Is Blu-Ray Becoming the Last Chance for Certain Kinds of Movies?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaNut

If it’s shot on 32mm I feel like we should see it on Blu-ray and or 4K. If it’s shot on video or 16mm it really doesn’t need anything above DVD.

16 MM and Super 16 MM can resolve at 1.5K to 1.8K respectively making them well worth at least a blu-ray as blu-ray offers 1.92K resolution. DVD resolution is approx. one sixth that of a blu-ray.

See this conversation among professional cinematographers regarding film resolution in digital terms:

18k = IMAX 15-perf (or 36K?)

12-13k = 70MM 5-perf

6K = 35MM 4-perf

3K = 35MM 2-perf

1.8K = S16MM

1.5K = 16MM

720p = S8MM

480 = 8MM

"In terms of optimal scanning resolution, if 6K is optimal for 35mm, then 12K is optimal for 5-perf 65mm and almost 18K is optimal for 15-perf 65mm IMAX."

https://cinematography.com/index.php...on-equivalent/

"Generally "2K" (2048 pixels across) is considered adequate to capture all the grain and detail off of a Super-16 negative (since 16mm is half the width physically of 35mm, scanning it at 2K is the same as scanning 35mm at 4K.)"

"HD is usually 1920 x 1080, which could be called 1.92K in terms of horizontal pixel resolution."

All quotes above from David Mullen, ASC cinematographer:

https://cinematography.com/index.php...mm-resolution/

https://cinematography.com/index.php...mbers-numbers/

Even a video taped source can look better on blu-ray, and there are over 60 video tape formats and the quality can vary widely between them, and resolution is only one measure of quality. For example, blu-ray uses Rec. 709 vs Rec. 601 for DVD. Blu-ray supports 1.8 times the color space of a DVD.

"Rec. 709, among other things, improved (or at least certainly changed) the way luminance was defined as a ratio to RGB color. HDTV’s Rec. 709 changed the RGB luma coefficients to 0.2126, 0.7152, and 0.0722—different than DVD’s Rec. 601. This may be more of a change than an improvement, but Blu-ray also supports wider color spaces, like xvYCC which is 1.8 times as large as that of the sRGB color space."

http://www.audiogurus.com/learn/news...d-upgrade/2616

4K UHD (and 8K for that matter) uses rec. 2020, aka BT.2020, and this image compares Rec. 2020 to Rec. 709:



There is more to image quality than just resolution. The resolution difference between 4K and blu-ray is certainly noticeable, but the improved color space and HDR are far more so and many people feel that these two things are the real selling points of the 4K format, not the mere uptick in resolution.

[Lee A Stewart]

When it comes to 35mm film there is no specific answer because the resolving power of film is directly related to the ISO. Low ISOs like 25 or 50 have a much greater resolving power than 100, 200 or 400 which were all used in movie production. The higher the ISO number, the faster the film which means less light is required to expose the film.

You may get 6K out of 25 ISO (though I doubt it) but that number is going to be cut in half (or more) with 400 ISO.

All night scenes and interior scenes were shot in faster ISO film due to the low lighting of said scenes.

25 and 50 ISOs were only used in brilliant daytime scenes.

[PhysicalMediaNut]

Originally Posted by Vilya

16 MM and Super 16 MM can resolve at 1.5K to 1.8K respectively making them well worth at least a blu-ray as blu-ray offers 1.92K resolution. DVD resolution is approx. one sixth that of a blu-ray.

See this conversation among professional cinematographers regarding film resolution in digital terms:

18k = IMAX 15-perf (or 36K?)

12-13k = 70MM 5-perf

6K = 35MM 4-perf

3K = 35MM 2-perf

1.8K = S16MM

1.5K = 16MM

720p = S8MM

480 = 8MM

"In terms of optimal scanning resolution, if 6K is optimal for 35mm, then 12K is optimal for 5-perf 65mm and almost 18K is optimal for 15-perf 65mm IMAX."

https://cinematography.com/index.php...on-equivalent/

"Generally "2K" (2048 pixels across) is considered adequate to capture all the grain and detail off of a Super-16 negative (since 16mm is half the width physically of 35mm, scanning it at 2K is the same as scanning 35mm at 4K.)"

"HD is usually 1920 x 1080, which could be called 1.92K in terms of horizontal pixel resolution."

All quotes above from David Mullen, ASC cinematographer:

https://cinematography.com/index.php...mm-resolution/

https://cinematography.com/index.php...mbers-numbers/

Even a video taped source can look better on blu-ray, and there are over 60 video tape formats and the quality can vary widely between them, and resolution is only one measure of quality. For example, blu-ray uses Rec. 709 vs Rec. 601 for DVD. Blu-ray supports 1.8 times the color space of a DVD.

"Rec. 709, among other things, improved (or at least certainly changed) the way luminance was defined as a ratio to RGB color. HDTV’s Rec. 709 changed the RGB luma coefficients to 0.2126, 0.7152, and 0.0722—different than DVD’s Rec. 601. This may be more of a change than an improvement, but Blu-ray also supports wider color spaces, like xvYCC which is 1.8 times as large as that of the sRGB color space."

http://www.audiogurus.com/learn/news...d-upgrade/2616

4K UHD (and 8K for that matter) uses rec. 2020, aka BT.2020, and this image compares Rec. 2020 to Rec. 709:



There is more to image quality than just resolution. The resolution difference between 4K and blu-ray is certainly noticeable, but the improved color space and HDR are far more so and many people feel that these two things are the real selling points of the 4K format, not the mere uptick in resolution.

That's interesting. I had no idea what 16mm was capable of. I was referring mostly to the types of films that I have seen that were filmed on 16mm. A lot of the ones that I've seen are usually dark and gritty art films and DVD seemed to suit this aesthetic fine for me and may have even added something to it through its lowered quality. Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Combat Shock come to my mind as examples. Though to be honest, I did buy the Combat Shock Blu-ray and I love it.

At the end of the day, I hope that all films get a chance to be on Blu-ray. If I had to choose though, I would want to see everything filmed on 35mm get a Blu-ray first. That's mostly due to how I prefer to watch my favorite horror genre films though, so I am probably pretty biased on this topic.

Also, to add something, there are many common reasons as to why the film makers may have chosen 16mm. One of those is probably the rough and raw feeling that they can make with it. Perhaps if those films are polished too much they could potentially lose that feeling? I would be curious what other people's thoughts about this are. It's one of the reasons why I was so late to the Blu-ray game (started collecting in 2010-2011), and I'm sure it's been talked about before.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

When it comes to 35mm film there is no specific answer because the resolving power of film is directly related to the ISO. Low ISOs like 25 or 50 have a much greater resolving power than 100, 200 or 400 which were all used in movie production. The higher the ISO number, the faster the film which means less light is required to expose the film.

You may get 6K out of 25 ISO (though I doubt it) but that number is going to be cut in half (or more) with 400 ISO.

All night scenes and interior scenes were shot in faster ISO film due to the low lighting of said scenes.

25 and 50 ISOs were only used in brilliant daytime scenes.

ISO speed of the film stock definitely affects the amount of detail that scanning can capture, but 35mm film is mostly either 2-perf or 4-perf, and the latter is larger and captures more detail than does the former. Thus, the cinematographers that I referenced mostly agree that 4K scanning of 35mm is adequate, especially with 2-perf, and 6K scanning is optimal, particularly with 4-perf. Some feel that is better to err on the side of overkill and just do a 6K scan as it will capture everything.

The question to which I was responding was mainly about movies shot on 16 mm and S16 mm only deserving a DVD release and that is not true. Scanning of 16mm film should be done at 2K to adequately capture the detail present and even higher for optimal "capture it all" results. A 16/S16mm film scanned at 2K, or better, should at least be presented on a blu-ray disc as a DVD can not deliver anything near to 2K resolution while a blu-ray can come very close.

The original 1981 The Evil Dead was shot on 16mm and it received a 4K UHD disc release. While some may feel giving this movie a 4K release was excessive, the blu-ray.com reviewer gave it a 4 out of 5 score for its video quality. Our forum members who bought this release and commented about it are largely pleased with it, too. Sony chose to do a 4K remastering of this film, even though it was filmed on 16mm film, and the Lionsgate 4K disc release is sourced from that effort.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-E...211492/#Review

Video taped sources are another matter as there are many dozens of video tape formats used over the decades and their quality varies widely. But even beyond the resolution question is that of the improved color space that blu-ray's use of Rec. 709 offers over DVD.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaNut

Also, to add something, there are many common reasons as to why the film makers may have chosen 16mm. One of those is probably the rough and raw feeling that they can make with it. Perhaps if those films are polished too much they could potentially lose that feeling? I would be curious what other people's thoughts about this are. It's one of the reasons why I was so late to the Blu-ray game (started collecting in 2010-2011), and I'm sure it's been talked about before.

Scanning the film to capture all of the detail contained in the negative is ideal. Once that is done, it can then be decided, preferably by the director and cinematographer, how best to use that information. Just because the film captured something, and the digital scan preserves it, does not automatically mean that the filmmaker meant for us to see it or to see it exactly as the camera did.

[Geoff D]

Dog Soldiers DVD vs the 4K-mastered Blu-ray. Tell me with a straight face that 16mm is only good for DVD.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...129258&i=0&l=0

16mm doesn't really need a 4K release though, I'd agree that that upgrade in particular is overkill in terms of pure spatial resolution but that doesn't mean that a 4K HDR version doesn't have its own advantages, the HDR is excellent on Evil Dead the way that it resolves highlight information being blown out in the SDR version.

[PhysicalMediaNut]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Scanning the film to capture all of the detail contained in the negative is ideal. Once that is done, it can then be decided, preferably by the director and cinematographer, how best to use that information. Just because the film captured something, and the digital scan preserves it, does not automatically mean that the filmmaker meant for us to see it or to see it exactly as the camera did.

That is a good point. I can't really argue with that.

[PhysicalMediaNut]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dog Soldiers DVD vs the 4K-mastered Blu-ray. Tell me with a straight face that 16mm is only good for DVD.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...129258&i=0&l=0

16mm doesn't really need a 4K release though, I'd agree that that upgrade in particular is overkill in terms of pure spatial resolution but that doesn't mean that a 4K HDR version doesn't have its own advantages, the HDR is excellent on Evil Dead the way that it resolves highlight information being blown out in the SDR version.

I haven't seen Dog Soldiers but I think I will check it out. The Blu-ray does look a lot better. The color is much cooler in the Blu-ray though. This is something I've noticed with a lot of newer 4k scans. Is this a trending thing?