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 :)

The Big Mistake...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Detlev Eller said:
I remember a certain set of trance & dance tracks we played at certain events ... from CD. The crowd always went CRAZY - predictably crazy. At one point we changed the medium and converted the heavy cd collection to mp3 ... same tracks ... same crowd ...

I can only say, there was not the same drive in the "waves" ... and the crowd did not respond the same way ...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't blame MP3 for that, except if you ripped your whole collection in 128Kbps CBR.
I bet alot of audiophiles could not hear the difference between a CD and the 320Kbps VBR rip.

Maybe they were just bored
 
Daniel Kunz said:
I wouldn't blame MP3 for that, except if you ripped your whole collection in 128Kbps CBR.
I bet alot of audiophiles could not hear the difference between a CD and the 320Kbps VBR rip.

Maybe they were just bored
Click to expand...

If you had a choice what would you rather listen to? Would you choose mp3?

Would you choose SD, HD, 4k?
 
Daniel Kunz said:
I wouldn't blame MP3 for that, except if you ripped your whole collection in 128Kbps CBR.
I bet alot of audiophiles could not hear the difference between a CD and the 320Kbps VBR rip.

Maybe they were just bored
Click to expand...

Very much depends on the music and the venue. For most over produced studio pop music it wouldn't likely be audible.

For a symphonic concert in Fisher hall played on a pretty decent system there would be no contest. MP3's just don't reproduce the subtle acoustics of a hall like that. They sound very lifeless by comparison. Even CD's can suffer compared to a really clean analog recording.
 
Stuart English said:
The good news is the world is a very big place and the internet now allows all of those enthusiast's demand to be pooled and serviced.

Of course 4K will start out as a premium and niche service, for that matter so did color, and so did HD...
Click to expand...

Ha! I was just scrolling through to make sure nobody had already said the exact same thing before posting.

One thing to look at it is that we aren't constrained by broadcast anymore. Where before broadcasters would have to "wait" for decades and then petition congress to buy everyone an ATSC decoder, there are no such limitations on the internet.

If your computer has a REDRocket then by golly we'll stream you REDRocket. If your computer can only handle MPEG2 and not MPEG4 we'll stream you MPEG2.

Do you have a BluRay drive? No problem, can your computer play back this file?

You can have one 'broadcast' of a film hundreds of different sizes and formats without tripping over one another. Microsoft and Apple both sort of sidestepped physical media for this reason. Sony still believes BluRay is going to be around for another 30 years, and it might be but it's going to look antiquated in a year or two when 2k visually uncompressed quality is delivered over the web.

YouTube can stream a 320p or a 4k stream. It can use Flash or HTML5 or... we're entering a new era where hardware is no longer important, it comes down to software. And software doesn't require a congressional mandate to co-exist.

So I would say that's the big difference between switching to 4k and switching to HD--it will involve a new TV--if you want to, but if you already have a 4k DCI it's 'trivial' to transcode to a 4k home deliverable.

That being said... I don't see it taking off like HD. I'm not going to invest in 4k displays or pay a premium if I could get a really really good 2k master. I didn't see anything at NAB that really was like "Wow! That's worth an extra $1k!" But I imagine technology will take over and 4k displays will be like 1080p displays today, the same cost as 720p displays so I "might as well" buy them. And if I already have a 4k tv I "might as well" watch the 4k stream if it's available and doesn't cost any extra.

Most of my movie/tv watching is through the internet. The vast majority of it is 480p. If anything I've devolved since cutting the cable.
 
Detlev Eller said:
i think, i made some valuable points that most professionals never think about ... ...i am looking forward to dive deep into discussions about the mysteries of image creation and experience ... if you are so inclined ... :-) ... i am hungry to learn anything there is to the magic of creating worlds on screen ... and i assume, i´ve got some things to share.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, most professionals think about things like depth cues and other aspects of psychovisualization (is that even a word?) quite a bit. Those kind of considerations are what most of us base a lot of decisions regarding color and image processing on. It's what most aspects of the Film Academy's IIF/ACES proposal is based on. It's usually the less experienced ones who get so taken with the technology that they give more consideration to that then to the human reactions to what's being created. Much of what's discussed here is theory, based on little practical experience but a lot of attention to buzzwords and specific aspects of technology. The reality of what's being done in the industry regarding image manipulation and research is that there are a number of things besides resolution that are very critical and at least as significant to the human perception of things that are commonly described as sharpness, contrast, and depth. Things like bit depth, for instance. Many professionals belong to the SMPTE, the industry's recognized organization for standards creation and maintenance among other things, which here in Los Angeles is a rather active group that hosts monthly meetings for most of the year at which all of these and other topics are presented and discussed. So yes, we do think about what you mentioned, along with a lot of other things.
 
Jannard said:
Correct-o.Jim
Click to expand...

4Kish delivery via RED derived tech?
Hell ya.

I've felt for some time that this is a necessary move for RED.
It expands the reach of Red cameras and drops it in the laps of the home and cinema viewer, the end-user of sorts.

Huge potential, and not without some risk. I posted ages ago that RED Ray compression could become a broadcast standard of sorts (IP?) with an appropriate set top box.

Is there an argument to be made about whether the cost is worth it?
Sure. Make the argument. Question whether or not some people will or will not able to appreciate it.

I don't appreciate "Jersey Shore"...What the F do I know?

But at the end of the day, RED Ray streaming or downloading can be a higher quality and much less expensive option to traditional "high quality" RGB HD. The same way RED cameras can be less expensive than traditional cameras, good compression (oxymoron perhaps) can occupy less bandwidth than high quality HD (or SD for that matter, beyond the scope of this yada yada yada)...and forget about BS high compression 720 60i streams that most "high def" content providers rip us off with.

What I like about it is it can work with RED material and RGB. The system, when in place, can function ubiquitously with all media, regardless of where and how its derived.

Are there issues?
Sure. There are many. Content protection is just one of them.

But lets just pretend for a second that the RED folks can figure a few things out with a couple of calls and a couple of consultations. Who wouldn't want this to all work out?

Maybe it starts with RED hardware and down the road the tech is licenced out to various third parties. The money is in the patents/codecs anyway right?

Bottom line for me is this:
The RED RAY section of REDUSER has been all but dead for years. Lets all hope that NAB has some surprises.
 
I'm still waiting for Mark to get his 4k-for-indies thing going.

Maybe Jim can help?

If anyone wants to talk about future thinking endeavors PM me.
 
M Most said:
psychovisualization (is that even a word?)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I only know that because I've seen the term in the x264 encoder and Handbrake. :P

M Most said:
The reality of what's being done in the industry regarding image manipulation and research is that there are a number of things besides resolution that are very critical and at least as significant to the human perception of things that are commonly described as sharpness, contrast, and depth. Things like bit depth, for instance.
Click to expand...

While it may have seemed like I was disagreeing with you before, I strongly agree with this statement.
 
Last edited:
I think it is also a big mistake to focus on delivery. In this world of software programs, color correction, degradation etc.. The highest acquisition will always be beneficial whether for cinema, television, web or cell phone delivery. It doesn't take long for HD to degrade under just a little bit of pushing. After working with Red footage, it is years ahead. As far as I'm concerned HD died two years ago. Good for home movies.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Monty Python was shot on film...

Now... I don't know it is possible to reassemble those episodes in 4k from 16mm

But it is pretty much within Jims point...
Click to expand...

(Edit: I see someone already answered this question, but I'm adding a little more, sorry. :)

Monty Python, like many British series of the era had the elements in the field shot on film and intermixed with things shot in a studio on videotape.

I spoke with someone that worked at the BBC awhile back about how the show were being restored. At the time I was asking about the difference in temporal resolution, 625i 50Hz Vs. Film presumably shot at 25fps. He mentioned that that with some shows, they were interpolating the film frame rate to match the frame rate of the video.

One step toward a 4K transfer I suppose. :)
 
Last edited:
Jody Neckles said:
This has been done by many manufactures (Avid did with DNxHD) to route native codecs over standard SDI infrastructure. RED could extend the SDK to allow manufactures to decode the stream for live graphics and vision mixing before before allowing them to re-encode back to Redcode50.

Just very wild speculation on my part but it's exciting playing with the possibilities. One of the biggest challenges of filming live events on RED in 4K would be decompressing the REDCODE for vision mixing and live graphics etc....
Click to expand...

Another huge issue is lipsync. If you are using compressed signals over SDI, the hardware to compress and then decompress the signal with probably delay the signal a frame or two as it goes through each step.

We currently use a system called Vizrt for graphics. I can put live video into it, but the processing and rendering delays the signal around 10 frames or more. We use it for some things but never for on camera SOTs. My point here is that while you may be able to pass a 4K signal through existing router and switcher infrastructure, you wouldn't be able to create a a coherent show with it. (not without a lot of audio delay hardware)

I've been in broadcast TV for a little over 20 years now. I've watched a slow march from SD to HD that only took all of that time and more. It was in the mid 1980's that I remember reading about the NHK MUSE system and RCA's enhanced NTSC. Getting a little broadcast facility like the one I work in to broadcast digital HD has been a slow road. The tools keep getting better faster and cheaper. If Jim wants a 4K production switcher, it will happen. I see the biggest obstacle being the current content providers. They are the ones that pushed back at the march to HD. They lobbied the FCC to put off the inevitable.

Perhaps the answer here doesn't lie with the broadcasters. :)
 
The cost of switching to HD from the old SD was astronomical. I wouldn't be surprised if they're still amortizing those capital purchases. Thanks to Moore's law, guys like Jim, and the rise of fiber-optic networks serving the internet, the transition to 4K from HD should be faster, cheaper, and more widespread from a content creation stand-point.
 
David Quinn Carder said:
you or someone else cited Sin City as an example of shooting digital having some sort of artistic merit, and I don't see how that would apply in cases like that.
Click to expand...

He said he didn't like the amount of midtones he was getting with film when trying to create the comic book look. I'm sure there are many other reasons too.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/sincity.html

It is a good story on how that film came to be... both artistically and the power struggle with Rodriguez/Hollywood. He convinced the comic writer to let him make sin city by doing a 24 hour "test" shoot of a scene, while he watched, all digital, and he got to see the look and pace and was sold. Sin City might not be here if it weren't for 1080p digital. Now that would be a mistake.
 
All the talk about sports programming being the push for 4K for broadcast TV, which I agree with, but there is no solution for that now. Sports TV is live. RED cameras do not have a studio configuration, and do not have live output that delivers the high quality that redcode does.
I'm all for Grass Valley becoming a RED partner and throw a bunch of RED Rocket cards in a Kayenne switcher, but it would be so much more than that to get 4K in home.

I can see a Studio module (REDLive) for an EPIC/Scarlet spitting out a R3D codec with sound & sync over a cable (with a solid locking connection- BNC, ethernet CAT7 or invent a one)*to a switcher with the ability to fully grade the RAW video signal.

RED doesn't have to do it all, but this future you talk about, lay the foundations!
 
Broadcast applications

Broadcast applications

I can see a Studio module (REDLive) for an EPIC/Scarlet spitting out a R3D codec with sound & sync over a cable (with a solid locking connection- BNC, ethernet CAT7 or invent a one)*to a switcher with the ability to fully grade the RAW video signal.

RED doesn't have to do it all, but this future you talk about, lay the foundations!
Click to expand...

Yup :-)
 
Scott Thomas said:
(Edit: I see someone already answered this question, but I'm adding a little more, sorry. :)

Monty Python, like many British series of the era had the elements in the field shot on film and intermixed with things shot in a studio on videotape.

I spoke with someone that worked at the BBC awhile back about how the show were being restored. At the time I was asking about the difference in temporal resolution, 625i 50Hz Vs. Film presumably shot at 25fps. He mentioned that that with some shows, they were interpolating the film frame rate to match the frame rate of the video.

One step toward a 4K transfer I suppose. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, most UK TV of that era was a mix of film on OB (outside broadcast) and video for studio. Video mastered shows were dubbed to composite D3 for digital safety masters from the quad 2" tapes. This was so that the PAL decoding was not burned into the digital master, so superior PAL decoders could be developed. If they'd dubbed to digibeta, the PAL decoding would be burned in and no further restoration work in that area would be possible. The Transform PAL decoder they subsequently developed validates this approach.

When possible the original film inserts are found, telecined and re-edited back into the programme.

When the programme exists as a film recording (made by pointing a film camera at a special TV screen to record the programme) the film inserts are re-edited in (Quatermass And the Pit did this very well) and the original video portions are cleaned and restored including a conversion back to 50i (from the film recording 25p) using optical flow based temporal interpolation to try to make it look more like the original video.

Some colour programmes unfortunately only exist as black and white film recordings, but some of them were film recorded without a circuit in place to remove PAL chroma signal, resulting in black and white "chroma dot" patterns on the film recording. These are visible when the 16mm film is scanned at HD resolution, and through advanced computer techniques, the original colours of the PAL video can be restored. The process is not perfect, but with a mix of restored colour and hand-processed colourization, an acceptable colour version can be produced. If you want to see how this looks, the BBC video of Planet of the Daleks has episode 3 restored in this way, along with a documentary on the process.

Graeme
 
I don't really believe it was mistake but more of something experimental. I mean come on, people wanted something kinda portable in their homes which they could entertain themselves with whenever they wanted. It was a mistake to actually produce content in 1080p without looking far ahead.

BTW: Are the original classic films being taken cared of? I mean physically 'cause if film weathers with the years when people start re-releasing them in 4K they're gonna look a bit different. Hopefully some grading can fix that. :smile:
 
The Sound of Music looks lovely in 4k.

Graeme
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top