RED Projector...

[L. Langer]

As long as it's Sandisk and not PNY.....

 

[Stuart English]

Economic reality

Economic reality

What if films started to be released on write protected SSD media uncompressed 4k Masters that you can pop into your RedRay!

$ $ $ $

If you want to make money you have to compress. The question is : how good is your compression?

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

If there's one thing I've come to accept in the last year or two it's that any delivery system that is dependent on proprietary hardware is not likely to have a long shelf life in the consumer marketplace. This includes both hard goods and streaming codecs. The streaming methods that have have become "standard" are software dependent, not hardware dependent. If you look at things like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Vimeo, and other services, the one thing they have in common is that they are delivered on multiple platforms - Apple TV, Playstation, XBox, and multiple computer platforms. They are essentially software, which makes them easy and cheap to deploy, and also makes them easy and cheap for consumers to use. If Redray hardware is required for streaming delivery of Redray encoded material, my feeling is that is will be a niche player, selling mostly to people who are already aware of the Red products. It might succeed in getting more widespread use if it can be decoupled from the hardware, i.e., decoded purely in software on commodity platforms in real time.

Personally, I really don't see the public clamoring for anything more than they already have anyway. I just don't think they care about anything bigger than HD, and won't for quite some time. But that's just me.

I hear what you are saying in the first part of your post. But I don't think consumers, per se, are the target of RED RAY and the RED LASER Projector (at least in the beachhead market) which will be theaters and distribs that want a SECURE and MORE AFFIRDABLE way
to stream movies to theaters. Yes, yes, I know all about the standards bodies that control these arenas... but COST will be the ultimate decider... imho... but I also strongly disagree with your assessment about HD... because
the industry has done a fantastic job of EDUCATING CONSUMERS... we know what HD is now... we know whad 3D is... we know what IMAX 3D is and introducing 4K as ULTRA high def will not be the same leap as SD to HD has been
because the manufacturing margin of 4K displays and HD displays ia shrinking rapidly... and will soon be negligible. Consumers are not as "stupid" as they were 3 years ago. Selling 4K ULTRA HIGH DEF will be a no-brainer over HD
when the costs meet - its a natural progression of HD not a replacement... imho... I will bet the farm that THEATERS will soon be charging a similar premium for 4K as they do for 3D... ULTRA HIGH DEFINITION = the first $20.00 ticket

 

[M Most]

...theaters and distribs that want a SECURE and MORE AFFIRDABLE way
to stream movies to theaters. Yes, yes, I know all about the standards bodies that control these arenas... but COST will be the ultimate decider... imho...

I completely disagree. Cost is not the ultimate decider. Contractual obligations are the ultimate decider. Industry wide initiatives and financing entities that are allowing the digital transition in exhibition to happen were formed by and are controlled by the studios and the distribution apparatus they have created. If a theater or a theater chain wants to show the pictures they supply - and those are essentially 95% of the pictures people pay to see - they must adopt the formats and distribution methods those entities have created. Cost is not an issue because financing of the equipment is largely coming from the virtual print fee plan established by and maintained by those entities. The only way that cost would be an issue is if the theaters were financing the transition on their own. That is not the case now, and never has been the case.

As Steve Jobs once allegedly said to Bill Gates, "our stuff is better than yours." And as Bill Gates allegedly replied, "it doesn't matter."

..but I also strongly disagree with your assessment about HD... because
the industry has done a fantastic job of EDUCATING CONSUMERS... we know what HD is now... we know whad 3D is... we know what IMAX 3D is and introducing 4K as ULTRA high def will not be the same leap as SD to HD has been
because the manufacturing margin of 4K displays and HD displays ia shrinking rapidly... and will soon be negligible. Consumers are not as "stupid" as they were 3 years ago. Selling 4K ULTRA HIGH DEF will be a no-brainer over HD
when the costs meet - its a natural progression of HD not a replacement... imho... I will bet the farm that THEATERS will soon be charging a similar premium for 4K as they do for 3D... ULTRA HIGH DEFINITION = the first $20.00 ticket

I disagree with that one too. One of the main things that sold HD to the public was the wider screen, which represented an obvious, tangible difference between what they had and what they could have. 4K has no such distinguishing characteristic. It's just a nicer image, but really only appreciated on screen sizes larger than most people even have room for. But for most people, it's the same image. As for theaters charging more for 4k, that hasn't happened and in my opinion never will. 3D requires an upcharge because it requires more equipment than just the projector. It requires add ons to the projector, and it requires glasses that must be cleaned and recycled, not to mention a silver screen in the case of RealD. Those are real costs, even if they don't amount to the percentage increase that theaters have charged up to this point. But there is pretty substantial backlash against the upcharges and 3D in general at the moment, so I don't really expect the upcharges to remain at their current level much longer either.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The jump from 1080p to 4K is more similar to the jump from DVD to 1080p. Not as dramatic as the leap from VHS to DVD, which was a HUGE change.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

I I don't really expect the upcharges to remain at their current level much longer either.

You need to come stand in line for HUGO at Bridgeport Mall in a subdivision of Portland.... IMAX 3D films selling out every weekend... almost impossible to find a show time the first 2 weeks of a new release. Why would they stop charging fees they EASILY collect?

Independent Theaters (the other 5%) is what Im interested in... and talking about... over 1000 screens not owned or controlled by the majors... as for your WIDE screen argument... uh, where is that data? I dont remember that in ANY sales pitch
HD was wider... but it was all about IMAGE quality... not width... at least at all the retailers and their displays.... and Jobs also said... "People dont know what they want... they have to be TOLD WHAT THEY WANT"

Right now its that they need to pay a PREMIUM for 3D because they are told "its better"... and they will be told 4K is better and they just HAVE TO SEE IT and its only $2 more! >.. IF exhibs are NOT planning to use 4K for more profit... then... they arent very smart.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Charging more for 4K would be a major mistake, IMO. Then again, I believe that charging more for 3D was also a huge mistake.

 

[Will Wernick]

Charging more for 4K would be a major mistake, IMO. Then again, I believe that charging more for 3D was also a huge mistake.

I agree 100% While there is a nice difference, especially to people that really deeply care, most of the friends I have that aren't in the film world could honestly care less about resolution. I am sure they like a better image, but def wouldn't pay more for it.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

huh?? IMAX Theaters, hello? People pay a premium for premium content. You are saying this is a bad idea? How? Why?

I don't get these arguments. Im not saying I agree, but in my town. (maybe cuz it rains more than elsewhere) people GLADLY pay a premium
for better (perceived) quality. The line for 3D versus IMAX 3D (which btw is impossible to tell the difference, other than a slight curved screen.
Not a full IMAX screen...

If people are willing to pay for a PREMIUM experience... why how is this a mistake? I don't get it.

 

[M Most]

You need to come stand in line for HUGO at Bridgeport Mall in a subdivision of Portland.... IMAX 3D films selling out every weekend... almost impossible to find a show time the first 2 weeks of a new release. Why would they stop charging fees they EASILY collect?

One movie does not a pattern make. The pattern over the last year or so has been that with the vast majority of 3D features that have been released, the percentage of theatergoers opting for 3D has been lower and lower as time has gone on. One successful picture does not contradict that overall pattern. And I would argue that the picture you're talking about happens to be a very good story, well told, by a great director. And it's kid-friendly and released during the holiday season. As for the Imax thing, if it's selling out every weekend, it's very possible the same people are going each week - a small group of hardcore Imax fans. I'm not saying that's the case, but you can interpret it in many different ways.

Independent Theaters (the other 5%) is what Im interested in... and talking about... over 1000 screens not owned or controlled by the majors...

Not necessarily controlled by the majors. But to a great degree controlled by the "major" independent distribution companies. Which is one of the reasons many of them haven't been switched over to digital projection, because a lot of those independent features are not distributed that way. I didn't know much about that situation until about a year ago when I happened to have a conversation with the president of one of the local independent chains here in Los Angeles. I found it surprising, but it's true.

as for your WIDE screen argument... uh, where is that data? I dont remember that in ANY sales pitch
HD was wider... but it was all about IMAGE quality... not width... at least at all the retailers and their displays....

I didn't say there was data, I didn't quote any, and I was only offering an opinion. I said that it was the primary obvious difference, the one everyone could see regardless of screen size. And I stand by that, based primarily on the empirical evidence that just about everyone I know who isn't involved in the industry immediately mentioned it.

and Jobs also said... "People dont know what they want... they have to be TOLD WHAT THEY WANT"

He said a lot of things, some profound, some self-serving. I simply brought up a quote that illustrated the point I was trying to make. No other reason.

Right now its that they need to pay a PREMIUM for 3D because they are told "its better"... and they will be told 4K is better and they just HAVE TO SEE IT and its only $2 more! >.. IF exhibs are NOT planning to use 4K for more profit... then... they arent very smart.

You see this your way, I see it mine. Difference of opinion.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

One movie does not a pattern make. The pattern over the last year or so has been that with the vast majority of 3D features that have been released, the percentage of theatergoers opting for 3D has been lower and lower as time has gone on. One successful picture does not contradict that overall pattern. And I would argue that the picture you're talking about happens to be a very good story, well told, by a great director. And it's kid-friendly and released during the holiday season. As for the Imax thing, if it's selling out every weekend, it's very possible the same people are going each week - a small group of hardcore Imax fans. I'm not saying that's the case, but you can interpret it in many different ways.



Not necessarily controlled by the majors. But to a great degree controlled by the "major" independent distribution companies. Which is one of the reasons many of them haven't been switched over to digital projection, because a lot of those independent features are not distributed that way. I didn't know much about that situation until about a year ago when I happened to have a conversation with the president of one of the local independent chains here in Los Angeles. I found it surprising, but it's true.



I didn't say there was data, I didn't quote any, and I was only offering an opinion. I said that it was the primary obvious difference, the one everyone could see regardless of screen size. And I stand by that, based primarily on the empirical evidence that just about everyone I know who isn't involved in the industry immediately mentioned it.



He said a lot of things, some profound, some self-serving. I simply brought up a quote that illustrated the point I was trying to make. No other reason.



You see this your way, I see it mine. Difference of opinion.

Differences of opinions are what make this place great. But you tend to post things as if they are published from extensive study. when its really the opinion of a colorist or hearsay from a conversation.

I will argue that the QUALITY of the 3D of HUGO will help 3D , while all of the CONVERTED CRAP 3D has ruined the market...but thats just my opinion... watching Titanic and Star Wars 3D trailers made me want to vomit
its so poorly done and an egregious cash grab... I hope NOBODY goes.

As for your "small gang of attendees to the IMAX Theater" Theory... uh, they are all screaming teens... scores and scores and scores of them everyweekend. The place is like the ultimate nod to consumerism... I go simply
for the state of the art projectio, sound and stadium seating... there are SEVERAL IMAX screens in Portland and ALL SELL OUT over regular 3D all the time. I bet thats the case in a LOT of cities... (LA is not really a city. its more like a small country)
head out to the Valley, go to some multi plexes...

My point is that it appears IMAX branding (known for quality) results in a PREMIUM ticket... and there is no reason to doubt that the SAME argument could not be made for 4K projection over 2K projection with a simple marketing plan.

You dont agree... that is not surprising, we dont agree on much. I think of LA as TV land... and NY as a film town. But that doesnt mean Im correct. there is a perception outside of LA- that those working in LA are sell outs and make crap
and that real ART is made in NY.... again, not my opinion and not my urban myth... but the feeling exists. Especialyl when the KARTRASHIANS 0 an LA product... dominate every other headline.

BACK ON TOPIC

THE RED PROJECTOR - to most of us. is what we hope is GRADING QUALITY and more affordable than a Christie or Barco... if they can do that. They will sell a TON. Home use... thats more like 2015 - 2020 imho.

 

[M Most]

Differences of opinions are what make this place great. But you tend to post things as if they are published from extensive study. when its really the opinion of a colorist or hearsay from a conversation.

Tim, I don't denigrate things you say, and I really don't understand why you feel the need to qualify what I say just because it happens to disagree with your opinion. I've done a lot more in my career than just colorist work and still do. I'm just as entitled to opinions as you are and mine are just as valid or invalid. And if you feel that when I simply say something that I seem to be speaking from some kind of position of authority, that's your problem, not mine.

... (LA is not really a city. its more like a small country)
head out to the Valley, go to some multi plexes...

So now Los Angeles isn't a city, but the Valley is somehow "real". OK...........

You dont agree... that is not surprising, we dont agree on much. I think of LA as TV land... and NY as a film town. But that doesnt mean Im correct. there is a perception outside of LA- that those working in LA are sell outs and make crap
and that real ART is made in NY.... again, not my opinion and not my urban myth... but the feeling exists. Especialyl when the KARTRASHIANS 0 an LA product... dominate every other headline.

There's also the misconception that somehow everyone in Los Angeles spends their time sitting around the pool and never actually working, even though those of us who work in the film industry here probably put in more hours than 99% of those who carry that misconception. A LOT more hours. I would expect that attitude from a New Yorker, but not from someone in the Pacific Northwest. And not that I would ever watch it, but the current Kardashian show is made and set in New York. Just FYI...

THE RED PROJECTOR - to most of us. is what we hope is GRADING QUALITY and more affordable than a Christie or Barco... if they can do that. They will sell a TON.

I prefer to keep the hyperbole to a minimum until they actually start building and delivering some. :undecided:

I have no desire to have the last word, so I'm done here.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

People bought into HD because it was thinner and bigger than their CRT and it had a big number by it. If you showed someone my CRT HDTV and asked if it was HD most consumers would say "no". If I showed most consumers a 4:3 monitor and asked if it was HD (even if it was 1920x1280 letter boxed) they would say no. Consumers don't know what actually defines HD. They think anything plugged into an HDTV is HD. Plug in a non-upsampled DVD? HD.

4k is a smaller number than 1080. Its displays will be no thinner. Most importantly there are no $699 42" 4k displays yet.

People wanted widescreen thin displays. Most people can't tell if their display is HD or not. They definitely can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Hell in a showroom I can't. 4k might happen. But it'll happen for the same reason 1080p or 120hz happened... it was the same price and there was no reason not to. Apathy is what will sell 4k.

 

[Brad Hawkins]

People bought into HD because it was thinner and bigger than their CRT and it had a big number by it. If you showed someone my CRT HDTV and asked if it was HD most consumers would say "no". If I showed most consumers a 4:3 monitor and asked if it was HD (even if it was 1920x1280 letter boxed) they would say no. Consumers don't know what actually defines HD. They think anything plugged into an HDTV is HD. Plug in a non-upsampled DVD? HD.

4k is a smaller number than 1080. Its displays will be no thinner. Most importantly there are no $699 42" 4k displays yet.

People wanted widescreen thin displays. Most people can't tell if their display is HD or not. They definitely can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Hell in a showroom I can't. 4k might happen. But it'll happen for the same reason 1080p or 120hz happened... it was the same price and there was no reason not to. Apathy is what will sell 4k.

+1 to all of this. The most realistic and sensible post I've seen on the whole 4k vs HD discussion.

 

[Stuart English]

4k might happen. But it'll happen for the same reason 1080p or 120hz happened... it was the same price and there was no reason not to. Apathy is what will sell 4k.

Humm, I'll have to get a new dictionary then.

As "apathy" isn't a word I'd have used to describe people's reaction to 4K images and the prototype RED projector ..

To my mind this is a parallel argument to "why use a 4K" camera, when "HD is good enough". it's true that most cameras sold are not 4K, and that will be true of displays in future too; but there is still a significant number of people who will buy based on image quality, just because of what that provides as a visual experience and as a driver for their business.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Humm, I'll have to get a new dictionary then. As "apathy" isn't a word I'd have used to describe people's reaction to 4K images and the prototype RED projector ..

To my mind this is a parallel argument to "why 4K" cameras, when "HD is good enough". Most camera's sold are not RED, and that will be true of displays too, but there are a significant number of people who will buy because of the image quality and what that does as visual experience and as a driver for their business.

Could't agree more with this post Stuart...

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Mike--- I like you man - I don't like your posting style, but I certainly respect your experience and knowledge. In fact, I think we are blessed to have you on here as you represent 98% of Hollywood, and i mean that in the best way. Slow adopters. always doubting. set in their ways. its not a judgement man, its a fact. For better or worse, for over 100 years, Hollywood resists change and especially technology. Then embraces it fiercely after the fact. Weird from the outside looking in.

Stuart. I'm with you man. I want a demo so badly... rumbles have made it to the rainy PACNW. I'll die before I reveal my sources, but if what
I am hearing is true... then hyperbole won't do it justice.

But mark my words. Red Projector and Red Ray going to factor majority in 2015 and beyond. If I have anything to do with it.

 

[M Most]

Mike--- I like you man - I don't like your posting style, but I certainly respect your experience and knowledge. In fact, I think we are blessed to have you on here as you represent 98% of Hollywood, and i mean that in the best way. Slow adopters. always doubting. set in their ways. its not a judgement man, its a fact. For better or worse, for over 100 years, Hollywood resists change and especially technology. Then embraces it fiercely after the fact. Weird from the outside looking in.

You don't know me at all. Not even remotely close. Those on here who do know me will corroborate that. Your assumptions about how I see things and the views I represent are so far off the mark it's not even funny.

Fortunately, Jim, Graeme, and some others at Red do know me. And they know how wrong your view of me is.

 

[Bjørn Vermo]

...
Cost is not an issue because financing of the equipment is largely coming from the virtual print fee plan established by and maintained by those entities. The only way that cost would be an issue is if the theaters were financing the transition on their own. That is not the case now, and never has been the case.

The world is more than the US.

I disagree with that one too. One of the main things that sold HD to the public was the wider screen, which represented an obvious, tangible difference between what they had and what they could have. ...

We had widescreen TV a decade before the HD standard was even defined.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I think we are blessed to have you on here as you represent 98% of Hollywood, and i mean that in the best way. Slow adopters. always doubting. set in their ways.

Stop with this stupid bickering. Anyone who continues this bickering will be temp banned. First and only warning.