"VV will replace S35" and other failed predictions

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I have spent quite a while pondering the questions: why to predictions fail, should we bother making predictions, and if we do make predictions, how can we make them useful?

Here is a list of failed predictions, some to do with photography:

- AF will never be good enough to replace MF

- Digital will never be able to challenge film

- DSLM cameras will never be able to replace DSLR cameras

- A little startup like Red could never make a 4K camera before Sony could

- VistaVision sensors will be the new standard, supplanting Super 35

- The Internet will become congested

- Music can't be pirated to any significant degree, because it takes hours just to download the contents of a 700MB CD via a 33K modem connection

- Children won't know what snow is by 2020

- The Great Barrier Reef is disappearing

- Cryptocurrencies are just a fad

Etc.

So, should we even speculate? Wouldn't it be easier to just keep innovating and letting the chips fall where they may? This is a talk by Michael Crichton, titled 'Why Speculate?':

https://americandigest.org/long-read-week-speculate-michael-crichton/

But if we do speculate, can we at least make those speculations interesting, accurate, or at least thought provoking? I think we can. I think that one element of successful predictions is seeing what will happen, and what is possible, rather than what is not possible, or what will not happen. I could see the triumph of DSLM cameras long ago. Before it was fashionable to think so.

And, I can see a world where a lot of photographers use cameras with smaller and smaller sensors. Even integrated cameras like the Sony RX10 could replace those system cameras with big sensors and huge lenses to go with them. I'm not putting money on it, but I think it's inevitable that some photographers will go this way.

So. What are your predictions?

 

[Phil Holland]

I've been sharing thoughts here on REDUSER now for many, many years I'd dare say with an above average hit ratio. Enough that you can go back and track certain statements along the way. With my particular background and general presence in corners of the filmmaking community I have received a fair bit of the brunt of the counter-perspective of the biased, wrong, confused, or otherwise.

I remember stumbling across one of the early popular voices in this industry who was rather adamant that the industry would never go 4K or certainly never need it. The fellow in question didn't know my background and honestly didn't have any feature film workflow experience of the time. When I told him we have been scanning film in 4K since the 90s and even went to higher resolutions for various formats and even used laser recorders to output 4K to intermediate film. This ironically occurred at NAB which year by year showcases emerging new technologies, advancements in our industry, as well as trends that were grabbing hold. And if you looked closely, even then, there were signs of where all of this was going.

I'll put a stake on a few of the relevant topics you've brought up:

- AF will never be good enough to replace MF

Autofocus is a tool and a constantly improving one. I'm assuming you mean for motion. Anybody with decent enough wider perspectives on things will understand that for some applications Autofocus will be highly desirable for many applications. At the same time, manual focus is alive and well. *gasp* just like still photography when it comes to it, though those are very different things. AF was in video cameras long before it cinema. At the edge of the statements core, there's many things manual focus is still superior at, but making such broad statements regarding the technology itself reveals more of a lack of understanding of the whole of the puzzle.

- Digital will never be able to challenge film

This is/was very relevant in my career as this was widely propagated throughout the film community in the very, very early days of digital. But as I've written here and well before that time, digital has the ability to improve, grow, and advance greatly as the technology ball moves forward. This topic was a constant in my life for a few years. What was said to me by a specific company was "do you honestly think digital is better than film?". That wasn't the question that should have been asked. I replied that overall my larger concern was digital was going to become the primary medium of the film industry, which it has. That said, to the benefit of motion picture film, the industry has grown so much and so rapidly that survival and even to a degree thriving could occur once again with a lot of help from "friends" and filmmakers who still choose it as a medium. And that is the thing. It's a choice between mediums as it still has a place in the minds and hearts of filmmakers, even myself. Though I'd say 98% of anything I've shot in the last decade is digital.

- DSLM cameras will never be able to replace DSLR cameras

Somewhat echoing the need for a "mechanical shutter" which isn't even a topic in motion cameras anymore. The move towards mirrorless bodies is larger topic as a whole. Once again the electronics were going to improve to a level that you'd be able to do "fast hard work reliably" over a SLR system. Interestingly for some, that's still not the case, which actually is a point that still holds merit if you've ever shot stills for sports. But the larger key points surrounding mirrorless is a much more complicated story. Technology was getting more powerful, you could do more in smaller cameras (people didn't that would catch on either if you recall for motion), and there were many reasons to explore such things. Some interesting bits worth noting. Smaller products are more profitable when it comes down to it. Optically there were gains in shorter flange depths both in performance as well as the cost of manufacturing while again making a smaller product as a whole. Eventually we'll see this hit cinema even harder than it has to date btw, just not yet as the boulder literally needs to be pushed by many hands that don't like admitting they touch rock together.

- A little startup like Red could never make a 4K camera before Sony could

Never heard that and for those close with Sony during the RED inception years, it was on their roadmap. Just for 2014/2015. Big companies generally rely heavily on long term developed product roadmaps. It is far, far more profitable to improve by 10-25% at a time rather than introduce something that is 50-75% more advanced. I never really learned the whole story, but I'm certain somewhere in there RED saw that the higher tier films were indeed tapping into higher resolution workflows even when finishing out to a mere 2K. Jim's passion for image making and technology identified the opportunity and took it. Built an entire workflow around the whole thing that was very complete. Nobody recalls how things were or brings them up much, but remember back then to get even a new codec supported in 3rd party applications sometimes took a couple years. From the ground up, RED took to camera and workflow as well as a host of other accessories. It's yesterday's news now, but the industry wouldn't at all be where it is today with RED making a camera that was much more affordable that could be used as a film alternative.

- VistaVision sensors will be the new standard, supplanting Super 35

Even myself, who is VERY fond of the VistaVision format wouldn't say anything like that. Though there are a lot of "anti-format people" these days trying to minimize the impact that a particular format size/image plane size can have on what you are creating, for those who understand it very deeply, the real answer is all formats have a place. Some filmmakers and/or photographers get seduced by one or the other. Some understand how and when to choose such things. The only point I've ever made regarding VV or larger digital sensors as a whole is the high potential for a well thought out digital cinema camera can be used as a multi-format/multi-resolution tool. And that's very literally what RED did and now even others do. With a well made VV sensor you get relevant VV, S35, and S16 formats. There will be a day when we get to beyond that even. That said because the medium and needs for creators is so diverse, we'll always be seeing new format specific advances like 8K S35 and likely 8K S16/MFT-ish things as we get there. That said for some, it is "their" new standard and if that's a choice, there's nothing wrong with that. I do get looked at oddly though when shooting 5K or 6K on a RED 8K VV sensor when working with S35 glass occasionally, but that's benefit of ownership as well as understanding the tools on hand.

- The Internet will become congested

I mean, I can agree with this to some extent in a very not-so-ironic way. But with the cons do come the pros. The world is connected, often instantly. Somewhere between mobile and broadband adoption of the last decade very literally changed everything. Social media was refined more during this era and those who grabbed an early foothold or who had the foresight the previous decade had everything to gain. The film studio I worked at in the 2000s had high speed internet and I was on social platforms and forums even prior to that. Describing things like YouTube or discussion forums and even emails in there was wild sometimes to those who knew nothing of it.

 

[Phil Holland]

I guess some quick drops towards the future are worthwhile while I'm here.
- We still haven't seen the most interesting sensor technologies enter the arena.
- What we consider lenses today is going to be very, very surprised by lenses of tomorrow. Still will be a place for both, but there is superior tech in nearly all directions as of now.
- Still not there yet, but vector based imaging will be a thing once the 16 corners are connected to make it happen properly.
- Mobile will continue to disrupt in ways that are difficult to fully describe, but equally become more empowering.
- 10-bit HDR and SDR is a thing of the now, but we will eventually go to 12 and very, very far from now 16-bit delivery for streaming.
- 3D isn't dead and will be dead again (entering the 5th time it's spawned in my career shortly), eventually though, the gum will stick and still not replace 2D.
- Digital cinema data rates jump 2 or 3 times this decade depending on your perspective.

Some theory to spice things up outside of those rather hard directions. 8K televisions are already affordable and 8K streaming is already a thing. I don't need to make any more points regarding the merits of 4K or 8K really. For those who have grasped how this is all going, not even a subject worth discussing. My absolute big question however is will the general consumer through higher end consumer really need beyond 8K resolution displays in the home? This is a tricky one and in the case of full wall displays that can hold several 4K screens while also using some real estate for other 2D activities. I am aware I'm a bit of a specialist and 32K finishing has become something I can handle, but don't think there's much reason for a long time for a screen of that size and caliber coming to a standard home display anytime soon.

And one sharp and pointy point. Be careful who you choose as your god (metaphorically speaking). There is a large gap between what we now call an influencer and an actual expert. Much of the above statements were made by "something else". Everybody has a right to an opinion on any topic, but it's up to you to figure out who's worth listening too outside of being a bright and shiny sort of person. Look for those with the spinning cogs and deliberate walking direction. And also be on the lookout for anybody that has a vision and can do anything about it. They may not be an expert in their field, but if they are of solid mind they will form a team of talented and driven people to create the tomorrow you're being told will never come while receiving all the hate and praise along the way.

Oh. And one last thing, though I mentioned this well over a decade ago. We will need to get to a full metadata driven streaming environment when it comes to delivery and display. Shortly the quantity of screens that can do 60p, 120p and whatever will be the more dominant. I am very for 24p. But I'm also very for 30, 60, 120 when it's the chosen path for a production or show. Sports greatly benefit from higher frame rates for instance, if a 30p commercial comes in the television should detect that as well, and then go back to 24p for the film you're enjoying. Ah. And I mentioned 30p, which still isn't a standard. It should be.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Phil Holland already covered this pretty thoroughly, but I'll address two that I think are interesting.

- Digital will never be able to challenge film

I actually worked for Technicolor and then Kodak, and then returned to Technicolor during the period where film started fading away (2004-2010), and then Kodak went bankrupt in 2012, and the Technicolor and Deluxe labs closed in LA. I think everybody initially thought that digital would replace film very gradually over a period of time, and nobody thought it would be as fast as it was. I spoke to the head of Kodak sales for the West coast around 2002-2003, and he assured me, "oh, film is going to continue for decades. We'll both be dead or long since retired by the time it ends." So he really didn't think it would happen soon. But all the middle-management of Kodak that I knew were pretty certain it was going to happen in the next 6-7 years, which was about right.

I did a sitcom pilot with some early Sony 24-frame HD cameras around 2000-2001, and the film lab guys came in to watch it and criticize it. All of them said, "well, it's not nearly as good as film," and I quipped, "yeah, but it's going to be good enough for television." And it was. By 2008, when the SAG strike hit and the sort-of WGA strike hit, all the TV pilots switched from film to digital... and that was pretty much the beginning of the end.

You can always argue that -- cost no object -- film is a better way to go in terms of sheer image quality. I try to be objective and say, "well, there's bad film and good digital, and there's also bad digital and good film." It's more down to the work of the DP, the lighting, the lenses, the exposure, the art direction, and all that stuff. At or above a certain level, I don't think there's a lot of difference anymore. But there is something about how great actual film can look.

- Music can't be pirated to any significant degree, because it takes hours just to download the contents of a 700MB CD via a 33K modem connection

There's a terrific book on how MP3's were invented and how the team at Fraunhofer Institute began to realize (with horror) in the early 1990s that there was a tremendous risk that compressed files would destroy the physical-media music industry... which it eventually did:

How Music Got Free: A Story of Obsession and Invention
by Stephen Witt
https://www.amazon.com/How-Music-Got.../dp/0143109340

It's a fantastic book and a really compelling story, and is now being developed into a documentary for Apple TV.

BTW, I think the story of what Jim Jannard did with the Red Camera in the 2000s would actually make a very interesting documentary (or at least a book), provided he and the whole Red team cooperated with it.

 

[DJ Meyer]

My prediction is that so long as the internet exists, posters will occasionally feel inclined to post context-free listicles of purportedly Failed Predictions that have been deemed Officially Failed by the poster. These listicles will have varying degrees of attachment to reality - but as a defining feature will confirm the priors of the poster.

Let’s circle back in 10 years to see how this turns out.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I love VV in 8k and S35 in 6k. It's the flexibility I need. I think I'll stick to the Monstro sensor for now because it's the best of the two worlds. VV and S35 are tools and I love to have them in 1 camera.

I don't know how long my choices will stay like that though. ;-)

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

My prediction is that so long as the internet exists, posters will occasionally feel inclined to post context-free listicles of purportedly Failed Predictions that have been deemed Officially Failed by the poster. These listicles will have varying degrees of attachment to reality - but as a defining feature will confirm the priors of the poster.

Let’s circle back in 10 years to see how this turns out.

Sure. But you are suggesting that certain failed predictions can be reversed. Which in some cases is not possible. I can, however, agree that perhaps a film stock comes around which takes the fight back to digital in more than just one way.

And maybe one day VV can supplant S35? I doubt it. In fact I would predict the opposite: that 4/3 sensors will eventually become more common. We will see.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Keanu Reeves made a documentary less than 10 years ago I think about film vs digital, and all thes ehardcore film guys like Deakins saying he will never go digital.... yeah that didnt age well and I knew at the time he'd flip.

The film was Side by Side, and basically the point of the film was that digital was coming and looked like it was going to shove film away. Deakins wasn't in that film, but a lot of directors and cinematographers were:

Danny Boyle
George Lucas
James Cameron
David Fincher
David Lynch
Robert Rodriguez
Martin Scorsese
Steven Soderbergh
The Wachowskis
Christopher Nolan
Joel Schumacher
Richard Linklater
Lars von Trier

and many others. I think there's multiple sides to the story, and several of them present very passionate arguments pro or con. But that was 2012 -- things are different now. Film is the outlier, and it would seem that only purists keep shooting film. I think the documentary mentions that Kodak had just declared bankruptcy in January 2012, and yet they're still around, still making film, and still running a half-dozen film labs around the world.

I can tell you in panel discussions at the ASC in Hollywood, just about every DP I've ever seen has said, "cost no object, I'd always rather shoot film." But the reality is that cost is an object, so they accept that digital is here to stay, and they make the best pictures they can.

If they were doing that documentary again -- or maybe a new documentary on the pros and cons of shooting in film, even projecting in film -- I think Quentin Tarantino would be ideal for the "pro film" argument. He's a very animated, articulate, and well thought-out guy. But movies in his cost range ($40M+) don't have an issue spending a million bucks for film stock, lab work, and dailies.

 

[Phil Holland]

Just to make a quick point regarding formats. Film or digital, there will be a vibrant landscape and reasons to have, choose, and enjoy different formats for years to come. I need to find time to chime in deeper about the subject as there's been a lot of weird discussion bred through misinterpretation of topics, discussion, or tests even. Leaving some of those things aside, format size is often tied to camera/device size as well.

film

Though both are used for still and motion work, film and digital are two entirely different mediums. Aesthetics aside, the pure aspect of how both choices work is different in itself. I've seen a lot of tests related to "latitude", which in the film world means something different than the digital world. And yes the grossly simplified "film has more latitude in highlights, digital has more latitude in shadows" is fairly true in practice. But the tests pushing things 5-6 stops are nuts and not revealing anything more than if you shoot that badly there's no hope for your soul no matter the medium you choose.

I enjoy speaking with filmmakers about their choices. Same when landing on things for projects. Don't know if I have any film projects in my future after 2019, but I still enjoy working with film a great deal. But it's no secret that digital is a speedier and less costly tool at this point. In terms of running a production I try to balance things in regards to how a film set would be run versus a high paced digital one. That topic will go on for a long time to come.

I do think those who are able to explore the best that film has to offer are flexing a solid muscle. It's not far off from my mindset for arrays or larger formats when they are appropriate. Image quality is an interesting subject as there's a lot of tit for tat worthless chatter, but when you shoot a system and it has the capability to do a lot, there is magic in there for those who care about every aspect of the frame, what's in it, how it's presented, and what you are looking to make the viewer feel.

Another note. We're already in a place where our cameras are rather powerful, purposeful computers even. I think it's also worth noting the changing face of what our cameras can do in 2022 and later years as when you look at all the features, though for most basic filmmaking or photography applications you don't explore many of those things, the tools now can do absurdly ranged work that not long ago would have cost a lot.

To that point, much of my major move to digital was industry response to digital and pursing work that film wasn't exactly ideal for as I still enjoy exploring new horizons when it comes to motion picture entertainment and imaging making in general.

My moderate concern to the times at hand and those in front of us is that all of this is moving fast for many and not fast enough for others. I speak to some filmmakers who feel like they've been left behind as they are a few cameras back or just don't work frequently enough or are tuned in enough to stay up to date. At the same time I'm beating on doors and castle gates looking for specific things I very much want to put to good use. In the meantime, I am very inspired with what we have today as it generally went the route I was hoping it would. Love the freedom that the bet tools provide. With a vibrant imagination time and budget are the only real limiting factors.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I can assure you he is in it. Because I remeber watching him in it knowing he will go digital, and he did not too many years after.

"Filmmaking talent


Side By Side makes no assumptions that audiences will know the technical aspects of filmmaking, so spends some time explaining how cameras work, the photochemical process of developing film and how the introduction of digital cameras has led to the progression of editing and special effects.

And helping to explain is a cast that reads like a Who's Who of cinema.

Directors Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, David Lynch, James Cameron, Danny Boyle, George Lucas and cinematographers Wally Pfister (Inception, The Dark Knight) and Roger Deakins (Skyfall, True Grit) are all present."

However you should still write your history of color in Hollywood, and biography, Marc.

Roger Deakins also said 2k is engough for Imax. :congratulatory:

 

[James Sielaff]

Roger Deakins also said 2k is engough for Imax. :congratulatory:

when it comes to vision and resolution, always trust people in their 70’s

 

[David Dominguez]

when it comes to vision and resolution, always trust people in their 70’s

I mean I would trust the vision from the DP of No Country for Old Men, Sicario, Skyfall, Fargo, etc.....

 

[Phil Holland]

This may come as a revelation to some, but individual filmmakers will have their own thoughts regarding all of that and *gasp* may even change over time as they dive deeper into formats, mediums, and display technology. Roger is a phenomenal cinematographer and storyteller. His pool is mainly commercial theatrical features and he's one of the best in the game at that craft.

IMAX itself is an oddity as they have two mainstay screen types. Film projection and Digital Projection. These days this means usually one of their 1.43:1 dome theaters or one of the IMAX Digital. They have to both exist in the exhibition space as well as the commercial theatrical space. Over the years and now longer ago, IMAX Digital means 2K or 4K Digital Projection.

Interestingly, because IMAX has strong branding, IMAX Digital features the long time developed DCI Aspect Ratio of 1.9:1. IMAX didn't invent this, but they are a proponent of this and market the value of having this taller than say 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

Rewinding a bit, in the late 2000s there was a small group of people urging IMAX to aim at 8K projection, which I imagine they will one day. But the extreme expense even against newer 2K and 4K Digital Projection of that time was cost prohibitive. For their dome experiences bare in mind that 15-perf 70mm film is the cornerstone of that workflow for many years, now more digital than film in this case for many reasons. Though we scan at 11/12K and occasionally higher for 70mm, in many instances it's resolving around 6K due to a variety of factors, but it is still the highest quality film medium available for motion picture production, despite it being difficult and costly to film with.

I mentioned Exhibition Screens in there. These generally are specialty screens that most often side on the larger side. Resolution and even Aspect Ratios are very literally all over the place. Often wider than taller. You will see Arrays or carefully thought out workflows when working in this arena. My last couple projects like this were screens like 40x9 feet and this year's very interesting 3:1 ratio projects. 20K and 12K respectively. They highest we've gone is 32K at about 18K tall and that is a journey to execute well. Even now there's a very large project for a very specific delivery resolution that has gone through many cuts, bruises, and breaks to achieve their goals.

Back to filmmakers in general. Many have agendas, expressive bias, or ignoring many industry trends until they become relevant to them themselves. During NAB shows long ago I was faced with many mainly "personality filmmakers" who said things like "we'll never get to 4K" or similar. Most are still around and shooting 4K or higher, but their comments and strong stance was absolutely relative, and in many cases, very influenced by who they were speaking for on the day. Though shiny and very active in the space, their body of work or general realm of expertise had nothing to do with where, when, and how things were made. I don't judge too harshly for this, but probably should.

Whatever the case, it's important to listen and hear when established filmmakers have to say especially if their words are of importance to you. I know in my conversations with Roger over the years we rarely have discussed cameras at all, though we certainly were talking about filmmaking, making the shot, inspiration, and otherwise.

 

[Rodrigo Prata]

I thought all the does is slap a 32mm Master Prime on and go drink tea and crumpets.

Im kidding, but again it was obvious years ago he would go digital and it was weird to watch him say he wouldnt.

When did he ever say he wouldn't? I've followed his forum since 2009 and remember him saying that when technology were mature enough, he would consider using it.

 

[Bruce Allen]

I love the people on this thread ripping Roger Deakins for saying 2K is good enough for IMAX!

I can guarantee those same people have seen a LOT of 2K content on IMAX (like big screen real IMAX) and not been any wiser.

Marvel's vast majority of VFX work has been 2K (well, technically we will have a 10% pad to make it easier for stuff like stereo conversion so let's say 2.2K).

I do think the streamers shot themselves in the foot by demanding UHD visual effects without offering more time and money to match.

A lot of VFX shots on streaming shows have looked thin in the quality department because artists were stretching to try to deliver good shots while having render times four times worse.

All for a shot that's often not really sharp at 4K anyway... so they were just quadrupling resource use to render blurry pixels that will then be compressed on delivery.

Nowadays in 2022 it's not so bad as compute power is finally catching up.

But yes the big failed prediction for me was people on REDUSER in 2007 thinking that the biggest blockbusters would have a 4K pipeline in, say, 2017!

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Phil Holland]

But yes the big failed prediction for me was people on REDUSER in 2007 thinking that the biggest blockbusters would have a 4K pipeline in, say, 2017!URL="http://www.bruceallen.tv"]www.bruceallen.tv[/URL]

Just for context. Many of the VFX shots in Marvel projects or the projects as a whole have been filmed in 4K+ as well as pretty much everybody else now.

4K digital projection started around 2004. The mass "commercial theatrical" market has been slow to adopt that, but there are films that have been fully realized with 4K delivery in the last 18 years. There have been films optically and even digitally also that have gone through 4K and 4K+ finishing in that span of time.

We were and still are scanning film typically in 4K through 12K for feature workflows. Some are scanning beyond that, but that's generally overkill for current film formats.

2K delivery and VFX is a choice. Even some films I worked on where we did the VFX in 4K or even 8K finished out at 2K for a variety of factors.

4K versus theatrical adoption. Interestingly this is one of the key reasons that streaming services early on provided a service and feature beyond any-theater-wherever you are.

Yes, I agree that often that VFX schedules, deadlines, budgets, etc aren't always in line with reality or expectation. But that is also not always the case. In the beginning of digital streaming, particularly series which do provide the greatest issue now, everything was treated like a feature film workflow. Market growth and driving down costs has once again produced the current landscape. This also occurred in the film industry prior and still semi-exists to this day depending on factors.

Initially, like before my time through during my career, due to the very experimental nature of some of the VFX needed schedules, budgets, and expectations were different. Insert hitting hard theatrical release dates, counter bidding against 3-30 VFX houses now, the fight for work, etc. It gets ugly fast.

 

[Phil Holland]

Since I'm here and eating lunch.

I think the staggering thing for me is how much the motion picture industry as a whole has grown. I can't even factor in all the variables anymore, but I tracked it in detail while I could. Realistically the entire industry from when I started to where it is today is about 1500-2500% growth. That's omitting the swash of potential mobile adds to that on the acquisition side, which I shouldn't because there's now "social media activations" filmed on iPhones with considerable budgets.

In the feature film world, 4K workflows began around 1996. In a smaller market and a smaller time with hardware that was extremely rare between the first 4K film scanner and the Lux Laser Recorder and Solitaire CRT based recorders. These were not the tools of the many. As the industry grew, more solutions came. We even replaced our Lux Recorders with the ARRILaser and purchased a Northlight 6K Scanner. Other studios went with Imagica or whoever as they saw fit.

Again, not mass market. Most work wasn't feature film work in these eras just like today. I don't even think features account for 1% of production now as a whole considering the modern landscape. Stopped really tracking that when it was around 15% of the industry.

The manufacturers were in some ways better at this time as everybody was highly interactive in a small industry looking for tools, asking for them to be made, and eventually fairly robust systems coming out of it.

RED certainly raced to getting 4K and 4K+. But left out of that 2007 conversation is the fact that many other companies were pursuing 4K at that time. Dalsa, RED, ARRI, etc. And all anybody was trying to really do was to avoid spending a few million dollars and scanners, recorders, processing, and stock to get to where film was already established. Sony also was headed towards 4K, but they were fairly committed to a 2014/2015 timeline in the 2000s for that to exist. Despite putting such effort into the 4K projection aspect a decade prior to when they wanted to make cameras for it.

 

[Bruce Allen]

So Phil I think you agree with my point then? Kinda hard to tell! I thought it was a pretty good simple point?

That people on REDUSER would probably NOT have predicted that a *decade* later in 2017... the VFX on the biggest-name IMAX productions... is still being worked on at just over 2K?

What I'm saying is it's not like they're working on the VFX at 4K then scaling down after - THE ACTUAL VFX WORK is done at just over 2K.

If the original is shot at 8K or 12K or 2.8K it doesn't really matter. The footage enters the VFX pipeline already scaled down to just over 2K.

I often have access to and need to dig into the actual Nuke files made by the top dozen big name vendors for my job so it's not like I made this up!

The other point I made going with it is that I think streaming didn't do itself any favors by demanding 4K delivery of VFX without increasing the time money budget up to match. It probably made the shots look worse. You know VFX - I think you'd agree with that too?

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

VFX doesn't have to be 4K, because it's pure imagery. It's not captured, it's created.

Imagine a fine checkerboard bitmap, to keep it simple. The dimensions are 1920x1080. Compare that pure bitmap to a photographed version of that grid in 4K. You'd prefer the pure bitmap itself, of course.

 

[Bruce Allen]

VFX doesn't have to be 4K, because it's pure imagery. It's not captured, it's created.

Imagine a fine checkerboard bitmap, to keep it simple. The dimensions are 1920x1080. Compare that pure bitmap to a photographed version of that grid in 4K. You'd prefer the pure bitmap itself, of course.

Um, most of the time VFX is done on captured imagery!

If you need to replace a sky in behind an actor... the VFX team will load the footage DOWNSAMPLED TO 2K, replace the sky, then the 2K shot will go in the movie.

They won't try to go and merge it with the 4K original because actually the 4K original didn't really contain much more detail. Not worth the effort.

So really if it was shot 2.8K or 4K or 6K or 8K... doesn't really matter as long as the footage makes a nice 2K image.

That's my submission for something REDUSERs failed to predict in 2007 - that 10 years later you could still do that on even the highest budget projects.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv