Will We Ever Have "Filmic" Home Video Tech?

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

They are going from OCN to Interpositive to Internegative to Print which has a spatial resolution about equal to a well done DVD.

Nonsense.

[Pagey123]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That might make it sound like it's the same visible chroma resolution across all of those formats. It's not, in case anyone was wondering. 4:2:0 is basically a quarter of the available luminance resolution, so on DVD we got chroma of effective 360x240 resolution (which is why CUE was so pronounced i.e. you needed good processing for colour to not look like a jaggy mess), for BD it's 960x540, for UHD it's 1920x1080. The latter is important because we're finally getting decent chroma resolution with UHD and it makes all the difference in areas of high saturation, particularly red and blue which tend to suffer most in YCbCr. It applies to UHD upscales just as much as it does to native 4K content too, as it's argued by some that we're essentially seeing the chroma resolution of the actual 2K master in the upscaled UHD.

That's a great, valid point, Geoff. I didn't consider the "upscaling" component of the argument. It does, however, make sense that, overall, even though we're still seeing only 25% of the chroma, in a large enough overall resolution/pixel space, we're seeing "more". I worded that horribly, but I know what you are saying.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Nonsense.

See PDF I posted on previous page - Section 5

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Nope - no stretch. No where's near the resolution of a BD:

http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_re...on_english.pdf

Go down to Section 5.



Film preserves the dynamic range taken on the OCN by the use of it's high color space and grayscale. Keep in mind that the film itself deteriorates each time it is run through a projector. That along with 35mm projectors inability hold the frame against the gate uniformly. Only an IMAX projector can do that.

You have to have an apples to apples comparison meaning you can't compare a 65" FPD or 120" HT to a 30 foot screen.

The gamma on a print is so high - as is necessary to maintain any semblance of black level when light is being blasted through it - that it wipes out shadow detail, and successive contact printing builds up contrast at the other end of the scale which takes out the highlights. So yeah, typical 4th gen prints really don't have the dynamic range that the OG negative does. But were we ever meant to see what was on the negative? Discuss.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The gamma on a print is so high - as is necessary to maintain any semblance of black level when light is being blasted through it - that it wipes out shadow detail, and successive contact printing builds up contrast at the other end of the scale which takes out the highlights. So yeah, typical 4th gen prints really don't have the dynamic range that the OG negative does.

Are you taking into account Show Prints? These were very popular in large cities (NY & LA) in large theaters.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Are you taking into account Show Prints? These were very popular in large cities (NY & LA) in large theaters.

That's why I made the qualifier of a "typical 4th gen print", as showprints should have a bit less of that contrast build-up BUT will still have the very high gamma inherent to print stock. Most people would've seen a regular print anyway though.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Pagey123

I know there's a rule for this...if you ask a question in a headline, lol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better...w_of_headlines). However, the "law" notwithstanding, I wanted to pose this question to my fellow BR forum members: do you feel that we will ever have a home video/presentation technology that will product what YOU consider to be a truly "filmic" experience? It can be any one single technology or a combination of technology (e.g., better analog to digital codecs combined with advances in home projection and display tech).

Also, what do you, personally, consider a "filmic" presentation to be? E.g., I have watched both the DNR and non-DNR UHD versions of Project 4K77. I would, personally, consider the non-DNR version to be very "filmic". However, others might argue that the presentation is still not filmic because of, say, contrast issues, color issues, projection vs. a software media player on an LCD-based display tech, etc.

I realize opinions are going to vary wildly, and I hope everyone remains as civil as possible. I want to say, up front, that I did not ask this question for the purpose of provoking controversy. I am just genuinely curious if, for YOU personally, there will ever be a home video format (it will likely have to remain a digital format) that so closely approximates film you say "good enough for me!"

JVC D-ILA and Sony SXRD front projection projected onto a Stewart ST100 screen (with a well mastered, well encoded analog film sourced BD or UHD BD), in the proper room, is the closest I have seen to a 35mm film print being projected. It can come shockingly close in these circumstances, but has to be seen to be believed. My calibrator told me this for years before I went front projection and I thought he was full of it. Well, he was right and I was wrong.

[Spartan21]

To me, filmic means an image with the natural film grain it is supposed to have. You take away the film grain, you take away the filmic look (which means you take away the fine detail). Unfortunately, some movie studios who release movies on disc don't understand that. They think removing the film grain will make the picture look better, while in reality it looks terrible, digital.

[Pagey123]

Thank you, HeavyHitter. I'd love to experience a "film" with that particular set up!

[movieeddie]

I was theater projectionist for over 20yrs and the closest I feel to filmic at home is my 65zt Panasonic Plasma display.I own a 4k and my main film viewing is allways the plasma.It just looks more filmic for me.I still prefer a widescreen film presentation and I catch as many as I can in the theatre when shown on film and I can allso live with a nice Imax /Dolby presentation but for home my panny still looks amzing to my eyes.My 2 cents worth.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Pagey123

Thank you, HeavyHitter. I'd love to experience a "film" with that particular set up!

I've been in home theater since 1999. I went FP about six years ago making a dedicated room for it. I cannot tell you how awesome it's been and how it took this hobby to new heights for me. I highly recommend it, but the right room is really crucial and best for the full experience. If you ever do it, I also highly recommend a scope screen assuming movies are your priority. Not seeing black bars and just pure image really gives a new appreciation for 2:35/2.4 and CIH.

screen2.jpg

[Pagey123]

I don't know if we (wife and I) will ever be in the financial position to do such, but we at least have the property for it now. We inherited, in a sense, a 70 acre former cattle farm, as I am the fourth generation on my dad's side to own it, now (mom and dad signed 65 acres over to my brother and myself, and 5 acres with the house to my wife and I). Unfortunately, my wife had to undergo chemo/radiation a few years ago for lymphoma, and we are, as I like to jest, still "paying for cancer" as far as the billing goes. I'm 43, possess a bachelor's degree in business admin, and a CISSP certification, but living in the "sticks" like we do, I will never make more than 50K a year, and the wife only works enough, on occasion, to pay her ins. premiums from time to time.

HOWEVER...we are still very fortunate to have only first-world problems. If we are ever able, I'd like to build such a dedicated room, and build it right. Thank you, again, for your thoughts and insights.

[HeavyHitter]

All of the best to you and your wife, Pagey. I will say it doesn't cost nearly as much money as one might think to do it well. Many people's BD/UHD collections far exceed the costs of it in all seriousness. There are some great options out there. Feel free to send me a PM if you want to chat at all about it.

[Pagey123]

I will do that, sir! Thank you! And, yeah, if you add up all the stuff - my disc collections, my PC hardware for storage and transcoding, display devices...I have a chunk of change already invested, lol. In fact, it would be best to NOT point that out to the wife, lol.

[Nothing371]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I've been in home theater since 1999. I went FP about six years ago making a dedicated room for it. I cannot tell you how awesome it's been and how it took this hobby to new heights for me. I highly recommend it, but the right room is really crucial and best for the full experience. If you ever do it, I also highly recommend a scope screen assuming movies are your priority. Not seeing black bars and just pure image really gives a new appreciation for 2:35/2.4 and CIH.

Attachment 239949

This is very tasteful and your fresh vacuuming strips pleases me greatly.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Pagey123

I will start out by saying that I think, from a capture/scanning standpoint, I think we have the technology, now, to capture as much detail as analog film. I would think that both camera sensors and film scanners both are capable of capturing as much detail as/all of the detail available in a film source.

But that only addresses the pixel/resolution part of capture. I do not know enough about digital capture or film scanning to say that we can, digitally, capture/scan the same contrast/dynamic range as film.

As far as display technology goes, I think it's safe to say from both an overall display technology standpoint and a bang-for-the-buck standpoint, we are at a golden age in home theater. But, as good as current technology is, and for the purposes of this thread, is there a home video/cinema/digital technology that can closely approximate a filmic experience? Also, for that matter, is the projection aspect REQUIRED, in your opinion, for a home video experience to appear/feel filmic? Is there a way to achieve this look/feel without the use of a projector, digital or analog?

digital capture can do a lot more detail than any movie film ever did outside of perhaps true IMAX film

the gamut is probably wide too

DR is also largr now although it is a slightly tricky thing in the way highlights work one compared to the other which is quite different

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

See PDF I posted on previous page - Section 5

i'd say you are both wrong
typical release print a regular 35mm theater showed less detail than a good blu-ray for sure, but def more than a DVD

[The Great Owl]

I think that The Karate Kid and Stand by Me look "naturally filmic" on their respective 4K UHD presentations.

“Filmic” is a strange term to throw around in instances like this, though.

Although I own several older movies on 4K disc, I still think of the format as primarily a “from here on out” venue, meaning that I think that it caters best to newer films, like the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies or the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. Newer movies that have a digital sheen to them are pretty much born from the get-go to be seen in HDR, Dolby Vision, and such.

I realize that my above logic is probably off-base, seeing as how several older movies (Alien, Blade Runner, The Wizard of Oz, The Shining, etc.) seem to be universally lauded for their 4K UHD presentations, There's something almost off-kilter, though. When I saw the 4K restoration of The Shining on the big screen at a local theater last year, I thought that it looked amazing, but I also did not think that it “looked” like The Shining that I grew up watching. Even if the 4K restoration is the correct look of the film, it just seemed...different...almost like a body snatcher from space that looks and talks just like one of my family members, but is actually an alien. I think that we're all agreed that The Shining looks better now than it ever has, but it almost looks...too pristine. ...if that makes any sense.

I saw a 35mm print presentation of Seven Samurai at a local indie theater a few years back. My Criterion Blu-ray of the movie looks much better than the 35mm print looked, but the 35mm was more “filmic” in that sense of the word. I don't know if advanced home video format presentations will match a certain degree of theatrical aesthetic, but that does not necessarily mean that the home video presentations are inferior.

Whereas, however, Midway, The Revenant, or 1917 were basically tailor-made to be seen in 4K UHD with the HDR working for them.

In terms of theatrically “filmic”...

I love my home setup. I sit five or six feet away from my Sony Bravia 55" screen, I have a booming Sony sound bar, and everything is crystal clear. By a combination of choice and living room logistics, however, I do not aim to make my home viewing setup comparable to that of a movie theater. For me, there will never be a substitute for seeing a movie on a big theater screen with an audience, so I'm not even going to try. I think that I have a perfect 4K UHD viewing setup right now, but I don't think of it as a "home theater." I think of the actual theater as a theater, and that's where I'll continue to go, pandemic gods willing in the future, when theaters get back in operation.

I remember seeing Avengers: Endgame at the theater on opening night, when the sold-out audience collectively lost its shit as the fallen Avengers appeared on the battlefield behind Captain America. That's something truly special that will never be duplicated in my living room.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

digital capture can do a lot more detail than any movie film ever did outside of perhaps true IMAX film

the gamut is probably wide too

DR is also largr now although it is a slightly tricky thing in the way highlights work one compared to the other which is quite different

And yet they still shoot in 65mm.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

i'd say you are both wrong
typical release print a regular 35mm theater showed less detail than a good blu-ray for sure, but def more than a DVD

Still want to argue?