-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Sony Press Release: Sony Announces "Mastered in 4K" Blu-ray Titles


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#41 of 48 OFFLINE   Thomas Newton

Thomas Newton

    Screenwriter

  • 1,437 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 16 1999

Posted January 13 2013 - 11:08 PM

According to my friend who works for Sony Studios, 3D has not been the savior they hoped it would be. This following the dashed hopes for Blu Ray saving them. Sony is trying everything to get their home entertainment business back to the prominence they once held.

Everything except ditching DRM and the whole customer-hostile attitude that goes with it.

#42 of 48 OFFLINE   Torsten Kaiser

Torsten Kaiser

    Film Restoration & Preservation

  • 95 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 30 2002

Posted January 13 2013 - 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner 


Yes, fortunately film has built in dither that helps most of the time. The 8 bit limitation is obvious on computer generated noise free subtle colour gradients (no complexity needed or wanted). These do not exist like that on film, but CGI productions/cartoons can easily have them if one does not avoid them. I also see banding regularly on fade ins and fade outs of films on Blu Ray. How much of this is in the master and how much due to compression would be interesting to know.


Such fades, especially with older film stock/scans of same are made with a modified dynamic range to insure correct black levels in RGB or, if mastered in 4:2:2 YUV, in that respective color space during mastering between black or absolute black (0) and a correct "out mark", where signal matches the continuing footage.  This is called dynamic dissolve or bridging.  If one is not careful, this can lead to banding.  But, again, it is not the 8bit depth that is the root cause, it is merely "ad(d)ing".  Compression adds substantially to this problem, building on these artifacts significantly and very visibly.

To compare CGI shots and digitally made cartoons with film materials mastered for Blu-ray to substantiate the argument that the (8)bit depth and Head Range limitations are to blame is literally stretching the imagination.  Apples and oranges.


Torsten Kaiser
-----------------------
TLEFilms Film Restoration & Preservation Services
www.TLEFilms.com

#43 of 48 OFFLINE   Mr645

Mr645

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 211 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 23 2011
  • Real Name:Jon
  • LocationBoca Raton, Florida

Posted January 14 2013 - 01:26 AM

The thing that I think would make sense would be if the product came with a code to download a 4k electronic version and upgrade BluRay players to play this content. But since Sony can;t even get 720p Ultraviolet to work.............

#44 of 48 OFFLINE   Everett Stallings

Everett Stallings

    Second Unit

  • 385 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 24 1998
  • Real Name:Everett
  • LocationWilmington,De

Posted January 14 2013 - 05:36 AM

I think all this talk about higher REZ. TV will end up being like Laser Disc. With a smaller group of film lovers buying the higher priced 2k or higher picture and sound equipment. I am not happy with the direction the home theatre market is going. :( I miss the info cards that were inside. And booklets,chapter stops,etc.!!! I do not like UV as the copy you get is 720p when I purchsed a Blu-Ray!!!:rolleyes:
Former projectionist @ all downtown theatres in Balto. City.Which are all closed. frown.gif

#45 of 48 OFFLINE   Michel_Hafner

Michel_Hafner

    Supporting Actor

  • 756 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2002

Posted January 14 2013 - 09:27 PM

To compare CGI shots and digitally made cartoons with film materials mastered for Blu-ray to substantiate the argument that the (8)bit depth and Head Range limitations are to blame is literally stretching the imagination.  Apples and oranges.

My argument was from the beginning not specifically and exclusively about 8 bit and (grainy) film but about whether 8 bit is a sufficient number of bits for a digital system to show us content (of any kind) without running into banding problems. CGI material, computer cartoons, film from 8mm to 65mm, HD camera material, digital cinema camera material (which is becoming more and more noiseless if desired as sensor technology progresses) are all valid examples and all released on Blu Ray or other 8 bit media. And they all can have banding problems when the material is critical and the necessary steps are not taken to prevent it. 8 bit is like 24 fps, a compromise good enough to be adopted but clearly running into problems and artifacts as soon as conditions become unfavourable. I agree that with film you normally don't have banding issues on 8 bit when the processing is optimized to avoid it, but explicitly or implicitly you pay a price (trade in resolution/signal for noise).

#46 of 48 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,489 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted January 23 2013 - 05:30 AM

The following is from John Bailey's blog over at ASC:



Last November 19, I received an email from James Owsley of Sony Colorworks, writing that he and Grover Crisp of Asset Management at Sony were planning to do a 4K data transfer of Groundhog Day, a film I had photographed 20 years ago.

Posted Image

Bill Murray and friend, Phil.

Sony is creating content for their new 4K, 84” Bravia Ultra HD LCD television. There is not yet any broadcast band at 4K, nor consumer discs—select movies from their library are being made available to the Bravia buyers on drives. The television sells for a more than modest $25,000– but it includes passive 3D glasses.

Posted Image

Sony 84″ Ultra HD television.

It was an invigorating experience to work on the re-mastering ofGroundhog Day with colorist John Dunn at Sony’s Stage 6 Colorworks facility. We were seated at the Baselight at a screen height distance of less than 2x; the clarity and detail from the scanned negative at 4K was staggering. The process of re-mastering this much beloved film was a revelation. John and I were able to extract incredible detail, retiming shots with subtle color and density controls, as well as selecting multiple power windows—generating a level of scene to scene consistency that had not been possible with the limited controls of the photochemical era. Consistency in this film is especially important because of the oft-repeated scenes shot on successive production days in changing light. The richly dense and fine grain Kodak negative clearly contained even more than the 4K data scanned. After an initial runthrough, I asked John to exploit his full digital “toolbox” in his first pass at re-mastering. “This is no sacred cow,” I said.

What does this suggest about a decade of DIs that have been rendered at 2K resolution—and of the filmout negatives struck from those files? Sony is rescanning and remastering many popular titles in their catalog, movies that initially had been exhibited from 2K digital intermediate files, as film prints or as DCPs—but now rescanning from the original camera negatives at 4K resolution. This remastering of the OCN may be viable for films that have been successful enough to warrant such added expense, but what about those films that have not made the cut, films, for the moment at least, shelved because of an indifferent box office— and waiting for a possible redemptive rlate inclusion in the critical canon or as a cult favorite? Citizen Kane was largely forgotten for several decades. Monte Hellman’s Two Lane Blacktop, a film roundly pilloried on its initial release in 1971, recently received a glorious 2 DVD and Blu-Ray release by the Criterion Collectionand has just been included in the 2012 National Film Registry.

Unless rescanned, movies mastered with a 2K DI, and a 2K filmout negative, are married to that resolution, even allowing for the evolving technology of uprezing. Will many of us just have to accept that the past decade of our work will be trapped in a rapidly obsolescent 2K format? What more apparent “watermark” of an era of filmmaking can you imagine than a generation of movies marked as substandard?

This is a lamentable prospect as well for filmmakers who have embraced digital video capture as their choice. The ruling caveat of movies has always been, “The only constant is change.” This year’s lean forward technology is doomed to become next year’s pratfall. I include myself, at least in part, among the leaners. All four of the feature films I photographed in 2012 were at Arri ProRes 4444 Log C resolution. There were many reasons the directors, producers and I made this choice over any higher resolution video or film capture; these were valid choices given multiple factors affecting the movie’s aesthetic or financial bottom line.

I am excited about the dramatic quality of these two movies finished for Sundance 2013— but also about their technical quality. Seeing them on large screen projection, the emotional intimacy and human scale of their stories are not much compromised by the ProRes format choice. But there does remain an indisputable fact:  All four of these movies exist at their capture level as essentially HD digital video files. As Sony colorist John Dunn said, a propos of the rich negative of Groundhog Day, “The difference is that with 35mm film negative you can keep going back to the well.” For the several dozen movies I have photographed on 35mm film at full aperture, anamorphic aspect ratio—the “well” is likely to contain (depending on your predilection) an equivalent 8K image. What is important to accept here is that the media and format choices that we filmmakers make at the ground zero of image capture—are “baked in.” For Silverado, Larry Kasdan and I chose Super 35 (then called Super-Techniscope) over anamorphic, just as we chose anamorphic over 1:85 for our next film, The Accidental Tourist; these were for strictly aesthetic reasons just as Zak Penn, Werner Herzog and I chose a low end, standard def, Panasonic prosumer camera forIncident at Loch Ness, and just as Anthony Dod Mantle and Thomas Vinterberg chose for Celebration.


"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#47 of 48 OFFLINE   theonemacduff

theonemacduff

    Second Unit

  • 311 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 2010
  • Real Name:Jon Paul
  • Locationthe wet coast

Posted January 23 2013 - 06:37 AM

I scan 35mm slides at about 5400dpi. These are like Vista Vision, in that they are 8-perf, horizontal; pixel dimensions are roughly 4600 x 7000. If you take the same bit depth and rotate (vertical, 4-perf, ie, like movie film) you get a pixel dimension of about 3500 x 4600. If the same image is cropped to 1.85:1 ratio, then the dimensions are 2550 x 4600. This is a bit more than 4K, say, 5K, for what it's worth. At that bit-depth you can easily see the "grain" and increasing the bit depth to 6400 (at which my scanner maxes out) makes no appreciable difference to what you see. This suggests to me that at around 4K, you would be scanning almost the totality of information that the film contains. So unless you're working with VV or with 65mm film, there's probably no need to go to 8K. It also means that Mr Bailey is more than correct to be worried about film that has been transferred at no more than 2K; more than half the data has been thrown away. What I've never got about studio policies around this is WHY NOT scan at the highest available bit depth? The rule surely should be, that when you have a chance to capture data, you always capture the maximum you can, simply because, the world being what it is, you may not get another chance to capture that data. With max data, you can downrez if you want; uprezzing is always going to be interpolated data, which is second best. Maybe the math for interpolation will get more sophisticated as time goes on; but why take the chance? Capture it now.

#48 of 48 OFFLINE   Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 834 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted January 23 2013 - 07:00 AM

What I've never got about studio policies around this is WHY NOT scan at the highest available bit depth? The rule surely should be, that when you have a chance to capture data, you always capture the maximum you can, simply because, the world being what it is, you may not get another chance to capture that data. With max data, you can downrez if you want; uprezzing is always going to be interpolated data, which is second best. Maybe the math for interpolation will get more sophisticated as time goes on; but why take the chance? Capture it now.

In a word, money.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users