Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Good news... ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
im.thatoneguy said:
... a 1:1 motion sample would be handy. Or if Peter Jackson shot any green screen stuffs, that would be handy in full uncompressed 4k. Especially if it's got some hair and other nasties in it.
Click to expand...

For close-up analysis I suppose a short sequence of 4k stills would be the most useful thing, for example 24 sequential frames would show the motion characteristics. Of course to play this back you would be viewing it in a smaller window, so just having some 1:1 material already windowed to some detail area would save some download and processing time. Although it would allow the possibility of uninformed comment about quality from folks assuming that was the full frame.

If I was on the Red team, I might be wondering how this exercise is useful. If you do it, what do you compare it to? No movie audience is viewing 4k as 1:1 cropped detail on a monitor; what counts in the 4k world is what the full frame looks like projected, for that you need a 4k projector- which Red is working on, the Sony 4k being a bit pricey... In the meantime I'd say what counts is how it looks in 2k or 1080p or 720p.
 
It is important to see how 1:1 cut out looks like so you get good idea what is the quality of 4K capture.
I agree that only some home theaters right now are equipped with 4K projectors but for post it is important to have oversampled material.
Also if your material will be sold in the future you have to make sure that it is good 4K quality since it will be cinema standard soon.

So is anybody going to press pause and look from close, on this 4K presentation in RED booth?
 
IMGentertainment said:
Brandon finally made the leep over I see welcome. When you see it it will nock your socks off.
Click to expand...

Yeah... this is the future of cinema... figured I should learn all I can from this forum :)

I cannot wait to see the short!
 
4k at home?

4k at home?

Andrew said:
I agree that only some home theaters right now are equipped with 4K projectors but for post it is important to have oversampled material.
Click to expand...

yes, certainly oversampling is nice. The bar sure does keep getting raised... it wasn't very long ago that 4k film scans were widely considered "more than enough" for post work.

Anyway just curious- aside from Jim Jannard himself, is there anyone on this forum who actually has a home theater with 4k projection? I thought there was just one 4k projector on the market right now, the Sony SXRD at around $100k. I believe a system to feed it uncompressed 4k is non-trivial, and there is as yet no 4k source material "in the open" for home use. I didn't think 4k was in "some" home setups, I thought it was to a very good approximation "none".
 
Andrew said:
I agree that only some home theaters right now are equipped with 4K
Click to expand...
Ah yes. I actually just bought a 4k projector for my 4yr old niece a few weeks ago. She's serious with her Dora! :umm:
 
We are in development of 4K displays and projectors... if the future is indeed 4K, everyone needs to be able to buy something to view 4K on.

Jim
 
jbeale said:
Anyway just curious- aside from Jim Jannard himself, is there anyone on this forum who actually has a home theater with 4k projection? I thought there was just one 4k projector on the market right now, the Sony SXRD at around $100k.
Click to expand...


The 5000 lumens sxrd is like 50000$
The problem is what kind of players do you use to show 4k.

BTW, If you are going to beat the projectors/monitors price like you did with the cameras, It's a really nice idea Jannard.
In terms of monitors, please, take a look at the wonderful options of the cine-tal.
 
I'll take a 4.5K display @ 165 dpi, thank you. <$3K would be wonderful, but I know that's a lot to ask. But at 4.5K (think 4608x2880 for 16:10) 165dpi makes for a 33" display. 32" if the vertical is shortened to make the aspect 16:9. I'd also go for 200dpi as that would be optimal to start thinking resolution independence and getting to the point where pixels would start vanishing from view.
 
With monitors already close to the eyes, I think we need a preview on a larger and more distant one. That would be the best solution for our eyes (focusing from near to far).

-40 inch screen for editing. - 3 feet away

-60 inch screen for preview. - 10 feet away

The future of studio. Yummy.
Multiple sources PIP capability. OLED technology.
 
And something like...

(this is from Siemens)


83_1176977040.jpg
 
It would be really great if you could release a HD DVD5 or HD DVD9 image of the short film, in other words, a HD DVD image that can be burned to a normal red laser DVD-R, but played in a HD DVD player.

To do this is technically possible, I am pretty sure even DVD Studio Pro can do it, though maybe not with advanced codecs like AVC and VC1? it would be great for those of us that have HD displays, with HD DVD players.

Kind Regards,

Glenn.
 
AppliedVisual said:
I'll take a 4.5K display @ 165 dpi, thank you. <$3K would be wonderful, but I know that's a lot to ask. But at 4.5K (think 4608x2880 for 16:10) 165dpi makes for a 33" display. 32" if the vertical is shortened to make the aspect 16:9. I'd also go for 200dpi as that would be optimal to start thinking resolution independence and getting to the point where pixels would start vanishing from view.
Click to expand...
If I may cast my vote for a 16:9 display and NOT a 16:10 display?

It always irks me that large monitors have 16:10 ratios simply because of some spec somewhere that Microsoft conjured up to allow for 1920x1080 video alongside a bottom taskbar! Who watches movies and wants the taskbar visible as well?? Not me and probably not anyone else.

So please, Red Team, make any computer monitors true 16:9 ratio so our 4K viewing pleasure is not letterboxed by narrow redundant black strips top and bottom.

Cheers!
 
visceralpsyche said:
It always irks me that large monitors have 16:10 ratios simply because of some spec somewhere that Microsoft conjured up to allow for 1920x1080 video alongside a bottom taskbar! Who watches movies and wants the taskbar visible as well?? Not me and probably not anyone else.
Click to expand...

16:10 has nothing to do with any Microsoft anything, sorry. The purpose behind 16:10 is to have a full 16:9 image at full raster and still have room above or below the frame to report other information rather than overlaying the screen. It depends on your applications and workflows, but given the choice, I'd take a 1920x1200 screen any day over a 1920x1080 if the horizontal size is the same. More pixels = better, just as long as they're square.

So please, Red Team, make any computer monitors true 16:9 ratio so our 4K viewing pleasure is not letterboxed by narrow redundant black strips top and bottom.
Click to expand...

Er... You're just using the monitor to view? You don't want black bars? What if you're not producing for a 16:9 aspect? What if you're doing 2.35:1 or 4:3? For a complete editing monitor for the RED One, I think we should have 4.5K or even a full 5K so we can have a full raster 4K view with other stuff around it. 4.5K would allow for full viewing of any uncompressed 4.5K RAW frames captured from the RED One. I'll take 16:9, 16:10 or even 4:3 aspect ratio for the display as long as it has adequate pixels to do what I want. A 4600x3450 4:3 display would rock, but wide is ideally better due to our FOV, especially when it's sitting 3ft. in front of our faces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top