Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

The Big Mistake...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aaron Newsome said:
but the net still doesn't reach everywhere. People still want physical media, archiving, etc.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I suspect that in places in the world where the net doesn't reach blue-rays users are probably a small minority.

That said I still love buying Criterion Collection DVDs
 
Clint Johnson said:
If a content creator believes that everything they create is going to be of such artistic and entertainment merit that it transcends the limitations of visual quality then they can stop worrying about what they acquire it on. For the other 99.99% I would suggest that it makes sense to put in the time and effort to make it look as good as they can- especially when the cost difference is so low and can even be less in many circumstances.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, it was the logic behind my trying to get a team authorized to shoot across the conflicts in the middle east for historic purposes, but the transition to a digital system that affords longevity/scalability seems to be a concept lost on many vs. the immediacy of ease towards the minimum current outlet requirements.

I see 4K as the inevitable digital "gold standard" that will be the optimal presentation for the motion visual medium. Not to say there won't be a variety of UHD and old-school options out there, but it appears to be the most relevant and non-arbitrarily limited distribution standard to select based on variable viewing environments. Whether one screen or another doesn't resolve all of the material isn't the issue, but that the most versatile amount of material is there to begin with.

I flew across the country solely to watch the premiere of the Final Cut of Blade Runner because it was worth it to see it in the quality and environment it was presented in. Had it simply been a DVD or Blu-Ray projected up on a screen I would not have made the trip, even though I love the material. If we were to postulate that the shared theatrical viewing experience is on its way out, then I could see a point of contention with a film resolution matching digital standard, though the wall-sized OLED screens of the future would then be the next hurdle ;).
 
If (some) distributors or exhibitors can make a buck, they will simply upres to 4K and say "Hey, it's 4K", even though it is not.
 
... i am just saying: depth cues fooling the eye in a 2d image ...
creating the illusion of depth ...

... in the real world ... close objects have much more detail than objects in the background ....

therefore .... having 8 times the information on a 4K projection shot with EPIC .... will create a much better "user experience" ....

... because the eye "is fooled" better into believing reality on the screen .... which is the same for the HDRx™™™™™™™™™™™ .... :sifone:

... especially if these effects are taken into consideration in the image design process .... see: light, specular highlights, reflections, color gradients, material, structure ... and so on ...

this is the first time, that a tool exists to let us do this and validate on set ...


P.S:
i mean, who cares to see VHS tapes anymore .... when there is DVD or blu ray ... then, red ray on the horizon ...
 
Guys, I think both David and Jim are right. Content is king, but given the way technology and consumers are progressing ... it makes no sense to spend a lot of money shooting something (even if the content is so good, it would make it immortal) ... when/if it could just as easily be shot in a format that will visually better stand the test of time. It's really simple.
 
Martin Stevens said:
If (some) distributors or exhibitors can make a buck, they will simply upres to 4K and say "Hey, it's 4K", even though it is not.
Click to expand...

... this is why there should be a protected "Shot on RED" label ... as a quality sign on the advertising, posters and so on ....

... as it is done in many markets.

At the moment, theater goers don´t care ... they cant even tell the difference ...
(which is the best thing since sliced bred, by the way)
... and probably 99.9999% of all TSN visitors don´t know what they saw ....

I would plead for a voluntary "Shot on Red" label on the movie posters, RED deserves it .... :sifone:

I can also see the difficulty in having "minor quality films" ... putting the logo on it ... so probably .... it might be a good idea, that the production company applies for each film to be released at the RED Film commission ... ;-) .... so the label remains protected and a sign of quality ....

I am just thinking out loud here ... although i think it is a good think to do.
 
I'm sorry but really...

stupid-post-consisting-of-nothing-but-keywords-make-it-so.jpg
 
i know i'm somekind of partypooper sometimes but seriously...

SERIOUSLY

which of your long-time-ago-projects that you shot on SD would YOU love to see now in 1080pHD or even UHD? i'm assuming none. sorry for beeing harsh. :chillpill:

This may sound a little mean but most of the stuff i produce is not epic-Oskar-historymaking-Nat.Geo-Stuff. So hurray to epic A-Movies in UHD but music videos and other indy-films can be HD for all i care.


  • Television is not that visually interesting anyway.
  • 95% of videos people watch are on the web
  • Incredible movies are meant to be watched in theaters
  • smaller homecinema's won't see the difference between HD and UHD

If you say that everything not 4K is a big mistake, then why don't you say that everything shot 2D isn't futureproof? since probably 70% of future Displays and Television sets will have an option for it?

You say that film resolves at 4K, then why don't i see a difference between 1080p and 720p in most movies shot on film?
there is so much grain and motionblur and diffusion that resolution doesn't really matter THAT much.

is this the Megapixel-war all over again?

HDRx™: YES PLEASE
CLEAN High-ISO: YES PLEASE
RAW: YES PLEASE
incredible Color: YES PLEASE
4-5K: ok, but just for awesome stuff.
 
If we're simply talking about the 35mm film format, I agree that 4k acquisition and up is essential to matching film. But I don't think 4k is necessary for distribution/projection. In other words, it doesn't need to be watched in 4k to match standard 35mm film projection.

1080p projection/bluray offers MORE information than 35mm projection in movie theaters. Plus, as others have pointed out, many successful stories are STILL being told on smaller formats like super 16, and holding up just fine at 1080p.


I doubt that old films will hold up at 4k very well. Frankly, it would be annoying to watch them at 4k, since to even take advantage of the 4k resolution the screen would need to fill a larger field of vision thus making the experience much different, especially when these older films were framed for a much smaller field of view that's more closer to 1080p/2k. Try this; put on any bluray you have at home, then sit half as close as you normally do. That would be like watching it in 4k minus the detail of course; the point is to see what the field of view would be like.

It's a much different story for the old 70mm epics and 2001 and the like. Obviously those will look GREAT in 4k and were shot and framed for that scope of vision.

But you can't simply make a blanket statement is all; the future IMO, is multiple formats based on the story and content. I think we'll all have 4k screens that will simply crop depending on the content. IE, 1080p movies could simply be windowed on your 4k screen. I'd be fine with that personally. I don't need to see "The Big Lebowski" more than what 1080p can offer. Content will always be king. But that doesn't mean that I'm poo pooing 4k and higher res. Bring it on: but don't poo poo the majority of content that exists.
 
Craig Ryan said:
... I doubt that old films will hold up at 4k very well. Frankly, it would be annoying to watch them at 4k, since to even take advantage of the 4k resolution the screen would need to fill a larger field of vision thus making the experience much different,....
Click to expand...

What?
2k films projected in a 4k theater look like 2k films projected in 2k ... just sayin' ...

that is, if there is no re-mastering or up-reszing done, ...

the point is, new productions do wise and well producing and mastering in 5k/4k.

there is no arguing about that.
 
Craig Ryan said:
I doubt that old films will hold up at 4k very well. Frankly, it would be annoying to watch them at 4k, since to even take advantage of the 4k resolution the screen would need to fill a larger field of vision thus making the experience much different, especially when these older films were framed for a much smaller field of view that's more closer to 1080p/2k. Try this; put on any bluray you have at home, then sit half as close as you normally do. That would be like watching it in 4k minus the detail of course; the point is to see what the field of view would be like.
Click to expand...

I think you may be underestimating your eyes/brains abilities if I am reading you correctly. Screen's won't need to be bigger to see a difference at 4k since current films don't push the resolution boundaries of our eyes on the screen sizes they are currently on. If there is indeed 4k of resolution in those old negatives, then 4k projection on the same screen sizes will look better than what they do currently.

Whether there is 4k of meaningful information in old negatives is a different issue altogether though...

Hope I have understood you correctly :)
 
Detlev Eller said:
What?
2k films projected in a 4k theater look like 2k films projected in 2k ... just sayin' ...

that is, if there is no re-mastering or up-reszing done, ...

the point is, new productions do wise and well producing and mastering in 5k/4k.

there is no arguing about that.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not quite what I meant actually. Of course 16mm films and 1080p/2k films won't hold up at 4k. I was trying to say that for most people with 20/20 vision, you'd need to sit closer, or need a bigger screen to notice a difference between a 2k and 4k transfer of a 35mm originated film. And this difference in screen size would make the experience different, and probably not always for the best since the shot framing was intended for a much smaller field of view than what would be appropriate for 4k. That's all I meant.

Completely agree that the future is 4k, I just don't agree with the notion that anything sub 4k is suddenly going to become moot because we have 4k screens and whatnot.

Brad Allen said:
I think you may be underestimating your eyes/brains abilities if I am reading you correctly. Screen's won't need to be bigger to see a difference at 4k since current films don't push the resolution boundaries of our eyes on the screen sizes they are currently on. If there is indeed 4k of resolution in those old negatives, then 4k projection on the same screen sizes will look better than what they do currently.

Whether there is 4k of meaningful information in old negatives is a different issue altogether though...

Hope I have understood you correctly :)
Click to expand...

I have done tests on my own vision (which is pretty much 20/20), and at the appropriate viewing distances, a GOOD 1080p bluray looks tact sharp. So for me, at the correct viewing distance, I would probably need to sit closer to see a difference between 4k and 1080p/2k. Maybe others with 20/10 vision would notice the difference at the same distance, but that's a minority of people. I mean, I'd love more resolution, but at the same time, I don't think it's necessary beyond 2k for the majority of content. As I mentioned, there are plenty of old films that would look great at 4k. It's not as black and white as others might make it seem is all.
 
Craig Ryan said:
Well, that's not quite what I meant actually. Of course 16mm films and 1080p/2k films won't hold up at 4k. I was trying to say that for most people with 20/20 vision, you'd need to sit closer, or need a bigger screen to notice a difference between a 2k and 4k transfer of a 35mm originated film. And this difference in screen size would make the experience different, and probably not always for the best since the shot framing was intended for a much smaller field of view than what would be appropriate for 4k. That's all I meant.

Completely agree that the future is 4k, I just don't agree with the notion that anything sub 4k is suddenly going to become mute because we have 4k screens and whatnot.
Click to expand...

I agree -- whether 2K/1080P "holds up" on a 4K screen will depend on the size of that screen and viewing distance -- they may just look the way they've always looked, no better, no worse. Of course, they'd look worse shown side-by-side with 4K material, again assuming the correct viewing size and distance, but how often do people project two movies side-by-side? For old movies, what I like about 1080P Blu-Ray is that the image is close enough to 35mm print quality (if not better if you are talking about old prints shown in revival theaters with mediocre projectors....) that I can see the flaws that were visible in a theater, they aren't being masked by SD resolution limits.

But there are few of those really old films that probably would exceed 2K in terms of line measurement. Now I think they should be scanned and mastered in 4K because you should always over-sampled detail, but whether they need to be shown in 4K is like asking if "Seven Samurai" would benefit from being blown-up to 70mm or IMAX. Likely not. But it deserves better than SD.

Now you can say that we cut slack for old titles, but someday "Slumdog Millionaire" or "Avatar" will be old titles, and more than likely, people will accept that they look of their time, they aren't going to look like they were shot on the current technology of this future time I am talking about (especially if production goes beyond 4K.) People who loved "Slumdog Millionaire" are not going to say "I stopped loving that movie when I heard that it wasn't 4K in resolution."

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with Jim's general premise, that 35mm was the gold standard (and still is) and therefore 4K should be the new gold standard -- making 1080P and 2K the "defacto" standard, as has happened by default over the past decade -- was a step backwards, but at least with 35mm originated material, there is always the possibility of remastering at 4K.

So I agree, we should all be working towards seeing 4K instituted as a standard for digital cinema as soon as possible, and get beyond this past decade where we let standards drop to 2K for convenience's and cost's sake.

We don't have to compromise anymore if we don't want to, unless we have a creative reason to work with lower-resolution formats and processes.

But I can't really agree that the past decade of 2K and 1080P production will become some sort of "lost" generation of movies that no one will watch once display technology advances. They won't look as good as other movies, but whether they are watched will depend mostly on how much people like the movies themselves.

I also don't think that it's a given that uprezzing 2K movies will automatically look bad -- half the IMAX DMR releases are 2K D.I.'s uprezzed, degrained, and resharpened, and though hardly artifact-free, people seem to enjoy seeing them on IMAX screens. And that's using today's uprezzing technology, who knows what tools will be available in the future. We may even get into fights with purists who don't want old 1080P movies like "Avatar" to be "improved", they'll want it to look like it did in 2009.
 
Last edited:
Once the CSI Miami team release the software they use for zooming into grainy cctv footage and turning it into perfect HD, in realtime.... this conversation will be disregarded ;-)
 
Daniel Kunz said:
SERIOUSLY

which of your long-time-ago-projects that you shot on SD would YOU love to see now in 1080pHD or even UHD? i'm assuming none. sorry for beeing harsh. :chillpill:

This may sound a little mean but most of the stuff i produce is not epic-Oskar-historymaking-Nat.Geo-Stuff. So hurray to epic A-Movies in UHD but music videos and other indy-films can be HD for all i care.


  • Television is not that visually interesting anyway.
  • 95% of videos people watch are on the web
  • Incredible movies are meant to be watched in theaters
  • smaller homecinema's won't see the difference between HD and UHD

If you say that everything not 4K is a big mistake, then why don't you say that everything shot 2D isn't futureproof? since probably 70% of future Displays and Television sets will have an option for it?
Click to expand...

Sure, 95% of what is being created is going to be of little interest twenty or forty years from now. Does anyone have an accurate idea of what that valuable 5% will be- because in all honesty I don't. I know what I like but I am not going to pretend to know what they will like one or two generations from now.

I never have been a big fan of the Beatles but there are Ed Sullivan appearances, concerts and other ancient equivalents to music videos that many people would love to see in HD or 4K. Maybe you've made a music video for a band that will be looked back on with as much interest and regard as they are? You won't know until it is too late to take the care and attention hindsight will dictate.

Television can be visually interesting, look at Rome... hell, pick pretty much any of HBO's miniseries. Firefly took some chances; take a look at 'Out of Gas' I really liked the use of colour to delineate time lines.

Incredible movies are meant to be watched on a screen that takes up much of your field of view. The millions of home theatres being installed tell me that I am not alone in thinking that "incredible movies" do not mean you have to drive for half an hour, wait in line while hoping you don't end up in a seat off in the wings behind the 6'7" guy who wants to wear his Stetson through the whole movie... then have to put up with running commentary from the extremely witty guys in the seats behind you.

Yes, there are some productions that can gain from the communal aspect. The humour in comedies can be amplified through shared laughter. It may be more exciting for fans to watch the Superbowl or the Stanley Cup playoffs in a theatre that is projecting up a 4K live feed. There is also some reality programming that could lend itself to the community experience and while I avoid it I am not so much a snob as to begrudge them their fun.

Everything else, the stuff I watch, I would much prefer to see it in a good home theatre rather than the local cineplex. If it interests me enough I will put up with the annoyances of going to the theatre to see it rather than wait for the HD window.

As for home cinema not showing the difference between 2k and 4k - two and a half picture heights from the screen is optimum while most people sit five or more picture heights from their screen. Just because most people sit too far away now doesn't mean they always will. I have no trouble seeing the difference between HD and 4K anywhere inside of four picture heights - at two and a half the difference is stark.
 
I'll add one final point to this topic....

2011 will be the year in which there will be no excuse not to finish in 4K, unless you are on a micro budget.

4K+ acquisition, dynamic range, image quality, media storage, editing, processing power, camera size, 3D.... all things that should be readily accessible to film makers and tv companies by the end of next year.
 
I really enjoy early television science fiction. When watching the Quatermass serials, the recent DVD release did a great job restoring them, using the original film inserts where available instead of the film-recorded 405 line (suppressed field?) that the rest of the show exists on. It doesn't spoil the quality of the story, but you do wish you could see more of the acting than a fuzzy aliased blob, to enjoy the show without having to strain to see through the technical issues.

To make a great movie or TV show:
Resolution is a necessary but not sufficient factor,
Story is a necessary but not sufficient factor,

It's up to all of us to make each and every aspect of each and every project we work on to be as best as it can be.

Graeme
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top