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 NEW 4K standard...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, since we're talking about home theaters.

How do we future proof for 4k. I am building a new house and was just talking to the electronics people about running a bundle from my office (editing) to the home theater room so that I could view in there sometimes.

I told him that I will be using 4k cameras and he kind of laughed. He didn't know what kind of cables would be needed. Now, I'm not sure I will be viewing 4k most of the time, but what kind of cable can handle this? HDMI can't do it can it?

thanks,
J.
 
insanityfw said:
Ok, since we're talking about home theaters.
I told him that I will be using 4k cameras and he kind of laughed. He didn't know what kind of cables would be needed. Now, I'm not sure I will be viewing 4k most of the time, but what kind of cable can handle this? HDMI can't do it can it?
Click to expand...

There aren't any consumer standards related to 4K at the moment. Sony's 4K projectors are fed with four DVI cables, each carrying a quarter of the image.
 
I'm not sure I understand all the hand wringing about letterboxing for 2:1. I have no huge desire to use 2:1 as a deliverable format (though it does have a nice feel to it), and I'm sure Red will get 16:9 working (probably via firmware update), but the difference between 2:1 (or 16:8) and 16:9 is not all that big.

The letterboxing required is quite mild and, at least to my eye, completely unobjectionable:

21.gif
 
I agree that it's negligible at best.

And thanks Chris for the feedback. I'm thinking that I'll just run a big conduit to my media closet. Better safe than sorry.
 
It looks like it comes down to our sensitivity to those black bars that letterbox or pillarbox what we are watching on the TV. It seems that while I see the movie, others can't see past the black spaces.

I honestly don't notice that I am giving up a few lines of resolution to keep from losing the image itself. I won't bother to watch a panned and scanned movie where they have given up image area to keep from giving up a few square centimeters of real estate on the television.

There are some that it really preys on though, and for them I could suggest curtains to cover up the offending area... or just pretend it is a really thick bezel maybe?

And Mr. oldphart, the three screen height distance from the display is what I would consider the furthest I would want to sit from the screen based on the field of view. It would be three meters away from one meter tall screen that was 720p and it would be three meters away from a one meter tall screen that showed 1080p. At that distance I can just tell the difference between the two resolutions when I am looking for it... if I am looking for it then the story has lost me and I can go find something else to do or watch.

Like you, I will move in if the source and the display warrants it- Serenity HD-DVD on my 17" laptop looks pretty damn good and I end up leaning in to that one screen height range. And not noticing that movie is letterboxed to fit the 16:10 - 1920x1200 screen.

And I am right there with you on the pain of watching a lot of the stuff coming off the satellites. The compression is often very intrusive and yanks me out of the film no matter how good it is.
 
Chris Kenny said:
I'm not sure I understand all the hand wringing about letterboxing for 2:1. I have no huge desire to use 2:1 as a deliverable format (though it does have a nice feel to it), and I'm sure Red will get 16:9 working (probably via firmware update), but the difference between 2:1 (or 16:8) and 16:9 is not all that big.

The letterboxing required is quite mild and, at least to my eye, completely unobjectionable.
Click to expand...
OK, I've kind of stayed out of this one, as it's been a bit hairy, but here's my 0.02:

I'm not overly fussed about letterboxing at all, and I think these days most of the viewing public is happy enough with it too, as evidenced by the lack of pan'n'scan releases on DVD (thank the lord!).

However, I would like to be able to deliver 1.85:1 for theatrical without horizontally cropping the frame - if your sensor is 16:9 then you've got a (very) mild vertical crop, but with the proposed 2:1 recording method, you're essentially cropping vertically by more than required, and then cropping horizontally to get back to your required ratio, which seems counter-intuitive and a little silly.

It'll also result in significantly less resolution for those who want to shoot for 2.4:1 anamorphically, as again you'll be cropping vertically and horizontally, compared to what the chip can offer.

Seems foolish to artificially limit the options, if that is what is being proposed. After all, what's wrong with shooting 16:9 and cropping to 2:1, if that's what you're after? That way you literally loose nothing and have all the options.

Just to re-iterate, I'm not talking in the slightest about delivery to home systems, be they TV's or projectors - I'm talking about shooting for theatrical release, where every pixel absolutely can be of use...

As I wrote in another thread, if this discussion were happening before the chip had been designed, then I could see the sense in it, but now that the camera has a 16:9 chip in it, not using all of that available resolution seems foolish, unless there are technical limitations that have not been expressed...
 
I am still a bit confused. Are we going to be stuck with 2:1 from the Red? For personal projects it's not such an issue but for the most part, my projects already have a standard such as 16:9 tv or 1:85 for film that my work has to conform to. I thought that Red would be able to output to 1080p and 720p (initially it was) but now those have been dropped and 2:1 is the new standard? It means vertical cropping...not good.
 
BillG said:
Trapezoid.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've had to operate for a trapezoid frame before (for the onstage bigscreen at a national Coors convention. The trapezoid on the left was skewed one way, the trapezoid on the right was skewed the other. And the engineer in the back room, (who couldn't see the trapezoidal frames onstage), was screaming in our ears the whole time about head room!

Trapezoid is not my favorite flavor.
 
Sam Druckerman said:
I love wide screen cinema.

. . . and as a rule a visual artist doesn't want there image / frame violated.

The logic of cropping a movie to fit a TV screen is like cropping all the great paintings to fit a standard size book. It's ridiculous.


Wide rules.
Click to expand...

But then again, they cropped Rembrandt's Night Watch and it's still considered a great painting. Or is it?
 
Peter McCully said:
I am still a bit confused. Are we going to be stuck with 2:1 from the Red? For personal projects it's not such an issue but for the most part, my projects already have a standard such as 16:9 tv or 1:85 for film that my work has to conform to. I thought that Red would be able to output to 1080p and 720p (initially it was) but now those have been dropped and 2:1 is the new standard? It means vertical cropping...not good.
Click to expand...

Although it's not difficult to guess why this proposal, we all hope this won't be another stupid standard. Because, it'll never be a standard... Only an attempt to cover a CF recording limitation perhaps?
 
jimarri said:
But then again, they cropped Rembrandt's Night Watch and it's still considered a great painting. Or is it?
Click to expand...

I'm actually not sure if you're kidding or not?

But, the tragic mutilation of that great piece by Rembrandt, ( which I believe was not tilted "Night Watch" until after Rembrandt's passing ) is considered a unfortunate loss in the art community.

And certainly not an example of how "Artists like having there work tampered with", anymore than it is a example of the viewing public being "Happy about it".

You know that darn "Guernica" by that slouch Picasso is just to big! Lets start by cropping that one and then every other masterpiece until all of them are destroyed.

BOT

Going with a wide aspect ratio gets my vote.
 
Mr. Orange said:
Although it's not difficult to guess why this proposal, we all hope this won't be another stupid standard. Because, it'll never be a standard... Only an attempt to cover a CF recording limitation perhaps?
Click to expand...

Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim
Click to expand...

That is what I expected all along.

By the way, from a cinematic point of view I love 2.1.

Steve
 
Jannard said:
Mr. Orange. We will deliver 4K 16:9 (4096 x 2304) so your suggestion is not relavant.

Jim
Click to expand...

Thank you for the update. It's a relief. Sigh. However, this suggestion hasn't just been from Mr. Orange. There are other people thinking the same.
 
My dear Lord. It's funny that you can't get the point.

4096 x 2304 is higher than 4096 x 2048.

With 4096 x 2304 you can also have 4096 x 2048.

With 4096 x 2048 you have NO 4096 x 2304.

Got it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top