Resolutions of the Source vs Resolution of the Digital Intermediate

[s_har]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

So, what do you think about this, then?

4K DI = 4K resolution

[BluRayHiDef]

What is the difference between the negative format and the source of a movie?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

What is the difference between the negative format and the source of a movie?

The negative isn't always used as a source for the transfer, so it may not be relevant for a given release.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

The negative isn't always used as a source for the transfer, so it may not be relevant for a given release.

Tomb Raider's source is listed as Panavision (anamorphic). What does that mean? Does that not entail a resolution? It has a 4K DI, by the way.

[BluRayHiDef]

I've changed the designs.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

Tomb Raider's source is listed as Panavision (anamorphic). What does that mean? Does that not entail a resolution? It has a 4K DI, by the way.

It means it was shot on anamorphic (Cinemascope) 35mm film. The actual resolution of that exposed film will depend on many factors involved in the production, but it has the potential to contain a level of detail that only a 4K or 6K scan would be able to fully resolve. Thus, it would be considered by most to be (at least) a 4K source, though there probably won't be any footage that actually features literal 4K spatial resolution.

[SwaGGInTheShadows]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

I was just wondering whether or not it would be accurate to refer to a movie as real 4K if it was shot at a resolution below 4K or on a film width with an equivalent resolution below 4K but was finalized with a 4K or higher digital intermediate. What do you guys think?

What about movies that were shot at resolutions above 4K or on a film width with an equivalent resolution that is above 4K but were finalized with a digital intermediate that is below 4K? Can they be referred to as real 4K?

Cmon Son....i expected better than this from you...smh
Lol

Ps...replicants still aint humans hahahaha

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

Tomb Raider's source is listed as Panavision (anamorphic). What does that mean? Does that not entail a resolution? It has a 4K DI, by the way.

In movie terms anamorphic refers to a process which uses special lenses to squeeze a wider image into a taller frame, it's been a mainstay of movie making for, what, about 60-odd years. Might wanna do some reading on it.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It means it was shot on anamorphic (Cinemascope) 35mm film. The actual resolution of that exposed film will depend on many factors involved in the production, but it has the potential to contain a level of detail that only a 4K or 6K scan would be able to fully resolve. Thus, it would be considered by most to be (at least) a 4K source, though there probably won't be any footage that actually features literal 4K spatial resolution.

Very helpful. I'l list "35mm Film" as the source.

[nick4Knight]

This thread is peak cringe... And you are the reason the billionaires don't give a shit that they are destroying the environment for future generations with oil production and all the other atrocities plaguing our planet through unchecked capitalism.

Now you're trying to taint mah 4 Kays? No, no... no, no, no, no, no. Out. Off with thee head

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

Very helpful. I'l list "35mm Film" as the source.

Be careful with those source listings. There are various anamorphic processes these days (both for production and post-production) which involve digital cameras. If you see a listing that just says "anamorphic", it may only be referring to the theatrical release format and could, in fact, refer to a production that involved no film at all.

[imsounoriginal]

And IMDb is not always gospel, even after a film's release.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

And you are the reason the billionaires don't give a shit that they are destroying the environment for future generations with oil production and all the other atrocities plaguing our planet through unchecked capitalism.

Come on, now- more enthusiasm than education does not make him more of an ur-consumer than you or I.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

Very helpful. I'l list "35mm Film" as the source.

Tomb Raider was 100% digital. See below.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It means it was shot on anamorphic (Cinemascope) 35mm film. The actual resolution of that exposed film will depend on many factors involved in the production, but it has the potential to contain a level of detail that only a 4K or 6K scan would be able to fully resolve. Thus, it would be considered by most to be (at least) a 4K source, though there probably won't be any footage that actually features literal 4K spatial resolution.

Quick correction: anamorphic doesn't specifically refer to a film source, as any digital camera can be (and often is) used with classical 2x anamorphics just as long as the sensor is big enough to cover the image circle. Tomb Raider was shot on the Alexa for example, and although the specs list an Open Gate 3.4K acquisition that number is misleading because the traditional 2.39 extraction covers 2.8K's worth of width across the sensor, Arri's own paper on the OG mode makes this quite clear.

[imsounoriginal]

I think he means the old Angie one?

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Tomb Raider was 100% digital. See below.


Quick correction: anamorphic doesn't specifically refer to a film source, as any digital camera can be (and often is) used with classical 2x anamorphics just as long as the sensor is big enough to cover the image circle. Tomb Raider was shot on the Alexa for example, and although the specs list an Open Gate 3.4K acquisition that number is misleading because the traditional 2.39 extraction covers 2.8K's worth of width across the sensor, Arri's own paper on the OG mode makes this quite clear.

Screw it. I'm just leaving it as "Real 4K" for now. I'll change it tomorrow, though I don't know what to.

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

I've changed the designs.

[Show spoiler]

Just make your spacing and sizing more symmetrical/lined up. It's making me:



I had a lot to say about the topic, but it's tl;dr and ended up being about "native 4K" in video games too.

[SwaGGInTheShadows]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

Just make your spacing and sizing more symmetrical/lined up. It's making me:



I had a lot to say about the topic, but it's tl;dr and ended up being about "native 4K" in video games too.

Dont hold back now lol....

I mean we having this debate/discussion in summer 2018

[SwaGGInTheShadows]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Come on, now- more enthusiasm than education does not make him more of an ur-consumer than you or I.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhh

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

I'll change it tomorrow, though I don't know what to.

If I can make a suggestion, I recommend changing it to [nothing]. All this "Real 4K/Fake 4K" perspective is just muddying the waters of people looking at this material and questions of technical presentation potential in an educated and meaningful way. I know you're trying to provide people useful information to inform their choices, but I really don't think this real/fake metric helps at all- it's a distraction from looking at presentation quality in more useful ways.