Slashdot Mirror
How 'Mission Impossible' Made the Leap To 4K and HDR (engadget.com)
In the run up to the release of Fallout, the new movie in the Mission Impossible franchise, Paramount studio re-released the entire Mission Impossible series on 4K Blu-ray last month. The new discs aren't only a huge upgrade for cinephiles -- they're also a fascinating glimpse at how studios can revive older films for the 4K/HDR era. Engadget: "In terms of any re-transfers or remastering that we are doing for our HDR releases, we will go back to the highest resolution source available," Kirsten Pielstick, manager of Paramount's digital mastering group, said in an interview. In the case of Mission Impossible 1 and 2, that involved scanning the original 35mm negatives in 4K/16-bit. As you'd expect, the studio tries to get the original artists involved with any remasters, especially with something like HDR, which allows for higher brightness and more nuanced black levels. Pielstick worked with the director of photography (DP) for the first Mission Impossible film, Stephen H. Burum, to make sure its noir-like palette stayed intact.
[...] "Our mastering philosophy here is always to work directly with the talent whenever possible, and use the new technology to enhance the movie, but always stay true to the intent of the movie," Pielstick said. "You're not going to want to make things brighter just because you can, if it's not the intent of how you were supposed to see things." [...] "You also have to remember that we're not putting in anything that didn't exist on the film [for HD remasters]," Pielstick added. "It was always there we just didn't have the ability to see it. So we're not adding anything new, we're not doing anything to increase those, we're just able to look at the negative in a much clearer way than we ever could before."
[...] "Our mastering philosophy here is always to work directly with the talent whenever possible, and use the new technology to enhance the movie, but always stay true to the intent of the movie," Pielstick said. "You're not going to want to make things brighter just because you can, if it's not the intent of how you were supposed to see things." [...] "You also have to remember that we're not putting in anything that didn't exist on the film [for HD remasters]," Pielstick added. "It was always there we just didn't have the ability to see it. So we're not adding anything new, we're not doing anything to increase those, we're just able to look at the negative in a much clearer way than we ever could before."
I first optimistically read it to mean that the original series was going to be released on HDR Blu-ray. Mentioning sooner that this refers to the original (ie, Tom Cruise) movies would be helpful.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
That's a lot of words to basically say, they remastered something.
"You also have to remember that we're not putting in anything that didn't exist on the film [for HD remasters]," Pielstick added. "It was always there we just didn't have the ability to see it. So we're not adding anything new, we're not doing anything to increase those, we're just able to look at the negative in a much clearer way than we ever could before."" Subtle jab at George Lucas, where every remastering is a retelling of the story?
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You can see all the thetans that Tom Cruise had to have removed after the film shoot.
The thought of having to see that awful exploding helicopter jump in 4K HDR is terrifying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Mission Impossible
Cinephile
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
even for a computer.
Fascinating in exactly the same way that DVD and HD Blue Ray remastering was fascinating?
love is just extroverted narcissism
No noticeable quality improvement at normal viewing distance, higher cost, harder to backup/archive. Not worth caring.
If they upped data rate and started selling three layer discs as absolute minimum I might care. Until then it's easy to do basic math and conclude the obvious... YOU are being ripped off.
4k = 4x pixel density over Full HD.
h.265 gets you 50% over h.264.
So where is the extra space coming from? UHD blu rays are the same lasers as normal blu ray.
Then throw in film rescanning limitations (effective resolution flux dependent) and upscaling shenanigans for titles shot digital only for re-released films and the result is not so impressive.
4k *IS* awesome standing up close to the set. There are some amazing 4k demos that weigh in at something on the order of a gigabyte/minute. No blu ray is pushing anywhere near that kind of bandwidth and nobody actually watches from such a short distance.
Releasing blu ray titles at Full HD resolution in HDR using HEVC would result in just as noticeable improvement as switching to 4k.
Film has low dynamic range, no matter how perfectly it's scanned
Ugh. Man, what kind of paid advertisement shilling is this anyway? Oh really??? no shit!! 35mm film can be scanned at 4K , my mind is fucking blown. Cinematic classic Mission Impossible seen as never before.
/.
Give me a fucking break,
So do we get to hear Tom Cruise say "War. War never changes."?
Garbage movie for Garbage people
Not sure what the big whoop is. 35mm has just as good resolution than 4k, and if you take into account the compression that typically comes with 4k then 35mm would be superior.
But don't take my word for it, check out the comparisons: https://i.imgur.com/g8U62w3.png
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I have yet to see any 35mm analog material that comes anywhere close to the quality of 4k videos I can shoot on my mundane digital consumer camera. I don't get how people confuse film grain with actual image detail. Even hyped recent 70mm films like "The hateful Eight" are just sad grainy proof of analog films being overrated. If you want to see some decent 4k quality, have a look at documentaries like "Planet Earth 2" or a very few movies like "Lucy" where resolution is actually used for details, not film grain.
Comparing Film and digital is difficult. Each has its pros and its cons. Also 4k TVs and 4k Cinema are different resolutions doesn't help either.
4k Cinema is about 4096×2160, where 4k TV is 3840×2160. Comparing resolution is especially difficult because of quality of the film and the fact that the grain isn't linear like digital is.
Most higher end films used a film stock that is about the same resolution as 4k Cinema. Though even this is a bit of a misnomer because each grain is about 2x1 pixels, meaning that there is only half the resolution of 4k Cinema. Though some areas of each frame will look better, or worse depending on the concentration of the grains and the orientation.
Digital can also suffer from the same resolution problem though. Many consumer cameras use a Bayer Filter which only actually sees 1/2 the green spectrum, 1/4 the red spectrum and 1/4 the blue spectrum. There are full spectrum cameras that use 3 image sensors, I don't know if digital film cameras mainly use these, or a Bayer Filter. The thing is, even with a Bayer Filter, must of the missing information is calculated quite accurately in between because it is such a linear distribution making even a Bayer Filter effectively higher resolution than film.
How about dynamic range? This is something that is often brought up between film and digital. Again, the answer isn't quite as clear cut as some people would like. Film can capture colours on a more granular level, but is tends to loose the whitest whites, and the blackest blacks. That being said, it is really good at capturing explosions. Digital on the other hand covers a much better range of colour, but not quite as granular, though I think this is changing on some of the newer high end cameras with added bit depth.
In the end looking at unprocessed film and only camera processed digital, it is very clear how much better the digital is. Film just looks washed out and grainy. After a lot of processing, you can get rid of a lot of the grain and make it nice an vivid, but at that point you loose a lot of the benefits of film while taking more time to process. Now if you use the higher quality film, yes, it is a little bit better than 4K Cinema, but also is going to cost you an arm and a leg. Even most movie studios can't afford that price.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.