A Response To Jim Jannard and 1080P

[I Bloom]

I haven't had cable or TV for two years.
I know a couple of people who don't have cable anymore and just do netflix, etc.

Visiting for christmas I discovered my folks dumped their cable subscription. They just have FIOS, Roku, and Boxy. If your baby boomer parents are dumping it, stick a fork in it. It's done.

IBloom

 

[M Most]

That's a tough one Mike... even into the late 90's the vast majority of film, television, commercials and music videos were shot on 35. Even today, I don't think there many people who would agree that if given the choice they wouldn't prefer the qualities of 35mm film over a 1080p acquisition source. The simple fact is that every digital camera manufacturer has been trying for many many years to produce digital images that can match those qualities and it seems that only now are we starting to see those efforts actually succeeding.

"Everything else" includes live broadcast, reality shows, sports, documentaries, corporate productions, news, travelogues, and many other types of production, including most of the sitcoms produced in the late 70's through the late 80's - all of which were shot with video cameras, both standard def and in recent years, HD. And the interesting thing is that a lot of these things probably have more potential shelf life than a number of dramas, and virtually all of the commercials and music videos you've mentioned. Hell, I would propose that any number of episodes of The Ed Sullivan Show - broadcast live, but recorded on 2 inch quad videotape - are far more valuable than every episode of Undercovers ever made. All I'm saying is that any reference to formats is a snapshot in time. SD and HD were no more a "mistake" than 4K will be. Each is the technology of its time, and HD's time is far from over, as evidenced by the fact that there is, at this point, no real existing infrastructure to supplant it. Clearly that will eventually change, but who's to say that 20 years from now, those who will be born this year won't be saying the same thing about whatever replaces it?

I would also propose that the switch from film to 1080p cameras on dramas was in large part due to the SAG situation almost 2 years ago. That move by SAG probably accelerated the move away from film for television by at least 2 years, at a time when a worthy replacement such as Epic was not yet available (although I do think that Genesis and D21 were pretty good efforts at the time). Nobody went from 35mm to 1080p because they wanted to, they did it primarily because they were forced to. So if you want to blame anyone, you might want to start with SAG....

 

[paulherrin]

Bricklayers take note

I never meant to say people could not or would not be using "HD" devices. But just like there's not much resale value in SD technology... Resale value of any of the HD recording options is about to start plummeting. If you're not worried about reselling it, don't worry about it. If you are worried about selling that camera, do it... now.

The R1 is 3 years old. And it's new big brothers are coming. RED may not be the only player in this game soon. Why would 1080p devices that aren't much better than the ones we got 5 years ago be major players in the next year or two? Go ahead and buy a brick, I don't care. If that's what you want and it makes sense, great! But I don't want to hear a bunch of complaining about it when you realize you got ripped off with outdated technology.

Don't let me stop you from buying it, especially if that's all you can afford, because I'm not far from it. All I'm saying is, don't get hypnotized by an offer that should have been made five years back. If you can afford professional quality instruments, it would be foolish to be wasteful to pay for the consumer grade model just because its "good enough" for what you've been doing, or you're just unsure about big old scary formats and workflow.

If you've already got a decent 1080p camera, which you probably do if you're interested in any of the new ones coming out... how in the world would that be a good decision to get a new one now? Really, I'm just worried that some working professionals are banking on "trading up" or selling their cameras to afford something like the Scarlets or Epics or Whatevers. Please don't count on it... if that's you, I strongly recommend you sell. Right now.

Maybe I'll be wrong. Maybe viewers will decide they don't actually want to see anything but big ol' pixels, and all those fellas hanging on to their betacams will be vindicated. I bet we'll see a resurgence of standard definition... just for its natural qualities.

 

[Michael Shilnov]

Sony and WB are already remastering films in their library in 4k.

... and unlike film, you can't really remaster 1080 footage. But who knows, maybe the 3D trend will become a standard, and in 10 years Sony and WB will be just as busy remastering old classics into 3D cutouts.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

The only mistake is not to do the best you can.

Graeme

 

[Eric Lange]

I don’t know, I think Jim has thrown us a major bone, but he is not giving too much away.

I don’t think it’s a case of “Field of Dreams”, i.e. if you get enough people to believe in it then 4k will happen. I suspect that Jim is getting his fingers into new pies that will have a huge impact on a 4k delivery. I suspect (pure speculation) that there is something to do with the RED coding/compression scheme that can be re-jigged for 4k delivery in the home, (by whatever means). In other words, I think the bandwidth gap is not as big as it was once supposed for 4k. I think Jim MAY hold one of the keys to this, especially given the absolute confidence with which he puts this idea out. I think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye right now. It’s certainly got me thinking more about the future and what opportunities and possibilities lie in wait for us.

 

[Dustin Brown]

I think that 4K is the future too. I really would like RED to build a 4K 2/3" Scarlet even if they have to delay it another 6 months.

I agree. Why make a 3K camera with all the talk about 4k on the horizon? With Scarlet S35 now Epic Light, is there going to be no 5k Scarlet?

 

[Eric Lange]

The only mistake is not to do the best you can.

Graeme

I think we have become lazy in the current times, if it’s not a single mouse click away we can’t be bothered. 4k workflow will be breeze compared to the efforts required to pull off the Technicolor process of yester year; back then I think scientists, technicians and artists were willing to put up with a lot more hassle to make something work. I love the challenge of working high res data sets, it really gets the adrenaline going as you are always right at the limit of what is possible computationally or otherwise.

 

[David Rasberry]

I'm still playing around with an R3D clip, a night shot of the Shibuya crossing in Tokyo that Paul Leeming had posted on Red relay a couple of years ago. It was a build 17 original RED 1 file.
Recode raw can be remastered like film with amazing improvements in image quality as the software is improved. The new RCX 356 is truly remarkable in what it can pull from this file. Compared to any encoded video format it should have significantly longer shelf life.

 

[Jon Chema]

And the Sony looks rather harsh...

The more pleasing looking 1080 cams are a tad soft...

Gee...

And the Epic has the DR, too...

Then again...resolution is NOT everything. It's just one of many factors one must weigh.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

I agree. Why make a 3K camera with all the talk about 4k on the horizon?

Because the Scarlet is not exactly meant for those who can afford an EPIC. It is for those who desire more than what "the other guys" are offering and for many, it will be their first step into the grander scheme of things.

 

[Kevin Marshall]

Why make a 3K camera with all the talk about 4k on the horizon?

I feel like I read a lot of comments expressing this sentiment - questioning the release of a 3K camera by a company pushing a 4K standard.

I think the answer lies in RED's stated goals. Jim has expressed numerous times that a goal of his has been to provide a suitable digital replacement for film. 4K has been related as a suitable resolution for equivalency to 35mm film. 3K, I'd wager, is probably fairly comparable to 16mm. Having not shot 16mm on a zone plate myself, I can't corroborate this, but that's what I feel like the general idea is.

In short - 4K seems the resolution target for 35mm, 3K for 16mm. Or at least that's how I've always looked at it...

 

[Marc Wielage]

Sony and WB are already remastering films in their library in 4k.

I know. And I've done my share of 4K mastering for Fox and Disney, among other studios, all on Baselight. I've color-timed another 100 features and countless TV series in the last ten years in 2K and 1080, including two Star Wars features for ILM. The facility I work for currently is resolution-independent -- we can do virtually anything, up to and including Imax. One of my Imax projects was the Shine a Light concert documentary; take a look at that and see if you can guess the workflow.

The problem is, just because you can do 4K doesn't mean it's appropriate for all projects and budgets. Unless and until you've conformed, color-corrected, worked with VFX, and outputed a whole feature in 4K from top to bottom, it's hard to conceive how much time and money it takes. Once you stir film delivery, 3D, and home video into all of this, the problem snowballs astronomically. In these times of greatly-shortened post schedules, there just isn't enough time to deal with 4K.

Jim is right in that 4K will eventually get faster and cheaper, and I'm glad to see the Epic happen, but I don't see 4K taking hold of the industry in 2011. Servers and drives only go so fast, and post facilities can only deal with so much data at one time. If we could get directors and editors to completely lock the feature 6-8 weeks before delivery, then it might be possible. But that's not the reality as I see it.

 

[Jannard]

I know. And I've done my share of 4K mastering for Fox and Disney, among other studios, all on Baselight. I've color-timed another 100 features and countless TV series in the last ten years in 2K and 1080, including two Star Wars features for ILM. The facility I work for currently is resolution-independent -- we can do virtually anything, up to and including Imax. One of my Imax projects was the Shine a Light concert documentary; take a look at that and see if you can guess the workflow.

The problem is, just because you can do 4K doesn't mean it's appropriate for all projects and budgets. Unless and until you've conformed, color-corrected, worked with VFX, and outputed a whole feature in 4K from top to bottom, it's hard to conceive how much time and money it takes. Once you stir film delivery, 3D, and home video into all of this, the problem snowballs astronomically. In these times of greatly-shortened post schedules, there just isn't enough time to deal with 4K.

Jim is right in that 4K will eventually get faster and cheaper, and I'm glad to see the Epic happen, but I don't see 4K taking hold of the industry in 2011. Servers and drives only go so fast, and post facilities can only deal with so much data at one time. If we could get directors and editors to completely lock the feature 6-8 weeks before delivery, then it might be possible. But that's not the reality as I see it.

It doesn't really matter when it happens... next week or next year. If you want your movie or TV show to ever be released in 4K, shooting it in 1080P won't cut it.

If 1080P really was "good enough", the other guys wouldn't be working on 4K cameras... which they all are.

Jim

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Sure they are, for all the reasons you mention.

And I'll make a stab on a 4k finnish just after new year, just to start to get the hang of it.

But there are a couple of catches in the signal chain between aqusition and delivery still, even on small productions, which has to be figured out.

For the big screen 4k is definitely the future.

We all just have to dig down in our competence to make that an viable option.
On the budgets we have...

Happy new year.

Dying to shoot with the Epic!

Cheers!

G

 

[paulherrin]

And I'll make a stab on a 4k finnish just after new year, just to start to get the hang of it.

good on ye.

 

[Damien Molineaux]

Futur can mean a lot of things : tomorrow, next year, five years form now, 100 years from now. First off let me say, I put in a reservation for a Red One as soon as I could, it was at IBC 2006 and I am the proud owner of Red One #500. I agree 4K is the best future proof format and 4K cine projection is what is being developed at great speed.

However, for one, many people don't care so much about being future proof, some productions are seen as a consume and throw away product. Also, today, most films that go through a DI process are being put back on film from a 2K master, even though the DI may have been done in 4K. Also, ouside of the US, and that is most of the world, digital projection is still not widely installed (although it is in the process of), and we will probably see many 2K projectors for a quite some time, probable bought second form the US. Also in europe, Blu-ray is still a very small market, and as VOD becomes widely available, it may never become widely used.

As to TV, the EBU (European Broadcast Union) has target 1080p50 as the goal. HD broadcast is still marginal in 1080i50, 1080p25, 720p50 or 720p25. The purpose of 1080p50 is to have one common standard. I personnaly think this a good format for TV, given the size of screens most people have a t home. I have a 720x1280 projector whihc I'm very happy with, still too little HD content, and stepping up to 1080p50 will already bring me a great quality upgrade. 4K projection in my home would make no sense.

Which brings about one problem, if you want to be future proof for cinema and for TV you need 4K resolution and 50p, now that's a lot of data !!! And if you're shooting with a bayer sensor, that means you need to shoot 5K at 50p! Which is why I've got an Epic on order.

Anyhow, although I agree with the 4K concept, I still think 1080p, particularly if it's at 50p, has a nice future ahead, and 2K is not dead yet.

The question is how future proof do you want to be ?

Cheers,
Damien

 

[Jeff Coatney]

While a 4K finish may be elusive at this point, the ability to acquire at 4K is well within reach. Why anyone would opt for less-than when they don't have to is beyond me. If I was a studio and my money was at stake, I'd be furious if I couldn't release in 4K in the future.

 

[Quentin Brown]

I'm a little late to this conversation and it has veered off from where I really wanted to chip in but earlier Jim mentioned TV delivery beyond 1080P.
We are only just beginning to get free to air 1080 broadcasting here in the UK as the digital broadcasting switchover completes across the country over the next year or two. I understand display tech in theatres is moving in the direction of 4K pretty firmly but what about this crazy new 8K Super Hi-Vision TV standard NHK have been pioneering in Japan?
The BBC already did a test live broadcast from the UK using this format (7680-by-4320 pixel ) and NHK hope to do live broadcasts from the 2012 Olympics in the format.
Is this going to just be a curio for live events or is this going to become a new broadcast standard anytime soon?

 

[Jannard]

We are all for higher standards as technology moves along. We have higher resolution cameras in the works just because we believe that everything will move forward. But the near future is a 4K world.

Jim