4K UHD discs of movies shot on film are being created from the 2K digital intermediate? (2 Viewers)

[moovtune]

Isn't it true that when watching a blu-ray on a 4K TV, the TV set is up-converting the 1080p to 2160 automatically because it's the TV's native resolution? Because of this, I decided a year and 1/2 ago to stop buying 4K discs that were just up-converted from a 2K master.
At first I bought an occasional 4K title anyway because it sometimes had an Atmos mix and the blu-ray didn't - but then my disappointment with so many of the Atmos mixes - having them sound no better than using my processor to upmix the 5.1 or 7.1 to Dolby Surround or DTS Neural - caused me to go back to just the blu-ray, unless the 4K had a 4K master.

 

[Wes Candela]

Well, film doesn't have a fixed resolution, so you can scan it at whatever pixel count you want, but there's a point of diminishing returns. For 35mm motion picture film, that's generally considered to be between 3-4K. Kodak claims 6K for newer stocks.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Capturing-Information-on-Film.pdf



At any rate, what's on the film and what an audience in a cinema would have seen are two very different things. This has actually been studied.

Here's the gist of it:



If you're interested in reading the entire study, a PDF of it is available for download here:

IMAGE RESOLUTION OF 35MM FILM IN THEATRICAL PRESENTATION

IMAGE RESOLUTION OF 35MM FILM IN THEATRICAL PRESENTATION

www.academia.edu

Agreed there is no set stat for scanning a 35 mm negative and how many pixels you can yield from that scan but what I read was it was approximately 20 million pixels so even if that’s half right a A 4K scan for an 8K scan will definitely yield more information and 2K is nowhere close to gathering all the info in a 35 mm negative scan. It’s scraping the surface, I at a dance for my daughter. I have to read the rest of your post, but what I’ve read so far is great information.

 

[Robert Harris]

Well, it's much easier to edit film digitally. This is the problem.
If it shot digitally and it's Digital intermediate is only 2K, not 4K or 8K

Then we the consumers are losing

Not to any incredible degree. Keep in mind that digital projection in theaters is still substantively 2k, and most film derived 35mm prints are no more than 2k. Those derived digitally are even less.

The concept of scanning an OCN at 4k and creating a 2k data file is still more than anyone needs for home viewing.

And returning to original data files, which may be 2.8k (or something less than 4) and creating a 4k release is still a very fine product within that 4k bucket, which may also include better color, densities, black levels and audio, especially with high data throughput.

Reviewing Paramount’s stellar new 4k of Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, I noted data throughput in the 70s, in support of the imagery.

in short, those who enjoy a 4k presentation from a 4k scan have become spoiled by the technology. Add to that the fact that from that oft-mentioned nominal seating distance, one cannot see 4k.

We live in a time in which home theater fans are amidst a veritable Roman orgy of technology for technology’s sake.

Forgive me, as I must take my leave. Varinia has just peeled me a fresh grape.

 

[Bartman]

This thread is an eye opener. I'd heard about film, digital & CGI rendering compromises but this goes way beyond my previous knowledge. Not that I've got a horse in this race. For reasons of eyesight variability, storage space & cost I decided to stick at Blu-ray & DVD, after going thru VHS, laserdisc, DVD & Blu-ray buying cycles.
As a side note, I asked my wife if she noticed anything about the picture quality of Masters Of The Air on ATV+? It's a great 4K series but the picture is a little fuzzy. In a couple of scenes I pointed out what is real (minority) & what is CGI (majority), & her reaction was, can they really do that? To me, a lot of it looks fake but she was impressed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes, but the Warner Archive titles are almost always 2K scans.

From what era?

I can’t think of any recent-ish WA release that isn’t derived from a 4k scan. The scan is the asset.

Keep in mind that we did the Godfather films in 4k at MPI in 2007.

 

[Robert Harris]

This thread is an eye opener. I'd heard about film, digital & CGI rendering compromises but this goes way beyond my previous knowledge. Not that I've got a horse in this race. For reasons of eyesight variability, storage space & cost I decided to stick at Blu-ray & DVD, after going thru VHS, laserdisc, DVD & Blu-ray buying cycles.
As a side note, I asked my wife if she noticed anything about the picture quality of Masters Of The Air on ATV+? It's a great 4K series but the picture is a little fuzzy. In a couple of scenes I pointed out what is real (minority) & what is CGI (majority), & her reaction was, can they really do that? To me, a lot of it looks fake but she was impressed.

As has been discussed in the past, 4k is nothing more than a bucket holding data. That data can be an original 8k image down-rezzed to 4k, or a VHS era master from a 16mm dupe.

The fact that something is a 4k release is essentially meaningless except for sizzle. One can enjoy a meal at Ruth’s Chris and have a sizzling filet presented on a plate, or (by special request) something akin to the shoe sole from The Gold Rush.

Both sizzling…

 

[Bartman]

As has been discussed in the past, 4k is nothing more than a bucket holding data. That data can be an original 8k image down-rezzed to 4k, or a VHS era master from a 16mm dupe.

The fact that something is a 4k release is essentially meaningless except for sizzle. One can enjoy a meal at Ruth’s Chris and have a sizzling filet presented on a plate, or (by special request) something akin to the shoe sole from The Gold Rush.

Both sizzling…

But does that 4K bucket contain more data than is needed? If all the compromises here are true, why not just produce better 2K transfers with high efficiency codecs & let the TV do the upscaling to 4K? Long term, there are data storage, internet congestion & energy costs to consider?

 

[Robert Harris]

But does that 4K bucket contain more data than is needed? If all the compromises here are true, why not just produce better 2K transfers with high efficiency codecs & let the TV do the upscaling to 4K? Long term, there are data storage, internet congestion & energy costs to consider?

There is no perfect standard. Every different production begins with optics, a chip and software. My reference 4k disc is Midsommar.

But the intent toward which each of us who works in the field is different. Mine happens to be to make a release look precisely like an original answer print.

Intents are different, thus will be outcomes.

I’ve recently seen new Blu-rays that from that nominal seating distance (NSD) appear for all the world to be a 4k, even though 4k CAN give us more accurate color et al. That isn’t always the case, and is dependent upon what is being poured into the bucket.

I believe some may be fretting too much about the technologies. Just enjoy.

I recall looking at 8k panels and thinking “looks great, but at that NSD it’s all sizzle.”

I experimented with the 8k pixel-shift on my projector for about an hour. A minor difference in the best 4k software was duly noted standing at the screen.

Turned it off. Never turned it on again. I’d rather not have another layer of processing.

 

[Robert Crawford]

From what era?

I can’t think of any recent-ish WA release that isn’t derived from a 4k scan. The scan is the asset.

Keep in mind that we did the Godfather films in 4k at MPI in 2007.

Thank you. It’s what I hinted at earlier in this thread.

 

[Bartman]

There is no perfect standard. Every different production begins with optics, a chip and software. My reference 4k disc is Midsommar.

But the intent toward which each of us who works in the field is different. Mine happens to be to make a release look precisely like an original answer print.

Intents are different, thus will be outcomes.

I’ve recently seen new Blu-rays that from that nominal seating distance (NSD) appear for all the world to be a 4k, even though 4k CAN give us more accurate color et al. That isn’t always the case, and is dependent upon what is being poured into the bucket.

I believe some may be fretting too much about the technologies. Just enjoy.

I recall looking at 8k panels and thinking “looks great, but at that NSD it’s all sizzle.”

I experimented with the 8k pixel-shift on my projector for about an hour. A minor difference in the best 4k software was duly noted standing at the screen.

Turned it off. Never turned it on again. I’d rather not have another layer of processing.

Thanks for the 10Kft view. We are bombarded by 4K is the greatest influencers, after a while even skeptics like myself begin to believe it, until I realize I'm having trouble focussing on subtitles at the end of a long day!
P.S. I had my eyesight thoroughly checked two years ago & in the past it's been slow to change, it's a variability problem.

 

[Wes Candela]

Well, film doesn't have a fixed resolution, so you can scan it at whatever pixel count you want, but there's a point of diminishing returns. For 35mm motion picture film, that's generally considered to be between 3-4K. Kodak claims 6K for newer stocks.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Capturing-Information-on-Film.pdf



At any rate, what's on the film and what an audience in a cinema would have seen are two very different things. This has actually been studied.

Here's the gist of it:



If you're interested in reading the entire study, a PDF of it is available for download here:

IMAGE RESOLUTION OF 35MM FILM IN THEATRICAL PRESENTATION

IMAGE RESOLUTION OF 35MM FILM IN THEATRICAL PRESENTATION

www.academia.edu

Hey, I just read some of this fantastic information. Thank you.

Well, film doesn't have a fixed resolution, so you can scan it at whatever pixel count you want, but there's a point of diminishing returns. For 35mm motion picture film, that's generally considered to be between 3-4K. Kodak claims 6K for newer stocks.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Capturing-Information-on-Film.pdf



At any rate, what's on the film and what an audience in a cinema would have seen are two very different things. This has actually been studied.

Here's the gist of it:



If you're interested in reading the entire study, a PDF of it is available for download here:

IMAGE RESOLUTION OF 35MM FILM IN THEATRICAL PRESENTATION

IMAGE RESOLUTION OF 35MM FILM IN THEATRICAL PRESENTATION

www.academia.edu

these are amazing amazing amazing resources thank you so much

For posting them excellent I downloaded all.

 

[Wes Candela]

Not to any incredible degree. Keep in mind that digital projection in theaters is still substantively 2k, and most film derived 35mm prints are no more than 2k. Those derived digitally are even less.

The concept of scanning an OCN at 4k and creating a 2k data file is still more than anyone needs for home viewing.

And returning to original data files, which may be 2.8k (or something less than 4) and creating a 4k release is still a very fine product within that 4k bucket, which may also include better color, densities, black levels and audio, especially with high data throughput.

Reviewing Paramount’s stellar new 4k of Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, I noted data throughput in the 70s, in support of the imagery.

in short, those who enjoy a 4k presentation from a 4k scan have become spoiled by the technology. Add to that the fact that from that oft-mentioned nominal seating distance, one cannot see 4k.

We live in a time in which home theater fans are amidst a veritable Roman orgy of technology for technology’s sake.

Forgive me, as I must take my leave. Varinia has just peeled me a fresh grape.

Oh no. Am I a spoiled Roman at an orgy thrown by Caligula right now?
haha

I actually have a question about what you wrote Mr. Harris,

“
The concept of scanning an OCN at 4k and creating a 2k data file is still more than anyone needs for home viewing.

And returning to original data files, which may be 2.8k (or something less than 4) and creating a 4k release is still a very fine product within that 4k bucket, which may also include better color, densities, black levels and audio, especially with high data throughput."

why would we scan an original camera negative at 4K and then make a 2K digital negative from it?

Can we not make a 4K digital negative out of it?

 

[Wes Candela]

This thread is an eye opener. I'd heard about film, digital & CGI rendering compromises but this goes way beyond my previous knowledge. Not that I've got a horse in this race. For reasons of eyesight variability, storage space & cost I decided to stick at Blu-ray & DVD, after going thru VHS, laserdisc, DVD & Blu-ray buying cycles.
As a side note, I asked my wife if she noticed anything about the picture quality of Masters Of The Air on ATV+? It's a great 4K series but the picture is a little fuzzy. In a couple of scenes I pointed out what is real (minority) & what is CGI (majority), & her reaction was, can they really do that? To me, a lot of it looks fake but she was impressed.

Hmmmmmmm
so I’m waiting to watch Masters of the air
This is interesting to hear. I’m gonna need to see it.

and I would like to say that I don’t have a horse in this race… But that’s a lie because I started this whole conversation based on my on my ignorance of the post production process in the digital realm

And my eyesight isn’t doing too great either to be honest as soon as they invented the iPhone

my eyesight started the plummet. Like a demon being cast back down to hell
but I have my glasses for when I watch my television and the details on my 4K OLED, dear God, man

but I wanted to say this is one hell of a thread, my God!!

 

[Wes Candela]

From what era?

I can’t think of any recent-ish WA release that isn’t derived from a 4k scan. The scan is the asset.

Keep in mind that we did the Godfather films in 4k at MPI in 2007.

Thank you for scanning The Godfather in 4K. Dear God, thank you!!!!

Mr. Harris, you're the best

 

[Wes Candela]

There is no perfect standard. Every different production begins with optics, a chip and software. My reference 4k disc is Midsommar.

But the intent toward which each of us who works in the field is different. Mine happens to be to make a release look precisely like an original answer print.

Intents are different, thus will be outcomes.

I’ve recently seen new Blu-rays that from that nominal seating distance (NSD) appear for all the world to be a 4k, even though 4k CAN give us more accurate color et al. That isn’t always the case, and is dependent upon what is being poured into the bucket.

I believe some may be fretting too much about the technologies. Just enjoy.

I recall looking at 8k panels and thinking “looks great, but at that NSD it’s all sizzle.”

I experimented with the 8k pixel-shift on my projector for about an hour. A minor difference in the best 4k software was duly noted standing at the screen.

Turned it off. Never turned it on again. I’d rather not have another layer of processing.

I like the bucket analogy.

Midsummer is a phenomenal 4K disc visually.

My assumption, after watching it, was that it looked as good as it does because Ari Aster shot the film digitally in 8K resolution.

This 4K disc looks incredible due to the extra resolution the film was shot in.

My go-to disc now is Oppenheimer.
It is the best-looking 4K disc I’ve ever seen

After watching it, I discovered that Mr. Nolan scanned the film digitally at 8K and created the 4K disc from that scan.

This 8K scan is what I assume allows the brilliance of the IMAX & 70MM footage through on the 4K disc as beautifully as it does.

2K is fantastic, but to quote George Lucas from the documentary “Side-by-side,”… and I am paraphrasing here:
“If we’re going to start filming digitally, don’t we want to help the format become the best it can be? “

That's how I feel about 4K or 8K physical media… shouldn’t we strive to make it the best it can be?

I think the reason 4K releases being struck from 2K DI digital intermediate sources disturbs me is because of my photography background.

I’ve gone into quite significant debt to purchase my camera.
The Fuji GFX 100S Medium format camera. Larger sensor to capture more detail,102 megapixels, 16-bit raw files.
10 K-sized images at 11,201px x 8,206px that will capture details you can see when zooming in, or when printing the images large. 16-bit color (281 trillion colors) Allowing for zero banding in black-and-white or color photos.

I upgraded from a Canon full-frame 6D camera, which was wonderful, but captured images at approximately 4K resolution.

I could have blown these images up in Photoshop to 10K size or more…

But like you said, it’s what’s inside the bucket that counts.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the only 4K discs made from 2K sources are for movies where the finished master is only 2K. They are transparent to what the master is.

 

[Wes Candela]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the only 4K discs made from 2K sources are for movies where the finished master is only 2K. They are transparent to what the master is.

No, you don’t sound like a broken record. You’re absolutely right. It’s an important point to make.
This discussion does not affect every movie on the market in 4K.

 

[Robert Crawford]

No, you don’t sound like a broken record. You’re absolutely right. It’s an important point to make.
This discussion does not affect every movie on the market in 4K.

This discussion doesn’t affect any movie on the market in 4K.

 

[Robert Harris]

Oh no. Am I a spoiled Roman at an orgy thrown by Caligula right now?
haha

I actually have a question about what you wrote Mr. Harris,

“
The concept of scanning an OCN at 4k and creating a 2k data file is still more than anyone needs for home viewing.

And returning to original data files, which may be 2.8k (or something less than 4) and creating a 4k release is still a very fine product within that 4k bucket, which may also include better color, densities, black levels and audio, especially with high data throughput."

why would we scan an original camera negative at 4K and then make a 2K digital negative from it?

Can we not make a 4K digital negative out of it?

You would record a negative per the source.

 

[Robert Harris]

I like the bucket analogy.

Midsummer is a phenomenal 4K disc visually.

My assumption, after watching it, was that it looked as good as it does because Ari Aster shot the film digitally in 8K resolution.

This 4K disc looks incredible due to the extra resolution the film was shot in.

My go-to disc now is Oppenheimer.
It is the best-looking 4K disc I’ve ever seen

After watching it, I discovered that Mr. Nolan scanned the film digitally at 8K and created the 4K disc from that scan.

This 8K scan is what I assume allows the brilliance of the IMAX & 70MM footage through on the 4K disc as beautifully as it does.

2K is fantastic, but to quote George Lucas from the documentary “Side-by-side,”… and I am paraphrasing here:
“If we’re going to start filming digitally, don’t we want to help the format become the best it can be? “

That's how I feel about 4K or 8K physical media… shouldn’t we strive to make it the best it can be?

I think the reason 4K releases being struck from 2K DI digital intermediate sources disturbs me is because of my photography background.

I’ve gone into quite significant debt to purchase my camera.
The Fuji GFX 100S Medium format camera. Larger sensor to capture more detail,102 megapixels, 16-bit raw files.
10 K-sized images at 11,201px x 8,206px that will capture details you can see when zooming in, or when printing the images large. 16-bit color (281 trillion colors) Allowing for zero banding in black-and-white or color photos.

I upgraded from a Canon full-frame 6D camera, which was wonderful, but captured images at approximately 4K resolution.

I could have blown these images up in Photoshop to 10K size or more…

But like you said, it’s what’s inside the bucket that counts.

Over the past few years I’ve been scanning all of my negs and transparencies going back to my first images, when i was probably 7-8 years old.

Once I got into my early teens, I shot with a Zeiss Contax, then later with Nikons, going through each incarnation, Rollei, Bronica, Hasselblad.

Currently shooting a Sony a7 Rv, which allows VistaVision at 61 mp.