4K for the finish...

[Brad Allen]

Hi Brad,

warning, you are mixing apples and pies here!

While RED R3D are based on JPEG2000 as far as we know, requesting a lower resolution from a RED RAW R3D file within REDCINE-X, such as 1/8 will potentially cause the following:
The quadrants per color channel are restored at a lower resolution. Then those quadrants will be combined into a RGB image, maybe using some small pixel shifting to compensate for the small offset those color channels have (due to the Bayer pattern they represent). But only RED knows the answer, so we are speculating here. I doubt that they even try do a deBayer process from a lower resolution color channel. IMHO that would be total nonsense, as the pixel shift is completely different, because it scales as well. It would entirely new algorithms to do something "good" here.

However, when looking at a DCP we are talking about smaller resolutions of a true full pixel RGB image (or X'Y'Z' image). So there is a BIG difference between the two things.

RAW is a completely different beast than an RGB image, even when the compression method used may be partially the same.


Regarding how does JPEG2000 wavelet compression work, its actually a bit more complex than I described, because the filters in action already filter the image in diverse sub bands of information, from which some can be discarded to gain compression efficiency.

Here is a good link to this:
http://faculty.gvsu.edu/aboufade/web/wavelets/student_work/EF/how-works.html

or very detailed here:
http://www.google.de/imgres?hl=de&s...y=78&page=1&tbnh=145&tbnw=281&start=0&ndsp=56

1. The image is being wavelet transformed at 12 bits per pixel depth. Thats the steps I explained before. You get kind of a reorganized framebuffer.
2. Quantization is applied. This means important informations is being kept, unimportant information is being dropped (lost).
3. The resulting data package will be compressed using a method quite similar to e.g. ZIP files, but using an advanced compression scheme called Ebcot (entropy coding).
4. The final compressed package is written to a file, including a header with some basic metadata.

The description I gave is the basic prinicple behind wavelets. The algorithms in use are a bit more advanced, but still follow these principles.

Cheers,
Axel

Thanks again for all of your input Axel. I absolutely love learning new things. Really appreciate the time you have taken to clarify some of these points for me (and highlight where we don't have enough info to be clear either way)

 

[Rob McDonough]

Check with the number of Sony's how many of them are doing 3D.
A Sony SRXD equipped for 3D does show two 2K images side by side, and actually using only ~1/2 of the chips overall pixels, so its 1/2 half as bright as it can be in true 4K mode. So in 2K 3D mode you will definetly see far less than 1/4th the possible projection brightness, in 2K 2D you'll see around 1/2 the brightness.

Cheers,
Axel

SXRD panels actually place the images over/under as attached, but it still fully validates your point. Plenty of room for a better solution.

 

[Axel Mertes]

Oh yes, you are right, its not side by sode, but over/under.

I mixed that up. But as you said, the same bad thing if its true.

Thanks for pointing out.

If I had a cinema and this lens from RealD, I'd try to get back 50% of the energy cost from Sony and RealD for bad design. That will quickly pay off...

Cheers,
Axel

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip)
BTW am I the only one who felt that the 2K finish on Hobbit was more noticeable than usual? Usually a 2K finish doesn't bug me much at all - but at 48fps, I felt that I noticed the slight lack of resolution more. It was getting in the way of the "window into real life" thing a bit for me and contributed to the video feel a little.
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Reminds me of my first viewing of PJs "Crossing The Line" where I was shocked at how much motion blur there was. It's my supposition that over the years; gate weave, flicker, grain, poor quality release prints and other film "artifacts" had masked much of the motion blur. I am a big fan of 4K at 48fps (or even 60) but if it becomes the dominant format it will require motion media creators to rethink how any number of "illusions" are maintained.

My first feature on the RedOne in November of 2007 put the issue of how makeup would read on a 4K digital show vs 35mm film in the crosshairs. That first week the vanities keys were frequent visitors to the camera truck as they figured out what they could, and could not, get away with. The Hobbit at 48fps put even more pressure on several crafts to maintain the "suspension of disbelief" in such a high fidelity format.

Many have decried the move to high resolution digital formats as the ruination of the "dream factory" magic that made Hollywood, well, Hollywood. Case in point is the Oz prequel vs the original. The handcrafted FX, stylized Technicolor and often cheezy practicals of the 1939 classic are part of its enduring charm. While few would expect the 2013 prequel to enjoy such a long period of relevance in the best of circumstances, one has to wonder if the FX - state of the art in 2013 - will impact its "shelf life".

What do you think the "standard" format for theatrical exhibition will be in 2023? What about in the home?

Cheers - #19

 

[Axel Mertes]

Reminds me of my first viewing of PJs "Crossing The Line" where I was shocked at how much motion blur there was. It's my supposition that over the years; gate weave, flicker, grain, poor quality release prints and other film "artifacts" had masked much of the motion blur. I am a big fan of 4K at 48fps (or even 60) but if it becomes the dominant format it will require motion media creators to rethink how any number of "illusions" are maintained.

My first feature on the RedOne in November of 2007 put the issue of how makeup would read on a 4K digital show vs 35mm film in the crosshairs. That first week the vanities keys were frequent visitors to the camera truck as they figured out what they could, and could not, get away with. The Hobbit at 48fps put even more pressure on several crafts to maintain the "suspension of disbelief" in such a high fidelity format.

Many have decried the move to high resolution digital formats as the ruination of the "dream factory" magic that made Hollywood, well, Hollywood. Case in point is the Oz prequel vs the original. The handcrafted FX, stylized Technicolor and often cheezy practicals of the 1939 classic are part of its enduring charm. While few would expect the 2013 prequel to enjoy such a long period of relevance in the best of circumstances, one has to wonder if the FX - state of the art in 2013 - will impact its "shelf life".

What do you think the "standard" format for theatrical exhibition will be in 2023? What about in the home?

Cheers - #19

Regarding the ongoing discussion about increased cost on 4K finishing:

The higher the frame rate, the sharper the images can be. It would be interesting if at some point we can leave away or reduce the degree of motion blur MORE than increasing the frame rates.
The point is that motion blur is one of the most computing intense tasks one can perform, especially in 3D renderings. By increasing the frame rate we end up with shorter motion blur areas. Basically for every double of framerate we can half the amount of motionblur. However, I would not wonder if at a given point we can reduce motion blur more than increasing the frame rate, ending up with less total computations. Guess I need to run some tests in HFR...

Cheers,
Axel

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I shot some 48fps 5K thin shutter footage on my Epic over a year ago in a quest to see how much HFR presentation would negate the usual perception of "choppy" motion. IIRC exposure time was around 1/500th of a second (roughly a 35 degree shutter) and the subject matter was a big parade on a clear day. I still haven't had the opportunity to evaluate the footy at 4K/48fps on a large screen.

Doug Trumbull is arguably the Godfather of HFR motion imaging and as we revisit some of the same ground he pioneered I will be very interested to see what aspects have changed. My guess is that digital projection, higher contrast acquisition optics and, perhaps most critically, the conditioning of the audience to fast paced visuals will shift the equation. My analogy is how an editor could use shots as brief as 10 frames in something aimed at an under 30 demographic, but might need 15 frames for an older viewer to glean as much from the shot.

I contend that 48fps for theatrical and 60fps for TV will be commonplace in 10 years and running older assets through Twixtor so they don't look "dated" will be SOP. Feel free to ridicule me for that prediction in 2023 if I'm wrong ;-)

Cheers - #19

 

[Bill Anderson]

Given the spectacular rise/popularity of portable viewing devices, I can't help but feel that cinema needs to be redefined by a quality that provides for an experience well outside the capability of even the best of TV's. Some might cry "good stories", but good stories can and are being watched on ipods etc.. What we need is a new standard in big screen quality that will provide an unrivalled clarity or essence to these "good stories". ipods and TV's should be relegated to being nothing more than calling cards to cinema, and given the numbers of these things out there, they will likely be spectacular at the job. There are many examples of past art that work perfectly with certain mediums, but that is not to say that we should stop in our tracks when it comes to exploring other possibilities. If we could let go the "then Vs now" attitude and perhaps adopt a " then AND now" one, progress, as an extension of all that has gone before, might be more grounded. The historical narrative is always worth keeping in mind. Not to mention that "the medium is the message". Provide a new medium and new messages will follow.


Keep pushing, RED guys.

 

[Axel Mertes]

Blair,

I see it pretty much the same. It has a lot to do with conditioning.

I myself own a 3D TV since late last year. I bought "Hugo Cabret" as the first 3D movie to be viewed on this TV set.
I did forcefully leave the motion interpolation ON to have a HFR "feeling". The whole family watched it and liked it pretty much. It felt like a theater actually, not like a movie.

Later I switched all motion interpolation off to see it again in 24p. Honestly, I did not like it that much anymore.

So I believe it has also a lot to do with how we first experience a specific content.
Secondly, many younger people are used to 3D games running at high frame rates. So 3D HFR is already part of their every day experience. Those will surely accept HFR much easier than older poeple.

My prediction is that at some day we will use that old-school 2K 24p motion blur look the same way as we use Super-8 today...

As a matter of fact: 3D, HFR, 4K are simply artistic options that can be used by the DoPs and Directors out there, the same way as they use film, HD, 2K, 3K, 4K, color, sound today.

Cheers,
Axel

 

[Bruce Allen]

OK cool! My predictions for 2023:

THEATRICAL: bright, wide gamut, 4K or 8K (hey why not if it sounds cool?) laser 48 or 60fps with polarized stereo glasses
HOME: tablets and large screens ranging from HD to 8K resolution, with and without stereo glasses, with a little (bad) consumer multi-view stereo, all quite bright with wide gamut, all streaming, line with games more blurred
SPECIAL EVENT (RIDES, ETC): glasses-free multi-view 3D that really works

TECHNICAL BASELINE FOR CONTENT: similar to today... as long as a film has semi-decent technical standards (let's say equivalent to a good 24p 1080p finish today), consumers will consume it happily if it's well made
TECHNICAL BONUSES: depending on content, folks will push the envelope on resolution, color, multi-view stereo, FPS, interactivity, etc with various degrees of success (some of it will be stunning, some just a waste of petabytes)

Further down the line I would imagine that glasses-free multi-view 3D will take over.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I contend that 48fps for theatrical and 60fps for TV will be commonplace in 10 years and running older assets through Twixtor so they don't look "dated" will be SOP. Feel free to ridicule me for that prediction in 2023 if I'm wrong ;-)

Cheers - #19

I strongly suspect the streaming platforms will want to hold onto 24fps so they can more easily stream H265 compliant codecs in 4K. Not saying you won't be able to watch HFR in the home with something like REDRAY But I think "TV" is actually going to gravitate TOWARDS 24fps as streaming takes over.

 

[David Battistella]

I think mark is right. With digital we all kinda think 48frame distribution might be easier, but the fact is it poses the same problem that 48fps distribution presented to film. Cost.

the cost of data distribution is growing as video increases over the Internet. So doubling frame rates is going to increase data size thus increasing cost of delivery. It also drives acquisition and storage costs.

I think motion blur will get better with sensor technology, plus, you can always capture 59.94, 30 FPS, for a sharper look.

david

 

[Bill Anderson]

While "conditioning" might play a role, we do not so easily allow ourselves to be conditioned and to accept (let alone accept as being superior) just any thing that comes along. It has been a long hard road of trial and error combined with a great deal of discrimination that has led us to this current state in cinema/art. When it comes to visuals and things like motion blur, surely the most potent incident of conditioning is the one we have experienced since we crawled out the mud: reality. But, in spite of that, literalism is not always eagerly embraced in image-making.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

While "conditioning" might play a role, we do not so easily allow ourselves to be conditioned and to accept (let alone accept as being superior) just any thing that comes along. It has been a long hard road of trial and error combined with a great deal of discrimination that has led us to this current state in cinema/art. When it comes to visuals and things like motion blur, surely the most potent incident of conditioning is the one we have experienced since we crawled out the mud: reality. But, in spite of that, literalism is not always eagerly embraced in image-making.

HFR is so much closer to 24p than to what our eyes see that what we are conditioned to see through our eyes that's not really a good comparison.

in my experience most of the things that move a moving picture whether film, video or whatever, towards or away from realism have little to do with the frame rate or resolution.

Choice of film stock, processing method, lighting decisions, decisions made in a grading suite, the fact that real life doesn't have specially written or adapted musical score.

There are so many tools available, yet so many act as if the only ones that affect whether something is a movie are resolution and/or frame rate..... (And some counter-intuitively claim that upping resolution is bad forgetting super 35mm film technically has a higher resolution than 4k)

 

[Scott Crawley]

HFR is so much closer to 24p than to what our eyes see that what we are conditioned to see through our eyes that's not really a good comparison.

in my experience most of the things that move a moving picture whether film, video or whatever, towards or away from realism have little to do with the frame rate or resolution.

Choice of film stock, processing method, lighting decisions, decisions made in a grading suite, the fact that real life doesn't have specially written or adapted musical score.

There are so many tools available, yet so many act as if the only ones that affect whether something is a movie are resolution and/or frame rate..... (And some counter-intuitively claim that upping resolution is bad forgetting super 35mm film technically has a higher resolution than 4k)

This is a camera forum so we focus on the aspects of film making that are unique to camera and imaging. I don't think that we are so ignorant as to believe that our contributions to the process are the only or even the primary means of creating realism in film making, but as camera people those are the ones that we have the most direct influence on. This is about mastery of our medium and for many that quest is to minimize the impact of the medium on the storytelling.

Most accounts I have heard claim that our brains perceive (or can comfortably process) images at a rate of around 60fps, so 48 would be closer to 60 than 24. I believe that is the underlying logic to the 48fps choice.

I am curious what the basis is for your first assertion. Have you seen data that we perceive more than 60 images per second? When viewing higher rates when does fatigue set in? My recollection seems to be that at higher rates, a 90 minute feature is over-taxing, and folks will tune out long before the film is finished. What is the frame rate threshold for fatigue at 90 minutes... 167 minutes?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Jeez frame

Jeez frame

I think Mark is correct in thinking that 24fps will remain popular for web delivery for some time due to bandwidth issues. Perhaps we'll see a "reverse Twixtor" program that turns 48fps content into 24fps for IP while managing motion blur, repacking sound files, etc. I still postulate that by 2023, 48 or 60fps will be the common format and that a combination of increased bandwidth and compression efficiency will make that trivial to distribute.

What is the ideal frame rate? Is it the same for all age groups? Is it skewed by individual viewing habits/history? How much, if at all, is narrative storytelling enhanced by the more "dreamlike" 24fps presentation? Is the negative reaction to watching 24fps material (mostly film originated) on LCD displays with "motion smoothing" a result of it violating our expectations or is it actually stressing our mental processing?

The tricky thing is that even if we had a research grant and 100 subjects to study, how would you create a control group? Assuming you could find 50 people who haven't watched TV, looked at motion content on the net or seen a movie; what value would their baseline metrics have when your goal is to determine how more typical viewers respond? How do you compensate for different viewing circumstances - theater/living room/tablet/etc - without creating a jumble of cross contaminated "conclusions"?

Perhaps the more salient issue is how we as storytellers might need to alter our techniques if the "standard" frame rate became 48fps. Assuming that the audience would soon condition to 48fps as "normal" might you deliberately shoot at 24fps (duplicating frames for 48fps mastering) in order to cue the audience that its a dream/flashback/etc? Subtle and overt alterations in the presentation of story elements can add important context and understanding - that's filmmaking 101 - but it's dependent on expectations/conditioning in order to "play".

Bottom line - if 48fps does become the "standard" frame rate by 2018 (hypothetically), how might we perceive 24fps in 2023?

Cheers - #19

 

[Antony M]

What do you think the "standard" format for theatrical exhibition will be in 2023?

Maybe 4k. Probably still a lot at 2k.

What about in the home?

1080p.

I doubt most *consumers* will be after much more even in 10 years...

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

4 sure?

4 sure?

Anthony sees 2K for theatrical and 1080 for home as being with us for the next 10 years. It's a defensible point of view since greater resolution (or frame rate) will add some cost and in many viewing situations add little noticeable benefit.

I happen to think that the consumer electronics companies will push higher resolution for the home as a sales tactic and will conjure up a "need" via advertising messages. I also believe that the theatrical exhibitors will embrace 4K with wide gamut color as a tactic to convince people to get off the couch and come to the theater.

Considering the amount of compression routinely used for distribution currently, it could be argued that just delivering legitimate 1080 rez with better color precision would constitute a major improvement. IAC, more advanced compression techniques and greater "average" bandwidth should eventually make most of these issues academic. FWIW, while this may all be speculative at the moment, considering the accelerating rate of technological advancement we are seeing, 10 years down the road should allow for some significant changes that seem far fetched today. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19

 

[Bill Anderson]

"Ideal frame rate and all ages":

Since we are dealing with a "2D" image plane, and the fact that distances traversed by moving objects on the cinema screen are far from those experienced in "reality", is the ideal (most natural looking) motion frame rate for one subject, ideal for all subjects? Can we provide the ideal for both lovers and fighters?

Anyway, I hope 24fps remains an option.

While "consumers" might be "happy with 1080P", they will also be happy with 4K and beyond. It is up to us, the creators, to decide what we are satisfied with in our work. And for many of us, 1080 is not a good standard for cinema. I'd as soon have a consumer participating in my vasectomy as in the making of my art. ( :

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Mark, are you suggesting that the displays themselves will have the H.265 decoder chips embedded so all you have to do is get the bitstream into the display?

Cheers - #19

I'm not suggesting that - I'm telling you that is what is happening.

 

[Axel Mertes]

I'm not suggesting that - I'm telling you that is what is happening.

I agree. H265 is said to work on at least 1,000,000,000 devices already sold to end consumers. This means a future firmware update or software will enable those devices to playback H265 content. One example mentioned in that context is the IPAD3/4.

We will see what happens when HEVC/H265 will hit the streets.

And obviously we all here want to see how RED RAY will compare to that.
RED RAY might never get as popular, as it might need more processing power and will unlikely not become a software player app thing, but stay with dedicated hardware, for DRM issues. However, it will be measured and compared in the long run, thats out of question.

Cheers,
Axel