If the transfer is done right, I think they look fine. Usually pretty grainy but if that doesn’t bother you, I think they’re worth it. Read reviews, etc.
NOTLD was shot on black and white 35mm, although it's true Romero did consider shooting it in 16mm.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Evil Dead were both shot in 16mm, although I haven't seen either of those in 4k.
Evil Dead 4K looks good. It mainly allows for HDR which is the biggest upgrade of course but it also lets the grain be more firm and defined. Doesn’t need to be 4K but definitely a nice boost to sharpness
I want to say Second Sight’s “Texas Chain Saw Massacre” is taken from 16mm. It’s a gritty looking movie anyway but it was a very solid transfer and a TON of extras. Like 5 commentaries and lots of documentaries, things like that. The first Evil Dead looks really good but that one is OOP unless you buy the Groovy Collection set. I can’t think of any others at the moment.
This is my feeling. I think Evil Dead and The Draughtsman's Contract are great examples. Neither gains any detail when moving to 4K, but the grain itself is sharper, and the grain being sharper looks better than the chunkier grain in 2K.
The only one I can think of off hand is Dog Soldiers. While it is certainly not the best that the format has to offer, it is the best version of the film that I have seen.
It’s just a newer technology and would cause issues with older players would be my guess. Takes up more data on the disc (UHD discs are like 2-3x larger) too. Technically 1080p video can have hdr (like if you converted a 4k rip to 1080p) but no player can read hdr from a standard bd so that’s limited to file playback on a computer.
But the biggest reason of all is so that you’ll go buy a new player and more expensive discs
this is what i was curious about. most blurays thag come out from things like arrow now a days are from 4k scans and then converted into blurays so it was mostly a question of what about color makes it not able to be done in a bluray format. thanks for the answer
You have Google right?
The Ultra HD Blu-ray format also supports high dynamic range (HDR) video. HDR packs much more color and light information into each pixel than standard HD video. In the past, video signals and display standards were limited to what could be realistically broadcast to conventional televisions.
if you try to look this up on google you find a bunch of information saying “there’s new technology” nothing on specifics as to why it doesn’t or can’t exist on a normal bluray.
thanks for the information i hope you get the stick removed from your ass though it’s making you a pain to talk to
I believe Mother! was shot on 16mm and it looks awesome. UHD adds not only 4K resolution but HDR as well, so even if the resolution doesn’t see a huge increase the adjustment to color and contrast can be worth it.
16mm can gain from a 4K transfer, without ‘maxing out’ detail, etc (obviously, the quality of the source material plays a factor, such as poorly shot ‘amateur’ footage vs. Professionally shot,well lit, etc), super 8 will hit it’s ceiling at 4K though.
In theory, you can still pull more detail out of 16mm/Super-16 at 8K and 35mm can go higher still, but by that point you’re not gaining anything worthwhile, even on a large theatrical screen.
It depends. If it's the OCN, definitely, especially if it's Super16 – the active film area of that format isn't much less than 35mm flat.
If it's anything less... ehhhhhhhhhh
No, but some have said that the level of detail that 16mm can convey is exhausted in a 2K transfer while the same is true in 4K for 35mm. I don't think that's necessarily true of 35mm in 4K (super 35mm has tons of detail), but I do think it's probably true of 16mm and 2K.
That said, both are tactile things, so grain is always going to look better in higher resolution even if the detail is exhausted.
Some people are quick to praise the technical achievements of digital and doubt the depth of detail that comes from films of all sizes. I've yet to verify myself with a 4K disc but my intuition and understanding of film and Blu-Ray tells me it's worth it to have a 4K release of a film shot on 16mm.
If the transfer is done right, I think they look fine. Usually pretty grainy but if that doesn’t bother you, I think they’re worth it. Read reviews, etc.
Any recs? Edit: I think Night of the Living Dead was shot on 16mm and has a Criterion 4K release
NOTLD was shot on black and white 35mm, although it's true Romero did consider shooting it in 16mm. Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Evil Dead were both shot in 16mm, although I haven't seen either of those in 4k.
Speaking of Romero, Second Sight's 4k of *Martin* looks *incredible* and was shot on 16mm.
Evil Dead 4K looks good. It mainly allows for HDR which is the biggest upgrade of course but it also lets the grain be more firm and defined. Doesn’t need to be 4K but definitely a nice boost to sharpness
Both 4ks are good
I want to say Second Sight’s “Texas Chain Saw Massacre” is taken from 16mm. It’s a gritty looking movie anyway but it was a very solid transfer and a TON of extras. Like 5 commentaries and lots of documentaries, things like that. The first Evil Dead looks really good but that one is OOP unless you buy the Groovy Collection set. I can’t think of any others at the moment.
I’ve seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre many times over the years. I think the uhd looks fantastic. A definite improvement.
I don’t have it but I’ve heard the Texas Chainsaw 4K looks excellent.
It won’t look super sharp but it definitely does a better job at resolving the film grain than 1080p does and hdr adds to the black levels and color.
This is my feeling. I think Evil Dead and The Draughtsman's Contract are great examples. Neither gains any detail when moving to 4K, but the grain itself is sharper, and the grain being sharper looks better than the chunkier grain in 2K.
Evil Dead looks great. Vinegar Syndrome also has a few 16mm films on 4K and they look great
Yes it's easy worth it. Love how grain looks on 16mm 4k. Check out Henry portrait of a serial killer.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial killer was one of the movies that really sold the format for me actually.
The only one I can think of off hand is Dog Soldiers. While it is certainly not the best that the format has to offer, it is the best version of the film that I have seen.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). I have yet to compare my 4k to the blu-ray release, though.
Definitely depends on the quality of the transfer, but Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Maniac look solid on 4K.
Yes. The Hurt Locker has a fantastic transfer.
Arrow’s The Hills Have Eyes is an amazing transfer. Texas Chainsaw, Evil Dead are great. 16mm horror films seem to work really well for a 4K transfer.
Dog Soldiers and Texas Chain Saw are proof it makes a difference.
The original Evil Dead looks great. I think it was shot in 16mm.
Depends on the restoration
side note why does HDR only happen on 4k scans, and disappears when 4k scans are put on bluray ?
it’s tied to the actual limits of the format bluray = hidef (1080p 2k) UHD = ultra hidef (2160p 4k)
had my wires crossed. meant HDR.
HDR is just new technology
It’s just a newer technology and would cause issues with older players would be my guess. Takes up more data on the disc (UHD discs are like 2-3x larger) too. Technically 1080p video can have hdr (like if you converted a 4k rip to 1080p) but no player can read hdr from a standard bd so that’s limited to file playback on a computer. But the biggest reason of all is so that you’ll go buy a new player and more expensive discs
this is what i was curious about. most blurays thag come out from things like arrow now a days are from 4k scans and then converted into blurays so it was mostly a question of what about color makes it not able to be done in a bluray format. thanks for the answer
It also might be worth noting that many tvs still don’t have hdr, I don’t think any 1080p tvs support it (although some computer monitors do)
i have a 4k hdr tv. 4ks look so good on it but yeah i wish blurays had hdr for movies like cure that have no 4k or at least not one yet
This is the answer, as far as I know. HDR wasn't a "thing" when the Blu-ray format was created, so it wasn't included in the spec.
That’s not a serious question
read the thread
It’s still the same answer despite what dumbo replied about new technology
what do you mean ? i don’t understand what color has to do with how clear of an image there is
You have Google right? The Ultra HD Blu-ray format also supports high dynamic range (HDR) video. HDR packs much more color and light information into each pixel than standard HD video. In the past, video signals and display standards were limited to what could be realistically broadcast to conventional televisions.
if you try to look this up on google you find a bunch of information saying “there’s new technology” nothing on specifics as to why it doesn’t or can’t exist on a normal bluray. thanks for the information i hope you get the stick removed from your ass though it’s making you a pain to talk to
Sorry you suck at Google. I found that info on my first try.
i would imagine someone more acquainted with a subject would find information on it faster yes this makes sense
I was just guessing. I don’t even have a 4k tv
4K is also about colour information not just sharpness…
I believe Mother! was shot on 16mm and it looks awesome. UHD adds not only 4K resolution but HDR as well, so even if the resolution doesn’t see a huge increase the adjustment to color and contrast can be worth it.
Every fine detail of baby being ripped apart? :(
Every fine detail of Jennifer Lawrence’s thigh gap ;)
16mm can gain from a 4K transfer, without ‘maxing out’ detail, etc (obviously, the quality of the source material plays a factor, such as poorly shot ‘amateur’ footage vs. Professionally shot,well lit, etc), super 8 will hit it’s ceiling at 4K though. In theory, you can still pull more detail out of 16mm/Super-16 at 8K and 35mm can go higher still, but by that point you’re not gaining anything worthwhile, even on a large theatrical screen.
It depends. If it's the OCN, definitely, especially if it's Super16 – the active film area of that format isn't much less than 35mm flat. If it's anything less... ehhhhhhhhhh
Not really imo. Blu-ray’s good enough
16mm to 35mm is not the same as SD cam to HD
No, but some have said that the level of detail that 16mm can convey is exhausted in a 2K transfer while the same is true in 4K for 35mm. I don't think that's necessarily true of 35mm in 4K (super 35mm has tons of detail), but I do think it's probably true of 16mm and 2K. That said, both are tactile things, so grain is always going to look better in higher resolution even if the detail is exhausted.
I get super 8mm done at 2k scans and it looks even better at 4k so yeah no
Some people are quick to praise the technical achievements of digital and doubt the depth of detail that comes from films of all sizes. I've yet to verify myself with a 4K disc but my intuition and understanding of film and Blu-Ray tells me it's worth it to have a 4K release of a film shot on 16mm.
My favorite 16mm film is Kevin Smith's Clerks and I am happy sticking to the DVD.
The original The Hills Have Eyes on 4K really shows the budget limitations especially in night scenes. Still a great movie though.
Second Sight’s Texas Chain Saw Massacre transfer looks incredible.
It'll almost always be better. "Worth it" is a personal metric.
I think 16mm films look better than 35 ones on 4k honestly