Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Which Movies Have Been Released in 4K?

   
Author Topic: Which Movies Have Been Released in 4K?
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 06-13-2008 08:39 PM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hello,

Does anyone know which movies have been/will be released in 4K? Thanks.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 06-13-2008 09:22 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Can't find out for sure on movies with both true 4K production and 4K projection. But at least a few movies have had digital intermediates produced in 4K. These I know about for sure:

The Black Dahlia
The DaVinci Code
Jarhead
Spiderman 2
Spiderman 3
Reach for Me (independent movie shot with Dalsa Origin 4K camera)

Restorations in 4K

Bladerunner
The Godfather
Goldfinger
King Kong
Dr. Strangelove
The Wizard of Oz

4K digital intermediate certainly has been used on more movies than this. However, 2K remains the most widely used standard for most digital intermediate and CGI projects.

The E-Film website has an interesting article from Arri about 4K digital intermediate production and the advantages of scanning in 6K for 4K digital intermediate and 4K scanning for 2K digital intermediate. That article is located here.

 |  IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 06-13-2008 09:59 PM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If I'm understanding the article correctly, it also seems to say that 2k scanning and 2k digital projection results in a better image on screen than even completely analog capture to projection 35mm film (at least for super35 and flat).

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 06-13-2008 10:20 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know where you're drawing that conclusion. You might want to check this passage on Page 6 of that document which points out a major disadvantage of digital cameras versus film:

quote:
In that case, though, the test rasters should flow not only horizontally and vertically, but also diagonally, and, ideally, circularly. The pixel alignment on the digital camera sensor (bayer pattern) is rectangular in rows and columns. This allows good reproduction of details which lie in the exact same direction, but not of diagonal structures, or other details which deviate from the vertical or horizontal. This plays no role in film, because the “sensor elements” – film grain – are distributed randomly and react equally well or badly in all directions.
Arri showed performance examples of how film recorded test patterns and then how well those patterns were reproduced in various resolutions.

Aliasing is a major problem with low resolution scans of imagery with repeating patterns and patterns that progressively tighten (what Arri calls a "frequency sweep"). They show pretty well how a 3K native scan has more problems with aliasing than a scan originally done at 6K.

Anyone doing graphics work with film or flatbed scanners deals with similar problems on occasion. Someone will bring in a photo from a printed article because that's the only piece of art he has for the job. You can't just scan something like that in a typical manner otherwise your image gets infected with moiré patterns. The printing halftone screens in the image wind up clashing with the pixel grid and create unwanted patterns. You have to scan at much higher resolutions. If you can't do that then you have to use tricks like rotating the image on the scanning glass in 15 degree increments. Anyway, this is all getting off topic from the original point of the thread. There's no debating the higher quality merits of using 4K work flow than the usual 2K thing.

 |  IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 06-13-2008 10:30 PM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm looking on page 23 where there is a figure that shows the resultant release print resolution. It shows that the release print ends up about 2k resolution. I'm assuming there will be some loss due to projector jump and weave which you don't have in a 2k digital projector.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 06-13-2008 11:51 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That's taking into account the usual case scenario where generational loss occurs in the 35mm release print making process. The same article offered this passage:

quote:
“An analog copy is always worse than the original.” This is an often-repeated assertation. But it is true only to a certain extent in the classical postproduction process; there are in fact quality-determining parameters that, if controlled carefully enough, can ensure that the level of quality is maintained: when photometric requirements are upheld throughout the chain of image capture, creating the intermediates and printing, the desired brightness and color information can be preserved for all intents and purposes.
The topics of generational loss on print making are irrelevant when considering the 2K versus 4K question on digital cinema. The argument narrows down to whether 2K is good enough to show the detail of a 35mm image, even something shot in Super35.

Arri's paper claims to see 4153 X 3112 pixels of worth spatial detail from a test pattern on a Super35 frame. General rule of thumb is to scan 150% above that as a hedge against aliasing. 6K scan and reductions to 4K for digital intermediate would seem worthwhile. The visual examples they provide on the following pages seem to back up the point pretty well.

I also found this passage on page 19 interesting:

quote:
The MTF of a 35 mm negative scanned with 4k contains only little more than 56 lp/mm (the equivalent of 3k with the image width of Super 35 mm) usable modulation.

The resolution limit is defined by the spatial frequency which is still transferred with 10% modulation. This result computes from the multiplication of the modulation of the scanner and of the film material for 57 lp/mm:

MTF_4k_scanner (57 lp/mm) × MTF_exposed_film (57 lp/mm) =
MTF_in_4k_scan (57 lp/mm)
36% × 28% = 10.08%

By the way – the same goes for a digital camera with a 4k chip: There, a low pass filter (actually a deliberate defocussing) must take care of pushing down modulation at half of the sampling frequency (80 lp/mm) to 0, because otherwise aliasing artefacts would show up.

Ultimately : neither a 4k scan nor a (3-chip) 4k camera sensor can really transfer resolution up to 4k.

This is a not an easily digestible paradigm. It basically means that 4k data only contains 4k information if they were created pixel by pixel on a computer – without creating an optical image beforehand.

Of course, this cannot be the solution, since we would then in the future have to make do with animation movies only. A scenario where actors and their affairs could only be created on the computer. A tragic loss, not just for the yellow press!

Kinda shoots a hole through the merits of 4K digital video cameras being equal to that of 35mm. Maybe 6K ought to be the real target for all digital based movie making.

 |  IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 06-14-2008 07:59 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I completely agree there. It seems pretty clear that 4k will look better on screen than 2k for the vast majority of the audience. The article also makes it pretty clear that for digital to capture the detail of 35mm without aliasing it needs to be scanned/captured at 6k.

Unfortunately the push to get the digital transition moving as quickly as possibly led to 2k becoming a de-facto standard when the industry should have held off until 4k projectors were viable. Maybe if AMC continues installing Sony 4k it will force other manufacturers to release 4k projectors.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 06-16-2008 10:46 AM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for the info. One would assume that if a movie had a 4K DI, it would also have a 4K release. But something about that seems a little too straightforward for this industry.

I met one of the projectionists at a 4K complex, and asked how many movies they got were actually 4K, and he said all of them. I'm thinking that's not true.

I did read on the internet that Sony makes a point of releasing their movies in 4K. Can anyone confirm this?

And the big question is will WANTED be in 4K, since it was apparently shot in 4K?

Thanks.

 |  IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002


 - posted 06-16-2008 11:18 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Wanted was shot on good 'ol 35mm film. I don't see any info anywhere on whether or not it was a 4k DI.

quote: Bobby Henderson
6K scan and reductions to 4K for digital intermediate would seem worthwhile.
This is something I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around. I understand why a 4k scan of 35mm will have aliasing artifacts. I also understand why going to a 6k scan will eliminate those artifacts. What I don't understand is why scanning at 6k (i.e. capturing without aliasing artifacts) and then downrezzing to 4k will not just re-introduce the same aliasing artifacts.

 |  IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

Posts: 432
From: Novi, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2007


 - posted 06-16-2008 11:42 AM      Profile for David Zylstra   Email David Zylstra   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A quick look at one of my locations TMS reveals that all our current releases are 2K (or at least labelled as such in the naming convention).

This includes the following SPE releases:
88 Minutes
You Don't Mess with the Zohan
Maid of Honor
(Note that I am going by what the DCP label says, so if any of these are actually 4K they are mislabelled by the distributor)

I doubt the studios are putting out dual inventory files so I think there are minimal to no 4K releases being done.

 |  IP: Logged

Blaine Young
Master Film Handler

Posts: 477
From: Kirkland, WA, USA
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted 06-16-2008 05:33 PM      Profile for Blaine Young   Email Blaine Young   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure about the digital presentations, but the 35mm reels of "Kung Fu Panda" are clearly marked "4K" on the tails.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 06-16-2008 06:15 PM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Lyle Romer
Wanted was shot on good 'ol 35mm film. I don't see any info anywhere on whether or not it was a 4k DI.
I was led to believe that it was shot in 4K. But after doing some research, it appears that only the effects shots were in 4K, and the rest was 35mm. Bummer.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)  
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.