Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 for the finish...

Bottom line - if 48fps does become the "standard" frame rate by 2018 (hypothetically), how might we perceive 24fps in 2023?

Cheers - #19[/QUOTE]

it just a different choice and aesthetic much like choosing film today. There will be lots of choices in the future. On that note, I can see theaters having a hard time keeping up with home theater technology, not that everyone can afford it, but for those who can, a home theater in the future will be far better than going to most cineplexs. Even today, I would rather watch films on my HD projector with my comfy recliner and 148" screen, than drive 20 min. to watch 2K. Public theaters are going to have to step up.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
Anthony sees 2K for theatrical and 1080 for home as being with us for the next 10 years. It's a defensible point of view since greater resolution (or frame rate) will add some cost and in many viewing situations add little noticeable benefit.

I happen to think that the consumer electronics companies will push higher resolution for the home as a sales tactic and will conjure up a "need" via advertising messages. I also believe that the theatrical exhibitors will embrace 4K with wide gamut color as a tactic to convince people to get off the couch and come to the theater.

Considering the amount of compression routinely used for distribution currently, it could be argued that just delivering legitimate 1080 rez with better color precision would constitute a major improvement. IAC, more advanced compression techniques and greater "average" bandwidth should eventually make most of these issues academic. FWIW, while this may all be speculative at the moment, considering the accelerating rate of technological advancement we are seeing, 10 years down the road should allow for some significant changes that seem far fetched today. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

I actually see it as worse than that.

Even today I can only get a few "high def" channels. And I think they are only 1080i or 720p, not even 1080p (correct me if I'm wrong).
The vast majority of the channels I receive are still standard def.

Most consumers are still buying DVDs because they don't see the need to pay extra for BluRays.

I have had long chats with the managers at Cineworld, where they advertise that they have 4k projectors. And they tell me that in all the time they have had the projectors, they have only been sent 3 films in 4k. Everything else is 2k.


That is for viewing.
Of course I agree that 4 or 5k for filming is very useful, and when shooting films I always do so.
 
Antony M said:
Even today I can only get a few "high def" channels. And I think they are only 1080i or 720p, not even 1080p (correct me if I'm wrong).
The vast majority of the channels I receive are still standard def.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong. I even have a friend who primarily edits sizzle spots in SD and just recently started working more and more in HD. There's a bazillion reasons for this.

This is merely my sort of "crazy" opinion, so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. I think in about 6 years time we'll look back at "HD" as the sort of experimental adolescence of digital motion picture technology. So many mistakes were made from capture to delivery. I think it will still be around and used, but with the advent of the UHD standards so many of those growing pains can be avoided. The overall playing field is a completely different shape than what SD/HD was built on initially. This should give everybody a head start into the world of 4K digital delivery. We already have several years of 4K capture under our belts.

Time will tell. I could be wrong, but what I'm saying is I'm not wrong :)
 
Mark Andersen said:
Bottom line - if 48fps does become the "standard" frame rate by 2018 (hypothetically), how might we perceive 24fps in 2023?

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

it just a different choice and aesthetic much like choosing film today. There will be lots of choices in the future. On that note, I can see theaters having a hard time keeping up with home theater technology, not that everyone can afford it, but for those who can, a home theater in the future will be far better than going to most cineplexs. Even today, I would rather watch films on my HD projector with my comfy recliner and 148" screen, than drive 20 min. to watch 2K. Public theaters are going to have to step up.[/QUOTE]

This is why Cinemas need to look to the experience of cinema rather than just the tech.

The tech in cinemas just isn't far enough ahead of the home anymore. The home REDRay projector and 4k tellies will between them likely remove much of the visual advantages (apart from the grandeur) and unless Dolby Atmos really steps up in installations and things mixed with it sounds pretty much lost already.

Now Cineworld runs a D-Box system (moving seats flight sim style) that I keep meaning to try out but thats not the only route, the event cinemas a nice idea, but so much of it at the moment it's barely more to see the real thing if you live near the original (and as a Londoner I almost always do) and theres usually only one showing in the cinema and a reasonable run of the real thing.

The thing that keeps me at the cinema is often the chance to see stuff earlier and some of the scale. however if business is good enough a REDRay projector is going to seriously eat into that advantage.

On TV:

Here in the UK Most of the Major channels have HD versions (especially if you have cable or Satellite), and its usually worth watching them even for SD content as the extra bandwidth really helps. 4K channels may well spend a long time in a similar vein, Some 4k content but an improved version of lower resolution broadcast content. The BBC for a while now has run BBC 1 HD and BBC HD, the latter is now being changed to BBC 2 HD (the SD BBC 2 channel was where most of BBC HDs content had a SD simulcast anyway) though what this means for the BBCs 3D specials I don't know (the non BBC 2 content was sometimes BBC 1 stuff in 3D).
 
The Consumer Electronics people believe in 4K's arrival in the home. I just got this via email from Pioneer, the manufacturer of one of my AVR's:

[TABLE="width: 638"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]
PioneerAV_04.jpg
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #dedede, colspan: 3"][h=2]COMPARE ALL MODELS[/h][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

-sc
 
Not that it wasn't obvious on a certain level, but I thought awhile back on this forum I predicted that the delay in Apple's actual TV was so that they could release a 4K TV. Apparently that is what is happening.
When Apple releases a user friendly "retina" TV at a price for high end consumers, that will help 4K viewing gain a broader user base.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20130326PD218.html
 
Antony M said:
I actually see it as worse than that.

Even today I can only get a few "high def" channels. And I think they are only 1080i or 720p, not even 1080p (correct me if I'm wrong).
The vast majority of the channels I receive are still standard def.

Most consumers are still buying DVDs because they don't see the need to pay extra for BluRays.
.....

Of course I agree that 4 or 5k for filming is very useful, and when shooting films I always do so.
Click to expand...

Those SD venues will have to upgrade someday, and when they do they will be able to skip the HD stage of exhibition and go directly to the UHD equipment once it becomes affordable for them. I would suggest that content exhibitors and viewers alike are becoming slightly more knowledgeable, quicker and this changeover to 4k will not be an option but a necessity for those who act as go-between for content providers and viewership.
 
Peter Proniewicz-Brooks said:
On TV:

Here in the UK Most of the Major channels have HD versions (especially if you have cable or Satellite), and its usually worth watching them even for SD content as the extra bandwidth really helps. 4K channels may well spend a long time in a similar vein, Some 4k content but an improved version of lower resolution broadcast content. The BBC for a while now has run BBC 1 HD and BBC HD, the latter is now being changed to BBC 2 HD (the SD BBC 2 channel was where most of BBC HDs content had a SD simulcast anyway) though what this means for the BBCs 3D specials I don't know (the non BBC 2 content was sometimes BBC 1 stuff in 3D).
Click to expand...

None of the UK TV channels are 1080p tho sadly.

Freya
 
FWIW even my "civilian" friends and family notice SD segments in HD programs when they are cut back to back. I continue to believe intuitively that the reason so many people seem oblivious to a lot of the image metrics we discuss is that they don't have a ready reference point. Give viewers a split screen of decent 4K on one side and typical HD on the other and Bob's your uncle.

Cheers - #19
 
Last Sat.the 23, on The Tech Guy Show (heard on 170 radio stations in the U.S. and Canada and XM) with Leo Laporte, the subject of 4k for the home came up, and Scott Wilkinson and Leo discussed various delivery options, and RedRay came up, and they had good things to say (it must be good because "the Red Cameras are great"). This show can be streamed at the following link, episode 963, look for In this Episode, then browse for Scott Wilkinson (the intro is a primer on 4k);
http://techguylabs.com/episodes/963#main
 
Intel is about to release their 4K display drivers for Ivy Bridge. Unfortunately, based on what we know so far, they are completely worthless as they require dual DisplayPort output, which can only be found in custom-made hardware. You ask why? Well, from what I read, it's the GPU itself. It lacks the full bandwidth outputs that would allow 4K over a single cable like you would find on other current GPUs. Haswell's design corrects this flaw and should offer 4K @ 60HZ over a single output.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
...
What I was referring to is the possibility that in a program like Assimilate Scratch one could create a Construct (version) that brought in all the practical photography (typically 2K 10bit log DPX image sequences), VFX and other elements as referenced by the EDL/XML/ALE files. After grading/finishing one could render out that Construct as 16bit TIFFs in xyz at 2K for the DCDM. Then, if one so desired, one could do a second conform in a 4K Construct where one uprezzed some elements and replaced others with 4K DPXs (OpenEXR perhaps?) and make a second discrete deliverable at 4K, that mixed native and uprezzed elements in a 4K container.
Click to expand...
Openexr 2.0 can do what your saying, and the full release will hopefully be next week (is just going through legal right now) ... so a lot of crazy cool things are happening.
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
FWIW even my "civilian" friends and family notice SD segments in HD programs when they are cut back to back. I continue to believe intuitively that the reason so many people seem oblivious to a lot of the image metrics we discuss is that they don't have a ready reference point. Give viewers a split screen of decent 4K on one side and typical HD on the other and Bob's your uncle.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...
As Ansel Adams said, "You can't judge a good print, if you've never seen a good print".
 
Michel Rabe said:
yeah but how to finish in 4K with a Scarlet? :)
Click to expand...

Richard_JP said:
I'd like to know the answer to this... Or do we not mention that round here? hehe
Click to expand...

How little you understand the little marvel you are using.

The short version is that if you are worried about delivering 4K in the near or intermediate term, Scarlet is an excellent tool if its frame rates meet your needs.

"4K TV" is actually Quad HD, 3840x2160. I call this "Consumer 4K", or more often amongst fellow professionals QuadHD or QHD.

Scarlet's 4K mode can give about 3.2-3.5k resolution as a finished deliverable. Note that it can do this in either a 4K or QHD container.

If you finish Scarlet materials for 4K, you will have a high quality QHD deliverable, with ~84% of the QHD formats available resolution.

Now, let's consider the common scenario of shooting 720p for HD broadcast delivery.

"FullHD" 1080p has 2073600 pixels per frame. 720p has 921600 pixels per frame. That is just 44% of available pixel resolution. This is before we account for losses in production due to lens limitations and other factors.

Once we account for such factors, many well regarded 1080p cameras don't deliver 1080p either. Sony's XDCAM EX cameras (including the F3) only deliver ~90% of the effective resolution of 1080p. The famous Sony F900 HDCAM cameras in their "1080p" mode, which is actually 1440x1080, only deliver 1555200 pixels per frame, or 75% of the 1080p resolution. (Usually this camera isn't notably limited by optics, primarily limited by its recording format and sensor.) The Canon 7D and 5DMK2 will deliver resolution roughly on par with the F900. (They have higher actual resolving power, albeit with many more image defects.)

So, your Scarlet will strongly outperform the resolution of any of these SD and HD sources in terms of compliance with the full QHD standards.

Let me restate that a bit more formally: Scarlet's QHD deliverable will give a higher percentage of the full QHD resolution than most "HD cameras" will deliver of full HD 1080p resolution.

We have not considered color depth and chroma subsampling either.

Scarlet delivers its full resolution at 12 bit color depth with no chroma subsampling. (Some people say there is some small amount of subsampling due to debayering, but I'm not going to entertain that for the present.)

This is well in excess of the 4:1:1, 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 8 bit color schemes of most HD cameras. Only in the last year or so have we seen a large number of 10 bit 4:2:2 cameras emerging.

So, Scarlet can exceed all the proposed QHD broadcast chroma schemes I have seen, while most HD cameras can not deliver the full REC 709 color space.

So ... more succinctly: Scarlet kicks ass. Use it well and rest easy.

The majority of this goes for the Red One as well, although I am less comfortable with saying I can deliver full 12 bit color with it.

Once you make a pile of cash, and you will if you do your job half right, get an Epic with Dragon and have no worries.
 
Last edited:
Today on the Opie and Anthony Show, on XM sat. radio, Jim Norton and Louis CK talked about 2k vs 4k, Red vs Alexa, depth of field, and how this will look in the future. Lets hope that everyone that heard this considers the source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top