A Response To Jim Jannard and 1080P

[Jannard]

In September at the exhibition "Cinec" in Munich there was a survey by a camera manufacturer about what features people would expect in a future camera. The results were published now: 49% want 4K resolution and a S35 sensor, 19% voted for 1080p.

Well... that is a revelation!

Jim

 

[Jarred Land]

Google is getting ready...

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/youtube-4k-resolution-do-we-care/2277

 

[Ben Holmes]

Recording to 1080P ProRes is coming... but what happens when TV goes to 4K? We'll give you what you ask for... but need to tell you that 1080P's days are numbered.

BTW... you can also record 720P and transcode to SD. Every option is available. Ever wonder why YouTube has a 4K option?

Jim

Thank you very much - this is great news. Whilst I have no doubt that current HDTV will be the SD of the future, I'm happy we'll have a solution for the current generation of broadcast and cameras.

As I've said before, the beauty of the RED approach is keeping those 4K files for future use, which we've always done from day one. Future proofing in hand.

Merry Christmas Jim.

 

[Michael Hastings]

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

Jim, I recognize where you are going with this - and totally with you. To understand that "spell" it may be useful to recall that we were seeing complete high definition systems -I.e. Cameras, character generators, switchers, etc at NAB 1986 ('88? Brain's fuzzy-no coffee yet) so many who worked in the TV industry simply got worn out with the extended transition period-and maybe burned a bit with early purchases. It's pretty easy for them to see long term problems with 4:3 STD.def material - harder with 16:9 HD. Add in all the uncertainty that the Internet creates with their business models and I think they just say "we've been down this road before - we'll deal with the future when it gets here.

I think a key point is this quote from the google article: “The emerging Google business model is to be a catalyst in all adjacent markets,” Hundt said. “That’s a very distinctive and extremely creative business model.”

Red is that catalyst in the TV/Video/Cinema markets and I believe the Epic will serve to drag them out of the 1080P class just as the Betacam dragged field television production out of 3/4" "260 line smeared color" era.

 

[Mark Phelan]

And did I mention that REDray is 5 times the resolution of 1080P and half the bandwidth?

Jim

Jim,

That is something I didn't know. Make that point again, LOUDER.

 

[JD Holloway]

I've always believed in 4k broadcast, but I have a feeling that the 4k delivery tech will be here before 4k display availability/adoption....

So what do we do with that?

Many high def providers have used compression to slip multiple digi "HD" (720 60i 24mb/s) channels into a single SD bandwidth. I have a feeling that there will be a period where we just see RED RAY tech (or whatever we call it) used to deliver 1080 in increasingly smaller bandwidths. If it results in better quality 1080, well, thats at least a step in the right direction. It may also get people owning set-top boxes that decode/transcode the RED RAY format, hopefully with the ability to scale up to 4K in the future.

Frankly, I would be OK with that for a while. 4k display tech will be damn expensive for early adopters (unless you can justify it as a business expense, like a post shop). I just bought a Pani ae4000u, the RED demo reels (1080) look pretty decent on it and the tiny acoustic perforations in my screen add a nice sharpening effect, like grain.

I'd like to see EPIC 5/4k material on this setup, but a 10,000 projector and 2000 player is a pretty big jump at this point, but not for the true AV enthusiast...if there is content.

One of the biggest complaints we heard about early HD and 3D adopters was that there was no material around to take advantage of it.
Something about the "cart before the horse".

So how about wicked 1080 RT streaming...? (Ducks)

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

I have a feeling that there will be a period where we just see RED RAY tech (or whatever we call it) used to deliver 1080 in increasingly smaller bandwidths.

It would be a shame but i'm sure it will too.

 

[Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig]

I am really amazed at the spell that the industry fell under on this one...

HD was the Holy Grail of the industry, eternally postponed since the 80s. So I guess many ppl fell for that reason. :rolleyes5:

 

[JD Holloway]

Also, if RED RAY conversion could be miniaturized, it could make a more robust wireless transmitter solution that could cost less than 3G HD-SDI and be more robust. On a UHF frequency, range could be measured in miles, not feet, I would think...

HAM license not included...

 

[Jim Retar]

I just don't get the use of the term "mistake". It is just senstationlistic.

SD, 720p, 1080p, 3D, 4K. All stepping stones to whatever comes next. Jim, do you really think the industry will just say "that's it then, perfect" at 4K?

How is a stepping stone a mistake?

Until 2007 (RED One), the only option for a possible 4K finish was 35mm or larger film. So, 90% of digital TV programs would never have been made and a good many films would never have been shot in the way they wanted to be (16mm, HD, SD), be it for budget restraints or artist use of these formats.

Are you saying that the first digital standard should have been 4KIn the 80s, that would have been impossible. Fact.

I fully understand that 4K will come this decade.... I fully back the idea that if you can finish in 4K, you should do so.... but the elitist attitude that SD and HD will be considered a mistake is plain baffling.

Some of the absolute BEST programing was made because of the low budget and ease of video. I'll still watch shows like "the office" when we all have 16K hologram 3D walls.

 

[Andrew M.]

I know Jim has closed down the thread about his view of 1080P, but I just got around to giving a more thorough response. It can be found at:
http://www.stevesherrick.com

Feel free to comment there or here. It's an interesting discussion.

Steve, interesting summary of current state of 1080 and I can see few of your points that are difficult to argue.

However we have to differentiate the final resolution format that people are looking at (end-user delivery format) and acquisition format that original material is shot with.
These are two different worlds.

4K is as I call it, view through the window experience. You just don’t see the screen anymore.
With 4K for the first time I was having impression that I look out through the glass window.
(You can add 3D to it)

I agree that 1080 for small screen at home is sufficient if you don’t need to stop the motion being played. That is why YouTube will be popular at 4K.
How many times I wished watching YouTube to have res pull down choices of 1K, 2K, 4K not 360p, 480p, 720p

But did you ever try to press the pause button on your 1080p being played. Blobs of 8X8 square pixels what you will see.

Acquisition is a different world, you need to go frame by frame here, can’t use 1080 for large screen or VFX work even when the final screening res will be also 1080.

Can’t take single frame and blow it up as a picture. In old days I had 8MP Canon for this.

Don’t mix apple with oranges, screening res and acquisition res are two different ballgames.

BTW as HDRx is “killer ups” for 5K RED camera, metaphorically speaking.
3D will be probably the killer uplication to bring 4K as a must have it, for 3D.

 

[Clint Lealos]

Mr. Retar, I see your logic very clearly. It is valid. I would suggest that Mr. Jannard is referring to the continuing assertion by some companies that we should remain in a 1080p world when he says 1080p is "a mistake". I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think he would argue that 1080p should never have happened. Rather, that 1080p should no longer be happening. Two very different arguments.

I believe RED is proposing we use attainable technology (4K everything) to become the standard because we could in the very near future see "film quality" images everywhere we look (Movies, TV, Internet, etc.) 1080p was a stepping stone, but now it is being used by the big boys to sell old and easy technology to the masses because they can. I think marketing like that gets under Mr. Jannard's skin, which is why his language can appear strong minded when he speaks about a 1080p future.

So, maybe you are both right, but you have two very different perspectives on the matter.

 

[Steven Caesare]

I just don't get the use of the term "mistake". It is just senstationlistic.

SD, 720p, 1080p, 3D, 4K. All stepping stones to whatever comes next. Jim, do you really think the industry will just say "that's it then, perfect" at 4K?

How is a stepping stone a mistake?

Until 2007 (RED One), the only option for a possible 4K finish was 35mm or larger film. So, 90% of digital TV programs would never have been made and a good many films would never have been shot in the way they wanted to be (16mm, HD, SD), be it for budget restraints or artist use of these formats.

Are you saying that the first digital standard should have been 4KIn the 80s, that would have been impossible. Fact.

I fully understand that 4K will come this decade.... I fully back the idea that if you can finish in 4K, you should do so.... but the elitist attitude that SD and HD will be considered a mistake is plain baffling.

Some of the absolute BEST programing was made because of the low budget and ease of video. I'll still watch shows like "the office" when we all have 16K hologram 3D walls.

I don't think Jim is suggesting that 1080p in and of itself was a mistake.

As the next logical distribution format, it serves it's need. Currently it gives us the best possible version of exsisting content, such film.

The mistake is to think that 1080 is a sufficient acquisition format. As it's clear that 4k distribution and displays are on te horizon (which may be approaching faster than many realize), that 1080p content will no longer measure up.

Thse film conent will look great. The 4K acquired digital cinema content will look great. The content for which 1920x1080 is the highest resolution master source avaiable, will look like a mistake.

-sc

 

[Robert Frank]

In the near future... the same companies that told you 1080P "was good enough" will release 4K cameras and tell you a new story. Mark my words.

Jim

I've said this same thing before. And their marketing hype will somehow take credit for the work RED has done.

 

[Jim Retar]

This is why I think the using the word "mistake" was sensationalist. It instantly creates and divides opinion, rather than leaving a clear statement.

I'll keep quiet now, as I don't want to get harrassed.

 

[Richard Lonsdale]

4k is the 1080p of the future:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11436939

I very much doubt that Red will call it a day at 4k, and in the future they will also be telling us that 4k isn't good enough - but I hope they will be supplying the cameras that will be able to create content at 8k and beyond.

In the mean time, everybody on this board is chomping at the bit to get hold of an Epic or Scarlet, so we can start producing content at 3/4/5k... which will not be 'good enough' for the Super Hi-Vision standard of the 2020's.

Just because our films will not technically be suitable, does not mean they won't have value and interest in the future, just as the thousands of films and TV shows shot at 1080p have now and beyond.

Sitcoms like Seinfeld, Friends and Frasier have lasting value due to being shot on film - even though they were shot in 4:3 and are now presented as HD with pillarboxing. Documentaries like 'Restrepo' are shot on low grade 1080p cameras, but will have ever-lasting value as a slice of time. Terminator 2 and hundreds of pioneering films since had their CGI complied at 2k at best, but they still have drama and impact and will survive up-rezzed and pixelated to 4k and beyond.

As Jim Retar said, 1080p is just a stepping stone - and an essential one to get us into the future.

 

[Ben Holmes]

4K in the home will be driven by two things:

1) increasing screen size, in turn driven by manufacturers looking to upsell to us, and

2) pay broadcasters looking to differentiate and upsell to subscribers.

As pay TV subscriptions become saturated in many countries (like the UK) broadcasters are forced to look at new tech (including the vast sums sunk into 3D in the last two years) to increase revenue per subscriber and decrease churn.

I have little doubt that 4K or UHDTV will be the next 3D

 

[Jim Retar]

Speaking of which.... in marketing terms... I think Ultra HD or Quad HD will be the buzzword, rather than 4K.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I've decided. I need to talk louder...

Jim

Sounds like its time for You to dust off those plans to make a Red Ray based 4K, 12.2 surround, 50" and 70", Internet enabled, Home media center. If I recall, you were going to manufacture it domestically and offer unheard of $4000 pricing on the 50"!

That was You, wasn't it? I could have swore I was having this conversation with You on a certain Red Day? Right, Jim? There's no possible way I imagined this...

 

[Ken Chan]

I think that 4K is the future too. I really would like RED to build a 4K 2/3" Scarlet even if they have to delay it another 6 months.