4K for the finish...

[Jay Birch]

as Jarred says, there is no discussion if 4K will come or not. It will come.

It will come, but there is still plenty to discuss about whether it will stay. 3D came, 3D went again (as a consumer product).

That's not to say don't finish in 4K... But just because the people making 4K screens, projectors, cameras etc are saying that 4K is the next big thing, doesn't make it so (again, at a consumer level)

 

[Ketch Rossi]

On this one I am totally with Bruce, you want 4K and you should have 4K, but simply don't expect to ever have it at the same price as 2K, is not going to happen, it should not happen, we all pay extra for Quality, it should always be so!


Now, if we are to compare what 4K costs today, vs. what 2k costed a year or two ago, then I agree, costs are shrinking fast, as better and faster more powerful tools come along, but Labor should always be respected and paid accordingly.


4K Master finish will get cheaper and cheaper, thanks to better tools at more affordable prices, Labor is cheap when you get low end workers, if you get High end pro's it's expensive, but what it really is, it's just that you always get what you paid for, low cost equals most of the time to low quality slow turn arounds, high coast or at list certainly higher cost equals to better work and faster turn around.

 

[Andy Roberts]

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

I like the Freudian slip here... "hoped" vs. "hopped"

Some invested in hope, and now their investment will start to pay off.

 

[Kennan Ward]

Wow kennan those images are incredible....

Thanks Jarred! Hopefully something will work for the newest RedReel?

Kare and I were shocked last month when National Geographic asked for the R3D raw files only after seeing a preview! This was our fact that the industry changed!

Thank you again!

Kennan & Karen Ward

P.S. Karen is one of only a few women who uses an Epic! Maybe the girls could be known as Epic Women! Or Scarlet Ladies! All GOOD!

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

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

Exactly!!! I've been telling people this for some time now. 4K/UHD expands the storage and compute requirements by a factor of 4 over 2K/1080p. People didn't have any problem with working in 2K/1080p in 2007... Storage has had an 8-fold increase in capacity in that time and it costs 1/10th of what it did per GB those 6 years ago. Compute power? We have 4 times the number of cores per workstation these days and a nearly 60% increase in both ALU and FPU performance per core since then, all for the same same money, or even a bit less. That also doesn't factor in advancements in dedicated compute cards and increasingly powerful graphics solutions. We push around 2K on handheld devices like it's nothing.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Thanks Jarred! Hopefully something will work for the newest RedReel?

Kare and I were shocked last month when National Geographic asked for the R3D raw files only after seeing a preview! This was our fact that the industry changed!

+1, those are great shots!

Wait, whuuut? NatGeo asked for R3D files??? Cool.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

It will come, but there is still plenty to discuss about whether it will stay. 3D came, 3D went again (as a consumer product).

That's not to say don't finish in 4K... But just because the people making 4K screens, projectors, cameras etc are saying that 4K is the next big thing, doesn't make it so (again, at a consumer level)

Not sure 3D ever went, more like its taking a while to actually get here. 100% of people I know with a 3D TV use the 3D less than half of those I know with a HD TV use HD regularly. Most who don't have a 3D TV in the HD group upgraded to a new TV pre 3D but still aren't at a point where even the most killer feature will make them replace a working TV.

3D consumer availability is climbing steadily here in the UK, slower than HD but even that's slow. Digital took ages to get a footing,with one of its biggest pushes being the announcement the government was shutting it down to sell the rights.

3D at home will likely continue a slow increase, and I suspect 4k will do simiarly, slow but steady. I suspect as consumer tech goes the 4k install base may never overtake 3D as 3D is filtering down to more budget TVs already, and 4k TVs with no 3D capabilities are likely to be rare things for consumers.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It will come, but there is still plenty to discuss about whether it will stay. 3D came, 3D went again (as a consumer product).

That's not to say don't finish in 4K... But just because the people making 4K screens, projectors, cameras etc are saying that 4K is the next big thing, doesn't make it so (again, at a consumer level)

It will stay. 1080p isn't enough pixels for large screen HDTVs. 1080p acquisition can't fill the screen on an iPad or Galaxy tab, or Nexus 10, or...

Why fight it? Embrace it.


As for 3D. People do want it. It's not the concept that's a problem, it's the delivery. Make the shitty glasses, out-of sync frames, active shutters, etc.. all the flaws with the tech, make those flaws go away and 3D will be here to stay. 4K? It's just a step up in resolution and clarity. Totally different thing. More detail and clarity are always a good thing. Well, almost always a good thing...

 

[Maik Müller]

It will stay. 1080p isn't enough pixels for large screen HDTVs. 1080p acquisition can't fill the screen on an iPad or Galaxy tab, or Nexus 10, or...

Why fight it? Embrace it.

+1

1080p is for 5"-phones now.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

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.
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

It will cost a LOT more do VFX in 2K and then go back to VFX vendors "later" and "do 4K" then it costs to do VFX in 4K to begin with.

And that is the point.

Hollywood tent-pole, wall-to-wall VFX blockbuster films aside - many movies have only a handful of VFX shots. If the producer is smart, he or she will work with a VFX vendor and give them more time to complete the shots in 4K as way to minimize any cost impact.

I don't want to derail this thread into another "problems in the VFX industry" discussion. I love VFX and have mad respect for VFX artists. I'm just pointing out that unless you are working with unrealistic turnaround times, which are driven by studios, not by smart producers, you would be surprised how affordable 4K VFX can be.

 

[Jay Birch]

It will stay. 1080p isn't enough pixels for large screen HDTVs. 1080p acquisition can't fill the screen on an iPad or Galaxy tab, or Nexus 10, or...

Why fight it? Embrace it.


...

I'm not fighting anything, most of the footage i capture is 4K+ and i have a legitimate, non film maker reason for needing that resolution.

I just think people need to be realistic about the pace of 4K, at a consumer level.... People who think it will be the same pace (or faster) than HD are in dreamland. I'd place good money that 4K will only be properly in the home when it costs no extra money than buying a HDTV.

Most people are happy.... Most people have no room for a 50"+ screen.

 

[Elsie N]

I'm not fighting anything, most of the footage i capture is 4K+ and i have a legitimate, non film maker reason for needing that resolution.

I just think people need to be realistic about the pace of 4K, at a consumer level.... People who think it will be the same pace (or faster) than HD are in dreamland. I'd place good money that 4K will only be properly in the home when it costs no extra money than buying a HDTV.

Most people are happy.... Most people have no room for a 50"+ screen.

Jay, you could be right, but I subscribe to the notion that as technology grows, it grows exponentially due to the fact that breakthroughs, beget breakthroughs, beget breakthroughs and so forth. And I think you underestimate the cravings of the public for better and better technology. Plus, you don't have to have total acceptance for something to be a success.

 

[Alex Kiritz]

First REDRAY was 10 mbps. Then it went up. For a while it was 20 mbps. Now it's back down to 9. Which is it?

 

[Jay Birch]

Hey, no one will be happier than me, if it takes off quicker than i imagine.... I have years worth of 3k/4K stock footage that i'll be more than happy to make a 2nd round of money off.

I'm currently in the business of selling video via phones/tablets.... So i more than understand how technology can move fast.... 1080p on a 5" phone is ridiculous (though, i should point out that 720p video looks pretty great on these screens).

I chat to my friends in the non film/tv world though.... and no one is that hyped on 4KTVs. When it comes, it comes.... But i can't see them dropping $2k to get onboard, like the HD days. The pay off just isn't enough for Joe Public.

 

[Les Dittert]

First REDRAY was 10 mbps. Then it went up. For a while it was 20 mbps. Now it's back down to 9. Which is it?

Depends on if the scene is shimmering water or a featureless white wall.

 

[Phil Holland]

People who think it will be the same pace (or faster) than HD are in dreamland.

I am in dreamland then. I think we'll see "speedier" adoption of the UHD format than 1080p for a variety of reasons. The main one being that LCD technology is already inexpensive. We have to keep in mind that when HD was developing, so were the displays. That's still holds true today, but nowhere near the development cycles that transpired before. Specifically we've seen in just the span of a year having 4K displays drop astronomically in price.

Additionally, the painful format and codec growing pains are likely going to be avoided completely and replaced by a different growing pain all together. Digital distribution. However, it won't be as dividing as HDDVD vs. Blu-ray. It will be something else entirely. And we're just now seeing that unfold. The one thing that's very plain to see is how many major players are coming to the 4K party. It seems now every week a new player enters the arena. All of those players want content. It's just a matter of how, where, and who.

At CES in January now we can see the clear movement forward with more affordable 4K displays. The most expensive are indeed those massive 80" screens. But, also keep in mind 4K was demonstrated on 20" tablets and the technology was showcased in cell phones. The industry is adopting this format. It's been approved by the ITU. HDMI 2.0 makes it easy for the consumer. By the end of the year we'll see 4K displays in a new price bracket that we probably thought would happen around 2015.

I agree, 4K won't super saturate until the prices drop. However, gamers and motion picture enthusiasts will initially drive the market. Producing desire and want. Just like HD did. Content creators will distribute 4K material that will also excite that interest.

This is indeed one of those situations where "if you build it, they will come".

 

[Bruce Allen]

It will cost a LOT more do VFX in 2K and then go back to VFX vendors "later" and "do 4K" then it costs to do VFX in 4K to begin with.

And that is the point.

Hollywood tent-pole, wall-to-wall VFX blockbuster films aside - many movies have only a handful of VFX shots. If the producer is smart, he or she will work with a VFX vendor and give them more time to complete the shots in 4K as way to minimize any cost impact.

I don't want to derail this thread into another "problems in the VFX industry" discussion. I love VFX and have mad respect for VFX artists. I'm just pointing out that unless you are working with unrealistic turnaround times, which are driven by studios, not by smart producers, you would be surprised how affordable 4K VFX can be.

Sure, I do agree that 4K can be affordable. I agree 100% with you there.

That's what I said though - I agreed with everything except "It makes ZERO sense to master to 2K or HD today".

I feel it makes plenty of sense if you have unrealistic turnaround times and more than a handful of VFX shots.

Which is... most of the stuff I work on

It's just that time / quality / money triangle (with smart forward planning being the magic booster).

We imported a Toshiba 4K 55" for just over $5000 about a month ago... from a normal retail store...does that count as cheap? Or do you mean cheaper?

And i get your point.. but ironically I would use different examples of the above 2 movies for your argument. Just because.

"Finishing" means something a bit different today than it did yesterday.

$5000 is a little steep if you have say 12 VFX artists but if the colorimetry and black levels are OK, it's doable (eg for $5000 it needs to work as a grading monitor too and not have sucky color).

55" is a little difficult to fit on a compositor's desk though! When we have 4K desktop monitors, then we're in business. Hopefully that happens very soon!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Jay Birch]

Like i said in my initial post.... I strictly mean at a consumer level, eg, the family tv.

btw - packing pixels into these smaller screens is incredibly cheap... Hence the crazy specs like 1080p on a 5" screen.... The price seems to be alot higher once you start looking at TV sizes. Obviously, that will come down, over time. But the notion that a phone has 1080p on 5" shouldn't be used to suggest that 4K at 50" should be equally cheap and widespread.

 

[Jay Birch]

When we have 4K desktop monitors, then we're in business. Hopefully that happens very soon!

This is the key to it all..... I was really hoping the last round of iMacs would go retina.

 

[M Most]

I am in dreamland then. I think we'll see "speedier" adoption of the UHD format than 1080p for a variety of reasons. The main one being that LCD technology is already inexpensive. We have to keep in mind that when HD was developing, so were the displays. That's still holds true today, but nowhere near the development cycles that transpired before. Specifically we've seen in just the span of a year having 4K displays drop astronomically in price.

Stereoscopic 3D is essentially free in many current flat panel sets, yet it still has a pathetically low adoption rate, because it turned out that people just aren't interested, regardless of how much the various industries involved wanted them to be. That's something to keep in mind in a market where an awfully high percentage of people not only already have a large, flat screen television, but they probably bought it within the last 2 or 3 years. And they're watching less and less of it, based on all the studies I seem to see. "Second screens" seem to be the growth area right now, and that doesn't' involve 4K, 60 inch sets, or anything else. It involves iPads and other tablets, as well as phones.

What you and other directly interested parties might want doesn't always translate to civilians and other "normal" folks with limited discretionary funds who make up the population of consumers. I also think you're living in dreamland, but that's only an opinion, no more or less valid than yours or anyone else's.