Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

4K display

Gavin Greenwalt said:
Yeah but in vfx that is usually because there are sub pixel effects which have to be supersampled. The universe with trillions of photons is already super-duper oversampled. :P Or the camera is going to get so close to texture that less than 2k would otherwise be visible. Which is again something the real world doesnt really have a problem with since most of the universe is fractally in nature.
Click to expand...

totally true, gavin. though that was probably the least important of the points i was trying to make... i just wanted to give a real world example. maybe i could have found a better one. oh well. :)

oh and matthias. interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. it would seem sony is pushing towards a 4k capturing/distribution model...
 
Everybody who don't need HD, 4K or don't recognise any difference between resolutions is extremely happy because he will save lots of $$$. Therefore I dont understand why some people are moaning when we want better resolution. :)
 
Petr Dvorak said:
Everybody who don't need HD, 4K or don't recognise any difference between resolutions is extremely happy because he will save lots of $$$. Therefore I dont understand why some people are moaning when we want better resolution. :)
Click to expand...

I don't really think anyone is arguing about whether or not high resolution is a good thing.

I think we all agree that it is good. That's why we shoot Red - and why most of us have bought a Red camera (or more than one! Though I don't own one yet sadly.)

This argument has gotten very emotional .... people keep veering here and there, when I am saying a simple thing.

No one knows the answer to the question, "Can ordinary TV and movie viewers see the difference between 4K and 1080p in motion imaging?"

My own study is very limited, but people in my study had a hard time differentiating between 1080p and SD. When I taught them the difference, they could barely see the difference.

All I am willing to conclude from that, is that it is reasonable to ask the question about 4K's value proposition to the consumer.

I want to emphasize, because people seem confused, I agree with Jim Jannard and everyone else who thinks we should acquire our material at 4K+ resolution ... and frankly I think we should finish at 4K too.

That is for US though ... we have professional needs best served by doing this.

I'm not sure that delivering 4K is going to be useful though for motion imaging.

I want people to see the difference ... its a difference that matters to me.

We don't understand the world by extolling the virtues of our desire though. We understand through science.

No legitimate science has been done on this question that I know of.

I think there should be.

THAT is my position.

So why do I care?

Well ... if the general public can not see 4K ... then when we do get affordable 4K displays they'll be crappy. Just the bare minimum so that companies can advertise with whatever buzzword they brand 4K resolution with.

Remember when LCD's came around - they were notably worse than CRTs.

My specific hope ... knowing that people can't see the difference, is that we can educate them and that they'll appreciate it better.

Then we'll get decent quality 4KTV instead of "just enough to market."

Of course ... before we can start educating the public about resolution and image quality, we have to understand what they can and can't see, and what they value in an image.

In order words, we have to STUDY THE PROBLEM!!
 
some good points alexander. why don't we convert that energy into something positive by setting up some real tests... perhaps at red studios on their screen, for a start? (i think they probably already offer that if you stop by)
 
You guys kill me... is it about just today or are we thinking about tomorrow? 4K display and delivery are coming. Trust me. And at prices that will equal what you are paying for 1080P now. What matters is if you are future-proof. I am a fan of "Game of Thrones". I have a 12' screen at home and it looks soft. I can see it NOW. When wall projection is the norm... what will you wish your content was shot on? I am amazed every day at the short sighted thinking here. This stuff is easy to see...

Jim
 
i agree.

though i will say i'm tired of quibbling, and it might not be a bad idea to put some of these concerns, or speculations rather, to a final rest. i mean, there is a good point on the consumer end that people will question, especially considering the amount of "pros" questioning now, and the history of the SD vs. HD debacle... course, obviously someone has done some testing. red isn't the only company pushing for 4k distribution, if you haven't noticed. and again, it's really not that difficult. i'm sure the companies involved in display are fully aware that consumers need a little persuasion, and i guarantee they will put out some kick-ass tests to prove it to everybody, including the "pro" doubters, it's in their best interests after all... lots of $$$ going towards 4k+ acquisition/distribution/display...

to me, there's no question that the normal person is physically able to see the difference. as i've mentioned before... explaining the difference can be a little bit harder sometimes, especially for those who know little or nothing about digital imagery. but that's why we learn, and educate others. just like one needs a professional guide to experience everest, one needs a professional guide to experience entertainment (safely and properly, in both cases). if that can't be stated as a given fact in this conversation... well, i don't have anything else to say, so...

seeing is believing. and i believe in seeing.
 
We have fought the "1080P is good enough" for years. That's why I started RED. I saw that the industry was going to try to replace film with 1080P. I didn't buy it.

If you think 1080P is good enough... this is not the place for you. Have a nice day.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
You guys kill me... is it about just today or are we thinking about tomorrow? 4K display and delivery are coming. Trust me. And at prices that will equal what you are paying for 1080P now. What matters is if you are future-proof. I am a fan of "Game of Thrones". I have a 12' screen at home and it looks soft. I can see it NOW. When wall projection is the norm... what will you wish your content was shot on? I am amazed every day at the short sighted thinking here. This stuff is easy to see...

Jim
Click to expand...

LOL

You're back! Nice to see you!
And aren't most of us here chewing out 4k+ content on a daily basis.
You won the argument Jim.
Even if I don't see it in my livingroom today, I am sure I eventually will.
And of course the price of bandwith and pixels will come down.

Still, what is a point is to consider the lifespan of your production. Most of all what is made, has a rather short shelftime.
But if you're into features and drama... sure thing. Being able to go to a 4k master is no bad idea... If you can afford it.

OTOH
better off with an 1080 finnished master, than a 4k non-finnished... Better for your career, sort of.
 
Agreed Jim, crystal clear -- that's why I'm here and not on Cinema5D or wherever.

Question for you Jim if you see this .... obviously, as you have proven, true 4k finish is already slightly superior to 35mm film (resolution wise).

However, whether it's for the big screen in the cinema -- or a "wall screen" at home -- at what level of resolution do we cross the point of dramatically diminished returns?

This is certainly something you've considered for Red's long term roadmap and we all know there's already a 28k camera in the plans at some point.

Yet, I'm just curious about where you think the push for higher and higher resolution stops? (or at least slows down considerably)

Or to put it differently -- are we focusing on 4k right now because it displaces film and 1080P ... but then 8k soon becomes the standard, and then so on ... until when?
 
Anthony - may I humbly suggest that this depends very much on FPS? If you intend on having dramatic moving shots, there is not really much point to going beyond Epic 5K Bayer while still staying at 24fps. For most shots you'll just get nice high resolution motion blur. My 2c:

[2D FILM-LOOK]
My 2c is that for old-school film-look stuff 4K with true RGB pixel-level data should be *plenty*. So a Bayer sensor in the range of 5-7K should do the trick to make it ultra-beautiful?

But really, projection remains a limiting factor. I'm looking at a $4000 1080p projector right now - and most of its users report red and blue fringes of close to a pixel in the corners. Few cinemas can really even manage 1080p. In fact, they're matting off quite a lot, so you're probably only seeing 900p or so.

So with this plus motion blur issues, going beyond 4K RGB is a bit of a waste?

[3D / 48FPS]
For crisp 3D 48fps+ projection - where the idea is to basically just put you in reality - you're basically going towards the resolution of the human eye. Go big!

I had a chat with my old lecturer Tom Holman (inventor of THX) about the "bandwidth of reality" back in 2003 or so - he calculated everything and decided that "they'll do it in a decade or two with the way digital is going". Guess we're on the way, thanks to Jim.

If you want peripheral vision as well, wide-angle 28K would be nice :) Personally, I'd rather have more cameras shooting at lower res.

My "pragmatic" target at the moment (for stereo at 48fps) is likely in the 3K - 4K RGB range, sourced from 5K Epic footage unless it's slowmo. I won't go below 3K Bayer for a source. For the next decade, I doubt that folks will see the difference between sharp, well-processed 3K RGB from a 5K source and soft 4K RGB from a 5K source. But 3K doesn't seem like much of a standard so maybe I'll just do 4K so folks don't look at me weirdly.

BTW for movie trailers we do deliver at 4K more often now if we're doing stuff with fine text. Probably they downsample to 2K before they print - but they like to have control.

For billboard & print stuff - if the title is 6K then it's usually plenty. Take a look at the Captain America billboards around town (pretty sure they're using my 6K title renders - I remember doing them in a billion different languages as well) and tell me if you think they look soft :) Heck, if I rendered any higher-res I'd probably have to go and re-work the metal textures.

So yes, when you're making your indie film - and the resolution of each frame is higher than the resolution that Hollywood uses for the billboard titles for its summer blockbusters... you are a bit ahead of the curve methinks. Go back to 4K and save some money on disk space :)

PS Jim - how's that 4K projector doing? I'm gonna probably get a 4K desktop display (if Apple or anyone else makes a cheap one :) plus say a JVC 1080p projector soon - so PLEASE drop us a hint if you plan on shipping that sucker next NAB! Subject to change though - understood! :P

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Christian Edwards said:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/162519/20110614/germany-laser-terabits-kit.htm
Click to expand...

I've been following the KIT research groups.

Mostly I'm interested in self assembling nanotech, but this caught my attention.

The article you linked has a couple of errors: Its not "laser transmission". it just fiber optics. It's also fairly large scale.

The lasers they are using to drive the fiber optics are 800mW. That's a very powerful and dangerous laser. And they are using hundreds of them in parallel to drive a signal over the fiber.

This application my never reach the desktop because of energy requirements and safety ... I mean, waving a few hundred 800mW lasers around is bound to be the most exciting part of your day.

It also will require optical or quantum processors - no electronic systems can keep up with that data rate.

Fun stuff!
 
Jannard said:
I am a fan of "Game of Thrones". I have a 12' screen at home and it looks soft. I can see it NOW. When wall projection is the norm... what will you wish your content was shot on?
Jim
Click to expand...

As I bring up in every one of these discussions. I'll wish it was shot on 4k. But the producers aren't going to spring for 4x more detailed VFX for a non-existent or microscopic audience. So we'll get the "Spiderman" effect where all of the VFX shots drop back down to 2k.

Also, Game of Thrones could be a lot sharper with lighter compression. Even the HBO HD stream is pretty lossy.

I have no faith in the 'common man'. When I first got HD Satellite I had it practically pre-ordered and was the first installation they had done in town. The installer came out. Hooked everything up. Brought up one of the 3-4 HD channels and started exclaiming how amazing it looked. I thought it was soft, over sharpened and generally lousy but I also knew what HD *should* look like. I picked up the remote, dug through the menus and changed the output settings on the receiver from 480p to 1080.

If I had been an "average joe" I might still be watching all of my "HD" channels in 480p.

By the way, was the Red Tattoo movie in 4k or 2k at NAB? Without anything to compare it to I couldn't tell.
 
I"m late to this party, but I have to tell you: I find DVDs uprezzed by my Blu-ray player to be very enjoyable to watch. It isn't quite as good as 1080p, but it is plenty good enough for these eyes. I think Alexander's points are dead on: It will take a very, very significant reduction in price before mainstream Americans turn to 4K monitors. And then there are the bandwidth issues involved.

Nope. . . 4K is great to shoot with, but I see a long and very prosperous future for content delivery at 1080p.

Stephen

Stephen
 
I want my 4K (aplologies to Dire Straits)

I want my 4K (aplologies to Dire Straits)

4K needs to be seen to be appreciated. Its particularly illustrative to see SD vs HD/2K vs QHD/4K in a split screen.
The wide availability of 4K displays is a critical step in moving the 4K train down the track.
I advocate that all my clients master at 4K and that would be a much easier sell if I could show them just how good it looks. At the moment that requires serious $$,$$$ to accomplish.
Affordable 4K displays would be a huge help in fostering an appreciation for high resolution in a much larger population.

Cheers - #19
 
Bruce Allen said:
Anthony - may I humbly suggest that this depends very much on FPS? If you intend on having dramatic moving shots, there is not really much point to going beyond Epic 5K Bayer while still staying at 24fps. For most shots you'll just get nice high resolution motion blur. My 2c:

[2D FILM-LOOK]
My 2c is that for old-school film-look stuff 4K with true RGB pixel-level data should be *plenty*. So a Bayer sensor in the range of 5-7K should do the trick to make it ultra-beautiful?

But really, projection remains a limiting factor. I'm looking at a $4000 1080p projector right now - and most of its users report red and blue fringes of close to a pixel in the corners. Few cinemas can really even manage 1080p. In fact, they're matting off quite a lot, so you're probably only seeing 900p or so.

So with this plus motion blur issues, going beyond 4K RGB is a bit of a waste?

[3D / 48FPS]
For crisp 3D 48fps+ projection - where the idea is to basically just put you in reality - you're basically going towards the resolution of the human eye. Go big!

I had a chat with my old lecturer Tom Holman (inventor of THX) about the "bandwidth of reality" back in 2003 or so - he calculated everything and decided that "they'll do it in a decade or two with the way digital is going". Guess we're on the way, thanks to Jim.

If you want peripheral vision as well, wide-angle 28K would be nice :) Personally, I'd rather have more cameras shooting at lower res.

My "pragmatic" target at the moment (for stereo at 48fps) is likely in the 3K - 4K RGB range, sourced from 5K Epic footage unless it's slowmo. I won't go below 3K Bayer for a source. For the next decade, I doubt that folks will see the difference between sharp, well-processed 3K RGB from a 5K source and soft 4K RGB from a 5K source. But 3K doesn't seem like much of a standard so maybe I'll just do 4K so folks don't look at me weirdly.

BTW for movie trailers we do deliver at 4K more often now if we're doing stuff with fine text. Probably they downsample to 2K before they print - but they like to have control.

For billboard & print stuff - if the title is 6K then it's usually plenty. Take a look at the Captain America billboards around town (pretty sure they're using my 6K title renders - I remember doing them in a billion different languages as well) and tell me if you think they look soft :) Heck, if I rendered any higher-res I'd probably have to go and re-work the metal textures.

So yes, when you're making your indie film - and the resolution of each frame is higher than the resolution that Hollywood uses for the billboard titles for its summer blockbusters... you are a bit ahead of the curve methinks. Go back to 4K and save some money on disk space :)

PS Jim - how's that 4K projector doing? I'm gonna probably get a 4K desktop display (if Apple or anyone else makes a cheap one :) plus say a JVC 1080p projector soon - so PLEASE drop us a hint if you plan on shipping that sucker next NAB! Subject to change though - understood! :P

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

Thanks a bunch Bruce -- I still hope Jim chimes in, but not because your answer wasn't extremely helpful. Just always good to hear the perspective of someone who is trailblazing the future as we speak ...

One great point you made was about projectors. There seem to be soooooo many issues with standardization and quality control right now (i.e. Michael Bay/boom baby!) that just getting enough theaters to adopt 4k and maintain that standard will be challenging, and yet I hope it's coming. Heck, I lived blocks from Arclight at my last apartment (Broadway Building, Hollywood and Vine), went to that theater weekly, and still don't know where I can view 4k showings in what is probably the most film-friendly part of LA. (Is is possible?)

And 4k 3D is not even here yet! As you said Bruce, I can only imagine how amazing it will be to have 4k 48fps 3D shot on Epic, by skilled DP and stereographer (with plenty of depth) and projected properly, right glasses, etc. Mindblowing, I'm sure.

I'm 100% convinced that is coming, which is why I refuse to any of the "3D sucks" noise. But that's a separate subject.

I guess ultimately the resolution standard will depend on predominant size of the viewing area, no? So if eventually many, many people have 20 foot screens across their wall -- maybe 8k becomes the "standard" (yes, I know it's far away) ... and then for Imax or big theaters they will go even higher.

Anyway, great discussion - thanks guys.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
4K needs to be seen to be appreciated. Its particularly illustrative to see SD vs HD/2K vs QHD/4K in a split screen.
The wide availability of 4K displays is a critical step in moving the 4K train down the track.
I advocate that all my clients master at 4K and that would be a much easier sell if I could show them just how good it looks. At the moment that requires serious $$,$$$ to accomplish.
Affordable 4K displays would be a huge help in fostering an appreciation for high resolution in a much larger population.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

I agree Blair. One thing that really floored me about NAB was seeing Tattoo and Sony's demo movie, both in 4k projection. My dad has been involved in video/film (mostly corporate) for decades and he was stunned by the quality.
Yes, we are not "normal" consumers, but I have no doubt people's eyes will get quickly trained to recognize and appreciate 4k, just as many have with HD.

Also agree with you and others on price being the bottleneck.

In fact, does anyone know the cheapest decent 4k monitor or TV (at least 30+ inches) that's available now ... OR ... that has been announced and is on the horizon for release in the next 6-12 mos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top