The Big Mistake...

[Michael Schrengohst]

A little background on Mark Cuban

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1171860/

http://twitter.com/mcuban

http://www.facebook.com/MarkCuban

http://www.hd.net/

http://www.magpictures.com/about.aspx

http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/why-...ban-seriously/

http://www.pcworld.com/article/11743...ark_cuban.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2128631/

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/54/IXMB.html

[Roberto Lequeux]

If you use the law of large numbers, which is what Red seems to be largely based on, and put that together with More's law... then you could have 4k receivers for $250 in a few very short years.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Technological change in the media/communications sphere has impacted business models in dramatic ways in the last decade or so, most disruptively I would contend, by the internet revolution. As microprocessors, bandwidth, "screens", data distribution infrastructure and other specific tech advances I expect even more shifting of the sands. That said, IMHO, underestimating the value of compelling content, no matter how delivered, is not seeing the forest because of the trees.

FWIW I have spent several hours chatting with Mike M. about technology and its future so I can say with some authority that he is VERY aware of the implications of technological advances. He may not reach the same conclusions that Clint or others do, but it is not due to lack of perspective or a closed mind.

In any case, I look forward to wide availability of 4K (or QHD) display tech, even if it starts with LCD computer monitors with crude picture metrics (color accuracy, contrast, tone response granularity, etc). The journey to the kind of picture quality I have seen on Jim's 4K Sony T-420 has to start somewhere.

Cheers - #19

[David Mullen ASC]

Just keep in mind that people are still going to be watching "Casablanca" more often than they are going to be watching "Lord Jim", even though the second one was shot in 65mm Super Panavision as is more amenable to this 4K future, whereas I doubt that the original negative to "Casablanca" would measure out to 4K, not to mention, it's a 4x3 b&w image. So if the content is popular enough, people will still want to watch it -- if "Avatar" is still loved in 20 years (and I have no idea whether it will be or not) then it will still be watched just as people still watch "Casablanca", regardless of being limited to its 1080P origination. People don't chose what to love based on how sharp it is.

That said, there are a lot of good reasons to shoot and archive at the highest practical quality level you can, and there are a lot of good reasons to make 4K the industry standard, the sooner the better.

[Lee Saxon]

I think there IS a point at which something does become unwatchable, although for me it's way lower on the food chain than old b&w negatives. Cheap 70's sitcoms shot on tape? Can't do it.

Although I think that probably has as much or more to do with degradation than the format's original limitations.

[Thor Melsted]

I think there IS a point at which something does become unwatchable, although for me it's way lower on the food chain than old b&w negatives. Cheap 70's sitcoms shot on tape? Can't do it.

I can still watch episodes of Soap and love every moment of it. Yeah, the look is crap, but the content is still enough to make me look past that.

[Joseph Hutson]

If 720p on my phone is any indication, Id have to agree that 4K TV's can't be decades away from being in our living room...

[Jeremy_Sawatzky]

i think jim is absolutly right about 4k becoming the gold standard. 4k displays are just around the corner. apparently the 2nd gen ipad is to have the retina display. Thats over 2560 lines of resolution on an 11in screen! (well im pretty sure it is :) but apple would have no problem porting that tech to a 50in home screen. infact it would be well past 4k. i wont be surprised to see an ad for a sporting event BEING SHOWN IN 4k! then all of the sudden theres a line of 4k tvs in best buy. its guna happen so fast

[Noah Kadner]

Just keep in mind that people are still going to be watching "Casablanca" more often than they are going to be watching "Lord Jim", even though the second one was shot in 65mm Super Panavision as is more amenable to this 4K future, whereas I doubt that the original negative to "Casablanca" would measure out to 4K, not to mention, it's a 4x3 b&w image. So if the content is popular enough, people will still want to watch it -- if "Avatar" is still loved in 20 years (and I have no idea whether it will be or not) then it will still be watched just as people still watch "Casablanca", regardless of being limited to its 1080P origination. People don't chose what to love based on how sharp it is.

Amen.

Noah

[Brian Ferguson]

The World Cup this year was broadcast and recorded in 3D - probably not a huge audience however. If cable and/or satellite wants to carry 4K to special boxes to those that have that capability it wouldn't be that big a deal.

A year ago Netflix streaming looked like VHS - now it looks as good as anything I see on cable HD. That is all on my Playstation 3. If they wanted to carry 4K it could probably be carried on my 12 Mbs cable internet with a better box. There are Roku Boxes now, Google TV, the time is coming were traditional networks can be completely ignored.

Traditional broadcasting usually follows cable and satellite, not leading. I worked in 2 different large market network affiliates in the U.S, as head DP of production/promotion in the mid 1990's. Both stations ignored cable like it didn't exist, and were resistant to digital technology. Meaning that did not see non-linear editing as viable and they didn't use personal computers. At one station I had to bring in my own Macintosh computer to do proposals because they didn't have computers. These stations have annual capital budgets and more so the Networks. But cable and satellite, and the entrepreneurs in new media will do it first, then the Networks will try to catch up and then the local affiliates will be last. An iMac today is over 2.5k resolution.

I remember in 1993 stations were paying $60K plus for high end SD BetaCam SP 600 cameras. In 2003 I almost paid $35k for a DSR 570 DVCAM, so small companies doing industrial films and broadcasters alike are very accustomed to buying expensive gear for decades. That was all standard def as well.

If 4k was to be transmitted over-the-air it probably would not be that big of a deal. The original HD bandwidth was allocated for analog HD and with the advent of digital HD we have markets like here in L.A. with channel 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 etc. These stations ended up with enough bandwidth for multiple channels. Still the broadcast HD is uncompressed compared to cable and sat.

The only hurdle I see in large format sports and broadcasting is the operators having such high resolution and shallow depth of field. This is the only argument for smaller chips I can see, that you have a better margin of error on focus. You don't have top notch focus pullers like you do on feature films. The smaller broadcast chips help the operator with greater DOF. As we have all seen in 4k anything out of focus is really apparent.