4K Movies Releases

[saprano]

All movies shot on 35mm film are shot in 4k and we have that for nearly a hundred years

What? Alot of them are scanned at 2K. Even now.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by saprano

It doesn't help when new releases are still being shot at 2K. Sony is probably the only studio that has 4K releases as standard now( i think). If we're to prepar for 4K someone needs to tell hollywood to start now. Its only going to be harder, and take longer, to transition to 4KBD when theres no real 4K content to watch. Forget all these fake upscaling techniques.

Native, native, native, native, native, native.

but not every movie is shot digitally - 35mm can easily be converted/transferred to 4K - there is really no excuse - even Criterion does a select few scans of 35mm film via 4K technology for home video (i.e, 'The Thin Red Line')

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by saprano

What? Alot of them are scanned at 2K. Even now.

Yes but this is done either to save money or because some visual effects were rendered in only 2k. 35mm film is analog and doesn't capture pixels like digital cameras do but it does capture a level of detail at least 5 times as high as 1080p video and more then sufficient for 4k. For example Lord of the Rings the live action is ready to go for a 4k presentation but in order to create a 4k master every computer effects shot would need to be re-rendered

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Yes but this is done either to save money or because some visual effects were rendered in only 2k. 35mm film is analog and doesn't capture pixels like digital cameras do but it does capture a level of detail at least 5 times as high as 1080p video and more then sufficient for 4k. For example Lord of the Rings the live action is ready to go for a 4k presentation but in order to create a 4k master every computer effects shot would need to be re-rendered

which is pathetic when you compare it to some films that budgeted and implemented SFX scenes shot in 65mm:

(from wiki):

Films partially shot in 65 mm:

- Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) – Super Panavision 70 - special effects shots only
- Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) – special effects shots only
- Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) – selected special effects work
- Tron (1982) – Super Panavision 70. Live-action scenes and partial-CGI scenes only; entirely-CGI shots filmed in VistaVision.
- Blade Runner (1982) – special effects shots only
- Brainstorm (1983) – Super Panavision 70. Virtual reality sequences only.
- Ghostbusters (1984) – special effects shots only
- Masters of the Universe (1987) – special effects shots only
- Die Hard (1988) – special effects shots only
- The Judas Project (1990) – special effects shots only
- Alien 3 (1992) – Panavision System 65. Special effects shots only.
- Contact (1997) – background plates
- Spider-Man 2 (2004) – selected special effects shots only
- Sunshine (2007) – Arri 765; "Earth Room" scene only

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

which is pathetic when you compare it to some films that budgeted and implemented SFX scenes shot in 65mm:

(from wiki):

Films partially shot in 65 mm:

- Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) – Super Panavision 70 - special effects shots only
- Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) – special effects shots only
- Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) – selected special effects work
- Tron (1982) – Super Panavision 70. Live-action scenes and partial-CGI scenes only; entirely-CGI shots filmed in VistaVision.
- Blade Runner (1982) – special effects shots only
- Brainstorm (1983) – Super Panavision 70. Virtual reality sequences only.
- Ghostbusters (1984) – special effects shots only
- Masters of the Universe (1987) – special effects shots only
- Die Hard (1988) – special effects shots only
- The Judas Project (1990) – special effects shots only
- Alien 3 (1992) – Panavision System 65. Special effects shots only.
- Contact (1997) – background plates
- Spider-Man 2 (2004) – selected special effects shots only
- Sunshine (2007) – Arri 765; "Earth Room" scene only

Avatar for example averaged about 20 hours a frame to render its effects shots with some taking as much as 100 hours. Yet they were all rendered in 2k. If they had been rendered in 4k it would have required 4x that time. With so few 4k screenings the decision to go 2k was understandable

Still Im hoping that Avatar 2 & 3 will be shot and rendered in 4k. Moores law alone should make rendering effects of the same realism in 4k faster then the 2k first movie.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Avatar for example averaged about 20 hours a frame to render its effects shots with some taking as much as 100 hours. Yet they were all rendered in 2k. If they had been rendered in 4k it would have required 4x that time. With so few 4k screenings the decision to go 2k was understandable

Still Im hoping that Avatar 2 & 3 will be shot and rendered in 4k. Moores law alone should make rendering effects of the same realism in 4k faster then the 2k first movie.

any word on how 'The Hobbit' sfx shots are being filmed, since much has been made that the film is being shot with Red Epic cameras and at a higher frame rate of 48fps.

[TheTimeTraveler-808]

I got this from a article about 4K on Cnet. it says "Looking to the future, Sony is reportedly keen to have the forthcoming "Spider-Man" reboot become one of the first 4K Blu-rays, and is apparently in talks with the Blu-ray Disc Association to finalize the specification"

If true i hope the only thing i have to buy is a 4k TV

Read more: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...#ixzz1kT5Bk1Mq

[kristoffer]

Thanks for the link.

[saprano]

That cnet article is pretty much what i've been saying about the small jump in PQ that 2K to 4K will be. Apparently im nuts though.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by saprano

That cnet article is pretty much what i've been saying about the small jump in PQ that 2K to 4K will be. Apparently im nuts though.

As I said on a TV smaller then 40 inches 4k is pretty much useless beyond a possible placebo effect. Your eyes can't detect the difference when the pixels are so tiny

4k is an innovation that will really only benefit those with really big screens. My cousin has an 85 inch display in his basement and for a TV that size 4k will certainly be of benefit there

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler-808

I got this from a article about 4K on Cnet. it says "Looking to the future, Sony is reportedly keen to have the forthcoming "Spider-Man" reboot become one of the first 4K Blu-rays, and is apparently in talks with the Blu-ray Disc Association to finalize the specification"

If true i hope the only thing i have to buy is a 4k TV

Read more: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...#ixzz1kT5Bk1Mq

Native 4k will require a new TV, new player, and 4k movie discs. Nothing you own today is sufficient

Sony in talks over a standard is exciting. Im curious to know what are the specifics on the technology they are proposing

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by saprano

It doesn't help when new releases are still being shot at 2K. Sony is probably the only studio that has 4K releases as standard now( i think). If we're to prepar for 4K someone needs to tell hollywood to start now....

Perhaps what you mean is somebody should start telling Producers now….but, the lack of 4k post production, hasn’t really been due to a lack of ‘knowledge’ about the process. You see, in the past, most post houses had a difficult enough time dealing with the increase in demand for 2k D.I.’s (because of the time spent scanning, the amount of storage needed and the configuration of playback drives for the actual data transfer speed) caused most D.I. facilities to max out their capacity and they could only handle one or two all-4k D.I. workflows per year….if indeed they even had a 4k post production pipeline in place to begin with.

As I said on another thread, recent technological advances have now enabled the feasibility of practical 4k digital intermediate pipelines (except for something like the Hobbit, which is a whole other ball of wax in how something like that motion picture would tax any D.I. facility), so that 4k workflow is expected to become the norm in high-end cinema productions in the very near future. Lower end productions should follow accordingly with time.

The other historically weak links in the 4k ecosystem are also becoming stronger as more and more 4k projectors are being installed in theaters and improvements (RED cameras with a more friendly workflow) as well as new options (the Sony F65) on the acquisition side of the pipeline have relatively recently come to fruition.

In short, all the pieces are starting to come together for the industry-at-large.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by saprano

That cnet article is pretty much what i've been saying about the small jump in PQ that 2K to 4K will be. Apparently im nuts though.

It always surprises me what people are willing to pay just to get that small jump in perceived PQ/AQ.

Take yourself as an example. You've bought over 200 Blu ray movies because you want the best PQ/AQ available, but...most consumers probably couldn't tell or wouldn't care about the PQ difference between a Blu ray and a broadcast 1080i movie. A great many consumers are still fiddling around with their DVDs and would be great candidates for upgrading from DVD to 4K when prices permit.

Perhaps, for some, that 'small jump' ain't so small after all.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Yes but this is done either to save money or because some visual effects were rendered in only 2k. 35mm film is analog and doesn't capture pixels like digital cameras do but it does capture a level of detail at least 5 times as high as 1080p video and more then sufficient for 4k....

That’s a bit optimistic.

The effective measured (not urban myth) resolution for 35mm OCN comes in under the 4k mark. The oversampling of a 4k scan for 35mm has obvious benefits in terms of Nyquist theorem.

As I said here, specifically even 3.4k is generous for 35mm…
https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-te...ml#post5695796

If you need additional confirmation, feel free to post a 35mm film resolution query to Jim Jannard (founder of Red) over at the Red forum or, next time Grover speaks on another 4k panel….
http://www.andrew-robinson-online.co...ime-with-sony/

feel free to ask him the same in person too.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler-808

I got this from a article about 4K on Cnet. it says "Looking to the future, Sony is reportedly keen to have the forthcoming "Spider-Man" reboot become one of the first 4K Blu-rays, and is apparently in talks with the Blu-ray Disc Association to finalize the specification"....

I think that the word “finalize” is a little premature. Something like a phrase ‘work in progress’ might be more appropriate.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

It always surprises me what people are willing to pay just to get that small jump in perceived PQ/AQ.

Take yourself as an example. You've bought over 200 Blu ray movies because you want the best PQ/AQ available, but...most consumers probably couldn't tell or wouldn't care about the PQ difference between a Blu ray and a broadcast 1080i movie. A great many consumers are still fiddling around with their DVDs and would be great candidates for upgrading from DVD to 4K when prices permit.

Perhaps, for some, that 'small jump' ain't so small after all.

I have absolutely no trouble telling the difference between an HDTV 1080i movie and a BD. And this is from someone who is still watching on a 1366x768 50" plasma.

1080i versus 1080p in itself is not really that big of a jump, its the obvious compression artifacts I see on the majority of US HDTV broadcasts ( and the more subtle ones I see on the minority) . Plus the channel logos and ad snipes etc.

1080p to 4k is going to be a tiny jump in quality only perceivable by those with razor sharp eyes or giant screens, and with only a very small amount of available material. If the "masses" don't see the difference between 1080i HDTV broadcasts and BD, then "Joe 6pack" isn't going to care about 4k.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by saprano

That cnet article is pretty much what i've been saying about the small jump in PQ that 2K to 4K will be. Apparently im nuts though.

It's 4X the resolution! VHS to DVD was a 2.25X increase in resolution. Also many HDTV's in peoples homes are not 1080p. There are many 1080i and 720p sets still in peoples homes and compared to a 1080i set that is a 8X increase in resolution and that is what the jump will be for me.

[PRO-630HD]

Originally Posted by saprano

That cnet article is pretty much what i've been saying about the small jump in PQ that 2K to 4K will be. Apparently im nuts though.

It's 4X the resolution! VHS to DVD was a 2.25X increase in resolution. Also many HDTV's in peoples homes are not 1080p. There are many 1080i and 720p sets still in peoples homes and compared to a 1080i set that is a 8X increase in resolution over a 1080i set and that is what the jump will be for me.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

It always surprises me what people are willing to pay just to get that small jump in perceived PQ/AQ.

Take yourself as an example. You've bought over 200 Blu ray movies because you want the best PQ/AQ available, but...most consumers probably couldn't tell or wouldn't care about the PQ difference between a Blu ray and a broadcast 1080i movie. A great many consumers are still fiddling around with their DVDs and would be great candidates for upgrading from DVD to 4K when prices permit.

Perhaps, for some, that 'small jump' ain't so small after all.

Don't use me as an example, i can clearly tell the difference between compression artifact ridden, Macroblocking broadcast. Not to mention DVD. BD is a HUGE improvement over those.

4K will be better than the 2K we have now with bluray. It will also bring other benefits. It just wont be same visual difference like SD to HD.

Although i can't deny the 3D effect from this native 4K demo from samsung-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=E1O_lPbnfiY

Very impressive. But its a demo. It's made to look good.

I know my post in these 4K threads seems like im saying 4K is not worth it, but im really not if people can read. I welcome 4K, especially if it helps the continuation of hard media. I only question the difference and the need for it so soon. Theres already talk of 8K. Time to change our equipment again.....and again.

[STD]

So they are going to skip 2k and jump straight to 4k for the next generation blu ray? I am surprised.