A Star is Born getting 6K makeover: is it worthwhile?
Filed under: Industry, Blu-ray, Other formats
Relevant Posts
- Warner gets official with The Dark Knight BD-Live extras (Yesterday - 6 Comments)
- Warner Bros. ends home video / DVD business in South Korea, piracy to blame (17 days ago - 4 Comments)
- Poll: Which Blu-ray studio is your favorite? (52 days ago - 16 Comments)
- Warner Bros. gives green light for DivX distribution (49 days ago - 6 Comments)
- Hey Hollywood, how about some Blu-ray Disc price cuts? (Yesterday - 30 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Paul @ Jul 17th 2008 11:36AM
What's the point of a side-by-side comparison of 4k and 6k if it's that size?
KVN @ Jul 17th 2008 11:49AM
My thoughts exactly.
gamedude420 @ Jul 17th 2008 12:30PM
um 25 GB is bigger than hd dvd so whats your point, and newer big releases will get the 50+ GB discs in due time so? but 4 k wil need something bigger and a higher bitrate than bluray can currently offer.
also bitrate extremely important. why have something too compressed? no one wants download quality crap
gamedude420 @ Jul 17th 2008 12:33PM
when digital tech can improve over time, they will be able to get 8-12 k images from many older films. digital still isnt on the full level of film yet. prob 10-20 years but the problem is many older films werent preserved properly (when presvered well film can last well over a hundred years)
peetah @ Jul 17th 2008 12:50PM
As far as I'm concerned keep improving the quality even if it makes an unnoticeable difference at this time.
My only caveat is: as long as it doesn't force us to upgrade consumer equipment, I'm good to go.
gamedude420 @ Jul 17th 2008 1:17PM
its mostly to presvere films that werent preserved properly. like godfather unfortunatly they only did a 4k transfer i hope they can still save the original film long enough to do a 6-12 k, but the film was in piss poor condition it was never handled properly. now it is in paramounds vaults but prior til the 90s it wasnt stored like it should be.
Jim Mallory @ Jul 17th 2008 1:12PM
Will lets take your first three movies...
The Aviator and Ocean's movies were HD-DVD releases...so it is not suprising that they are under 30GB as that is the limit for HD-DVD and I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that the studio is going to be for a different encode to take advantage of the additonal space.
For the Harry Potter films are those bitrates peak or average. My bet is that it is average and it isn't suprising. I know I have watched movies on my PS3 (which has a realtime bitrate meter) and I know I have seen peaks in the 40 mbps range, the averages though are below 20 mbps and that is fine. Having the space and the transfer rate to handle complex fast motion scenes in what the advantage of a 50GB disk is.
Truth Teller @ Jul 17th 2008 1:32PM
* quote
gamedude
um 25 GB is bigger than hd dvd
=====================================================
....and there you have it, that's the sort of 'informed buyer' who helped decide the format war.
Fail
LMAO
************************************************************************************
@ Jim
The fact that they put a 'bit-rate meter' into the PS3 tells you everything you need to know about the approach.
You can guess away about peak bit-rates (and there are few that genuinely did ever peak in the 40's - X-Men 3 had a scene) but as compression tech gets better and better that is simply more and more irrelevant.
Like I said, spec-sheet obsessed kids watching a counter going "wooooow......", not movie lovers.
Jim Mallory @ Jul 17th 2008 1:55PM
Truth Teller,
All I was pointing out is that just talking about average bit rates is misleading in terms of picture quality. Compression artifacts occur when there is more picture information than the encoder can deal with at a given bit rate. Being able to peak to 40-50 mbps allows you to be able to handle very complex scenes without compression artifacts. Yes there may only be one or two scenes per movie that requires this much bandwidth but the important fact is that the ability is there in both the increased storage space and the increased burst transfer rate.
That is why Planet Earth looks better on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray then over ATSC HD. Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray allow for much higher peak bit rates than ATSC that max'es out at around 18 mbps per second.
EatingPie @ Jul 17th 2008 2:31PM
Truth Teller.
You're picking and choosing. As already stated, most of your examples were limited by the HD-DVD port. It had to fit on the Least Common Denonimator. Also, Warner has been fairly stingy about their HD release bitrates and overuse of DNR.
Here's some MOVIE sizes -- Video+Audio only
28 Days Later - 36.5 GB
28 Weeks Later - 31.8 GB
30 Days of Night - 33 GB
6th Day - 32 GB
Air Force One (Euro) - 34 GB
Almost Famous (UK) - 37GB
Notice that I'm Only on the As so far.
Close Encounters - 36 GB, 36 GB and 37 GB
Damanges (TV Show) 46GB, 47GB, 39 GB (3 Discs for whole Season)
David Gilmore - 42GB (Disc 1), 44GB (Disc2)
Die Hard Collection - 31GB to 32GB
Reds - 44GB
Pirates of the Carribean - 33Gb, 33GB, 41GB
I skipped a ton of movies after listing the As got too lengthy.
This really has very little to do with a 4K or 6K scanning. HDTV is not even 2K, and so that's a massive amount of downrezzing.
-Pie
EatingPie @ Jul 17th 2008 2:34PM
The main thing missed in this thread is that 6K vs. 4K is about PRESERVATION, not HDTV.
Lowry runs a 4K shop, so he is going to say 4K is the best. And since film is an analog medium, claiming that it maxes at 4K is somewhat dubious.
Harris OTOH has no major affiliation except to preserving film in the best possible form. In that sense, his statement that 6K gives a slight increase is the one to trust.
-Pie
Morritec @ Jul 17th 2008 3:20PM
Doing this in 6k would be more noticable and wise if the original negative would have been 70mm, Todd-AO, Imax or the likes, but this is from a 35mm negative. Where's their brains? I'm sure it would be worth the 6K treatment otherwise.
Mr. E @ Jul 17th 2008 3:50PM
Guys, PLEASE just ignore him.
Charles @ Jul 17th 2008 4:25PM
35mm film maxes out at about 6K resolution so there is indeed some purpose to scanning at that resolution.
You can do more effective DNR and grain removal at higher resolutions and compromise the picture LESS when supersampling back down to 2K/1080p.
Lowry, a genius no doubt, is probably only advocating 4K because most telecine machines operate at that resolution and because his software probably uses 4K as the input medium.
I'm with Robert Harris on this one.
Truth Teller @ Jul 17th 2008 5:04PM
@ EatingPie
You're stilll swerving the fact that almost 50% of the already existing Blu-ray movies (and by definition therefore not HD DVD 30gb ports) are 25gb releases.
If you take account of that ridiculously wasteful & bloated uncompressed audio they used (only to counter the enormously more efficient Dolby True HD anyways) and to a lesser extent the stack of languages that we in the English speaking world have no need for (they always seem to feel they have to go for more than HD DVD ever did despuite regional coding - another negative itself) then your totals drop considerably.
joe @ Jul 17th 2008 5:35PM
It is completely worthwhile to set the master archive at 6k. You are pretty much guaranteed to get all of the original negative information. Along with a quality restoration the film will be able to reprinted at near original fidelity as long as they can read the files.
He does have a point about preserving a higher bit depth. A 16 bit scan would be a great benefit.
He seems to be pushing the Northlight scanner hard in his article.
Right now films use 2k because it is cost effective. They would use 4k if it was affordable. Being able to go 'balls to the wall' on the restoration of such a classic will be a great archive for future generations.
@ Charles
Telecinies max out at 1920x1080 they are designed to get film on to video quickly.
Film doesn't max out at 6k film SCANNERS max out at 6k. Depending on the quality of the stock,exposure and preservation there can be more data on it. There can also be quite a bit less.
@ TT
If you read the original article this has nothing to do with bluray and everything to do with the restoration of a classic movie in the best possible way that current technology can handle.
Bravo to you for rallying against such a thing. Can't let a silly thing like movie history get in your way when you can rail against BD.
Please in plain English explain exactly why a 6k archive and restoration of a classic movie is a bad thing?
Charles @ Jul 17th 2008 5:51PM
That's true, joe. However, most telecines nowadays are film scanners/datacines. The high end Spirit can output 4K DPX files in a little less than realtime.
pedantic @ Jul 17th 2008 6:08PM
A lot of useless talk about BD in comments. 4K isn't really useful with "Full HD" televisions we have currently. Maybe in the future they'll convince us 1920x1080 is just not enough, but I don't expect that to happen any time soon.
As for 2K vs 4K in the theatres, 4K is a big improvement. Especially if you are watching in a gigantic theatre where the picture ends up seeming like it is 50 feet tall. The bigger your display area becomes, the better PQ you will get with more pixels.
With 4K vs 6K,we will need to see how much of an improvement it is. Lowry (in the article, if you actually read it) is convinced 4K is good enough, and 6K might just be marketing. However, the true test is how accurately will 6K reproduce the film. As the film masters may be lost to age or fire, it's important to keep the very best digital copies available for future generations.
On a side note, RED is supposed to be releasing their 5K EPIC digital movie camera next year.
EatingPie @ Jul 17th 2008 6:37PM
Truth Teller, you state that ALMOST 50% of already existing BDs are 25GB.
I will assume your figure is correct. That means that MORE THAN 50% are 50GB discs, something completely impossible with HD-DVD (while harshing on single-layer BD, you also ignore the number of HD-DVD discs that were single layer 15GB).
Lastly, in terms of audio, it's highly beneficial to the studio to put multiple audio tracks on board. They need them for international releases, and they are a selling point, and yet another reasons Blu-ray works better. I have no idea how this can be turned into a bad thing, but you certainly tried! :-)
This is how DVD worked too. Lots of studios did single layer initially because it was cheaper -- same was true for HD-DVD and is for BD. Obviously dual-layer was better, and became more common as the DVD format matured.
However, once again, this has NOTHING to do with the 6K vs. 4K film preservation process. That is about preserving film, not outdated format wars!
-Pie
Truth Teller @ Jul 17th 2008 8:15PM
* quote
EatingPie
Truth Teller, you state that ALMOST 50% of already existing BDs are 25GB.
I will assume your figure is correct. That means that MORE THAN 50% are 50GB discs, something completely impossible with HD-DVD
=====================================================
The number is 45.8% on BD25 ( http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php ).
But if you look at so many of the BD50's (as I showed earlier the 50gb size is often completely wasted and in many cases where it is not it is through choice of codec.
Blu-ray often chooses to use MPEG2 which necessitates the huge size in order to compete with the more modern and more efficient codecs.
Between that and the wasteful & inefficient uncompressed audio you have your supposed 'need' for the bigger size.
It's patent nonsense.
************************************************************************************
* quote
EatingPie
(while harshing on single-layer BD, you also ignore the number of HD-DVD discs that were single layer 15GB).
=====================================================
Whilst that is technically true it really did not apply to any of the big movies. 72% of HD DVD releases were 30gb.
The relatively few 15gb releases were usually oddities like the fireplace or fish-tank type releases with a handful of lazy older, mainly Universal, releases
(B movie type cr@p like Timecop.....which, funnily enough got a decent review for it's PQ) which they got roundly slated for.
************************************************************************************ * quote
EatingPie
Lastly, in terms of audio, it's highly beneficial to the studio to put multiple audio tracks on board. They need them for international releases, and they are a selling point, and yet another reasons Blu-ray works better. I have no idea how this can be turned into a bad thing, but you certainly tried! :-)
=====================================================
That doesn't make sense considering they have regional coding.
Clearly they are not economising with single releases to suit all in that environment.
************************************************************************************
* quote
EatingPie
However, once again, this has NOTHING to do with the 6K vs. 4K film preservation process. That is about preserving film, not outdated format wars!
=====================================================
My point was not about a format war (which is no longer happening anyways).
My original point was Darrens drooling over a 6k restoration and implication that it will mean a stellar Blu-ray transfer.
I'm saying that's b*llocks and point to so many BD releases to give some substance to that consideration.
Obviously it hasn't happened yet and we await the results but the continual obvious bias that would have us believe that everything Blu does is fantastic from guys like Darren (nevermind the usual Blu-ray.com fanclub here) really does need some counter-weight.
Jim Mallory @ Jul 17th 2008 8:48PM
It is generally understood that you need a doubling in pixel count for any image device (scanner, digital camera, etc) to really produce a difference that most people can see. A 50% jump from 4K to 6K is probably going to be a more subtle difference.
But if you are doing a new restoration anyway (which sounds like the case for "A Star is Born",) there is certainly no harm in doing it in 6K if the equipment is available. In fact, beyond processing and storage, why wouldn't you use the best equipment available? Obviously the better the source, the potential is there for a better product at the end.
Now would you be able to see it on a 1080p Blu-Ray? Maybe, depends on a lot of factors...but making a blanket statement such as "you'll never see it" is just as incorrect as saying you most definitely will. Just too many variables involved.
Mark @ Jul 18th 2008 4:41AM
If you have the means to do a 6K preservation, then hey why not? The better the resolution you have to preserve the image, all the better for future generations.