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 for the finish...

I'm wondering if you could use a Red camera to calibrate a Red projector/player, bringing a Quality Control'ed projection to the final audience. That would be a step-up on film.
 
I like the raising swords bit.

I am going to need faster internet.
 
I hear you loud and clear Jarred, that is why I support RED firmly from even before the beginning, when my bank refused the charge for the first R1 deposit as it looked as a suspicious account, even the bank tough you guys were a SCAM... About that?

Today I guess your foot in the door has kicked in quite so strong that the were Industry leaders have now become Industry followers... And guess who they are following... ;)

That is why I can't wait to get our M8 DRAGONIZED and I guess it makes me less sad that I haven't been able to make my first movie yet, and just finally entered Pre-Production, because now it will be shot in 6K, for an absolute GLORIOUS 4K finish!!

And so wil every single Short, Commercial, Doc, Film, we'll make, because I din't order the Redray asap as it came online for nothing, I did so because I believe that the time for 4K it is NOW, or by the time Distributors will look for 4K content we will be left out.
 
The problem with 4k VS 2k is that you nearly don't see the difference on a big screen because the 4k projector is SO good on upscaling that it kills the WOUAHHHH effect.

I've seen my 4k master the first time on the 4k Barco on a 15m screen and only me (DoP) could see the difference.

Hope the 4k projectors will have loosy upscaling hardware so we can see how 2k is looking odd. But it looks like it won't happen.


Pat

PS: for your breakfast read

http://www.dcimovies.com/specification/DCI_DCSS_v12_with_errata_2012-1010.pdf


DCI Digital Cinema System Specification v.1.2withErrata as of 30 August 2012 Incorporated Page 74 8.2.2.7.

Spatial Resolution Conversion

The projector is required to display either a native resolution of 4096x2160 or 2048x1080. If the
projector's native resolution is 4096x2160, and the incoming spatial resolution of the content is
2048x1080, then the projection system is required to perform the upconversion of 2048x1080
content to 4096x2160. All spatial conversions are required to be done at an exact ratio of 2:1 in
each axis, i.e., a projector with a horizontal pixel count of slightly higher than the image
container is required to not convert the projected image beyond the image container to fill the
array, nor is an image to be converted to something less than the 4096x2160 or 2048x1080
image container size.
Should electronic image resizing or scaling be used to support a constant height projection or
constant width projection theater environment, then it is required that the image resizing or
scaling does not introduce visible image artifacts. It is intended that the projector project the full
horizontal pixel count or the full vertical pixel count of the image container.
 
My experiences have been very different Patrick, as when in front of a 4K Display the images seemed to literally pop so much more and have such a Depth and Dimension that I said to myself, will it be still worth for me to shoot 3D??

That is how much of a difference 4K viewing of "TRUE" 4k finished footage did for me.
 
Yes watching the RED reel at IBC a couple of years ago in 4K made me wonder why there is still 2K and 3D. 4K is so much better, it´s almost like 3D. I´ll take 4K before 3D anytime!
 
Patrick Tresch said:
The problem with 4k VS 2k is that you nearly don't see the difference on a big screen because the 4k projector is SO good on upscaling that it kills the WOUAHHHH effect.
I've seen my 4k master the first time on the 4k Barco on a 15m screen and only me (DoP) could see the difference.
.[/COLOR][/I]
Click to expand...
Then your 4K master has little to no full res 4K detail in it. It's easy to distinguish full res 4K from upscaled 2K when the 4K really has 4K detail. For example Samsara in 4K versus 2K is no comparison.
 
I would expect that the projector is being shown at NAB2013. I've been thinking about in what direction to go with my limited budget, either the production side with a camera and lenses or the post production side then renting cameras and lenses. All in all, because I almost always need a focus puller there are a few that have their own camera to rent cheap together with them, so for me post production might be the best investment. I've been holding on to see what is coming out this year and I'm still waiting for any news about the projector and i'ts price. If that isn's happening I might go for an OLED screen instead.

So, is the red projector "happening" this year or not?
 
It's ben 4K finishes for me since day one of shoot one. All my R3D looks better now that the day I shot it (thanks to continuous improvements).

The people who "got it" when you guys were starting out, are really ahead of things.

I have every r3d I have ever shot and there are many great services for distributing 4K footage out there.

HOw are all those 1080P series going to look in three years blown up to 4K.


Man. I'm glad I hoped in when I did, at the start!


David
 
Michel Hafner said:
Then your 4K master has little to no full res 4K detail in it. It's easy to distinguish full res 4K from upscaled 2K when the 4K really has 4K detail. For example Samsara in 4K versus 2K is no comparison.
Click to expand...

I didnt' test a chart. I must admit that the movie was all handheld with small DoF. But there was good sharpness on faces/eyes. It could have been a bigger 4k experience if it would have been landscapes shot on sticks @ f16...

The strange thing about 2k -> 4k upscaling with this Barco projector is that even some shot shot with the 5D MKII that had a lot of aliasing, cleaned all the aliasing artefacts.

Upscaling is another science that will hold great results. (Was I rude? :rolleyes5: ) Sorry for the bad words...

Pat

PS: I'm another 4k advocate, but just telling my viewing experience.
 
Justin Barham said:
Somebody needs to tell that to WETA...

“We did not do the DI at 4K at all. This was primarily due to cost and time for the VFX shots if they had been done at 4K (it is four times the data of 2K)."


And also, that's a pretty poorly timed comment.
Click to expand...

It's four times the data of 2K ... but data storage is dramatically cheaper year to year. And faster. My favorite VFX house next door (The Molecule) was showing me recently that their artists can deliver 4K renders faster and cheaper than 2K just two years ago. SSDs for workstations have become affordable - and the prices continue to drop - http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235277/Micron_unveils_its_first_1TB_SSD_for_under_600

Not to mention technologies like Fushion-IO cards which crush 4K DPX and OpenEXR files.

With respect to the comment about the trouble in the VFX business - that's got nothing to do with 4K. That's an issue driven by too much competition. The cost in VFX is the artists. Workstations and storage are peanuts to any VFX business compared to the payroll.

So again - faster and cheaper to render and move 4K files than 2K files not so very long ago.

The Hobbit is also a poor example re: cost - since it was a 48fps 3D feature - pretty sure VFX and DI could have been done in 4K 3D at 24fps for same or less money than 3D 48fps 2K - but that was Peter Jackson choice. He wanted a HFR experience for his 3D film.
 
Last edited:
I've been delivering 4K since 2 years now. I even upload it at 4K on youtube, but the problem is that no one has 4K screens.
The reason I upload everything and deliver everything at 4K is because when the time comes were everyone will watch 4K screens then you can look back at all the project we've done the past years at 4K quality :p
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
It's four times the data of 2K ... but data storage is dramatically cheaper year to year. And faster. My favorite VFX house next door (The Molecule) was showing me recently that their artists can deliver 4K renders faster and cheaper than 2K just two years ago. SSDs for workstations have become affordable - and the prices continue to drop - http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235277/Micron_unveils_its_first_1TB_SSD_for_under_600

Not to mention technologies like Fushion-IO cards which crush 4K DPX and OpenEXR files.

With respect to the comment about the trouble in the VFX business - that's got nothing to do with 4K. That's an issue driven by too much competition. The cost in VFX is the artists. Workstations and storage are peanuts to any VFX business compared to the payroll.

So again - faster and cheaper to render and move 4K files than 2K files not so very long ago.

The Hobbit is also a poor example re: cost - since it was a 48fps 3D feature - pretty sure VFX and DI could have been done in 4K 3D at 24fps for same or less money than 3D 48fps 2K - but that was Peter Jackson choice. He wanted a HFR experience for his 3D film.
Click to expand...

Also the fact that their turnaround time was ridiculous...what is it, 16 times the standard amount of data if you choose 48 instead of 24, 3D instead of 2D, and 4K instead of 2K? All those processes add to the time and cost...
 
Chase M. Wrenn said:
Also the fact that their turnaround time was ridiculous...what is it, 16 times the standard amount of data if you choose 48 instead of 24, 3D instead of 2D, and 4K instead of 2K? All those processes add to the time and cost...
Click to expand...

Indeed, 3D and 48 alone quadrupled the data requirements for the Hobbit. Quadruple it again for 4k and you get 16 times the data required for 2k 24p 2D.

Drop the just the HFR and 4k 3D 24p is still 8 times the data of 2k 2D 24p.

The Hobbit part 1 only made it out of post a few days before the world premier (it made it a day or so early to I recall hearing), it wouldn't have taken much with that turn around to miss it.
 
Hi all,

as Jarred says, there is no discussion if 4K will come or not. It will come. So this means : RED to get ready, that we can produce in 4K too. I myself as Scarlet Owner feel not good producing 4K footage with my scarlet. Reason : there is too much pink noise in the image. Yes of course you can calibrate the camera. Still low light sensitivity is low and using the camera is quite difficult. It takes some time to shoot in 4K and to be sure, that the footage keeps the quality level.

That said : If we all agree 4K is coming, we need a camera, that can produce quality 4K video ! So far I would not take a job for producing 4K with my scarlet !
 
Steffen Baermann said:
Hi all,

as Jarred says, there is no discussion if 4K will come or not. It will come. So this means : RED to get ready, that we can produce in 4K too. I myself as Scarlet Owner feel not good producing 4K footage with my scarlet. Reason : there is too much pink noise in the image. Yes of course you can calibrate the camera. Still low light sensitivity is low and using the camera is quite difficult. It takes some time to shoot in 4K and to be sure, that the footage keeps the quality level.

That said : If we all agree 4K is coming, we need a camera, that can produce quality 4K video ! So far I would not take a job for producing 4K with my scarlet !
Click to expand...
The short answer is get an epic and shoot in 5k. The longer answer is why are you not comfortable with the scarlet image. It performs similar if not slightly better than a red one, which has shot many gorgeous film music videos and commercials in 4k… delivered many of those projects in 4k. I've directed and delivered tons of high end clients work in 4k from scarlet... Ups along the 3k slow mo may be less than desirable, but I dare the average joe to tell me the difference between the 3k and 4k. If they are taking the time to do that… then I haven't done my job making an interesting enough story or image.

Scarlet is good enough. Epic is your over caffeinated more successful older brother. Same genes but ones an over achiever
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Bruce -

I can HONESTLY tell you that doing a 4K render of your project from a resolution independent finishing solution - is almost ALWAYS cheaper than "do 4K later". This is not HYPE. It's a fact based on experience. If you don't have the ability to get your VFX and/or graphic delivered in 4K - that does present an issue - but the last several projects I worked on with various VFX vendors - nobody even blinked at 4K renders and several vendors did not even increases their bids for 4K delivery vs 2K.

It's a different world today than last year. There are several 4k projector and monitor solutions now that can be used in post that did not exist a year ago.

So, if you really think I'm full of hype and not honesty - I'm happy to get on the phone with you and start walking you through real-world, actual examples.
Click to expand...

Mark: ability to deliver 4K is not an issue. We have delivered 4K titles as far back as Ocean's Thirteen back in 2007. Most recently, we built the Iron Man 3 trailer title at 4K, in stereo.

But you can't get around the fact that a 4K master = VFX at 4K. Which costs more.

If you're doing low-end stuff, sure, maybe it is really easy to deliver a 4K master.

Even so... how can a VFX vendor not increase their rate? Due to lack of cheap monitors, the hourly rate for QC'ing a 4K master is higher.

Storage and compute requirements are FOUR TIMES. We have a ton of 12-core render nodes in order to just be able to turn around stuff overnight.

It takes four times longer to deliver files over the Internet, which translates into longer turnaround times when you are on crunch. Or more OT for the artists ("we have to get this done tonight so that we can post it tonight and it'll be downloaded for review tomorrow!").

When we deliver 4K... we check every pixel, for every pass. You need an expensive 4K display in order to check every pixel one-for-one in one pass. You need a more expensive setup to play back 4K properly.

If a VFX vendor didn't increase their rate for 4K, I'd think that they are just eating the costs internally to try to look "cool" and "forward thinking". Great, that's just what we need. Lower margins in the VFX biz.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top