Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Does (a) 4K (transfer) matter?

E

Emanuel A.

cross-examiner
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
2,540
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Should we be interested to discuss it?

Here is a BD example from a 4K transfer now for the new Gladiator's BD version available these days in Europe.

Roll your cursor over it to check the same shot (6 samples) out -- the old BD vs. new BD (from a 4K transfer):

http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/68257/picture:0
 
Fixed. It works now.
 
Thanks.

Wow, that is interesting. I mean, we all knew it, right? I do find the differing color corrections a bit distracting, but looking at the actual image quality, it's miles better.
 
I don't think we are looking at the difference in a 4K scan versus a 2k scan.

That's may be part of the picture. (sic)

The truth is that you are looking at a more advanced film scanner. It may have better optics, or maybe just better processing hardware... I don't follow film scanners.

I think we are also looking at a better grade.

I think you may also be looking at better quality source material. The original scan may have been from a release print... this may be from earlier in the film chain, an IP or possibly even a reconformed camera negative. Heck its possible the original version may have been from the offline edit.

I don't know.

My point is that there are a lot of places to improve results before we go looking at 4k versus 2k

Not that I don't understand the benefits of 4K for 2k delivery mind you... its just that you are looking at something more complex than just a higher resolution scan.
 
The old version has a very different grade, clipped highlights and aggressive edge sharpening. AFAIK aggressive edge sharpening is not something a scanner does, so I don't think this is showing the difference between a 2k scan and a 4k scan but the difference between an old mastering and a new mastering.

Graeme
 
Apart everything you say is fairly accurate, this has been presented as what a 4K transfer brings to a BD release. I agree with Craig.
 
The original seems to use aggressive noise reduction and edge sharpening to compensate. The results are odd. Why don't they just embrace grain - it is part of the image. There's a big difference in resolution, but it is not all due to a 4K scan as has been noted. The original is also cropped slightly.
 
Misleading marketing?

Misleading marketing?

Kemalettin Sert said:
this is the same transfer not 2K vs 4K
on both blu rays they used same master..So you better edit your first post
Click to expand...
I would... even if you read it twice there's an interrogation mark since the early beginning. But first I must know what's your source? I am all curious now more than before ;-) Once all the sources available have presented this as the result of a new 4K transfer, not yet available. Your input is straight down the opposite. Where have you had a different story?

AFAIK, there is even an interview (I cannot find the link now) with Kimball (who had worked with Scott in Gladiator) where he speaks about the advantage of 4K over 2K and how 4K had impressed Scott for A Good Year (made a half dozen years after Gladiator). Or Scott's declarations about Blade Runner re-mastered in 4K vs. the BD version. Or yet, our own appreciation on the material, does it count? But well, who knows? Maybe we know nothing. And you seem to be the only to show to have access to something that I'd rather find out. I am all ears, humm eyes *)
 
I've got to say they look like different telecines just down to the different framing / cropping, but there's much more to what we're seeing than just the resolution on the telecine.

Graeme
 
I think this new remaster is evidence that studios are listening to home theater enthusiasts who have complained about lackluster releases like Gladiator, and Gangs of New York, which was also remastered recently. It's a great thing that will hopefully lead to a new mastering philosophy that is more faithful to accurately representing the film negative rather than being optimized for smaller screens viewed from too far away (below 50 inches) for those who actually prefer an artificially sharp and grain-free looking image.

I also agree that we're not simply looking at a resolution comparison here. While there is more resolution in the new version, there are just too many hideous artifacts in the original caused by a poor grading philosophy that hinder it from being a good comparison for resolution only.
 
Not sure if its 2K/4K but lots was done differently in the post production workflow to end with such results. Don't forget what a better compression schema can do for an image. Not all encoders are created equal.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The old version has a very different grade, clipped highlights and aggressive edge sharpening. AFAIK aggressive edge sharpening is not something a scanner does, so I don't think this is showing the difference between a 2k scan and a 4k scan but the difference between an old mastering and a new mastering.

Graeme
Click to expand...

What about resolution?

You can clearly see that beards and hairs are quite fuzzy in the old one.

And... Film looks great at 4K! But I wonder how much degraining took place...

Michael Romano said:
Not sure if its 2K/4K but lots was done differently in the post production workflow to end with such results. Don't forget what a better compression schema can do for an image. Not all encoders are created equal.
Click to expand...

It looks like the first one has heavy edge sharpening.

And the second one lots of more resolution and mild edge sharpening (if at all).

Just compare scaled parts of the frames, specially those with fine detail and compare. It's just not compression schema and what not, it's night and day.

Graeme Nattress said:
I've got to say they look like different telecines just down to the different framing / cropping, but there's much more to what we're seeing than just the resolution on the telecine.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I see better rendition of highlights. On shot #3, the old man's forehead.

Yeah, it also looks like scanner generations are different between these.

And I'm also not quite sure it's the same frame because you can notice in shot #5 that an extra in the background has his hands in another position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top