my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Movies distributed in 4K (non-Imax)

Author Topic: Movies distributed in 4K (non-Imax) Bill Brandenstein Master Film Handler Posts: 413 From: Santa Clarita, CA Registered: Jul 2013 posted 09-05-2016 10:58 PM                     Since many theaters have projectors with 4K chips, but it seems like most movies are still stuck at 2K, and there's no dependable way for the public to know what they're going to get (or is there?), may I request our presentation professionals add some titles to this list when a 4K DCP is offered? Primarily interested in new releases, not second-run or older, nor repertory.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 09-05-2016 11:45 PM                        You can get that information here: digitalcinema.bydeluxe.com  |  IP: Logged Bill Brandenstein Master Film Handler Posts: 413 From: Santa Clarita, CA Registered: Jul 2013 posted 09-07-2016 04:13 PM                     Frank, thank you so much. So of all the current stuff, it looks like roughly 20% hit 4K. Of new releases, that's "Sully" and "When the Bough Breaks." That's it. Except that Disney doesn't provide details there, but considering "Jungle Book" and "BFG" were 3D, they've got to be 2K. And why would Pete's Dragon be any different?  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 09-07-2016 09:45 PM                     I don't get Disney's reluctance in not providing info on their releases - I'm curious in knowing the details for 'The Light Between Oceans' both the PQ and AQ are outstanding.  |  IP: Logged John Roddy Expert Film Handler Posts: 114 From: Spring, TX, United States Registered: Dec 2012 posted 09-09-2016 02:49 PM                        I can't remember for the life of me which movie it was, but I am almost certain I saw a relatively recent release that had a 4K 2D version and 2K 3D as well. It's definitely possible, although arguably pointless. Then again, the same could probably be said about 3D conversions in the first place, and that certainly hasn't stopped anyone.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 09-09-2016 05:32 PM                     "Sully" came out in 4K and I'm projecting it in 4K, but can't tell the difference-looks 2k to me. Content is 2.39:1 thus only using a part of the chips. 4K only works and looks good if the content is in FLAT. Then the chips can be used to their full advantage. I'm also playing "Bough Breaks", but the content is scaled down to be projected down to 2k since I'm using a 2k projector.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 09-09-2016 06:16 PM                     Yes, 2D/4k and 3D/2k is appearing more and more often now. Will we know what that means? The reason for 3D/2k is standards driven, but how much of the 2D release will really be 4k? Will it just be uprezzed from 2k? Rogue One had 4k trailers. Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk will certainly come out in 3D/2k, but will probably be real 4k in 2D versions, as it was shot and postproduced in 4k, so that's a different story. I think X-Men Apocalypse had a 4k 2D versions as well. We maintain a 4k release thread on a german forum, and the amount of 4k releases is clearly on the rise. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-09-2016 09:30 PM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer 4K only works and looks good if the content is in FLAT. Then the chips can be used to their full advantage. There's not only the problem of cropped TV-style 'scope in movie theaters. 4K also doesn't work so well if the movie isn't really shot in 4K (or higher resolution). The standard Arri Alexa camera has a 2.8K resolution CMOS imager, quite a bit lower than 4K resolution. Yet it's the most popular camera for feature movie production. When used in 2:1 anamorphic mode with anamorphic lenses the Alexa uses only a portion of that 2.8K chip. The fashion of anamorphic bokeh is pretty important I suppose. The Arri Alexa 65, a few models from Red, Sony, etc. support 4K and higher resolution. Nevertheless, the output of these cameras is often down-rezzed to 2K in the final master. 4K is pretty much bullshit if any step in the production process or post production process puts the imagery through any kind of bottle neck of less than 4K resolution. You can't down-rez to 2K just to lower cost and speed up the process of a certain production step and then up-rez back to 4K and expect everything to be just as good as keeping everything in 4K or better every step of the way. The final rendered product is only as good as its lowest resolution step.  |  IP: Logged Shawn M. Martin Expert Film Handler Posts: 175 From: Arlington, VA, USA Registered: Feb 2012 posted 09-09-2016 10:25 PM                    "Snowden" is 4K, according to the Deluxe page linked by Frank.  |  IP: Logged Edward Summerhays Film Handler Posts: 16 From: Sydney, NSW, Australia Registered: Sep 2016 posted 09-11-2016 11:04 PM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer 4K only works and looks good if the content is in FLAT. Then the chips can be used to their full advantage. Monte, as a consumer, I don't fully agree with this. For me it's the opposite. I fin'd 4K more beneficial for scope. Yes, flat uses more pixels of the chip, but I find a bigger difference comparing a 2k/4k scope, than a 2k/4k flat. We know a scope image uses LESS pixels than a flat image, but takes up MORE surface area. So really, a scope image, you're seeing the pixels larger than you would if it were flat, therefore, you're sacrificing clarify (Bobby Henderson has ranted about the DCP standards previously). I feel like, because the scope image shows a less defined image, it benefits greater from the higher resolution of 4K than flat does, even though it uses less of the chips pixels.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-12-2016 07:56 PM                     I think Monte's point is flat is a better format for d-cinema than 'scope across the board. quote: Edward Summerhays We know a scope image uses LESS pixels than a flat image, but takes up MORE surface area. Scope only uses more surface area projected on an "old fashioned" common height theater screen. Flat uses a lot more surface area in the actual imaging files and on the imaging chip. There's a huge difference in pixel count between 1998 X 1080 versus 2048 X 858. Superimpose both frames on a 2048 X 1080 image representing full container and 'scope will look nearly identical to how it looks on a TV set at home. Flat nearly fills the full container area. The proportions are the same when the differences are scaled to 4K. Since most d-cinema projectors are using a single lens for both flat and scope, the act of blowing up a 'scope image to fill a common height screen will increase the effects of diffraction from the projector lens. As much as I hate common width movie theater screens, they're really the better approach to use for d-cinema if the goal is maintaining a consistent level of image quality and sticking with the current odd-ball standards. quote: Edward Summerhays I feel like, because the scope image shows a less defined image, it benefits greater from the higher resolution of 4K than flat does, even though it uses less of the chips pixels. 4K 'scope would definitely be better than 2K flat. That's about it, and only if the d-cinema projector does a good enough job with 4K. Contrast and color fidelity can take a hit in 4K due to the smaller physical size of the pixels on the imaging chips.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 09-13-2016 04:29 AM                     Course, once again, the sharpness of the image, be it 2k or 4K, depends on the post production on how the final results are produced. My case in point was last years Mad Max "Fury Road:" For being just 2K content, it looked I was shooting a 4K scope image on our 70ft wide screen being so razor sharp as it was...and I was using a 4K projector. This one deserved a 5/70mm release if the image was going to be that sharp just using 2K. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 09-13-2016 05:15 PM                     The only advantage of showing a 2K film on a 4K projector on a large 70ft screen is that the smaller pixel grid will help to hide it. The disadvantage is that you're losing quite a bit of contrast. But to be honest, I'm a bit in a state of disbelief that in 2016, studios are still shipping 2K releases by default. Those same movies appear as 4K rentals just a few months after their cinematic release. Maybe many of them are just homeopathic 4K releases, but damn, get your stuff straight already.  |  IP: Logged Bill Brandenstein Master Film Handler Posts: 413 From: Santa Clarita, CA Registered: Jul 2013 posted 09-14-2016 01:11 PM                     Let me insert into this very interesting and informative discussion that, of the 4 wide releases this weekend, only Snowden is 4K. Also was noteworthy that the data sheet includes a letter from Oliver Stone to y'all to please Use Extra Care and to please Turn It Up since there aren't so many explosions and chases to constantly max the volume out.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-14-2016 01:29 PM                        Just got in Woody Allen's Café Society and it is 4k. We're only 2k, and I wonder how many of the theatres that play Woody Allen movies are 4k.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.