Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 4K and 2K DCP have similar bitrates

This is topic 4K and 2K DCP have similar bitrates in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=002802

Posted by Edward Summerhays (Member # 9646) on 09-06-2016, 01:08 AM:

Hi,

First post! I am not in the industry, but love movies and have taken a real interest in the technical side of cinema in recent years.

My question is regarding the bitrate standards of DCP etc.

I noticed the other day that Sully, a film with a 4K Scope DCP, has a file size of only 88GB, for a 90min feature.
http://digitalcinema.bydeluxe.com/site/dlxportal/docs/Sully_US_RLS.pdf

I compared this to another Warner Bros title, War Dogs, which is a film with a 2K scope DCP, and it's file size is 142GB for a 124min feature.
http://digitalcinema.bydeluxe.com/site/dlxportal/docs/War_Dogs_US_RLS.pdf

Considering has Sully would have 4 times the amount of data per frame, why is it's bitrate 125mb/s, vs War Dog's 156mb/s?

I am surprised that the 4K DCP has a lower bitrate than the 2K DCP. I would have thought DCP standards would allocate a higher minimum bitrate for 4K content compared to 2K.

I have noticed the same for lots of other 4K DCPs. the file sizes are roughly the same as 2K DCPs of the same length. Why is this so? are 4K DCP's compressed more efficiently?

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 09-06-2016, 03:45 AM:

No it's not. The same JPEG2000 compression is being used.
Both 2K and 4K (and any other formats including HFR to be honest) share the same maximum bitrate limitation of 250Mbit/s. If you compress two features - one 2K and one 4K - at maximum bitrate, then you will end up with the same file size - assuming the length of the movies is the same.

That said it seems that because of satellite/internet delivery, many distributions are prioritising the ease of transport of the media than the final quality. So you'll end up with very high compression on both 2K and 4K and also 4K smaller than 2K in some cases.

However, JPEG2000 is not MPEG2. It's very efficient and many people are questioning whether you really need all 250Mbit/s to achieve a perfectly acceptable picture on your screen.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-06-2016, 04:21 AM:

Note, HFR3D, thus far has used 450Mbs with a potential 500Mbs since most, if not all of the HFR players can handle 500Mbs...I'm not sure on the Showvault/IMB since they only onte 48fps capability and not 60fps.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-06-2016, 04:31 AM:

I've noticed the same different filesize per content of the approximate time duration where one file can be less than a 100g and the next file be almost 130g within a 5 min runtime frame.

Could be the encoding files for: CCAP, HI, VI, and dBox.

Plus, we have IOP and SMPTE involved with this also-how the file is produced along with extra PKL folders within the DCP that could increase the filesize.

Posted by Jonathan Jensen (Member # 5870) on 09-06-2016, 06:21 AM:

@Steve: I have successfully played back 60fps 2K 3D DCP's on the Doremi IMB/Showvault (single flash on MasterImage 2100R).
The DCP was 250mbit though.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-06-2016, 11:50 AM:

It's useless to compare effective sizes of DCPs to judge on data rate vs. quality. There are different J2K encoders with VERY different data rate control capabilities.

E.g. the (outphased) Dolby Mastering System (SCC2000) is able to create extremely small DCPs while maintaining very high quality, while the common OpenJPEG J2K wastes comparably much space (it is only a reference implementation, but in no way optimized).

Also note that Flat DCPs contain a lot more pixels to encode. Even common 3D (twice the framerate of 2D DCPs) have the same J2K/DCP bandwidth limit.

However, a bandwidth limit does not mean it has to be maxed out for every DCP. Most DCPs stay way below that limit for various reasons. One reason is that the compression rate is content related. If you have a lot of soft focus, or dark scenes, or very clean animation footage, these will usually compress a lot better than very crisp or noisy footage.

- Carsten

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-06-2016, 12:41 PM:

There is a lot of differences in how DCPs are encoded and philosophies on the process tend to change from one studio to the next. I've seen normal 2 hour 2D 2K DCP movie files from studios like Paramount that weigh over 200GB while a feature of the same resolution and run time from Warner Bros. would be less than 60GB in size.

I personally would prefer studios to use the ample hard disc capacity and bandwidth available to them rather than squeeze the damned movie file down to near consumer levels of quality. The image is only being shown on a screen a hell of a lot bigger than any living room TV set. Any obvious signs of compression artifacts will be plainly visible on a d-cinema projection system that is properly set up and correctly focused.

The encoding process should not be dumbed down to fit the lesser quality levels of many theaters that feature soft, slightly out of focus projection quality. I wonder if that's part of what is happening. "Good enough" standards of practice infect a lot of aspects of this "DIGITAL!" thing. I can watch "good enough digital" quality at home far easier for a whole lot less money.

quote: Marco Giustini
However, JPEG2000 is not MPEG2. It's very efficient and many people are questioning whether you really need all 250Mbit/s to achieve a perfectly acceptable picture on your screen.

JPEG2000 may be efficient in some ways, but it's very inefficient compared to true video codecs in other ways. Inter-frame compression is supposedly not allowed for DCP use. Every movie frame in a DCP is supposed to be a separate, discrete image. Video codecs like MPEG-2 and more advanced versions (AVC, HEVC, etc.) often encode partial images from one frame to the next to save a great deal of bandwidth and disc capacity. Each frame in a DCP is supposed to use no more than 3 transform blocks per frame; consumer video can use as many blocks as needed.

When a 2K DCP gets down to around the 60GB level or even less its imagery may not compare so favorably to an AVC encoded Blu-ray disc or HEVC encoded Ultra-HD Blu-ray.

Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 09-06-2016, 05:10 PM:

Did anyone else notice they put a 7.1 file for War Dogs on the Sully sheet? [Eek!]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-06-2016, 05:16 PM:

Sully is also in ATMOS which 7.1 content will work for this Dolby format.

Posted by Edward Summerhays (Member # 9646) on 09-06-2016, 08:07 PM:

Thanks for your replies. Some good info on the way DCPs are compiled.

It is interesting that the distributor wouldn't utilize the disc space, especially at 4K. The way I see it is a 4K film at 1.5 hours would have the same amount of video information stored as a 2K movie with a running length of 6 hours! Dividing Sully's bitrate by four, to compare to a 2K bitrate, brings it's bitrate to barely higher than blu-ray.

Of course, a higher pixel density would mean the viewer would have to half their viewing distance to see the same pixel density as a 2K feature, thus, compression less evident from their regular viewing distance.

As Bobby said, it there is a lot of temptation at the 'good enough' attitude with digital. I have noticed a lot recently films which have a 4K workflow, received a 2K DCP, because the viewer doesn't demand higher quality.
It baffles me more than some films have a 2K DCP created from a 4K master, as the additional resolution "isn't necessary" for cinema, but UHD blu-ray receives the true 4K master. The higher resolution would be far more beneficial at the cinema rather than on a 65" TV, and if the cinema has a 4K projector ready to go, then why not? I guess that's another topic all together though!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-06-2016, 08:49 PM:

Examples of recent releases in minutes and filesize:

Mechanic: 98m 81g
Morgan: 91m 126g
Pets: 90m 103g
Wild Life: 93m 94g
Breathe: 88m 109g

All 2k content

Probably how all was processed.

We have two, 4k DLP houses with the rest at 2K

Only file that really ate up disc space was the HFR releases of the Hobbit series, with the 3D versions larger than the 2D versions.

-Monte
-Monte

Posted by Edward Summerhays (Member # 9646) on 09-06-2016, 09:31 PM:

Mechanic is 4K, according to this http://digitalcinema.bydeluxe.com/site/dlxportal/docs/Mechanic_Ressurrection_-_US_Release_-_DTDC.pdf

Rest are 2K

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-06-2016, 09:54 PM:

quote: Edward Summerhays
I have noticed a lot recently films which have a 4K workflow, received a 2K DCP, because the viewer doesn't demand higher quality. It baffles me more than some films have a 2K DCP created from a 4K master, as the additional resolution "isn't necessary" for cinema, but UHD blu-ray receives the true 4K master. The higher resolution would be far more beneficial at the cinema rather than on a 65" TV, and if the cinema has a 4K projector ready to go, then why not? I guess that's another topic all together though!

Actually the new Ultra HD Blu-ray format is dealing with a good amount of controversy due to what I call "Fake 4K" on many of the discs. The HEVC encoded video on those discs came from a 2K source. Not 4K. The video quality might be marginally better than a regular 1080p Blu-ray due to higher video bit rates and a more efficient video codec. But it's not the big leap in quality you would see with native 4K resolution content being shown rathern than 2K source material.

I think every single movie on Ultra-HD Blu-ray that had a 3D DCP version in theaters is fake 4K. The stuff is rendered in 2K and blown up to 4K.

Basically it's "buyer beware." Read a lot of reviews and find out the fine print on any movie you buy on Ultra-HD Blu-ray.

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 09-06-2016, 10:00 PM:

Many members on here have actual mastering experience (creating DCPs), using DCP-O-Matic. That includes me. We have the option, in the program, for setting the master bitrate, from as low as we want to as high as 250mB/sec. for 2K DCPs. The same would apply to any studio mastering their commercial title. Why some of them choose to go at low bitrates bothers the crap out of me because, for crying out loud, you get the damn hard drive back when the shows are done, and you can erase it and use it for some other other show. So why "gyp" the audiences with low bitrates for a movie? I don't get it! You're saving a few electrons, but you get them back!

Posted by Edward Summerhays (Member # 9646) on 09-06-2016, 11:49 PM:

quote:
quote Bobby Henderson
Actually the new Ultra HD Blu-ray format is dealing with a good amount of controversy due to what I call "Fake 4K" on many of the discs.

Yes, this is the main reason I am in no rush for 4K at home.

I will eventually come on board with 4K at home, but only once the price of 4K home projectors drop, and more true 4K titles are released.

I won't buy any UHD title that came from a 2K DI. And seeing as most of the titles released are modern titles sourced from a 2K, there is really no point!

Christopher Nolan's (ano other film makers) concerns on the limitations of digital are being validated now, with these fake 4K titles.

A movie from 50 years ago can be transferred to 4K, but a film from last year is stuck in 2K forever.

To find out if a film is truly 4K before going to the movies, I generally try to see the DCP title sheet so verify. I'll sit closer to the screen if it's a 4K DCP. This will come in handy for purchasing UHD blu-ray discs. If it's a 2K DI, might as well stick to standard blu-ray.

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 09-07-2016, 05:53 AM:

quote:
So why "gyp" the audiences with low bitrates for a movie? I don't get it!

Guess what? Cost. A smaller DCP can be duplicated faster, and it's easier and more cost effective to transfer it. Transponder time and bandwidth aren't cheap.

As Marco said, I had direct experiences of the *same* movie getting a very limited physical release in 4K (something like 10 drives for the whole country), and at the same time being delivered via satellite in low-bitrate 2K. I had to do bend over backwards to get Hateful 8 in 4K.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-07-2016, 08:43 AM:

The compression is going to be a time to duplicate/download thing. As for 4K versus 2K...the rule of thumb is, if there is a 3D release of the title, then the 2D version will have a 95% chance of being 2K since the 3D, with current technology limits one to 2K except for Barco's Alchemy or dual projector 3D.

Warner Brothers seem to be a bit more notorious than others for compressing things a bit down too (not that there aren't exceptions to the rule(s)).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-07-2016, 01:39 PM:

quote: Pietro Clarici
Guess what? Cost. A smaller DCP can be duplicated faster, and it's easier and more cost effective to transfer it. Transponder time and bandwidth aren't cheap.

As a paying movie theater customer, I am not very sympathetic at all to that. From my perspective it's penny pinching, quality harming bullshit.

If the movie DCPs are going to be encoded at quality levels low enough that they're not on a quality tier clearly above that of consumer video then why should I pay so much more just to watch the DCP version? It's bad enough I see so many 'scope movies shown letter-boxed on un-masked, common width theater screens. Dumbing the bit rates down to near Blu-ray bandwidth gives the whole thing even more of a TV in public feel. Cheap, unprofessional, fast-food style showmanship.

The movie industry is going to cut its own throat in the long run by not being concerned about these details. The deciders think only a few nerds give a damn about this stuff. But it hits a lot more people on a subconscious level. Other kinds of consumer oriented businesses, like restaurants for instance, obsess over details.

I'm struggling to remember just when the last time was that I bought a movie on Blu-ray disc. It's at least a year, if not longer. And I'm supposedly more of a movie buff than most people. BTW, I don't buy virtual copies of movies to stream or store on hard disc either. This summer was not the best for the movie industry. It could be a warning for tougher times ahead. The studios' tactic of taking audiences for granted, spoon feeding them sequels, remakes, etc. might be starting to catch up with them. There are so many other options for entertainment out there and so little time.

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 09-07-2016, 01:56 PM:

And as an exhibitor, I agree with you 110%.

But what can I do to change this? I can complain - and by the way, this is hopeless because no one at our local distributors actually knows what bitrate *is*, so they couldn't care less - or I could even refuse to show movies that I think are overly compressed. So, the month's blockbuster opens in every screen in Italy except mine: big ****ing deal, the distributor cannot even tell the difference.

It's abundantly clear that this is a slippery slope, but there is literally nothing we can do to stop these idiots except showing what they give us in the best possible way.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 09-07-2016, 04:28 PM:

We have been showing horrible, awful, dreadful 35mm prints for ages and there was nothing we could do to persuade the distribution that they were going too far. I can't see what could be done with Digital to be honest. Hopefully the quality bar will stay high enough to provide a decent show.

I reckon there is a main difference between 35mm prints and Digital: with prints the lab may cut some corners and print xyz awful copies but not every cinema would get a bad one.
With Digital if the main OV master is massively compressed and it looks awful, then EVERY cinema would show the same disaster on screen. Hopefully that will prevent the quality to reach alarming levels.

Posted by Edward Summerhays (Member # 9646) on 09-07-2016, 06:22 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
As a paying movie theater customer, I am not very sympathetic at all to that. From my perspective it's penny pinching, quality harming bullshit.

Agree with Bobby on this. I not at all oppose to digital, although problem with digital is, there are so many temptations to be lazy. All the 'benefits' of digital seem to benefit the studios, and not the consumer.

I live in Sydney, and am lucky to be near the largest cinema screen in the world. I have gone back time and time again to watch movies made by Christopher Nolan, projected in IMAX 1570, because of the care he puts into his films.
He even edits photo-chemically, to preserve the quality. That dedication to the cinema experience has be going back to see the same movies time and time again, even though I own them on blu-ray (I have seen Interstellar twice in IMAX 1570, and haven't even cracked the seal of the blu-ray I own).

He doesn't have the mentality of "well it will save a bit of time in data transfers to do it this other way".

4K cinema is getting me back into looking forward to seeing movies at the cinema, because it's superior quality to what I can experience at home (although I guess that gap is closing also). I guess my point is, the studios should priorities the cinema experience over what might save them a few bucks.

I read someone online, although can't verify if this is true, someone inquired to Disney why The Force Awakens didn't have a 4K DCP. They said it was due to time and budget constraints. Yes, the movie that made $2billion couldn't afford a 4K DCP [Confused]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-07-2016, 07:14 PM:

quote: Edward Summerhays
Mechanic is 4K, according to this http://digitalcinema.bydeluxe.com/site/dlxportal/docs/Mechanic_Ressurrection_-_US_Release_-_DTDC.pdf

Rest are 2K

Who did the layout on this page didn't proofread too well:

The actual CPL naming string shows 2K, but the description below lists a 4k scope image.

To be safe: we use the CPL naming string and compare it to the naming string on the drives and what's listed in the library.

-Monte

Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 09-07-2016, 08:42 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Who did the layout on this page didn't proofread too well:

The actual CPL naming string shows 2K, but the description below lists a 4k scope image.

To be safe: we use the CPL naming string and compare it to the naming string on the drives and what's listed in the library.

This isn't exclusive to Mechanic; Now You See Me 2 and Nerve also claimed 4K scope on the sheet but the files were only 2K. All three are Lionsgate titles so it's probably a mistake caused by the company.

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 09-08-2016, 06:03 AM:

Full disclosure: I don't share Nolan's views. I certainly agree that the industry should strive to get every workflow to its absolute best, but I don't think "analog" processes like 70mm shooting and photo-chemical editing are necessarily better. They help create a very specific aestethic which Nolan is very fond of, but I think other great authors and directors of photography have shown that digital done right, with current-gen cameras and 4K digital intermediate, can be just as good.

quote: Edward Summerhays
He doesn't have the mentality of "well it will save a bit of time in data transfers to do it this other way".

That's the point: of course he doesn't, but neither did Tarantino or Scorsese. The local distributor screwed up in a phase that was beyond their control, and created 2K over-compressed DCPs for Hateful 8 and Wolf of Wall Street (which to my best knowledge were distributed in 4K everywhere else) without the directors even knowing. I don't know why they were allowed to, but that's what happened. And to me, that's deeply worrying: it shows that they think they'll get away with substandard files, because customers won't notice. And that they don't care at all about theatrical presentation, because in the end it'll be easier to just do digital day-and-date releases.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 09-08-2016, 04:55 PM:

Pietro, forgive me if I sound vehement in my disagreement, but no. On a standard theater screen, yes it's possibly true, though your later comments explain well why it often doesn't turn out so well for the consumer. But Nolan's work in 1570 is a truly awe-inspiring spectacle that no digital workflow can compete with. Yet. So let's take Imax out of the discussion and then I can agree.

The studios are in it to turn a profit first, not for the highest quality, and certainly not for artistic ideals. Oh, nevermind, why am I preaching to the choir?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-08-2016, 06:03 PM:

I've yet to see ANY DCP image that compares favorably to 5/70, let alone 15/70. Furthermore, I've yet to see any DCP conversion of a 65mm source that looked favorably to 70mm presentation. Thus far, the best example I've seen has been Samsara which was shot 65mm (5/65) and proceeded through high res. digital workflows for a 4K output on DCP. The best outright conversion I've seen was Oklahoma! but it was a far cry from the original.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-08-2016, 07:54 PM:

Heard buzz that if you took a resolution count on actual 15/70mm prints, the numbers would be like in the 32k plus range.

5/70mm was lower - down in the 16k plus range.

Still, analog still has it won over digital.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 7758) on 09-08-2016, 09:13 PM:

It's all in how you count it. Some 2K DCPs look fantastic and crisp, and some 70mm looks soft. No point in starting another analog-vs-digital shouting match here (not that I'm accusing anyone).

At some point, analog-to-digital scanning just becomes more definition of the edges of the grains. At the other end, digital 4K or more is nothing special if the lenses, workflow, and so forth don't use the extra pixels efficiently.

Right?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-08-2016, 11:34 PM:

quote: Pietro Clarici
I certainly agree that the industry should strive to get every workflow to its absolute best, but I don't think "analog" processes like 70mm shooting and photo-chemical editing are necessarily better.

I'll give you one very clear example where film-based production, work-flow and exhibition are far better than digital: 'scope format presentation. The 2.39:1 'scope format is the most popular aspect ratio for Hollywood movies. And it's a pathetic, low resolution, low quality JOKE when digitally projected in commercial movie theaters. Simple as that. It is SHIT. It is a LIE.

On the 4-perf 35mm film platform, the 2.39:1 'scope format was the biggest, brightest, highest resolution format. It looked better than flat ratio movies because it used all the negative of the 4/35mm frame. In D-Cinema, 'scope movies go to the extreme opposite end of the spectrum because their images are the smallest and lowest in resolution. Compounding the problem even worse: thousands of newer theater screens have HDTV shaped screens where 'scope images are letter-boxed regardless of the projection setup. Traditionally 'scope movies are supposed to be bigger than regular movies. They all had the same screen height in the past, but the 'scope movies opened up to more expansive widths.

With all the stupid corner cutting and quality compromises that have taken place with d-cinema I feel like the movie watching experience at home is not really inferior at all to the commercial theater movie watching experience. The content in both mediums are treated in very much the same way. It wasn't that way with film.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-09-2016, 03:49 AM:

When I was at REG and playing with SONY's, when I get 4K content from Columbia (Sony) and shoot it through a 4K Sony projector, you had a real nice sharp image on the screen where one can definitely tell the difference between 2 and 4K presentations.

The trick in seeing this difference is with FLAT features, so the LCoS chipset can be used to its capacity.

-Monte

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 09-09-2016, 06:17 AM:

I really didn't want to fuel a new film vs. digital disputation, sorry about that. My point, like Bill said, it's that *at this point*, with presentation happening 99,9% in digital except for special engagements, shooting and processing film doesn't always guarantee a better final result. Of course your opinion - or your DCPs - might have been different, but on the same 4K setups, I thought Revenant looked way better than the last two Nolan movies. Gone Girl looked great as well. Differences would be noticeable with high quality film presentation, but the sad reality is that, for all intents and purposes, film presentation no longer exists.

Is digital perfect? Of course not, and since all my screens are 2.39:1 I very much agree with Bobby on the Scope nonsense. Again, real world experience didn't necessarily reflect that, as the last 35mm copies we were getting here were so awful that even projecting in relatively modest 858p has been a vast improvement, but it definitely could have been better by using the full container and pushing anamorphic lenses.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-09-2016, 09:48 AM:

The movie studios, projector manufacturers and movie theaters could have treated the 'scope format in digital cinema with at least some respect, but they chose to cut costs and quality instead.

Right now d-cinema's version of 'scope must be a bean counter's wet dream. The aspect ratio pleases the "filmmakers" while cutting rendering and data handling costs down to the lowest possible level due to the small image size. The "filmmakers" get to stick anamorphic lenses on their Arri Alexa cameras to bake anamorphic bokeh into their video camera imagery, to make it look more like a movie. Never mind the fact more and more TV shows are using the same anamorphic lenses to make their TV shows look like a movie. What a joke.

The correct approach would have been using full container format in the projector (all of a 2048 X 1080 2K chip or 4096 X 2160 4K chip) in conjunciton with a 1.25x anamorphic lens to unsqueeze a 'scope image from the DCP -something originally rendered at 2560 X 1080 or 5120 X 2160, but horizontally squeezed to DCP full container format. This would deliver a huge jump in quality over the TV style bullshit version of 'scope used now. The quality jump would be even more noticeable on proper common height movie theater screens.

While I understand that 35mm print quality really took a nose dive over the past decade, the notion of favorably comparing the current d-cinema standard to that is flawed one. It's a shitty comparison against film done wrong. Worse yet, it ignores another comparison: theater image quality against the image quality on HDTV sets at home. I am not seeing a big difference there at all. That's a potentially very troubling thing, especially as 4K UHDTV sets proliferate more in the marketplace.

I think it's pretty funny that consumers can buy 21:9 ratio TV sets and computer monitors that support 2560 X 1080 and higher resolutions, but movie theaters are stuck with something not nearly as good.

Posted by Andrew Thomas (Member # 7000) on 09-11-2016, 12:53 PM:

quote:
I read someone online, although can't verify if this is true, someone inquired to Disney why The Force Awakens didn't have a 4K DCP. They said it was due to time and budget constraints. Yes, the movie that made $2billion couldn't afford a 4K DCP [Confused]

The time and money cost for rendering a movie like Episode 7 in 4K is massive. Every frame of that movie has complex effects that have to be rendered, and increasing the number of rendered pixels by 4 times is not cheap in time or money.

Posted by Edward Summerhays (Member # 9646) on 09-11-2016, 06:09 PM:

I understand that rendering at 4K is more time consuming and more expensive. I understand time being more of an issue than money, but at the end of they day, I think the money should be spend for a better image.

A New Hope (1977) holds more information in it's picture than The Force Awakens (2015).

You see how much money they sink into restoring old 70mm films, which is worth it. Why not sink money into ensuring a film released today exists in the highest resolution possible?

At the end of the day, A New Hope can be released in true 4K, but The Force Awakens can't. That seems problematic.

I do understand though that time can't be stretched like money can.

Unless, of-course, The Force Awakens has a 4K workflow, then perhaps it can be rendered to 4K in the future. JJ prioritized practical effects over CGI, so that should make the film warrant 4K more, as less 2K visual effects upscales.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-12-2016, 07:13 PM:

quote: Andrew Thomas
The time and money cost for rendering a movie like Episode 7 in 4K is massive.

Well, that's all a relative thing when doing a flat comparison between 2K and 4K. The trouble is 4K has been in use to some extent for over a decade now. Current 2016 era computers are many times more powerful than computers from 10 years ago. A production should be able to do a 3D 4K dual eye render today in the amount of time a 2D 2K movie took to render 10 years ago, if not considerably faster. The studio bean counters will have to pardon me when I excuse them of being cheapskates on actual nuts and bolts stuff that makes a difference on screen.

Not only are studios going through the motions these days with CGI; a bunch of the work is getting out-sourced to shops overseas to pinch pennies. There's hardly anything driving the state of the art with movie-making these days. What's the last movie that had truly "never seen that before" ground-breaking visual effects?

I don't know how the hell modern big budget movies are managing to blow $200 million plus on a production budget and tens of millions more on marketing when they're effectively making a fucking 2 hour long TV show episode. But Hollywood is great at the "rolling break even" art of accounting. A movie production can be a world-wide hit, grossing several hundred million dollars yet still show a loss on paper.

Meanwhile there's long form television series putting 10 to 26 episodes per year in the can. They're using the same kinds of cameras, the same digital intermediate techniques, the same digital back-lot techniques and even doing complex CGI. Yet those shows are being produced at a small fraction of the cost.

In the end, I think most of the huge sums of money getting spent on a movie production goes into the pockets of a few key people and not very much of it is actually getting spent on screen.

Posted by Edward Summerhays (Member # 9646) on 09-12-2016, 08:03 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Yet those shows are being produced at a small fraction of the cost.

And in 4K! Every Netflix original in the past 2 years, if I am not mistaken, has been shot, mastered, and presented in 4K. A lot of other TV shows seem to be following suite.