List of 4K film transfers on Blu-ray shot on film (non-digitally shot)

[L.F.B.]

So guys, how Im able to know if the bluray is from 4k source or not?

Since wen blurays start to use 4k sources?

Please help a noobie in HD transfers.

Thanks a lot. :-)

[42041]

Originally Posted by L.F.B.

So guys, how Im able to know if the bluray is from 4k source or not?

Since wen blurays start to use 4k sources?

Please help a noobie in HD transfers.

Thanks a lot. :-)

I guess you look at this thread...
usually you know it's from a 4K source because the blu-ray press release or some industry article says so.
For newer films, IMDB's tech specs usually specify the resolution of the digital master.

[DoubleGulpShrimp]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

No the DI that which all masters were struck from is 2k.
Sony have not only just started using 4k for blu-ray they have since the start where a master was available

Prove to me that The Hobbit only had a 2k master. What is your source?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Lowry loved DNR also so I would not quote him wildly, plus they loved 2k to keep overheads down

lol, wildly?
C’mon Mike, tell us something that longtime readers of the more authoritative threads on Blu-ray.com haven’t been aware of and posted about before, for example - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ce#post5754852. We’re also fully aware of the compensatory digital sharpening with some afflicted titles out of that particular facility.

I mean really, you’re starting to remind me of this fellow in regards to what you assume people know and don’t know….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...st#post7316728

If you desire to contribute some really cutting-edge imaging information, for starters, why don’t you tell folks here about the viewing test which included native 4K content (amongst other things) displayed on 4K tv’s of moderate size that involved about over 60 observers that the consumer electronics industry and the studios definitely do not want consumers to know about. Heck, it was done across the pond closer to your time zone rather than mine.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

Prove to me that The Hobbit only had a 2k master. What is your source?

I like shrimp. For the source, go here… https://forum.blu-ray.com/misc.php?d...=vB_Editor_001 and scroll down the list on the right to about the middle where you’ll find this unassuming masked man

For the comprehensive link with an explanation as to the mastering and all the theatrical deliverables as well as all other digital masters even exact to the ftL - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...le#post7361454

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

b.t.w. if anyone is interested in the specs of a 4K file of a feature film, in particular its size (GB) in general. For instance, The Dark Knight Rises which went out to their local commercial D-Cinema theater at the time that flick was playing …

The Dark Knight Rises
4K DCP
Scope 4096 x 1716 (2.39:1)
5.1
302GB
1st Credit Offset: 02:36:40
Total Run Time: 02:44:18

and another...

Django Unchained(2012)

Technicolor Digital Cinema
DCP 4096 x 1716 (4K scope)
286 GB
Run Time: 2:45:11
5.1 Audio

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As PeterTHX and the late John Lowry noted in that consumer electronics magazine article, for capturing moving pictures with a film camera in the real world (not raw negative stock like the ITU study, nor producing super sharp subtitles for some movie), that the effective resolution is even lower than 4K….more like in the 3’s.

The *debate* if you will, comes to how much ‘scanner resolution’ (and how best to accomplish it) is needed in order to capture (and transfer) all the inherent detail of the film image and at the same time produce a digital image that is natural and authentic to the film source…..rather than for instance disproportionately magnifying the appearance of film grain.

As to the Arri article, I haven’t gone through the whole thing in a long time but, I think you’re also misreading their findings (and intention) in that you’re confusing the measured resolution of 35mm film for what Arri claims is needed to digitize and transfer the resolution of that film image with a scanner and best avoid aliasing. “At the moment, a correctly exposed and 6K/4K scanned 35mm film negative is the only practical, existing acquisition medium for moving pictures that come close to this requirement.”

As an aside, it is/was no coincidence that as I stated sometime in Club Penton back in 2010 that the ArriScan was being marketed as a 6K scanner (despite the fact that 3k is the native optical resolution and 6k is achieved by offsetting the sensor by a half-pixel in four directions).Other manufacturers have different solutions, for example with regards to the Northlight 2 scanner, its 8K CCD line arrays produce true 4K resolution data files.

All this does not mean that 35mm exposed film has 8K resolution (nor 6K if you like the ArriScan) as some people (other than you) on the internet like to proclaim every several months on some film-oriented thread….as, overall most images probably measure about 3K-ish worth of effective resolution with real world acquisition. This is something that I think needed to be made clear to pixel followers.

Well whatever you noted is really in serious doubt now. People used to think 16mm is at best 2k, but a low budget indie film like Following looks so much better with a 4k Scan, than other much high budget films shot on 35mm on Bluray without 4k Scans. And Lowry was always in a way a hack firm, so I don't trust their views either, I mean they were the ones who made that God Awful Citizen Kane transfer on DVD. So if 16mm can look more detailed in 4k, then so can 35mm in 8k. And the 8k Transfers of Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz are unparalleled. And we didn't even come to consider films shot in anamorphic, which has atleast double the detail of 35mm. And also Vista Vision. So they need atleast 12k Scans for all the detail. In anamorphic anything you scan in 4k is already 6k after unsqueezing to 2:35:1 from the 4k 1:37:1 data files. And then for 70mm you need atleast 14k, 2k more for compensating the additional height of the 70mm compared to 35mm, and the width will be naturally double.

So the theoretical resolution of any film source is very high and their is proof for that too. But then again one could say that some films are shot in a bad way, like Italian horror films would only give enlarged grain above 2k. And films like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Seven Samurai, Jaws, All Quiet on the Western Front or The Music Room theoretically don't survive in any form that has more than 4k Resolution on the negative. And films shot on 1:85:1 on 35mm have loss of detail from top and bottom. And 4k for the height of 1:85:1 films might be best to get all the detail in the neg. Like I don't think E.T will look any better than the current 6k Scan. And then there are dupes and opticals.

But then again in a way Super 35mm is only 2k then if you claim 35mm is 4k, but we have seen how great 4k Scans from Super 35mm look. And The Godfather Part 1 and 2 had less than 2k level of detail on the negative but looks so much better with 4K. So maybe a 35mm has 6k Level of detail or maybe not. But we can see that the higher the scan higher the quality of the transfer. And anamorphic and Vista Vision are obviously more detailed than normal full frame 35mm. So yes some 35mm films can benefit from even 8k. Like I would love to see an 8k Scan of Wong Kar Wai's 2046. But that doesn't mean I'd want 8k or even 6k for say Days of Being Wild or As tears go by as 4k is all there would be on the neg.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Scholer

... And we didn't even come to consider films shot in anamorphic, which has atleast double the detail of 35mm. And also Vista Vision. So they need atleast 12k Scans for all the detail. In anamorphic anything you scan in 4k is already 6k after unsqueezing to 2:35:1 from the 4k 1:37:1 data files. And then for 70mm you need atleast 14k, 2k more for compensating the additional height of the 70mm compared to 35mm, and the width will be naturally double ..... But then again one could say that some films are shot in a bad way, like Italian horror films would only give enlarged grain above 2k. ... But then again in a way Super 35mm is only 2k then if you claim 35mm is 4k, but we have seen how great 4k Scans from Super 35mm look.

...

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by 42041

...

[42041]

Originally Posted by Scholer

just marveling at how much nonsense you've managed to cram into a few short sentences

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by 42041

just marveling at how much nonsense you've managed to cram into a few short sentences

+1.

[DoubleGulpShrimp]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I like shrimp. For the source, go here… https://forum.blu-ray.com/misc.php?d...=vB_Editor_001 and scroll down the list on the right to about the middle where you’ll find this unassuming masked man

For the comprehensive link with an explanation as to the mastering and all the theatrical deliverables as well as all other digital masters even exact to the ftL - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...le#post7361454

Is that what this is all about. Imdb technical specs. Im sorry to say but thats just a misunderstanding. Like Iv said before there are multiple masters made for different reasons. Imdb for what ever reason will only talk about one master, the master they know about or the person who updated it talked about. As we all know spiderman 2002 had a 4k master yet IMDB information says Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format) (some scenes).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/...ef_=tt_dt_spec
Total Recall 2012 had a 4k master yet Imdb says Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/...ef_=tt_dt_spec
Imdb only talks about one kind of master that was used, not all of them. What I would need is official information. It is silly to think the hobbit is only 2k and many other movies for that matter. Not only that, the hobbit is going to be available in 4k with the red-ray player. The Hobbit is in 4k.

[42041]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

It is silly to think the hobbit is only 2k and many other movies for that matter. Not only that, the hobbit is going to be available in 4k with the red-ray player. The Hobbit is in 4k.

lol, wishful thinking isn't going to re-render the VFX. The post pipeline on The Hobbit was 2K.
And the original Spider-man that "we all know had a 4K master" was actually a photochemical show with some (2K) digital effects.

[DoubleGulpShrimp]

Originally Posted by 42041

lol, wishful thinking isn't going to re-render the VFX. The post pipeline on The Hobbit was 2K.
And the original Spider-man that "we all know had a 4K master" was actually a photochemical show with some digital effects.

Its not wishful thinking, its what they did the first time.

[42041]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

Its not wishful thinking, its what happened.

According to whom?
Certainly not Weta, whose work on the film has been profiled in industry journals...

[DoubleGulpShrimp]

Update to what I said earlier post about there being a 4k hfr . There where no 4k Pipeline for 48fps for storage reasons, the fact that the projectors could not handle it, and they were multiplying rendering times. So if you saw it in HFR Imax it was 2k. But 24fps 4k is most likely going to be available to the public within the first year of the red ray release.
http://www.red.com/products/redray you can pre-order it now

[42041]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

So if you saw it in HFR Imax it was 2k.

Correct.
And if you saw it in 70mm IMAX, it was 2K.
And if you saw it on a 4K 2D 24fps projector, it was 2K.
Because that's the resolution of the finished film

[DoubleGulpShrimp]

Originally Posted by 42041

Correct.
And if you saw it in 70mm IMAX, it was 2K.
And if you saw it on a 4K 2D 24fps projector, it was 2K.
Because that's the resolution of the finished film

If your just going to claim things without evidence I'm just going to go. see ya guys.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

Is that what this is all about. Imdb technical specs....

Imdb doesn’t give out such comprehensive technical information as posted. Everything I posted came from the man primarily in charge of the post production on The Hobbit…no imdb, no website, etc. In fact, that should be readily self-evident and appreciated by anyone familiar with these types of things.

Now, I can ask and see if any ‘official’ filmmaker involved in the project has given an ‘official’ interview on some ‘official’ website that delineates their post process to prove that the footage only went through a 2K DI and hopefully get an answer with an ‘official’ link back to you on Monday or perhaps Tuesday, if such an interview exists and the staff remembers it, even though all the various masters I listed for you are 2K DI conforms. But please show a bit more courtesy because you are dealing with people (42041 and myself) who have a long (years-worth) track record of providing accurate information.

[DoubleGulpShrimp]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Imdb doesn’t give out such comprehensive technical information as posted. Everything I posted came from the man primarily in charge of the post production on The Hobbit…no imdb, no website, etc. In fact, that should be readily self-evident and appreciated by anyone familiar with these types of things.

Now, I can ask and see if any ‘official’ filmmaker involved in the project has given an ‘official’ interview on some ‘official’ website that delineates their post process to prove that the footage only went through a 2K DI and hopefully get an answer with an ‘official’ link back to you on Monday or perhaps Tuesday, if such an interview exists and the staff remembers it, even though all the various masters I listed for you are 2K DI conforms. But please show a bit more courtesy because you are dealing with people (42041 and myself) who have a long (years-worth) track record of providing accurate information.

Sounds good.