Warner to Restore Films On Blu-ray, HD DVD using 4K scans

[HDTV1080P]

This is good news, Warner is going to create 1080P BLU-RAY and HD-DVD discs using 4K source prints instead of using 2K prints. So 1080P movies will now look better since the 1080P discs are being down converted from the high quality 4K prints. Hopefully in 10 years there will be a consumer 4K movie format launching to take full advantage of 4K resolution.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/warner052307.htm

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Industry_Trends/Disc_Announcements/Warner_Preps_More_Classic_Catalog_for_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD/648

[dialog_gvf]

This is fabulous news.

Before the formats launched and we were hearing claims that VC-1 was "transparent to the master", my reaction was: Time to improve the masters.

Gary

[JTK]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

This is fabulous news.

Before the formats launched and we were hearing claims that VC-1 was "transparent to the master", my reaction was: Time to improve the masters.

Gary

Amen.

[HDTV1080P]

Hopefully now Warner will start maximizing the bit rate on 50GB discs. It would be ideal to have VC-1 or MPEG-4/AVC at high bit rates to take advantage of the higher quality masters. People get tired of Warner using only around 30GB for both HDTV formats.

[jubaiweaponx]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

Hopefully now Warner will start maximizing the bit rate on 50GB discs. It would be ideal to have VC-1 or MPEG-4/AVC at high bit rates to take advantage of the higher quality masters. People get tired of Warner using only around 30GB for both HDTV formats.

we can only hope they get the message ,I`m with you guys this is good news though

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

This is fabulous news.

Before the formats launched and we were hearing claims that VC-1 was "transparent to the master", my reaction was: Time to improve the masters

[NutsAboutPS3]

To be honest, there is NO excuse for companies not creating separate encodes for Blu-ray and HD-DVD. Encoding is effectively a free activity, one person who has lots of PCs can set many encoding jobs going to run simultaneously, PCs are so cheap these days that their cost is insignificant for such an activity. The studios just aren't releasing enough content that encoding time should be any sort of bottleneck at all.

[Deciazulado]

Btw, it's that original film elements are gonna be scanned at 4k wide resolutions for digital restoration and high resolution digital files. Prints come in 35mm and 70mm "flavors", and are an end product, like Blu-rays, mostly intended for projection. So I changed the title slightly.

[ra1024]

Does 2K/4K relate to the number of lines of scanned resolution or something else? If it's resolution, it doesn't seem like that would produce better encodes for BR since the resolution of 1080 is already lower than 2k.

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by HDTV1080P

Hopefully now Warner will start maximizing the bit rate on 50GB discs. It would be ideal to have VC-1 or MPEG-4/AVC at high bit rates to take advantage of the higher quality masters. People get tired of Warner using only around 30GB for both HDTV formats.

I was going to say something along these lines, but you beat me to it.

[HDJK]

It refers to horizontal pixels. 2K has a resolution of about 2.5 Megapixels. 4K is more along the lines of 10 Megapixels. But I'll welcome any correction by Dezi

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by ra1024

Does 2K/4K relate to the number of lines of scanned resolution or something else? If it's resolution, it doesn't seem like that would produce better encodes for BR since the resolution of 1080 is already lower than 2k.

Generally, when people talk about 2K and 4K (with the capital "K") they are referring to the digital cinema standards.

2K = 1080 x 2048
4K = 2160 x 4096

Note that this aspect ratio fits none of the film standards exactly. (Deci has correctly pointed out on several occasions the current and historic standards). Therefore, to do the wider films there are neither of the full 1080 or 2160 lines in the transfer, and to do the narrower films typical of the 1930s and earlier the transfer has neither the full 2048 or 4096.

Still, even Ben Hur (at 1:2.76 IIRC) gives 1486 lines in a 4K remastering which is better than anyone ever saw in the theatre, and better than the current 1080p can possibly reproduce. (Also, as Deci has pointed out the best anyone sees in the theatre, under optimum conditions, is about 900 lines.)

[Coltboy]

bout time............ i see alot of John Wayne Westerns comming out now, this is great news for me! i like a lot of the older movies better than the new ones.

[ra1024]

Ok thanks for clearing that up. If I understand your answers, the 2K refers to the horizontal resolution so a 1080P tv having a horizontal resolution of 1920 would be just under the specs of a 2K transfer. If that's the case, what's the older scan resolution that is being upgraded?

[Deciazulado]

Basically 2k = 1080p for most current 35mm films (remember, the 2k/4k wide scans, refer to scanning the whole 1.33 Silent Camera Aperture width of about 25mm with 2048/4096 pixels, but the Projector Aperture width of the film formats is less (about 24mm for Super-35 and 21mm for Scope and flat 35mm).

What the 4k scan does (which depending on the format/aspect ratio being scanned can end up being from about "1600p" to "3200p" approx.) is ensure the maximum original detail is registered onto the digital file, that the files can be manipulated at such high quality, and that then a downconversion can be optimized for the distributing format, be it 1080p digital cinema, or 1080p Blu-ray

[Deciazulado]

And of course, as Shadowself says, large format VistaVision/Technirama, CinemaScope55, and Super/Ultra70mm have more than 2k can register. Recently Penton-Man mentioned that for a certain Rob Tomlin favorite the resolution needed was a 6k.

[Frode]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

2K = 1080 x 2048
4K = 2160 x 4096

Question - why do people sometimes switch around the X and Y variables like the above instead of giving it in 2048x1080 (which would be correct/normal)? Is there something I'm missing? Incidentally aren't those resolutions above are for 1.78:1 only - should be higher vertical resolution for 4:3 content, right?