4K future prediction

[Zhibo Lai]

A majority of films still being scanned at 2K, correct?

Currently 2K is good enough for me and I don't foresee myself outputting in 4K anytime soon, unless the theaters begin shifting to a 4K output. Thus, for my needs, the only appeal of the S35 scarlet is the S35 sensor and DoF. The 2/3 brain will be more than sufficient for my needs.

However, I'd like to plan for the future and when the new Scarlet/Epics finally arrive in late 2009 and superb 4K outputs can be delivered and processed at super low prices (compared to film), I feel the industry and the film economy may have a shift and move to 4K outputs. Of course, this'll take several years to happen.

But when Red has a firm ground in digital cinema and other companies change their plans to follow, 4K could soon be the new standard for cinema projection. So a 2K output may be old news in a couple of years.

If this reality is very possible, then getting the S35 brain will now have a lot more value and will prob be the better investment for me.

This is just my speculation, anyone else have any thoughts, or am I just full of S****.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Just don't confuse 4K RGB mastering and 4K RGB resolution with shooting 4K RAW Bayer. You want the camera's RAW pixel count to be somewhat higher than the target resolution level, so shoot 4K or 3K RAW even if what you want to end up with is a 2K master. Don't think "if all I need is a 2K master, then all I need is a 2K RAW camera."

Practical resolution is a complicated issue, and the future will see movies with all sorts of resolution levels whether or not they are shown in 1080P, 2K, or 4K projection. The smart thing is to capture in the highest resolution possible just to cover your bets and future repurposing. But the truth is that consumers will be looking at all sorts of pictures in the future -- if a 2K master is all that exists for "Lord of the Rings", for example, then people are going to watch that. I look at old 1970's movies shot with heavy Fog filters, like "Superman", I just accept that that's the quality-level for that movie, I don't expect it to match some 4K ideal standard.

 

[Tom Lowe]

IMO, it's a very safe bet that 4K will replace 2K as the gold standard fairly soon. It's best to future-proof your projects if you can reasonably afford to do so. Major feature films really need to start thinking about this over the next year or two.

Once Epic comes out, its 5- or 6K sensors should produce beautiful 4K finishes. Epic FF35 Monstro in particular, assuming that high-quality lenses will be available for that format, and that modest ASA/ISO gains can be accomplished by red. Recent discussions here indicate that most Master Primes could produce something like a 5.5K resolution, nearly covering the entire FF35 frame. And Red zooms will cover the whole frame, I believe.

But David is correct that much our entertainment shot over the last 50 to 100 years simply will never hold up pixel for pixel at 4K. That's life. We can all live with that, I think. And keep in mind that some older films like Strangelove have gone through 4K restorations that have reportedly produced impressive results.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

4K mastering for archival purposes is becoming more common over at Warner Bros. -- other studios may follow.

But I don't see 4K DCI masters going to 4K projectors in movie theaters as becoming commonplace, not for a long time. 2K projection and 2K DCI masters will probably become the norm for awhile.

Even 4K D.I.'s are still rather rare.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I really hope these theaters aren't putting all their eggs into the 2K projection basket. That is very shortsighted, IMO!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

My only hope is that with the faster obsolescence of electronic goods, the same 2K projectors won't be in use 10 years from now, so we have a chance of coming up with some better standards in a decade. Although for most mid-sized screens, 2K is fine.

I used to prefer to see 70mm blow-ups back in the 1980's and 90's because I felt that the largest of theater screens were pushing the limits of a 35mm print to hold-up to that degree of magnification. Not to mention that 70mm projection did not need anamorphic lenses for 2.40, so the field of focus was flatter and more even.

It would be nice if we had some sort of system where a multiplex with a screen above "x" size used 4K projectors and 4K DCI files, and the mid-sized screens could stick to 2K. 4K projection then could be the equivalent of the 70mm release format we used to have.

 

[Antoine Baumann]

A majority of films still being scanned at 2K, correct?

I think most recent filmscaner scan 35mm @ 6K and then you downsized the resolution, and, of what I know, most of the time it is 2K.

In the 4K (or more) vs 2K debate, why not 4K? Well in my experience because 2K 10bit dpx log (from the scan) and 2K 32bit lin (from the cg) are already "not so easy" to handle, both to play and to process in eavy vfx work, as well as for data handle (multiple backup, bandwith to the servers and so on). I mean for the budget we have here (switzerland), forget 4K for that kind of project.

But for shooting in raw I think 4K-5K are perfect (for now

ciaow,
antoine.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

With the amazing quality\affordability of cameras like the RED and all the other computer\digital miracles that are happening with filmmaking, I wouldn't worry too much about the tech stuff anymore. Not too much.

Finding a great story and turning it into a film script, finding great and talented people with whom to turn that script into a movie - these are the real challenges now, I think. The tech stuff will be just fine.

Cinema is such a great thing, so important for life today. No matter if you're just a viewer or a [wannabe] filmmaker, it's just... magic. I'm so freaking hooked. :sorcerer:

I just re-watched the original Star Wars movie and I had so much fun. [hadn't watched it in a while]

Fun and inspiration... and John Williams's unforgettable themes....

[OK, enough red wine...]

 

[Adam Glick]

"...I really hope these theaters aren't putting all their eggs into the 2K projection basket. That is very shortsighted, IMO! "

Of course, we here are all "purists" who have a highly developed appreciation for image fidelity. It's our chosen artform.

But at the end of the day, the eyes watching your program or film are attached to "dumb" consumers who wouldn't know image quality (or sound quality for that matter) if it hit them in the face with a bat.

Seriously, most business decisions (and industry trends) seem to boil down to which compromises to make in your product on behalf of your consumer. What is "good enough" to satisfy most of the requirements of your largest audience ?

I am going stick my head out and proclaim that 99% of moviegoers wouldn't know -and wouldn't much care what resolution they were watching their Saturday night movie or TV show.

The technical overhead (and associated cost) of standardizing a 4K set-to-screen infrastructure wouldn't seem to make sense when put into perspective with the needs of the average consumer.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I don't see a lot of consumers demanding higher than 2K for theater projection... but consumer tastes change or can be subject to fads.

The widescreen craze of the 1950's was kicked off by the success of "This is Cinerama", which was a hyper-sharp widescreen process with multiple track sound at a time when most movies were 1.37 Academy 35mm b&w with mono sound. Studios jumped to make some large format and widescreen movies for many of their top pictures because they perceived an audience desire for bigger and better pictures and sound -- basically spectacle, more or less culminating in a movie like "Ben Hur", which was shot in 65mm anamorphic, 2.7 : 1 aspect ratio, and was a huge hit plus won a trove of Oscars.

So while I don't see a current interest among viewers for a big increase in quality for the average movie, there is a certain percentage that still love spectacle and the big screen experience, hence why IMAX versions of blockbusters tend to have a higher per-screen average.

But like I was saying, I think magnification size should be a determining factor in the resolution of the projection system. On a medium-sized screen, most people cannot tell the difference between 2K and 4K projection just as when at home, you can't tell the difference between a 720P and 1080P HD image unless you are sitting close enough or the image is very large. But a lot of multiplexes have a few very large screens in them, and I think they are pushing the limits of what a 35mm print or 2K can deliver.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Most Americans have leveraged their credit cards to the breaking point just to buy massive 1080p flatscreens for their homes, so I would argue that, yes, they definitely would know a high-quality image if it smacked them in the face.

I stood in line for hours with thousands of people at the Irvine Spectrum just to see Dark Knight in IMAX, while the lines for 35mm whizzed right past us. So yeah, people are interested in image quality at the theater.

It's the same reason most college kids are willing to drop five grand on a high-end gaming PC.

 

[Joe G.]

3kDI

3kDI

What about a 3K DI as the new standard???

I was going to propose this in a thread of its own, but this thread has the vibe already.

Isn't 3K very close to what film delivers, and so the limits of the 2K finish would disappear at the 3K level?

It also takes significantly less computing and storage than 4K.

3K 2:1 = 3072 x 1536
= 4.7Mb / frame

4K 2:1 = 4096 x 2048
8.4Mb / frame

It's nearly half the storage (56%), yet retains a better image than 2K, which is seemingly acceptable for the world at large. The great unwashed will be none the wiser, but future generations may appreciate the better clarity.

Questions:

1) Are there any barriers to making a 3K DI post process the new standard?

2) Can 3K files be easily written onto film prints (like on an Arrilaser)?

Etc. what do you think?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Seems like a good idea, but I don't know what the post restrictions are.

 

[Adam Glick]

Hi Tom,

I get what you're saying. And there are, for sure, more and more people who "get" the idea of a high-quality cinematic experience. But I respectfully have to disagree with you on some of your points.

Often, advances in consumer technology come with increased performance, resolution and fidelity as a by-product and because it becomes cost-effective to mass-produce.

But the manufacturers put it in initially because they can -and because content becomes feasible to produce and distribute. Not necessarily because consumers are asking for it or appreciate a vastly better experience.

consider (standard def) "digital cable". consider CD's. consider digital cameras. All of these breakthroughs were "sold" to the public (at least partially) on claims of inherently better image and/or sound quality. But all that was mostly BS. "Digital Quality" was the biggest marketing scam of the 21st century IMHO.

It's funny. Ad agency people always ask the post facility if they have a "flame" or "smoke". They have ZERO idea why they need it. They just know that they do. They are ignorant to the idea that their project could probably be done just as well with an artist running Fusion -or maybe even FCP for that matter. And certainly, the person watching a Pepsi commercial at home doesn't know (or care) what platform the spot was finished on.

On a slightly different note. IMAX is a spectacle. -A much more singular experience for the viewer than would be, say, a 4K digital film projection on a normal 45 foot movie screen. I'm pretty confident that the average moviegoer would not be able to spot the difference between HD, 2K or 4K.
And they sure wouldn't want to pay for it.

What's my point? Well, it's the same as before. I stand by my previous statements.

Looking forward, I think that stereographic cinema is a much more timely and compelling direction to look in. The right elements are converging and the time is nearly ripe for a rapidly expanding adoption of 3D digital cinema.

Why? Because it's feasible from a business standpoint.

1. The technologies for producing, distributing and displaying 3D films are quickly becoming more mature and cost-effective.

2. The 3D film market will include a secondary revenue stream from the high-end home cinema market. This is also something I do not expect for 4K anytime in the foreseeable future.

3. The public is always ready to embrace a sensory "spectacle"

rant mode off.

**BTW Tom, your timelapse work is absolutely mesmerizing.

 

[M Most]

3K 2:1 = 3072 x 1536
= 4.7Mb / frame

4K 2:1 = 4096 x 2048
8.4Mb / frame

Those figures would be for monochrome images. Color images require 3 times that amount of storage. A 2K (2048x1556) frame is typically about 12MB. A 3K frame with your dimensions would be a bit over 14MB, and a 4K 2:1 frame given your specific dimensions is over 25MB.

1) Are there any barriers to making a 3K DI post process the new standard?

Yes, one very major one - there is already a DI standard (well, not officially a standard, but a very widely accepted specification created by the DCI consortium, and currently being turned into a standard by the SMPTE 21DC committee), and it's based on 2K and 4K. That's one reason why Arri uses a chip that is basically a 3K chip in the D21, but converts the RAW files it captures through its RAW port into standard 2K files for post production.

2) Can 3K files be easily written onto film prints (like on an Arrilaser)?

Technically, yes, because the Arrilaser is capable of resizing and cropping any way that's desired. But the notion of inventing new standards for minor gain is probably not a good one, particularly when an entire industry has already accepted the current standards and manufactured extensive amounts of equipment (projectors, servers, etc.) to support it.

 

[M Most]

I think that stereographic cinema is a much more timely and compelling direction to look in. The right elements are converging and the time is nearly ripe for a rapidly expanding adoption of 3D digital cinema.

Which, incidentally, is already supported by the existing DCI specification (version 1.2).

 

[Tom Lowe]

3K would be nice, but it would kind of seem like an intermediate, stop-gap spec. 4K is where the action is going to be, I think. It's a large enough leap to justify the switch from 2K.

BOXXLabs, thanks!

 

[Joseph Ward]

4K mastering for archival purposes is becoming more common over at Warner Bros. -- other studios may follow.

But I don't see 4K DCI masters going to 4K projectors in movie theaters as becoming commonplace, not for a long time. 2K projection and 2K DCI masters will probably become the norm for awhile.

Even 4K D.I.'s are still rather rare.

Until, Red comes out with a Projector. :biggrin:

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I wonder how would 3k footage from a 2/3" Scarlet look if blown up to 4K for projection?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

To the future, and beyond

To the future, and beyond

Bayer pattern capture at 5K or 6K, as RED is aiming at with the new cams, should provide a pretty clean 4K file for post. As David suggested there is plenty of upside to creating an image asset with a longer shelf life.

Many of us have a soft spot for the unique look and feel of material shot and finished with older technology. That said, there is a reason re-mastering with "enhancement" (the artistry of which, or lack of same, is a whole 'nother thread) is done, beyond just marketing (though that is often the reason the business decision is made). My example would be watching well mastered Blu-Rays (evidently still an evolving art :meh: ) from 35mm film source, on a professional display, and becoming distracted by the inherent artifacts of the source.

My point, is that to really immerse yourself in the piece, it works best when the technical qualities of the source are well matched to the playback system. Sort of an extension of horses for courses. The first time I saw Crossing the Line in 4K from the front row I was astonished at how much motion blur there was. I know empirically that shooting at 1/48th of a second on film generates a similar amount of motion blur (yes, I know that the type of shutter and the alpha REDs PJ used had an effect as well) but I had never seen it "present" like that.

Sung to the tune of "I want my MTV" - I want 4K, 3D and 60fps. There, that's my future prediction. Luki, will I be able to do that in real time on Scratch 5? :sorcerer: