4K Movies Releases

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Probably approving all my Data Base entry's I give him every weekend

Work 'em

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Have fun there!

Thanks.

We love San Diego. Although get-away time there remains bitter-sweet / because our beloved dog used to run with us on the beach…. http://coronadocommonsense.typepad.c...ches-list.html

^ Reminds me….Coronado…Seal Team Training on the same beach but just a little walk further south - http://www.ecoronado.com/video/coron...seals-training

Must therefore do a Captain Phillips plug/tie-in, since the flick is now in theaters.

P.S.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Acronyms ahoy!

Ahoy Geoff, here’s a new (I think) acronym for you….NSWDG. Do you know what that stands for.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Captain Phillips
D-Cinema deliverable spec -

4K DCP

Image Format: 4076x1716 (Scope)
Run Time: 2:13:53
File Size: 185 GB
Audio Format: 5.1

Make that 4096 ^ instead of 4076.

Anyway - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032619/#53266227

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Penton-Man, do flat movies (1.85 aspect ratio) in cinemas have 39 pixels on each side cropped when it's authored for Blu-ray, while scope movies (2.39) are rescaled to Full HD resolution?

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Why would they crop one but scale the other due to the aspect ratio? If either is finished at 2K they would both have to be reformatted to fit the spatial resolution of HD video, which is something that true 4K material will also have to contend with when it's translated to UHD, e.g. 4096 horizontal pixels must become 3840. My UHD set can accept a 4096x2160 image but it's bordered, natch, as the 1.89 ratio won't fit on a 1.78 screen at 1:1.

Some prefer to crop to keep the image as sharp as possible (this may be why new transfers often end up showing less information on the sides than previous ones) while others prefer to scale, which can lead to issues as Penton said.

It's been awhile since I've sat at a projection booth, so I don't know if digital projection on theaters still follows the practice of the projector lens/masking/curtains combination still covering a little of what's actually on the print, err... I mean now digital file which for film is ~5%, hence the diference between "Camera Aperture" specs and the "Projector Aperture" <-what's actually supposed to be projected, and on the groundglass markings on the camera, which for anamorphic projection is 0.690" x 0.825" and for flat projection is 0.446" x 0.825". (Take a look at a projector alignment test film frame )

But now things are digital. so everything could be pixel perfect. But I still think movie-makers and projection would still follow and use the practice of having a slight safety factor in shooting and projecting (for example I think even with a digital projector it still would be kind of hard to align everything properly at those sizes so the full rectangular light beam falls squarely exact between the rectangle formed by the theater's wall masking). But there could be some very precise and perfectionist people out there.

So the questions are 1: Do the projectors show every pixel in the 2160 x 4096 file or do they use a couple of % overscan mask, and 2: When the image is projected onto the white screen surrounded by the velvetian black rectangle mask material, is it fitted exactly to it, or is a couple of % of the light spilled over it, and do the people shooting the movie, transferring the files, take this into account.

When films were being scanned into 4K digital files in the Cineon/Kodak era, the scanning pitch was chosen to be 2µ, ~166pixels per mm, which covered ~24.6mm between the sprockets, sufficient to cover the 24mm projection extraction area of Super-35 (Panavision gives the S-35 Projection Extraction area width as 0.945"/24mm) plus a little extra. This 24mm intended to be projected width would then be recorded across only ~4000 pixels of the 4096 pixel file. The corresponding pixel height for 2.39 projection would be ~1666 pixels and for 1.85, 2160.

For non Super-35 films the Projection width is 0.825" (20.96mm) so scanning at 166pixels/mm gives the intended image width ~3500 pixels inside the 4096 file unless you had a scanner that was able to physically change the scanning pitch/optics before the scan. So that would be ~2540 pixels height for Academy, ~1890 for 1.85 and ~2900 for anamorphic movies. As you see none of this is a exact match to consumer 2160 x 3840 (or the half size 1080 x 1920) nor to a full 2160 x 4096 (or 3112 x 4096) file.

Now if someone knows more about this, like if nowadays they use variable zooms to fit each of the intended projected images to the scan file width optically before the scan is made, (which I think in the end might cause the archival nightmare of "What is the correct size of the original image for this movie file, is this one zoomed in or is it showing the Camera Aperture?" in the years to come); or if the system has changed and cinematographers/the production chain/projection now discard entirely the safety area of the "Camera Aperture" surrounding the intended "Projector Aperture" for digitally shot/digitally filed films that was used for a 100 years (and should still be being used with the remaining 35mm projection...).

Otherwise I think the 1.85 2160 x 4000 movies in their 2160 x 4096 digital frames are projected with a couple of % cropped off and likewise the 2.39 1666 x 4000 movies in their 1716 x 4096 letterboxed files (or 2160 x 4096 anamorphisized files). 4096 vs 4000 is ~2%, much less than the 5% 22mm vs 21mm / Camera vs Projector aperture 35mm film difference.


Now for consumer "2K" BD and "4K" SuperBD which are/will be only 1920/3840 pixels wide they either have to crop the width 4% from the 2000/4000 pixels or downscale 4% for Super-35 4K files. (For Academy/Sound/Anamorphic 1750/3500 wide scans it would be a 1.10 upscale street anyway)



This is what a 4% resize normally does to pixels and detail
full100%4K.jpg -> 96%resizefrom4Kto3840.jpg

Now just remember that SMPTE projection standard allows up to a 5% crop in projection from the Projector Aperture in actual practice.

1.85 -> 1.78 is 4%
2.39 -> 2.35 is 2%

(A couple of % crop variation preserving 100% of the digital file quality seems the best way.)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Ahoy Geoff, here’s a new (I think) acronym for you….NSWDG. Do you know what that stands for.

Nope, I don't have a Scooby Doo what that means. And I'm not gonna google it because that'll take all the fun out of it.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Or, to dovetail that ^ into the topic of making Blu-ray (8 bit, 4:2:0) better by introducing 4K Blu-ray, what do you guys think will provide more improved picture quality to 8 bit, 4:2:0, if you had to choose one…8 bit -> 10 bit or 4:2:0 -> 4:2:2?

More bits please, 'cause I hate banding with a vengeance.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Or, to dovetail that ^ into the topic of making Blu-ray (8 bit, 4:2:0) better by introducing 4K Blu-ray, what do you guys think will provide more improved picture quality to 8 bit, 4:2:0, if you had to choose one…8 bit -> 10 bit or 4:2:0 -> 4:2:2?

Rec. 2020 requires at least 10 bit so I would go with 10 bit. I seriously doubt 2020 and/or 10 bit makes it into the spec but you never know.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

It's been awhile...

Deci’s back and in full Professorial mode.
I like it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nope, I don't have a Scooby Doo what that means. And I'm not gonna google it because that'll take all the fun out of it.

It was a quick tie-in to ‘Ahoy’ and Captain Phillips.
NSWDG = http://www.devgru.org/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

More bits please, 'cause I hate banding with a vengeance.

You and Wendell make a good primary choice and dare I say could be on the panel next Monday at ~ 5:00 P.M. here - https://smpte.org/atc2013/symposium Namely -

3D, More Colors, High Frame Rates, Greater Dynamic Range - What Best Augments a 4K Display?
Michael Zink (VP Entertainment Technology Strategy & Technicolor, USA); Roland Vlaicu (Dolby Laboratories, Inc., USA); Chris Cookson (Sony Pictures Entertainment, USA); Dean Lyon (Splinter Studios, USA)

This session explores the value proposition of adding 3D, wide color gamut, high frame rate or wide dynamic range to a 4K/UHD display. Can TVs add all these features? Can broadcast and film production support it? What do content creators, exhibitors, broadcasters, distribution partners, TV makers, and consumers want? What will each constituency pay for?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Rec. 2020 requires at least 10 bit so I would go with 10 bit. I seriously doubt 2020 and/or 10 bit makes it into the spec but you never know.

Rec.2020 involves quite a bit more than upp-ing dee bits…which is why I placed it further on down the augmentation roadmap - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...hd#post8233176

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As an aside, few people know how/why 12 bits per color was chosen for the DCS Spec (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...cs#post8134717 )

For a glimpse into that, see around page 9….
http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/DCI%20...cs%20final.pdf

Anyone know how many (percentage-wise) viewers in that study could differentiate 8 bits, 10 bits, 11 bits and 12 bit samples? Any guesses?

No takers? I’ll give it awhile. Not to worry, if anyone guesses wrong they won’t be keelhauled.

It’s simply a fact-revealing exercise.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

revealing

Decision-makers are wrestling with what colorimetry to use with 4K (UHDTV) as we speak. It aint easy as there is pull in different directions.

TV manufacturers are suggesting B.T. 709
ITU is suggesting BT. 2020 (Wendell’s fave)
Hollywood studios are suggesting the XYZ color space.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Best Augments...

For those less technically inclined readers, I’ll try to make one of my next posts about augmentation for aesthetic purposes and not include so much technical gibberish.

Will have to wait though for when I’ve got more time to search for some illustrative pics.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Rec. 2020 requires...

120, 60, 60/1.001, 50, 30, 30/1.001, 25, 24, 24/1.001
Big debate amongst the decision-makers as to whether to add the frame frequency 100 Hz to the spec with an amendment.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

For those less technically inclined readers, I’ll try to make one of my next posts about augmentation for aesthetic purposes and not include so much technical gibberish.

I'm thinking of you Steed . For it will also include a tie-in to the World Cup. Just don't have the time right now to track down or produce pictures.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

As an aside, few people know how/why 12 bits per color was chosen for the DCS Spec (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...cs#post8134717 )

For a glimpse into that, see around page 9….
http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/DCI%20...cs%20final.pdf

Anyone know how many (percentage-wise) viewers in that study could differentiate 8 bits, 10 bits, 11 bits and 12 bit samples?

Findings (but not revealed in the linked pdf)

All observers could see 8 bits
Almost all observers could see steps at 10 bits
Some observers (40%) could see steps at 11 bits
Only 1% of observers could see steps at 12 bits.

Ergo, 12 bits should cover all humans and thusly was chosen.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I'm thinking of you Steed . For it will also include a tie-in to the World Cup. Just don't have the time right now to track down or produce pictures.

Yep, I am strictly a consumer of all this goodness. Trying to pick up as much as I can though. Obviously I don't understand enough to offer counter arguments or even agree with anyone at this stage

What I will say is that I am not a can of HFR. I like my blur.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

What I will say is that I am not a can of HFR. I like my blur.

Keep in mind, you like your blur for movies (and nothing wrong with that) but I think you would prefer HFR for soccer and other sports. You have to understand that all other things being equal, going from 1080p at 50 or 60fps to 1080p at 100 or 120fps would show a sharper overall picture quality to the match than simply increasing spatial resolution from 1080p -> 4K. And many industry folks believe sports will drive 4K TV adoption. For the very reason of live broadcast football, soccer and other similar sports with moving people and objects, the ITU included HFR in the Rec. 2020.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And many industry folks believe sports will drive 4K TV adoption. For the very reason of live broadcast football, soccer and other similar sports with moving people and objects, the ITU included HFR in the Rec. 2020.

Didn't they also think that with 3D?

Will we see a failed ESPN-4K a few years from now too?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yep, I am strictly a consumer of all this goodness. Trying to pick up as much as I can though. Obviously I don't understand enough to offer counter arguments or even agree with anyone at this stage

There are many forms of augmentation and you know we here on this thread appeal to a broad range of interests….http://acidcow.com/girls/10660-laris...an-4-pics.html

Here’s hoping the 2014 FIFA World Cup’s 4K is well augmented.