Ryan´s Daughter on Blu - Amazon placeholder up (1 Viewer)

[Stefan Andersson]

Amazon has a placeholder up for Ryan´s Daughter on Blu: http://www.amazon.com/Ryans-Daughter-Blu-ray-Robert-Mitchum/dp/B002WYJHA6/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top Certainly encouraging for us Lean fans.

 

[Brianruns10]

I just wonder what transfer they'll use. The film really needs an 8K scan, but being that it's not his most popular, and probably won't be a huge seller, so I imagine they'll just use the high def master they made for the DVD release, going on six years old A shame. For me, it is a masterpiece, second only to Lawrence of Arabia in Lean's oeuvre, his most underrated, and one of the most unfairly maligned films in the history of cinema.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Brianruns10

I just wonder what transfer they'll use. The film really needs an 8K scan

Why would you presume that?

 

[Brianruns10]

I just wasn't sure if WB regarded Ryan's Daughter to merit the expense of an 8K transfer, from a financial point of view. And IIRC, wasn't it mastered in HD around the same time as Grand Prix? I was pretty sure Grand Prix's eventual blu-ray was sourced from the HD master, and not a new scan. I definitely hope I'm wrong. Ryan Daughter is one of the pinnacles of 65mm photography and really deserves an 8K mastering.

 

[benbess]

Maybe I'm confused, but I don't know if it would be possible to see the difference between a 4k and 8k master once it's down rezzed to blu-ray--which is 2k, right? But I agree with you that Ryan's Daughter is an excellent film that deserves good treatment. I thought the blu-ray of Grand Prix looked good. And so if that's the quality we have to look forward to it's likely a day 1 purchase for me.

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by Brianruns10
A shame. For me, it is a masterpiece, second only to Lawrence of Arabia in Lean's oeuvre, his most underrated, and one of the most unfairly maligned films in the history of cinema.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but Amazon has had a placeholder for "Ryan's Daughter" on Blu-ray for over two years now


don't hold your breath

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

I think this film would look great in HD, I know I was surprised how great I thought the DVD looked when it was released. (I would maybe think otherwise now... but)

 

[Brianruns10]

Think of it this way: Say you're scanning a photo, a negative of 6x6cm, which is pretty close to the width of 65mm negative. Say you scanned that picture with exactly 2 x 2 pixels, and then compressed a jpeg at 1920 x 1080 resolution. It'd look pretty awful, wouldn't it? Because you've scanned as a resolution far, far, below what the photo contains. Same for 4 x 4 pixels, 8 x 8, and on and on. Scanning is basically converting your image into pixel blocks, and the more numerous, and finer the pixels, the better your image is reproduced. You've got to get the useable image information to begin with, or the final compressed version won't be as good. And for 65mm, it takes at least 8K to capture the useable information in the film. Some argue even more, like 12K. You've got to capture that information, and THEN compress it, otherwise, you're compressing stuff that as never captured. You can scan a 65mm in 2K, which is far closer to high def standard of 1920x1080. But that is 1/16 the resolution of 8k. 1/16th! That's a significant loss of resolution from the get go, that you then are compressing again. Not to mention, it is far more future resistant to scan these films NOW at the proper resolution, so they can be remastered as each new video format rolls out. If you do a job that is just good enough for the times, you'll be constantly redoing your work as the current technology grows obsolete.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Brianruns10

Think of it this way:
Say you're scanning a photo, a negative of 6x6cm, which is pretty close to the width of 65mm negative.
Say you scanned that picture with exactly 2 x 2 pixels, and then compressed a jpeg at 1920 x 1080 resolution.
It'd look pretty awful, wouldn't it? Because you've scanned as a resolution far, far, below what the photo contains. Same for 4 x 4 pixels, 8 x 8, and on and on. Scanning is basically converting your image into pixel blocks, and the more numerous, and finer the pixels, the better your image is reproduced.
You've got to get the useable image information to begin with, or the final compressed version won't be as good. And for 65mm, it takes at least 8K to capture the useable information in the film. Some argue even more, like 12K. You've got to capture that information, and THEN compress it, otherwise, you're compressing stuff that as never captured. You can scan a 65mm in 2K, which is far closer to high def standard of 1920x1080. But that is 1/16 the resolution of 8k. 1/16th!
That's a significant loss of resolution from the get go, that you then are compressing again.
Not to mention, it is far more future resistant to scan these films NOW at the proper resolution, so they can be remastered as each new video format rolls out. If you do a job that is just good enough for the times, you'll be constantly redoing your work as the current technology grows obsolete.

To be clear -- resolution is based upon need and cost.


While preservation of a 65mm element would necessitate an 8k scan, for the production of a Blu-ray, a 4k scan works very nicely.


RAH

 

[mark brown]

What about a 2K scan which reportedly is what the eventual transfer for Agony and the Ecstasy and Those Magnificent Men... will be based. What is their status anyway? mark

 

[Brianruns10]

2K would be a bit slim for a 65mm originated production. I know nothing about the state of preservation, or the availability of film elements, and I'm not involved in the production in any way, but perhaps they had to go to a 35mm scope for the transfer? I believe that's what happened with "The Greatest Story Every Told," which perhaps not coincidentally was also regarded as one of the worst blu-ray transfers of the last year...

 

[Richard--W]

Money burns a hole in my pocket for a Blu-ray of Ryan's Daughter. Cinematography this brilliant is not often achieved. A high-resolution scan would bring out the best this pictorial poem has to offer. Artistically it merits all the expense Warner Brothers can afford to spend on it.

 

[mark brown]

If I am not mistaken, both of these titles were being scanned at 2K from the 65mm elements and presumably being readied for release. That was at least a couple of years ago.