HBO pioneer writes off 4K prospects

[M Most]

LOL! Guess you were not at NAB this year. There was pretty much only one booth not pushing resolution.

I was there. That doesn't have any bearing on what I said or what I was responding to. The question was asked as to why one would shoot a TV series on film and implied that resolution was the only reason. It isn't. And regardless of what manufacturers are showing and want to sell, it still isn't. If you want to believe that it is, I can't stop you. But I also know you're smarter than that.

 

[David Battistella]

Or, perhaps because the flexibility and range of film, and the characteristics of the images it creates, are more pleasing to those who choose to shoot it than the alternative. Perhaps because it represents the best archival element we currently have. Perhaps because a show has already been shot on film for a number of years and has worked well on it. Perhaps any number of other reasons. Resolution is only one characteristic of motion images, and in many if not most cases, not the most important one. Only on RedUser is resolution the be-all and end-all.

Mike,


i don't disagree with anything you state here, but we are seeing red, in terms of resolution and aesthetic as a viable alternative to film. A raw image container properly backed up and catalogued is now a viable archival back up (assuming computers will be around in the future compared to say, film scanners) I will say that nothing digital will replace being able to hold a roll of film up to sunlight to be able to see the images if we are talking archives needed in the event of Armageddon (imagine if they were to look at tv series shot on film as our "lives" LOL)

Resolution does become an important argument. Look at the , "I love lucy" shot on film and owned by desie example. He could have done it cheaper but chose film and had it for years into the future. Now, I see that same split as these categories film or red vs. HD acquisition.

it would be like initiating a film project on SD, when there were HD cameras available. There are plenty of examples of lower end TV stuff shot on betacam at 4x3 that are pretty much youtube quality when looked at today. At once, useless and unsellable.

while there are many factors that contribute to the quality of an image resolution is an important one because it can burn you in the very near future.

film is great, but I won't compare it to HD acquisition. The same holds true for stills, you want a larger negative or not?

im not oversimplifying this, in ten years or less, HD will not have been enough.

david

 

[david farland]

And 4K/UHD adoption is happening far faster this time around.

"The Korean trade publication Chosun Biz says that LG has sold only 300 of its 84in Ultra HD TV sets since its August introduction."

 

[shashbugu]

4k TV is here now. It makes great business sense for broadcasters. The channel bouquet competition is heating up all over the world, between satellite, microwave, iptV, Internet, set top boxes, mobile devices, consoles etc, the adoption of 4k by new entrants into the market and retrofitting by the old giants is inevitable. HBO's standards are dictated by their foreign producing partners, like BBC etc if they demand 4k. HBO will switch in a heart beat. After all they are just a content producer not a broadcaster.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

"The Korean trade publication Chosun Biz says that LG has sold only 300 of its 84in Ultra HD TV sets since its August introduction."

Not sure this is a useful indicator of 4k uptake now vaguely sensible prices are here. Only is not a word I'd use for 300 sales of a TV of that size and price point with no source.

 

[M Most]

i don't disagree with anything you state here, but we are seeing red, in terms of resolution and aesthetic as a viable alternative to film. A raw image container properly backed up and catalogued is now a viable archival back up (assuming computers will be around in the future compared to say, film scanners) I will say that nothing digital will replace being able to hold a roll of film up to sunlight to be able to see the images if we are talking archives needed in the event of Armageddon...

It's not a question of having computers. It's a question of having devices that can read the specific format you choose to hold the digital information, and enough of a file description to be able to decode the files themselves. "A raw image container properly backed up" to what? There is no permanent solution at this point in time. LTO5 is one format that is popular today, but I doubt you will be able to find LTO5 transports 50 years from now. All digital storage is currently doomed to requiring constant migration, and with the volume of material being generated that is simply not in the cards for the vast majority of it, especially considering the long term costs of such an approach. So much of what is being created today will inevitably be lost. That is the primary reason many of us are not happy about the impending demise of film.

Resolution does become an important argument. Look at the , "I love lucy" shot on film and owned by desie example. He could have done it cheaper but chose film and had it for years into the future. Now, I see that same split as these categories film or red vs. HD acquisition.

I've never bought into the I Love Lucy argument. When that show was made, there were only two alternatives: air the show live and make a kinescope recording (which even at the time was intended primarily for delayed broadcast in the Pacific and Mountain time zones, not for reruns - which hadn't been invented yet...), or shoot it on film and gain the ability to light more creatively, and to edit and use multiple takes, as you would in a feature. Videotape didn't exist yet. So Desi, a very smart guy, chose to go the film shoot route, but with a live audience, and with that was able to make a better show in many ways other than simply having a nice black and white film image. The longevity of that show is due to a lot of factors, most of which center on the relatively timeless nature of a lot of its stories, the quality of the cast and their performances, and the brilliance of the writing. That, and the fact that almost every other sitcom of the time was either a live broadcast or a single camera production that didn't allow for the spontaneity of performing in front of a live audience. One could look at a more modern era and say that Saturday Night Live has endured for a long time and has never been recorded on anything other than videotape. One could also say that 70s/80s era sitcoms like The Golden Girls are still being played every day - some many times a day - on different cable networks and in syndication, not to mention on platforms like Hulu and others. If those who have a stake in such things want to claim it's because of camera resolution, I can't stop them. But that's a very myopic and not entirely sensible view of a much larger picture.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

It's not surprising that the 4K wave has created a riptide. As Mike and others have noted, there are some salient issues that will not go away magically. Key points in my book:

1) 4K (or even 8K) will eventually be ubiquitous, predicting the timeline is for ballsy bookies

2) bandwidth and compression strategies, intertwined with radical changes in delivery modalities and consumption habits, will have a greater impact on IQ than resolution near term

3) it's been proven that you can sell over compressed faux HD and make a profit, its also been proven that a tiny percentage of shows have huge long tail value, hence the move toward archiving 4K while delivering HD that I expect will become SOP over the next few years

4) the lack of affordable, and stable, data "buckets" is a serious challenge to archiving digital assets

5) while digital cinema cameras have caught up to 35mm film in most measurable ways, watching MadMen - even with heavy compression - shows off film's very real charms

6) the consumer electronics industry, and to a lesser degree our industry, is the real driver of 4K so far - not consumer demand for better IQ. How has that profile performed in the past?

7) premium content will lead the way and odds are that prime sports properties (plus some VOD offerings) will trumpet 4K as part of a "big event" marketing strategy

8) theatrical exhibition of 4K DCPs on 4K projectors will be advertised to draw people to the theater and to promote a "better than TV" experience worth paying for

Cheers - #19

 

[M Most]

5) while digital cinema cameras have caught up to 35mm film in most measurable ways, watching MadMen - even with heavy compression - shows off film's very real charms...

It hasn't been generally talked about, but Mad Men has been shot on Alexa for the last 2 seasons (last season and the current one). If you want to cite an example of what you're referring to, I would suggest using Breaking Bad, which has been and continues to be on film for its entire run (not to mention having similar alliteration in its title, but I digress....). I would also cite Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, and Castle as good examples of film imagery.

6) the consumer electronics industry, and to a lesser degree our industry, is the real driver of 4K so far - not consumer demand for better IQ. How has that profile performed in the past?

Pretty well if you're talking about DVDs and iPods. Pretty badly if you're talking about 3D.

8) theatrical exhibition of 4K DCPs on 4K projectors will be advertised to draw people to the theater and to promote a "better than TV" experience worth paying for

I don't really foresee that happening. It's never been used in advertising to this point and I don't anticipate it in the future. I think better images and/or larger screens in the cinema sell themselves (or not). The only time you'll see them advertising a value added proposition is when its a noticeably different experience and/or a gimmick. Like 3D, for example. Or perhaps Dolby Atmos sound. Or smell-o-vision....

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Or, perhaps because the flexibility and range of film, and the characteristics of the images it creates, are more pleasing to those who choose to shoot it than the alternative. Perhaps because it represents the best archival element we currently have. Perhaps because a show has already been shot on film for a number of years and has worked well on it. Perhaps any number of other reasons. Resolution is only one characteristic of motion images, and in many if not most cases, not the most important one. Only on RedUser is resolution the be-all and end-all.

So, Mike, to return to the original issue, do you agree or disagree that, all other things being equal, higher rez is better than lower - or is there no visible difference? :huh:

 

[M Most]

So, Mike, to return to the original issue, do you agree or disagree that, all other things being equal, higher rez is better than lower - or is there no visible difference? :huh:

Of course its better. But so is a 1000 horsepower engine compared with a 200 horsepower engine. The question is whether your car needs 1000 horsepower for what you do with it. And the further question is whether horsepower is the only criteria that one judges a car by, ignoring things like styling, interior, space, comfort, electronics, roominess, handling, ride quality, sound system, mileage, safety - am I getting my point across?

 

[David Battistella]

- am I getting my point across?

From what I am reading the point seems to be that resolution alone does not matter, that there are many factors that go into creating a filmed image in a filmed storytelling context. I don't think that anyone would disagree that film carries an aesthetic and archival nature that has not been rivaled.

I'm not one of those people that savors the death of film, quite the opposite, and I do worry about whether r3d or Prores is a viable digital alternative to a medium which has served us incredibly well over the last century or so.

But I'm not going to let that nostalgia get the best of me either because I appreciate having the digital tools that begin to rival this format in my hands and in the hands of many, to be used in an affordable way. I think that is a good thing and it will get better.

The miracle technology does not exist right now, but it will exist and it will be a better true replacement for analog film. You or I can not predict that, but it will happen.

David

 

[Terry VerHaar]

You might be if the two things had anything to do with each other. :huh:

I was reading this as a discussion of whether 4K resolution was going to prove to be accepted as better than HD or not. Much like HD has more or less won out over SD. I am not talking about acquisition - which seems more like where the horsepower discussion belongs. (Beyond that, consider me dense. I understand what you are saying with the HP analogy, I just don't see how it applies.)

 

[PatrickFaith]

It's not surprising that the 4K wave has created a riptide. As Mike and others have noted, there are some salient issues that will not go away magically. Key points in my book:
...
2) bandwidth and compression strategies, intertwined with radical changes in delivery modalities and consumption habits, will have a greater impact on IQ than resolution near term
...

I think that's the crux statement, basically moving to a wavelet based codex is the main thing that needs to occur, which enables the move to 4k. With all the problems of h.265, I am super glad RED is leading the charge with ".RED".

 

[Marc Wielage]

"HBO pioneer writes off 4K prospects" goes right along with: "Talkies will never catch on", "Color is just a fad", "Digital will never replace film"...

How about Jeffrey Katzenberg of Dreamworks, who about five years ago predicted that soon, all major Hollyoowd features would be 3D? Sometimes, trends are a tad premature.

I agree with Mike above that really, content is king. People will watch a great idea and great performances shot on anything. Nobody is going to stay away from The Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings movies just because they were all finished in 2K, with vast numbers of effects shots only done in 2K.

The K will not pull audiences into theaters, but great stories, great cinematography, great direction, and great acting will. All things equal, sure, everybody would prefer more K. But I think the other stuff is infinitely harder to create. And note also that it's just a matter of time before we have 4K chips in our phones. Will that allow us to make great-looking movies? No, because there will always be different quality levels of chips, compression, dynamic range, and all the other factors that determine picture quality.

 

[david farland]

Can somebody explain to me how you'll see 4K quality at home?
What device? What size? How close are you sitting to this device?

...Jim, Graeme, Jarred, anyone at all?
sincerely,
Dave

ps: cheers for the format wars, ladies

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

Can somebody explain to me how you'll see 4K quality at home?
What device? What size? How close are you sitting to this device?

David, although everybody keeps repeating these arguments of resolution and field of view/distance, I still wonder how accurate and precise there numbers actually are.

So, here's my heretic suggestion: View some HD signal 1.5-3 times further away from the panel what this everyman's wisdom says about the maximum viewing distance. Then look at the things around your panel or at the frame of the panel and compare this observation of the eye to the HD signal. What is your observation? In my eyes when I watch any signal in my 32inch HD TV say four meters away from the panel, the image is clearly not as sharp compared to how the naked eye perceives all the DVD and BlueRay boxes on the same table. There's even a clear difference. I could easily imagine a 4K image would appear quite a lot sharper. Consequently, I wonder to which extent one should rely on this folk wisdom of pixel size and viewing distances. But just asking ... if you test this yourself, let us know what is your conclusion.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

Can somebody explain to me how you'll see 4K quality at home?
What device? What size? How close are you sitting to this device?

...Jim, Graeme, Jarred, anyone at all?
sincerely,
Dave

ps: cheers for the format wars, ladies

The problem with the screen size/distance arguments that I've seen is they all seem to argue on the absurd principle that if you are viewing at 4k anything other than optimum then there's no point. This is clearly rubbish, its in effect an analogue improvement not a digital, in that as you move away from the "optimum" viewing distance for 4k at a certain size back to that for HD at the same size the perceived resolution drops gradually, not straight down to 1080. This is also true for sizing a TV at a set distance.

I'm also not sure that the optimum distance is worked out all that well, optimum usually being defined as the point that you resolve the individual pixels, I'd contend that backing of at least slightly improves the experience.

in short while to get the full whack a larger TV is of no doubt needed, a more modest TV may well give a significant improvement.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I'm also not sure that the optimum distance is worked out all that well, optimum usually being defined as the point that you resolve the individual pixels, I'd contend that backing of at least slightly improves the experience.

Sony's (somewhat-dated) 2010 theatrical white paper report "Does 4K Really Make a Difference" goes into the numbers -- screen size, image quality, and audience distance -- in great detail:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/files/mkt/digitalcinema/Why_4K_WP_Final.pdf

My belief is that it won't make a huge difference for average people in average living rooms. I think it does work well in theaters, especially on massive screens (80' and bigger), for audiences over about 700-800.

But again, there are a lot of factors with image quality, and resolution is only one of them. I've seen some low-contrast shows where I'm not sure if they were shot at 2K, 4K, or even standard def, because the resultant image quality was so soft and "thin" looking. Apparent sharpness (and MTF) also involves contrast, and you won't get a lot of sharpness in pictures like these, no matter what they were shot on.

 

[Les Dittert]

I had a similar skepticism, until I saw some sharp 4K on an 86" LG monitor.
David, have you seen 4K on a good set ?

Until 86" sets are cheaper, I ordered a 50" for 1300 USD to edit with.

Can somebody explain to me how you'll see 4K quality at home?
What device? What size? How close are you sitting to this device?

...Jim, Graeme, Jarred, anyone at all?
sincerely,
Dave

ps: cheers for the format wars, ladies

 

[Palmer Woodrow]

This is all a bit pointless when you consider that there isn't likely to be any legitimately adequate data pipe for 4K. We still don't have one for HD (Blu-Ray comes the closest), so what makes you think we're going to get one for 4K?

Any increases in network data capacity go to more channels of crap, not image quality. Then there's the plain old waste: Cable companies are still wasting bandwidth on SD versions of channels that exist in HD. This is especially pointless when you consider that cable boxes already downscale HD for the (presumably) small number of people using composite outputs.

Yes, there will be something branded as "4K" coming soon. But it'll be the same mottled pastiche of artifact-ridden garbage that's being peddled today as "HD."