Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Why 4K?

Peter Majtan said:
You might be in for a rude awaking. I am sure lot of HDTV productions or projects will choose the Scarlet, but don't underestimate how many features are going to be shot on it too...
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wouldn't be used for features. I would, however, point out that the vast majority of "feature" projects, especially the low-to-no budget type, never get theatrical distribution and thus are exhibited and distributed primarily on HD video, be that cable networks, flu Ray disks, or downloads. That's what I meant by "reality."
 
Michael Brennan said:
Formed in mid 2009 the HDcctv alliance is gathering steam.
Formed between CCTV groups and SMPTE to define standards for security applications, they are opting for 720 and 1080p down ethernet without ....

Mike Brennan
Click to expand...

check out the HDbaseT alliance, up to 4K and 3D over ethernet. Hoping to replace HDMI and other short range cabling for distributing/displaying video.

http://www.hdbaset.org/
 
M Most said:
I didn't say it wouldn't be used for features. I would, however, point out that the vast majority of "feature" projects, especially the low-to-no budget type, never get theatrical distribution and thus are exhibited and distributed primarily on HD video, be that cable networks, flu Ray disks, or downloads. That's what I meant by "reality."
Click to expand...

This was largely due to the need for multiple film prints needed for proper distribution, which costed a lot of money. The digital projection has changed all that - especially for non-studio features. There has been already major discussions about theatre chains directly distributing private (independent) features this way. In the very near future You will see independent producers making deals directly with the theatre chains for direct distribution of their projects. This is already happening in UK and Japan and I believe US as well, but don't quote me on that. For example You can now negotiate a single screening in a single theater and You can even sell the tickets. Think of it as "theater for hire". You get a fixed price for the session and it is up to You to sell the tickets and make some money. Or You can negotiate with the chain to do a multi-run, providing You have a content they like.

Either way, all I am trying to say is for people to not to underestimate Scarlet 2/3" as a serious production tool capable delivering content of the highest quality. Avatar could have been easily shot on Scarlet 3K...

:sifone: Peter
 
Mohammed El Sharqawy said:
Upscale and finish in 4K.. 4K is the new standard...
Click to expand...

Upscaling actually introduces artifacts and therefore results in a inferior quality. Project shot at 3K, downscaled and finished in 2K and projected in 2K will look visually better then the same project upscaled to 4K and projected at 4K. We did actual tests on this. Also keep in mind that not everyone has the budget or/and schedule to do 4K DI...

Again - I totally agree that 4K is the new standard and many will aspire to it. But then the "reality" kicks in and 2K it is... The real cost associated with the jump from 2K post to 4K post is not linear. In real world 4K workflow could be 10x more expensive then 2K workflow once You account all the aspects. Just ask CG guys how long it takes to render (per frame) complex CG scene at 2K vs 4K. 4K uncompressed requires super-high speed multi-fiber networks and storage, compared to 2K (which has 1/4 of the 4K bandwidth). Upgrading Your fiber switch to handle 4K instead of 2K takes You from several thousands up to tens (if not hundreds) of thousands dollars. Now add Stereo-3D (S3D)...

And YES - Jim is right in saying that the best way to future-protect Your project is to do it in 4K. The same way it makes perfect sense to use electric (or hybrid) cars. Many already do. But it will be a while before the vast majority does...

So while 4K is the standard, You can expect 2K workflows to be here for the foreseeable future...

No hard feelings...

Peter
 
I just did some CG work where I rendered in 4K and reduced to 2K before compositing. I was using Blender and comparing 2K renders, it was easy to see that I was getting SUPERIOR results using 4K to 2K.

That said, the difference in render times were A LOT. A frame that typically took 30 seconds to render with full frame anti-aliasing was taking 5 minutes at 4K.

Even worse, some of my scenes I had to redo because at 4K, the render was killing the machine running out of RAM. But, given the superior quality, I trudged through :)
 
Rick Burnett said:
I just did some CG work where I rendered in 4K and reduced to 2K before compositing. I was using Blender and comparing 2K renders, it was easy to see that I was getting SUPERIOR results using 4K to 2K.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point - downscaling will always improve image quality while upscaling reduces it. You should try (for the sake of it) to render the scene at 2K, upscale to 4K and compare it with the 4K render...

Rick Burnett said:
That said, the difference in render times were A LOT. A frame that typically took 30 seconds to render with full frame anti-aliasing was taking 5 minutes at 4K.

Even worse, some of my scenes I had to redo because at 4K, the render was killing the machine running out of RAM. But, given the superior quality, I trudged through :)
Click to expand...

My point too. Not only the time was 10x longer (from 30 sec up to 5 min (300 sec) per frame), but there are other associated issues with HW being able to handle the higher quality requirements...

We are always faced with the ongoing war between evil and good (client vs service provider - I leave it up to you to assign the relevance). Us (the service provider), we want always to produce the highest quality results without being pushed under time constrains, and getting paid adequately at the same time... The typical client want also the highest quality, but they want it yesterday and ideally for free. So we need to meet somewhere in the middle and that usually means 2K DI workflow in the real world...

:sifone: Peter
 
Having said all the stuff on the last few pages - I want to clearly "throw in" my support for 4K (and 5K) acquisition. The real speed hump is "currently" the post. But this is why I am so excited for STORM. You can keep Your workflow in RAW from start to finish and only render the final output at 2K (if You are limited by time and/or resources). When the time & the budget allows, You can re-render all CG and FX at 4K, re-conform to the RAW footage and re-output the final project at 4K. Not to mention that by then there is bound to be a new improved color science from RED giving Your RAW footage further boost. Now we are talking...

:sifone: Peter
 
Peter Majtan said:
The real cost associated with the jump from 2K post to 4K post is not linear. In real world 4K workflow could be 10x more expensive then 2K workflow once You account all the aspects......
So while 4K is the standard, You can expect 2K workflows to be here for the foreseeable future...

Peter
Click to expand...

Arri's quote that they saw no chance of a digital camera to replace film "in the foreseeable future" was made in 2004 by Franz Klaus Issue 4 Arri mag.

I'd say that the horizon that is the "foreeseeable future" in the digital world is currently 6 years away and contracting!


Mike Brennan
 
I'm no expert, but I think the future (meaning 10 years) will probably be 4K and Alioscopic 3D TVs.

Maybe 4K won't take off at home, as people feel 1080p is enough (something I find very likely) but I think Alioscopic TVs will happen.

Still, in theaters I think 4K will be the norm pretty soon.

The reason why I think it's baffling that something like Avatar was done at 2K.
 
M Most said:
I didn't say it wouldn't be used for features. I would, however, point out that the vast majority of "feature" projects, especially the low-to-no budget type, never get theatrical distribution and thus are exhibited and distributed primarily on HD video, be that cable networks, flu Ray disks, or downloads. That's what I meant by "reality."
Click to expand...

http://emergingpictures.com/emerging-pictures/

New venues for indie theatrical distribution are coming.
 
M Most said:
The vast majority of "feature" projects, especially the low-to-no budget type, never get theatrical distribution and thus are exhibited and distributed primarily on HD video, be that cable networks, flu Ray disks, or downloads. That's what I meant by "reality."
Click to expand...

Very true, but I do think it's reasonable to anticipate large 4K TV's in 5-10 years. Movies have a very long shelf life. If your no name lead actress hits big in 10-15 years you'll be glad to have shot on the best you could.

Is that a long shot? Yeah, but every indie movie is a long shot.

http://www.fadwebsite.com/2010/05/30/is-it-art-roll-up-tv-from-sony-including-video/
 
David Rasberry said:
http://emergingpictures.com/emerging-pictures/

New venues for indie theatrical distribution are coming.
Click to expand...

I would point out that Emerging Pictures' entire distribution network is based on HD - in fact, 720p HD - including the supplied servers and projectors used. It is far more akin to the Indian "E-Cinema" distribution system than it is to the 2K standards used by major studios and a far cry from what you're talking about. If anything, using that as an example only helps to prove my point.
 
Joel Kaye said:
...I do think it's reasonable to anticipate large 4K TV's in 5-10 years...
Click to expand...

Just to give You heads up - this might happen sooner then You think. 4K displays are already on the market here in Japan...

:sifone: Peter
 
Peter Majtan said:
Just to give You heads up - this might happen sooner then You think. 4K displays are already on the market here in Japan...

:sifone: Peter
Click to expand...

But how much do they go for? I can't afford buying a 4K display if it costs as much as a small apartment.
 
4K displays

4K displays

But how much do they go for? I can't afford buying a 4K display if it costs as much as a small apartment.
Click to expand...

This always happens.

The first flat screen TV's were 480p and cost more than $3,000. Now you can buy a top notch 1080p model for under $1,000.

Ultimately product volume is the driving factor for pricing. It's just a question of finding the right price / volume combination.
 
Stuart English said:
This always happens.

The first flat screen TV's were 480p and cost more than $3,000. Now you can buy a top notch 1080p model for under $1,000.

Ultimately product volume is the driving factor for pricing. It's just a question of finding the right price / volume combination.
Click to expand...

True enough. Still, I am actually curious of the price of 4K displays in Japan and if there is any difference from there to here. I've seen prices in the west from $60K and up. In 5 years time I guess 4K will be way more affordable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top