Why 4K?

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn blasting the videographer because he was selling himself - I just meant that his view was biased towards marketing his product rather than a scientific approach, which (as Todd M. masterfully pointed out0 there is pleanty of bona fide studies on the issue.

Like you i'm looking towards the S35, and hopefully that'll be all the resolution I'll need.
I take my hat of to Red, and the gurus who use them who strive for higher resolutions and refined technology. I dont know if a resolution ceiling will ever be hit - but if it does I'm pretty sure companies like Red will start to look at the implimentation of different technology in its image capture. Once resolution is at an agree 'best possible' what can be next? Better 3D? Smell-o-vision? 360 Panoramic films?

Dynamic Range?
HDR?
face tracking for focus?
1000 fps per sec at 5k?
ultra light weight rig + modules?
new redcodes?
10 hrs lasting power cycles and recordings?
4k monitors?
4k distribution?
extreme bodies?- red running up to -30 degree celcius to + 50 degrees
almost noiseless heatsinks?
postproduction software?
32 bits of Color for each chanel?

its not about resolution alone inmho

 

[Gary Paul Walker]

Dynamic Range?
HDR?
face tracking for focus?
1000 fps per sec at 5k?
ultra light weight rig + modules?
new redcodes?
10 hrs lasting power cycles and recordings?
4k monitors?
4k distribution?
extreme bodies?- red running up to -30 degree celcius to + 50 degrees
almost noiseless heatsinks?
postproduction software?
32 bits of Color for each chanel?

its not about resolution alone inmho

I was specifically referring to resolution... and in fact suggesting that develompent of projection / image capture technology exists outside of simply obtaining higher and higher resolutions

 

[Scott Crawley]

but of course Jim's original argument is more about delivery mechanism so if we capture content at say 12k resolution and display it using a 12k project we will still be happy even though our eye balls can probably see less then 12k.

again, i might be wrong but just something to think about ....

Hmmm... It all depends on the individual shots and the size of the projection no? Can you imagine a day where camera bodies are so specialized that it is commonplace to reach for a different body for our wide vistas, interior masters and close-ups?

Here's an interesting thought; kits with fixed lenses only and a body specifically tuned for each lens.

Maybe the imaging chips will reach maturity before the processing does. In that case each lens might come with an integrated chip an our camera bodies would only handle the processing end. No more backfocusing and one less surface to clean means several fewer potential points of failure.

 

[Michael Hastings]

There's something visually arresting and immersive when you sit close to a very high resolution display. Think home IMAX.

Graeme

I agree, remember 4 to 6K is really just getting to the resolution of a good 35mm photographic print. (Not to mention one from an Ansel Adams 8x10 negative).

I think 4K displays will sell fairly well even if they can only do 4K still photo slide shows and scaled 1080P movies. 4k movies on a 50 to 60 inch screen will make a difference.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

If you sit close to an immersive, high resolution display I think you'll get a very wild movie going experience! And it does need resolution to work. THat amount of detail just fools you into thinking it's real.

Graeme

 

[Michael Hastings]

If you sit close to an immersive, high resolution display I think you'll get a very wild movie going experience! And it does need resolution to work. THat amount of detail just fools you into thinking it's real.

Graeme

I remember watching some of the Planet Earth blu-ray when it first came out. The shots where they pulled the camera up through the trees in the jungle and it was so sharp it started to look 3D. There was definitely a stronger illusion of depth. 4k is only going to be better.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Exactly Michael!

Graeme

 

[Chris Clogg]

Exactly Michael!

Graeme

Just a question... what is the resolution of typical movie theatres? E.g. I'm in Vancouver and I just saw The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus in a regular theater and it was a bit blurry... I couldn't really see the detail as I would on Bluray with my home plasma (Perhaps we're spoiled now?).

Is it likely to be less than 2K/1080P resolution? (or can I even tell if it's film/digital for that matter?). Or is it the same as Bluray resolution except just stretched to a movie screen it looks that much worse? How does 4K compare to this? Is the feeling of watching a 4K projection for the first time similar to the feeling of watching bluray for the first time? (evident level of sexiness...)

If anyone has an answer that would be great haha.

I guess I'm wondering what the standard is now... and how far off 4k is?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Typical film projection in a typical cinema is probably less than about 1.5k resolution. Digital projection is typically 2k. Good 4k projection looks very much smoother and cleaner than either. These days I'm much preferring good 2k digital to film projection.

Graeme

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Typical film projection in a typical cinema is probably less than about 1.5k resolution. Digital projection is typically 2k. Good 4k projection looks very much smoother and cleaner than either. These days I'm much preferring good 2k digital to film projection.

Graeme

I could be wrong, but I would imagine the longer they run a print, the more it loses sharpness from mechnical and heat stress. I've noticed that when I see movies at the theatre right after they are released they seem to have more res than when I see them near the end of their theatrical run.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Sometimes its nice to know that a huge portion of a cinema-going audience are perhaps oblivious to the arguments of 1080p vs 2k vs 4k etc..
God know how it would ruin a film if instead of watching the film they were trying to assess the projection of it and mentally compare it to other resolutions. Its killing off Father Christmas!

Hmmm... well, that said, do we really believe that Avatar has made 1.8 gazillion dollars because the story and acting were that good? Me thinks it has more to do with gee-wiz tech and gee-wiz primo aesthetics.

They may not care about numbers and so on, but they do appreciate nice visuals, they are very important to huge segments of the market. 4K will not make them say "4K!!!", but it will make them say "Wow that looks sharp!"

However, I do agree that numbers can be extremely deceptive. There are so many variables going on under the hood that they can't really be quantified that way. A Genesis frame, for example, looks way sharper when displayed at 2K than most 1080p cameras, even than a RAW still picture from an old 6MP DSLR.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Shoot out at the Fantasy Factory

Shoot out at the Fantasy Factory

What would be fun is to create a proper split screen (butterfly) in a good sized theater with half the image created by a late model 35mm projector and the other side with the Sony 4K SXRD T-series 21,000 lumen bazooka.

I would stipulate that the film print be of typical quality for mass distribution and have gone through normal IP, IN steps and be duped at whatever speed is common for studio features - no one off contact prints or other special treatment. The 4K digital source should be a DCI compliant DCP, no uncompressed 4K DPXs off a big RAID. In short, the test sources should be as close to "real world" as we can get.

In terms of content a studio feature would be best. Now the real bugaboo is the acquisition medium - digital from RedOneMX / Arri Alexa OR film; Kodak 5219 / Fuji Eterna. I would argue that the bias inherent in choice of medium at the acquisition stage will skew the exhibition quality assessment too greatly to overcome, so...

How about this concept for version 2.0 of the ASC/PGA CAS? Set up the cameras side by side and shoot nice long takes of challenging scenes/lighting. Post all the way to the projection booth to the best of each parties' abilities within the "real world" limits noted above. Thoughts...

Cheers - #19

 

[Lancelot Jean Mallia]

I think that's one of the great selling points for indie films as well, even if you're finishing in 1080p now, if your film gets picked up for distribution, no matter how they want to finish it, you've got that 4k 'digital negative' to go back to. And that's a great backup to have.

Tim

Agree absolutely

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

By the way I guess some of the wider Avatar shots were rendered in 3K+. So maybe some day these theoreticals will be put to the test.

 

[Chris Clogg]

By the way I guess some of the wider Avatar shots were rendered in 3K+. So maybe some day these theoreticals will be put to the test.

Well the good thing about CGI, I guess, is that you can always re-render at a higher resolution... I wonder what resolution they render out for IMAX like Transformers 2....

 

[Gary Paul Walker]

Hmmm... well, that said, do we really believe that Avatar has made 1.8 gazillion dollars because the story and acting were that good? Me thinks it has more to do with gee-wiz tech and gee-wiz primo aesthetics.

They may not care about numbers and so on, but they do appreciate nice visuals, they are very important to huge segments of the market. 4K will not make them say "4K!!!", but it will make them say "Wow that looks sharp!"

However, I do agree that numbers can be extremely deceptive. There are so many variables going on under the hood that they can't really be quantified that way. A Genesis frame, for example, looks way sharper when displayed at 2K than most 1080p cameras, even than a RAW still picture from an old 6MP DSLR.

Well I only saw Avatar last week and I agree, its audience draw probably isnt the story or acting (did anyone see Ferngully:The Last Rainforest), but rather the technology itself. I will admit though, that I'm not yet a fan of 3D films, and my personal view is that it wont be as widely used as soon as Jim Camaeron suggest.
The numbers don't matter as much as how you use them, and im sure audiences will accept 4K as a wonderful new standard for theatrical releases. But if they appreciate an excellent movie in 1080p or 2K then I'm sure both filmmakers and investors will be happy

 

[Jay Drose]

Typical film projection in a typical cinema is probably less than about 1.5k resolution. Digital projection is typically 2k. Good 4k projection looks very much smoother and cleaner than either. These days I'm much preferring good 2k digital to film projection.

Graeme

Do you really believe that? That you'd prefer seeing a digital projection (2k) than a regular 35mm projection (something filmgoers have been used to for their entire lives up until the last 5-6 years?) I know you work for RED but I'd never regret seeing a film projected in 35mm (if it was shot on film).

I even saw "The Girlfriend Experince" in digital and film. I preferred the latter, strangely. Maybe 4k would be different.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If I could be guaranteed of seeing a first generation show print off of the original 35mm negative in a theater with a decent projector and in sharp focus, I'd generally prefer seeing film projection, particularly if the movie didn't go through a 2K D.I. The blacks are still better in a film print than any digital projector I've seen.

But given that most movies go through a 2K D.I. and then get duped through an IP and IN for making 35mm release prints, I'd rather see the digitally projected version and get somewhat closer to the "original" master quality. Plus the focus is generally decent in digital screening rooms.

 

[Emanuel A.]

I am used to watch both versions as same as I will do these days with the last from LVT. I agree, even though many of us must admit the digital as a real fact is a (an indie) relief.

 

[Rick Burnett]

If I could be guaranteed of seeing a first generation show print off of the original 35mm negative in a theater with a decent projector and in sharp focus, I'd generally prefer seeing film projection, particularly if the movie didn't go through a 2K D.I. The blacks are still better in a film print than any digital projector I've seen.

But given that most movies go through a 2K D.I. and then get duped through an IP and IN for making 35mm release prints, I'd rather see the digitally projected version and get somewhat closer to the "original" master quality. Plus the focus is generally decent in digital screening rooms.

Isn't that the truth. That is my one hang up with digital projection, is the blacks. The rest of it I absolutely love, but it drives me crazy the difference.

Given I don't always make it to the first showing of a film, mainly due to the fact I can't stand the number of rude people in the audience, at many theaters I've been to in the area I live, the film is pretty beat up looking by the time I see it. Also, the whole focus issue. It's amazing how many times they are a bit out of focus! For that reason, I usually search out digital because it's less of a moving target in terms of wondering what you will get.

With regards to Avatar, yeah, I asked a lot of people what they liked about the movie. NEVER was it story. EVER. As I too could care less about the story. But the visuals were amazing and for that part of the movie I really did enjoy it. Sometimes the 3D was amazing (like the first scene in the movie when he was coming out of sleep), but in other parts of the movie, it didn't add an amazing amount. It was also annoying to have to have your head EXACTLY correct if you wanted it to look good, any rotation and hey! two images!

I don't see 3D becoming standard because it's very distracting to the story. Until 3D technology is actually 3D, your eye spends a lot of time looking at the 3D instead of paying attention to the story. Maybe this is what Cameron was hoping for! I don't think I would have enjoyed this movie as much in 2D. Well, at least I hope it doesn't catch on too much. Recently I edited audio on a 3D thriller short actually shot on film. While it was neat, I kept forgetting to pay attention to the story cause I was looking at books in a library, or pencils on a desk!

Oh and pertaining 3D rendering, there is one huge problem. When using textures and bump mapping, you'd need to use/create larger texture/bump maps with more detail. If you don't, the shapes of the objects will be nice and sharp, while their textures and bumpiness will be blurred. 3K to 4K, not sure how well it would look but 2k to 4k I'd think you'd see a definite problem. I've run into this using older SD projects I wanted to reuse some things for some HD stuff.