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

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Scholer

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.

The Evil Dead also supports this, scanned at 4k and destroys most 35mm films including its sequel

[42041]

The Evil Dead was done at 2K, according to the colorist who posted on AVS.
And as one can see on both discs, the 16mm negative is at the limits of its resolving power at 1080p.

[Brightstar]

All the james bond movies where scanned at 4k

[Geoff D]

Nope. 9 of them were done at 4K, the rest (pre-Craig) used 2K or existing HD masters.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nope. 9 of them were done at 4K, the rest (pre-Craig) used 2K or existing HD masters.

Pretty sure the work was done at 2k on them also

[yojoeski]

Wasn't Seven Samurai scanned at 4K as well?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by yojoeski

Wasn't Seven Samurai scanned at 4K as well?

Criterion?

[42041]

Originally Posted by yojoeski

Wasn't Seven Samurai scanned at 4K as well?

"The original negative of the film is no longer available, so a duplicate negative was created from the original fine-grain master positive using wetgate processing. This high-definition digital transfer was then created in 2K resolution on a Spirit Datacine from the dupe. For the extensive restoration of Seven Samurai, several different digital hardware and software solutions were utilized to address flicker, instability, dirt, scratches, and grain management, including da Vinci's Revival, Discreet Fire, Digital Vision's ASCIII Advanced Scratch and Dirt Concealer, MTI's DRS, and Pixel Farm's PFClean."

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Scholer

Well whatever you noted is really in serious doubt now.

Play the first 27 sec. of this clip and for the phrase ‘see the picture’ simply substitute the words ‘read Penton’s post’…http://vimeo.com/62226526#

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Scholer

So the theoretical resolution of any film source is very high and their is proof for that too....

‘Proof’ is in testing, and as the professional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._David_Mullen cinematographer (seems you like DPs based on your prior posts) whose expertise is film and digital acquisition stated.…“Many tests of 35mm movie film show something like 3.5K measurable resolution (which means that it needs to be scanned at somewhat higher resolution, hence why you hear figures like 4K and even 6K as optimal scanning resolutions.”
http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/...7&t=1823#p9359

Or, ‘proof’ specifically like the ITU testing (which I previously linked) stated in the materials and methods that they used Panavision primes for the test charts, an international group of test monitors and a microdensitometer from Sine Patterns for the best case scenario Kodak negative stock.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

the professional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._David_Mullen cinematographer

If you’ve got good eyes you can find him working here in this clip….

Camera Assessment Series - YouTube

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DoubleGulpShrimp

Sounds good.

Shrimp, keep in mind I normally don’t do this sort of thing, but in your case I’ll make an exception to emphasize another point. I received an early reply (time zone difference). The correspondence is copied and pasted as follows with the only modification being that I substituted xxxx for my name, because I, while posting on this forum, similarly to this Insider ( https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ous#post645357 ) prefer to remain anonymous.

Anyway, the e-mail which contains the link pertinent to your query…

Hi xxxx,

How you doing? Back to riding in the hills with your coyote? Alert your questioner to read this article which mentions that Hobbit was done at 2K and there was no DI at 4K but many dedicated team members were involved in the DI process with 3 distinctly tasked DI groups for stereo, grading and online. On another supplemental note the frame blending tests mentioned in this interview for the magazine may not be entirely clear to your readers where it relates to the DI. Fact is some motion estimation was used on some of the A frame disentangling to achieve the best look for the 24fps version- - as you predicted.
http://www.definitionmagazine.com/jo...rame-game.html

Take care.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

and another...

Django Unchained(2012)

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

Hi there Penton (et. al.)!

Very interesting thread! Thanks for keeping it green as they say in the future of Luc Besson's visioning.

I'm merely at the consumer end (and have the belly fat to prove it), so when I see a number I understand I'm all over it! And disk space is something I get -- but never have enough of, ha! ha! ha!... :| ummm -- and it raises a question for me.

I've read several claims here (or in similar threads I've bounced through) that 4K native generally is NOT being projected on 4K projectors -- it's 2K upconverted. I totally get that effects and post are major factors -- such as with The Hobbit -- for producing 2K masters. You guys have totally explained that (thanks!) so that's not where my question lies.

I'm curious about films that do have 4K masters and even are delivered as 4K DCPs to theaters. Why are those still being projected at 2K resolution on 4K projectors? (Assuming I understood previous claims correctly, of course.) What's the limiting factor in the hardware/software stream?

I can kind of infer from a file size of only 300GBs (yep, I said "only"!) that we're not pushing the limits of modern computing by any means. Sure, that's a big file, but it easily fits on a cheap HDD. (Seems to me that this eliminates cost as a factors for the studio sending only a 2K DCP when they have a 4K master.) And any modern computer -- I'd bet even some phones! -- can decode that file without skipping a beat. Heck, it could even be streamed over ethernet without worries. Even a few years ago, when Sony did their big 4K push for theaters, those numbers wouldn't scare a scared Hobbit.

So why aren't theaters showing us 4K when they have it? Or why aren't studios shipping 4K when they have it? Or did I misunderstand completely?

Thanks much!

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

and another...

Django Unchained(2012)

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

Originally Posted by joliefan

8k for IMAX SHOTS

Looks like blu ray will be the last format

Really? I actually came to the opposite conclusion from that info!

Now I do understand that, economically, culturally, perceptually, ecumenically, Blu-ray may certainly be the last "physical format" for movies. But I mean in terms of technology. The cited ~300GB number actually struck me as small or, better yet, totally doable (ahem) for physical media.

About 10 years ago, I started capping (non-) and recording (5Ced) HDTV via firewire. HBO's broadcast of Star Wars Episode II, which barfed macro all over my screen, came in at 9GB. But other caps were as hefty as 20GB (HDNet Movies' Open Range!!), sans barfing. At that time, I was buying $110.00 200GB HDDs (the space/price sweet spot) as fast as my wife would allow, fitting 10 or so movies per drive. Archiving to DVD took 4 to 8 discs, and a head-scratching amount of patience.

Penton's figures -- for high quality 4K delivery -- are very comparable in today's terms. Right now, I see the sweet spot at $120.00 for 3TB HDDs. That nails 10 movies right there -- and it would take about 6 BD-REs to archive! Of course, I'm less patient today, and I just buy a second HDD for archives.

So I don't see a technological reason to believe Blu-ray is the end of the road for physical media (other concerns aside). And heck, just wait till people start trying to stream 4K over the Internet -- now that is where we're really beyond today's technological capabilities!

-Pie

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Really? I actually came to the opposite conclusion from that info!

Now I do understand that, economically, culturally, perceptually, ecumenically, Blu-ray may certainly be the last "physical format" for movies. But I mean in terms of technology. The cited ~300GB number actually struck me as small or, better yet, totally doable (ahem) for physical media.

About 10 years ago, I started capping (non-) and recording (5Ced) HDTV via firewire. HBO's broadcast of Star Wars Episode II, which barfed macro all over my screen, came in at 9GB. But other caps were as hefty as 20GB (HDNet Movies' Open Range!!), sans barfing. At that time, I was buying $110.00 200GB HDDs (the space/price sweet spot) as fast as my wife would allow, fitting 10 or so movies per drive. Archiving to DVD took 4 to 8 discs, and a head-scratching amount of patience.

Penton's figures -- for high quality 4K delivery -- are very comparable in today's terms. Right now, I see the sweet spot at $120.00 for 3TB HDDs. That nails 10 movies right there -- and it would take about 6 BD-REs to archive! Of course, I'm less patient today, and I just buy a second HDD for archives.

So I don't see a technological reason to believe Blu-ray is the end of the road for physical media (other concerns aside). And heck, just wait till people start trying to stream 4K over the Internet -- now that is where we're really beyond today's technological capabilities!

-Pie

Today's broudband is not fast enough but one day yes. I still think alot of people are happy with blu ray and will be for a very long time

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Hi there Penton (et. al.)!

-Pie

Pie! Sometimes I think about longtime members like you whom I haven’t seen active on this forum for awhile (at least the threads I read) and I sadly wonder if they’ve passed before *their time* (like for instance Kosty) and we here in our little internet world of Blu-ray.com have just never heard about it.

Anyway, good to see you ….as that’s the real important thing. I would really like to also see other old members (Jim in San Diego, doctorossi, OliverK, etc., too many names to remember) drop by and at least say ‘Hi’ so we know they’re alive and still kicking.

P.S.
I’ll have you know my coyote eats pie…and ice cream ( prefers Haagen-Dazs to my wife’s displeasure – long story, Penton got chewed out by his better half for *requisitioning* some Haagen-Dazs from our freezer to feed said coyote the day before we had a dinner party with several guests).

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

So why aren't theaters showing us 4K when they have it? Or why aren't studios shipping 4K when they have it? Or did I misunderstand completely?

Thanks much!

-Pie

Well, contrary to uninformed opinion, some of your local commercial theaters are (projecting 4K DCPs)….and have been for awhile. Take a look starting here - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...10#post7528214 as all I would change/edit in that recent past post I made about the topic is that instead of Europe…substitute the word Finland to be more precise.

Take note, all the DCP specs I’ve posted so far on that Blu-ray tech thread ^ as well as this thread are 4K DCPs which have been delivered to local commercial theaters….not for some exclusive industry showing.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

...I've read several claims here (or in similar threads I've bounced through) that 4K native generally is NOT being projected on 4K projectors -- it's 2K upconverted.
Thanks much!

-Pie

“Generally” would be a very fair statement but to say that 4K DCP delivery and projection by local commercial theaters hasn’t been happening or is incapable of happening at the present time because of the lack of a distribution system is not true/correct.

Another example which I don’t think I’ve listed yet is that of last year’s The Dark Knight Rises (2012) of which there was a D-Cinema 4K DCP deliverable (4096 x 1716 (2.39) 302GB) available to local commercial theaters….and which some theaters projected.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

...I'm curious about films that do have 4K masters and even are delivered as 4K DCPs to theaters. Why are those still being projected at 2K resolution on 4K projectors?
Thanks much!

-Pie

There are about 20,000 4K digital projectors which are installed. The majority of those being in the U.S. Of those 20,000, about 13 – 14,000 are from a certain manufacturer. These are configured for 3D with a dual lens, which results in a 2K projection. In order to get 4K projection, you have to change the lens. This process (in its entirety) has proven too cumbersome for just about all theater operators to implement…not to mention the fact that some theater auditoriums only have the 2K 3D lens system in the first place and use it for everything.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

There are about 20,000 4K digital projectors which are installed. The majority of those being in the U.S. Of those 20,000, about 13 – 14,000 are from a certain manufacturer. These are configured for 3D with a dual lens, which results in a 2K projection. In order to get 4K projection, you have to change the lens. This process (in its entirety) has proven too cumbersome for just about all theater operators to implement…not to mention the fact that some theater auditoriums only have the 2K 3D lens system in the first place and use it for everything.

So, how does this D-Cinema stuff translate to home theater folks? Well, it means (if not overly compressed with either AVC or future HEVC codec), that home media 4K versions of Blu-ray movies, such as listed here in italics - http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/7/419...k-media-player stand a much greater chance for displaying a higher resolved picture (i.e. true 4K, if you will) on your new 4K tv at home than did the version theatrical audiences viewed at their local cinema…..odds are.

So, if for instance, last October you missed the special event showing of the Lawrence of Arabia restoration (DCP 4K Dolby 5.1, two parts on one disc) at your local *4K theater with its 4K projector*, odds are if that title makes it to the puck as a 4K home media version, you’ll be getting a sharper image (in terms of pure resolution) than was exhibited at most theatrical venues.