Technical Question

Jumboman

Anyone know why all movies dont use a 4k intermediate ? 4K technology has been around for at least 5 years but most films are only edited in 2k.

Some films are shot on 5k cameras yet they are edited in 2k that seems like a total waste.

Sad Professor

Budgetary reasons I'd imagine. Very few films are distributed in 4k and most digital projectors are only 2k anyway. Although I was under the impression that nearly all medium to big budget 35mm films do use a 4k DI these days.

Jumboman

Sad Professor wrote: »

Budgetary reasons I'd imagine. Very few films are distributed in 4k and most digital projectors are only 2k anyway. Although I was under the impression that nearly all medium to big budget 35mm films do use a 4k DI these days.

Atleast Chris Nolan doesnt use a digital intermediate we should be able to watch his films in 16k or higher in the future.

Jumboman

The hobbit was shot on 5k cameras yet according to IMDB it only had a 2k Intermediate.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Sad Professor

Tbh I think even 4k is overkill for home video. We're currently watching films in the cinema projected at little more than Blu-ray resolution and I don't hear anyone complaining. Even Cineworld's IMAX screen is only 2k.

Also films can be re-scanned at higher resolutions in the future. The negative will last longer than the DI. Low res DIs are only a problem for visual effect heavy films. Otherwise all that's being lost is the colour timing, which would probably be no loss with the way films look these days.

Jumboman

Sad Professor wrote: »

Tbh I think even 4k is overkill for home video. We're currently watching films in the cinema projected at little more than Blu-ray resolution and I don't hear anyone complaining.

I havnet seen 4k myself but people who have seen it say they were blown away by it and unlike 3D it is a major step forward.

Even Cineworld's IMAX screen is only 2k.

The IMAX screen(aka lie max) they have now is crap compared to the old 70mm IMAX they had years ago, I would almost get sea sick from looking at their 70MM IMAX screen. The new IMAX screen is a waste of money it does not pull you in the way the old one did.

Also films can be re-scanned at higher resolutions in the future. The negative will last longer than the DI. Low res DIs are only a problem for visual effect heavy films. Otherwise all that's being lost is the colour timing, which would probably be no loss with the way films look these days.

As I understand it without the DI they dont have a finished film so without it they would need to remake the film.

Sad Professor

Jumboman wrote: »

The hobbit was shot on 5k cameras yet according to IMDB it only had a 2k Intermediate.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

I'm not an expert on digital cameras, but their actual output resolution in most cases is considerably lower than their advertised resolution. The Red One was advertised as 4k but its effective resolution was closer to 3k. So I guess there isn't a lot to be gained from working in 4k, though (assuming IMDb is correct) I'm surprised that they didn't do so with The Hobbit. This is where 35mm still has a big advantage but probably not for long.

johnny_ultimate

Perhaps the most important aspect of shooting in 4 and 5K is the latitude it offers you in post-production. You can in some ways effectively 'reshoot' the scene digitally without compromising quality - from cropping to colour correction. This will carry on down to whatever format its shown in - the real benefits go on behind the scenes. But a 4K file is four times larger than a 2K one, so it simply might not be practical to show 4K everywhere just yet. It's the same with RAW images in still cameras - they give a lot of leeway for alteration, but the huge file sizes are going to have to be scaled down for practical use.

Resolution isn't the be all and end all - just look at ARRI Alexa to see how the major player with the lowest pixel count has become the most beloved of most serious cinematographers and previous digital skeptics. With something like The Hobbit, given that it - IMO anyway - had a nasty, false digital sheen even in 2K, perhaps 4K or higher simply might not suit some films, especially effects heavy blockbusters. I also wouldn't be surprised if Hollywood is purposefully holding back widespread 4K projection to market it as 'the next big thing' in some quarters.

And editing was mentioned in the OP? Most films are cut together through proxy formats as computers simply cannot handle real-time 2 or 4K editing. It's only much later in proceedings that the full quality image is reintroduced for full tweaking and crafting of the final DI.

Sad Professor

Why do digitally shot films need a DI? I thought they were just for films shot in 35mm. Hence "intermediate". Or is IMBb misusing the term?

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

Why do digitally shot films need a DI? I thought they were just for films shot in 35mm. Hence "intermediate". Or is IMBb misusing the term?

Technically yes, it should in the strictest sense only refer to a 35mm transfer! But it's generally come to be used to describe the later post-production and mastering processes, even with digitally shot films. The literal meaning has long since blurred!

bnt

Jumboman wrote: »

As I understand it without the DI they dont have a finished film so without it they would need to remake the film.

Maybe, but that's not always as daunting as it sounds, depending on the process. If they're using a non-linear editing (NLE) system, they can end up with an edit decision list (EDL) that can be re-applied to the same source digitised at higher res. EDLs are a bit "old school" but they haven't gone away, even if many "new media" types don't know the terminology.