89th Academy Award for Best Cinematography

[Stuart Brereton]

And I bet NONE of those Alexa films were upresed to 4k for finishing. I bet they were all finished in 2k, which is a real shame.

 

 

Seeing as even TV movies are being being delivered in 4k these days, I feel pretty sure that these major motion pictures were as well.

[Tyler Purcell]

Seeing as even TV movies are being being delivered in 4k these days, I feel pretty sure that these major motion pictures were as well.

Actually, the only distributors who require 4k are Netflix and Amazon. Everything else is still 1080p, 2k and 4k aren't even options for delivery in a lot of cases. Even the little pit poop features I've been doing, we've tried to deliver in 4k and been rejected.

 

You can be "pretty sure" all you want, but I have a pulse on the industry from the content owners, post production finishing, distributors, aggregates and presenters. Yes, 2016 had the greatest amount of 4k material in theaters, but it was still a very low percentile. The problem is, distributors aren't requiring content be delivered in 4k, so the production/post production companies aren't bothering. The storage cost to online 2k vs 4k is pretty high and as many people have pointed out, rendering 4k is very time consuming. This is why the industry is still fixated on 1080p and 2k for the time being. Don't forget, most theaters in the US are still 2k anyway.

[Stuart Brereton]

Actually, the only distributors who require 4k are Netflix and Amazon. Everything else is still 1080p, 2k and 4k aren't even options for delivery in a lot of cases. Even the little pit poop features I've been doing, we've tried to deliver in 4k and been rejected.

 

You can be "pretty sure" all you want, but I have a pulse on the industry from the content owners, post production finishing, distributors, aggregates and presenters. Yes, 2016 had the greatest amount of 4k material in theaters, but it was still a very low percentile. The problem is, distributors aren't requiring content be delivered in 4k, so the production/post production companies aren't bothering. The storage cost to online 2k vs 4k is pretty high and as many people have pointed out, rendering 4k is very time consuming. This is why the industry is still fixated on 1080p and 2k for the time being. Don't forget, most theaters in the US are still 2k anyway.

I never said it was required. I said that they were being delivered that way, sometimes for exhibition, sometimes for future proofing.

 

I am well aware of your grandiose claims to knowledge beyond that of us mere mortals, but I work in an industry where 4k origination and finishing is commonplace. Studios and producers all keep one eye on the future, and all want to make sure their product has longevity. So yes, I feel sure that the producers of these Oscar nominated films have had the common sense to finish in 4k.

[Tyler Purcell]

I work in an industry where 4k origination and finishing is commonplace.

You mean cable television? I mean how do you know they are actually exporting the files in 4k and delivering them to the content aggregator in that format?

 

Studios and producers all keep one eye on the future, and all want to make sure their product has longevity. So yes, I feel sure that the producers of these Oscar nominated films have had the common sense to finish in 4k.

La La Land was scanned at 6k on an arri scanner, finished and released in 4k

Manchester by the sea was shot at 3.2k arri raw, finished and released in 2k

Moonlight was shot (pro res capture), finished and released in 2k

Arrival was shot 2.8k arri raw, finished and released in 2k

Fences was scanned at 4k, but finished and released in 2k

Hacksaw Ridge was shot at 3.2k arri raw, but finished in 4k and released in 2k (there will be a 4k UHD release of this movie, but theaters were all 2k)

Hell or High Water was shot in 2.8k arri raw, finished and released in 2k

Hidden Figures was scanned at 6k arri scanner, finished and released in 4k (same post house as La La Land)

Lion was shot in 2.8k arri raw, finished and released in 2k

Silence was scanned at 6k on an arri scanner, finished and released in 4k.

Jackie was scanned at 3k, finished and released in 2k.

[Stuart Brereton]

You mean cable television? I mean how do you know they are actually exporting the files in 4k and delivering them to the content aggregator in that format?

 

Content aggregator? We're not talking about web series here.

 

I know they are being finished in 4k because the production companies specifically request 4k origination so that they can have a 4k master to archive for future sales. Working and finishing in 4k is a negligible cost these days.

 

The release format of a movie has nothing to do with how it was finished. i would be extremely surprised if the makers of these films had not created 4k masters, even if the film was released in 2k

[Tyler Purcell]

Content aggregator? We're not talking about web series here.

Content aggregators are the companies which QC, archive and deliver content to the various distribution channels. Everything goes through a content aggregator, from features to music videos. The content aggregator holds the "masters" and will deliver files to the various companies who request it, in the format they request it in.

 

I know they are being finished in 4k because the production companies specifically request 4k origination so that they can have a 4k master to archive for future sales.

This is the way everyone works though. They request 4k or higher during production, but they down-res for delivery. Next time you work on one of those shows, I would be interested to actually get info on the file exported from the coloring/finishing bay. A lot of times, the down-res is done in the coloring/finishing bay because this allows more wiggle room for re-framing in post and cheaper VFX work. Since coloring/finishing is generally a rushed process on most shows, speed always trumps quality. It is true that VFX houses generally try to render in 4k, a lot of times they can't afford the time if they're being pushed schedule wise.

 

Working and finishing in 4k is a negligible cost these days.

That is 100% true. I can work in 2k and 4k in real time on my 2009 Mac Pro Tower. There is NO REASON for any movie to be finished and released in 2k.

 

The release format of a movie has nothing to do with how it was finished. i would be extremely surprised if the makers of these films had not created 4k masters, even if the film was released in 2k

Well, the only thing that makes a difference is how the audience see's the movie. If nobody ever see's the 4k master, what's the point of making it? I have to guess this is the only reason we're still finishing movies in 2k.

 

By the way, those numbers I quoted above are from actual sources, so you're allowed to be surprised. :)

[Stuart Brereton]

 

This is the way everyone works though. They request 4k or higher during production, but they down-res for delivery.

 

 

 

Well, the only thing that makes a difference is how the audience see's the movie. If nobody ever see's the 4k master, what's the point of making it? I have to guess this is the only reason we're still finishing movies in 2k.

 

By the way, those numbers I quoted above are from actual sources, so you're allowed to be surprised. :)

Tyler, your argument makes zero sense. Of course they down-res for delivery. As you yourself said, most theaters in this country are still 2k, so why would they deliver a 4k for theatrical?

 

The point of having a 4k master is so that it can be sold to 4k broadcast markets, which are becoming the defacto standard these days.

 

The numbers you quoted (without sources) only speak to origination and exhibition, not how that same material may have been mastered.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler, your argument makes zero sense. Of course they down-res for delivery. As you yourself said, most theaters in this country are still 2k, so why would they deliver a 4k for theatrical?

Re-read the numbers above, you will see I said "finished and released" which means the output from the color/finishing was x resolution.

 

My argument is that MOST MOVIES are still FINISHED AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN 2K. That means THERE IS NO 4K OR GREATER RESOLUTION MASTER ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET.

 

Also, if I cited all my sources, you'd still not believe it because I'm not going to record everyone's conversation I talk with.

 

The point of having a 4k master is so that it can be sold to 4k broadcast markets, which are becoming the defacto standard these days.

Defacto? Television is 480i, 720p and 1080i, those are the Television formats currently broadcasting in the US, with the exception of a few very scarce instances of UHD.

 

Yes, Direct TV offers a UHD "streaming" service, where you pay per view. That service is more like internet streaming then it is "television". It's "random access" to content, rather then a channel you happen to fall onto with content already in progress, which is the definition of television.

 

So far nobody has been able to deal with the bandwidth requirements of UHD television, which are 4x that of normal broadcasts. The current pipes are all too small to transmit 600+ channels + UHD content on some of them. This is why 480i still exists and why surfing through satellite, cable or terrestrial over the air frequencies, you can still find old SD broadcasts. There just isn't enough bandwidth for everyone to be in HD and absolutely not for UHD.

 

This whole "future" of UHD in the home is NOT going to be television, it's going to be on-demand "web" content. This is because, a single pipe is used to stream a single stream, vs a huge pipe streaming 600+ channels at once, trying to stream some high bandwidth, some low bandwidth.

 

Yes,.h265 is amazing and yes it's a complete game changer, but most TV's and set top boxes aren't designed to decode it at UHD resolutions.

 

So currently, there are only three UHD content providers; Netflix/Amazon and direct TV's special service. Neither one of them have full-time UHD content even though they "claim" they do.

 

You're absolutely right, UHD is the "future", but it's been around for 5 years now now and only a tiny myopic sector if the industry has adopted it. So why should content providers even contemplate spending the extra money to deliver in a format that hasn't been adopted in the last 5 years? Because they want to be future proof? If that were the case, they would have shot on film!

[Stuart Brereton]

Tyler, your argument makes zero sense. Of course they down-res for delivery. As you yourself said, most theaters in this country are still 2k, so why would they deliver a 4k for theatrical?

 

The point of having a 4k master is so that it can be sold to 4k broadcast markets, which are becoming the defacto standard these days.

 

The numbers you quoted (without sources) only speak to origination and exhibition, not how that same material may have been mastered.

Your complaint was that none of the Alexa movies had been up rezzed to 4k for release. Then, you stated that most theaters in the US only project 2k anyway. That being the case, why would studios provide a 4k DCI to a 2k theater?

 

Regardless of release format, I am sure that the studios have future proofed their investments with 4k or greater versions of all of these films.

 

And by the way, uncited sources are known these days as "alternative facts".

[Tyler Purcell]

Your complaint was that none of the Alexa movies had been up rezzed to 4k for release. Then, you stated that most theaters in the US only project 2k anyway. That being the case, why would studios provide a 4k DCI to a 2k theater?

One of them was... Hacksaw Ridge. The other one's weren't. My complaint is that people still shoot with equipment that's lower resolution then 100 year old technology. My complaint is that the "digital" shows are generally finished at lower quality then the "film" shows, which are generally scanned in at 5 - 6k today. My complaint is that nobody cares about delivering in the highest quality possible, they only care about speed and expense on a multi-million dollar movie, where the cost to shoot and finish in 4k is less then 1% of the budget.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that everything should be delivered in 4k today, 2k shouldn't even exist! Why MOST MOVIES are still delivering in 2k is beyond me.

 

And by the way, uncited sources are known these days as "alternative facts".

Well, you're so shocked this stuff happens, I bet even if I showed you a write-up in AC, you'd think its bogus. I sincerely hope my explanation of this has raised an eyebrow enough for you to research. Maybe next time your at a post house, ask around and see what people say.

 

Again, all that matters is consumers see the movie in the best quality possible. 1080i television and 2k cinema's are NOT the best quality possible.

[Stuart Brereton]

.

Well, you're so shocked this stuff happens, Maybe next time your at a post house, ask around and see what people say.

 

 

I'm not shocked that this happens, I'm shocked that you honestly believe that studios are not future proofing their work.

 

And I spend quite a bit of time at post houses, and all of the good ones tell me that 4k deliverables are the norm.

[Tyler Purcell]

I'm not shocked that this happens, I'm shocked that you honestly believe that studios are not future proofing their work.

They really aren't... and one's and zero's on a LTO tape that combined to make a 4k file, is not future proofing either. We've had higher resolution masters for 100 years and higher resolution in cinema's for 50 - 80 years (5/70 and 15/70). It's just 4/35 was cheap and at around 2k worth of resolution on the screen at 4th generation, it was very acceptable. Once something becomes acceptable, there is no desire/need to make it better.

[Stuart Brereton]

They really aren't... and one's and zero's on a LTO tape that combined to make a 4k file, is not future proofing either. We've had higher resolution masters for 100 years and higher resolution in cinema's for 50 - 80 years (5/70 and 15/70). It's just 4/35 was cheap and at around 2k worth of resolution on the screen at 4th generation, it was very acceptable. Once something becomes acceptable, there is no desire/need to make it better.

What an evasive answer. Of course studios and other producers are future-proofing their work by creating 4k, or greater, masters. They may not be archiving it, but that's a completely separate concern.

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

So... Basically, an UHD Blu-Ray Disc might be smoke screen? If Arrival was finished in 2K, then there’s no point in buying a 4K disc to see it on? Here I presume that upscaling the resolution of a movie results in lower quality. Am I right? Even though I wouldn’t be able to spot that lowering of quality of the picture?

Edited January 27, 2017 by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

[Bill Totolo]

Maybe not the best film but I thought "Neon Demon" looked stunning. Shot with Xtal Express anamorphics.

"Lion" was absolutely gorgeous, "Arrival" pretty daring as well.

Would like to have seen "Rogue One" get nominated.

 

Kinda' feels weird without Chivo or Deakins nominated this year.

[Robin R Probyn]

Really looking forward to see what the Deakmeister can do with Blade Runner.. ! .. alot to live up too.. no pressure :)... but if ever there would be a film to DP,with money being no object.. surely the gong for the big D next year !!

[Tyler Purcell]

So... Basically, an UHD Blu-Ray Disc might be smoke screen? If Arrival was finished in 2K, then there’s no point in buying a 4K disc to see it on? Here I presume that upscaling the resolution of a movie results in lower quality. Am I right? Even though I wouldn’t be able to spot that lowering of quality of the picture?

UHD BluRay is a complete smoke screen. I have various sources telling me only a small percentage of the disks are made from 4k masters. As a consequence, I went to my local Best By and sure enough, some of the disks say right on the back in fine print something like "made from a 2k master". A bunch of the real techie nerds from the projectionist forum have UHD players and have made a list of what movies look like UHD and what movies don't. They then cross-referenced them against known data (theatrical release format and IMDB format) and found the "softer" looking movies were 2k master, whilst the crisper one's were all 4k. Basically, however the movie was released in theaters, is what format it was on the UHD BluRay.

 

Currently only a small percentage of movies are theatrically released in 4k. A shocker to some is that current server technology, simply can't playback two streams of 4k simultaneously, so NON-IMAX 3D movies are ALWAYS 2k.

 

Point being, UHD is kind of a joke right now. Until distributors step up their game, we're stuck in 2k land for a long, long, long time.

[Ravi Kiran]

So... Basically, an UHD Blu-Ray Disc might be smoke screen? If Arrival was finished in 2K, then there’s no point in buying a 4K disc to see it on? Here I presume that upscaling the resolution of a movie results in lower quality. Am I right? Even though I wouldn’t be able to spot that lowering of quality of the picture?

 

A lot of UHDs are 2K upscales, but resolution isn't the only advantage of UHD. The format also offer HDR and a greater color space than Blu-Ray. However, I think we've hit a point of diminishing returns with these improvements, and that the quality increase from Blu-Ray to UHD isn't as great as the quality increase from DVD to Blu-Ray.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Ravi Kiran

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

That is terrible; one more thing a person needs to waste time checking, on Web sites, message boards, and magazines, in order to know what one’s buying. :rolleyes:

 

This is where I need the EU to come marching in and introduce yet another regulation demanding the source format be written clearly and in big whopping letters right there on the front of the Blu-Ray Disc.

 

I must say that I flinched a bit and am now a tiny bit less resolute in my determination to buy a 4K TV, even though I somehow think UHD is definitely coming, with streaming services offering it and the upcoming Olympics being broadcast in it. On the other hand, with the amount of money needed to replace the projectors in cinemas and diminishing (?) audiences, it really does seem like a long shot. “A long, long, long time” indeed.

 

Really looking forward to see what the Deakmeister can do with Blade Runner.. ! .. alot to live up too.. no pressure :)... but if ever there would be a film to DP,with money being no object.. surely the gong for the big D next year !!

 

You and I both know he won’t get it for Blade Runner.

[Tyler Purcell]

That will never happen though, the disk itself is "UHD" which is all the customer needs to know.

 

I predict UHD at home will be the next big technology flatline, like 3D at home. In my opinion, there is no difference between 3D and 4k at home. They both have equal issues with bandwidth and special viewing devices, the masses simply won't adopt because there is no NEED.

 

People bought HD TV's because they had no choice and currently, broadcasters aren't in a frenzy to upgrade. Have you tried to stream Netflix and Amazon video 4k content? I have 100Mbps service and neither one works without buffering quite a bit. So that means you need 150 - 200Mbps? The average speed in America is 25Mbps and even the average speed in the EU is only slightly more at 50Mbps. So we're A LONG WAY AWAY from having any real-time 4k internet streaming for the "masses". Sure that special UHD satellite network, things like that may expand at the cost of other networks looking like crap. Needless to say, the whole "disk" market is dying so fast it may not even survive 2017. So if you can't get UHD content on BluRay, if you can't get it via your standard television hookup, if you can't get it via internet without downloading the entire package first, umm... what's the point?

 

4k at home has always been a scam in my opinion, just a way for people to get excited about buying yet another flat screen TV. Just to keep the TV makers in business selling cheap crap that will start failing and/or looking bad in a few years. Has any of you seen these new 4k TVs? YUCK! I haven't seen a single one that looks good, YUCK! :(

[Manu Delpech]

The top LG oled (E6 & G6) looks fantastic, so does the ZD9 by Sony. Enough with the bs. More 4K masters coming for UHD discs by the way, Silence is a 4K DI (might not get UHD though), Passengers is a 4K DI, etc. You just have to be careful about what you buy, even some 2K upscales end up looking better, not all of them though, and some companies have been very lazy. There are some great UHD discs out there.

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

No thread about the ASC awards. Do we need one?

 

Anyway, Lion won.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/lion-tops-asc-cinematographer-awards-966477

 

Is that a sort of an announcement about the Oscars?

 

I still think La La Land will win it.

[Chris Burke]

On Blu-Ray.com in there UHD review section, they tell you if a title went through a uprez to UHD or if it was 4k + native.

[Chris Burke]

La La Land was beautiful. I watch a SAG screener at home. SD DVD that my blu ray player uprezzes to 1080p. Looked gorgeous.

[Gregory Irwin]

La La Land was beautiful. I watch a SAG screener at home. SD DVD that my blu ray player uprezzes to 1080p. Looked gorgeous.

 

Hi Chris,

I must disagree. I thought the lighting was sub-par to the story and it wasted the beautiful anamorphic format. The compositions were typical and not inventive. There was nothing really interesting or new about the cinematography. It was mostly dark and muddy without an edge to it. I was at the ASC Awards last night and LLL was the weakest of the nominations. What really drove me crazy was that the movie's score was over-the-top, melo dramatic and was begging for a BIG cinema moment. The visuals never matched or took advantage of those opportunities. I don't like it when a movie tries to dictate how I should feel or react to it. That should come naturally through the story. Congrats to Greg Frazier. LION was a job well done.

 

Humbly,

G