Arri Rumor

[Stephen Williams]

There were different manufacturers, but they all dominated their respective, isolated geographical markets. Kodak had the Americas, Agfa had europe, Fuji of course had Japan and much of Asia..

Hi Jeff,

That is not accurate, Agfa never dominated in Europe. Kodak was always and is still King. Personally I have shot more Fuji in the last 10 years than anything else.

Agfa stopped making Motion Picture film as they had virtually no market, print stock was another matter.

Stephen

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Excuse me but MX not yet on sale and there has been talk of Monstro its replacement for more than a year now. With future proofing in mind 35mm film still would seem like a good option.

MX upgrade is around the corner.

Also there is something that 35mm film quality is not replaceable with digital any time soon or even never.

Its' not the same thing like with the still photography where digital replaced film almost at 90%.

With moving images is a bit different and film has its own very high place there for very long run.

Film still keeps a magic of its own "a rich color and liquid emulsion" sort of original look.

For example I like to acquire digital and after that in post always try to get a look of film

because would like to stay away from digital that has too much "dull" and clean video {i(s)ch} look.

Btw, I do not like so much TV look at all.

It always looks for me as a sort of "propaganda".

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Sure I get that The material has a longer lifespan than the tech, it has always been that way. It's the nature of tech. But let me ask you this: What 58 year old plus programming are you currently watching, and how does that material compare visually to current productions?

The History Channel, Turner Classic Movies, AMC, PBS, The Ken Burns films, and other stuff like it. It looks pretty good considering it was acquired on film, and because of that, is to some degree resolution independent.

This is my point about acquiring at the highest resolution possible. If you acquire at HD rez, it will always be HD. If you're content has no life span beyond five to ten years or so, that's great-- stay HD.

There are clear market indications that HD is not the last improvement in display technology for the masses, its a stop-over on the way to 4K and beyond. We will arrive at these resolutions faster than historical data indicates.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Excuse me but MX not yet on sale and there has been talk of Monstro its replacement for more than a year now. With future proofing in mind 35mm film still would seem like a good option.

Film is an unsustainable and inefficient resource which has reached the end of its development curve. Image sensors are more efficient, less wasteful and are at the beginning of their development curve.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Hi Jeff,

That is not accurate, Agfa never dominated in Europe. Kodak was always and is still King. Personally I have shot more Fuji in the last 10 years than anything else.

Agfa stopped making Motion Picture film as they had virtually no market, print stock was another matter.

Stephen

I was using geographic data. Who dominated european motion picture films sales from 1910 to 1999?

 

[Michael Hastings]

I'm only referring to the narrowest niche: the high-end 35mm+ motion picture market....

....All the sensors currently in play are proprietary and will be for the foreseeable future.

Only if you use the narrowest definition of proprietary. From what I have read virtually all of the things we are expecting from those sensors: high dynamic range, high sensitivity, and very high frame rates (300+) combined with high speed data outputs are in already announced off the shelf sensor products shipping in the next few months in 2/3" formats; and anticipated in larger sensors in the not very distant future.

"Gentlemen, start your engines...."

 

[Scott Crawley]

The History Channel, Turner Classic Movies, AMC, PBS, The Ken Burns films, and other stuff like it. It looks pretty good considering it was acquired on film, and because of that, is to some degree resolution independent.

This is my point about acquiring at the highest resolution possible. If you acquire at HD rez, it will always be HD. If you're content has no life span beyond five to ten years or so, that's great-- stay HD.

There are clear market indications that HD is not the last improvement in display technology for the masses, its a stop-over on the way to 4K and beyond. We will arrive at these resolutions faster than historical data indicates.

I agree that it is best to aquire in the best format possible today, while in production, but it is not necessary in order for the material to have a life beyond the aquisition format. I think you would still be watching Ken Burns' docs even if they didn't look as good as they do. Unless we are preparing a piece on the evolution of imaging tech, we choose and use existing material in spite of it's aquisition format, not because of it. The NFL for instance will still go to archive footage of Thiesman for example even though it may not measure up to the live broadcast's resolution. *

A more important question I think is; Will my aquisition format prohibit consumption of my material in the future? As you so adriotly point out, format is less of a distribution concern in the digital age, but I think it is still a relevant concern for another reason.

If 4k on home distro were ready tomorrow, would your current TV be able to display the increased Rez? Would enough people be willing to replace their new $1000 plus display in order to take advantage? When thin plasmas were new they cost what $25,000?*

Let's continue forward. In five to seven years our theoretical new 4k TV will finally be affordable, will people then buy a new set? If their current set is still working the answer in most cases will likely be no... Unless the standards were to change and there was a perception that it was necessary to continue watching. Now factor in considerations less important. Will we then be able to get The Godfather or Citizen Kane in 4k? Probably, but will the 4k print look better? Better enough to also justify a new TV??

This is why I think 2k or 3.5k will do for the larger, in home audience, and shooting TV for HD finish is viable.

But I'm not an industry insider by any means.

 

[David Rasberry]

The limitations on consumer hi-rez TV's will be bandwidth and compression quality in the satellite and broadcast delivery systems. I don't see this moving beyond the HD ATSC standard for at least 10 years. At normal home TV sizes of 50" or less, there is no real advantage to 4k display that would justify the 4x cost increase over HD. The improvements that are occuring in consumer TV's are moves to higher bit depths, broader color gamuts, and increased dynamic range. These have far more impact on visual quality than an increase in pixel resolution will.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Strangely enough, I don't think resolution was a critical factor in RED's success.

I would suggest that the combination of S35 sensor/DOF, sub 20K price, and onboard high data rate recording were the keys to R1 success and would have sold about the same if resolution was 2K or (2.5K for 2K debayered).

One could reasonably argue that R1 might have even sold more if it had been S35 sensor/1080P lightly compressed to a usable format at the same data rate (and probably could have had a stop or more sensitivity.) You might have lost a few that really wanted/needed 4K (but to what? since nothing else had it either) but gained a bunch that just wanted s35 and want or need a rapid workflow and a relatively low price.

Not knocking 4K, just pointing out that it might not have been the key to success.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Go to the typical network series or cable TV producer and tell them that their series has to be shot and mastered in 4K to protect them for a future beyond HD broadcast and 1080P and see how far you get with most of them.

And consider that half these shows already use lens diffusion to hide flaws in the faces of their cast in HD broadcast so imagine quadrupling the resolution.

And also consider that currently I believe only 30% of U.S. households are watching HD.

Standards change, and nowadays, can change quickly, but there are always periods of stabilization too, partly because of sheer exhaustion and the financial loss from upgrading. Many TV stations just spent millions, if not billions, on upgrading their equipment to handle digital HD, so unless there are happier days ahead for the worldwide economy, telling them to prepare for 4K broadcasting is going to fall on deaf ears for the next decade.

So I don't really buy the argument that TV shows have to start shooting and mastering in 4K soon just to protect themselves. And anyone who has dealt with bean counters for TV series know how tight money can be, for shooting and for post.

Feature films, on the other hand, certainly 4K will become more and more viable and thus may become the new standard. But currently, most D.I. facilities charge more for working in 4K -- it's 4X the data load after all -- and many producers balk at the extra cost when D.I.'s are already so expensive. Ideally, every movie would be posted at 4K, visual efx would all be done at 4K, and all film-outs would be done at 4K to multiple digital negatives so that all release prints can be first generation. But the reality is that most movies today finish at 2K, even if they scan 35mm at 4K, and most visual efx work is done at 2K, and most film-outs are done at 2K to a digital negative which is then duped to an IP and IN for making release prints.

And the simple reason is money, all the way down the line. There is little discussion about the long-term archiving issues, it's all about "it will cost us "X" extra to do all these effects in 4K, it will cost "X" extra to film-out in 4K, it will cost "X" extra to do multiple film-outs... and all of these extras are adding a half-million dollars to the cost of a movie budgeted at, let's say, 30 million dollars... so how can we cut some of those costs?" Sure it's shortsightedness. But that's the reality. Now some studios are coming around, like Warners, to a 4K future. Which is great if you are shooting a major feature for Warners. But what if your project ends up at Paramount and they cut 10 million out of your budget? If you don't think they nickel & dime the budget process all the way through release and beyond, think again. We can kick and scream for higher standards and make claims of an upcoming future where every household in the U.S. will have some sort of 3D 4K home theater system, but that doesn't get you very far when a bean counter is going line by line through your budget looking for areas to cut.

 

[Christopher Grant Harvey]

I have nothing of real value to add other than I watched a short film recently that was shot on the Sony F900 and it looked stunning!! I was blown away because it was shot professionally and looked "filmic".

It would not make a difference if it was 4K or 12K, it was great.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The limitations on consumer hi-rez TV's will be bandwidth and compression quality in the satellite and broadcast delivery systems. I don't see this moving beyond the HD ATSC standard for at least 10 years. At normal home TV sizes of 50" or less, there is no real advantage to 4k display that would justify the 4x cost increase over HD.

Well REDRay will take care of bandwidth problems, I assume. I do think 4K displays will be driven by file-based content (not broadcast) in their initial years. REDRay discs, 4K downloads, etc.

4K display will have to compete with this huge new 3D trend, though. But I think it will continue apace. We heard all the same arguments about how "people won't be able to tell the difference between 1080p and SD" when HD first started emerging. Guess what? People did see the difference, and are willing to pay for it. Do not underestimate audio-visual-philes. They will pay top dollar to keep their home theaters on the cutting edge. If they cannot see the difference between 4K and 1080p on a 50-inch screen, they will get a 100-inch screen, or move their couch closer.

Gaming will also help drive 3D and 4K displays.

 

[Rick Presas]

We heard all the same arguments about how "people won't be able to tell the difference between 1080p and SD" when HD first started emerging. Guess what? People did see the difference, and are willing to pay for it. Do not underestimate audio-visual-philes. They will pay top dollar to keep their home theaters on the cutting edge.

it should be noted that while HD has gone mainstream, and is not going anywhere, BluRay as a medium is struggling. Why? Simply because sometimes people just arent willing to spend money on something that is only maginally better than what they already have.

Video-philes account for only a small part of the market. Formats live and die by the casual consumer. If you don;t beleive that, look at Laser Discs.

 

[rod bradley]

I think equating the jump from SD to HD (both with their many flavors and range of quality) to an equal "seeing the difference" from HD to 4K will not be as significant for as many people. At a certain point there is enough quality to satisfy most people -- just as most people don't need a car that goes over 90mph.

To us who are image quality conscious this stuff is important both aesthetically and professionally -- and it's true, I believe, a younger generation growing up with this may develop different expectations -- but still for most people (ordinary "consumers" of content) good HD is "good enough" -- I'd be surprised if even 1 per cent of Avatar viewers asked for their money back, and maybe half who did were made queasy by the 3-D, not the resolution.

Those who even possess a 50" screen are a small privileged few even today. I doubt they'll be running out for 100" in a year or two (except for the relatively few -- not enough of the content consumers to demand 4K.

It's as David says, these decisions have a real world aspect -- and the image quality "idealists" such as we may be, don't usually get to make most of them.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I was using geographic data. Who dominated european motion picture films sales from 1910 to 1999?

Kodak

 

[Tom Lowe]

I think equating the jump from SD to HD (both with their many flavors and range of quality) to an equal "seeing the difference" from HD to 4K will not be as significant for as many people. At a certain point there is enough quality to satisfy most people -- just as most people don't need a car that goes over 90mph.

To us who are image quality conscious this stuff is important both aesthetically and professionally -- and it's true, I believe, a younger generation growing up with this may develop different expectations -- but still for most people (ordinary "consumers" of content) good HD is "good enough" -- I'd be surprised if even 1 per cent of Avatar viewers asked for their money back, and maybe half who did were made queasy by the 3-D, not the resolution.

Those who even possess a 50" screen are a small privileged few even today. I doubt they'll be running out for 100" in a year or two (except for the relatively few -- not enough of the content consumers to demand 4K.

It's as David says, these decisions have a real world aspect -- and the image quality "idealists" such as we may be, don't usually get to make most of them.

We'll see. Most of the regular posters at cinematography.com, for example, agree with your assessment. Some of us here really do believe in 4K as a display format that is coming in the not-too-distant future. The fact that thousands of movie theater screens across the world are in the process of being converted and upgraded to 4K digital projection should be the first tip. :wink:

 

[Stephen Williams]

Film is an unsustainable and inefficient resource which has reached the end of its development curve. Image sensors are more efficient, less wasteful and are at the beginning of their development curve.

Hi Jeff,

How much of that can you substantiate? We have had electronic imaging for 50 years, AFAIK it has not even equaled current negative film stocks for dynamic range or skin tone.

Stephen

 

[Chad Clemans]

Because 90% of all features are finished to 2K, and the highest any TV show goes is 1.9K (1080P), that's why.

I suspect that REDray's ability to stream >4k content over [secure?] 10Mbit/s of internet bandwidth will attract a lot of distributors [studios] and exhibition theater chains, due to the distribution savings and quality, and the consumer version of REDray will enable those same servers to feed the content several months later directly into consumers homes, thus causing disintermediation of some aspects of businesses like rental houses/redbox/onDemand/cable channels rebroadcasting of movies, etc by enabling the distributors to make those transactions directly themselves, for longer down the road. That being said, I see no reason why these same distributors [studios/networks] wouldn't consider broadcasting their TV dramas, and other such TV content over the internet at higher resolution via REDray so as to allow that content to be on par and have a fighting chance against their competitor distributors [studios] second run market for theatrical content [which was rental houses and TV rebroadcasting of movies but could likely become REDray consumer]. In other words, if REDray takes off, and supposing >1080p monitoring solutions for consumers become affordable in the near future, video [digital cinema] acquisition resolution will necessarily be demanded by consumers to be much closer to the resolution the theaters are throwin' on the wall. Those are some big "if's" but these markets won't likely be where they are now for much longer. So perhaps if Arri really is scrapping their announced 2k camera for a whispered 4k camera, it may be moreso in consideration of their competitors distribution offerings [REDray] than their competitors camera offerings [Epic/Scarlet]; just sayin'

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Hi Jeff,

How much of that can you substantiate? We have had electronic imaging for 50 years, AFAIK it has not even equaled current negative film stocks for dynamic range or skin tone.

Stephen

Ha ha heh heeeh heeeehh this would't tell us even a sort of any Kodak former executive...

Simply it's not a statement, it's a bluff...it's a state of mind that is more in a way of wrong, crazy or obsolete...

btw, you can't get the best of film just because you do not know what it is the best for that option

or just because you are totally out of any dissent film processing in way you are thinking about it right now.

The most of commercials done on a film

(here in Europe and I think that even more in US also forget the rest of the World)

are simply just not any of Hollywood quality 2K/4K,...

because the Hollywood commercials are mostly done with a digital, HD the latest 2K,

but no RED 4K or film scan 4K commercials still would dominate theaters...

This all up to totally another way of thinking but not that this fuck'n'bad scanned film is somehow superior to digital...

Sorry but I saw some of that similar things that were overpaid in theater cinema recently...

SOON THE GAME OVER!!!!

HAHAAH HEHE HHHHEHEHEHE!!!!!!!!!!

Stephen, you must be really in a zig-zag sort of crazy drive situation daily...!!!????

Ha ha he heeh heeeehhh heeeeeh heh....hilarious...

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Hi Jeff,

How much of that can you substantiate? We have had electronic imaging for 50 years, AFAIK it has not even equaled current negative film stocks for dynamic range or skin tone.

Stephen

I don't have to substantiate it, its Prima facie. Has Kodak introduced any single pass HDR raw stocks that I'm not aware of?