Steve, The Martian was given a new 4K build for the HDR version, inclusive of upscaled 2K footage and raw 5K camera acquisition; whether that was a one-off (the film was originally finished in 2192x1156 res) or is indicative of Fox's intentions going forward is anyone's guess. Info taken from Fox rep James Finn's twitter:
Use of Super 35 in 4K is "absolutely bizarre"? You're not known for such hyperbole, Steve.Great article.
It's very strange to note that three of the four releases originally shot on film were shot on S35. That's an absolutely bizarre format to choose from, as S35 effectively has the lowest resolution of all 35mm films. The actual 'scope area extracted from the negative is smaller than a standard 1.85:1 extraction, or an anamorphic production which uses the whole of the frame.
The exception would be Techniscope films, which will have used a very slightly smaller area.
I know you've mentioned it elsewhere, but I thought it might have been worth mentioning in the article about the studios' reluctance to use HDR on most catalogue releases, making the release of most films on UHD a fairly meagre upgrade, at best.
Thanks again for the great read.
Steve W
No, you misunderstand, they also incorporated original 5K footage where they could when they did the regrade for HDR. It's kinda ironic that an improvement in spatial resolution was almost a by-product of a process that's entirely dependent of spatial resolution (HDR).I'm sure it will still look fantastic but it will still only be upscaled 2K.
Oh I see. Basically parts of the movie that did it need any VFX they used original 5K footage down sampled to undNo, you misunderstand, they also incorporated original 5K footage where they could when they did the regrade for HDR. It's kinda ironic that an improvement in spatial resolution was almost a by-product of a process that's entirely dependent of spatial resolution (HDR).
Because if I understand you correctly that would be very costly especially a movie with lots of VFX.Have a question. Looking at the list, a number of those films where filmed at 4K or above but the digital intermediate is 2K. So the Ultra HD will be upscaled. Why don't they just create a brand new 4K digital intermediate from the original footage?
See post #10 for the next best thing (which isn't actually all that different from true 4K finishes, most of which have 2K upscaled VFX anyway).Have a question. Looking at the list, a number of those films where filmed at 4K or above but the digital intermediate is 2K. So the Ultra HD will be upscaled. Why don't they just create a brand new 4K digital intermediate from the original footage?
4K VFX makes a big difference. The film tomorrow land (not a great movie). Shot on the Sony F65/F55 mastered at 4K with 4K VFX, it made a big difference even compared to the best 2K VFX. The bluray is one of the absolute best looking.That's about the size of it, yep. But when the 2K VFX looks as good as the shot below anyway, do we really need to pining for dat 4K VFX any time soon?
Blu-ray.com - Screenshot
I'm just saying, tomorrowland is a VERY isolated case in the world of end-to-end 4K finishes (although it STILL had some upscaled 2K VFX for shots with low spatial and/or temporal resolution, e.g. dark scenes for the former or fast-moving scenes for the latter).4K VFX makes a big difference. The film tomorrow land (not a great movie). Shot on the Sony F65/F55 mastered at 4K with 4K VFX, it made a big difference even compared to the best 2K VFX. The bluray is one of the absolute best looking.
Yeah that's true. But for production companies to make a completely new 4K DI without upscaled VFX specifically for uhd bluray would be ridiculously costly.See post #10 for the next best thing (which isn't actually all that different from true 4K finishes, most of which have 2K upscaled VFX anyway).