Search results

10C, would have had to been taken from about 1.75, cropped top and bottom to reach 1.37. Far too many shots exposing areas above and below the open 1.50 aspect ratio.

You may not have had your player properly connected. Were you using its HDMI output?

I believe the scan was 4k. The release notes also make mention that additional digital work has been performed to help alleviate the blue matte lines, which in 4k would be far too obvious. Sounds like some real work was done, and I look forward to seeing the final.

It gives every indication of being a quality release.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the NX9 handles the Dolby Vision/HDR.

One never knows what will fit until the film is examined shot by-shot for movement. That noted Lawrence would take up less real estate than 10 C, based solely upon disparate aspect ratios, and the amount of black on screen - 2.21 vs 1,85.

Totally unrelated.

You can’t. Older emulsions scan nicely at 4k, newer possibly at 6. 65mm at 8, then downrezzed to 4 or finished at 8. The difference between 4 and 8k on a large screen, from a normal seating distance? Minimal to zero. Reminds me, in an odd way, of one of my best friends growing up, who felt...

4k? 6k? In this case I would presume that 6k is 4k. It’s all just bragging rights. Turn the image one way, it’s 4k. Turn it the other, and like magic, it’s 6. In VVLA 4k can be construed to mean 6k. Scan a 24 x 36mm image in 4k, ie perf to perf, akin to any other roll of 35mm film, and it’s...