Good enough...

[Subhadip Sen]

I definitely agree that 1080p streams on a small screen is more detailed than a 35mm release print projection. Of course, that depends on the condition of the print, but almost always, 2K Digital projection of the same 35mm film looks much sharper in 2K. It is clear that these big screens need far higher resolutions. Perhaps the small screen will hit a limit, beyond which there will be no perceivable difference. But, for a 30" LCD screen, there's a noticeable difference 1080p and 1440p. Moving up to larger LCD TVs - 56" and above - these are certainly screaming for 4K and beyond. It also depends on how far away from the screen you watch your films. Basically, if 576MP is the maximum our eyes can resolve, I can see a theater screens benefiting at as high as 20K resolutions or so. Perhaps the people at the back seats won't see a difference - but someone will. Clearly, though it is something we are used to, 35mm release prints are very soft and grainy - almost diffused. I have noticed a stark difference in sharpness between 2K projection and 35mm on the same film.

Anyway, the thing is, if 720p is "good enough" for the big screen on 35mm projection (as that is what 35mm prints resolve to) that certainly has a huge room for improvement. If everything was always "good enough" I am sure us humans would be sitting in caves hunting with stone spears. We have to progress and evolve, and that is why 4K is necessary in the short term, moving to greater resolutions in the future. Film was a limiting factor - but digital promises to free these bottlenecks.

 

[chrislancaster]

i think the point is that in a few months 4k will be cheaper than shooting with the 1080p camera and it will be manageable in post

so shoot 4k +
keep your digital negative
distribute in true 1080p

if the format wars happen again and 4k is next you will be ready and your work will be future proofed


who cares if its good enough for today maybe , probably but will it be as good as it could be in 5 years when or if people want 4k

:emote_popcorn:

 

[Lorenzo Straight]

I don't think it's good enough.

 

[Stefan Christou]

I personally don't think format wars will be relevant except for physical formats. It is just up to the networks what kind of content they decide to put out there.

In theory a network could support quad HD without any problem if they decided to use wavelet compression. As it would be without any bandwidth problems to do with broadcasting the same content at two different resolutions. So if you only had 1080p you could watch 1080, or if you had a 4k screen you could watch 4k (but this is Reduser so I'm pretty sure everyone is familiar with wavelet compression).

That being said I think the chances of a network like SkyTV (News Corp owned like Fox) promoting 4k in the UK in the next five years when they feel to be doing well to have singed up 25% of their customers to HD is slim to nil. It would piss everyone right off.

Then factor in the machinations the broadcasters are going through to upgrade their equipment to HD while going through a recession and you can see that 4k broadcast is pretty much not going to happen any time soon.

However, 4k content through internet acquisition, like iTunes, could be a likely and welcome prospect if the content is there.

S

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I did say "screen size and field of view."

I just say FOV though.

Back in the UK where they teach you to sit way way back from the TV, you'd need that monster 20ft screen. Here, I think my FOV would actually allow me to see most, if not all the detail from a 4K projector - I just have no idea how to fit one in my cinema room!

Graeme

 

[Mark Phelan]

I'm not the one dictating what is and is not good enough for the rest of us. I'm simply saying even if you like 4k better, you need something to put onto your better screen.

Gavin,

Hope you didn't think my comment was directed at you, it wasn't. More of a generalization about those in our midst, society as a whole, who feel the need to prescribe to everyone else what is necessary or not. Be it 1080p/4K/healthcare/homeowners associations, etc.

And I agree, a free market will dictate what is or is not important or valued.

 

[Mark Toia]

For me it's not about the finished resolution we may master in.. as I finish in everything from PAL, NTSC, HD, 2k, web, etc etc.. For me it's all about the sensor, the range, the gathering of information to which I can make the choice of how I finish my end product. One other thing I do a lot is resize up to 200%, I cant do that with a 2k camera.
I shoot with say a 20mm and I can get a 35mm a 50mm out of the same shot.
The other thing is, I grade from one end of the 13 stops to the other... I love having choice where my image ends up.. Cant do that with HD Video. What you shoot is what you get. (ok you maybe able to make it warm or cool) but thats about it.

So jim, 2k finishing is probably all people are really doing now and probably some time into the future, but people like me (and there's a lot of us) need that 5k data capture so we can get the best image possible to play with before we deliver to our viewers. If we finish in HD, SD or 320 web... then so be it. Who cares....

It's all about your sensor and your REDCODES.... 8bit HD video is for the kids that wouldn't know any better... who don't care (or understand) about bit depth or grading.. How would they know this, 95% of them have never shot film, so they will never know the advantages of 13+ stop range. Most have been born into 8 bit Video land. That's why the Canon fits into there lives. (which is fine)

If you finish up RED because your doubting yourself or you think the market does not warrant 5k or 13+ stops of latitude.... then I'd be mighty pissed off. If you make me end up buying another bunch of ARRI's, I swear i'll jump on a plane and haunt you.

Love ya work.

 

[Michael Dalton]

Even if we are down rezing image, it is ALWAY better to acquire the best image we can. I can tell you that the best looking stuff I have right now is time-lapse shot at 5k down rez'd to 1080. Next to footage acquired at 1080 there is no comparison.

As a wildlife guy, a lot of my friends have vast archives of what was very valuable footage that is standard def, today it is worthless. I agree 1080 is limit, and because current technology is capable of so much more, the technology of 5 years from now... you will be able to shoot 4k on your iphone.

Sorry Jim, no holiday! back to work!!! Thanks for taking one for the greater good, and putting a bit of the art and science back into filmmaking!

 

[Jeff Coatney]

"You mean there were cheap 4K cameras back then and you didn't use them!?"

Dust off the Deal Memos:

"The Producer agrees to hold harmless the Director of Photography from any potential or future revenue losses incurred as a result of acquiring the image at 1080p."

or

"The Producer understands that acquiring the footage at 1080p may result in hindering The Project from accessing future exhibition markets and may limit the amount of revenue The Project can generate over its lifespan."

I'm just sayin' in a world where a jilted spouse can sue for "Alienation of Affection"... carry the two...

 

[Fulgencio]

What is this thread about????
are you trying to look smart?

 

[Jim Retar]

I've said this before.... I believe the future of 4k rests in the hands of the sports producers. I would guess at 90% of the HD TVs sold throughout Europe were purchased on the fact that they could be used to view HD sports. I'm not sure if the same priority is in the US, but I imagine so.

The sports industry has spent many millions upgrading to 1080p, i'm not sure we will see a fast upgrade to 4k (although they were quick to get into 3D, so it is possible).

IF they chose to go down the 4k route, expect it ready for the 2014 world cup. My guess is 1080p 3D will be the main target for the foreseeable future though.

Step outside of our technical bubble and 4k means very, very little to consumers. 1080p is more than good enough and will be considered the high quality standard for decades.... I see it as CD quality in audio terms... it can be better, but not many people are willing to pay more for a much smaller quality step... the jump from 1080p to 4k cannot be compared to SD to HD.

That is not to say we should not acquire/finish in 4k though.

 

[conrad gaunt]

so, someone wants a debate..

someone needs to invent a long term digital storage solution, preferably an automated digital version of film/microfiche or something that invests me with confidence it'll be working in fifteen years+, no mechanical parts etc, cos a 4k feature ain't peanuts to store, unless you believe two LTO backups will suffice, in which case I'm happy for you.. but until then I'll be doing the bayer -> 4:4:4 downsample at the expense of resolution.

I actually designed a special colour pattern system last year to print digital data to paper, with error protection built in. Unfortunately after testing, I found 30 A4s was an acceptable amount of paper for archiving important musical material (about 70mb), but not acceptable for a single 4k 16bit lossless jpeg2000 frame.

Of course, I'd prefer to edit R3D source material directly and only archive that. I heard someone had an R3D trimming software at NAB, can't remember the software but you'll find it through fxguide.com

Frankly, it staggers me that we still can't trim R3Ds this far down the line (I know its fairly trivial, I did some tests without having the SDK), or even output genuine RAW dpx files. Once thats done, I'll be feeling better about 4k+.

Not all material needs grading, historically interesting footage wants to stay raw, in a non proprietory form

archiving interpolated pixels is a waste of time and money. Please give us raw trim/archive functionality sir

 

[Erik Franzén]

so, someone wants a debate..

someone needs to invent a long term digital storage solution, preferably an automated digital version of film/microfiche or something that invests me with confidence it'll be working in fifteen years+, no mechanical parts etc, cos a 4k feature ain't peanuts to store, unless you believe two LTO backups will suffice, in which case I'm happy for you.. but until then I'll be doing the bayer -> 4:4:4 downsample at the expense of resolution.

I actually designed a special colour pattern system last year to print digital data to paper, with error protection built in. Unfortunately after testing, I found 30 A4s was an acceptable amount of paper for archiving important musical material (about 70mb), but not acceptable for a single 4k 16bit lossless jpeg2000 frame.

Of course, I'd prefer to edit R3D source material directly and only archive that. I heard someone had an R3D trimming software at NAB, can't remember the software but you'll find it through fxguide.com

Frankly, it staggers me that we still can't trim R3Ds this far down the line (I know its fairly trivial, I did some tests without having the SDK), or even output genuine RAW dpx files. Once thats done, I'll be feeling better about 4k+.

ARCHIVING INTERPOLATED PIXELS IS A WASTE OF MONEY, PLEASE GIVE US RAW SIR

The software you are thinking about is Foundry's STORM

 

[conrad gaunt]

The software you are thinking about is Foundry's STORM

Yes, thats it. The software I was really thinking about is called Redcine-X..

So presumably any one (or none) of the following could be true:

1) If I apply for an SDK, and then engineer software for R3D trimming, thats ok with Red? ..I remember a python script for R3D trimming, the author told me he got a cease and disist letter from Red, and recommended I tread carefully regarding my freeware R3D truncator.

2) Foundry developers have Reds blessing

4) Foundry should expect a cease and disist any day now?..

its all very interesting..

 

[Alex D. da Silva]

God! This is getting soooo boring.

I've just spent a hour reading this thread. I tried to understand every opinion and be open to all considerations.
The truth is that I don't know anyone that owns anything over 1080 at home. Since I live in the Bay Area I'm fortuned enough to attend Digital Cinema Theaters and these places have 2K and 4K projectors. Yes, this is clearly the future and everyone involved in producing content from here on should have these new standards in consideration, but that's enough! Just give us the products and let's move on. I've actually left the room during the presentation on RED Day in Vegas, I was bored to death (and very tired after NAB) with the pounding of this "Resolution Evangelism".
I've been a strong supporter of RED cameras since the very beginning and I was in a similar situation 3 years ago in that small screening room at the NAB floor. Every time I've used a Red One I was thoroughly satisfied.
I don't need to be converted or convinced, I need to test and try new and affordable tools. Cameron just made almost 3BiU$ with a movie captioned in 1080, I'm pretty sure that if there was a higher res camera available for that production he would have used. I'm not so sure if Avatar would have been more or less successful today if it was shot on higher res.
Sorry for venting. Let's see the goods!

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

The "Good Enough" argument pertains specifically to working Professionals that believe development of cameras with greater than 2K resolution is a waste of time at worst and premature at best. Of course this is a fantasy world where innovation and progress don't exist, but the attitude prevails for the time being, hence all the frustration and crazy-talk.

No, clearly Jim Jannard wasn't talking merely about 1080p/2K acquisition, but also about distribution and exhibition:

In my honest opinion - it`s good enough for me, we always downrezzed our Red One footage to 1080 so far, cinema is soo "far" away from our markets (commercials, promos etc.) - but that`s just my personal preference.

I have to wonder if it will be "good enough" for you tomorrow. ???

Jim

So, if Scarlet's target exhibition formats are 1080p and 2K, and (according to Jim) they are not long for this world, the question about 3K Scarlet's long-term viability is a valid one. By the time it's released, it will be a year and a half to two years behind its original release date. That could mean up to two years of lost viability relative to the eventual universal adoption of 4K (which will undoubtedly encompass more than just theatrical exhibition) even if Red didn't develop and promote products that met or exceeded 4K. But Red's Epic program, as well as RedRay, may have the unintended consequence of actually accelerating 3K Scarlet's obsolescence.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I've said this before.... I believe the future of 4k rests in the hands of the sports producers.

You know, that's a pretty good point. That's how I recall HD starting to get some buzz in my home town, and in the US it was the Super bowl.

I also remember them doing 3D one year when I was a kid with the Superbowl. I think it was only the half time show. Please no more Red/Blue glasses

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Personally, I can't help but wonder if this is all leading up to Scarlet being 4K or more from top to bottom. I know, probably not very likely but we can dream. I guess we'll know more on May 15.

I stated this somewhat off-hand yesterday and no one commented on it at all, which surprised me. Does anyone think that maybe Jim's somewhat cryptic and perseverant comments about 4K have a hint of something new in them? I am not trying to stir anything up here, as I plan to buy a Scarlet 2/3" even at 3K. But I can't help wondering... I don't imagine the 2/3" chip is very far along in it's final design yet - as it seems much is dependent upon getting Epic "de-bugged." So, would it not be possible to slightly enlarge the chip, at the same pixel size, and squeeze 4K out of it. The only specific argument against this right now is the mini-primes. If that design is completely finalized and they are all but in production, I guess they'd become useless if the "smaller" Scarlet chip jumped to 13 x 6.5 mm or some such? Can't help but wonder...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, the larger sensor Scarlet would be the S35 one -- I think one of the points for a 2/3" sensor is that smaller optics and overall size and weight, not to mention the lower cost. The real question is whether one can make a 4K sensor that is only 2/3" in size, or whether there are too many trade-offs in noise and sensitivity by doing that.

I don't have a problem with a 2/3" 3K Scarlet, it will make an excellent 1080P camera and surpass the image quality of current HD DSLR's, it's just that it doesn't fit into this "The Future is 4K" argument that Red is making.

 

[Steve Das]

...Cameron just made almost 3BiU$ with a movie captioned in 1080, I'm pretty sure that if there was a higher res camera available for that production he would have used. I'm not so sure if Avatar would have been more or less successful today if it was shot on higher res. ...Sorry for venting. Let's see the goods!

Not a box office issue..Avatar makes Billions of $$$ at 1080P so
...therefore all movies can be shot at 1080P...???

It's about a standard in image quality...and you either care about it alot..
a little..or not at all. All the Vista Vision films Paramount shot in 1950's
were not projected in Vista Vision but mostly released in 35mm reduction
prints. Oversampled.

North by Northwest came out 50 years ago and
looks better than anything out today even when seen at youtube
quality resolution. Mention that film since just noticed the Production
Designer Robert Boyle who shot the Mt. Rushmore stills that were
projected in studio turned 100 years old last year...and amazingly he
is still teaching some classes at the AFI today. Ultimately the lower
cost of digital may bring us back to this large negative image quality
that existed over 50 years ago.