The AI magic behind Sphere's upcoming 'The Wizard of Oz'

It’s possible the sources I was looking at were thinking of later eras of film, which I’d assume would have higher quality (and the lenses certainly improved).

It really needs to be watched because opinions will vary based on aesthetic interpretation but in broad strokes, it's pretty clear that above well-shot, high-quality 2K (aka 1080P) other variables beyond resolution begin to matter more (color depth, film stock, shot style, etc.) This supports your contention to an extent but the test also shows that beyond well-shot, high-quality 2K, going to 4K doesn't matter very much either. To be clear, it can matter sometimes but other factors can easily be equally or more important than resolution once beyond 2K.

From my own experience and experimentation, I already felt many in the industry over-weight the importance of 4k resolution vs 2k in overall image quality (assuming both are equally high-quality and well-photographed), but this convinced me 4K over 2K makes even less difference than I thought. And this was under controlled test conditions with pixel-peeping. In real-world theatrical or couch viewing distances of cinematic content, it's hard to think 4K matters much at all over good 2K. I already knew I will NEVER upgrade to 8K for theatrical or couch-distance viewing of cinematic content (and I have $50K of gear in a dedicated custom-built, soundproof, lightproof home theater room with high-end laser projector and 150-inch screen), but this shows even the idea of 8k is ridiculous overkill and a complete waste of money, bandwidth and tech for cinematic context viewing. (note before the inevitable objections: 8k can be useful for 2 ft distance desktop viewing of synthetic content and can be necessary for 2-inch distance head-mounted VR).

> From my experience, 4K was the absolute edge you could pull from the best 35mm films... I managed to pull 8K from some 70mm ride footage.

This matches the expert opinion I've heard elsewhere, as well as what was done when scanning Blade Runner (an historically important film now in the national archives). They scanned the 35mm camera negatives at 4K and the 65mm VFX camera negatives at 8k. I'd add that in film scanning, extended color depth is also very important to capturing the full fidelity of what's on the celluloid. An adjacent high-impact factor is how the grain structure of film is handled in post-scan processing. This entails artfully balancing a tricky set of trade-offs because the highest-frequency edge and chroma details are down in the noise floor. Extracting more signal is a knife-edge balance between amplifying noise on one side or suppressing filmic texture on the other. Ultimately, these choices move beyond technical correctness to aesthetic judgement, which I imagine has to be the sweat-inducing part of the job. Anyone really interested in resolution, film scanning and digital cinema should see this in-depth comparison shot by an expert ASC cinematographer specifically to be a definitive set of proofs for the industry. He compares (and pixel-peeps) identical shots from a range of top digital cinema cameras (Arri Alexa, RED, etc) with a high-quality 6K film scan. https://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/ResDemoPt2.html. I found the results pretty surprising.

> Wizard of Oz is 3x35mm for the color scenes, though. So, in theory you could use some clever algorithm to almost certainly create 8K transfers from it by using the tiny differences between the three frames.

Yes, I really hope that whoever handled the source preparation contributes a technical paper or note on what they did and learned in the process. What I've found so far is far too vague technically but implies they started with the 3-strip camera negatives (perhaps from an earlier scan). As you mentioned, that would enable interesting possibilities for noise reduction by leveraging the differences between the three strips. I kind of hope that sort of noise reduction was actually done by film preservationists in an earlier scan (perhaps for a Blue-ray or UHD release) as the archival source scans deserve the highest fidelity.

As I said in my other, longer post in this thread, I really hope that this effort for a Sphere version will also yield a less extreme 2.39:1 (Cinema Scope), 2.74:1 (Super Panavision) or even IMAX version from the 4:3 aspect original. I appreciate and value wide format cinema but personally think the Sphere FOV is so incredibly extreme it has more negatives than positives for cinematic storytelling. FOVs as extreme as Sphere are really only suitable for theme park attractions, amusement park rides or head-mounted immersive stereo 3D. I realize that the opportunity to collect $100 a ticket at the Sphere was too good for Warner to pass up but we're talking about a cinematic film that's become a cultural artifact. I'm not so purist as to balk at the idea of extending such a classic film with VFX and AI assist but a more "serious" cinematic version would be wonderful in addition to the over-the-top Sphere format. Hopefully, the Sphere version is a limited time release window and there's a subsequent IMAX release (15 perf / 70mm please) and an eventual 2.4:1 UHD (which I'd definitely buy).

Also, did they upscale the frame rate to 48fps??? Hard to tell from the video, but it looks like that’s the case. If so these people are ridiculous hacks and should never be allowed to touch another classic film. (“24fps would be disorienting on such a large screen!” Maybe that’s a sign this project should have never left the boardroom.)

David Lynch used ML to remaster Inland Empire, which was shot on a digital camcorder and was simply too dark and blurry. This was an excellent use of the technology. Blowing up The Wizard of Oz for the sake of tech bros and tourists is a terrible use of the technology.

It's about financial risk calculation. They aren't willing to take a bath on a flop. They're doing these things because it's financially less risky.

I agree. For cinematic content viewed in a theater or in a living room couch context, going from analog SD to digital HD was huge. Going from HD (2K) to 4K can be good but the quality is mostly from more bits being devoted to the compression than from the extra pixels. Most theatrical digital presentation is in DCP format and still 2k and people think it looks great.

Other video engineering things most people don't know:

* Well done HDR10 (or Dolbyvision) can contribute hugely to image quality. For example, I'd choose a 2K movie in HDR10 every time over the same movie in 4K without HDR.

* Theatrical 3D presentation is generally pretty bad and should be avoided if you care about visual quality. It's often around half the brightness and half the resolution and yet costs more. Even if done ideally, the end effect doesn't deliver anything like how your eyes actually see a real environment. The details get technical but theatrical 3D projection is an unnatural artificially constructed effect that's just weird. People claiming "It looked just like reality!" just shows the power of the placebo effect and suggestion, because objectively measured, it's just not. Famous directors don't usually come out against theatrical 3D the way they do against some other things. The reason is 3D is a pricey up sell that's mostly all margin, so it generates serious money but, privately, they despise 3D from both a quality and aesthetic viewpoint.

Besides, how many movies in the last 50 years are made in B+W, use title cards, have a soundtrack of someone plinking on a pipe organ, are fuzzy and grainy, etc?

Most people won't even watch a B+W movie, let alone a silent one.

P.S. Reddit has a subreddit for colorized photos. There is some amazing work done there. It really makes the photos more interesting. My wallpaper is showing one right now.

I definitely agree. I saw Lawrence of Arabia in Hollywood presented in the original Super Panavision 70 (2.76:1) and it was sensational. However, the Sphere format is far wider than even that. Plus the Sphere format is both wide and tall and the horizontal curvature yields a wrap-around that's nearly 180. And the shape of Sphere's internal screen is weird, sort of like sitting inside an empty, cavernous NFL football helmet (note: the internal screen shape is very different than the shape of the Sphere exterior dome). The internal screen is made out of multiple complex compound curves. This inconsistency makes rectilinear-esque projection mapping even more obviously wrong, especially with any camera motion. So don't confuse your appreciation for "How the West Was Won" in wide format with the theatrical abomination that is the Vegas Sphere.

I think there's lots of reason for optimism around Extra-Wide formats like IMAX and Panavision Super 70. However, I struggle to find anything positive in the trade-offs baked into the much more extreme Sphere format. All engineering in this area is full of trade-offs but with the Sphere it's clear they optimized almost exclusively for huge capacity (up to 20,000 people), the highest possible "First 90-seconds 'Wow!' impact on naive audiences", and the most impressive external and internal conceptual 'curb-appeal'. They wanted to be obviously, overwhelmingly "biggest, roundest, tallest, widest screen EVAH!" And to over-achieve on that dimension they intentionally chose to reject all aspects of technical balance which might mitigate the worst quality trade-offs. In the design brief they went all-in on FUCK the contrast, brightness, parallax and any hope of cinematic storytelling. Just make the screen BIGGER, WIDER, TALLER (and cram MOAR seats under it).

In that sense, I guess they understood their market, because it fits the worst aspects of the traditional Vegas low-brow, aesthetic of big, garrish, tasteless, attention-seeking spectacle focused on exterior curb-appeal and shallow initial impact yet ultimately delivering low-quality disappointment. And it looks like it's working because they're clearly making money. They're even talking about replicating the Sphere in other major cities around the world, although I suspect the format may not have staying power outside the unique context and aesthetic of Vegas. And to be fair, the Sphere may be a fine concert and event arena (I didn't see it in that form and the reviews are mixed). I only consider the Sphere an abject failure in trying to be a theatrical venue for high-quality visual presentation of cinematic storytelling.

I remain open-minded and even hopeful regarding other potential advances in wider-format and alternative-format theatrical exhibition. I'm also open-minded about new storytelling potential that might be enabled by immersive head-mounted stereo VR. But I simply love the medium of cinematic storytelling too much to remain silent when the Sphere markets itself to the naive masses as being the ultimate in high-quality theatrical presentation when in reality the format chose to be so over-the-top extreme, it's literally broken for the purposes of high-quality theatrical presentation of cinematic storytelling. And I went to the Sphere sincerely hoping to be blown away by an unexpected miracle of modern day engineering overcoming the challenges of the format, but alas...

* There are specific reasons for this correlation driven by the additional on-set shooting requirements placed on the cinematographer, lighting director and camera team to support VFX. This takes time and focus away from artfully lighting and lensing the live action elements and producers don't always budget sufficient time for both. When something has to give, it isn't going to be shooting the VFX plates.

* There are specific aesthetic reasons driving this. On a film with 2000 VFX elements that will later be layered into almost every live action scene, the cinematographer and lighting director are understandably reluctant to light or lens expressively beautiful shots because matching those shots can be more challenging for the VFX teams. It's easier (and faster) for everyone if the cinematographer lights and lenses with a more flat look. I recently saw an interview with the cinematographer on the Marvel series Loki (Season 2) and he said that he talked extensively with the VFX director specifically about this issue and the VFX director was unique in telling him, "Nope, shoot it how you really want to and we'll match you." Obviously, this was enabled in-part by the Marvel-level budget and talent. But it's interesting that it's rare enough to be notable.

* Ultimately, there's good evidence that VFX-heavy films don't have to look "flat HDR boring". We have counter-examples like "The Batman" (2022) proving a VFX-soaked super hero movie with beautifully expressive lighting and principle photography is possible. It's just hard, requires more time and money and you need highly skilled people.

The thread is here and includes links to several good videos with example clips: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560111