How the fuck do they get away with this?

Imagine being this retarded...

Analog film has limits grain, noise,etc most old movies where good enough for 2k but not suitable for 4k.

That's horseshit

Yes there is film grain, but it's nowhere near as bad as you're implying.

Hell, tons of films ADD digital film grain these days.

You're saying two films both shot on 35mm film can have a different final digital resolution despite them using identical size film...?

That doesn't make any sense.

If you can scan a 35mm film to 4k, than ALL 35mm should be equally scannable to 4k, assuming they use the same 35mm film stock.
I guess the QUALITY of the film stock might matter, but anything from 1950 on should be golden.

Video
Bit rate : 9 855 kb/s
Width : 1 808 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels

explain to me why more resolution would do increase Image quality?

>>scan a 35mm film to 4k
it's not gonna hurt thats for sure depending on the light some movies will do give better Quality no point in doing crazy oversampling like would it help to do 32b float 192khz music?? no record old media? why waste storage i am saying for most old movies 2k is enough.

>>near as bad as you're implying
my image is bluray rip bit rate is to low but more resolution would not improve can we agree on this, for this specific move? 12 Angry Men 1957.

Attached: 12.png (612x713, 416K)

To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)
in 2K

i am not cherry picking trust me.

Attached: la.jpg (1891x925, 456K)

Analog film doesn't have infinite resolution that allows it to be remastered at increasingly higher resolutions losslessly.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's not infinite, but 35mm is more than enough for 4k.

look at the!
thx,Its hard for me to explain that analog film has limited details.

lmao, you're retarded.

It doesn't have a 4k scan to compare to.

You're never gonna convince me something isn't worth converting to 4k based on a 2k rip.

Now maybe the original 35mm master isn't available, in which case, sure, no reason to upscale a 2k copy.

look here its 35mm and 2k bluray is killing it

So what? They could just be a shit scan.

Or they are using a theatrical release reel to scan, not the original master.

imagine modern tech being outperformed by 30 year old tech. what a joke.

u have to be an American only those could be so ignorant and uneducated

You have to be a eurocuck with zero formal education.

Scanning to 4k will NEVER decrease the quality, and a UHD bluray can add HDR color information to allow higher quality colors even if you aren't taking advantage of the extra resolution.

learn to buy it on itunes and get the free from HD to 4k upgrades!

Attached: giggle 8 bit girl.gif (340x340, 18K)

check out the fifth element 4k
grainy up the ass in most scenes

>Doesn't understand how to disable soap opera effects :(

>add HDR color information that was never present in the original by having a random colorist or a senile director who's long forgotten what his intention was when the film was shot try and grade it for HDR and fuck the colors in the process
lol ok

>soap opera effects
what does that have to do with graininess?

Lmao, they've been so fucked up over the years in various forms of distribution with totally different color grading, so I don't see why this should be any different.

Video
ID : 1
Format : HEVC
Format/Info : High Efficiency Video Coding
Format profile : Main [email protected]@High
HDR format : SMPTE ST 2086, HDR10 compatible
Codec ID : V_MPEGH/ISO/HEVC
Duration : 1 h 40 min
Bit rate : 32.3 Mb/s
Width : 3 840 pixels
Height : 1 632 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 2.35:1
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 (Type 2)
Bit depth : 10 bits

My TV cant take screenshots but thats 4k source and still grainy

Keep looking at your shitty upscaled shit
scan 4k blur out all the grain+noise and killing all details in the process
sell it for profit fucking kikes
you deserve to be be robbed by (((them)))

just watch Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (2016) once in your life for 4k 60fps 10bit

Attached: tomb.png (694x726, 1.1M)

You're a fucking retard, higher resolution isn't going to remove film grain, but it STILL does improve literally everything else.

It's still finer details, sure the grain still exists, but you're also still higher detail than a 2k rip.

>*click click*
>*ENHANCE GRAIN*

Attached: 1566940483166.gif (365x243, 1.98M)

found the kike

Attached: jew.png (300x287, 44K)

You're the retard pretending 4k only enhances the grain, nothing else.

film grain is the stuff which is light sensitivity there is nothing else in terms of quality.

you are just proofing that u don't have any clue about analog photographies.

...lmao fuck you've confirmed you're a retard at least.

Thanks for playing

>I can upscale my shit too, you know.
you obviously can't considering the shit resolution of your pic

Attached: Blade-Runne-Final-Cut-4K-UHD-Blu-ray-Review-Cover.jpg (1537x2005, 1M)

BTFO

Blade Runner is true 4K you dumb fuck speds:
digiraw.com/4K-UHD-ripping-service/the-real-or-fake-4K-list/
4kmedia.org/real-or-fake-4k/

Attached: Capture.png (216x28, 2K)

Original film is high resolution

I watched this last week. I did not understand it

Is that for the full frame/overscan or for the actual formatted movie?

I know professional companies that do 35mm scans tend to overscan slightly to ~6000x4000 res, as it can easily be downscaled from there to whatever you need.

So 4k is about the most you'd want to go with 35mm, and for 70mm 8k is probably the highest digital you'd want to go.

4k is about as high as I would go for 35mm film transfers desu. I've seen a lot of transfers where 4k is only marginally better than the 1080 blu ray because there's only so much differentiation between objects you can get with film. You can't suss out detail that just isn't there on film especially if it is from a damaged print.

The biggest problem is a lot of older film simply hasn't been kept in good condition, so there isn't a clean print to scan.

I have an original scan of the Empire strikes back.
And it looks fucking amazing.
You can even see some of the original film edits in certain scenes.
It's the 4k scan Disney did before fucking with it.
Film stock has some retarded detail that modern cameras just can't match.

There's so much fucking compression on the grain in this screencap that my eyes are hurting looking at it

The best transfer of this movie is still the Hermy edit, right?

Why are there retards claiming grain proves the resolution is bad?

That literally just means it is displaying the original information correctly, because that's exactly what was recorded.

Harmy isn't a transfer.

What is the proper term then? Edit? I don't think that really works either... cut?

The normies eat it up. This wouldn't exist if they didn't.

"Graininess" has a lot to do with the original FILM light sensitivity (ISO value).
The lower the ISO the less gains. Digital cameras have this issue as well. Can't be avoided but it can be reduced. There are post processing techniques to reduce graininess but it reduced image quality, ie blotchy colours.

If you scan a high ISO film to 4k, grains are going to be very noticeable. Film ISO can change many times through the production of a movie, depending if there is a light or dark scene.

Because the larger the film (or sensor in digital cameras) the lower the depth of field is gonna be. To get a higher depth of field you have to raise the apperture of the lens and that means you need more light. 70mm is already pushing it, with 140mm you'd need artificial light in every scene or everything except for a small part of the framr would be a blur.

35mm can absoluely make use of 4k resolutions. But it’s dependent on many many factors, including:
>the lens/camera used, camera focus, quality of film stock
>compression. uhd blurays typically have a bitrate of 70-80mbps, while 1080 blurays use 30-40mbps. that’s only twice as much bitrate, at four times the resolution. that means 4k generally has half the quality of 1080p, despite the increased resolution.
>how well it was mastered. any use of dnr or filters is gonna reduce details greatly and make the image blurry

>grain = bad
Shut the fuck up you retarded brainlets and go back to netflix

You should kill yourself.

This is Jow Forums where at least you should know what the fuck you're talking about.

35mm film can be scanned at 4k (4096x2160) with no issues whatsoever.

You can scan above 4k, but then you're going to see issues with grain etc.

A lot of times remastered 35mm film is scanned at 6k/8k then downdscaled to 4k.

70mm film (such as the scenes in Interstellar) are usually scanned at 8k and look great at 4k.

who cares homo, film is dead, imagine lugging a piece of shit around and cutting and pasting rolls of film like some autist
eeew it's the digital age baby, edit that on your PC

Film was "magic" in the making, digital loses that because you see exactly what you're shooting.

And film is much nicer on the human form, the face and shadows.

This is why cameras like Arri Alexa are literally mimicking film and Red cameras are doing their own thing.

Is digital the future? Pretty much. Is film dead? Yes it is.

The magic of cinema is gone anyway and it ain't coming back thanks to every cocksucker streaming piece of shit tv shows and not going to theaters.

This looks better than if it was flawless. Gives the film character and depth. It's like vinyl. Sure CD is better but vinyl has more soul.

ok but how do you explain hdr? I reckon the camera equipment had shit color back then

HDR has nothing to do with cameras.

HDR is basically allowing the TV (or viewing device) to add a "LUT" to it.

That means uncorrected film.

A good comparison here.

archimago.blogspot.com/2018/02/1080p-blu-ray-vs-4k-uhd-blu-ray.html

What the fuck even is HDR?

High Dynamic Range.

At first it may seem like a gimmick, but it's not.

It allows 10bit HEVC (ie better gradients, and better dynamic range).

Of course modern movies shot digitally with HDR will look better.

To enjoy HDR you need a HDR capable HDTV or Projector. Usually GOOD HDR capable OLED panels like the C8 series from LG look fantastic (even YouTube has HDR content).

I personally have a BenQ HT2550 projector which supports 4k HDR and content looks pretty damn good on it.

the salt was probably contaminated with radioactive compounds

film has a high dynamic range, i think thats how it is hdr

I see. I'm using a 21 inch, 1080p, 60hz TN panel. It's pretty shitty.

>It's the 4k scan Disney did before fucking with it.
Where did you get it?

From what I understand the best current way to see star wars in 4k is with the 4K77 and 4K83 projects.

4K80 project is still being worked on, and will likely take another year or two before it's done.

Attached: 2019-08-31 08_52_43.png (732x1289, 129K)

>4:2:0

Your intuition is wrong. The useful resolution (detail) in a piece of film depends on
1) Manufacturing quality of film
2) Type of exposure (light vs dark scene)
3) Degradation/aging of the film
And possibly other factors im unaware of.

Useful resolutions for scanning 35mm film range anywhere from 2K as a general lower limit, up to ~8K as a useful upper limit.

Sometimes i think these threads are full of people that don't understand that analog "grains" are the units of color. Youre talking about it like it's some kind of layered defect. To capture all the color information in film, you should be sampling at a high enough resoultion that the detail of each grain is clear.

>when you can see the dirt on the cels

Attached: cap_Megazone 23 [BD 1080p] [OnDeed] [27A82C5D]_00:05:28_01.jpg (1436x1080, 428K)

Like literally all distributed media?

All blurays, all DVD's, and all UHD blurays have and always will be 4:2:0

Because of fire hazard because cheap electrical component.

Does anyone have a guide on half of this shit? I never understood a lot of it desu.

>Format/Info : High Efficiency Video Coding
What the fuck is this supposed to mean?

>Color space : YUV
>Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0 (Type 2)

(ditto)

>Bit rate : 32.3 Mb/s

What even is the standards for bitrates in video and audio? What's considered good/bad?
Also when more audio channels are involved, that bitrate would need to be higher correct?

>10 bit
Is there any reason to view 10bit release on a non 10bit monitor?
Is it like 4k where on a 1080p screen, 4k can look better than a 1080p copy of the same picture?

_______

How do you guys know if a picture quality is tainted due to the rip you have, or if it was just a shit production, or it's your viewing equipment?

Is there a good guide to learn all about this stuff?

What site is this?

Attached: bustanut.jpg (125x112, 2K)

thestarwarstrilogy.com/page/Project-4k80

>ANALOG
OP has a literal ANAL LOG up their ass

Damn, is there a site like this that has info like this on tons of different movies?

To be fair Hollywood's been flopping in recent years. Other than 2019 the only movies I remember being released in the last 5 years are capeshit. Nothing really interesting came out, or if it did the advertising never made it to me

this blog is really interesting

No, its only a project because starwars has cult status, and fans REALLY want the original 35mm film redone in 4k.

There IS a rumor from a Disney employee speaking in casual conversation with anonymity, that Disney have done 4k scans of the negatives from EP IV through VII. And are working on upscaling EP I-III before doing a 4k box set release of all 6 movies together.

Not sure if that's actually happening or not though, as Disney themselves haven't confirmed anything

us.blastingnews.com/showbiz-tv/2019/06/complete-star-wars-skywalker-saga-to-soon-land-on-4k-blu-ray-002939633.html