is not what was intended by original filmmakers. Movies are art. It’s not strictly about resolution. In Geoff’s words, I guess I’m not a resolution “nutter.”

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

please, for the love of god, don't feed!!

Feed what? Take the time to learn on how film projection works first before making personal jabs.

[bludarkknight]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Feed what? Take the time to learn on how film projection works first before making personal jabs.

Been there done projection for Warner Bros and UCI 32, oh years no, no seems like really yesterday, saturday.

Noremac Mij, got remember most here are kiddies and 35mm has been removed from cinemas some almost 15 years ago bit by bit and replaced with rubbish 4k video projection that we have in the home and light frequency, the colour the whole thing is opposite of actual 35mm. So most have not seen experienced 35mm 70mm, very few that remain that play regular 70mm are only found at certain cinemas now, where they maybe hundreds of miles away or thousands of miles away.

[Brian81]

Average 35mm print I have experienced had the resolution comparable to a BD. You aren't going to be able to read things like text on packaging in kitchen scenes at 600 lines of resolution. I have seen SD video projected at a commercial theater and it looks soft, undefined, and nasty. Instantly recognizable. And details which were visible in the 35mm prints would not be visible on a DVD or lesser (LD, VHS). Last 35mm film I saw at a major chain was Inception and it looked pretty much identical to the BD in terms of appearance as far as detail and resolution, softness goes. I have seen more recent flm presentations, but they have all been 70mm like Hateful Eight and 2001.



So dislike for additional resolution, removing that extra generation of loss since you couldn't make a lossless copy of an earlier generation for distribution. Yet adding additional loss in video quality in form of NTSC/PAL video, something never in the production chain, is not detrimental. If there was one word I think of first when it comes to bad parts of LD, it was "chroma".

[Markgway]

bludarkknight got banned?

What for?

I'll miss the kitty pics.