EPIC - ARRI, SIDE BY SIDE FACTS.

[Brandon J.F.]

I have to say that this is a dark moment for me.

Jim

This reminds me of conversations I would see online ~10 years ago about how 1080p was just way too much for home viewing and it would never catch on. I could name a couple people, still working today and quite successfully, that swore to me 1080p was going nowhere for home viewing.

People will come around and then it will just seem obvious.

 

[Deanan]

By which I mean, I'm not fully convinced that all TV shows have to be shot in 4K. I'm sorry, that's just my opinion... and it may change in the coming years. But having just shot three seasons of "United States of Tara" for Showtime on the Genesis camera, I really don't think many people will be screaming to see it in 4K ten years from now - not enough people were screaming to see it now, which is why it has been cancelled. It's a domestic drama-comedy of people talking in kitchens and bedrooms, and half the time, I had diffusion on the lens to flatter the actors. It just wasn't a show that demanded 65mm image quality.

It's easier to say that in hindsight. There's alot people talking in the Sopranos but what if they'd shot the first season on HDcam? In hindsight that would be a mistake. But what we're talking about here is foresight and doing so because it's a viable option.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

It's easier to say that in hindsight. There's alot people talking in the Sopranos but what if they'd shot the first season on HDcam? In hindsight that would be a mistake. But what we're talking about here is foresight and doing so because it's a viable option.

What if they accidentally taped over their master tapes like early episodes of Dr. Who, Lets get our priorities in order here, the fact that much of The Simpsons isn't in HD or 4k doesn't stop me from watching or enjoying them. There are worse things to worry about then oh we should have shot that on Red MX, what happens 30 years from now when 4k is a mistake? Maybe we should all shoot 65mm film for everything.

 

[paulherrin]

i hate to break it to you jim, but your legacy is a lot bigger than whether or not you were outspoken about 4k+ distribution for the future. you said it yourself, and we all know, it's going to happen. how much should we worry if we don't all see the same timeline right now? you've positively affected a lot of people, that's obvious. and there's probably some that are not so obvious nobody will ever even know about. that's cooler than 4k... and you know that's saying a lot.

 

[Jannard]

Most compare EPIC with 65mm.

Jim

What if they accidentally taped over their master tapes like early episodes of Dr. Who, Lets get our priorities in order here, the fact that much of The Simpsons isn't in HD or 4k doesn't stop me from watching or enjoying them. There are worse things to worry about then oh we should have shot that on Red MX, what happens 30 years from now when 4k is a mistake? Maybe we should all shoot 65mm film for everything.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Do you think they'll ever rescan Jurassic Park and re-render the VFX in 4k with improved assets? God bless you, you are dead wrong.

I dunno, using today's computing power, those renders wouldn't take that long, even at 4K. I'm sure a shot that might have taken 36 hours per frame to render in 1993 could be done in a fraction of the time 20 years later. Yes, Jurassic park was made almost 20 years ago...shit.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Are you talking about today or tomorrow? Actually, posts like this really make me think that what we are doing is a waste of time. I just don't think people think in terms of tomorrow.

I am talking about not just tomorrow- but possibly for all time.

Basically I am asking what resolution regular folks can see on what size display.

Frankly Jim - the fact that your cameras can raise this question is a perverse compliment.

"If you can afford it"? What can you shoot that is cheaper? A DSLR?

Jim

Well, yeah!

Look, I love DSLR's because for a pittance you can shoot ... as opposed to not shooting because you can't buy/rent a Red One or Red Epic.

They suck compared to Red's cameras of course- but you guys aren't handing out Epics for $1699.

There are a lot of people who simply can't come up with the extra $56301 for an Epic M kit. (Having worked with Ketch's Epic, I'm constantly angry because I am one of them ... I love that camera.)

I don't know what the final price for Epic S will be, but there will be tons of folks who can't find that money either. Just like people can't afford Sony's F3.

That's why I've asked you to consider building a Scarlet S35 camera. You've read it before ... 3K S35 sensor reusing EPIC mount plates, other wise the same as the Scarlet Cinema.

At this point I'm pretty clear that isn't interesting to you, perhaps because you perceive it as a step backwards. It is actually a huge step forwards for everyone shooting 1080p (or lower resolution!) Rec709 camcorders.

Its entirely possible that, interesting or not, it might not make business sense for any of a thousand reasons.

I do think it would be interesting to LOTS of film makers though. I fundamentally believe that 3K RAW is a good technology that has at least some future. Its not 5K RAW, but its a damn sight better than 1080p h.264!

There is a lot of technology there that ordinary run of the mill film makers need aside from resolution. I truly believe that REDCODE is the best technology you've delivered, followed, but not surpassed, by HDRx.

If you built it, I'd expect to see it sell in volumes a lot like the 7D. ( hundreds of thousands of units I believe, but you are certainly better informed than I am. ) A lot of them would sell into indie markets - people that aren't buying one of your cameras otherwise because price is a dominant factor.

I think that "TV" and other properly funded shows are more likely to buy into Epic.

2k is not sufficient once we get to wall sized displays.
2k has always been the bare MINIMUM for theatrical experience.

By the same token, why bother shooting 35mm or 65mm if 16mm is passable?

Whose wall are you talking about!

2K is a good theatrical experience for most film goers ... and even small theatrical screens are much larger than any wall in my house!

This brings me back to my question - can the audience appreciate the difference? I think everyone here can, so its almost pointless to argue amongst ourselves. The question is what they can see, not what we can see.

Secondly, using your own logic, why shoot 35mm when 65mm is clearly better? Heck, why shoot 65mm when IMAX is better than that? By your reasoning, every film should be shot in IMAX.

As to why you would shoot 35mm or 65mm if 16mm works ... well sometimes you shoot 16mm! Sometimes 35mm is what doesn't work.

Traditionally one reason is that the production needs a smaller camera package ... well Epic answers that, so now I think that shows that need a small package won't have to resort to 16mm- I can use a 35mm digital system.

In some cases though, the show is after a look. 16, 35 and 65 look different. To some degree you can fiddle with these formats in post and make one look more like another ... but if you want it to look like 16mm then shooting 35mm and fiddling in post is silly when you could just shoot 16mm.

 

[Jannard]

If 4K ends up being a mistake... 1080P will be terminal.

Jim

What if they accidentally taped over their master tapes like early episodes of Dr. Who, Lets get our priorities in order here, the fact that much of The Simpsons isn't in HD or 4k doesn't stop me from watching or enjoying them. There are worse things to worry about then oh we should have shot that on Red MX, what happens 30 years from now when 4k is a mistake? Maybe we should all shoot 65mm film for everything.

 

[Jannard]

Don't bother getting an EPIC. Buy a DSLR and suffer the consequences.

Jim

I am talking about not just tomorrow- but possibly for all time.

Basically I am asking what resolution regular folks can see on what size display.

Frankly Jim - the fact that your cameras can raise this question is a perverse compliment.




Well, yeah!

Look, I love DSLR's because for a pittance you can shoot ... as opposed to not shooting because you can't buy/rent a Red One or Red Epic.

They suck compared to Red's cameras of course- but you guys aren't handing out Epics for $1699.

There are a lot of people who simply can't come up with the extra $56301 for an Epic M kit. (Having worked with Ketch's Epic, I'm constantly angry because I am one of them ... I love that camera.)

I don't know what the final price for Epic S will be, but there will be tons of folks who can't find that money either. Just like people can't afford Sony's F3.

That's why I've asked you to consider building a Scarlet S35 camera. You've read it before ... 3K S35 sensor reusing EPIC mount plates, other wise the same as the Scarlet Cinema.

At this point I'm pretty clear that isn't interesting to you, perhaps because you perceive it as a step backwards. It is actually a huge step forwards for everyone shooting 1080p (or lower resolution!) Rec709 camcorders.

Its entirely possible that, interesting or not, it might not make business sense for any of a thousand reasons.

I do think it would be interesting to LOTS of film makers though. I fundamentally believe that 3K RAW is a good technology that has at least some future. Its not 5K RAW, but its a damn sight better than 1080p h.264!

There is a lot of technology there that ordinary run of the mill film makers need aside from resolution. I truly believe that REDCODE is the best technology you've delivered, followed, but not surpassed, by HDRx.

If you built it, I'd expect to see it sell in volumes a lot like the 7D. ( hundreds of thousands of units I believe, but you are certainly better informed than I am. ) A lot of them would sell into indie markets - people that aren't buying one of your cameras otherwise because price is a dominant factor.

I think that "TV" and other properly funded shows are more likely to buy into Epic.



Whose wall are you talking about!

2K is a good theatrical experience for most film goers ... and even small theatrical screens are much larger than any wall in my house!

This brings me back to my question - can the audience appreciate the difference? I think everyone here can, so its almost pointless to argue amongst ourselves. The question is what they can see, not what we can see.

Secondly, using your own logic, why shoot 35mm when 65mm is clearly better? Heck, why shoot 65mm when IMAX is better than that? By your reasoning, every film should be shot in IMAX.

As to why you would shoot 35mm or 65mm if 16mm works ... well sometimes you shoot 16mm! Sometimes 35mm is what doesn't work.

Traditionally one reason is that the production needs a smaller camera package ... well Epic answers that, so now I think that shows that need a small package won't have to resort to 16mm- I can use a 35mm digital system.

In some cases though, the show is after a look. 16, 35 and 65 look different. To some degree you can fiddle with these formats in post and make one look more like another ... but if you want it to look like 16mm then shooting 35mm and fiddling in post is silly when you could just shoot 16mm.

 

[paulherrin]

there's your side by side.

 

[Adam Eden]

My 2 cents..

If you can't afford proper equipment to do the job then don't do it! EPIC M is a bloody bargain! And how many people on this forum making noise to Jim about 4k, 1080 or what ever have been in the industry for more than a couple of years?

I have for 20 years now! I can remember getting a hard on when i bought my first digital betacam camera at $72,000 in 2001, the lens cost me $40K and then I had to buy a digi beta deck, and that cost me $80K.

RED ONE at a kit for under $50K including lenses is a bargain, Epic even better.

I believe that you buy or rent the best camera you can find on the market and record at the highest resolution. This had always worked for me, and I have made money because of this.

Does anyone remember how long it has taken for 16x9 to come into the world of television? I remember in 1999/2000 when Sony started making 16x9 camera's and monitors and people were saying that it wouldn't take off.

Jim I have been on the list for an EPIC M for a while now, and I can't wait to get one.

I mainly make TV commercials and music videos, I also online/conform a lot of TV programs and series. And I wish there was a cost effective way to deliver 4K, but at this there isn't and I 100percent agree with David Mullen about television being finished at 1080.

Most of the reality TV shows, the news, sport etc are finished at 1080I and transmitted at SD interlaced or HD interlaced 1080 (In Australia anyway) and they always will be interlaced so 1080 is fine and probably always will be. The workflow of anything file based is too time prohibitive for most this type of programming and thats why XDCAM (Disc version) has taken off so well.

But you are right JIM, acquiring in 4k for TV commercials, music videos, high end television programs, features is fine. The unfortunate thing is 99% of what I make ends up as SD on a digital betacam tape, so it is going to be a long time for anything different to take over.

If you Jim or someone else could invent a cost effective way to deliver 4K in a tangible way like an XDCAM disc or whatever as a master, then you would be onto something really big because at this stage the industry standard for all deliverables in TV land is HDCAM or HDCAM SR.

 

[Adam Eden]

there's your side by side.

That is hilarious!

 

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

That is hilarious!

Agree!
I sometimes have a hard time telling some cameras apart in these kinds of tests, but I will bet it's Epic on the right!

 

[paulherrin]

hehe... my attempt at some comic relief. appears i was just a touch too late. at least someone can appreciate it... i thought it turned out pretty well!

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

My 2 cents..

If you can't afford proper equipment to do the job then don't do it! EPIC M is a bloody bargain! And how many people on this forum making noise to Jim about 4k, 1080 or what ever have been in the industry for more than a couple of years?

I have for 20 years now! I can remember getting a hard on when i bought my first digital betacam camera at $72,000 in 2001, the lens cost me $40K and then I had to buy a digi beta deck, and that cost me $80K.

RED ONE at a kit for under $50K including lenses is a bargain, Epic even better.

How exactly does one just come along $80k to buy a camera, I don't even think I'll be able to come across the money needed to buy an EX1R to start off my shooting career where I shoot things with a camera for money.

 

[Adam Eden]

How exactly does one just come along $80k to buy a camera, I don't even think I'll be able to come across the money needed to buy an EX1R to start off my shooting career where I shoot things with a camera for money.

Do what I did and every camera man I know.... Go to the bank and get a loan and pay it off! Then in 3-4 years when the lease is up.... Do it all again.

But it isn't $80K anymore! Get a second hand camera like a RED ONE and some cheap glass and go to the bank and borrow a lot less, like $30K.

My first REAL camera was a second hand Sony 537 camera with a HI 8 back. Once I earned enough money I slowly upgraded it. I would shoot on an old Arri SR 1 16mm for better things, but not that often.

If you want to start off in the industry go and get a traineeship somewhere, I have about 10 staff and on weekends most of them take my gear and use it for their own projects so they can learn and make mistakes on there own work and not mine!

BTW this is getting way off topic, so if you want more advice on how to start off in this industry start a new post and people can give you advice on how to do it properly.

 

[Bryce O]

Honestly, allot of people don't mind 480p. People LOVE Redbox and Hulu Streaming. I can't stand 480p when I put in a regular DVD or stream something that doesn't have HD availability, but after 10 minutes I don't really care anymore. I love image quality, but it's not why I watch movies.

The last movie I saw was at the Arclight in Sherman Oaks, film projected, and it looked horrible. I think film projection now is absolutely disgusting. Why do people claim film as the golden standard? I don't think I've seen a film projected movie in theaters lately that looked like anything more than 720p. But you know what? Most people don't even notice. As long as the picture quality is good enough that it doesn't become a distraction, it doesn't even register in peoples minds at all. I would love a 4k projection standard... but I'm a tech/quality junkie and have 20/10 vision, definitely in the minority.

It's not that people aren't "seeing the future"... wait, yes it is. people literally AREN'T SEEING IT. Higher resolution projection means nothing to most people because, at around 720p-2K it's maxed out, they just don't see anymore. We the creators want the highest quality possible (and need it for VFX, re-framing, ect) but if someone (audience) really doesn't see anything higher than 720p... then they don't see it. It sucks, I want a 4k projection standard more than anyone... but it's going to cost money. And if there is no demand, then there is no revenue to justify the extra cost. I don't think it would be that much money in the end, but things are pretty poor in the world, and image quality is probably the LAST thing that needs to be improved with movies right now.

 

[Harcharan Singh]

EPIC

EPIC

Hi,

I think the more logical comparison should be RED ONE MX with ALEXA ....not with EPIC and that also at 1080p because ALEXA is an 1080p camera (without the RAW recorder ...)

Harcharan

 

[Jason Diamond]

Mark,
You consistently not only read my mind but steal my posts before I can post them!

In a current 2K world we consistently re-scale/re-frame as needed. That power alone makes any RED more powerful than any other camera out there. Add in the 'on your lap' RAW grading power and it's a no brainer.

Now pile on the fact that our "imminent" 4K world is approaching, we will still have a 60% scale benefit shooting EPIC. Need I say more?


Jason

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Resolution is a funny thing - often you don't see it until you don't have it, and then it's obvious. Was just watching the BBC's new series of Doctor Who the other night with the family, and now that current season is on break until the autumn, we went back and watched the 1st episode of the series re-launch from 2005. That's a jump from F35 to Digibeta and it shows, and not only does it show visibly and easily, it shows on a SD copy of the episodes too.

At the RED Studios last week we were enjoying some of the helicopter footage Ted had shot, and in 4k we saw such incredible detail and sitting close to the screen it gave my stomach that effect I remember from some IMAX movies due to the immersiveness of field of view filling image, lack of grain and super-detail. Next up was some 2K versions, and oh, I see pixels. So you move further back until it's no longer blocky and unsurprisingly you loose that "immersive" effect.

We also have to remember that resolution is enabling beyond the visibility of fine detail. It leads to a higher MTF at courser details and makes for a better overall image even when you're sitting too far back to get that immersive effect. It's an enabler of re-positioning, and stabilization and stereo convergence. It's enabler of VFX work.

Graeme