4K Projection

[Michael Bendetti]

What 4K projector does RED use for testing? Does RED plan on developing a 4K projector to sell? Any thoughts on 4K projection? Thanks.

 

[Oli Laperal Jr]

I have seen some Red demos on a Sony SXRD 4K projector at Red headquarters in Forest Hills. There could be others.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

I Think Sony makes the only 4k projectors at the moment.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

Yep, RED projects with Sony projectors.

 

[Josh Negrin]

I spoke for a very long time with a salesman at NEC (he's very technical and he's also an actor in the latest Indiana Jones, that's how I met him) about why everyone is pushing for 2k projection in the theaters instead of 4k (his day job is selling the NEC systems to theaters, the projector and the computer system to run it). His answer, why 2k in theaters as opposed to 4k, was this "the visual difference between 2k and 4k on a cinema screen is 1% to the human eye and the file size is more than 50% larger."

We know that digital projection is imminent, but don't be surprised if 2k is what the theaters adopt in the near future.

If you're shooting on the RED, you'll have just as much success with your film finishing in 2K as you would finishing in 4K, and you'll spend less money! Woot!

 

[Dan Hudgins]

35mm vs. 70mm

35mm vs. 70mm

His answer, why 2k in theaters as opposed to 4k, was this "the visual difference between 2k and 4k on a cinema screen is 1% to the human eye and the file size is more than 50% larger."

The 2K vs. 4K issue is much like the 35mm vs. 70mm one.

It was possable to see the difference between 35mm and 70mm when there was a porjectionist in the booth to tuch up the focus every few minutes, so if the screen is wide enough you can SEE a difference.

2K vs. 4K on 35mm film is another issue, 4K film recorders are not 4x the resolution as 2K in part because 35mm film has less MTF at 4K, if you were going to 70mm the gain would be higher.

In Digital projection the 2K vs. 4K issue has a lot to do with the projection lens, it is hard to build a fast lens that gives 100% MTF at 4K, and if you did make one it would cost too much. So if the lens is a little out of focus because of the angle the 4K projector hits the screen, or the top and bottom of the screen are out of focus, it is harder to see what you get in 4K over 2K. Also since they are not projecting from uncompressed 48bpp files, much of the fine low contrast detail has been low pass filtered out before the images get to the projector.

What made 70mm look better than 35mm was the greater tonal range and finer low contrast detail, but without uncompressed frames to project from Digital projection cannot show the gains as well.

70mm died out in part because many of the 70mm release prints started to be made from 35mm or VistaVision blowups rather than 65mm negatives, so the large improvement that 70mm projection gave was diluted to make 70mm just a marketing gimmick.

We would hope that if 4K projection comes to movie houses it would be in fact better than 2K projection, but it is more likely that the same or about the same over compressed frames will be projected making it just another gimmick rather than a real improvement.

The people that are converting theatres to digital know that 70mm did not bring in enough extra ticket sales, so they may see parallels in that the extra cost of 4K would not make enough extra ticket sales over 2K projection.

IMAX has also been going downhill with projection of 35mm and digital blowups rather than full IMAX resolution negatives. Its lets see how cheep we can do things before the seats are empty.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

70mm died out in part because many of the 70mm release prints started to be made from 35mm or VistaVision blowups rather than 65mm negatives, so the large improvement that 70mm projection gave was diluted to make 70mm just a marketing gimmick.

Actually 70mm blow-ups were quite popular and generally had a much higher per-screen box office. The biggest release in terms of 70mm prints was "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", at something near 300 prints in 70mm I believe (or 250 prints).

What killed 70mm release prints was digital sound in the early 1990's. Until digital sound on 35mm prints became commonplace, the only way to get discreet multi-track sound was on a 70mm print, which had six tracks of mag striping.

Of course, the fact that a 70mm print was better for larger screens was also a benefit of the blow-up.

Some of the best blow-ups I've ever seen were for "Howard's End" and "Remains of the Day" -- a couple of 70mm prints were made as a direct blow-up from the Super-35 negative.

The other thing that helped kill 70mm release prints was the move to the platter system -- 70mm projection required a full-time projectionist, so once digital sound came out, theater owners in the U.S. were loathe to rent 70mm prints because they'd have to have a trained union projectionist running the screening and doing the reel changeovers.

Of course, now the studios are loathe to pay for the costs of 70mm prints and the shipping of the reels. Plus the cost of mag striping if they can't use DTS. Branagh's "Hamlet", shot in 65mm, was so long that each 70mm mag-striped print was costing something like $20,000.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Sound,

Sound,

Actually 70mm blow-ups were quite popular and generally had a much higher per-screen box office. The biggest release in terms of 70mm prints was "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", at something near 300 prints in 70mm I believe (or 250 prints).

ILM was using VistaVision/Scope/S35 as a way to shoot for 70mm release on the cheep, VistaVision was cropped, if they had shot 65mm the result would have been better than what they got.

I think some of the box office was in part from 70mm hype and that 70mm prints project better than 35mm prints because of the larger area. If the profit had been higher enough they would still make them (with digital track), which is what IMAX has become, a blow-up print medium.

My point was that the draw was diluted by making the contrast between 35mm and 70mm less, the same foolish mistake IMAX is making now, if the difference is night-and-day then people have more reason to select the higher quality media. The real issue is people for the most part don't go to a movie for its resolution, so films with lower quality may make more money, look at this last OSCAR. Where did showscan end up, what dump?

What killed 70mm release prints was digital sound in the early 1990's. Until digital sound on 35mm prints became commonplace, the only way to get discreet multi-track sound was on a 70mm print, which had six tracks of mag striping.

35mm CinemaScope had 4 track mag stripe, I have several 4track "penthouses" from 35mm movie projectors. When Kodak stoped making cinemascope perf striped print stock optical stereo prints were made, Dolby came out with a multiplex circuit to get 4track sound from stereo optical track prints, so multi-track sound was around. Also Cinerama had interlock multi-track analog sound from 35mm magnetic film. I think IMAX started with analog 35mm mag film for their multi-track sound as well.

There is a new Digital Sound format for 70mm prints, the Castro has a reader and shows 70mm with Digital Sound. I think you cannot mag stripe Polyester film base, which is why stripe film is not made any longer, the glue for the stripe needed Acetate Film base.

Some of the best blow-ups I've ever seen were for "Howard's End" and "Remains of the Day" -- a couple of 70mm prints were made as a direct blow-up from the Super-35 negative.

If you watch the 70mm print of "Brainstorm (1983)" you can see the large difference between 35mm blowup to 70mm and 65mm/70mm and that is full frame 4:3 boxed onto the 70mm, not a Super35 crop. The lp/mm of 35mm is not at the limit of what the eye can see on a large screen. "Brainstorm (1983)" uses both 35mm and 70mm on the same print so you can see how the blow up compares with the 65mm negative side-by-side.

theater owners in the U.S. were loathe to rent 70mm prints because they'd have to have a trained union projectionist running the screening and doing the reel changeovers.

And without a projectionist the image will be out of focus, 35mm even suffers from being projected out of focus now. The talk here was about can you see 4K vs. 2K in a theatre, well in order to the projector needs to be in good shape and in focus. Will money be put into keeping up digital projectors, or will we see soft washed out projection 10 years from now that looks worse than the film projection we now have?

 

[Michael Bendetti]

Thank you all for those comments. They are very helpful. I am interested mainly in the projection of RED onto a screen in the best possible resolution at this time (4K) as it pertains to viewing dailies. As you know, the standard for viewing a motion picture in a theater is (unfortunately), a somewhat lower standard. However, viewing RED dailies requires the best possible image available for a DP and Director to view. I guess the question would be how to view RED Raw files in projected 4K for dailies. On a smaller scale, that might be on a monitor (is a 4K monitor possible? and how large could that 4K image be?), however on a large viewing scale, projection onto a screen (like celluloid dailies) would be most likely. What is the best possible RED image I can view on a large screen and how would I do that? Thank you.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

2K is all you need for grading. its what most all the top post houses use.

watching dailies... who cares about 4K? its uncut or rough cut footage at that point

we use the quick time proxies with a $1200 1080P projector and its fine for checking framing, performance, composition etc. ... assuming we are talking "rushes" as "dailies"

maybe you can explain why you want 4K dailies??? seems like overkill pre-grading and finishing

thats my. .00135 cents ($.02 cents USD adjusted for the current economy)

 

[Michael Bendetti]

Thank you for those comments. I appreciate that. The reason I am asking about 4K projected dailies is that the DP will want to see them in their most raw form and in the highest quality possible - on a large screen (not on a monitor). I totally agree that 2K projected (or less) is absolutely fine for viewing performances and for checking frame etc., but the DP will want to see the raw images, un-manipulated at the highest resolution possible and I can respect that need. Film dailies (in the right screening room) never lie. What you see is what you shot. It's the footage in it's most raw and un-manipulated form. For a DP, it's everything (I am not a DP, but work closely with them and know this to be the case). So, from a work flow perspective, it starts with dailies (synched dailies). What is the best possible way to do that every single day? I am looking for an equivalent of film dailies on RED. Thank you.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

4K viewing

4K viewing

From a realistic standpoint, in order to see all that is in the R3D file you need to save out the data as 48bpp TIF files, and to project those uncompressed 4K is not going to happen on any low cost hardware.

If you compress the 4K frames for viewing you will not see all the low contrast detail. So you may see more going 2K uncompressed than 4K compressed, at least as far as low contrast detail and texture.

You can crop the 4K images and view 1/4 of the frame maybe from an uncompressed 2k playback. Or just look at the still 4K TIF frames 1:1 on a "2K" computer monitor, which is what I do.

Projection is in general not as sharp as a good computer monitor, because of the optics limited resolution. I use a 2048x1536 22" CRT monitor for looking at frames and grading since LCD monitors change brightness with viewing angle. Also the blur in the CRT monitor is close to the blur in the CRT of the film recorder, so noise in the images does not give a false impression of how much noise you will get in a filmout. Viewing 4K may look too nosy.

If you could project very sharp at 4K, that would not give you any idea of what the finished filmout will look like, you will see more noise and artifacts that will be softened in the filmout and movie projector lens. The RED ONE footage is higher resolution than general release prints as projected, so if your DP is used to viewing workprints he should know that 4th generation prints are not as sharp as 2nd generation workprints, so the workprint does not have the same color, grain, or resolution as a release print made on a highspeed printer.

Also storage of uncompressed 4K frames takes many TB of space, in general you want to edit using at most HD size frames because you may have 20x as many as in the final cut, then conform just the used frames as 4K.

If you are going to go 4K, ask about the compression ratios used and the storage costs. And look at the results compressed vs. the uncompressed 4K frames viewed 1:1 on a good monitor.

 

[Michael Bendetti]

Thank you for those comments. Very helpful. Could you recommend the largest 2K monitor that you know of?

So, it seems like the most efficient and highest quality options would be to view 2K dailies on the largest 2K monitor I can find or project 2K onto a larger screen right from Red Raw files if possible (or converted Tiff files) on the SSD or Raid back-up drive. Not sure what the 2K projector can read and project as far as file types. You mentioned Tiff files above. Is there a standard file type or is it different files for different projectors? I am imagining plugging the drive right into the projector and projecting from that source. Am I wrong?

Thanks again.

 

[Chris.]

Not knowing what your budget is... and knowing these are WAY out of mine, I thought I'd post this link I found on the Silverado website for refurbished Sony 4K projectors with full manufacturers warranties more for interests sake. They are 1/2 the price of the models when new.

http://silverado.cc/shop/home.php?cat=130

 

[Michael Cioni]

4K Viewing

4K Viewing

Many experienced professionals will testify that the difference between a 4K projection and 2K projection isn't perceptible until the screen size starts to exceed 35-45 feet. With consideration to the proper viewing distance from any screen (approximately 1 and 1/2 times away from the screen) you'll find that the apparent resolution is largely dependent on the size of the projection itself.
For example, if you screen 480p images on a 3.5" iPhone, you'll notice they look very sharp. The same image blown up to a 50" 1080p LCD screen will look significantly softer. However, back away from the 1080p monitor so it is the same relative size as the iPhone and the image will not seem as soft. The same logic applies to billboard prints, which actually are not that hires considering the scale of the real estate.
Likewise, many professionals would agree that a good 1080 monitor from a proper viewing distance will display all that a DP needs in order to judge his/her dailies on any camera - even one that acquires media in 4K. Just like 6K film scans on a BVM display, the ability for one to judge what images are doing is probably more contingent on the color space of the files and calibration of the display than the resolution itself.

Incidentally, preparing for a future 4K screening market penetration is probably not going to go the way we hoped in 2008. In the 3rd Quarter of 2008, Texas Instruments announced they would be putting the 4K DLP R&D on hold until further notice. Citing the economy, TI is concerned that the cost of developing 4K DLPs would not be offset by theaters and studios implementing 4K distribution into their pipelines in 2010. The result is the industry is sitting amongst a small plateau of 2K infrastructure and development. Because SONY's SXRD line is based around a quadrant system of 4 x 2K DLP/LCD chip set, it is not ideal for 4K color correction or screening, hence, 2K lives to see another day.
My guess is the industry will wait 24 months for single chip 4K DLPs to be implemented into projection systems before we see a large migration to 4K standards for evaluation in dailies.

michael

 

[Michael Bendetti]

Not knowing what your budget is... and knowing these are WAY out of mine, I thought I'd post this link I found on the Silverado website for refurbished Sony 4K projectors with full manufacturers warranties more for interests sake. They are 1/2 the price of the models when new.

http://silverado.cc/shop/home.php?cat=130

Thank you very much for that link! I appreciate that.

 

[Tom Visser]

I Think Sony makes the only 4k projectors at the moment.

JVC also does some custom cuts for panels. One of those DILA chips has found its way into the ultra-expensive and low volume Meridian 810 system, which is a projector packaged with a 4xDVI video processor.
http://www.meridian.co.uk/product-model/video-systems/810-reference-video-system.aspx

 

[Michael Bendetti]

Many experienced professionals will testify that the difference between a 4K projection and 2K projection isn't perceptible until the screen size starts to exceed 35-45 feet. With consideration to the proper viewing distance from any screen (approximately 1 and 1/2 times away from the screen) you'll find that the apparent resolution is largely dependent on the size of the projection itself.
For example, if you screen 480p images on a 3.5" iPhone, you'll notice they look very sharp. The same image blown up to a 50" 1080p LCD screen will look significantly softer. However, back away from the 1080p monitor so it is the same relative size as the iPhone and the image will not seem as soft. The same logic applies to billboard prints, which actually are not that hires considering the scale of the real estate.
Likewise, many professionals would agree that a good 1080 monitor from a proper viewing distance will display all that a DP needs in order to judge his/her dailies on any camera - even one that acquires media in 4K. Just like 6K film scans on a BVM display, the ability for one to judge what images are doing is probably more contingent on the color space of the files and calibration of the display than the resolution itself.

Incidentally, preparing for a future 4K screening market penetration is probably not going to go the way we hoped in 2008. In the 3rd Quarter of 2008, Texas Instruments announced they would be putting the 4K DLP R&D on hold until further notice. Citing the economy, TI is concerned that the cost of developing 4K DLPs would not be offset by theaters and studios implementing 4K distribution into their pipelines in 2010. The result is the industry is sitting amongst a small plateau of 2K infrastructure and development. Because SONY's SXRD line is based around a quadrant system of 4 x 2K DLP/LCD chip set, it is not ideal for 4K color correction or screening, hence, 2K lives to see another day.
My guess is the industry will wait 24 months for single chip 4K DLPs to be implemented into projection systems before we see a large migration to 4K standards for evaluation in dailies.

michael

You bring up a good point in that projecting film is more mechanical - there is of course some manipulation, but with finely tuned projectors and finely tuned light (xenon) - - what you see on the screen is exactly what you get. However, with digital projection, you have the ability for much more manipulation of the image and therefore when a DP has a lighting problem or does not like what he see's it's much easier to blame the digital projection system and the manipulation of the image rather than poor lighting. I need to be able to know which is which (poor lighting vs. poor projecting).

With film projected dailies, there really is no wiggle room. If we tune the projectors and read the light on the screen, then that image is exactly the image and colors that we shot in raw un-manipulated form. Anything we see that we don't like, exists because it was shot that way.

How do I get to this point shooting in RED. Is this even possible??? Maybe it does not matter, as digital is so manipulative that as long as we have enough information recorded, we can then manipulate all we want later and we do not need to be so sensitive when watching dailies. However, I don't think that is the right solution and I do not think that everybody watching (including myself) will be satisfied with that. Your taking the artistry of the DP right out of the film making process. Color correction and tweaking in post is key, but I don't want to take away the artistic intent when shooting on set. I want to capture everything we can in camera and then tweak in post, not re-light in post.

Thank you all for your comments. I think this is new territory and perhaps the process of film making does not completely transfer to this new technology. The work flow is going to be different and I accept that (that is the exciting part), but the need to view things in raw form is a common thread in film making and very important to many I work with. But I understand that projected film dailies may not have a digital equivalent yet - which would be a problem on my end. I need to have that equivalent and ultimately that benchmark that DP's can trust as a constant to view what they have shot.

Thanks again.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Monitor vs. Projection

Monitor vs. Projection

Here is a "2K" monitor,

http://www.google.com/products/cata...=UTF-8&cid=12475986463297864057#ps-tech-specs

Its $369. We have one, it does not have the two small dark lines the other 2K monitors I have have, something to due with the shadow grill. My LaCie seems to have a nicer image, but the Viewsonic G225f is usable.

Digital Cinema is 2048x1556 and the monitor is 2048x1536, but you only look at 2048x1152 dor 16:9 mode so the 1:1 pixel area is large enough. The GeForce 6200 supports 2048x1536 in linear mode, I use that mode for my filmout program to do "2k".

When you set up a grading monitor you should calabrate the monitor to match the R3D file un-adjusted to match what you see on the set, then cover the monitor controls so the cannot be adjusted again, that is close to a one light workprint. Also the windows in the grading room must be blacked out and the worklights should be of K value that matches projection so your eyes adjust to the right K value and stay there. Any stray light in the grading room can put the color balance or brightness off since you eyes will adjust to the ambient light.

The monitor should be on for an hour before you do grading since CRT monitors need to warm up for the color to match.

==

You will not be projecting 4K TIF files in motion, that will cost too much. You can project 4K TIF files as still frames to check focus and noise. You can also look at part of the 4K files on a 2K monitor at 1:1 or 2:1 (double size, 1/8 frame) to check for focus and noise.

Trial Color adjustments can be done at 1K on the monitor for greater speed.

==

Any projection system uses a lens, and making a lens that can focus 80%MTF at 4K with enough speed to get a bright image is very hard and would cost a great deal. If you are going to purchase a 4K projector, you should project a single pixel checkerboard test chart uncompressed TIF file and look at the screen close up to see the checker board contrast, you may find that you just see gray.

==

You can get SVGA projectors and use a Y cable, so you can have a 2K grading CRT monitor and a computer image projector hooked to your grading computer at the same time to compare the images. If you load a 4K TIF frame you can look at 1/4 of the frame in a photo editing program to check for focus and noise. The monitor with its covered controls can give you a reference to check that the projector looks the same in order to do your "one light" workprint like checks.

Another trick I saw at a lab, was to use a 35mm film strip slide projector holding a film strip that can project on the same screen as the digital projector, that way you can do side by side projection of a 35mm film strip from the film recorder output with what the digital projector or monitor shows. You need to shoot some reference shots (make no CC adjustents when exporting the TIF frames) and have a one light filmout done, then you can use the digital frames used for that filmout in the digital projector to do the matching.

You should know that the 12bit data from the camera looks flat if there has been no color correction, labs normally do color correction when making prints for the DP to look at, so it is odd that you would say that the DP is looking at "one light" type workprint, if color correction has been done on the workprints he is looking at, then the film prints are not "100% honest" to what the negative was exposed to. Best light and One Light workprints are not the same thing. One Light or Mid-Light prints are not adjusted for the exposure errors in the negative, Best Light workprints are.

 

[Michael Bendetti]

Thank you for those great comments and the links. The DP's I am working with are looking at one light work prints - raw and un-manipulated. We go from there. This dailies workflow for digital seems a little challenged at this point (not as streamlined), but I am sure that won't be for long. It's just the beginning, but I'd like to go RED as soon as I can do it. Which means I cannot afford to be blazing new ground. I need proven and dependable technology and workflow to sell it and get it done. However, on more personal projects I very much look forward to blazing new trails and experimenting with this new technology. Thanks again.