Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Torsten,
Spartacus would do very nicely with a 4k scan from 65, immediately taken down to 2 for color and clean-up. The derived HD master would be glorious.
RAH

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I believe you , but the take home point that I think Torsten is making is that they could have gotten far more ‘bang for the buck’, so to speak, just by doing a *proper* Blu-ray production starting simply with an excellent HD master sourced from a 2k scan….than by doing a 4k vs 2k scan of a large format film source…at least when displayed at home and viewed by probably something like 90% or more home theater hobbyists.

Don’t believe me? The 65mm. scenes in The International were shot using specially made Zeiss lenses that were of comparable sharpness to the venerable Arri Master Primes used for the 35mm acquisition. The 65mm capture was scanned with a modern scanner at 4k in the DI. The 35mm capture (the vast majority of the film) was scanned with a modern scanner at 2k and they were mixed together.

How many home theater enthusiasts could readily appreciate the difference between the two image harvests with their displays at home?
That’s a rhetorical question, the fact is a very small percentage of viewers did.

How many home theater enthusiasts could readily appreciate…okay, not even “enthusiasts” per se but, how many Joe6Pack ‘typical’ consumers with a full HD display accompanied with a Blu-ray player could readily appreciate the difference between the current gladiator offering with Kirk Douglas
vs.

a 2k scan and HD master of this large format film performed by Torsten Kaiser’s facility or by your facility for that matter?

Penton,

Having read the comments from both you and Robert I am not altogether sure some wires aren't crossed here. I would think that Robert believes (correct me if I am wrong here, Robert) that a 6K or 8K "extravaganza" is not really requried to bring SPARTACUS to shine [and in the correct way] on a Blu-ray edition - but that a propper and precise 4K [sensor] scan of the 65mm Restoration IP with a 2K [data] output for cleanup and color re-timing would or could render a High Definition Master just as suitable. When it comes to a re-mastering priority (as opposed to preservation, see below) this is also my position. I did not suggest that 2K by itself is enough for a large format title, on the contrary. I said that a master - in any resolution- has to be made properly first; or otherwise a higher number (in K) means nothing. In the final analysis, a properly crafted 2K master can look really stunning while a 4K or even higher can look very crappy, if done incorrectly.

As I stated earlier to Oliver K. a 6K and 8K by itself can add up to a zerosum numbers game if not done right - and the fixation on numbers alone deviates attention from what the element in question holds and what technically makes sense and where the PR "takes over". It also is a question of what the target or priority is - if it is re-mastering, the requirements re: numbers in K are much lower [2K for most 35mm titles/ 2K based on 4K sensor scans for LF titles and OCN/certain IP stocks] compared to when it comes to preservation and/or new features SFX productions where everything has to be captured. Regardless of the priority, in essence a scan at whatever resolution would have to capture properly what's on the film element and the color re-timing would have to reflect just as precise the reference element on film with all its properties for the "whole affair" to work. In a perfect world, masters should turn out from everywhere just as perfect, regardless whether they were made for new productions, re-masters or preservation. Well, as many catalogue - but also new titles [AMERICAN GANGSTER] show, our world is anything but ... I just would hope that people in certain positions would listen and look less for PR promises and lowest cost quotes and more for advise how something is done so that it does not have to be done all over again a year from tomorrow.

[Esox50]

Sorry to hear about Bill's loss.

Cats rock. One of my Bengal Cats is in my lap right now.

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

(...)
How many home theater enthusiasts could readily appreciate…okay, not even “enthusiasts” per se but, how many Joe6Pack ‘typical’ consumers with a full HD display accompanied with a Blu-ray player could readily appreciate the difference between the current gladiator offering with Kirk Douglas
vs.
a 2k scan and HD master of this large format film performed by Torsten Kaiser’s facility or by your facility for that matter?

The difference would be VERY noticeable even to "Joe6Pack" viewers. And that is very likely why Robert feels (so vocally) the way he does. I know I would.

[Jeff Kleist]

How many home theater enthusiasts could readily appreciate the difference between the two image harvests with their displays at home?
That’s a rhetorical question, the fact is a very small percentage of viewers did.

If you remember, I caught on the theatrical what was 65mm sourced I don't have the Blu-ray though. In my experience, even at home, 65mm sources exhibit more consistancy of excellence,that's the primary benefit

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

The difference would be VERY noticeable even to "Joe6Pack" viewers. And that is very likely why Robert feels (so vocally) the way he does. I know I would.

Of course.
That’s why I asked the question in the first place.

I was hoping that you or he would answer it in order to guide other readers, rather than me lecturing to them.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

You are opening a can of worms here by arguing that a significant percentage will not notice the difference as this of course is true but fortunately most studios still do not seem to try the lower limits of quality that is still acceptable to most customers.

No Oliver, you’re missing the point. I have to be very careful how I word things.

Not to worry, I’m not arguing for the lowest common denominator, Sony’s track record demonstrates quite the opposite. I’m saying that even a *measly* modern 2k scan of a color timed 65mm. IP will achieve pleasing results to many, if it is mastered and compressed without….*experimenting* with certain *parameters*......without naming any specific particular Blu-ray title.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Regarding The International: According to the Arri site there are special Arri/Zeiss Master Diopters that enables the Arriflex 765 to work with a wide range of lenses including the Master Primes, so my bet would be on that combination...

You would lose.
Like I said, the 65mm. scenes in The International were shot using specially made Zeiss lenses that came with the Arri 765. That isn’t even debatable. I knows.

Seems Arri professional cameras are getting a lot of face time from us in this discussion. So, to balance things out , here’s a sneak peak of a new consumer camcorder under development with removable lenses (E-Mount).
http://blog.discover.sonystyle.com/s...in-development


Bobby H…..start saving your money now.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

If you remember, I caught on the theatrical what was 65mm sourced I don't have the Blu-ray though. In my experience, even at home, 65mm sources exhibit more consistancy of excellence,that's the primary benefit

If you have a large enough screen at home...and you carefully watch the motion picture just for the picture quality of the imagery, you can differentiate the 4K vs 2K acquisition on the Blu-ray.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

No Oliver, you’re missing the point. I have to be very careful how I word things.

Not to worry, I’m not arguing for the lowest common denominator, Sony’s track record demonstrates quite the opposite. I’m saying that even a *measly* modern 2k scan of a color timed 65mm. IP will achieve pleasing results to many, if it is mastered and compressed without….*experimenting* with certain *parameters*......without naming any specific particular Blu-ray title.

Got me there, sometimes I have a bit of a fatalistic view of things

Although I will still say that the number of people who are happy with subpar releases even in enthusiast forums is shocking at times so I am shuddering at the thought of what J6P would find acceptable.

And yes, Sony's track record for me is the best of all studios - in quality that is. You could use a lttlle more quantity

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You would lose.
Like I said, the 65mm. scenes in The International were shot using specially made Zeiss lenses that came with the Arri 765. That isn’t even debatable. I knows. .

Oh well, if you insist

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Seems Arri professional cameras are getting a lot of face time from us in this discussion. So, to balance things out , here’s a sneak peak of a new consumer camcorder under development with removable lenses (E-Mount).
http://


Bobby H…..start saving your money now.

Nice - how big is its sensor?

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

Penton,

Having read the comments from both you and Robert I am not altogether sure some wires aren't crossed here. I would think that Robert believes (correct me if I am wrong here, Robert) that a 6K or 8K "extravaganza" is not really requried to bring SPARTACUS to shine [and in the correct way] on a Blu-ray edition - but that a propper and precise 4K [sensor] scan of the 65mm Restoration IP with a 2K [data] output for cleanup and color re-timing would or could render a High Definition Master just as suitable. When it comes to a re-mastering priority (as opposed to preservation, see below) this is also my position. I did not suggest that 2K by itself is enough for a large format title, on the contrary. I said that a master - in any resolution- has to be made properly first; or otherwise a higher number (in K) means nothing. In the final analysis, a properly crafted 2K master can look really stunning while a 4K or even higher can look very crappy, if done incorrectly.

Yes.

[Penton-Man]

^
Well, put it in that way (Torsten fashion), which added clarity to the issue.
Yes, I agree with you.

[Robert Harris]

To look at this from a slightly different direction, about a year ago, I tested 65mm image harvest in both 8k as well as 4k -- this from a half century old piece of film.

In comparing the two, as projected on a screen approximately ten feet wide via a 2k projector, the difference, while not startling, was still obvious in overall resolution.

This is all dependent upon the quality of the image being scanned. At a certain point all that one attains in scanning at a much higher k is to pick up nice imagery of amoeba feeding on the grain and occasionally waving at the pickup.

RAH

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

To look at this from a slightly different direction, about a year ago, I tested 65mm image harvest in both 8k as well as 4k -- this from a half century old piece of film.

In comparing the two, as projected on a screen approximately ten feet wide via a 2k projector, the difference, while not startling, was still obvious in overall resolution.

This is all dependent upon the quality of the image being scanned. At a certain point all that one attains in scanning at a much higher k is to pick up nice imagery of amoeba feeding on the grain and occasionally waving at the pickup.

RAH

Talk about indecent exposure ...
You're making an excellent point, one that people often miss - as one can see in the various answers you got in different threads. The numbers race in K reminds me very much of the megapixels craze re: digital cameras. For a good part, people were told by the PR that more = better, which of course is not necessarily true. But it gets people's attention - and evidently sells. Here, in relation to our field, the circumstances are similar: the whole thing only makes sense if the original (the film element) is [properly] scanned at the maxímum resolution it actually holds, plus perhaps 1K for good measure. Oversampling is only applicable / comes into play when the film element actually holds more than the scan resolution actually is set to. Once the maximum of the element is reached, there is no more oversampling. And for a good majority of [color] film elements [normal 35mm] from before the 1990s that means 2K-3K even for an IP or an OCN is the finishing line. For B/W stocks 2K should be generally just fine. This puts mastering resolution in perspective. Everything above, even for preservation, is advertisement space for the manufacturing industry á la John Carpenter's THEY LIVE - and Robert's occasional amoebas. The finest modern stocks on 35mm - such as the Vision2 and Vision3 series - can get in peaks well above 5K. Here, scanning at least in 4K makes sense for the production, as was done for THE DARK KNIGHT. Older negatives, depending on the respective process, have a much lower capacity - and scanning beyond 4K on a normal format 35mm element, be it flat or anamorphic is more hope than knowledge. As for LF films, the capacity and potential is higher, but not boundless, as some in forums may think. It depends very much on how well and in what generation the film survives. Still, I hope very much that Universal will re-visit SPARTACUS with the aim of a proper treatment in every way. Getting a message like this [see top right] dangled in front of you on the current Blu-ray Disc is either a ill-advised attempt at very dark sarcasm or "the finger".

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser TLE

Getting a message like this [see top right] dangled in front of you on the current Blu-ray Disc is either a ill-advised attempt at very dark sarcasm or "the finger".

Torsten,

I believe the message is both generic as well as innocent, but the unintended message, and its dark humor, will not be lost on those in the know.

RAH

[Torsten Kaiser TLE]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Torsten,

I believe the message is both generic as well as innocent, but the unintended message, and its dark humor, will not be lost on those in the know.

RAH

True. Which is why "is" in that sentence of mine should actually read "though unintentional comes across as...". To the viewer/buyer this [the underlying message] is, indeed, the proverbial pie in the face, adding "insult to injury" having spent $20+ on it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Oh well, if you insist

Good to hear...because I say it with the same confidence that I said this (i.e. “they didn’t have the time or funding”)
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post3130541

over a month prior to the producers saying essentially the same thing (in less detail), almost word for word -
Q: Suzanne… Please talk about the decision to make the film in 3D and also your thoughts on the post-production conversion process versus shooting in 3D, from both a budgetary standpoint and an end-user standpoint.

A: Suzanne Todd – Tim had the genius idea to make the movie in 3D and it’s been interesting to see how 3D has become so incredibly popular in the years it took us to make this movie. We did not have the time or money to actually shoot in 3D, but our film was planned for 3D release so there were lots of things built in along the way to make that movie going experience satisfying. From an end user standpoint, I think the planned shots in 3D movies like Avatar and ours will continue to be better received than 2D films that make a last minute decision to convert.

^ from Disney Dreaming: “Alice In Wonderland” Roundtable With Jennifer Todd And Suzanne Todd Part 1 | Disney Dreaming http://www.disneydreaming.com/2010/0...#ixzz0o6uHO0gR

Funny how that plays out in the end, online. Trust in Penton.

Regarding Director Tom Tykwer’s film, I’ll add that not only were some of the wide panoramic shots (like for instance, some images from the first and last scenes of the motion picture) acquired with the large format Arri camera (and subsequently scanned in 4k) but also, a few close-ups of Clive Owen too.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

To look at this from a slightly different direction, about a year ago, I tested 65mm image harvest in both 8k as well as 4k -- this from a half century old piece of film.

In comparing the two, as projected on a screen approximately ten feet wide via a 2k projector, the difference, while not startling, was still obvious in overall resolution.

This is all dependent upon the quality of the image being scanned. At a certain point all that one attains in scanning at a much higher k is to pick up nice imagery of amoeba feeding on the grain and occasionally waving at the pickup.

RAH

http://www.amianet.org/events/theree...tml#resolution

Deci, speak up if you have time, for if memory serves, you were there ^.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Nick Graham

Aside from the wretched software they now use, HTF has always been my online home. Every forum was a wasteland during the format wars, none was immune to idiocy - remember the call here to call your state's attorney general over Paramount going HD-DVD exclusive?

I disagree. Most did especially the more popular ones because the viral red ant machine was looking for dumb readers. But even though there where some idiots and idiotic posts (and here still are) on my favourite AV site (and the one I have been a member/reading/posting since 99), it never became even close to a wasteland.

[MerrickG]

Where the heck are the Red Dead Redemption reviews?

I get annoyed with these last minute review embargos. Alan Wake and Uncharted 2 had their reviews posted weeks before the game came out. Why not with RDR.

I am completely lost to the actual topic being discussed right now, so I figured I would let out my frustration on this for a change of pace.