Percentage of Films going to 2K or 4K DIs?

[Tom Lowe]

I suppose the majority of new films that go through a DI are still doing 2K? It seems to me that if you're shooting a major motion picture with a real budget these days on 35mm that you should seriously consider future-proofing the picture at 4K. What percentage of films are going to 4K DIs right now do you think? And how will this percentage change in the next couple of years?

[John Sprung]

I can't tell you the 2K/4K split, but I can tell you that a major studio a couple years ago put DI into their pattern budget.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

I was just replying to put this thread back on top of the list. I'd kinda' like an answer to the lead question as well. Can anyone in the lab biz take a swipe at this one? As well, what's the ratio of 2, 3 and 4-perf scans performed?

[DJ Joofa]

I suppose the majority of new films that go through a DI are still doing 2K? It seems to me that if you're shooting a major motion picture with a real budget these days on 35mm that you should seriously consider future-proofing the picture at 4K. What percentage of films are going to 4K DIs right now do you think? And how will this percentage change in the next couple of years?

 

There is some difference between 2k vs. 3k DI scan, but little difference between 3k and 4k scans, therefore, film scan may not go over 3k IMO.

[Stephen Williams]

There is some difference between 2k vs. 3k DI scan, but little difference between 3k and 4k scans, therefore, film scan may not go over 3k IMO.

 

Hi,

 

I tested Arri 3K scan downsized to 2K V 6K scan downsized to 4K and printed back to film. The 4k clearly had more resolution sitting at the front, middle or back of the cinema. FWIW the lenses were 25 year old superspeeds @T2.8/4 split.

 

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

There is some difference between 2k vs. 3k DI scan, but little difference between 3k and 4k scans.

 

Why is this?

[Max Jacoby]

A lot depends on the scanner. A pin-registered scanner is a must to get the a stable (i.e sharp) image, luckily the times of HD scans on Spirits seem to be a thing of the past. Also it is better to oversample, so scanning at 3K and downsample to 2K, resp scanning at 6K to downsample to 4K will give better results (less aliasing) than a straight 2K/4K scan.

[DJ Joofa]

Why is this?

 

Got to do with the MTF response of the film. Kindly see the graphs in Glen Kennel's paper in the May 1991 issue of SMPTE journal and his book where he compares 2K, 3K and 4K scans out of a film negative and cites, for e.g., that at 25% increase in MTF over some base value the film negative response was 40% for 2K scan, 50% for 3K scan and 53% for 4K scans, and so on. (These numbers are what my memory serves, but I am quite sure they are in that ballpark.)

 

His graph show some difference in 2K vs. 3K scans but very little difference in 3K vs. 4K, just diminishing returns after 3K.

[John Holland]

Dont want to rain on your parade but dont you think things may have moved on a bit since 1991 !! ?

[DJ Joofa]

Dont want to rain on your parade but dont you think things may have moved on a bit since 1991 !! ?

 

I did mentioned the Glen Kennel's book, which is from 2007 and he has the same graph in his book also, so it is quite recent, and he must have thought about the validity of including the graphs from his 1991 paper in his book.

 

In addition, you need to understand that being old is not tantamount to being invalid. It is better if you first read the paper than just get fixated about 1991/2007 issues.

Edited April 8, 2008 by DJ Joofa

[Stephen Williams]

I did mentioned the Glen Kennel's book, which is from 2007 and he has the same graph in his book also, so it is quite recent, and he must have thought about the validity of including the graphs from his 1991 paper in his book.

 

In addition, you need to understand that being old is not tantamount to being invalid. It is better if you first read the paper than just get fixated about 1991/2007 issues.

 

Hi,

 

A great deal depends on the film you are using, Kodak 5212 will blow most others away for sharpness.

FWIW my tests used F250T the old one not Eterna.

 

Stephen

[DJ Joofa]

Hi,

 

A great deal depends on the film you are using, Kodak 5212 will blow most others away for sharpness.

FWIW my tests used F250T the old one not Eterna.

 

Stephen

 

Stephen, I agree with you regarding selection of film stocks. Is it possible to see an example of your scans? Thanks.

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen, I agree with you regarding selection of film stocks. Is it possible to see an example of your scans? Thanks.

 

Hi,

 

Unfortunately the post house that hosted the test has gone bankrupt, I don't have & can't ask for the data. I also asked them to also contact print the OCN as well for a control test, however they never liked that idea very much. What was interesting is the 2K/4k scan's did not line up precisely there was an approximately 8 pixel offset. The scans were done by Arri in Munich.

 

Stephen

[John Holland]

My post about [ things moving on since 1991] was about film stocks and huge improvements in grain structure .

[Stephen Williams]

My post about [ things moving on since 1991] was about film stocks and huge improvements in grain structure .

 

Hi John,

 

I totally agree, I doubt you so enthusiastic about the improvement in 'look' of film over the last 30 years! :D

 

Stephen

[John Holland]

Stephen , its got a lot better just love Fuji Eterna just wonderful stocks . so there :P Still would say bring back 5254 and ECN 1 . But getting close now with Fuji . John .

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen , its got a lot better just love Fuji Eterna just wonderful stocks . so there :P Still would say bring back 5254 and ECN 1 . But getting close now with Fuji . John .

 

Hi John,

 

I just shot 30,000 ft of Vision II because the director was not comfortable with Fuji, what an idiot! :P

 

Stephen

[John Holland]

Hi John,

 

I just shot 30,000 ft of Vision II because the director was not comfortable with Fuji, what an idiot! :P

 

Stephen

 

 

Was he American ? i just dont understand that sort of attitude anyway his loss .

[Paul Bruening]

I was just replying to put this thread back on top of the list. I'd kinda' like an answer to the lead question as well. Can anyone in the lab biz take a swipe at this one? As well, what's the ratio of 2, 3 and 4-perf scans performed?

 

?

[Guest tylerhawes]

To answer the original question based on my experience in DI:

 

- Most DI is still 2K. I have no scientific data, but I'd say 90% or more is still 2K or HD. However, just a couple years ago it was more like 99%, so that's actually exponential growth. In 2-3 years, I expect most studio films will get a 4K DI, while 2K will stick around for indies a while longer.

 

- The biggest growth this year and next of 4K DIs I expect to be from films shot on RED and DALSA. The RAW files are less storage-intensive than 4K RGB scans, so it's easier to do so long as you have the DI system to debayer on the fly.

 

- Studio films are almost always 4-perf because the cost savings of 3-perf is dust on the scales. Most indies are also 4-perf, but a good chunk of them (25-50%? just a guess based on my clients) do go 3-perf. 2-perf is almost non-existant, although we have one film in production shooting 2-perf.

[John Sprung]

Most indies are also 4-perf, but a good chunk of them (25-50%? just a guess based on my clients) do go 3-perf.

The place you'll find lots of 3-perf is TV. Very roughly a third of our stuff is 3-perf, the rest is digital.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

Ceiling cat, Tyler. Ceiling cat.

[K Borowski]

The percentage is entirely too many. I just had a chance to see "There Will Be Blood" and it has some of the most gorgeous cinematography I've seen in a long time. Optical is still tops in my book, although 4K probably wouldn't bother me like nasty 2Ks.

[K Borowski]

The percentage is entirely too many. I just had a chance to see "There Will Be Blood" and it has some of the most gorgeous cinematography I've seen in a long time. Optical is still tops in my book, although 4K probably wouldn't bother me like nasty 2Ks.

[Tom Lowe]

The percentage is entirely too many. I just had a chance to see "There Will Be Blood" and it has some of the most gorgeous cinematography I've seen in a long time. Optical is still tops in my book, although 4K probably wouldn't bother me like nasty 2Ks.

 

Another thing to consider is that doing a 4K will protect your picture for basically eternity. I've seen Blurays of major films from the 80s and 90s that are already severely degraded in terms of image quality. How on earth does the "Basic Instinct" Bluray at 1080p or the Terminator 2 HD-DVD look worse than 16mm? These pictures look like absolute garbage and don't even hold up at 1080p.

 

Is it fair to assume that nowadays, even if a picture goes through chemical-optical instead of DI, that a 4K scan is made off a neg right away? It would seem insane to me not to scan them at max resolution right away to protect the picture.