James Bond on Blu-ray/4K

15556586061105

Comments

  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 260
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Hasn´t every film shot in digital less resolution than Dr. No? Because films shot on film don´t have pixels? So naturally, any film shot in the 60s on good film stock will increase details any time the transformation resolution increases, as long as some functioning film roll still exists.

    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).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,868
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Hasn´t every film shot in digital less resolution than Dr. No? Because films shot on film don´t have pixels? So naturally, any film shot in the 60s on good film stock will increase details any time the transformation resolution increases, as long as some functioning film roll still exists.

    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?
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 260
    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=15&v=YYKB75aIHWE


    [Edited for clarity]


  • Posts: 3,164
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    What about SPECTRE? Will that be able to achieve 4k in 10 years?

    We'll have to wait until some credible details leak. We know they are Arri fans and reportedly used the 6K Alexa 65...at least for some shots. But I thought I read principal photography was being done with good ol' 35mm Panavision film cameras (yes, film)...if the internet is to be believed. :) If true we can probably count on a real 4k master, but this is all anecdotal at his juncture.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=15&v=YYKB75aIHWE

    Undeniably 35mm in those behind-the-scenes peeks.

    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.
  • Posts: 5,767
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Hasn´t every film shot in digital less resolution than Dr. No? Because films shot on film don´t have pixels? So naturally, any film shot in the 60s on good film stock will increase details any time the transformation resolution increases, as long as some functioning film roll still exists.

    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).
    Does it matter if the film is 2K or 12K if I watch it only in a medium sized cinema?

  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Does it matter if the film is 2K or 12K if I watch it only in a medium sized cinema?

    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....

  • edited July 2015 Posts: 5,767
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Does it matter if the film is 2K or 12K if I watch it only in a medium sized cinema?

    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 would need to see examples shot in 16mm to see if I understand what you mean.
    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?

  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 260
    boldfinger wrote: »
    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. 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.
  • Posts: 3,153
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    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).[/i]
    I see your point, which is logic. But please explain this:
    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.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    Zekidk wrote: »
    I see your point, which is logic. But please explain this:
    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?
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 3,153
    Sony HW10 (SXRD), HTPC (GeForce GTX660), 4K footage shot from the DJI Phantom 3 drone. Also some YouTube clips. Demos. Can't remember which.

    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.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 260
    Well, one key point is you are not feeding the Sony anything other than 1080p (it simply cannot accept any signal higher than that) so when you play, say, a 4k YouTube clip, your PC is in fact downsampling it to 1080 line. So when you switch between 1080p and 4K, in a sense you are comparing the GPUs downsampling (when you play the 4K) to YouTube's (when you play the 1080p), and the later is not a simple downsample in that when you upload they not only recomp what you upload, but create separate files streams for all the other resolutions (not to mention adaptive bitrates etc). Cant speak for the DJI footage (never had a chance to play with one) but who knows what it does differently when capturing at the two different settings.

    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...
  • Posts: 5,767
    @sunsanvil, I doubt a little excourse into pixel rates will be a big problem in a thread majorly devoted to blu ray. Therefore let me see if I got it right: A film shot in 2K projected onto an IMAX screen loses quality. A film shot in 4K projected in 2K might still look better than the same shot in 2K. Did I get it halfway?
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 1,181
    Amazon Exclusive: The Ultimate James Bond Collection [Blu-ray + DHD] - Sep 15, 2015
    2qbvvrm.png
    $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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,868
    I have a question for anyone who has bought a steelbook Bond before. Do they usually release the same time as the dvd/bluray version?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ed83 wrote: »
    Amazon Exclusive: The Ultimate James Bond Collection [Blu-ray + DHD] - Sep 15, 2015
    2qbvvrm.png
    $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.
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    edited July 2015 Posts: 1,329
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    Amazon Exclusive: The Ultimate James Bond Collection [Blu-ray + DHD] - Sep 15, 2015i
    2qbvvrm.png
    $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.
  • RC7RC7
    edited July 2015 Posts: 10,512
    DCisared wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    Amazon Exclusive: The Ultimate James Bond Collection [Blu-ray + DHD] - Sep 15, 2015i
    2qbvvrm.png
    $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 .....

    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?!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,868
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    Amazon Exclusive: The Ultimate James Bond Collection [Blu-ray + DHD] - Sep 15, 2015
    2qbvvrm.png
    $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.

    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.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    For a few bits of metal and what is likely not much bonus footage, if you already own the Bond 50 set and you buy this you have more money than sense.

    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.

  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    Shardlake wrote: »

    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

    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.
  • Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    DCisared wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    Amazon Exclusive: The Ultimate James Bond Collection [Blu-ray + DHD] - Sep 15, 2015i
    2qbvvrm.png
    $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 .....

    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?!
    Yep, still got it :-). Although I bought it a little later, for about a third. I was very fond of the quality, until I saw the blu rays ;-).

  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Quite interested in some of the new steelbooks, but can I justify buying FRWL and OHMSS yet again?! hmmm thinks…
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    boldfinger wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    DCisared wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ed83 wrote: »
    Amazon Exclusive: The Ultimate James Bond Collection [Blu-ray + DHD] - Sep 15, 2015i
    2qbvvrm.png
    $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 .....

    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?!
    Yep, still got it :-). Although I bought it a little later, for about a third. I was very fond of the quality, until I saw the blu rays ;-).

    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.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    edited July 2015 Posts: 1,874
    RC7 wrote: »
    Out of interest, does anyone remember the SE DVD Boxset retailing for £400 back in the day?!
    Yep, still got it :-). Although I bought it a little later, for about a third. I was very fond of the quality, until I saw the blu rays ;-).



    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.
  • Posts: 5,767
    I guess I still would be satisfied with the SE DVDs if I still had my old little tube tv set ;-).
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,389
    Dutch 24 disc Bluray set will be released on 16 September 2015, stil by Fox (Barcode: 8712626089186 )

    9200000046589850_2.jpg

    9200000046589850_1.jpg

    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.

    Souce: http://www.bol.com/nl/p/bond-box-complete-collection/9200000046589850/

    3 disc Bluray set of Daniel Craig only:

    9200000046589864_1.jpg

    Source: http://www.bol.com/nl/p/james-bond-daniel-craig-collection/9200000046589864/

    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.
  • Posts: 76
    I'm guessing these are going to be the exact same discs and we wont have any commentaries on the Quantum Blu ray or anything? Does anyone know?
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Why are the special features for quantum so lacking?
Sign In or Register to comment.