Originally Posted by Glimmie
There were 4K cameras in 1935! It's called Technicolor three stripe.
Yes, and later there was 35mm horizontal and 70mm, which both where abandoned.
But what kind of argument is it you try here? Do you try to argue that we had higher resolution sixty years ago then we have had since the early -70s?
What would the attitude of film makers today have been if the main format had been 70mm the last forty years? Would film makers today accepted 2K digital as an acceptable format?
Where do you get the idea that 4K re-scans are done from print? yes some elements are where the OCN is missing or damaged but that's why its called restoration. You do the best you can.
One thing is restoration of old movies where VFX was mostly done on film and the negatives are too damaged to be rescanned, but that is not what I talk about.
New or relative recent 35mm movies which are post produced in a 2K or 4K DI, mixed in with 2K rendered CGI, how do they match the 4K DI with the 2K CGI, like the Sony "mastered in 4K" which from the reports and the screengrabs looks so soft that I assume they are doing the easy and rescan the release print and not render out 4K from the original 4K or 5K files.
You who have the connections should ask around on how they are doing the post flow on 35mm movies with VFX to make them into (the digital shot movies too), like the "mastered in 4K" titles and tell me that the workflow is truly 4K, not just ask me where I get the idea from. It is a rather educated "guess" on my part.
How many 4K theaters were there in 2005?
It is you that started the 2005 argument, so don't try to turn that around on me.
How many today?
I think you will see the 4K releases are very much in step with the venues. It makes little financial sense to run a full 4K DI process when there are only 20 screens that can reproduce 4K.
About half of US cinema screens are fitted with 4K projectors. (about 15000 4K screens of a total of about 30000 digital screens)
Do you think that show that the release number of 4K movies are in step with the number of 4K movie releases?
Now back around 2010, the studios started storing raw camera data on LTO tape. As post production is all computer driven today, it is an easy process to re-conform a feature in 4K. It's mostly an automatic process.
If you think it is that easy, then you know less than I thought.
You have to regrade the 4K files and re-fit the CGI/VFX, you cant just pull up the original 4K footage and re-render it, even if you can relink it to the original edit.
It is very much redoing the post work.
That is a very sound and wise business decision. Release 2K today but protect for 4K future. Of course the feature must be worthy of this expense so not every movie gets it.
If you don't shoot for 4K, then you don't get real 4K tomorrow, it will only be a up-conversion.
How many movie producers demand that the DP choose a camera that can ensure that it is get 4K protection in the future?
Seeing that the majority of movies are shot on Alexa, I think that answers itself.
And Arri, the first company that published papers arguing for 4K and even 8K, and is maybe the largest provider of camera equipment to Hollywood movies haven't even made a camera able to shoot for 4K releases.
I think that also show how much the Hollywood production environment care about 4K.
You seem to think it's a flip of a switch to go to an all 4K or even 8K model. But where does the funding come from?
If you think this is such a slam dunk then why not go to wall street and start your own studio? Surely the major investment banks will agree with you.
The equipment is there, the small extra cost of rendering out a 4K movie is negligible in relation to the $100mill++ cost of so many Hollywood movies. They still find the funding to buy 35mm film, pay the lab and pay for the scanning.
Maybe the investment banker should think some more about giving the cinema public a superior experience and compete with the multitude of ways to get better quality images on their small screens than the cinemas can provide.
They managed to monetize 3D, so why not try to monetize 4K, or get a step ahead and introduce 8K. The mentality seems more towards milking "good enough" as long as possible.
Maybe the real problem is that the "bean counters" have gotten too much power in Hollywood, something we see complains about now and then, lately between George Clooney slamming hedge fund honcho and Sony Pictures investor Daniel Loeb.
BTW, have you applied for SMPTE membership yet? I suggested you do so months ago.
You think I could make difference?
Doesn't matter what SMPTE recommends of standards if nobody in the movie industry actually follows up and use the recommendations.
How good can a movie shot in higher resolution than 4K look?
Even though this is a BD screengrab done by somebody, why doesn't all movies have this image quality? (I mean technical quality, not Look).
Just imagine this in 4K!
Great Gatsby.Edited by coolscan - 9/30/13 at 10:04am