star trek 2 shot in 4k
- Thread starter tmosler
- Start date
I think Abrahms had to be dragged kicking and screaming into 3D, and 4k is too recent for a largely conservative franchise like ST to use... Isn't the Hobbit using that technique? I've read some dodgy stuff about the resultant look.
^The Hobbit is filming using 48 frames per second, which is a different thing from 4k. 4k means 4000 vertical lines of resolution in a digital image. Digital film presentation uses two standards, 2k and 4k; the latter cotaims much more image information than the former.
Anyway, Abrams doesn't film digitally. He still uses 35 mm film, which is natually capable of much higher resolutions than 4k. So the whole question is moot, though I guess there is the issue of at what resolution the film wi be scanned for VFX work and 3d conversion.
Anyway, Abrams doesn't film digitally. He still uses 35 mm film, which is natually capable of much higher resolutions than 4k. So the whole question is moot, though I guess there is the issue of at what resolution the film wi be scanned for VFX work and 3d conversion.
^ At least some shooting[highlight]*[/highlight] for The Hobbit was done using cameras which are capable of 5K resolution. The rest, however, is as you say.
[highlight]*[/highlight] They're usually pretty good about obscuring any touchy bits, but the production diary video clip accessible via the link could conceivably contain some minor spoilers for The Hobbit. Proceed at your own peril.
[highlight]*[/highlight] They're usually pretty good about obscuring any touchy bits, but the production diary video clip accessible via the link could conceivably contain some minor spoilers for The Hobbit. Proceed at your own peril.
Last edited:
Well, yes, though I was responding to this specifically:
The "dodgy stuff" in question is the 48fps filming, so Borgminster was clearly conflating the OP's resolution question with what he'd heard about the frame rate. Lots and lots of films have used the RED cameras and digital filming for several years without complaint*, so that's not at issue.
And now that I'm done impersonating Christopher, we return to our regularly scheduled thread.
*Well, mostly without complaint. You do see some purists...
(And noted.)[Rick] Oops [Perry]
I'm not much of a film buff, so this question may seem rather stupid... But why do they film in such high resolution? Is it hedging a bet that some day current ideas about "HD" will change and TPTB want their films to be compatible without remastering? Or is it so they can zoom and crop with abandon and still produce a viable image?
CaptainJack
Lieutenant Commander
I do know one thing. Most HD stuff on the TV is NOT true HD. Its a watered down version that initially wasnt called HD. IMO 720 is NOT HD. But that doesnt have much to do with the topic. Just responding to the last poster. Its a big pet peeve of mine. I PAY for HD programming. But I dont actually get a true HD signal. And it seems that the more channels they turn into HD channels the worse all the other channels get... Anyone want to start a class action suit?
It's because they're attempting to emulate film, which has an effective resolution of 87 megapixels. (IE, that's the size of the digital image you'd get if you scanned a 35mm slide to the point that the detail fell apart). For comparison, 5K is only 11.5 megapixels. Plus theaters are always trying to give audiences an experience that they can't get at home, as an incentive to keep paying to see movies in the theater. Much higher resolution than an HDTV is one way of offering that value.
Then I really don't get it. If 35mm is so good, then why is there any fuss at all about 5K? Seems to me the reaction should be a flat, "meh."
BTW: Great links you provided. I appreciate the education.
Because the handling of film is expensive and time-consuming. Digital cameras are supposed to be easier to deal with on set. The issue now is to get the resolution up high enough that most folks can't tell the difference. 4K is a good start in that direction, for comparison Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were only filmed at 1080K, that's like Bluray resolution.
Digital also has advantages (read:lower costs) in post-production and distribution. All post work is digital these days, so scanning a feature film from 35mm to a digital file is inefficient when copared to just shooting the thing digitally to begin with. And distribution can be done by transferring the movie files to the theaters directly, rather than outputting the finished movie back onto film and shipping those physical reels all over the world.
Newsflash guys:
Most action movies that are not shot digitally are shot on 67 mm filmstock.
In the days of 70 mm projection for big budget movies. This gave a 1:1 transfer from the master to the production print. The 3 mm difference being due to the extra wide magnetic soundtrack. In my days as theatre GM and projectionist; I handled alot of 70 mm film. There's a huge difference in screen resolution between 35 mm prints and 70 mm ones.
I'm almost positive that JJ shot ST09 on 67 mm. Mainly for the anamorphic lenses for the lense flares.
Most action movies that are not shot digitally are shot on 67 mm filmstock.
In the days of 70 mm projection for big budget movies. This gave a 1:1 transfer from the master to the production print. The 3 mm difference being due to the extra wide magnetic soundtrack. In my days as theatre GM and projectionist; I handled alot of 70 mm film. There's a huge difference in screen resolution between 35 mm prints and 70 mm ones.
I'm almost positive that JJ shot ST09 on 67 mm. Mainly for the anamorphic lenses for the lense flares.
Everything I've found so far indicates that both the last movie and the one currently in production were shot with 35mm cameras and film.
The list for the 2009 film:
Cameras
PanArri 435, Panavision Primo Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL, Panavision Primo, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Panavision Primo, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm (Kodak Vision2 100T 5212, Vision2 500T 5218)
Printed film format
35 mm (Kodak Vision 2383)
70 mm (horizontal) (IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak)
D-Cinema
PanArri 435, Panavision Primo Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL, Panavision Primo, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Panavision Primo, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm (Kodak Vision2 100T 5212, Vision2 500T 5218)
Printed film format
35 mm (Kodak Vision 2383)
70 mm (horizontal) (IMAX DMR blow-up) (Kodak)
D-Cinema
I misread the thread title as "4D," and was wondering how the hell that would project!
Sir Rhosis
Sir Rhosis
I misread the thread title as "4D," and was wondering how the hell that would project!
Sir Rhosis
Its a great new technology that allows you to see movies that haven't even been thought of yet!
I misread the thread title as "4D," and was wondering how the hell that would project!
The Borg film at the Las Vegas "Star Trek Experience" was 4D: a regular 3D film that can also involve vibrating floors, heat, fans, moving probes in the seats, sprinkling water, etc.
35mm film has far more resolution than any current HD digital camera. 70mm has four times more resolution than that.
However, for home use, NO ONE needs that kind of resolution (to fully resolve it so that lesser resolutions like 720p or 1080p seem insufficient would require a seating distance and screen size that 99.9999% of homes could not accommodate).
As to FULL HD and the like, it's all marketing slogans. Only reality is FULL HD.
The typical flat panel screen size in the US is about 50 inches diagonal with a 16:9 ratio (1920x1080p). If you are sitting 10 or more feet away from such a display, you cannot resolve the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p (how many people sit fewer than 10 feet away from their 50 inch TVs? A rather small fraction of those who own one). Besides, resolution isn't the most important factor for image quality--contrast ratio is. Second is colour accuracy. Then comes resolution. And that is if all is equal in the displays (it never is). A display with an excellent scaler, excellent de-interlacer, excellent contrast ratio and excellent colour accuracy, at 720p, can easily look better than a 1080p TV with only mediocre qualities in the above categories. There is a lot more to a good picture quality than simple resolution (though sales people will rarely, if ever acknowledge--or even understand--this).
Where 1080p vs 720p becomes important in a home environment is at the 60+ inch screen when sitting within 10 feet (to fully resolve the difference you need to be between 7 and 8 feet) OR with front projector systems with large screens of 80 to 120 inches. In those situations, resolution difference become reasonably apparent (though tests have shown that a majority of people have difficulty telling the difference). Until people routinely have 120+ inch screens in their homes, though, anything more than 1080p for home use is overkill.
So how does this relate to 4K scanning of 35mm film? Two basic ways. One, a 2K scan is more than fine for home video releases like Blu-ray. So people who don't go to the movie theatre don't need to worry too much. However, such scans are also frequently becoming the archival record of the original film. As such, 4K scans should be the minimum (but they are often only 2K). 8K scans would be even better, but that is still a very costly (and storage-intensive) option. More and more productions are moving to digital cameras, skipping film entirely. This has some advantages in the production area, but digital files, contrary to popular belief, are not as robust as even quite old film stock in terms of preserving data. We could find ourselves, 100 years from now, with far more surviving movies from the film stock era than the digital era.
However, for home use, NO ONE needs that kind of resolution (to fully resolve it so that lesser resolutions like 720p or 1080p seem insufficient would require a seating distance and screen size that 99.9999% of homes could not accommodate).
As to FULL HD and the like, it's all marketing slogans. Only reality is FULL HD.
The typical flat panel screen size in the US is about 50 inches diagonal with a 16:9 ratio (1920x1080p). If you are sitting 10 or more feet away from such a display, you cannot resolve the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p (how many people sit fewer than 10 feet away from their 50 inch TVs? A rather small fraction of those who own one). Besides, resolution isn't the most important factor for image quality--contrast ratio is. Second is colour accuracy. Then comes resolution. And that is if all is equal in the displays (it never is). A display with an excellent scaler, excellent de-interlacer, excellent contrast ratio and excellent colour accuracy, at 720p, can easily look better than a 1080p TV with only mediocre qualities in the above categories. There is a lot more to a good picture quality than simple resolution (though sales people will rarely, if ever acknowledge--or even understand--this).
Where 1080p vs 720p becomes important in a home environment is at the 60+ inch screen when sitting within 10 feet (to fully resolve the difference you need to be between 7 and 8 feet) OR with front projector systems with large screens of 80 to 120 inches. In those situations, resolution difference become reasonably apparent (though tests have shown that a majority of people have difficulty telling the difference). Until people routinely have 120+ inch screens in their homes, though, anything more than 1080p for home use is overkill.
So how does this relate to 4K scanning of 35mm film? Two basic ways. One, a 2K scan is more than fine for home video releases like Blu-ray. So people who don't go to the movie theatre don't need to worry too much. However, such scans are also frequently becoming the archival record of the original film. As such, 4K scans should be the minimum (but they are often only 2K). 8K scans would be even better, but that is still a very costly (and storage-intensive) option. More and more productions are moving to digital cameras, skipping film entirely. This has some advantages in the production area, but digital files, contrary to popular belief, are not as robust as even quite old film stock in terms of preserving data. We could find ourselves, 100 years from now, with far more surviving movies from the film stock era than the digital era.
2K/4K actually refer to horizontal resolution (unlike the 720p/1080p of home theaters). So a 2K image is about the same resolution as broadcast HD/Blu-ray (2048x1080).
Similar threads
