Sony F5 and F55...

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

now actually that is a good post (for real)....reasonable ...almost

...just wondering if that "shitty" 2k/1080p ALEXA is so "bad" why are movies like 007 Skyfall or The Avengers (and many others) are shot on that cam ...and even more "shocking" ppl / viewers seem to pretty much like it and say it looked awesome ...(btw tha goes fo a lot of TV shows)

Even Deakins himself noted he'd welcome more resolution (esp for IMAX release), while the feel and highlights on Alexa are so sweet as it is now. TV productions love the quicker ProRes HQ workflow without transcoding. Rest is just good publicity.

 

[Freya]

Hi Michael,

I have to repeat myself here:

We are airing a TV comedy mini series now, that has been shot in 4K and posted in 4K. Its airing in HD (or even 720p), but we did post in 4K.

Well 720p is HD!
It's worth noting here that presently there is no broadcast tv system for 1080p video.
The new 8k standard will be the easiest way to get to 1080p and above.
It's also probably the best hope for getting together the infrastructure etc for 8k projection in "cinema" type venues.

Someone mentioned downscaling their audio to 16bit 44.11khz.
Do we want a 720p future?

love

Freya

 

[Axel Mertes]

Well, here in germany we can receive stations in 1080p of course.

Just those official state broadcasters among europe decided for some really weired reasons, manipulated by some Panasonic researches (back then Pana was only able to deliver 720p and TVs were 1368x786y) to do airing in 720/50p, because its better for transmission and compressed better than 1080/50i.

The nonsense about all this is that each station requires you to send your master as 1080/50i, which makes all the analysis they did absolutely inadequate and false. I think its a matter of time until they switch to 1080/50p possibly (which is another nonsense, but a better one).

Cheers,
Axel

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Once bit-ten...

Once bit-ten...

I'm not trying to put words in Mr. Jannard's mouth, but I presume the consumer 4K standard he is referring to is the Ultra High Definition (UHD) standard recently ratified by the CEA and announced 10/18/2012 (snip)

I actually served on the CEA 4K working group that chose UHD as the consumer friendly moniker for 4K. We were aware that the ITU had grouped both 4K (nom) and 8K (nom) into the UHD draft spec and some members expressed concern over confusion and/or accuracy issues. FWIW CEA market research found that UHD resonated with more folks than any other option so not surprisingly the fence sitters joined the UHD proponents.

I pitched for 4K as a clear departure from existing HD variants postulating that would make it easier to justify upgrade costs. My second choice was QHD (Quad) as even non-technical folk can grasp "It's 4 times (F)HD". I feel like Ultra has little currency in a world of marketing hype where Mega, Super, etc are plugged into copy even when actual improvements are minimal. In any case, I am now obligated to use the term UHD since consumer confusion helps no one.

I am under NDA on specifics but in my work with one of the big players has included serious discussions about codecs and bit rates for 4K delivery. FWIW the reference point is the IQ you can get from a 19mb/s AVC 1080 Blu-Ray upscaled to 4K using AI algorithms on silicon. Not surprisingly the limiting factor is broadband distribution metrics as physical media is seen as a dead end these days. What bit rate do you think would be enough for the 4K version to look enough better than upscaled Blu-ray that people will reach for their wallets?

Cheers - #19

 

[Axel Mertes]

I actually served on the CEA 4K working group that chose UHD as the consumer friendly moniker for 4K. We were aware that the ITU had grouped both 4K (nom) and 8K (nom) into the UHD draft spec and some members expressed concern over confusion and/or accuracy issues. FWIW CEA market research found that UHD resonated with more folks than any other option so not surprisingly the fence sitters joined the UHD proponents.

I pitched for 4K as a clear departure from existing HD variants postulating that would make it easier to justify upgrade costs. My second choice was QHD (Quad) as even non-technical folk can grasp "It's 4 times (F)HD". I feel like Ultra has little currency in a world of marketing hype where Mega, Super, etc are plugged into copy even when actual improvements are minimal. In any case, I am now obligated to use the term UHD since consumer confusion helps no one.

I am under NDA on specifics but in my work with one of the big players has included serious discussions about codecs and bit rates for 4K delivery. FWIW the reference point is the IQ you can get from a 19mb/s AVC 1080 Blu-Ray upscaled to 4K using AI algorithms on silicon. Not surprisingly the limiting factor is broadband distribution metrics as physical media is seen as a dead end these days. What bit rate do you think would be enough for the 4K version to look enough better than upscaled Blu-ray that people will reach for their wallets?

Cheers - #19

Thats really the fun here.

Sony specs out at 50 MBit for 4K transmission (showcased live on IBC by Astra).
RED talks about 15-20 MBit for 4K (never seen it, never shown in Europe AFAIK).
Panasonic also seems to aim toward 50 MBit.
NHK runs currently 8K at 600 MBit IIRC and 4K at 150 MBit. Super Hi-Vision shows still a lot of artefacts IMHO, not very clean images. Lots of sensor noise.
At the same time DCI discusses if 1000 MBit will be enough in future, testing up to 2000 MBit in 4K and 8000 MBit in 8K... (intoPix).

There is a broad band about possible broadband transmission rates...

I only wish we could get rid of some useless niche stations in favor of some good 4K transmission links. I don't need QVC in 4K, I don't need it at all. I want my favorite feature film station(s) to show good quality instead.

Wishes...

 

[Michael Brennan]

Now Billionaire George Lucas decided an adapted HD news camera was good enough for large screen, not manufacturers. Sure once the thing (f900) was made the manufacturers ran with it as did other producers.
It was a dog of a camera for three years as it did not go through the normal Sony R&D development path.

Arri decided their first HD camera was good enough for TV and the Alexa was good enough for 2k projection.

RED is saying 4K is good enough.
Is it?

Its a shame that possibly due to the threat of REDs 4k systems flooding the market, that the industry has dumbed down the UHDTV standard, worse than 720-1080 is 4k-8k!

The industry research analysts predict that 4k will rollout at a far greater pace as we are already digital, unlike HDs rollout where analogue infrastructure and displays had to be replaced enmass.

Anyway, lets hope the adoption of 4K cinema cameras does not hold back the rollout of 8K broadcast!

Like others I'd prefer to have jumped from HD to 8k but that didn't fit into another billionaires plans


Mike Brennan
DP
Melbourne

 

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

If there is a true 4K theater near you, of course you will go there - as will sooner or later the majority of the cinema crowd.
So 4K for cinema IS going to happen. Maybe very fast.

But ....:
Would you rather have 5 tv-channels in 4K or 50 channels in 720p?
I mean real ones, not Turkish Flyfishing Daily.

Jochen

 

[David Battistella]

Cameras do not make movies.
People make movies.

The more affordable the tool, the more likely interesting films will get made.

Red has lowered the technological price point to create movies that compete on an image level, with the highest budget movies being made. They are also helping to foster a wave of new filmmaking.

This levels the playing field somewhat. Indy filmmakers need to compete on talent only, not technological disadvantage.

So I see RED as a company that produces products which limits excuses. Its a kind of unspoken contract. We Indy filmmakers have the tools. It's now up to us to shut the fuck up and get to work on our half of the equation.

Revolutions require participation.

David

 

[Zack CC]

Its a kind of unspoken contract. We Indy filmmakers have the tools. It's now up to us to shut the fuck up and get to work on our half of the equation.

Revolutions require participation.

David

Love this. Might post it on the side of my cart.

 

[Freya]

Well, here in germany we can receive stations in 1080p of course.

Wow! Germany is always ahead of the curve! I didn't know that! Is that MPEG-4 over DVB-T2 or something, or is it just a satellite thing?

Just those official state broadcasters among europe decided for some really weired reasons, manipulated by some Panasonic researches (back then Pana was only able to deliver 720p and TVs were 1368x786y) to do airing in 720/50p, because its better for transmission and compressed better than 1080/50i.

Here at the other side of Europe, in the UK, we don't even have 720p, we have the worst of both worlds with 1080i with very low bitrates.
Really ghastly.

love

Freya

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Cameras do not make movies.
People make movies.

The more affordable the tool, the more likely interesting films will get made.

Red has lowered the technological price point to create movies that compete on an image level, with the highest budget movies being made. They are also helping to foster a wave of new filmmaking.

This levels the playing field somewhat. Indy filmmakers need to compete on talent only, not technological disadvantage.

So I see RED as a company that produces products which limits excuses. Its a kind of unspoken contract. We Indy filmmakers have the tools. It's now up to us to shut the fuck up and get to work on our half of the equation.

Revolutions require participation.

David

This is a bunch of BS when productions still require lighting, insurance, paying actors, expensive lenses, securing locations, props, wardrobe, food, camera support, motion control, grip, production staff, etc. The camera body is such a small part... what this will likely produce is more people filming crappy indies or music videos. It's not technological disadvantage to worry about... it's always been financial disadvantage and it will remain so for a long time further into the future.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

TV productions love the quicker ProRes HQ workflow without transcoding. Rest is just good publicity.

Well ... this is what I call "the big Alexa workflow lie" - since you have to record Log-C to get best image out of an Alexa - every single TV show I know of shooting on it does in fact transcode because a color transform needs to be applied - not to mention the MAJORITY of shows cut Avid on DNxHD.

Success of the Alexa was heavily driven, IMO, by ease of use and AC friendly button UI - added to a brand loyalty built over decades. Also, the Alexa hit the market at the time that RED was heavily disrupting and therefore getting some people upset. So ... the Alexa became the "anti-RED" camera to many folks.

Trust me - when you see how easy it is to adjust color, curves, etc. - wireless and in real time with an iPad or even iPhone with Meizler Module and simultaneously capture RAW and ProRes or DNxHD with the applied color/look transform - TV productions will have a hard time paying CO3, etc. $300 per hour to apply DIT created LUTs to ProRes Log-C and transcode to DNxHD. Or pay $5K + per week for an near-set lab operator and cart.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Success of the Alexa was heavily driven, IMO, by ease of use and AC friendly button UI - added to a brand loyalty built over decades. Also, the Alexa hit the market at the time that RED was heavily disrupting and therefore getting some people upset. So ... the Alexa became the "anti-RED" camera to many folks.

I share your thoughts when it comes to this. Looking now at my own thinking pattern... I see becoming more anti-red. Not because I don't like their products... I love the EPIC. I don't like their business practices and race to the bottom mentality. That's good for RED but it's not good for me. I plan on purchasing the ARRI 4k camera when it comes out just to protect my investment and stick with a higher "perceived" brand.

 

[Liana]

I share your thoughts when it comes to this. Looking now at my own thinking pattern... I see becoming more anti-red. Not because I don't like their products... I love the EPIC. I don't like their business practices and race to the bottom mentality. That's good for RED but it's not good for me. I plan on purchasing the ARRI 4k camera when it comes out just to protect my investment and stick with a higher "perceived" brand.

You will buy a more expensive camera that is not as good as Epic, because the ignorant will share the perception of it being better? Yeah, that will show Red.

ROFL.

Now I have truly heard it all! Also funny is how you naively think that your Arri will magically retain its 'investment' value, even as Red will be offering a product which does more for less. As if you and your precious Arri will exist in some parallel make believe universe, untouched by the influence of all other players in the segment.

 

[Brian Boyer]

I share your thoughts when it comes to this. Looking now at my own thinking pattern... I see becoming more anti-red. Not because I don't like their products... I love the EPIC. I don't like their business practices and race to the bottom mentality. That's good for RED but it's not good for me. I plan on purchasing the ARRI 4k camera when it comes out just to protect my investment and stick with a higher "perceived" brand.

RED introduced a 4K raw camera for $17,500. Let me say that again because I don't think people understand its significance.

RED introduced a 4K raw camera for $17,500. That was when other cameras aimed at digital cinema were $150K and up and 1080p.

Race to the bottom? That's ridiculous. $17,500 is where they started.

How was this not a sign of things to come? RED's position has always been they were going to provide people with the best quality they can (at the moment) at the lowest price they can.

That people were assuming prices were going to continue to hover in the $40K range for Epic means they weren't paying close enough attention.

It also means that, despite what people say, they really do prefer Sony's business practice of keeping prices artificially high when it comes to their own profits. It's been that way for so long people can't seem to shake it. That's not meant as an insult. It's how most business is done.

They may not want to admit it, but many people who bought Epics to rent out probably believe in the same business practice of "perceived" value and not actual value. I think that makes you more anti-RED than anything else.

If you run a business like that, investing in RED cameras will probably always end up disappointing you unless you truly adopt the same philosophy they have about costs and plan to make the necessary adjustments.

Jim constantly says "everything changes", especially as it applies to RED, and yet people don't seem to believe him.

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

Trust me - when you see how easy it is to adjust color, curves, etc. - wireless and in real time with an iPad or even iPhone with Meizler Module and simultaneously capture RAW and ProRes or DNxHD with the applied color/look transform - TV productions will have a hard time paying CO3, etc. $300 per hour to apply DIT created LUTs to ProRes Log-C and transcode to DNxHD. Or pay $5K + per week for an near-set lab operator and cart.

We have seen. We believe. Just can't believe that RED didn't (atleast yet) consider reducing the Meizler module price by allocating some amount of the cost reduction to it so that we could more effectively get the upper hand on Alexa and own this onset and post workflow you laid out.

Maybe they will, soon-ish...? Maybe...? Waiting.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

You will buy a more expensive camera that is not as good as Epic, because the ignorant will share the perception of it being better? Yeah, that will show Red.

ROFL.

Now I have truly heard it all! Also funny is how you naively think that your Arri will magically retain its 'investment' value, even as Red will be offering a product which does more for less. As if you and your precious Arri will exist in some parallel make believe universe, untouched by the influence of all other players in the segment.

I guess Roger Deakins is ignorant and anyone who rents an ARRI for $1500 is ignorant... LOL... I've heard it all. More fore less is the PC mantra... plasticy cheap PC's. Just because you put a coffee cup holder in one doesn't make it better. In the parallel universe that I'm living in the ARRI Alexa has way less tech specs than an EPIC and it rents for more and is valued... way... way more (5 times more)... explain that to me please?

The Sony F65, EPIC, Scarlet, RED One MX, BMCC... does more for less... I still don't see the value of a 1080P Alexa camera dropping in the current market place.

 

[Bob Gundu]

To make money as a rental house in today's climate is risky business. Regardless of the camera. Red has always been about getting technology into the hands of budding filmmakers.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

To make money as a rental house in today's climate is risky business. Regardless of the camera. Red has always been about getting technology into the hands of budding filmmakers.

Do you think the majority of people that own a RED camera have shot a feature film? How much percentage of RED camera owners are filmmakers?

 

[Brian Merlen]

who cares about film, i do internet based food recipes damnit lol!