"Future Proofing" claims ?

[Harry Clark]

Hi Tom,
I think it's high. I think there is certainly a ton of content that was shot on film stocks that have lower resolving power and high grain (particularly from the early 1970's through the 1980's) and those for sure won't resolve "up to" 4K.
But I think there are many newer films that could be scanned at 6K and 8K and WILL "resolve to" those formats. Again, I'll point to the Arri whitepaper's 10K scan of the MTF chart. There was a measurable, quantifiable difference between 4K and 10K (measured in line pairs) You WILL see that difference on screen.
But I am loath to put a number on it, because (like Phil Holland) I think these are all squishy values, and that's why I disagree with your very definitive statement.
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Freya]

I only mentioned 8k because:

On August 23, 2012, UHDTV was officially approved as a standard by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), standardizing both 4K and 8K resolutions for the format in ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020 (Rec. 2020)

see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television

for more details...

Didn't realise there was a 4k standard too!

love

Freya

 

[Marc Wielage]

This is the key to understanding why 4K will be the gold standard for a while. You can scan most films to 4K. You cannot scan standard 35mm to 6K, or 8K, etc.

Small correction: the Arriscanner will do 6K...

http://www.arri.com/digital_intermediate_systems/arriscan.html

and I seem to recall Fotokem can do 11K scans, at least from 65mm:

http://fotokem.com/services/digital_mastering_distribution.php#scanning

Not sure what the real-world limits are. Me personally, I think if you look at MTF from 35mm camera negative, I'm not convinced it can resolve more than 4K, even in specular highlights. (And I see Phil Holland elsewhere beat me on this observation!)

"Future proofing" is a rather presumptuous enterprise, because unless one has a time machine there is no way to know exactly what the future will bring, nor is there any way to know what consumers will want, demand, or be willing to pay for. I would think that what's far more important than "K's" is some sort of storage format that will last, be supported now and in the foreseeable future, and be recoverable. Without that, it doesn't matter how many "K's" you've got.

I think Mike is right. Just trying to settle on a file format and a storage medium that will survive for 10-20 years is very dubious at the moment. The K isn't going to matter if the backup tape and the image format are not retrievable, or if the machines used to play them back aren't available. I don't know of anybody who will make an iron-clad guarantee that their data will work in 10 years.

Even if the world is shooting 20K by the year 2022, I don't think a film like Avengers or Avatar will become obsolete solely because of its resolution. I agree that standard def 525/625 is terribly dated, but I think there will always be ways to uprez 1080 and 2K to higher-res formats that can work acceptably. And as I've often noted, I know many, many DPs who go out of their way to decrease sharpness, add diffusion, and employ many other tricks to soften the image, even for the entire project. Sharpness alone is yet another creative tool, and it's not always appropriate for all projects.

I would argue that dynamic range is more important than resolution. And apparent contrast can affect sharpness and MTF quite a bit. "Future-proof" is a moving target. I'm still waiting to see really high quality HD on broadcast TV, cable, or satellite, which is still not available to my knowledge. I'm very skeptical that 4K will be doable on a mass-market scale without terrible compromises via compression and other built-in flaws. Given unlimited budgets and bandwidth, it will eventually happen.

 

[Elsie N]

To me, future-proofing is a moving target. But I think the way to hit that target is not to try and forecast the future... let the 'think tank" ers do that work. Instead, I'm just going to shoot the highest quality footage available to me at the time. That means I'll have too much quality for some projects, but I'll have the optimum amount for others.

 

[Jannard]

Sorry to disagree with you. Your supposition might hold true if display size was set in stone for the home. I think it is short sighted to think anything is locked down to today's standards... especially screen size. And if you don't think you can see a difference on a larger screen... I have not much else to say.

Jim

The visual difference between SD video and HD film transfer is huge.

The difference between HD and 4K -- both with similar dynamic range and capture technology -- is not huge.

 

[Zack Birlew]

I didn't think we'd be moving past 4K as fast as we have on the camera front, especially since there hasn't been anything else out there beyond 1080P except Sony's cinema cameras, JVC's quad-HD 4K camera and, now, the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. But on the display side of things, I saw the NHK 8K presentation years ago at NAB (Maybe the first? Can't remember) and I could clearly see that there was a realm beyond 4K display. If being able to walk up to the TV and look inside the image for fine details doesn't excite you then I don't know what else will, 8K+ is when everything will change again.

Now, as far as whether this will matter or not to current material is up for some debate and a bit of guesswork. As has been stated before, 35mm has limits as to how far it can be scanned and digital is, more or less, stuck where it is with perhaps a little bit of uprezzing wiggle room in the future. When we get to 8K television, I think it will ultimately depend on what size your television is, what content is being displayed on your screen, and what technical advances have been made in television and uprezzing technologies. Look at the live video feeds for both SD and HD on your current television, do you see so much of a difference between the two besides a wider image and extra clarity on finer details? The same would apply for 8K televisions. No matter how much resolution your TV is, the old content will display the same, if not better, than it does today and the difference would only become apparent once you switch to higher resolution content.

 

[Jay Birch]

Sorry to disagree with you. Your supposition might hold true if display size was set in stone for the home. I think it is short sighted to think anything is locked down to today's standards... especially screen size. And if you don't think you can see a difference on a larger screen... I have not much else to say.

Jim

The problem is though, the vast majority of people do not have room for a 84" screen in their living room. I think a 40" screen is about perfect for the average consumer, 1080p on a 40" screen in a standard sized room is perfect.

Consumer 4KTV will be a niche for a long, long time imho. Basically until it costs no extra to have a 4KTV and 4K service than it would to stay with 1080p.

 

[Phil Holland]

4K will see advantages around the 46" inch mark at the standard household viewing distances of 5-10 feet. My color review monitor is exactly that size and I can see pixels at 7" on that 1080p display. In a desktop monitor environment you'll see 4K clarity at as small as the 35" mark. In fact that's exactly the logic that went into the 36.4" Eizo 4k display. 4K monitors will likely be advertised as "looking through a window" and they should be from the ones I've seen at this point.

Without 4K content though, those monitors/televisions don't do much. And that's why companies like Netflix, Google, and Hulu are researching and developing streaming 4K content right this very second. I'm sure major cable providers are up to something too, but their business plan is less clear moving into the future.

In a theatrical environment with screens in the range of 20-70 feet wide the advantages of 4K become even clearer.

It's all about visually submersion.

 

[Nick Morrison]

4K will see advantages around the 46" inch mark at the standard household viewing distances of 5-10 feet. My color review monitor is exactly that size and I can see pixels at 7" on that 1080p display. In a desktop monitor environment you'll see 4K clarity at as small as the 35" mark. In fact that's exactly the logic that went into the 36.4" Eizo 4k display. 4K monitors will likely be advertised as "looking through a window" and they should be from the ones I've seen at this point.

Without 4K content though, those monitors/televisions don't do much. And that's why companies like Netflix, Google, and Hulu are researching and developing streaming 4K content right this very second. I'm sure major cable providers are up to something too, but their business plan is less clear moving into the future.

In a theatrical environment with screens in the range of 20-70 feet wide the advantages of 4K become even clearer.

It's all about visually submersion.

Phil, God...I love this post. Thank you. Anyone who says 4K isn't on the horizon, won't be SOON our our doorsteps (in a major way), I think will be in for a HUGE surprise in several years.

You can already post 4K on Youtube. Manufacturers are already lining up and announcing 4K TV's. Right now, these sets are exotic, and expensive. But was Blu-Ray and even HD any different when they FIRST came out? This feels exactly the same. Technology moves SO FAST, in four years 4K may well be a standard just like Blu-Ray is now.

Now, the leap from 1080 to 4K won't be as noticeable as say SD to HD...because, as you mention...it takes a 35" monitor to notice the difference. BUT...what I think 4k will do is spur the growth in LARGER sets. 60", 70", even 100" sets will mean a lot more when you can gape at crystal clear 4K on them. Because, again..to quote YOU...I think 4K is going to spur the IMMERSIVE experience with these larger SPOTLESS sets.

 

[David W. Jones]

I'm not sure which applications many of you work in, but to date many of the plugins we use for video effects only support frame sizes up to 2K.

 

[Phil Holland]

@Nick Morrison - You've got it. 4K displays are going through the same growth and pricing logic that the first 1080p displays went through. The interesting thing is I do believe we'll see $4K 4K monitor next year as prices are already dropping drastically on 4K display tech in the last 10 months. The big pusher will be the Sony PS4 as that will likely be the most saturating playback device for 4K content that hits the market. There are 4K Blu-ray players out there already.

Also it's not totally about noticing the difference at a specific minimum dimmension. If you display 4K on a 24 inch monitor that supports it you will "see" the difference. I'm primarily talking about when pixels are no longer visible to the human eye due to viewing distance and pixel density. And that's really the goal with display tech.

In terms of user interface displays we'll advantages even around the 16-20 inch mark with high PPI. Nobodies making anything like that yet though, but it makes a lot of sense for 4K laptops when they do come. It's similar logic to the high pixel density found in things like newer smartphones and the iPad. We'll likely see a 4K 19" laptop next year. Late next year.

I'm not sure which applications many of you work in, but to date many of the plugins we use for video effects only support frame sizes up to 2K.

What plugins are these? That's interesting as none of the plugins I use have these resolution restrictions. (I'm in Adobe Pr/AE land primarily, but most decent compositing packages handle 4K just fine) I don't think plugins should hold working in 4K back though.... That's more of a developer problem if anything.

 

[Tim Lawrence]

I'm certainly not the average consumer, but when I purchased a 1080p display I actually tried to get a smaller display because I knew how bad 1080p was going to look blown up. There is no point in stretching such low resolution to such large sizes. 4K will mean I can finally stand to get larger than a 32" screen because there will finally be enough resolution to enhabit that space. Still not ideal, but moving in the right direction.

Ask yourself why the print industry has been using 300dpi as a standard for years, then ask yourself why you would say less than 300dpi would be "good enough forever" I don't think so.

 

[Jay Birch]

Ask yourself why the print industry has been using 300dpi as a standard for years, then ask yourself why you would say less than 300dpi would be "good enough forever" I don't think so.

I tend to hold a newspaper or magazine less then a meter from my face... I don't tend to sit 1 meter away from my TV. Do you think billboard adds are printed at 300dpi?