A Response To Jim Jannard and 1080P

[M Most]

Social Network can be conformed quickly to 4K whenever they feel like a 4K release.

Not unless they're also willing to recreate all of the visual effects shots at 4K as well, potentially a significant investment in time and resources due to the necessity of not only recreating a lot of painstaking work, but also in recovering all of the elements used to create it.

I kind of bristle at the notion that a "4K DI" is still a "4K DI" when almost 75% of the picture's content consists of visual effects shots that were all rendered and/or composited at 2K. That was the case with the last 2 Spider-Man pictures, and it would be the case with Social Network if they did what you're suggesting. As I recall, the large number of VFX shots were one of the primary reasons for a 2K finish in the first place. The same problem exists in archiving television projects that may be primarily shot on Red, but that also include shots on everything from Canon 7D's to Flip cameras. These things are never as cut and dry as they're often made out to be. The origination format gives you a good start, but there are many steps along the path that in large part help to define (and limit) what it is you're creating, regardless of what you start with.

 

[M Most]

I agree DCP has much better color and an absence of compression errors (banding, macro-blocking) that can plague DCT compression based HDTV products. However the data rate used (Mbps) is only one indicator of signal quality, as RED RAY uses less than 10% of that data rate to deliver pristine 4K content.

My guess is that's due, at least in part, to the DCP's use of an MXF wrapped JPEG2000 sequence that does not use any long GOP or interframe compression techniques, as I'm further guessing are involved in the current incarnation of Red Ray. And you know as I do that there are a number of reasons for that, so as you say, simply comparing numbers doesn't really tell an accurate story, in terms of either ultimate quality, color space accuracy, or bit depth capabilities of either.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

A 4k DI with VFX scaled up from 2k as was the case with spiderman is very viable. It's not much different than Dark Night mixing 35mm and 70mm. Or other features mixing Red and other formats.

 

[M Most]

A 4k DI with VFX scaled up from 2k as was the case with spiderman is very viable. It's not much different than Dark Night mixing 35mm and 70mm. Or other features mixing Red and other formats.

I didn't say it wasn't "viable," I said it's a bit nonsensical to go through the trouble and expense of creating what one is calling a "4K DI" when in point of fact almost 3/4 of the picture isn't. And it's quite different than the Dark Knight example because of a number of factors, not the least of which is that the final timing and creation of the interpositive on Dark Knight was done photochemically, basically by reducing everything to 35mm format. That is a lot different than upscaling 2K to 4K.

We could also get into a discussion about the fact that the vast majority of the improvements created by 4K scanning are still retained when that scan is scaled down to 2K for post production. But we won't.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The vfx issue is a real problem with all of those TV shows that shot 35mm to "future-proof" for HD, but did all the efx in NTSC. You end up with the irony of having a great HD transfer of the original "Star Trek" from the 1960's, but "Star Trek: The Next Generation" is sort of stuck in NTSC land because of the efx work done in NTSC. You can get away with just uprezzing the efx shots, retransferring the rest at the higher resolution, if they are a small percentage of the overall production (and if they really are a small percentage, it is also more conceivable that they could be redone) but when you have an efx-heavy show, everything gets sort of stuck at the lowest common denominator.

 

[Craig Ryan]

I think even films done before DI or CGI work won't hold up well at 4k either. The old school matte work and techniques will become even more apparent than before. Basically it's the opposite of CGI; instead of not enough info, there's TOO MUCH info. Stuff we weren't supposed to see as clearly.

Even on 1080p bluray I sometimes find myself cringing or laughing when a shot is obviously rear projection or a matte. The point of diminished returns I'd say. There are a few shots like that in the new Bluray for Alien and Aliens. Both gorgeous 1080p remasters, but some of the vfx simply don't hold up. Maybe some of the filmmakers will go back and use CGI to mask these issues while still retaining the charm of the original material. Blade Runner looks amazing on bluray.

The only films that will have a guaranteed chance at truly holding up to future 4k releases are the old 70mm epics that were done entirely all with sets and location work. Those will be magnificent. But I bet most of the regular 35 features that have tons of vfx work are going to suffer at that resolution. Most of them are already being challenged at 1080p.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

To support this idea though a tangental anecdote...

I bought my wife the BluRay of 'Sound of Music' for Christmas. It looks absolutely stunning, so I watched the featurette that talked about the restoration...they scanned the 65mm negative at 8K and then downrezzed to a 4k master to do the cleanup and color correct. I'm very much looking forward to owning a 4k copy of this movie! Amazing that a movie from the 1960s exists in 8k

 

[Dj Joofa]

well, M. ... what have you created lately, to improve our lifes?

Detlev, Mike Most has a good understanding of digital cinema. I have always found his comments to be highly valuable. And, yes, I have done my small part in "improving the lives", if that satisfies you. But, I still find Mike's understanding of digital imaging systems a great source of information and highly value his input, even if I don't always agree with all aspects of it at all times.

Red's place in history is assured. They created a great camera. However as of late it appears they are getting self-imbibed with their own kool-aid.

Their are many impediments in deploying an otherwise great technology, and Mike does well to point out some of them. These issues are real and the focus of a tehnology creator should be how to resolve or get around some of them if not all.

Joofa

 

[Jannard]

However as of late it appears they are getting self-imbibed with their own kool-aid.
Joofa

Joofa... while the use of the terminology seems "unusual", I think I get what you mean. What exactly are you referring to? I'd love to know so if we are presenting incorrectly we can fix it.

Jim

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

Their are many impediments in deploying an otherwise great technology, and Mike does well to point out some of them. These issues are real and the focus of a tehnology creator should be how to resolve or get around some of them if not all.

If Jim listened to all the reasons why the Red One couldn't be done, we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

There are probably hundreds and hundreds of features around the world already originated in 4k. That's a pretty compelling argument for change that was not expected 3 years ago.

 

[Dj Joofa]

Joofa... while the use of the terminology seems "unusual", I think I get what you mean. What exactly are you referring to? I'd love to know so if we are presenting incorrectly we can fix it.

Jim

Dear Sir, I could be wrong, but my comment was based upon obervation of advances Red has made for some time. Red's understanding of digital imaging has vastly improved over the years. But I'm not sure if digital distribution, deployment, and storage is among Red's core competence. I also get the impression that Red is trying to do several projects at the same time. It is certainly desirable for Red to manufacture and control the entire imaging pipeline from acquisition to distribution, and I can understand this, however, it would appear to me that Red might like to sort out issues in production and manufacturing, before initiating other/new projects that further drain the already constrained resources.

Joofa

 

[paulherrin]

Are you speaking of RED's understanding and "core competence" or your own? They have certainly taken on related (and necessary) projects. The current (short-term) goal of RED is a 4k standard. If nobody was making good projectors, like Sony, I'm sure they'd be working on that as well. They've been really clear about their goals. In any case, most (if not all) of the grunt work for media and distribution has been completed, so why start complaining now?

There's not just one dude trying to do everything... is it not okay to have different people with different responsibilities? I'm confident they are gearing up for production as best they can. But there are people who have no part in that, and they are working on other things, as they should.

In any case, let's please not start whining about the way we think RED should do their own business, just because we think it will get us a product a couple days sooner... let's not be silly, or selfish.

And Mr. Joofa, your comment and explanation thereof made about RED drinking their own poison makes absolutely no sense, I apologize if I'm just not able to understand it... I'm trying to be respectful, but come on man... big words and big allegations, neither containing substance is just a low move. I don't know what you're trying to prove, but please feel welcome to just say it, and remember that respect gets respect.

 

[George A.]

it would appear to me that Red might like to sort out issues in production and manufacturing, before initiating other/new projects that further drain the already constrained resources.

Joofa

Hi Joofa!

Do you have access to information we don't know? Specifically, about the drained/constrained resources of RED. Or, are you just assuming?

I am personally very happy that RED is initiating several projects as the same time. Creating a camera - however great - is not enough. A great camera will change many, many things in the industry. I am glad RED is taking care of "those other things" as well.

Of course, this is my personal opinion and you are entitled to yours.
Warm regards,
George

 

[Steve G]

You can't do that fast and easy with Alexa or any other "good enough" 1080p camera today.

Actually, you can.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Wow, this thread is red-hot.

1080P is a computer standard, not a cinema standard. 1080P is a mistake, make no mistake about it. Package it and justify it no matter how you will... it is a BIG mistake.

I can see a similarity to what happened when a lot of major network series choose to shoot on 525 analog tape in the 1970s and 1980s. All of these shows -- All in the Family, Cosby and so on -- are all doomed to be low-rez 4x3 forever. Not much anybody can do to fix that.

35mm negative was a different story, and it's resolution-independent to the point where it does hold up pretty well in a 2K or 4K world. Stuff like Mary Tyler Moore and Seinfeld, even the original Star Trek, never looked better than they do now in HD. They have the potential to look even better in the future, assuming the negatives hold up. But the aspect ratio is a big issue for all 4-perf shows, since they weren't intended for widescreen presentation.

Where I disagree is that there are very, very good-looking films out there that went completely through post in 2K, and they look fine. I saw Social Network projected in 2K and in film, and it was terrific in both venues. One could argue that they could always go back and re-conform the movie in 4K and reissue it that way, but I'm doubtful that the studio will care enough 5 or 10 years from now to spend the money to redo everything in 4K.

My feeling is that the bigger industry issue to deal with is not high-quality cameras (like the Alexa) shooting in 1080; it's indie filmmakers jumping on highly-compressed cameras like the 5D. I'm personally much more concerned about the gross amounts of compression and limited bandwidth going on with HD presentations, especially from YouTube. People can hail YouTube for hosting 4K files, but how compressed are they? At one point does an image get stepped on so much that 4K just becomes a number and not really an indication of picture quality?

I really like what I've seen of the Red Epic, and I'm looking forward to working on Epic projects in the future. But I think there are much bigger challenges to our industry out there than the half-dozen $50,000 decent digital cameras available to filmmakers. And I'm not convinced that it's the 4K alone that makes the images great.

 

[Billy Barber]

A funny thing happens when you browse through the general arguments in this thread but instead of the terms '1080p' and '4K' you substitute 'black and white' and 'color'.

Or if you like, 'silent films' and 'talkies'.

It's fun! Try it!

 

[Jeff Coatney]

The vfx issue is a real problem with all of those TV shows that shot 35mm to "future-proof" for HD, but did all the efx in NTSC. You end up with the irony of having a great HD transfer of the original "Star Trek" from the 1960's, but "Star Trek: The Next Generation" is sort of stuck in NTSC land because of the efx work done in NTSC. You can get away with just uprezzing the efx shots, retransferring the rest at the higher resolution, if they are a small percentage of the overall production (and if they really are a small percentage, it is also more conceivable that they could be redone) but when you have an efx-heavy show, everything gets sort of stuck at the lowest common denominator.

They completely re-created the EFX shots of the original series Star Trek. In the future, for the right show, I think the fan base at large can do the job of re-creating the EFX. All you have to do is announce a contest, supply the assets and have the fans vote on the best "take" which then gets cut into the 4K master. The prize money offered can be far less than the cost of producing them in house. Sure they'd be kinks to work out, but who wouldn't want to be part of their favorite show's re-mastered EFX? There are legions of people who would jump at the chance.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Actually, you can.

Steve,

you can't take Alexa in your handbag, sit on a bike and ride around the city to shoot.

That's the first thing what I was talking...

The second is that I was talking from the beginning that Arri took totally wrong approach to build camera for 1080p "good enough" size format.

I was pretty surprised because thought that Arri have something to show in 4K already but that was wrong.

Also they build very heavy and expensive camera for what can do...

Years ago Arri used to build a smaller 35mm and 16mm film cameras, but in the age of digital these days of Arri's small form factor cameras are "gone with the wind"...

The 1080p acquisition gap has narrowed in the past two years.

That was a reason I mentioned GH2 as a new kid in town that 1080p footage can make amazing skin-tones and beautiful images just for about 1000 bucks.

See GH2 beautiful skin-tones example at Vimeo >>> Switch to Flash player >>>.

Arri thanks to ARRISCAN Technology of film scanning that has developed pretty good colorimetry, color matrix and image look

that became right now Arri's the main point of sale for Alexa.

That means Alexa doesn't have high resolution, lightweight form factor but has a pretty good image quality

that can today so often be easy beaten with also beautiful imagery from other smaller and cheaper 1080p "good enough" digital cameras like a

GH2, AF100, F3, Ikonskop A-cam dII, etc,...

Commitment to 1080p "good enough" approach could soon become a double-edged sword for the company like an Arri.

A very near future will tell us even more about it.

 

[Steve G]

Steve,



The second is that I was talking from the beginning that Arri took totally wrong approach to build camera for 1080p "good enough" size format.

That will be why the alexa was pretty much unavailable to rent in london due to high demand. It seems to be the most popular digital camera for commercials, at the moment.

 

[Michael Brennan]

It's scary to imagine where we'd still be had RED not come along. Thanks for forcing the issue, Jim.

No need to think that the future of high res electronic imaging was bleak before RED.
We would have been talking about the only other alternative ultraHD (7.5k)
But in the hands of NHK, BBC it has been rather ponderous progress and tailored toward live broadcast.

A few months ago Canon showed a UltraHD compact zoom for 2/3 inch format, a lens which (in theory) must be testing the limits of what is optically possible.


No question that RED is ahead of the game when it comes to 4K. Can't wait to see their 8k offerings.



Mike Brennan