Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How 'Mission Impossible' Made the Leap To 4K and HDR (engadget.com)

Posted by msmash on from the clearer-look dept.

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."

38 of 51 comments (clear)

  1. A better headline would be helpful here by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by chill · · Score: 3

      You mean the shot for 1960s TV, 240 lines of interlaced NTSC? I wonder if the original 35mm prints even still exist, much less how well they were maintained.

      Converting that to something that didn't look like washed-out shit on a 4K screen would be a seriously impressive feat.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by xleeko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean the shot for 1960s TV, 240 lines of interlaced NTSC? I wonder if the original 35mm prints even still exist, much less how well they were maintained.

      Shot for 1960's TV but on 35mm film by total pro's using excellent Mitchell cameras. Just like the original Star Trek, which was shot on the soundstage next door, on occasion with the same physical cameras. Dye fading and such could be an issue, but they should have plenty to go on, plus they don't have to rebuild all of the SFX as they did with TOS.

      At least a much better chance that ten years newer, when everything had shifted to videotape.

    3. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You should see what they did with Star Trek TOS.

    4. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The master prints certainly still exist, and like many classic shows the DVDs were "remastered in HD" back in the 00's so cleaned up digital HD transfers of the episodes do exist. I distinctly remember watching a few episodes in 1080p on Netflix back when they had the show years ago, I was dismayed but not entirely surprised when I looked at CBS All-Access last year and realized they only had the show streaming in standard definition even though they've got those HD masters kicking around somewhere.

      Now whether any of the original negatives still exist, that's a whole other question. A positive print in good shape is great and all, but to really get the most out of remastering in 4K HDR I'd think they'd need those original negatives.

    5. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      a seriously impressive feat.

      Or an impossible mission?

      If you choose to accept it.

    6. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, when these were on Netflix it had good resolution. A lot of older shows were shot on film. You can often tell shows that were shot direct to video tape because they had a distinctly different look to them. It took awhile to make video cameras that looked decent, so you'd off odd optics, high persistence which smudged whatever was moving, and overall fuzziness. Twilight Zone did a few episodes with video instead of film (they were going over budget) and those really stick out because of the primitive video cameras used. I think video got stuck with an assumption that they were low quality even after they had improved, so shooting to film remained a standard for pre-recorded weekly television for a long time.

    7. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Both were Desilu productions. They have an interesting history of being an independent production company formed by Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball. Many of their shows had relatively more expensive production values but they also were popular enough that when they went into syndication they turned into good profits.

    8. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      I have no complaints about the Mission Impossible episodes on Amazon Prime video.

      https://i.imgur.com/p95qSV8.pn...

      note the fine pattern on the jacket doesn't become a swirly mess.

    9. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Mission Impossible was a good series. I don't know if it had as large a following as Star Trek, but visual resolution wasn't the problem with the MI shows. It was that same van that they used in every other episode that was painted 7 times and "supposedly" filmed in different "countries"...

    10. Re:A better headline would be helpful here by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's film resolution that's the problem here, but set resolution. That is, sets that looked OK for 480i NTSC are going to look worse when you can see the glint on every bit of scotch tape used to hold them together.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. Remastered by bano · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's a lot of words to basically say, they remastered something.

    1. Re: Remastered by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Don't worry - no one gives a shit.

    2. Re:Remastered by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of words to basically say, they remastered something.

      A bit more than that: "That's a lot of words to basically say, they remastered something since these worthless movies tend to get forgotten ; we remastered them to trigger some publicity and hope some people who don't know (yet) that even in 4K these movies are of no interest might open their wallet".

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Remastered by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of words to basically say, they remastered something.

      Good. Too long we have stupidfied ourselves by distilling a complicated process with highly varied results down to a single verb. We should be using a lot of words to describe complex processes.

  3. Ouch... Right in the Lucas... by Stonent1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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?

  4. Mod up. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    " "

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. 4K is just a bit too much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You can see all the thetans that Tom Cruise had to have removed after the film shoot.

  6. Ugh by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

    The thought of having to see that awful exploding helicopter jump in 4K HDR is terrifying.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  7. Phile by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    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.
  8. That's impossible by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    even for a computer.

    1. Re:That's impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I used to bulls-eye womp rats in my T16 back home, that aren't much bigger than 4k.

  9. fascinating like? by avandesande · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fascinating in exactly the same way that DVD and HD Blue Ray remastering was fascinating?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  10. Nonsense by MpVpRb · · Score: 2

    Film has low dynamic range, no matter how perfectly it's scanned

    1. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Film is analog.

      What are you responding to? Are you on the right thread?

    2. Re:Nonsense by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Compared to what? 35mm film has a dynamic range of about 12-13 stops. That's in the order of 4000-8000:1 contrast ratio. Your typical cinema projector or TV for which the finals were mastered had a contrast ratio of 250:1 and the final masters were made with this in mind.

      The original film has a much higher dynamic range than any final master of these old movies you have seen before, and a much higher dynamic range than any production produced to 8bit standards that pre-date the HDR specs.

  11. SPAM Garbage by Jahoda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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, /.

    1. Re:SPAM Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ugh. Man, what kind of paid advertisement shilling is this anyway?

      Meanwhile, others have managed to actually contribute something of substance to the topic at hand, while you have decidedly not. Good show.

    2. Re:SPAM Garbage by westlake · · Score: 1

      Oh really??? no shit!! 35mm film can be scanned at 4K , my mind is fucking blown.

      There is more to restoration and editing for 4K HDR release than the mechanical process of scanning the master print of a film or secondary sources.

    3. Re:SPAM Garbage by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Ugh. Man, Give me a fucking break

      There. I remastered your post. Looks a bit different than the original.

  12. Re:4k = scam / cash grab by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

    Rather than 4k, I'd love it if they released new and rescanned titled in 3D FullHD - whether originally shot in 3D or post-processed.

  13. The new M:I movie is titled "Fallout"? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So do we get to hear Tom Cruise say "War. War never changes."?

  14. big whoop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Garbage movie for Garbage people

  15. Re:4k = scam / cash grab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Rather than 4k I would prefer if they released something worth watching... just sayin...

  16. 35mm is better than 4k by acoustix · · Score: 1, Informative

    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
  17. Re:4k = scam / cash grab by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

    Blu-ray's storage and data rates were determined at a time when it was expected to store MPEG-2 streams. Early BD discs actually were MPEG-2. It was HD DVD's adoption and proving of H.264 that pushed BD to adopt and encourage the H.264 format.

    So yeah, H.265 might not be 4x an improvement over H.264, but it doesn't have to be - it just has to be a 4x improvement over MPEG-2, which it is.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  18. 35mm is not better than 4k by ffkom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  19. 35mm Not As Good As 4k by HannethCom · · Score: 1

    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.