Dunkirk 4K UHD (2017)

[JEArgumedo]

Thought I'd share this. It's from Warner Bros about the digital resolution equivalents of film and how the film will be projected in theaters. 4K DCP is confirmed, but knowing Nolan has his high standard of quality, that was a given.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by EbonDragon

Catching Fire was a special situation though. The director said they didn’t want it to feel like the movie was “glorifying” the Hunger Games which, honestly, is a stupid thing to think. The films themselves are already glorifying the violent revolution that takes place so it’s not like anybody really got a different message from the aspect ratio change.

The director must have forgotten that he shot the catching fire arena scenes with IMAX.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Strange that info has been edited. You can't release Dolby Vision without Dolby Atmos.
Dolby should get their things right.

I see one other title in the Dolby list with Vision but no Atmos. But I'd take it as rare exceptions. I don't see why it's not possible to have V but no A.

Ok...that last sentence sounded wrong.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

As stated before, Nolan would mix in monaural if he could.

I never really liked his soundtracks. It's always very bass and front heavy, together with Hans Zimmer's scores. So not having Atmos is no big loss if Nolan's primary format was IMAX 70mm.

Originally Posted by Cook

Do we know whether Nolan's films will have shifting aspect ratios on UHD? Lionsgate ditched the shifting ratio on the UHD of Hunger Games Catching Fire. I'd hate for WB to do the same with Nolan's film.

Someone just linked to a YouTube video, it's about projecting Dunkirk in IMAX 70mm. And he said the Blu-rays will be in 2.2 and IMAX VAR.

[BozQ]

I genuinely hope we get the option to watch this in 1.43 AR in UHD BD.

[BozQ]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=13813297

Here's the link.

[benhoppel]

Originally Posted by JEArgumedo

Thought I'd share this. It's from Warner Bros about the digital resolution equivalents of film and how the film will be projected in theaters. 4K DCP is confirmed, but knowing Nolan has his high standard of quality, that was a given.

Misleading to say the least. The pixel numbers are more suitable for oversampled scanning than actual resolution of the image. And comparing a 6K 35mm element with a 4K DCP is pretty absurd. The 35mm negative they scan at 6K is not a release print. While the 4K DCP is capable of 4K detail the release print from internegative is not at all.

[Geoff D]

It's not from Warners, forum member antovolk created it, he's a good guy but...

Originally Posted by benhoppel

Misleading to say the least. The pixel numbers are more suitable for oversampled scanning than actual resolution of the image. And comparing a 6K 35mm element with a 4K DCP is pretty absurd. The 35mm negative they scan at 6K is not a release print. While the 4K DCP is capable of 4K detail the release print from internegative is not at all.

...those are actually good points, I thought that the numbers were a bit fanciful and you're quite right about the 35mm print possibly being a traditional 4th gen element so it's nowhere near 6K rez.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I genuinely hope we get the option to watch this in 1.43 AR in UHD BD.

I don't. I want the IMAX portions to fill my screen, not look like an old TV show ratio. Not that I have ANYTHING against 4:3 TV stuff but the whole point of the 1.44 IMAX footage in the cinema is that it's bigger than the letterboxed scenes, and switching to a 1.78 version preserves that intent on the home video version (which also reduces the massive amount of headroom) whereas switching to a pillarboxed 1.44 reduces the impact considerably. No thank 'ee.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't. I want the IMAX portions to fill my screen, not look like an old TV show ratio. Not that I have ANYTHING against 4:3 TV stuff but the whole point of the 1.44 IMAX footage in the cinema is that it's bigger than the letterboxed scenes, and switching to a 1.78 version preserves that intent on the home video version (which also reduces the massive amount of headroom) whereas switching to a pillarboxed 1.44 reduces the impact considerably. No thank 'ee.

An option. Like a separate disc, not the only feature. You know what I mean?

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by BozQ

An option. Like a separate disc, not the only feature. You know what I mean?

Maybe an IMAX scenes only feature like they had with TDK trilogy.

Otherwise it wouldn't be fun to see the film at home with black bars on the sides the entire time (scope scene would be windowboxed).

[Dubstar]

Interesting 70mm logo - have never seen it prior

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BozQ

An option. Like a separate disc, not the only feature. You know what I mean?

I'd be happy for you if they did that but they won't so I'm not.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not from Warners, forum member antovolk created it, he's a good guy but...


...those are actually good points, I thought that the numbers were a bit fanciful and you're quite right about the 35mm print possibly being a traditional 4th gen element so it's nowhere near 6K rez.

Yes, in my estimate the digital equivalent is:

IMAX 15/70: 12K for IMAX scenes (they are printed from the OCN)

70mm film: 6 to 8K (I don't know if they do the optical reduction/printing from the OCN or a IN)

35mm film:>2K

[Geoff D]

I don't know for sure but I'd hazard a guess that the timed IMAX positive was blown down to a 5-perf 65mm internegative to preserve the intended colour timing, with the inference being that there's a large format optical printer in play, from 15/65 down to 5/65.

But there's no 15/65 to 4/35 optical printer AFAIK which is why in the case of the previous films the 'scope 35mm IMAX extractions were made from digital 8K scans of the IMAX negative.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I don't know for sure but I'd hazard a guess that the timed IMAX positive was blown down to a 5-perf 65mm internegative to preserve the intended colour timing, with the inference being that there's a large format optical printer in play, from 15/65 down to 5/65.

But there's no 15/65 to 4/35 optical printer AFAIK which is why in the case of the previous films the 'scope 35mm IMAX extractions were made from digital 8K scans of the IMAX negative.

Yeah, i would guess internegative is more likely and I guess the same would apply to the 65mm 5-perf scenes. But Nolan considers 70mm prints as "premium" so I'm not 100% sure. But this time the number of 5/70 prints struck is very high compared to Interstellar so I doubt they could use the OCN without risking to wear it out

You are right about 35mm: it's basically a film-out with scope extractions for IMAX scenes

[Geoff D]

FYI when 15/70 print runs were wider only a handful of select showprints would be lifted directly from the negative, as ideally you'd want to be handling that negative as few times as possible. So the IMAX negatives were cut to A and B rolls, with one strand of 15-perf IMAX original and the other of the 15-perf 35mm blow up being used to create the showprints, and for the rest they'd use a traditional internegative of the 15-perf IMAX with the same 35mm blow up.

If there's anything more than 10 or 20 15/70 prints for Dunkirk then there may well be several of those IN prints out there, but the BFI always gets the showprints so I'm all right Jack.

[edit] And I see we're on a similar wavelength here with your reply and the 5-perf 70mm prints, as there's no way they're all going to be showprints either with a reported run of 125.

So yeah, with the gradual creep of resolution loss during the conventional photochemical printing process then those numbers posted by Anton are quite fanciful.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

FYI when 15/70 print runs were wider only a handful of select showprints would be lifted directly from the negative, as ideally you'd want to be handling that negative as few times as possible. So the IMAX negatives were cut to A and B rolls, with one strand of 15-perf IMAX original and the other of the 15-perf 35mm blow up being used to create the showprints, and for the rest they'd use a traditional internegative of the 15-perf IMAX with the same 35mm blow up.

If there's anything more than 10 or 20 15/70 prints for Dunkirk then there may well be several of those IN prints out there, but the BFI always gets the showprints so I'm all right Jack.

[edit] And I see we're on a similar wavelength here with your reply and the 5-perf 70mm prints, as there's no way they're all going to be showprints either with a reported run of 125.

So yeah, with the gradual creep of resolution loss during the conventional photochemical printing process then those numbers posted by Anton are quite fanciful.

Yesterday IMAX director confirmed that ALL IMAX 15/70 prints are struck from the OCN for Dunkirk.

[Geoff D]

Grazie. There seems to be nearly 40 15/70mm locations confirmed on in70mm.com, that's a LOT of times to keep going back to the well which puts pressure on splices as well as any scratches and marks that may result. Still, they know what they're doing.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Grazie. There seems to be nearly 40 15/70mm locations confirmed on in70mm.com, that's a LOT of times to keep going back to the well which puts pressure on splices as well as any scratches and marks that may result. Still, they know what they're doing.

Yes, but I guess if you compare that number to the 2008 release of TDK or 2012 TDKR, is very low...

We all know 15/70 is being replaced with IMAX Laser, it's a miracle there are still 37 theaters that will show this in IMAX Film....

[Geoff D]

I didn't say it wasn't low, but running your o-neg 40 times - and not in some steady-eddie scanner but the slightly more, ah, industrial transport mechanism of a printer - would have most people sweating bullets.