4K Movies Releases

[Geoff D]

I saw that petition on the nofilmschool site, and while it's admirable I can't help but think that there are more pressing TV issues for people to be getting worked up over, like the undefeatable DNR that too many manufacturers are putting into their TVs.

Besides, squinky motion is the tip of the iceberg as far as TV adjustments are concerned. There are so many PQ settings and various "enhancers" on modern displays that even if motion interpolation was disabled completely there'd still be a myriad of options turned on that'd ruin the "filmmaker's intentions" quicker than a bullet. And as we've already said, most folks would run a mile from a properly calibrated picture anyway.

Heck, I do occasionally use motion interpolation because certain movies shot on digital weren't too concerned about emulating a film-like 'look' (especially in the mid-noughties) so the motion blur is more video-like (wider shutter angle, I'm guessing?). It seems to give the motion interpolation something to 'hang on' to, if that makes sense, and it really does look smoother and sharper with a minimum of processing artefacts. Mann's Miami Vice is one that springs to mind.

And recent Sony sets have an Impulse setting which AFAIK is purely backlight blinking with no interpolation and it looks fabulous with 50/60i content.

[ramicio]

A person that has no idea what any of this technology is, isn't going to notice if certain settings like motion interpolation are on and off unless they are told what to see (much like audiophile reviews talking up how very expensive and sponsored products sound, using nonsense words to describe the sound). A person that likes movies that much is going to know what these settings do and have their TV adjusted properly.

[Geoff D]

Yeah, I know some people are that dedicated that they'd want to know about this and that and whatever. But if I seem overly cynical about it it's because I was in retail for far too long and believe me, if people weren't getting overly bright, overly sharp, overly colourful and grain-free TV picture 'quality' which moved like a soap opera then they'd think they were being shortchanged. It's ironic really, it always seemed as if the more a customer spent on their TV, the less idea they had about what constituted good (or rather accurate) PQ and the less receptive they were to being told as such.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, I know some people are that dedicated that they'd want to know about this and that and whatever. But if I seem overly cynical about it it's because I was in retail for far too long and believe me, if people weren't getting overly bright, overly sharp, overly colourful and grain-free TV picture 'quality' which moved like a soap opera then they'd think they were being shortchanged. It's ironic really, it always seemed as if the more a customer spent on their TV, the less idea they had about what constituted good (or rather accurate) PQ and the less receptive they were to being told as such.

It is one of life's mysteries to me. My uncle recently bought a tv and I noticed he had the 'soap opera' effect switched on. Despite watching TV on his old sets for countless decades he didn't know what I was talking about! How can you not see that? Lol.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It is one of life's mysteries to me. My uncle recently bought a tv and I noticed he had the 'soap opera' effect switched on. Despite watching TV on his old sets for countless decades he didn't know what I was talking about! How can you not see that? Lol.

I’m not really sure if some people are truly more insensitive to its appearance as compared to other viewers or, if it’s just that they accept it as that’s the way the content is supposed to look.

P.S.
If one doesn’t scroll down, this is the strangest headline of the day - http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...rilling-finish

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...And as we've already said, most folks would run a mile from a properly calibrated picture anyway.

For those not following, for context, see “Creating a Look that Sells”.... https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...al#post9934339

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I saw that petition on the nofilmschool site, and while it's admirable I can't help but think that there are more pressing TV issues for people to be getting worked up over, like the undefeatable DNR....

That’s the 2nd time I’ve heard that term used (first time by lyris (David M. about the LG 9300 OLED in a reply to a question I posed about ABL) used for displays rather than sports teams (e.g. the Arsenal 2003/2004 team, the 1972 Miami Dolphins)…. lol, I get this picture in my mind of the consumer duking it out with the TV….



Anyway, this should be a good future test for how true your Blu-ray deliverable and home viewing device is with regards to replicating the theatrical presentation of a recent motion picture. Go see The Judge (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1872194/ ) as it is film acquisition and has good texture. Keep that theatrical appearance in your memory banks for when you eventually view the home deliverable.

[Geoff D]

I do that anyway with everything that I see in the cinema.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I do that anyway with everything that I see in the cinema.

Well, in replying to you, I was also speaking to the populace-at-large for I realize that not everyone has the memory that Wendell or you do …https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...fx#post9218707

The Judge heads-up can serve as an easy to remember current visual reference data point for those who are newer to the topic of grain and possible DNR related to its home delivery or exhibition.

Weekly planner reminder:
Tuesday: Election Day – get out and vote!....even to vote for an Independent if you are apathetic to the Dems/Republicans. It’s not just a right but, a responsibility.
Wednesday – Interstellar, fresh release print.

[Penton-Man]

Friday reminder…

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

without further ado…..
http://www.onanysundayfilm.com/?medi...w&gclsrc=aw.ds

Shot with a 4K camera and received a Dolby Atmos mix (scroll down from the image of earth from space) – http://www.dolby.com/us/en/index.html

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Wednesday – Interstellar, fresh release print.

^ Local theater (35mm showing) exhibited a fuzzy image….now I know what it’s like to endure 20/30 (or worse, e.g. 20/30-2) visual acuity.

[saprano]

So I saw Interstellar yesterday and just got back from seeing it again today. The first time I saw it I wasn't amazed at the PQ like I was when I first saw TDK back in 2008. I thought maby I had become jaded by 70mm and IMAX. Plus, the print had dirt crawling over the screen in a few scenes in 35mm. Not alot, just tiny amounts but noticeable. The 35mm scenes were nothing amazing either. I was thinking to myself what's going on? Did they do a crappy job with the DMR???? This was at the regal theater in New Rochelle.


So today I go to the AMC theater in Manhattan to see it and as soon I walk into the theater i noticed how HUGE the screen was. The theater i first saw it at changed their screen to F'n liemax. But i didn't even notice. The AMC theater also had a much better print with no dirt. It was clean, sharp and bright with insane resolution and detail just how i remember 70mm being. The 35mm scenes were crisp too. Almost just as good as the 70mm scenes. Now i was blown away.

The New Rochelle theater always had a true IMAX screen. You're telling me theaters actually downgrade the screen??????? Why?????? Never going there again to see anything in IMAX. AMC in NYC is my main theater now.

And why isn't there any QC with film prints? AMC in NYC print was night and day better than the regal theater. Damn man.

[Penton-Man]

Late Thursday reminder -

I believe this may be the last night to catch Saw (2004) the 10th Anniversary…http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi8957721 , so, for those having interest, act fast as time’s running out…http://www.fandango.com/saw10thanniv...404/movietimes . The theatrical cinema deliverable is a….

4K DCP
Image Format: 3996x2160 (flat)
File Size: 137GB
Audio Format: 5.1

This flick was shot on celluloid, as were the rest of these – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=218262

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Interstellar

I liked Murphy’s and Cooper’s dedication to love and science.

[saprano]

Yeah I thought the movie was great. Obviously some don't like it and are calling it another Nolan overhype. Whatever. I think it helps to enjoy it more if you have a love for all things science and space. This is pretty cool-

http://www.businessinsider.com/inter...covery-2014-11



Seeing it again next weekend. I plan to see it as much as I can in IMAX before it leaves theaters. It's not everyday we get a Nolan film in 70mm. There might not even be any by the time he makes his next movie. Gotta enjoy this.

[saprano]

For the Love of Film – Interstellar IMAX® Featurette - YouTube

I love how they talk about the quality of IMAX and film and preserving Nolan's vision but go on to still reduce the quality of their original screen size.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by saprano

So I saw Interstellar yesterday and just got back from seeing it again today. The first time I saw it I wasn't amazed at the PQ like I was when I first saw TDK back in 2008. I thought maby I had become jaded by 70mm and IMAX. Plus, the print had dirt crawling over the screen in a few scenes in 35mm. Not alot, just tiny amounts but noticeable. The 35mm scenes were nothing amazing either. I was thinking to myself what's going on? Did they do a crappy job with the DMR???? This was at the regal theater in New Rochelle.


So today I go to the AMC theater in Manhattan to see it and as soon I walk into the theater i noticed how HUGE the screen was. The theater i first saw it at changed their screen to F'n liemax. But i didn't even notice. The AMC theater also had a much better print with no dirt. It was clean, sharp and bright with insane resolution and detail just how i remember 70mm being. The 35mm scenes were crisp too. Almost just as good as the 70mm scenes. Now i was blown away.

The New Rochelle theater always had a true IMAX screen. You're telling me theaters actually downgrade the screen??????? Why?????? Never going there again to see anything in IMAX. AMC in NYC is my main theater now.

And why isn't there any QC with film prints? AMC in NYC print was night and day better than the regal theater. Damn man.

It's possible that the film projectors they had in storage were simply very dirty, and the first time that they ran Interstellar through the projectors, the film print picked up dust and/or got damaged from whatever gunk had collected inside for years.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

Seeing it again next weekend. I plan to see it as much as I can in IMAX before it leaves theaters. It's not everyday we get a Nolan film in 70mm.

In a sense, home theater movie enthusiasts try to replicate the IMAX experience by viewing content which more closely matches the capability of our human visual system (meaning from the cornea thru the retina to our cerebral cortex, which in the average demographic (exempting the very young and the elderly) is better than the ability to see up to 1 min. of arc (commonly known to laypersons as ‘20/20’ vision) and….striving to replicate that IMAX immersive experience by choosing size.

To some consumers, the nirvana of TVs would be the Sony BVM-E250A (24.5” OLED) which lists around $26,000 or the upcoming 30” Sony 4K OLED (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...20#post9910402 ) which are undoubtedly great monitors; however, their primary function is not for showing high quality video, but rather, they are designed as critical reference tools to evaluate and measure color and artifacts.

Directors make their feature movies with the primary intent that people see them on the BIG screen, not a small monitor. I always tell my neighbors who love movies but dread going out to commercial movie theaters these days is to buy as big as they can afford and fit into their room.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...Saw (2004) the 10th Anniversary…http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi8957721 , so, for those having interest, act fast as time’s running out…http://www.fandango.com/saw10thanniv...404/movietimes . The theatrical cinema deliverable is a….

4K DCP
Image Format: 3996x2160 (flat)
File Size: 137GB
Audio Format: 5.1

This flick was shot on celluloid, as were the rest of these – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=218262

Every time I nominate a title to L'armée’s 4K list, which I believe now totals over 400 movies, I feel sorry for Goofy’s more humble list of 4K masters arising from digital acquisition…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=220755 . Ergo, with that in mind, in due course we’ll be able to add Annie (2014)…. http://www.annie-movie.com/site/ to Goofy’s digital list.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...which in the average demographic (exempting the very young and the elderly) is better than the ability to see up to 1 min. of arc (commonly known to laypersons as ‘20/20’ vision)

For those (apparently like this old timer - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...20#post9986416) who continue to not understand the concept that we see better than ‘20/20’ vision (which is 1 arc minute of visual acuity and which some video engineers enjoy basing their mathematical models and viewing charts upon….inaccurately) and struggle with studies funded by the National Eye Institute testing for Vernier acuity, e.g. showing that the threshold for the tested adults came in at around 10–15 arc seconds (which is much better than one arc minute)…. http://optometry.osu.edu/research/Vi...62-230-243.pdf

Don’t struggle with the concept of hyperacuity , simply the next time you go in for a routine eye exam to your local qualified optometrist, after questioning him/her about such things, he should be able to confirm to you that….“contrary to popular belief, 20/20 is not actually normal or average, let alone perfect, acuity. Snellen, he says, established it is a reference standard. Normal acuity in healthy adults is one or two lines better. Average acuity in a population sample does not drop to the 20/20 level until age 60 or 70. This explains the existence of the two lines smaller than 20/20: 20/15 and 20/10.” – http://lowvision.preventblindness.or...ty-is-measured

Even if he/she can’t quote, off hand, any of the studies that have documented it….