How big is a high format movie file theatres get for their screenings, and can we also access these versions as consumers in any way?

Submitted by niklasd2003 t3_11cf674 in movies

Hey, I was wondering how big the file of a high format movie that is sent to the theatres is going to be. For example, a movie like "Avatar 2: The Way of Water" that is in a 3D/4K/HDR/HFR(48FPS)/IMAX format. I'm wondering if these files are terabytes big?

And is it possible in any way for us consumers to access such movies in this original highest quality? Because I assume that UHD Blu-rays (a popular media in which films are consumed in high quality) are substantially compressed compared to the original theatre quality?! And obviously we consumers always want the best possible quality especially when you are a home theatre enthusiast, so why would these companies not realese these movies in native uncompressed quality for a premium price? I mean there are even official licensed IMAX home theatres for consumers so why should they "just" use UHD Blu-rays (which are often not even in 3D/HFR/IMAX format) when there is a way better version out there?

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SummerMummer t1_ja2puho wrote

> And is it possible in any way for us consumers to access such movies in this original highest quality?

Nope

https://massive.io/file-transfer/dcp-what-is-a-digital-cinema-package/

20

Hooterdear t1_ja3cryf wrote

The question gets downvoted, but the answer gets upvoted

−1

Givemeahippo t1_ja2qpgv wrote

They’re DCP files. You could get something like DCP-o-matic to convert it to mp4, but it would be very difficult to actually get ahold of a DCP from a theatre to begin with. Also, it’s just straight up not worth it.

12

niklasd2003 OP t1_ja2r31h wrote

Why would it not be worth it when the quality is way better? I mean, especially when you have a very good high end home theatre, then you could fully use your whole setup by using the highest format for best immersion (like what you get in a public theatre)

−3

Givemeahippo t1_ja2rijj wrote

The video quality isn’t any better. They’re either 3996x2160 (flat) or 4096x1716 (scope). A 4k blue Ray is 3840x2160.

6

Consistent-Annual268 t1_ja2s6ak wrote

The DCP would be very lightly compressed though. Even the best Blu-rays are compressed down to a 100GB disc. It might make a difference in very dark scenes where compression artifacts are most likely to be evident. But probably not worth it.

The other thing is that the DCP will likely contain 10+ audio channels. Now, whether there is any home theater system that can decode and play it (maybe a properly set up Dolby ATMOS system?) is TBD.

I know in the r/fanedits community there's a lot of stock placed in getting work print copies and 35mm open mattes of movies.

4

Chen_Geller t1_ja3crzw wrote

Up to a certain degree of compression, a video file is effectivelly loseless, though...

1

niklasd2003 OP t1_ja3msmx wrote

What exactly are work print copies and 35mm open mattes of movies?

1

Consistent-Annual268 t1_ja3t6lz wrote

Essentially, the full image frame as captured by the film or the digital camera sensor, usually in a tall 4:3 aspect ratio before being cropped down to a cinematic wide screen format (1.85:1, 2.35:1 etc.). So it shows off much more vertical space. To be fair, the director and cinematographer would compose the shots for the target aspect ratio, so the extra vertical space is usually visually uninteresting (sky, ground) because all the production design and composition will be set up for the frame they wanted to shoot. But purists are always after it for preservation reasons.

Also, of note to this discussion, it is typically very lightly compressed as it is the version intended to be used for post production and editing so is in the highest available quality.

3

niklasd2003 OP t1_ja2rrvm wrote

But don't they have a higher bitrate and advanced formats like IMAX/3D/HFR?

0

Indy997 t1_ja3kzpu wrote

You can have a real theater projector in your home and them deliver movies to you just like theaters do, it costs like $5k/mo though.

8

niklasd2003 OP t1_ja3l860 wrote

So would that mean I could watch Avatar The Way of Water at my home right now if I had this? Because that would be so cool!

1

Indy997 t1_ja3n0f1 wrote

Yep, my boss who has more money than sense has it at his house :)

7

niklasd2003 OP t1_ja3ncfs wrote

Man, that would be so awesome to have. He must be very lucky

2

igoslowly t1_ja430nu wrote

Kaleidescape is the best at home setup for watching movies. but is $9k and you still have to purchase the movies to watch. the quality is the same and sometime better than 4k disks.

6

niklasd2003 OP t1_ja4qloe wrote

Thank you, that's what I wanted to know. But I just read that it only downloads movies in Blu-ray quality. So wouldn't that basically not just be like a Blu-ray rip that has exactly the same quality as the UHD Blu-ray disk version?

1

RoboPuG t1_ja4k1ug wrote

You're chasing something that's not worth it's cost and something that you won't benefit from either. At the distance you're going to be sitting from a high end projector or oled that supposed extra detail won't be visible. UHD bluray is more than enough for the foreseeable future.

5

niklasd2003 OP t1_ja4p85y wrote

But if you have an IMAX licensed home theatre and want to project 3D/HFR/IMAX quality?

0

RoboPuG t1_ja5p1tu wrote

What exactly is an IMAX licensed home theatre?

2