Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel

For aspect ratio hardasses (taken from another forum):

The DCP is framed at 1.85 with pillarboxing and letterboxing for the 1.37 and 2.35 ratios, respectively.

yeah even though the image you get with 4k projection is amazing, psychologically i cant shake the feeling that it's just an upscaled version of the home theater experience

i have the same feeling, or the feeling when im watching a digital projection, that its basically just an advanced version of blu ray (and sometimes in rep cinemas, im sure it has been an actual blu ray disc!), but there is still something to be said for watching a film in a cinema on a big screen, not a TV, and without home interruptions. its still better, if not as special. also, sometimes when cinemas are showing an old film on DCP (or blu ray or whatever), you can tell the transfer hasnt been done all that well, or the blu ray doesnt blow up that well, which can be a bummer.

but there is still something to be said for watching a film in a cinema on a big screen, not a TV, and without home interruptions.

watching in a darkened theater forces me to pay attention to the film... i get distracted a lot more easily at home. also there's the audience factor

yes, heathens

easier to take notes while vacuuming, right, Morbsy?

vacuuming? is that a verb?

watching in a darkened theater forces me to pay attention to the film... i get distracted a lot more easily at home. also there's the audience factor

― AIDS (Hungry4Ass), Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:47 AM (39 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah this is why i always prefer the theater no matter what kind of projection there is. it locks me into the film. i've found watching with headphones is a similar experience.

yeah even though the image you get with 4k projection

90% of the time when you go out to see a movie these days you are seeing 2K, not 4K

ahh you cant tell the difference if you sit far enough back anyway~

whats your source on that btw

variety

the 4k projections are usually the ones the big theater chains advertise as "ultimate digital Xperience" or something and often charge more for.

though it's all in constant flux, so my info might be months out of date. but my understanding is that most DCPs still ship in 2K.

4k projections are indeed rare and are always advertised as such

the idea that the industry is pushing 4k tvs now is just preposterous to me

don't worry, nobody will buy them

if you go see something in IMAX in a real big theater there's a good chance you are seeing something in their proprietary system which approximates 4k by using two 2k projectors

of course, there are still a few IMAX 70mm setups around, but they are disappearing very fast

welcome to the new age welcome to the new age

Btw i can't find any clips online but I have this record and it is pretty much ground zero for WA-style chamber pop 60s harpsichord instrumental stuff like Mothersbaugh turns out.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, November 14, 2013 1:59 PM (3 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ysi?
https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/Record/542918

the 4k projections are usually the ones the big theater chains advertise as "ultimate digital Xperience" or something and often charge more for.

― espring (amateurist), Sunday, March 9, 2014 3:41 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark

the regal i go to always has this SONY 4K thing before their trailers but maybe that doesnt mean anything. i remember reading a couple years back that AMC was working on getting 4k projectors in like 90% of its theaters. but that doesnt mean they're showing 4k dcps, and im not sure i could tell the difference anyway. i will say that a lot of the time when i sit in the first few rows at the multiplex im often puzzled why the picture looks kinda crappy to me... if they're showing something just barely better than blu ray then that would explain it

Hmm, Goldblum's in this.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiXhsf3CQAE_qUW.jpg

I came out of this feeling as if I'd just stuffed myself with truffles and marzipan - albeit the finest truffles and marzipan. Hit and miss broad, slapstick-y humour and crazy capering over pathos, but lightheaded fun.

truffles do NOT make me lightheaded

re 2k/4k, I know that all the latest projectors are 2k/4k compatible (which is the standard) and thus CAPABLE of projecting in 4k (or "upconverting" to 4K from a 2K DCP, just like your Blu-Ray player upconverts from a DVD). the thing I don't know is whether many movies are actually being shipped in 4k.

I'd like to say I'd notice the difference but who knows. it depends on the source material and what happened in digital post. plenty of films (most of 'em) these days _shoot_ in 2K or less, so there would be no gain by showing them in anything higher (unlike blowing 35mm up to 70mm; that's the difference b/t analogue and digital). to keep this relevant to the thread, I believe FANTASTIC MR FOX was shot in something like 2k.

pretty soon we'll also just be watching our 80-inch 4k TVs at home anyway, while a contraption pumps nutrients into our veins and we adjust the 3d glasses screwed into our temples.

I believe FANTASTIC MR FOX was shot in something like 2k.

that would be weird as it is stop-motion and probably shot with still cameras capable of going much, much higher than 2k

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/a6/3d/b7/a63db7978ec18c6fdd1608205f0de25b.jpg

xp

pretty soon we'll also just be watching our 80-inch 4k TVs at home anyway, while a contraption pumps nutrients into our veins and we adjust the 3d glasses screwed into our temples.

― espring (amateurist), Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:44 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark

lol

I believe FANTASTIC MR FOX was shot in something like 2k.

that would be weird as it is stop-motion and probably shot with still cameras capable of going much, much higher than 2k

― socki (s1ocki), Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:47 PM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i know it was shot w/ still cameras but i thought they restricted it to 2k (or sometime equivalent to that) for file management reasons--i.e. storage space. anyway, it looks beautiful.

Were they storing the files on a x486 or something?

4k image files are fucking huge, imagine at least 12 of them per second of film.

http://www.aja.com/assets/support/files/1177/en/aja_2k_whitepaper.pdf

Apparently 12MB of data per frame (??!!)

I should've guessed WA wouldn't exactly shoot in JPG.

http://www.aja.com/assets/support/files/1177/en/aja_2k_whitepaper.pdf

Apparently 12MB of data per frame (??!!)

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:20 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wait, that's 2k, not 4k... 4k would be something like 12.2 MB squared--or about 148.84 MB.

so that's...

- 1,786.08 MB (approx 1.786 GB) per second
- 107,164.8 MB (approx--what?--107 GB per minute)
- 9,323,337 MB for an 87-minute film (9.3 TB)

not counting all the frames that don't make it into a finished film. I imagine there are many times as many of those as there are frames that made it to the finished film. let's charitably assume a 5:1 ratio. (might be more like 100:1 for all I know.)

so that would be...
- 55,940,022 MB or nearly 56 TB. that's a lot of storage space in 2007 or whenever that film was made/completed.

maybe my math is completely wrong.

also I'm assuming they are animating on "2"s, meaning 12 frames per second. but actually some of t he film was on the "1s", meaning the full 24 frames per second. you can do the math on that.

also 12 MB seems low even for 2K, I've had 2k-resolution TIFF files that were way more than that.

i think david fincher said that one of the big problems for films now is file management. major motion pictures now have big "file management" teams subdivided into all kinds of categories. i'm sure that's even true of grand budapest hotel, although at least it was _shot_ in 35mm which likely means the ratio of shot to used footage is probably much lower than on fincher's digital films where it's out of control.

this is also a major problem for archivists btw. they have to triage: do you "archive" the finished digital file (which can be numerous TBs) and that's it, or do you also preserve all the ouutakes, un-CGI'd files, etc. etc.? if so, how do you make a rationale for what to preserve and why? since no archive, indeed no institution, can maintain unlimited digital storage for an indefinite time. (since they are likely to want multiple backups, and files would have to be "transitioned" to new storage/new formats every few years.)

sorry if this is boring to people. i find this stuff crazy interesting.

Kind of blows my mind whenever that kind of thing goes on, that a company would just throw out master original files and stuff after funding a movie for hundreds of millions of dollars.

For instance, they could do an HD remaster of Final Fantasy VII, which was the most expensive game ever developed at the time, if they had simply kept the original models and stuff. For some reason all the background art was saved in native NTSC resolution and nothing else. So you have years and years of work put into this thing that can only display at 320 x 240 until the end of time.

your math is wrong! i shoot RAW images on my DSLR. the image is much bigger than 4K. they are 20mb.

(4k is approx 8 megapixels, my camera shoots 18)

Yeah, but does your camera shoot sound?

how do I shot sound

your math is wrong! i shoot RAW images on my DSLR. the image is much bigger than 4K. they are 20mb.

― socki (s1ocki), Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:30 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(4k is approx 8 megapixels, my camera shoots 18)

― socki (s1ocki), Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:31 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's not my math, it's the link so-and-so posted.

but yeah someone should look into this. one way to ask this would be: how big is a 2k DCP?

or I could just look again at my "making of fantastic mr fox" book when I get home. there might be something on the studio daily website too.

Well, that link was kinda pulled at random. Seems like there may be different industry standards (and this was 2006) and that was for 10-bit and it doesn't sound like there is an alpha channel, so yeah it probably be closer to 20MB and that's just counting the initial shots. A final render (with effects, color timing, and compositing) would easily double that. At any rate yeah it's probably super expensive to store all of that, and digital storage isn't exactly long-lasting at this point. You are much better off making a film print imo.

This thread really became a big sister to the Pono one, eh? On that tip...

http://www.indiewire.com/article/movie-theaters-receive-special-instructions-on-how-to-project-the-grand-budapest-hotel

Heard an interview with him on NPR, and man, what a weird accent he has, especially for a Texas guy. It's as if he was raised in Texas but modeled his speech after Woody Allen, then spent several years overseas unlearning English. Just impossible to place.

He's worked very hard to erase his Texas signifiers.

Kind of wonder if that's part of why he only did the one film w/Bob Musgrave (Bob with the car from Bottle Rocket). Now that's an accent!

Just impossible to place.

when it comes to "placelessness," motherfucker's all about it as far as his films are concerned. assiduously avoids local signifiers to the point where he shot one scene of tennenbaums with kumar pallana standing strategically to block the statue of liberty.

He's worked very hard to erase his Texas signifiers.

― Interior. Ibiza Bar (C. Grisso/McCain), Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:51 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think his parents are native to Texas, and he grew up in a kind of upper-crusty bubble. he just has a generic american UMC suburban accent to me.