A Response To Jim Jannard and 1080P

[Stuart English]

4K delivery

4K delivery

As to TV, the EBU (European Broadcast Union) has target 1080p50 as the goal. HD broadcast is still marginal in 1080i50, 1080p25, 720p50 or 720p25. The purpose of 1080p50 is to have one common standard. I personnaly think this a good format for TV, given the size of screens most people have a t home. I have a 720x1280 projector whihc I'm very happy with, still too little HD content, and stepping up to 1080p50 will already bring me a great quality upgrade. 4K projection in my home would make no sense.

Which brings about one problem, if you want to be future proof for cinema and for TV you need 4K resolution and 50p, now that's a lot of data !!! And if you're shooting with a bayer sensor, that means you need to shoot 5K at 50p! Which is why I've got an Epic on order.

If there is still only marginal coverage in HD 1080, that is very sad. I recall attending IBC shows when it was being discussed over 20 years ago.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=1242

You are correct that to shoot 50fps 4K (or 5K), EPIC is your only choice but the REDCODE data rate is still relatively low. With RED RAY the distribution codec data rate is comparable to HDTV MPEG-2 broadcasts today. So it's really only 4K displays (for sure coming) and an iron will to do it - via broadcast or the internet - that is needed to enable 4K "UltraHDTV" delivery.

 

[Stefan Christou]

It isn't hard for me to see the future. I have to wonder why it is so hard for some.

We built a film replacement camera. Film is future-proof but it has Moore's Law issues. 1080P is not future-proof. Pretty easy to understand. The surprise is how many people bought into the real scam... at the highest level. I am really amazed at the spell that the industry fell under on this one...

Jim

Perhaps Jim, like Steve Jobs and Richard Branson you are dyslexic? And as one myself I can say we have a particular distaste for over reverence towards politics and the status quo. And over reverence towards such matters is a sure-fire way of being blinded by bullshit.

 

[Marc Wielage]

It doesn't really matter when it happens... next week or next year. If you want your movie or TV show to ever be released in 4K, shooting it in 1080P won't cut it.

My suspicion, though is that the studios are going to be reluctant to go back and reconform original 4K material once a project has been completed in 2K. In other words, just because the original material exists doesn't mean they'll pull it out of the warehouse and use it.

I bet there's a thousand movies out there (including some of the biggest films in history) that will be stuck at 2K forever, and it won't really matter. People watch for content -- good stories, good acting, good direction -- more than they watch for resolution.

I'm not saying that everything has to look like Paranormal Activity (an HD movie that made $200M). But I'm saying there are better things to worry about than pixels alone. For example, the fact that the Epic has more exposure range than your previous cameras gives me hope that that will help us make better pictures in post.

I think aspect ratio is a far bigger concern than number of pixels per se. I'd bet you that there are a lot of old 4x3 standard-def videotape shows that really are doomed to look "old" forever, because all future sets will undoubtedly be at least 16x9. (I'm doubtful that we'll go to a wider aspect ratio anytime soon, but that's possible, too.)

 

[David Mullen ASC]

My suspicion, though is that the studios are going to be reluctant to go back and reconform original 4K material once a project has been completed in 2K. In other words, just because the original material exists doesn't mean they'll pull it out of the warehouse and use it.

I bet there's a thousand movies out there (including some of the biggest films in history) that will be stuck at 2K forever, and it won't really matter. People watch for content -- good stories, good acting, good direction -- more than they watch for resolution.

It will be a money decision -- a really popular title done at 2K may be redone at 4K, efx and all, if the sales of the redone version are big enough to pay for the work. I could see "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, for example, being redone at 4K someday. But it's hard to imagine some Jennifer Anniston romantic comedy that went through a 2K D.I. and did so-so at the box office being redone at 4K. On the other hand it would probably be easier to redo the Jennifer Aniston movie at 4K because of the lack of visual efx that need to be redone.

Mike Most and I were talking about the Star Trek series the other day, how the original series from the 1960's could be retransferred at 1080P and efx redone because there were only three seasons of episodes and each one only had a half-dozen efx shots in them... but for "Next Generation" it's going to be daunting to redo all the visual efx in 1080P for seven seasons (let alone 4K some day), even though the non-efx footage is 35mm. But it all depends on how much of a market there would be for a redone version and how expensive it would be to do.

More likely with an efx heavy movie like the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" that the few non-efx shots could be rescanned and finished in 4K someday but a lot of the visual efx will just be uprezzed from 2K rather than redone.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Oldschool FX are gonna be difficult to change to 4K without a huge demand.

But 4K is still the theoretical upper limit of 35mm scans, which means it's a legitimate "gold standard" for 100 years worth of filmed entertainment. "6K" cannot make the same claim.

4K as a display format makes sense in so many ways. Once you see it, you will stop questioning it.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

4 years ago I posted something about the future of the digital image being 300 DPI and the reversion to smaller screens with increased DPI rather than larger "bigger" pixels. With the advent of the iPhone4 'Retina' display, the market is now primed and hungry for "print quality" digital imagery and graphics.

4K now is now more relevant than ever. It will become the minimum standard of image acquisition for 300DPI screen devices. The larger devices will naturally ofcourse benefit.

Have you got a link, I would like to have a look. I've found that anything above 150/160dpi, the mind starts integrating color, which is far past full hd, in a large close cinema view. So 300dpi would be good.

I also have never found a proper documentation about the measurements and definitions of DPI, I've had to retest myself. If anybody could reference one?

 

[mike ogden]

4k is nice for docs and live TV IF it ever happens in the next ten years.

BUT -- 4k is gonna give set designers, prop and make up -- basically anything in front of camera a nightmare for drama shoots. Watching HD movies, I already see set design features that look very hokey -- distressed sets and props that look painted on, make up that looks caked. It's all very well to say that those departments need to raise their game, but it'll cost $$$€€€ etc.

We don't need more resolution, we need more latitude.

 

[Stuart English]

4K

4K

Well to exceed 35mm we need both, but why do you believe moving beyond HD makes those departments jobs harder?

 

[mike ogden]

Because the resolution at 4k shows more detail.

To make sets, props and even make up seem real and natural, more work has to be put in to increase the level of detail. I already see this at 1080p.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Because the resolution at 4k shows more detail.

To make sets, props and even make up seem real and natural, more work has to be put in to increase the level of detail. I already see this at 1080p.

Just like film, you mean?

 

[David Rasberry]

Because the resolution at 4k shows more detail.

To make sets, props and even make up seem real and natural, more work has to be put in to increase the level of detail. I already see this at 1080p.

Why would you not have the same issues with 35mm film? Over sharpened 1080p with a lot of false edge detail is probably worse for this than a true high resolution frame with a smoother more film like texture.

 

[Stuart English]

Artifacts

Artifacts

The live feeds from Time Square last night showed off what can happen with bad HDTV to a tee.

Horrible, horrible image quality - everyone's skin looked like a rumpled paper bag - it just sucked.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Past 1080 and 2K films will survive (if the content is there): the look is will be accepted as part of their aesthetic.

I don't worry about how current super 16 or black and white movies are going to fair in future viewings. 4K is for now and the foreseeable future.
Let what has been done fall where it may, the future should not be hobbled by the past.

Don't apply the old "it's not the camera it's the ..." argument. Yes movies can be made on 1080, and on dslrs, and smaller, if it is appropriate to do so - but that does not help one bit if one's artistic desires are firmly based upon a highly nuanced image quality as a point of departure.
And let's face it, when it comes to image quality (and that is what is being discussed here, not craft) the utmost in fidelity is most highly sought after. And it will do craft no harm.

"Too revealing": take a look at the huge backlit transparency outputs of high end (large format) fashion shots at your nearest mall - put your nose up to them - and then think 1080P as a standard: rubbish.

4K (albeit a very good one) should be a start, not an end to cinema resolution.
I don't want 4K and higher because I believe it will make me a better filmmaker, I want it because it will speak the language that I (and many many others) speak.

 

[Marc Wielage]

It will be a money decision -- a really popular title done at 2K may be redone at 4K, efx and all, if the sales of the redone version are big enough to pay for the work. I could see "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, for example, being redone at 4K someday.

Absolutely. It helps when the filmmaker owns his (or her) own post house. But I think that's still many years away, even for Jackson, because he's a very busy guy.

...but for "Next Generation" it's going to be daunting to redo all the visual efx in 1080P for seven seasons (let alone 4K some day), even though the non-efx footage is 35mm. But it all depends on how much of a market there would be for a redone version and how expensive it would be to do.

Yeah, I agree. I did some HD re-transfer tests on TNG at Technicolor for Paramount, and I think the scenes we did for looked very good (lit by Ed Brown). The footage I saw from 1988 looked like it was shot maybe five years ago, not 20. But aspect ratio is still an issue, and conforming all the material (years before keykode) all essentially has to be done by eye. It's a big mess, not only in terms of time and money, but also logistics. Ultimately, I think Paramount has put off the decision for another time.

The old Star Trek series was redone at Sunset Post (with CBS doing some of the new effects and Complete Post doing some of the conforming), and even that took two dozen staffers over a year, and cost several million dollars -- roughly $50K per episode. And that was just 1080. 4K would be a nightmare from a data archival and post point of view. Plus it's still a 4x3 aspect ratio, which is going to date it, no matter what.

BUT -- 4k is gonna give set designers, prop and make up -- basically anything in front of camera a nightmare for drama shoots. Watching HD movies, I already see set design features that look very hokey -- distressed sets and props that look painted on, make up that looks caked. It's all very well to say that those departments need to raise their game, but it'll cost $$$€€€ etc.

Naaaa. These problems are solvable with good lighting and good color correction. I can think of at least three major network shows (just in 1080) where they routinely pull defocus keys on every single close-up of the lead actors. It's gotten to the point where I start to do this without even being asked, though I usually do a before-and-after comparison to the DP to make sure they're OK with it. We do it mainly to hide blemishes or worry lines, just to help a 45-year-old actress look 35. No crime in that.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Why would you not have the same issues with 35mm film? Over sharpened 1080p with a lot of false edge detail is probably worse for this than a true high resolution frame with a smoother more film like texture.

Exactly what I was going to say David!

Graeme

 

[Dane Brehm]

TV kills the Radio star
Internet kills TV [/QUOTE]

With NBC Universal being purchased by Comcast it might be sooner then later. We see that. As we transition from Copper to Fiber What is "internet" and what is "TV" will be one and the same. We will soon determine our "quality" not by resolution, but bandwidth

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/business/media/04nbc.html

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Why would you not have the same issues with 35mm film? Over sharpened 1080p with a lot of false edge detail is probably worse for this than a true high resolution frame with a smoother more film like texture.

When people first started using HD for narrative back in the early 2000's, for producers who had been shooting in 35mm before, I made the same point when everyone panicked about sets and make-up needing to be better for HD.

The set people were used to crappy, fuzzy video tap images from the 35mm camera and never bothered to see any tests projected (and projected film dailies had disappeared by then for almost anyone but big shows), so suddenly seeing their work live on an HD monitor was a big shock, but my reaction was "this isn't much different than 35mm in terms of resolution -- everyone's work before had to be good enough for 35mm and projection on a huge theater screen after all."

Of course, back then we were talking about 2/3" HD and some of the issues regarding "seeing too much" were not only due to people simply not being used to watching live images at high resolution, but also increased depth of field making background detail more obvious, and electronic sharpening artifacts which appeared even if sharpening was turned off on the camera because often the monitors had some degree of edge enhancement applied.

The truth is that most 35mm movies are shot today at generally wide apertures, and most shots are medium to close, so there is a lot of focus fall-off in the backgrounds. So this new fear about building sets for 4K resolution is mostly unfounded -- as Richard Sylbert once lamented, as production designer he was responsible for everything in a movie that was out-of-focus and didn't move.

And as for close-ups, well, post cosmetic touch-ups are becoming the norm. But even with 35mm film photography, it's not like you could get away with a bad make-up job in a close-up anyway, so the work has always needed to be done well.

Sure, a few more mistakes are going to be more obvious in 4K, the work has to a notch better than before in 35mm, but not by much.

 

[Jack Cooper]

The live feeds from Time Square last night showed off what can happen with bad HDTV to a tee.

Horrible, horrible image quality - everyone's skin looked like a rumpled paper bag - it just sucked.

Stuart, if I understand your statement and with all due respect, to imply that the live feed quality was a result of "just/only" the HDTV equipment/camera, is significantly misleading.

We are constantly testing feeds to improve image quality. Our experience has proven out that the camera (ie. Red or others) is not currently the limiting factor. In fact, it may be the most "advanced" in terms of the technology value chain.

What do I want for Christmas...?
-- Wireless streaming of the Red signal OVER 125 yards! at less than $500 per Epic,
-- the ability to handle 6 simultaneous wireless Red streams into our tricaster
-- and low cost fiber or sat uplink to those aggregators (livestream, ustream, etc.) for global viewing.

Until we get other elements "caught up" to the camera, Red or otherwise...it's really an irrelevant point to the conversation you reference...

 

[Mark Phelan]

4K as a display format makes sense in so many ways. Once you see it, you will stop questioning it.

Spot on.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

(...)
4K as a display format makes sense in so many ways. Once you see it, you will stop questioning it.

Just curious...

Where - outside a cinema - have you seen this?


I'd love to see it, too...