*** 4K Player Thread ***

theone8181 said:
I looked it up, apparently 20 mp so plenty for 4k and even 8k. I would imagine the quality of film has improved tho so not sure it is directly comparable.
Click to expand...

The other issue is - given that the projected image can not actually convey HDR currently - are all these HDR "enabled" (for want of a better word) films actually deviating from the directors original intent?

Obviously new films (especially when they do a directors cut for the BR etc) can be excluded from this as they had a hand in releasing the disc - but all the old films which are less likely to have this allowed, surely we should all want - as much as is humanly possible - exactly as the director intended?


(Im not sure quality of stock is going to make much difference - although I appreciate there are different types of stock for different "moods" depending on what the director wants ) - given how long film has been used for this purpose is the actual "quality" going to make a huge difference at this relatively late stage of usage?)

In our life times I cant imagine us getting a reasonable release of films on any medium to exceed the quality of film stock (maybe the occasional sporting event, and even then its more likely to be short clips rather than anything like the full event). Im also dubious as to whether it would be worth it. Less and less reasons even now to go from HD to UHD (with only giant displays making the most out of UHD) - 8k for 99% of the population is just pointless - and the remaining 1% majority of that would surely be a "theoretical interest only" type intrigue
 
for interest here was the doc I had found before using the word film stock earlier

Film Resolution 1/r [film] No Lens in Path at 30% Contrast
Kodak Ektachrome 160 35 lp/mm 0.0286 1778
Fuji Astia RAP 45 lp/mm 0.022 2286
Fuji Provia 100F RDP 55 lp/mm 0.0182 2794
Kodak Ektachrome 100GX 60 lp/mm 0.0167 3050
Kodak Tri-X 400 (2004) 65 lp/mm 0.0154 3302
Fuji Velvia RVP 80 lp/mm 0.0125 4064
Kodak Portra 160NC Color Neg 80 lp/mm 0.0125 4064
Kodak Plus-X 125 (2006) 80 lp/mm 0.0125 4064
Kodak VR100 Color Neg 100 lp/mm 0.0100 5080
Kodak Technical Pan (2004) 142 lp/mm 0.007 7214
Kodak Panatomic-X 170 lp/mm 0.0059 8636
Click to expand...


you raise an original remark about viewing as the director intended - I like it.
 
varkanoid said:
Just finished watching Ghostbusters. Man the grain is bad. After a while you dont notice it but in a few scenes like outside in the corridor in Dana's apartment and dark scenes it sometimes shows. The first encounter in the library looks very colourful and detailed. The battle with Slimer is good too. Interesting to see the effects too after seeing so much modern CGI for the time they are damn good. To sum it up a lot more detail, a lot more colour but the grain.

The long wide shots look amazing. The battle at the end is pretty good too. What was interesting seeing the skyline/buildings with it being so clear its obviously a matte painting but the buildings are almost cartoony didnt even realise that till watching it in 4k HDR. Will watch Ghostbusters II to see what that is like another time.
Click to expand...

Hmm, seems like it is a mixed bag. I noticed GB2 is on Netflix in 4K UHD, and I looked at that and it looked fantastic. If GB1 looks as good as that, I will probably buy it.
 
Where does it say they are upscaled ? That link you gave me to that web page is really bad.

The Groundhog 4k Netflix film is meant to be a transfer from the 35mm original which has been discussed before here and on other forums in that the 35mm original has enough detail to be transferred to a 4k digital film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom