Why aren't there more 4k bluray releases? Why is it just new capeshits and the 1% of kinos?

Why aren't there more 4k bluray releases? Why is it just new capeshits and the 1% of kinos?

Attached: 2001.jpg (323x416, 50K)

vump

money. costs way more to license a 4k disc or whatever the fuck you call it.

Why does it cost so much more? Do they used super expensive closed-source codecs ?

i have no idea but it's the reason why even bigger labels like criterion and arrow don't put movies out on 4k. plus there's the fact that not many people are buying movies on 4k either.

The majority of the people who actually has money won't buy the 4K rereleases, they'll buy the next season of Game of Thrones in 4K or something.

It doesn't help that most people will just download the 4K releases anyway.

Attached: 59941517_439450230152423_1506172557429047296_n.jpg (640x799, 62K)

Space Odyssey was filmed with 70mm film instead of 35mm most used back then. If you try to scan 35mm it looks like shit or at least no much better than 720p whatever you do.
If I recall correctly if you use 35mm today cameras are slightly better and it may look better if digitally scanned but not back then.
Kubrick's first job was a photographer that's why he knew how to do it.
It was extremely expensive to film back then though, even 35mm.
Film looks like it's from the 1980s, it's from the 1960s.

4K catalog releases like 2001 are growing in number. Its kinda funny that 4K blurays are actually better for older films since they were shot on 35 or 70mm while newer films are almost always just a 2k digital intermediate.

because they have to make brand new transfers and sources because the older ones are only at like 2K or even 1080p

only the major studios want to put in the money and effort so they want to do the stuff that sells to normies and plebs (i.e. capeshit, other big budget recent films with lots of special effects, random titles from the IMDb Top 250)

that said, get hype for three cuts of Apocalypse Now in 4K next month senpai

Old 35mm doesn't look much better than 720p whatever you do. Don't be fooled by "4K" that was just upscaled.
You video player can do that.

>If you try to scan 35mm it looks like shit or at least no much better than 720p whatever you do.
lol ok

>about half the titles for the rest of the year are disney shit and movies nobody cares about
cant wait for casino though. hope it looks better than goodfellas.

>Old 35mm doesn't look much better than 720p whatever you do.
you poor, poor fool

>older ones are only at like 2K or even 1080p

If the source is at 1080p what's the point of buying an upscaled 4k release instead of just letting your player/tv do the upscaling?

>If you try to scan 35mm it looks like shit
what the fuck are you talking about retard

hes talking about the masters. they have to remaster the film because the old masters were mastered for blu-ray at either 1080p or 2k. they're just now starting to do 4k masters.

yeah exactly, there isn't a reason. that's part of the reason there aren't a bunch of older films in 4K because they don't want to put in the investment of going back to the original film materials and making a whole new scan

>he seriously thinks people were watching Star Wars on theater screens in 720p

For older movies you really want a fresh 4k/8k cleaned scan in order for it to be worthwhile. This costs money and the films aren't guaranteed to sell well on a format with such a small install base. Big ones like 2001 and Apocalypse now will sell but smaller greats aren't as likely.

Modern capshit, as you put it, is all digital so they can basically use practically the same files as you'd see in the cinema, and, because they're so broad and popular are pretty much guaranteed to sell.

Is it a labor and capital intensive process or can they just automatically scan the film into digital .

I said it doesn't look ANY better than 720p, not that it was 720, retard.
I can't believe there are people here trying to defend the look of decades old film.
Are you guys blind?

It's amazing you could write such a long without getting a single thing right.

Then why did Kubrick shoot most of his films on 35mm?

>Is it a labor and capital intensive process
depends on the source but they just dont put it into a machine and viola!

Okay at this point I have to call bait. No one is this retarded.

Are you nigger? This came out in 1962. Tell me it only looks 720p.

Attached: 647vd8.png (1789x1057, 3.33M)

Hmm, okay, it makes sense then. Thanks pal

This
Starship Troopers looked loads better than any of the more modern movies I bought when I first tried out 4K

The best looking blu rays I have by far are 2001 and Lawrence of Arabia. 70mm is so fucking magnificent.

>If you try to scan 35mm it looks like shit or at least no much better than 720p whatever you do.
This is bullshit. 35mm film stock, depending on factors like exposure, has a theoretical 'resolution' above 6K

The Master is the shit too, I just wish they would release it on 4k like Phantom Thread.

>The Master
Oh yea I forgot about that one.

>comparing analog with digital

4K & 2K scans from Arrow & Criterion look better then those.

i don't doubt some do (and i own a few from both labels), but they still look great

The Searchers is the best blu-ray I've seen imo