Dunkirk 4K UHD (2017)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

So is this the ultimate 4K DI to dominate all 2K/4K DIs?

Technically it's not a DI at all because the movie was finished photochemically but yeah: it was shot on large format film (5-perf/15-perf 65mm) and has entirely 4K VFX (mostly 6K in fact, becuz IMAX) so by rights this could well be the best-looking 4K disc yet.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

In that case, he should have shot in 120fps, with UHD in 60fps

You can't shoot on IMAX film at 120fps or 60fps. It's strictly 24fps

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Technically it's not a DI at all because the movie was finished photochemically but yeah: it was shot on large format film (5-perf/15-perf 65mm) and has entirely 4K VFX (mostly 6K in fact, becuz IMAX) so by rights this could well be the best-looking 4K disc yet.

I would be shocked and disappointed if this won't be the best UHD disc ever released

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Technically it's not a DI at all because the movie was finished photochemically but yeah: it was shot on large format film (5-perf/15-perf 65mm) and has entirely 4K VFX (mostly 6K in fact, becuz IMAX) so by rights this could well be the best-looking 4K disc yet.

I agree. Probably even better UHD quality than Dark Tower if it was not for the fact that Dark Tower is also available in Dolby Vision

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Yeah but that would look like total shit.

Why you say that? If you want realism 120fps provides the highest sense of realism on the screen

[Lt_Cobretti]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Why you say that? If you want realism 120fps provides the highest sense of realism on the screen

Because movies aren't real.

[Jacques Souvenir]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Why you say that? If you want realism 120fps provides the highest sense of realism on the screen

But it looks like crap. Movies aren't supposed to look like cheap soap operas.

[RockyIII]

Is that why movies are mostly in 24fps, because of a conscious choice to make movies look 'unreal'? So directors had a meeting one day and they all decided that 24fps made movies look unreal, thus it is better suited?

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Is that why movies are mostly in 24fps, because of a conscious choice to make movies look 'unreal'? So directors had a meeting one day and they all decided that 24fps made movies look unreal, thus it is better suited?

Everything is explained here:

The History of Frame Rate for Film - YouTube

Best YouTube channel for film tech etc.

https://www.youtube.com/user/FilmmakerIQcom/videos

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Everything is explained here:

The History of Frame Rate for Film - YouTube

Best YouTube for film tech etc.

https://www.youtube.com/user/FilmmakerIQcom/videos

Seen that before, which clearly explain that there was no intentional, premeditated move to adopt 24fps because it makes movies look more 'unreal'.
Why are studios always improving props, customs, vfx, uf not to make movies look more real? Would a war movie look real if the explosions and shotguns looked overly fake?

24 FPS was chosen for technical ( sound sync) and economic reasons. Its cheaper to develop and print fewer frames of celluloid. It wasn't an aesthetic decision. 24 FPS is the absolute minimum the human brain will tolerate as motion. But it still contains stuttering and blur.
For this to still be used as a standard in film almost one Hundred years later is very odd.
The fact that it had been used for so long has ingrained the film look in people's minds, so changing it is causing upset, with people complaining about a cheap look with HFR when it's actually the complete opposite, it's far better quality than a 24 FPS blurry soft low quality image.
I suspect younger people who play computer games as much as they watch movies, will more readily accept higher frame rates, as they haven't been so pre conditioned. If any youth disagrees, they probably aren't young enough! My kids prefer a higher frame rate, in the cinema and on TV.
When I watch star wars battlefront being played, so crisp, clear, I wish the film's it's based on looked as good. Having a superior higher frame rate makes the viewing experience much more immersive, like you are close in, rather than removed by a thick layer of blurry fuzzy grainy haze.
I have much respect for directors like James Cameron, Peter Jackson for being so forward thinking. HFR is the future of cinema, just as silent went to sound, black and white went to colour. Those changes no doubt had critics at the time who resisted the alteration of film as it had been up to that point. It's much better to have a live musician play accompanyment on a piano than to hear the actors delivering their lines with a pre recorded film score, right?
I can see how some may object to a TV adding frames after a film has been made, but when it post processes to improve the quality, it begs the question why was the film not shot HFR in the first place? Answer, because some like low quality images. Production values don't change when you view with less blur. If some elements are revealed and fall short, then build better sets, apply better make up. HFR is still not accepted as standard. I hope this will change because now I've seen a superior image, there's no going

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[gwsat]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Everything is explained here:

The History of Frame Rate for Film - YouTube

Best YouTube for film tech etc.

https://www.youtube.com/user/FilmmakerIQcom/videos

That is good stuff. What I took from it was that although auteurs like Peter Jackson and James Cameron push for high frame rates, when 120 FPS films were shown to audiences they didn't like them. The bottom line seems to be that 24 FPS remains the standard and will be so for some time to come.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by gwsat

That is good stuff. What I took from it was that although auteurs like Peter Jackson and James Cameron push for high frame rates, when 120 FPS films were shown to audiences they didn't like them. The bottom line seems to be that 24 FPS remains the standard and will be so for some time to come.

The fact that 24fps has been used for so long has ingrained the film look in people's minds, so changing it is causing upset, with people complaining about a cheap look with HFR when it's actually the complete opposite, it's far better quality than a 24 FPS blurry soft low quality image

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Seen that before, which clearly explain that there was no intentional, premeditated move to adopt 24fps because it makes movies look more 'unreal'.
Why are studios always improving props, customs, vfx, uf not to make movies look more real? Would a war movie look real if the explosions and shotguns looked overly fake?

24 FPS was chosen for technical ( sound sync) and economic reasons. Its cheaper to develop and print fewer frames of celluloid. It wasn't an aesthetic decision. 24 FPS is the absolute minimum the human brain will tolerate as motion. But it still contains stuttering and blur.
For this to still be used as a standard in film almost one Hundred years later is very odd.
The fact that it had been used for so long has ingrained the film look in people's minds, so changing it is causing upset, with people complaining about a cheap look with HFR when it's actually the complete opposite, it's far better quality than a 24 FPS blurry soft low quality image.
I suspect younger people who play computer games as much as they watch movies, will more readily accept higher frame rates, as they haven't been so pre conditioned. If any youth disagrees, they probably aren't young enough! My kids prefer a higher frame rate, in the cinema and on TV.
When I watch star wars battlefront being played, so crisp, clear, I wish the film's it's based on looked as good. Having a superior higher frame rate makes the viewing experience much more immersive, like you are close in, rather than removed by a thick layer of blurry fuzzy grainy haze.
I have much respect for directors like James Cameron, Peter Jackson for being so forward thinking. HFR is the future of cinema, just as silent went to sound, black and white went to colour. Those changes no doubt had critics at the time who resisted the alteration of film as it had been up to that point. It's much better to have a live musician play accompanyment on a piano than to hear the actors delivering their lines with a pre recorded film score, right?
I can see how some may object to a TV adding frames after a film has been made, but when it post processes to improve the quality, it begs the question why was the film not shot HFR in the first place? Answer, because some like low quality images. Production values don't change when you view with less blur. If some elements are revealed and fall short, then build better sets, apply better make up. HFR is still not accepted as standard. I hope this will change because now I've seen a superior image, there's no going

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

Well, no.

Silent films were usually shot at ~12-16 FPS. 24 FPS was the lowest they could go without sacrificing audio fidelity.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

Well, no.

Silent films were usually shot at ~12-16 FPS. 24 FPS was the lowest they could go without sacrificing audio fidelity.

But still, it's on the low end

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

The fact that 24fps has been used for so long has ingrained the film look in people's minds, so changing it is causing upset.

Totally incorrect. We've been watching 30fps television since the 1950s. We embrace higher frame rates for the right kind of content.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by reanimator

Totally incorrect. We've been watching 30fps television since the 1950s. We embrace higher frame rates for the right kind of content.

Well, yes and no. Most of the "film based" content that we've watched on TV over the decades was shot 24fps and then adjusted via 3:2 pulldown to fit the 60Hz frame rate, making it look MORE juddery, not less. For PAL, that 24fps content was sped up by 4% to 25fps.

For live events then yes, we've been watching 30fps/60Hz - or a mere 25fps/50Hz in the case of PAL - but that's not at question here, sport looks amazing the higher the frame rate that you use and I don't think anyone would be resistant to that. But when you start transposing a genuine HFR look - say, >48fps - on "film based" content, that's when people start losing their shit.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by reanimator

We've been watching 30fps television since the 1950s. We embrace higher frame rates for the right kind of content.

The psycho-visual difference between 24fps and 30fps is entirely negligible.*





* and with a name like reanimator, you should know that

[Gacivory]

Douglas Trumbull had been trying to shoot with higher frame rates since the 70’s!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Douglas Trumbull had been trying to shoot with higher frame rates since the 70’s!

Yeah, he's been flashing his shit all over town for a long time. But he ain't no Sharon Stone!

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

The psycho-visual difference between 24fps and 30fps is entirely negligible.*

I think that depends on what kind of psycho you are.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Douglas Trumbull had been trying to shoot with higher frame rates since the 70’s!

Years ago he was trying to peddle a system called Showscan, which I believe was 48fps capture and projection. Never really caught on for movies -- shooting and processing twice the footage = twice the price.

There was, briefly, a Showscan ride at the Universal City Walk here in LA -- and I actually saw that with my own eyes. About 10 viewers would sit in a fake pick-up truck which was actuated with a gimble, rocking and bouncing you all over the place... then the screen in front of you projected a point-of-view truck race out in the desert. Anybody who has ever been on Star Tours, Back to the Future or similar motion-simulator ride knows the drill.

I recall the picture quality was very bright, very sharp and very smooth. When we got out, the first thing I overheard someone say was "that looked like video." Not making that up. And he was right, it looked like video.