Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Disney apparently being sensible with Star Wars:TFA keys

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Disney apparently being sensible with Star Wars:TFA keys (Page 4)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Disney apparently being sensible with Star Wars:TFA keys

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 12-19-2015 05:33 PM

Seriously? The biggest film in half a decade and they release it in 2k? CROCK OF SHIT

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 12-19-2015 05:48 PM

if the movie hadn't been released in 3D there might have been a chance for it to have been 4K, but like Universal's boneheaded decision to also downgrade the film shot (35mm/65mm) 'Jurassic World' to 2K on DCP - really seems like a step backward for an industry that is trying to advance to 4K application and release.

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 12-20-2015 08:03 PM

Who cares if it's 3D? 2D and 3D are already different files. Zero reason besides retardation for the 2D to not be 4K.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-20-2015 08:57 PM

I assume it's because 3-D uses the same "base" files as 2-D therefore if 2K is required for 3-D, they would make the movie in 2K so as not to have to make a separate set of files just for 3D, even though 3-D is a smaller and smaller piece of the pie.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 12-20-2015 09:28 PM

3D does not share a 2D base file, not on the DCP level.

The reason why there usually is no 2D-4k when there is 3D is simply that they would have to do the whole postproduction, fx, master, etc. in 4k/3D, which simply costs money. They are not willing to spend this if the main release format is 3D/2k.
May change at some point, since more and more systems could play 4k/3D, if there was a DCP standard for it.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-20-2015 09:55 PM

quote: Buck Wilson
Zero reason besides retardation for the 2D to not be 4K.

Zero reason other than not a single person in the world will refuse to see it because it is not 4k.

In other words, good enough is good enough,

| IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler

Posts: 413
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013

posted 12-21-2015 01:53 AM

quote: Stephan Shelley
Currently no such thing as a 4K 3D file. Has anyone seen a 4K 2D of a 3D release?

quote: Carsten Kurz
The reason why there usually is no 2D-4k when there is 3D is simply that they would have to do the whole postproduction, fx, master, etc. in 4k/3D, which simply costs money. They are not willing to spend this if the main release format is 3D/2k.

quote: Martin McCaffery
Zero reason other than not a single person in the world will refuse to see it because it is not 4k

So are the local laser Imax shows (Chinese, Universal CityWalk) and Dolby Vision (AMC Burbank, El Capitan, Cinerama Dome) merely running 2K 3D? Seems like 4K should exist on this. Even more odd would be a 4K 2D option for those venues, but not in 3D.

| IP: Logged

Frank B. McLaughlin
Film Handler

Posts: 76
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Dec 2011

posted 12-21-2015 07:56 AM

My guess is that sometime in the future we will see this great 4K/3D reissue (at top terms naturally). You KNOW there is a 4K master, it just isn't in the theaters.

Then there is the 4K release to Blu-Ray eagerly awaited by everyone who owns 4K viewing (which brings to mind just what else is Apple working on now).

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-21-2015 11:20 AM

I'll bet if you ran a 2K movie on an average sized theater screen for a bunch of 4K purists, and told them it was 4K, about 90% of them would believe it and at least 5% of the rest would be sort of convinced.

| IP: Logged

Tony Bandiera Jr
Film God

Posts: 3067
From: Moreland Idaho
Registered: Apr 2004

posted 12-21-2015 12:00 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'll bet if you ran a 2K movie on an average sized theater screen for a bunch of 4K purists, and told them it was 4K, about 90% of them would believe it and at least 5% of the rest would be sort of convinced.

Bingo.

And to go way back (and keeping with this being a Star Wars film thread) I take you to the opening day of "The Empire Strikes Back."

Yours truly was one of about a thousand waiting in line since the day before (and dressed in a Darth Vader Helmet and cape) to see the film presented in 70mm at the Orange Cinedome.

About an hour or so before showtime a truck comes screeching up to the theatre and delivers some film..in 35mm.

We get into the auditorium, the show starts and the trailers run, in 35mm. So far not unusual...

The feature starts, and my trained ears and eyes tell me something's not right.....and it was confirmed at the first reel change. (This is a platter house BTW.) The first splice that passed thru revealed that we were watching a 35mm print. [fu]

As the film ended I heard the vast majority of the crowd say things along the lines of "Man I'm glad we saw that in 70...it looked great!!" [Roll Eyes]

The point is (if you haven't figured it out already) even in the glory days of film, most people wouldn't recognize a presentation in a superior format even if hit with the reel of film. So I am not surprised that in this lovely era of big screen [dlp]

that fact hasn't changed.

Oh, and why did we not see the film in 70mm back then? Because the 70mm print was destroyed in the press screening at midnight by the popcorn girl "projectionist" who managed to literally scrape most of the mag track off of the print. [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler

Posts: 413
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013

posted 12-21-2015 03:17 PM

Ouch, Tony. Great story.

Unfortunately, the whole Liemax issue is proof of this point. So when I take my family to see Star Wars at AMC Universal Citywalk, should I complain about how fuzzy and big the pixels are? Because there it's pretty obvious unless you're in the back row. And, as I mentioned, they have 4K (laser) capability.

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 12-21-2015 05:35 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'll bet if you ran a 2K movie on an average sized theater screen for a bunch of 4K purists, and told them it was 4K, about 90% of them would believe it and at least 5% of the rest would be sort of convinced.

Star Wars is currently on the biggest available screen in almost every single theater in the country...

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-21-2015 07:42 PM

I know that but I don't see what it has to do with my comment.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 12-22-2015 03:57 AM

quote: Bill Brandenstein
So are the local laser Imax shows (Chinese, Universal CityWalk) and Dolby Vision (AMC Burbank, El Capitan, Cinerama Dome) merely running 2K 3D? Seems like 4K should exist on this. Even more odd would be a 4K 2D option for those venues, but not in 3D.

Neither IMAX nor Dolby is able to do a full 4k postproduction of any movie on their own. If they get a 2k DI, all they can do is uprez/DMR it. And while IMDB is often wrong on this, it quotes a 2k DI for EP7.
That said, there is still a difference between showing a 2k movie on a native 2k projector vs. showing it uprezed in 4k. It's not the same as native 4k, but it does make a difference, especially on these large screens.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-22-2015 05:02 AM

Mike...if you are referring to 4K purists...you might actually not get the numbers you are speaking...if you are talking typical movie goers, you are probably right or even more optimistic.

4K versus 2K has many "tells." So if you are a purist, then you'd look for the tells to satisfy your purity. Kinda like the example of Tony watching a 35mm print instead of 70mm (round cues instead of oval, image movement, sound changes before or after the splice, discrete sound track...etc).

With 2K/4K...the depth of the image changes quite a bit. a 2K image looks pretty flat...how the image interacts with things like picket fences and other grid like content are all tells.

I think it is silly that they don't do the 4K work for 2D let 3D get what it gets if it does not originate in 3D. After all, the converted 3D movies are just a money grab anyway.

4K is not just the future, it is the present with 8K and 16K being the future and probably a point of diminishing returns. I maintain that the likes of 16K projection could be used for things like keystone correction and curve screen correction of 4K source material without taking a significant hit on the 4K image.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.