Jim (Cameron) says 4K is overkill...

[Mark Allen]

Perhaps the future is not one unified medium, but a scaleable architecture like Quicktime where it doesn't matter what size or frame rate you use. You project whatever you want to project up to the limitations of your hardware. The idea of a unified medium was because of 100 year old technology. The answer is literally right in front of us - everyday. Whether we're watching youtube or someone's 2k upload. Why should it be any different for data on a disk than the internet?

Is there really a need for standardization in the future other than how data goes from media to projection? (i.e. codecs)

 

[Brian Pearson]

James Cameron also prefers the 4x3 versions of his films which most people (myself included) wouldn't have predicted.

So if you want the TRUE director's vision, you have to watch the 4x3 versions of T2 and the Abyss

Out of curiosity, where did you get that?

 

[Steve Gibby]

Hi from Las Vegas everyone…

In June, 2007 I explained my feelings about frame rates in my Post #103 0n this RED User thread, which Dave Mullen and others on the thread subsequently agreed with.

Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=48286&highlight=multy+framerate#post48286

Just a few weeks ago I re-voiced those opinions on frame rates, shutter angles, and shutter speeds in another RED User thread – Post #43 of this thread:

Link:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10851&page=5

Bottom line for me in those posts = Setting aside bias, tradition, and peer pressure, I believe in using the frame rate, shutter angle, and shutter speed that best illustrates the story or portion thereof that I’m trying to tell, respecting of course the technical parameters of the delivery medium, screening requirements, and/or Producer’s Guidelines for the project in question.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

So 3K at 48 fps as a future RED recording option anyone ;-)

Er... I thought RED already did that. We just don't have the ability to set our project rate to 48fps right now. Build 16? ...17?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Out of curiosity, where did you get that?

Cameron once said that in an interview (explaining also why his first letterboxed transfer of "The Abyss" was only about 1.90 : 1, I think, or was it more like 1.66?) but in a later interview, modified his comment once TV sets got bigger and DVD's came out with sharper images than VHS allowed (and probably has changed his mind even more so now that they have become 16x9.)

He did say that there were certain compositional happy accidents in the 4x3 versions but he also stated in that later interview (from Widescreen Review) that he composed the films for 2.40 and never takes TV into account when framing up a shot for theatrical (he was quite emphatic about that in the interview, claiming he even masked off his monitors on set to 2.40, which was not always true if you look at some behind the scenes stuff) -- he just knew (by shooting in 4-perf Super-35) that there would be more picture in post to play with once he made the 4x3 TV version. Of course, these days he's shooting 16x9 HD, not 4-perf Super-35...

 

[Stu Maschwitz]

48fps.

Yuck.

Agreed.

-Stu

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Variable framerate playback?

Shots that require a certain fps are played at that fps, and the others - 24.

 

[Erasmus]

Hurray for OVERKILL!

 

[Stokestack]

You can't compare 2K film with 2K fixed-pixel projection. Film's grain varies randomly from frame to frame, which helps hide the resolution limits. On a 2K fixed-pixel display, you're going to see those pixels. You can even see them in 4K projection if you're looking at text.