It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
There is a practical limitation to film. While precise numbers are difficult to agree on, the general consensus is that 35mm yields 4K. In the case of the now out of production IMAX 70mm/15 we will need to capture and present at 12K in order to equal it!
True that most films to date shot all digital fall short of 4K, but in recent years platforms like RED Epic and Sony's F65 have enabled newer titles to be done in 4K.
The reason some of us are hung up on Skyfall is because they "cheated" and mastered it at 4K despite capturing at 2.5 (ish) K ...ie they up-sampled. It is not and can never actually be 4K and I believe its misleading for them to claim otherwise. Ironically many other titles are being done the other way around, capturing at 4K and mastering at 2K (but at least its possible to go back later and reclaim the full resolution).
What about SPECTRE? Will that be able to achieve 4k in 10 years?
They reportedly used the 6K Alexa 65...for some shots (aerial maybe?). But principal photography is supposed to have been done with good ol' 35mm Panavision film cameras (yes, film). Short of some slight of hand we're not aware of, we can probably count on a real 4k master.
Undeniably 35mm in these behind-the-scenes peeks.
[Edited for clarity]
I believe it was confirmed SPECTRE was mostly done on film - the news of the Arri 65 were very recent and probably only for the major action sequences originally intended to be shot on IMAX cameras.
Would you have been happy seeing [insert favorite Bond] in 16mm? :)
Its less a question about about the presentation (we were all happy with seeing Skyfall in 2K) and more about posterity. Imagine if, hypothetically, Dr. No had been shot/presented 16mm. Might have looked ok in '61 but we'd be pretty disappointed today if that's as good as it would ever get....
I understand that it makes sense to have more pixels on a huge IMAX screen than on a normal cinema screen. But do all those pixels, or details, show on a smaller cinema screen? I watched the bits from The Dark Knight that were shot in IMAX on my tv, and I couldn´t say the resolution or anything looks any better than the rest of the film. Same with BR on a small tv. The real differences to DVD become only visible on a larger tv. So I´m curious, does IMAX material still make sense on smaller cinema screens?
Getting OT here but (and I hope I've understood what you are asking)...
On a consumer TV with consumer media, you are limited to 1080 line (HD). Doesn't matter what the source was. You cant "see" the difference between 8k, 4k, 2k.....because you dont have it. You only have 2k material and equipment (actually not even: HD is technically just shy of 2k).
Similarly in a conventional, but "good" cinema, you have either 35mm (rare) or 2/4k projection...so again material shot on (true) IMAX will by definition have been decimated down to the media in question.
That doesn't mean that the effort on Dark Knight (or whatever) was wasted. Given that they intended to present it in an IMAX facility, that's the level they need to work at. 2k on an IMAX screen looks like crap....hence the coining of the phrase LieMAX: so many of the feature films "presented in IMAX" these days are not IMAX at all. They are just 35mm/2k/4k blown up (hence the lie).
Quick sidebar: there is a whole science to shooting at a higher resolution and/or larger film stock with the intent of decimating it down in order to achieve a certain quality, particularly with VFX, but that is beyond the scope of our discussion here.
On my 1080p PJ I can actually see a difference when switching from 1080p material to 4K. It's not huge, but it's there. The amount of pixels are the same, but somehow the clarity is better when watching the same clip when feeding the PJ with a 4K source.
Which projector, source hardware, and clip/media?
On a side note, I think the 60's and 70' s 4K Lowry remasters are the best looking of the collection, up until 2006.
If its not a fantastic camera or their compression is less than perfect, then yea it makes sense that a downsampled 4K clip looks better than a 2K since downsampling can hide sins such as compression artifacts. For almost the whole history of motion pictures reduction has been a technique used for VFX especially. Complex, composite shots (think: 1977 Star Wars) would be done on 65 or 70mm and when reduced to 35mm a lot of the untidiness magically disappears. VistaVision, which ran 35mm horizontally, was used more for making ultra sharp 35mm prints more than it was 70mm roadshow ones. Thats optical though. In digital its a little different. Oversampling is a fundamental component of something as simple as a CD player's DAC (signal is oversampled before going through D/A to reduce aliasing errors). In video supersampling the sensor (capturing at 1/4) can actually result in better dynamic range and higher color fidelity (color is subsampled if captured at native resolution) but thats a different beast alltogether.
But I digresses...
$209.99 - 23 films on Blu-ray from Dr. No to Skyfall plus space reserved for SPECTRE (Coming 2016) Digital HD copies of all 23 films Over 120 hours of Special Features including 2 all-new featurettes and a 90 minute documentary Bond poster book
Seems a little premature, but they are trying to capitalize on all the upcoming hype for SP I guess. Same type of deal they did with Bond 50. The only thing I really like about this set is it also comes with the Digital HD copies, but I'm willing to bet they are locked on to Amazon's Streaming Service. I think I'll pass on this one. I have Bond 50 and every individual bluray case release as well. I can't jump in there a third time.
Do we know the UK price. (Not that I'll be buying it) $210 is around £135 UK money, but I'd put money on it retailing here for £199. The Brits consistently get the shitty end of the stick with these kind of things.
think I saw it earlier for £100 .....
Edit- yep a penny short and the non premium version is a tenner less.
I stand corrected, said the man in the Orthopaedic shoe. If that is the case, that's bloody worth it if you don't already own it.
Out of interest, does anyone remember the SE DVD Boxset retailing for £400 back in the day?!
What?! But the existing 50 years Box set is about £60 on amazon at the moment. Why would people spend an extra £140 pound on having Skyfall included and a few other bits and bobs? It's my birthday in November and I am still using the old UE DVD's, so a potential purchase could be on cards, but I don't see any convincing reason to fork out the extra cash when I could just buy Skyfall BD separately.
Though there are plenty out there, hence why they have decided to release this set because they know there are plenty of saps will spend ridiculous amounts of money on this kind of thing, the materialistic world we live in.
The Bond 50 set was good value for money but this is just ridiculous for the films in metal boxes, I see people almost cumming in their pants over this kind of thing and also getting wet over slip cases, my god some people must lead some pretty dull lives to get excited over a bit of card and metal.
Lol. I won't hide the fact that I'd like to buy a few of those steelbooks. With respect to the 23-movie set, I agree with the 'to hell with it' sentiment, especially if one owns the Bond 50 set.
Me too. When the DVD's were first released, (individually) they blew me away as and when I got them. DN looked incredible next to the VHS.
Me too. When the DVD's were first released, (individually) they blew me away as and when I got them. DN looked incredible next to the VHS. [/quote]
I remember getting the 'widescreen' collection on VHS and being amazed at how much better the image was compared the original release…and then DVD came out and I thought that the picture couldn't get better than this…lo and behold along came blu-ray. Satisfied now.
Not realy expect any review from this and Fox made cover mistakes sometimes, so we should wait til somebody buying this for knowing or it be old or new bonus disc. But let we we expect be new disc.
The fact the release not include earlier 2 disc set of CR, but only a select of bonus material and not earlier material from earlier bonus disc from 50 years set and not new release of QOS is stil a let down.
3 disc Bluray set of Daniel Craig only:
Wil also be re-released on dvd as 23 disc and as 3 disc set.
The 50 years set without Skyfall avaible for 79,99 http://www.bol.com/nl/p/james-bond-50th-anniversary-collection/1002004012018754/
As some people mabey remember i wish i know before about SE boxset who released in 2003 who not include a package but also bonus promotion disc. That bonus disc i get later with magazine lucky enough. Twine was my first SE DVD on same day as i bought my first dvd player (fl. 59,99/27,00 euro), then Dr No (fl 39,20/€ 17,65 ) and TMND (fl 40,20/€ 18,10) and othes 16 in May/June 2001 (Between fl 42,45 and fl.44,90 for each of them) and Die Another Day (14,99 euro) in April 2003.