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

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
16,533
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
16,533
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris

owen35

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
228
Reaction score
112
Points
110
Real Name
Steve
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

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
16,533
Points
9,110
Real Name
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: owen35 and B-ROLL

OliverK

Producer
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
4,248
Reaction score
2,170
Points
4,110
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: owen35

owen35

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
228
Reaction score
112
Points
110
Real Name
Steve
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

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
16,533
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
  • Like
Reactions: Brent Reid

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
16,533
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
16,533
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
  • Like
Reactions: Neil Middlemiss

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
16,533
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris
  • Like
Reactions: Neil Middlemiss

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
16,533
Points
9,110
Real Name
Robert Harris

owen35

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
228
Reaction score
112
Points
110
Real Name
Steve

Josh Steinberg

Executive Producer
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
18,433
Reaction score
22,850
Points
9,110
Age
37
Real Name
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

Lead Actor
Premium
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
7,889
Reaction score
758
Points
9,110
Age
35
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
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

Archivist
Reviewer
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
12,815
Reaction score
16,533
Points
9,110
Real Name
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.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
343,747
Messages
4,688,835
Members
141,024
Latest member
sarikatrneha