Why 4K?

[Jon B.]

Very well said David

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

And most of what you see on a 4K Sony projector in a theater these days are from 2K DCI files. So scaling from 2K to 4K is not hard to do properly.

But the Sony 4K projector isn't scaling to 4K. It will simply project a 2K or HD (or even SD) image if you select those modes.

You CAN take a 4K DCP file and play a 2K extraction out of it - if the theatre's projector only supports 2K.

I understand your point that resolution doesn't directly drive ticket sales - but if (you know I really mean when) RedRay gets traction, it's another platform for revenue.

I know people will make movies that get critical acclaim and movies that make tons of money on lower resolution cameras - but as you know, it's a tough market. It's hard to get movies financed, it's hard make movies, hard to sell movies and hard to understand how the studio lost money on it even though it grossed 10 times the budget. So, from a producer's perspective - having a film mastered and archived as a 4K DCDM makes a whole lot of sense. You want every possible advantage for your film to be perceived as ... expensive, valuable and protected for future delivery platforms.

 

[Stuart English]

4K

4K

If 4K delivery is the future, why would you shoot 1080P and limit future options?

Camera size, camera weight? Form factor?

What if none of those apply ? That is no penalty for 4K ...

i.e. EPIC

 

[Chris Clogg]

One, you're assuming that a typical 1960's 35mm movie even resolves 4K, even if you scanned it at 4K or higher, and two, these 1080P movies today aren't going to get worse-looking, they will just look the way they do now.

Well that is true, but for me (for instance).. I used to think DVD's looked amazing... until I saw bluray/HD... so my perception was changed... and this may happen again with 4k.

 

[Tom Lowe]

So I wish people here would stop promoting this lie that decent 1080P and 2K photography shown in 4K isn't going to look good in a few years.

David, I don't think any of the reasonable people here are saying that at all. Is there any doubt that films like Avatar, LOTR, and Star Wars are going to live on forever? Not at all! You know I have said many times that I think "Sith" looks incredibly clean and gorgeous. Everyone here agreed that "Benjamin Button" looked amazing. I don't think anyone is doubting that.

I think the point people are trying to make is that films can be "future-proofed" by shooting for a 4K finish. That's if you believe 4K display is coming, as many of us do. This is a valid a point, IMO, and worth consideration. That doesn't mean 1080p finishes are foolish or worthless. It's just a point to consider. But the bottom line is that none of us here even have a 5K camera right now, so it's just talk and consideration!

The other point that I think is being made is that the jump from 1080p to 4K is in fact significant and just can't be papered over with "uprezzing", any more than SD can be papered over to become HD.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Legacy formats will resolve to whatever their respective intrinsic resolution is. The past is unfortunately "baked in" to some degree or other. Given that fact, and given the simple fact that 4K acquisition is finally widely available and affordable, why undertake a project right now by acquiring it at a quarter of the resolution available to you?

I have to say I've never heard the argument put forth, here in the digital age, that authoring with 25% less resolution than is available is professionally sufficient. Given the arguments I've heard regarding 1080p, if you apply the same logic to the transition from standard def TV to HD, we'd never have arrived at HD. Professionals should be eager to author at the highest resolutions possible, they should be driving the train, not clinging to the caboose in this regard.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with 1080p or 2K, except that Moore's Law has rendered them inferior from a resolution standpoint. When we left the analog broadcast standard, the restraints were removed that has hindered digital innovation. Higher resolutions, both in acquisition, post-production and exhibition are coming. Its a mistake to gauge this change using historical timeframes. The market is changing at an aggressive, accelerated pace.

 

[Elsie N]

So giving those creative choices (shot size, etc.) over to the audience sort of works to diminish the power and importance of the storyteller. One would assume that most audiences want to be told a story by someone better at storytelling than themselves, just as most people would want to buy a house built by someone who is better at designing and building houses than they are, or would want to go to a doctor who has more medical knowledge and skill than they do.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the storyteller not being tied to one story, but telling multiple stories simultaneously. This will of course make storytelling more difficult. The creators of the content will have to think in multiple ways when shooting a scene, and then will have to tie everything together so a scene can flow in multple ways to interact properly with all the choices in the next scene. On a home screen, there could eventually be a thousand ways to watch one movie. In a theater, one version could be played one week and a completely different version of the same movie could be seen the following week. The audience would already be invested in all the characters and would likely come back the next week to see how they fared in the next version. A repertory company on screen, so to speak.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I'm thinking more along the lines of the storyteller not being tied to one story, but telling multiple stories simultaneously. This will of course make storytelling more difficult. The creators of the content will have to think in multiple ways when shooting a scene, and then will have to tie everything together so a scene can flow in multple ways to interact properly with all the choices in the next scene. On a home screen, their could eventually be a thousand ways to watch one movie. In a theater, one version could be played one week and a completely different version of the same movie could be seen the following week. The audience would already be invested in all the characters and would likely come back the next week to see how they fared in the next version. A repertory company on screen, so to speak.

The evolution you're talking about is happening right now in gaming. At some point in the next few years, we'll see games move closer to movies and the lines between the two will continue to blur. The voyeuristic passivity that characterizes the cinema audience will start to pop up in some virtual game universe, where the actors are real people driving a narrative within the game play and an new audience will be "born" that watches the game drama unfold interactively. We'll recognize this as a soap-opera at first, but it will evolve. The fact that you're expressing a hunger for this level of immersive experience tells me that it will show up relatively quickly.

 

[Tom Lowe]

...and given the simple fact that 4K acquisition is finally widely available and affordable, why undertake a project right now by acquiring it at a quarter of the resolution available to you?

Acquisition is not the same as finishing resolution. It's not a 1/4 of the resolution. Red One 4K footage is more like 3K finish (if 3K finishes even existed), which is not 4x the resolution of 1080p.

Of course, there are not any "true 4K" FINISH digital cinema cameras even available right now, that I know of. To really have a 4K finish RAW camera, the resolution needs to be least 5K Bayer, if not more. That's why we are all waiting on Epic.

If you are not finishing at 4K, then there's an extremely high likelihood you are finishing at 1080p or 2K, so those resolutions are just fine. These big-name 1080p cameras like Genesis also work with massive oversampling. Genesis is essentially a "5.7K" RGB stripe sensor. So saying that shooting on "mere 1080p" cameras instead of 4K RAW is some kind of big compromise isn't really fair. Both are getting you into the same ballpark.

Now maybe you could say, "I can shoot 4.5K RAW on Red One and finish at 4K." Maybe. I'm sure the new MX sensor will help in that respect. But what if you need to overcrank? Now all your 4K plans are shot! See what I mean?

Bottom line is, until Epic comes out, people are going to continue shooting on what's available and might even resent being told that what they are shooting their dream projects on right now won't cut the mustard down the road. (That's probably why there's a little pushback on this thread.) A lot of us who have projects shooting this spring are struggling with this very problem. We are big believers in 4K finishes, but the cameras have not materialized, so we're gonna shoot with what we've got.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

If 4K delivery is the future, why would you shoot 1080P and limit future options?

Well said, Stuart. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that 4K delivery has arrived. The only variable is market share and that can change faster than the technology.

If I can get the same resolution in my home right now that many of you are advocating is sufficient for the cinema, what is the point of the multiplex? Why have a big screen and pay a premium for viewing content on it if its basically no better than my home viewing environment? Just so I can pay $5 for thirty cents worth of popcorn?

This battle of big screen vs. small screen has been fought before. Thanks to our grandparent's televisions, we got Cinerama, the 2:35 aspect ratio and IMAX. The more you shoot 4K+, the faster 4K propagates through the market.

 

[Elsie N]

The evolution you're talking about is happening right now in gaming. At some point in the next few years, we'll see games move closer to movies and the lines between the two will continue to blur. The voyeuristic passivity that characterizes the cinema audience will start to pop up in some virtual game universe, where the actors are real people driving a narrative within the game play and an new audience will be "born" that watches the game drama unfold interactively. We'll recognize this as a soap-opera at first, but it will evolve. The fact that you're expressing a hunger for this level of immersive experience tells me that it will show up relatively quickly.

Not being a gamer, hadn't thought about the parallels. Now that you bring it up I see how the two are becoming more alike.

More than anything I was thinking from a storyteller's pov and what would be the advantage of doing it. Most of the time a creator could take a single storyline in multiple directions as easy as not. The difficulty of putting together such a complex undertaking would probably be on a scale of an Avatar production. In other words, nothing a billion or two wouldn't cure.

But the possibility of shooting a story, then a sequel, then a tre-quel?? and putting it all on one RED RAY disc or HDD (or whatever is the media du jour at the time) would be interesting.... as long as the script wasn't a Nyquel.:Yawn:

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Acquisition is not the same as finishing resolution. It's not a 1/4 of the resolution. Red One 4K footage is more like 3K finish (if 3K finishes even existed), which is not 4x the resolution of 1080p.

Of course, there are not any "true 4K" FINISH digital cinema cameras even available right now, that I know of. To really have a 4K finish RAW camera, the resolution needs to be least 5K Bayer, if not more. That's why we are all waiting on Epic.

If you are not finishing at 4K, then there's an extremely high likelihood you are finishing at 1080p or 2K, so those resolutions are just fine. These big-name 1080p cameras like Genesis also work with massive oversampling. Genesis is essentially a "5.7K" RGB stripe sensor. So saying that shooting on "mere 1080p" cameras instead of 4K RAW is some kind of big compromise isn't really fair. Both are getting you into the same ballpark.

Now maybe you could say, "I can shoot 4.5K RAW on Red One and finish at 4K." Maybe. I'm sure the new MX sensor will help in that respect. But what if you need to overcrank? Now all your 4K plans are shot! See what I mean?

Bottom line is, until Epic comes out, people are going to continue shooting on what's available and might even resent being told that what they are shooting their dream projects on right now won't cut the mustard down the road. (That's probably why there's a little pushback on this thread.) A lot of us who have projects shooting this spring are struggling with this very problem. We are big believers in 4K finishes, but the cameras have not materialized, so we're gonna shoot with what we've got.

True, yet all the more reason to acquire at the highest possible resolution.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Not being a gamer, hadn't thought about the parallels. Now that you bring it up I see how the two are becoming more alike.

More than anything I was thinking from a storyteller's pov and what would be the advantage of doing it. Most of the time a creator could take a single storyline in multiple directions as easy as not. The difficulty of putting together such a complex undertaking would probably be on a scale of an Avatar production. In other words, nothing a billion or two wouldn't cure.

But the possibility of shooting a story, then a sequel, then a tre-quel?? and putting it all on one RED RAY disc or HDD (or whatever is the media du jour at the time) would be interesting.... as long as the script wasn't a Nyquel.:Yawn:

This would be a great thread on its own. But I will say that if gaming trends continue as they are, the technology will give free reign to every human desire and an opportunity to express them in a safe and controlled context. You're looking for drama and action? You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Elsie N]

This would be a great thread on its own. But I will say that if gaming trends continue as they are, the technology will give free reign to every human desire and an opportunity to express them in a safe and controlled context. You're looking for drama and action? You ain't seen nothing yet.

You mean like virtual sex, that's not virtual? Sorry, just got carried away and took this storyline in another direction.:emote_hanged:

Which reminds me... on a different note you shoot options on only a few scenes and change the rating for the movie instantaneously. That would offer the opportunity for a screening to be for mature or younger audiences at different showings.

 

[Peter Moretti]

I'm not sure how I can be "trying to prove" anything by asking the man behind (well, more like in FRONT) the whole operation for clarification on his comments and where he sees the products that he sells fitting into the industry. I'm not sure why you're being so obtuse about it.


I appreciate your comments Mark and I think that is probably similar to what Jim's thought process is.

1920 < 2K < 3K < 4K < 5K.


$1K < $4.5K < $17.5K < $25K < $100+K.

2.?K footage can can of course be uprezed to 4K in the future, but it won't look as sharp as 5K downrezed. But a 2.?K camera will be a lot cheaper and work very well for many jobs.

4K delivery is in the future, but no one knows if its five years, ten years, etc. So you balance what you can afford w/ what you think might happen in the future, and no one knows that for certain.

I don't think there's much more to it than that.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Well, that sort of starts to fall into those types of "interactive" cinema where the audience can choose where the story goes, in the sense that you are talking about cinema where the audience chooses what to look at, what to zoom in on, what angle to see the action from, etc.

While that may happen on an experimental basis -- and it's the basis of gaming -- it works against the basic act of storytelling, which is that the storyteller selects the tools and the technique that he feels best tells the story, and that story is an expression of his artistic vision based on the creative choices he makes.

So giving those creative choices (shot size, etc.) over to the audience sort of works to diminish the power and importance of the storyteller. One would assume that most audiences want to be told a story by someone better at storytelling than themselves, just as most people would want to buy a house built by someone who is better at designing and building houses than they are, or would want to go to a doctor who has more medical knowledge and skill than they do.

I was 1st AD on an independent choose your own adventure. It was a total nightmare. It doesn't have to necessarily be completely out of control from the filmmaker though. The film I worked on only ended one of 3 ways if I remember correctly and while decisions would change intermediary branching points it isn't the classic tree diagram of story, instead multiple storyline would re-converge and some plot lines could be run in parallel with only a couple lines of dialog shifted to stay in continuity.

In the end the challenges becomes tricking your audience into thinking they directed the path of the story while drawing them back onto a couple well crafted paths.

It helped that the people on the project were strong in interactive game theory and understood the principles of interactive storytelling. It's the same in a video game. The challenge of a video game is to provide the illusion of an open and free world and distract or misdirect anyone who approaches its boundaries. I always found the Harry Potter book with the Quiditch World Cup very analogous to interactive story telling. Harry asks one of the wizards how they keep everyone away and the wizard describes a spell which makes a person feel as if they have forgotten something at home and need to return at once to retrieve it. The challenge is to persuade the audience to want what you want them to want. Lest they realize they're inside a glass cage.

There was game that came out a year or so ago that is truly ground breaking in its interactive story telling. There are scripts which a character will read no matter what. In order for the story line to progress someone will read it. So what they did was allow main characters to die but then handed off the dialog to someone else along with a little bit of their character. So if in Star Wars Han Solo had been shot in Tattoine instead of stopping the story and starting over maybe they would find a similar protagonist in the prison along with Luke in the prison. This actually happened to some degree in Empire Strikes Back. Han Solo is frozen and removed from the story so Lando is brought in and adopts much of Han Solo's role in the interim. He's like a replacement Han Solo.

 

[Christopher Grant Harvey]

Whilst I do agree that future proofing a film by shooting it at 4K,5K, or 8K is a good idea I feel that we here on this forum are really the only ones who feel this way. That is not a bad thing. I am willing to bet most of our families would not really be able to spot the difference between 2K uprezzed to 4K and normal 4K.

I am going to get flamed now :violent5:, but Blu-Ray has not really impressed me. Let me rephrase, it looks stunning but I don't like it, it is too sharp for my taste. I like a balance between a vivid crisp stunning image and a very sharp image. The feeling is worsened by TV's that are capable of 200mhz, yuck! Looks terrible. I have seen a large range of films from old to new on a variety of HDTV's and there seems to be a difference in quality. The second factor I find that bothers me is the Blu-Ray seems to enhance the grain in films, even animated films feel grainy and I see more compression artifacts compared to DVD.

I will probably buy into it one day though.

If I saw a 4K print of Blade Runner I am sure it would blow me away but it doesn't alter the storyline for me, it doesn't make the film more immersive than say louder sound. The characters, production design and all the elements combined together should be what draws me into the film.

My point is a good story is just as good in 720P as it is in 4K, at least for narrative feature films IMHO.

This discussion is all really subjective.

 

[Todd M.]

A thought just struck me. In future will there be the technology to watch a movie from a chosen point of view? That is, will we be able to watch a high resolution scene focusing on different characters or differing parts of the overall scene? I've seen so much change over just the past decade that nothing would surprise me on the visual front. Something like this would make the highest resolution master available very much in demand as content... if the story were good.

This was one of the big "wow" advancements with the introduction of DVD's. You know that "Angle" button on your remote? It changes just that: the angle from which you are watching a scene. Unfortunately (or fortunately) most films don't give you the option to select your own angles within a scene. This feature has mostly been used by the porn industry. Though I think there are some action sports discs that also make good use of the feature.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Whilst I do agree that future proofing a film by shooting it at 4K,5K, or 8K is a good idea I feel that we here on this forum are really the only ones who feel this way. That is not a bad thing. I am willing to bet most of our families would not really be able to spot the difference between 2K uprezzed to 4K and normal 4K.

I am going to get flamed now :violent5:, but Blu-Ray has not really impressed me. Let me rephrase, it looks stunning but I don't like it, it is too sharp for my taste. I like a balance between a vivid crisp stunning image and a very sharp image. The feeling is worsened by TV's that are capable of 200mhz, yuck! Looks terrible. I have seen a large range of films from old to new on a variety of HDTV's and there seems to be a difference in quality. The second factor I find that bothers me is the Blu-Ray seems to enhance the grain in films, even animated films feel grainy and I see more compression artifacts compared to DVD.

I will probably buy into it one day though.

If I saw a 4K print of Blade Runner I am sure it would blow me away but it doesn't alter the storyline for me, it doesn't make the film more immersive than say louder sound. The characters, production design and all the elements combined together should be what draws me into the film.

My point is a good story is just as good in 720P as it is in 4K, at least for narrative feature films IMHO.

This discussion is all really subjective.

I've actually seen Blade Runner digitally projected in 4K. Without the lame voice-over (which I actually liked the first time). It was a completely different movie experience. It was amazing. So, 4K really isn't in the future, its here right now, only not widely available. I understand the cinema chains here in the US will switch to Digital 4K within a 3 to 5 year window.

I agree with you about Blu-Ray, for the most part.

 

[Sidney L. Plaut]

dont watch films on televisions... watch them on Hd-projectors. they look more "right". something must have changed in television technology... they look wrong even the plasmas... ofcourse this is just my opinion.