Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

ODEMAX in the fall?

Following that logic, why invest in a high quality 4K monitor? Just continue to use high quality 2K monitors. Implicitly you are saying that is good enough for great 4K large screen presentation. Studies that I am aware of of have shown that mastering etc problems start to show up with 4K presentations on screens 10ft wide and wider. Looks pretty good by content producers seeing their content for the first time at a single screening I would think wouldn't prove much here. This is not to belittle 4K content producers at this point. We are at the infancy of 4K shooting and production and all have much to learn. I am not a digital film shooter, just a home end user. But I look forward to 4K progress and refinement and to the day when 4K projector costs come down so that the many low budget shooters etc out there can master etc off a large screen.
 
Studies problems. I don't mean to belittle your concerns but this technology is so knew I don't believe there could be enough examples to study to make an informed decision on how and where this technology is going to end up.

Have you seen Redray on large screen?
 
Mo. I have not but I am sure the Redray will be screen agnostic. My concern is the production of 4K content, not its compression and decompression by devices like the Redray. I believe to fully evaluate the quality of a 4k source one must view it on a screen at least 10 ft wide and to me it must be processed 8although those marvelous things done to the source raw err footage before it is issued as play back content and distributed by any of a variety of means. Compression before transmission is another issue altogether.
 
mark haflich said:
Mo. I have not but I am sure the Redray will be screen agnostic. My concern is the production of 4K content, not its compression and decompression by devices like the Redray. I believe to fully evaluate the quality of a 4k source one must view it on a screen at least 10 ft wide and to me it must be processed 8although those marvelous things done to the source raw err footage before it is issued as play back content and distributed by any of a variety of means. Compression before transmission is another issue altogether.
Click to expand...

Mark, this is going to sound like a smart-ass remark but I assure you it is not meant in that vein.

First a question... have you ever done any type of post work? Even standard def kind of work. If you have, or even if you haven't, spend a little time walking in the shoes of those you question. I think being hands on will give you a better understanding than quoting something you've read on the Internet. (O.K., that last phrase was a little bit smart-ass... sorry. '-)
 
Elsie. I tried to fix things under settings but couldn't not find anything that would help here. As you are well aware I am not in the film business. But I have been in the film reproduction business in designing home theaters and in selling HT displays and all other aspects of HTs. I have consulted on equipment and screen design and before that audio e design. my background is engineering and law am one of the few people on Red forum that actually has a 4k projector and a reference quality screen. I learn a great deal here on the Reduser forum. I do trust the observations of my friend Joe Kane though I don't always agree with him. I think my concerns about the quality of 4k material for large screen reproduction with post work done on panel monitors is real and will come back to bite the asses of many members of the post production industry. I think the 4k film industry is in highly evolving state with falling costs more are seeking entry. Fortunately the damage that will occur by those attempting to work without all the right tools, and I proffer a 4K projector and a large reference quality screen are absolutely required tools for those attempting to produce 4K content for large screens will be limited by an inability to get that content into large screen venues. However, with the coming advent of more affordable 4k HT projectors this material distributed by services such as Odemax and played back on servers like Redray and lesser quality servers will make more and more people aware of post quality. howver, the availability of these HT 4K projectors will allow more and more post producers to use them as well and do better post work. Do not read this as a criticism of the fine post 2K work being done out there. I am talking the emerging area od post 4K work yet utilizing small 4K monitors.
 
mark haflich said:
Elsie. I tried to fix things under settings but couldn't not find anything that would help here. As you are well aware I am not in the film business. But I have been in the film reproduction business in designing home theaters and in selling HT displays and all other aspects of HTs. I have consulted on equipment and screen design and before that audio e design. my background is engineering and law am one of the few people on Red forum that actually has a 4k projector and a reference quality screen. I learn a great deal here on the Reduser forum. I do trust the observations of my friend Joe Kane though I don't always agree with him. I think my concerns about the quality of 4k material for large screen reproduction with post work done on panel monitors is real and will come back to bite the asses of many members of the post production industry. I think the 4k film industry is in highly evolving state with falling costs more are seeking entry. Fortunately the damage that will occur by those attempting to work without all the right tools, and I proffer a 4K projector and a large reference quality screen are absolutely required tools for those attempting to produce 4K content for large screens will be limited by an inability to get that content into large screen venues. However, with the coming advent of more affordable 4k HT projectors this material distributed by services such as Odemax and played back on servers like Redray and lesser quality servers will make more and more people aware of post quality. howver, the availability of these HT 4K projectors will allow more and more post producers to use them as well and do better post work. Do not read this as a criticism of the fine post 2K work being done out there. I am talking the emerging area od post 4K work yet utilizing small 4K monitors.
Click to expand...

All I'm suggesting is you are worrying about a non-issue. It is my understanding that people have been working on 5k footage output to 4k using high quality desk top displays for quite some time now. And since the output will be to 4k for Dragon footage, the same method of working in post should suffice for working on 5k as 6k source material. Sure some do work on high end projectors as you believe necessary, but countless others finish using high quality monitors.
 
Exactly which 4k monitor do you consider to be high quality and what size? I don't care what the shot resolution is. If it is being worked to 4K or 4HD for large screen display, do not assume that there won't be visable errors that could be avoided with post work using projectors and appropriately sized screen. A standard practice of using s cheap Chinese 50 inch monitor seems to becoming SOP and therefor OK. It isn't adequate as I expect you and others will soon see.
 
Last edited:
mark haflich said:
Exactly which 4k monitor do you consider to be high quality an d what size. I don't care what the shot resolution is. if it is being worked to 4K or 4HD for large screen display, do not assume that there won't be visable errors that could be avoided with post work using projectors and appropriately sized screen. A standard practice of using s cheap Chinese 50 inch monitor seems to becoming SOP and therefor OK. It isn't adequate as I expect you and others will soon see.
Click to expand...

I'm just sayin' 4k has been around since the R-1 and post work in many forms have been done by many different people. This is a Red Herring.
 
M Most said:
Isn't that model already used? I think it's called YouTube...

I think you're severely overlooking the fact that this is a business. It's not an artistic free for all, and it's not a public service. Most people aren't terribly interested in seeing little stories with no name actors, they're interested in seeing their favorite movie stars in situations that couldn't possibly happen in their own lives. Escapism is what cinema is about just as much as it's about art and education. But most of all, what it's about is making money - for the studio, the distributor, the filmmakers, the actors, the financial backers, and, yes, the theaters. All of those entities are making their living and/or growing their business based on the success of their product. Democracy is not what this is all about. Commerce is what it's about. Lose sight of that and you lose sight of the real, capitalist world we in the West happen to live in. Advertising is a necessary part of that because if you want to make money, you need to convince enough of the buying public to choose your product over that of the competition. Simple lines in a brochure, a web site, or Yelp don't do that. You have to force them to be aware of the existence of your product. Calmly giving the public lists of things they can choose from only works if the list is absurdly long and you have a very smart search function to narrow down the choices to something an individual might be interested in. And you have a method of delivery that ensures complete convenience with regard to where and when the material is viewed. That model is also already in use. It's called Netflix. And it's successful because unlike what you're suggesting, anyone can watch anything anywhere on any device and the software helps them find something based on choices they've already made.

Getting people to go out to a theater and pay to see a 2 hour movie is not likely to happen under your scenario. If you give them choices, they also want convenience. That's why Netflix works. If you take away the convenience, they need to be convinced to get up, go out, and spend money on something they think they will enjoy. That's what theatrical exhibition is based on.
Click to expand...

Isn't that model already used? I think it's called YouTube...

I wasn't referencing an online model, and you can't point me to my local youtube theatre with a forty foot screen. More to the point, nor is that what I'm suggesting.

I think you're severely overlooking the fact that this is a business. It's not an artistic free for all, and it's not a public service.

Not overlooking this at all Mike. I've built multi million dollar businesses. I'm not an "Artiste" bemoaning the evil studio system and genre films. I enjoy the odd giant robot punch on. If we are talking content, would I like greater diversity? Absolutely. Public service? I'm just talking about targeting niche markets. I think your over dramatising my position. It was a theatre owner who first bemoaned the difficulty of programming to me as he was fighting not to go under. I'm simply talking about the potential benefits of being able to program in direct response to customer demand - if there was any. You obviously think that couldn't work. I think it could.

Most people aren't terribly interested in seeing little stories with no name actors, they're interested in seeing their favorite movie stars in situations that couldn't possibly happen in their own lives.

I agree, I never stated otherwise. But that's not the entirety of the market either. And for small independents, who want to be "realistic", stay in business, and feed their families, they need to be able to target those niches that remain. That's just good sense. I'm not talking about "an artistic free for all" My point is simply if cinemas were able to program with greater flexibility and more immediacy, then they could actually stand to make more money, responding efficiently to lulls and failures, and Indies would likely be better able to eke out a living, doing what they love (which is a worthwhile consideration) and servicing their relevant markets. This is already what happens.
It's just damnably hard. And personally I believe a more open platform could well be made feasible by digital distribution and the world of social marketing. Is my view self serving, sure. That's business right.

Escapism is what cinema is about just as much as it's about art and education.

I don't see this as a point under debate.

But most of all, what it's about is making money - for the studio, the distributor, the filmmakers, the actors, the financial backers, and, yes, the theaters. All of those entities are making their living and/or growing their business based on the success of their product.

Not my point. But I really don't see being an advocate for a platform that may better support broader distribution for independent cinema as being an inherently anti capitalist position either Mike. It's the exception not the rule, but there's still a lot of great independent films being made that can make a buck or two, but as I'm sure you know, they're often so specialised and difficult to bring to market, that 999 times out of a 1000 it just doesn't equate with the financial risk anymore. In the wrong hands, films like "Boy's Don't Cry" may well have had no release at all, let alone a successful one. However the risk for a cinema that has had 800 requests to see a film in their area, to pre sell a session and then click a button to purchase screening rights for 24 hours if they do, is something quite different.

Democracy is not what this is all about. Commerce is what it's about. Lose sight of that and you lose sight of the real, capitalist world we in the West happen to live in.

Again. I'm under no illusion. I've had years of getting the shit kicked out of me to learn my lessons Mike. I see potential commercial advantages for myself and some exhibitors in what I think could be a more egalitarian distribution platform that wouldn't require $70 mill in P&A to truly open a film.

Advertising is a necessary part of that because if you want to make money, you need to convince enough of the buying public to choose your product over that of the competition. Simple lines in a brochure, a web site, or Yelp don't do that. You have to force them to be aware of the existence of your product. Calmly giving the public lists of things they can choose from only works if the list is absurdly long and you have a very smart search function to narrow down the choices to something an individual might be interested in.

Of course. And with where things have gone, the amount of content being produced, both good and the lot's of bad, curation is surely going to become even more relevant than ever before. Marketing will always be critical. But a big marketing budget is not necessarily synonymous with a good product either. It's just usually accompanies a successful one.

And you have a method of delivery that ensures complete convenience with regard to where and when the material is viewed. That model is also already in use. It's called Netflix. And it's successful because unlike what you're suggesting, anyone can watch anything anywhere on any device and the software helps them find something based on choices they've already made.

I'm not talking about watching anything anywhere for $13 a month. I'm talking about cinema's and the cinema experience.
(Nor by the way is Netflix available to me in Australia with the geo block unless I use an illegal work around.)

Getting people to go out to a theater and pay to see a 2 hour movie is not likely to happen under your scenario. If you give them choices, they also want convenience. That's why Netflix works. If you take away the convenience, they need to be convinced to get up, go out, and spend money on something they think they will enjoy. That's what theatrical exhibition is based on.

I'm not really sure I follow your logic on the first point? Aren't the 10 films screening at my local multiplex choices? Why must choices equal convenience?

That people will need to be convinced to go out and see something though, sure, that's how it's always been. Again, I'm not arguing people won't need to effectively market their films. However the way I see it, is with a digital model like Odemax, lower costs in marketing could genuinely become more feasible, as could securing distribution, or acquiring more films and even making more money. If you don't need to convince a distributor to risk a significant spend on P&A, and then work desperately to try and find and secure the least competitive release windows, or that it's that one in a million gem that's it's really worth pouring their companies money, heart and soul into to overseeing the kind of carefully crated campaign and platform release it will require just to have a chance to succeed and unrealistically compete against several studio films - then they can afford to bring more films to market and potentially have a greater chance of making money.

Surely if a film doesn't have to stay up for a week or even a day... and a cinema owner has the power to pre sell and click a button for a one off screening purchase, the risks become less to non existent and that flows all the way back through? Much in the same way, that if you are committing to a 200mill budget and 70 mill P&A - the level of risks flows back through and informs every level of the process and the attachments you must make etc...
 
This thread seems to have bifurcated into one discussion about distribution issues and another about delivering credible UHD/4K images to the audience.

Art & Commerce:
The economics of the theatrical exhibition business have continually evolved over the decades. Digital technologies like DCPs, 4K digital projectors and potentially RedRay/ODEMAX offer both challenges and opportunities. I can easily imagine a social media driven community of movie fans essentially crowd selecting what will be shown that night at a local independent theater. Even assuming that the off site/on demand model manifested and thrived despite the relative inconvenience vs watching a movie on your phone/tablet/TV it's hard to imagine it exceeding 10% of the marketplace. To Lliam's point, if the independent (art house) scene could operate efficiently enough to support non-mainstream fare within an economically sustainable window that would be terrific since its typically a struggle.

Real deal 4K:
Obviously if you have a few bucks and the will to do so, you can create and distribute genuine 4K DCPs today - of course virtually nobody actually does that, and even if they do the odds are that the theater won't actually get a native 4K image to the screen (servers/media blocks/projector firmware/etc). In terms of the post pipeline, monitoring for grading and UHD/4K QC, etc there are numerous potential points of failure.
Assuming you can create a credible 4K master, then the arguments about distribution codecs, display quality, projection lens MTF, screen performance, etc can begin. Based on several first hand experiences I do think RedRay/ODEMAX offers a compelling combination of picture quality and manageable data load. It will be interesting to see what the delta is vs optimized HEVC/H.265 a few months from now. In terms of the home theater market I anticipate a slew of second generation display tech to come out with better performance, lower prices, built in HEVC/H.265 and HDMI 2.0 that will provide a much more meaningful test kitchen for the RedRay .RED vs HEVC codecs.

Cheers - #19
 
Blair. I think the revenue from 4K movies, excluding the blockbusters shown in large commercial chains, will come from HT consumers. Those that have purchased 4K panel displays and/or 4K projectors .or will do so over the coming years. The larger the screen, the more serious such viewers tend to be and the more critical of technical high quality. provide it at Bluray prices with a premium because its high quality of 50%, and we will buy it. We are starved for content now, of course the subject matter has to fall within the interest of the audience. But its not hard to do this. Flight (snowboarding), under the seas, adventure, travel, rock concerts. Master it properly in 4HD and there would be a market and that market will grow over the coming years. Keep the shoot costs down, let the big studios do the high cost shoots aimed at the mass movie market. I believe the studios will deliver that content to the home theater market. But there is a small but growing market for independent content. At commercial theaters? Probably not. there are many many serious home theaters out there and few are able to get theater 4K feeds but there are ways to do it legally for a price. Commercial theaters are now primarily only needed to view new content close to after release. The money is made by providing such content to the HTs.
 
I agree that the early days of UHD/4K deployment is likely to be in the CEDIA/HT market plus some special venue plays. While there are some physical delivery options, everyone I have been working with is focused on IP delivery. Due to file sizes, streaming UHD/4K is problematic in the USA (and most other countries) in 2013 and likely to remain so until at least 2015 if not longer. Selecting content from a menu for viewing the next day is the obvious solution, but anything other than immediate gratification is typically a fail in a convenience first world. What percentage of even the well heeled HT demographic has enough bandwidth for 20mb/s streaming? Assuming a 20mb/s data rate for UHD/4K content in HEVC/H.265 or .RED, how many times real time might be required for downloads?

FWIW I see RedRay/ODEMAX/.RED as a clever combination of enough picture quality to insure that UHD/4K looks noticeably better than 1080P at a data rate that would support overnight downloads of 2 hours of programming on widely available broadband connections. What remains to be seen is what HEVC/H.265 will look like at 20mb/s. If, in fact, it looks very similar to .RED at the same data rate then very few people will bear the cost of the RedRay hardware. If it looks MUCH better, and effectively leverages the Lambda backbone to keep the last mile saturated, then I believe the home theater market might embrace RedRay/ODEMAX in a meaningful way.

Even assuming great technical success in delivery, RedRay/ODEMAX/.RED fails if the studios who hold the rights to a huge chunk of high value content don't chose to play. The potential crux of this is DRM (digital rights management) strength. IF the HEVC compliant equivalent of HDCP gets hacked quickly; and IF the hardware "dongle" that the RedRay player serves as presents a meaningful hurdle for hackers; THEN a somewhat cheaper (economies of scale) RedRay "2" might actually do very well in the HT world. There's quite a bit of animus toward RED at several of the bigger studios, but if RedRay can offer a safe distribution ecosystem for high value content that others cannot...

I should note that Apple could significantly change the landscape of UHD/4K distribution later this year. Assuming they come to market with a UHD display by year's end, use HEVC/H.265 as their UHD/4K codec combined with their well established iTunes content control environment and ease of use...

Cheers - #19
 
All good and real points. the Sony solution which is to download content to the server prior to the release date and then sell access to what is already stored on the server's hard drive. The Red model here is to make money selling the hardware, the Redray, made in the USA. The days are past when a company can make a ton selling what in essence is a dvr which records incoming content. The money to be made is in the content delivered and the delivery of the content. The box has to be free or close to free amortized by the delivery charge. but Red isn't into that. For some reason they are married to the idea of making money from the hardware box. What they also have is a codec which makes high quality delivery and playback possible. That is where the big bucks lay. Let's see how smart they are on capitalizing that instead of trying to sell boxes to consumers. If they want to sell boxes, them have it produced in China etc and utilize consumer level build and large economies of scale. pretty amazing if they can pull it off in a mass society where instance gratification is more important than audio or video quality, but I would be in for a $500 box provided delivery services other than Odemax become involved, delivering both main stream and Indy content and utilizing the Red codec. i'll never give a dime to Odemax.
 
How do we make high quality also the "easy" option?

How do we make high quality also the "easy" option?

Perhaps there is a version of the cell phone for cheap if you buy a contract arrangement that might get RedRay players moving.

Agree to a $40/mo fee that includes 20 hours of content per month, pay per hour/show after that, sign up for 2 years and the player is yours for $200...

As an example: digital projector sales to exhibitors was going very poorly until the VPN (virtual print fee) program was created.

Just thinking out loud...

Cheers - #19
 
Originally DTV boxes had to be purchased, then it went to essentially a lease situation with various amounts of free channels and then additional pay per view content. Certainly could work to pay for producing the box costs. But Red would have to become the content deliverer.
 
Mark Pavy said:
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Artic...ins-the-Significance-of-HEVC-H.265-90599.aspx

Great video regarding the hurdles and implementation of H.265.
Interesting points- 3-5x the encode time over 264, 1.5-2.5x overhead on decode, Promised 50% bandwidth saving hasn't been achieved yet.
Click to expand...
Sohhhhh, it sounds like people should be able to get their 4k via the .RED codec for now as a stop-gap until H.265 is ready and then they can... stay with .RED as it is the better codec.
 
Elsie N said:
Sohhhhh, it sounds like people should be able to get their 4k via the .RED codec for now as a stop-gap until H.265 is ready and then they can... stay with .RED as it is the better codec.
Click to expand...

That's clearly an emotional conclusion as I seriously doubt that you've seen much (if any) material encoded in either of those codecs, let alone displayed under proper viewing conditions.

There is more to codecs - a lot more - than simply image quality and efficiency. There is the support issue, because wide support ensures further development of both hardware and the software codec itself, which ultimately increases both image quality and efficiency. There is the issue of deployment on commodity hardware, which is very much the roadmap for H.265 but as far as we know, not part of the roadmap for .RED. There is the issue of openness, in other words, general availability without large royalties and corporate permission, which once again, is in H.265's favor. Personally, I see .RED as a specialty codec, specifically intended for use on Red's hardware, and intended to provide more reliable real time playback as a result. It is not intended for live streaming (as far as I know), and it is not intended to be open sourced. In other words, this isn't an either/or. There are applications for both, depending on what venue you're talking about.
 
Mike. Thank you for your cogent response and you, as usual, are right on. In your response you use the words 4k "displayed under proper viewing conditions." Though I believe I could come close to describing what would satisfy that condition, I lack a certain credibility here not being a Red fan boy whose motto is only Red can. I do admire their cameras, media server and codec. All great achievements. I think it would benefit almost all here if you could set forth some of the parameters that would satisfy "displaying under proper viewing conditions." Thank you in advance.
 
Totally agree that the roadmap for HEVC/H.265 is about ubiquitous inclusion in a plethora of devices using high volume/low cost silicon.

I see two potential paths for where the .RED codec fits into the ecosystem:
1) As a specialty codec per Mike's note, destined to occupy that portion of the landscape for which HEVC/H.265 is poorly suited.
2) IF the DRM in the .RED/RedRay delivery scheme holds up, it could become the standard for high value content distribution with HEVC/H.265 doing everything else - including most IP delivery.

We Red fanboys are all about quality, but as Mike pointed out in an earlier post, its a business and from a business perspective protecting assets is crucial.

Cheers - #19
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top