Giles

true, sort of... considering 35mm is equivalent to 6K and most 70mm movies when they are scanned and transferred is done at 8K

Doctorossi

That statement is both inaccurate and grossly, grossly oversimplified.

Supermallet

I had always read that 35mm is the equivalent of 4k.

Doctorossi

"Equivalent" is kind of a tricky word. The spatial resolution of a fast modern 35mm film stock, exposed for detail, can be fully represented by a 4K scan.

CRM114

So when the post above says "Sony-Columbia have made a new restoration of the film in 4K" that will shown at Cannes, it's like showing a 35mm print?

Doctorossi

No. 4K can accommodate the best of what a 35mm negative can deliver. A 35mm print cannot accommodate the same. A 4K "digital print" will look more resolute than the best 35mm print and far more resolute than the average 35mm print.

Meanwhile, the article's referring to this Lawrence of Arabia presentation as a "4K restoration" is a bit of a misnomer (or, at least, misleading shorthand). The 65mm negative was scanned at 8K and digital restoration work was then performed at 6K. The "digital print" for this screening is a 4K down-conversion because the projector in use will be 4K. So, really, it's a 4K presentation of a 6K restoration of an 8K scan.

CRM114

OK. I think I understand somewhat.

So, bottom line, should I go see LoA with a 4K digital screening or hold out for a 70mm screening?

Gizmo

Looks like the "it's coming really soon!!!!!" from 2006 finally arrived in 2012. Not bad!

Doctorossi

If you can find a 70mm screening with a good, strong lamp and a lot of screen real estate, I'd go that way. Beyond the light output potential of a 70mm projector, though, I strongly suspect a 70mm screening and a 4K screening of this restoration will look very similar to each other. I haven't seen it yet, though, so I speak with no authority.

Mabuse

It should be viewed in 70mm because that's the closest approximation to how it was meant to be exhibited when it was new.

Doctorossi

Well, 4K digital projectors weren't exactly an option when it was new, so no one can accurately tell us what Lean and company would have preferred, given today's options.

Mabuse

I could use that logic to justify converting it to 3D. Maybe if Lean were allive today he would want the film cropped to fit 16x9 displays.

A film from that era is ideally viewed in a manner most closely approximating how it was released when new. In LOA's case that would be 70 mm celluloid.

Mr. Cinema

and it'll look much better than what we would've gotten in 2006.

CRM114

Its a matter of driving hours to see it in 70mm or possibly seeing it locally.

Doctorossi

Sure, but digital projection isn't really a revision. The fact is that neither a new 70mm print of this restoration nor a 4K "digital print" of it are going to look like the movie did upon release, but I think they're going to look very close to each other and I don't think either would misrepresent the movie (any poor color-timing decisions, etcetera, in the new master, aside).

Giles

it isn't. An article written around the time of the 'The Dark Knight' came out in American Cinematographer and when it came to the issue of the 'resolution' of 35mm, 65mm and IMAX 15/70 - 35mm was mentioned that while isn't pixeled like video the comparison was specifically noted that it's equivalent to 6K.

and the fact that current digital projection can only go up to 4K. 35mm and 70mm in film form when done right can look better than 4K digital projection, but since the industry has swayed to everything digital the superior 'film' format has become second fiddle.

Doctorossi

That's one (very optimistic and theoretical) opinion. The industry is largely in agreement that a 4K edge-to-edge scan is sufficient to capture the resolution of 4-perf 35mm film.

In the best of circumstances, you can probably get marginally better spatial resolution results from 5-perf 70mm (on recent stocks) than from 4K digital sourced from the same negative. In the vast majority of real world situations (and especially in light of the fact that most of the 5-perf 70mm material people want to see was not shot on recent stocks), you won't.

As for 35mm, if you can show me a theatrical print that can produce more spatial resolution on the screen than a 4K digital projection of a scan of that film's negative, I'll buy you the theatre you screened it in.

Of course, spatial resolution isn't the whole story, but it's the one we were talking about (and the only one most people ever seem to want to talk about).

Josh Z

This is really dependant on a lot of different factors, including film stock used and shooting conditions. The numbers I hear tossed around most frequently tend to range from 4k to 5k equivalency.

And of course, we're talking about the original camera negative here, not the dupe theatrical prints or how much detail actually makes it onto a theater screen (which is sub-2k in most cases).

It's that "when done right" part that's the sticking point.

Supermallet

3D existed at the time of LoA, so we can know for sure Lean didn't want it in 3D. Also, multiple aspect ratios existed back then, so we can say pretty well he didn't want it in 16x9.

Mr. Cinema

Someone posted these on blu-ray.com. Sony appears to be going the WB route with a deluxe edition. I hope there's a non-junk box set version available.

Doctorossi

Jam-packed "special editions" are great, but can we PLEASE stop with the super-wide boxes?! There's a REASON this format has standardized around a single packaging width and we all have storage solutions that result from it. There's no reason these materials can't fit in a STANDARD-WIDTH (albeit deep) box.

*Insert witty 'widescreen movie needs widescreen box' retort here*

Labor

are they serious with that cover art.

One of the greatest films of all time and that's the cover? Really?

Doctorossi

Yeah, it looks like an HBO special. I guess that's what they want.

E Unit

I would have preferred either of these. At any rate, I'll be buying the "junk" box set since this is my second favorite movie of all time.

Doctorossi

Don't you love these notices?

"Please stop using the Web the way it was intended to be used."