A Few Words About While we wait for A few words about...™ Lawrence of Arabia -- in 4k/UHD Blu-ray (5 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/12/o...ntino-spahn-ranch-scary-set-piece-1202162881/

 

[Charles Smith]

Avalon Theater: heartbreaking.

Spahn Ranch: love it.

 

[Robert Harris]

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/12/1917-production-design-dennis-gassner-1202198623/

 

[owen35]

Off topic...but sort of not.

Having a discussion in a music forum that deals with footage of a concert shot in 16mm. One of the people posting stated that a 1080 release of the 16mm footage is a 1:1 footage to resolution configuration. I stated that I thought 35mm was equal to 1080 and that to scan in a 16mm film would, essentially, be "blowing up" the image to fit that resolution.

Am I wrong in my thinking on this? I know we are really talking about 2 different technologies here, but I'm curious to know this and, given the technical know-how of this group, I thought this was THE perfect place to get a definitive answer.

 

[Robert Harris]

Off topic...but sort of not.

Having a discussion in a music forum that deals with footage of a concert shot in 16mm. One of the people posting stated that a 1080 release of the 16mm footage is a 1:1 footage to resolution configuration. I stated that I thought 35mm was equal to 1080 and that to scan in a 16mm film would, essentially, be "blowing up" the image to fit that resolution.

Am I wrong in my thinking on this? I know we are really talking about 2 different technologies here, but I'm curious to know this and, given the technical know-how of this group, I thought this was THE perfect place to get a definitive answer.

Quite dependent upon film stocks, optics, processing et al. But if one is to generalize, consider 16mm as 2k, 35mm as 4-6k

 

[OliverK]

Off topic...but sort of not.

Having a discussion in a music forum that deals with footage of a concert shot in 16mm. One of the people posting stated that a 1080 release of the 16mm footage is a 1:1 footage to resolution configuration. I stated that I thought 35mm was equal to 1080 and that to scan in a 16mm film would, essentially, be "blowing up" the image to fit that resolution.

Am I wrong in my thinking on this? I know we are really talking about 2 different technologies here, but I'm curious to know this and, given the technical know-how of this group, I thought this was THE perfect place to get a definitive answer.

To give you some real world examples we luckily have caps-a-holic that is very well suited to show resolution differences between different versions of movies on DVD, Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray.

Have a look here, this is good example of a movie shot in 35mm that shows added resolution in the UHD version:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=603&y=242&d1=11430&d2=6748&s1=112538&s2=63739&l=0&i=4&go=1
This is one of the best releases of a 35mm production on UHD Blu-ray.

While this one shows a lot less of an improvement due to it being a low budget production with relatively low resolution film stocks you can still see added chroma resolution as UHD Blu-ray has full 1920x1080 chroma resolution over standard Blu-ray that only has 960 x 540. Other differences may be more due to Sony having done a new 4k master but overall the UHD version is a definite improvement:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=288&y=403&d1=13603&d2=13601&s1=137107&s2=137066&l=0&i=1&go=1

And here is an example of what I think is a scene shot in 16mm that is also handled better in UHD resolution as the UHD version does a much better job at differentiating between film grain and finer detail that is somehow lost both in the car grill and the sign:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=605&y=203&d1=13603&d2=13601&s1=137102&s2=137058&l=0&i=6&go=1

Pleaase note that the Blu-ray version was a relatively high profile Sony release so it is not the shabby work of some third class low rent outfit who did not know what they were doing with some unknown B-movie but still finer detail gets somehow lost in the second cap.

So Blu-ray should be considered fine with 16mm but one has to take extra care to do show both the film grain and the detail. 35mm on the other hand may show considerable improvement at 4k resolution.

 

[owen35]

To give you some real world examples we luckily have caps-a-holic that is very well suited to show resolution differences between different versions of movies on DVD, Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray.

Have a look here, this is good example of a movie shot in 35mm that shows added resolution in the UHD version:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=603&y=242&d1=11430&d2=6748&s1=112538&s2=63739&l=0&i=4&go=1
This is one of the best releases of a 35mm production on UHD Blu-ray.

While this one shows a lot less of an improvement due to it being a low budget production with relatively low resolution film stocks you can still see added chroma resolution as UHD Blu-ray has full 1920x1080 chroma resolution over standard Blu-ray that only has 960 x 540. Other differences may be more due to Sony having done a new 4k master but overall the UHD version is a definite improvement:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=288&y=403&d1=13603&d2=13601&s1=137107&s2=137066&l=0&i=1&go=1

And here is an example of what I think is a scene shot in 16mm that is also handled better in UHD resolution as the UHD version does a much better job at differentiating between film grain and finer detail that is somehow lost both in the car grill and the sign:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=605&y=203&d1=13603&d2=13601&s1=137102&s2=137058&l=0&i=6&go=1

Pleaase note that the Blu-ray version was a relatively high profile Sony release so it is not the shabby work of some third class low rent outfit who did not know what they were doing with some unknown B-movie but still finer detail gets somehow lost in the second cap.

So Blu-ray should be considered fine with 16mm but one has to take extra care to do show both the film grain and the detail. 35mm on the other hand may show considerable improvement at 4k resolution.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. It is fascinating to me about how all of this works. I have always been under the impression that film and video resolution had very specific limits. That certain film size won't "work" with a particular resolution, in the sense that it will look too grainy, soft, etc.. In much the same way that when you enlarge a digital image it loses detail. But it sounds like it can given certain trade-offs but it is not a "nope, won't work" rule.

 

[Robert Harris]

https://www.thewrap.com/terry-gilli...ixote-trump-harvey-weinstein-marvel-and-more/

 

[Robert Harris]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/24/us/disabled-radio-city-rockette-history-trnd/index.html

 

[Robert Harris]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/25/opinion/middle-east-world-war-i.html

 

[owen35]

Video on the restoration of “Its A Wonderful Life.”

 

[Robert Harris]

https://www.creativeplanetnetwork.c...eC0yzZUZu1jhBXXrruL8AO9b__e&M_BT=515729297289

 

[Robert Harris]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/25/...ck&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Movies

 

[owen35]

The 4K of LOA is on sale at iTunes for $4.99.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/id533825997

 

[Charles Smith]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/25/...ck&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Movies

I’m imagining a film festival consisting of those...

 

[owen35]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/25/...ck&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Movies

I guess if one were being technical, the only full-length single shot film in that list was "Russian Ark". The entire film was done in a single shot, not a series of long takes that were seamless put together; editing was still required. Is there another example I'm not aware of?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I know neither Hitchcock nor Stewart were in love with the end result, but I personally love “Rope” and find that I revisit it more than most films from either man.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Others have mentioned it before, but while the opening shot of Touch of Evil gets a lot of attention, people overlook the even longer single take later in the film where Quinlan "finds" the dynamite.

For that matter, I think there's one shot in Welles' Macbeth that's at least 8-9 minutes long.

 

[Robert Harris]

Others have mentioned it before, but while the opening shot of Touch of Evil gets a lot of attention, people overlook the even longer single take later in the film where Quinlan "finds" the dynamite.

For that matter, I think there's one shot in Welles' Macbeth that's at least 8-9 minutes long.

The truly extraordinary shot was in the ballroom sequence of the original AMBERSONS.

 

[AnthonyClarke]

For wit, the opening of 'The Player' is hard to beat...