The Big Mistake...

[Tico Llaurador]

Digital VistaVision? Now I'm the one who won't be able to sleep. Thanks for that, Jim.

 

[Jody Neckles]

Live Broadcasting on EPIC

Live Broadcasting on EPIC

Yes, the encoding for live work would be challenging and I have no specific knowledge of what kind of horsepower is needed on the decode side, but based on the RedRay this seems to be on the near term horizon. The RedRay player is presumably the answer for theatrical.

Perhaps feature number #21 in the EPIC concerns the use of Epic in a live environment? It maybe possible to Route Redcode50 or even HDRx™™ signals from Epic around an OB truck or broadcast station via the HD SDTI transport protocol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_digital_interface

This has been done by many manufactures (Avid did with DNxHD) to route native codecs over standard SDI infrastructure. RED could extend the SDK to allow manufactures to decode the stream for live graphics and vision mixing before before allowing them to re-encode back to Redcode50. A RED RAY Player or undisclosed device could receive this stream via an HD SDTI input and encode it as a RRD (RED RAY delivery) format for streaming to the web or satellite uplink. Perhaps DVS (just purchased by Rohde & Schwarz) could play an important part in making this possible:

1) They helped RED to make the RED Rocket and have developed there own much more powerful hardware for the DVS Clipster (Also licensed by SGO for Mystika).

2) They have solutions for live 3D broadcasts with products like Venice which perhaps could be adapted for live 4K broadcasts:
http://www.dvs.de/news/press/press-...zes-3d-live-broadcast-of-hip-hop-concert.html

3) There core business is File encoding and deliverables. There flagship product is the DVS Clipster which can deliver pretty much anything.

4) DVS have just been bought by Rohde & Schwarz who are do nothing but design technology for broadcast infrastructures....
http://www2.rohde-schwarz.com/en/technologies/

Just very wild speculation on my part but it's exciting playing with the possibilities. One of the biggest challenges of filming live events on RED in 4K would be decompressing the REDCODE for vision mixing and live graphics etc....

 

[Mike Bozulich]

Because it is as close as you are going to get to 4K for half of $10K.

Jim

Wait, did Scarlet fixed just DROP, in price? Last I heard it was $5750 for kit version.... or maybe you're referring to 2/3 Scarlet w/o lens.

 

[M Most]

Ok. Taking the night off...

Firing up Monthy Python...

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Steve Das]

Wait, did Scarlet fixed just DROP, in price? Last I heard it was $5750 for kit version.... or maybe you're referring to 2/3 Scarlet w/o lens.

Think it was just meant as a loose approximation of price.

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

Wait, did Scarlet fixed just DROP, in price? Last I heard it was $5750 for kit version.... or maybe you're referring to 2/3 Scarlet w/o lens.

The Scarlet Interchangeable/Cinema was original $2750 and with the addition of HDRx it will probably be 3750 (which as far as I'm concerned hasn't been confirmed, so you just have my word for it).

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Live 4K broadcast doesn't depend just on production side. Providers need a 4K capable infrastructure which is many times larger and much slower dinosaur to move.


And now for something completely different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Je1CEPkUM

 

[Michael Brennan]

With the certain new standard of 4K delivery for movies AND tv, anything shot on 1080P will be left in the cold for a re-release.

The more certain new standard for TV is Ultra high Definition or UHDTV.

UHDTV is 7680 x 4320 pixels.
Promulgated in ITU BT 1201, ITU 1769 and SMPTE 2036, pictures first shown in 2006, BBC conducted a live satellite transmission test in September this year.
The test cameras now use 1.25 inch chips.

If it has been said that HD isn't good enough for 4k projection then it could be said that Epic is not good enough for UHDTV.

History shows that the cinema industry will respond to advances in TV.
4k is just the beginning of digital cinema.

Mike Brennan

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

The more certain new standard for TV is Ultra high Definition or UHDTV.

UHDTV is 7680 x 4320 pixels.
Promulgated in ITU BT 1201, ITU 1769 and SMPTE 2036, pictures first shown in 2006, BBC conducted a live satellite transmission test in September this year.
The test cameras now use 1.25 inch chips.

If it has been said that HD isn't good enough for 4k projection then it could be said that Epic is not good enough for UHDTV.

History shows that the cinema industry will respond to advances in TV.
4k is just the beginning of digital cinema.

Mike Brennan

while Jannard saying 4k is da future here is the 8K broadcast camera
http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=686372&postcount=69

Jim also said;

It really surprises me how many people think of "today" instead of "tomorrow". Tomorrow is right around the corner...

:tongue_smilie:

 

[Ben Holmes]

Once again, I don't get it.

We have an entire generation of broadcast and production (by which I mean at least 5 years) of HD 1080 ahead of us. We shoot and make programmes to be viewed now. I work in sports and doco, just for info.

When the infrastructure moves on, so will the cameras and edit systems to accommodate it. Just as I had no use for HD in 1995, I have no use for 4k now. Why buy something that does not fit in with the current ecosystem? That does not do simple, easy 1080? This is why broadcast will turn their back on RED unless they make moves to better accomodate it. If that's not what RED wants, fine. Just stop making us sound like Luddites for wanting a better workflow for RIGHT NOW.

 

[Clint Johnson]

And yet that hasn't happened, even though HD broadcast has been around for about 15 years and BluRay for about 8. Columbia retransferred Seinfeld to HD a number of years ago, at the cost of a great deal of trouble and expense, and I think if you were to ask someone there if they ever really got any additional sales because of that, I think the honest answer would be very little. Seinfeld continues to be shown because, well, it's Seinfeld, and it was so brilliantly done that you can watch the same episodes 50 times and they still seem fresh - regardless of whether they're SD, HD, 16x9, 4x3, or whatever. Hence my point.

TBS licensed the HD re-master and that fee alone probably paid for the conversion. Sony has held back the Blu-Ray release (probably at TBS's behest) but I would expect the Blu-Ray sales to eclipse the falling DVD sales on the day of its release.

If Warner Bros. thought there was any additional revenue to be gained from retransferring all of those Friends episodes, believe me, they would have done it a long time ago. That hasn't happened, regardless of your theory.

You think they should have stepped over the standard definition market 15 years ago- or even eight? They sold the SD re-airing rights to Nick at Night for $200 million and TBS renewed for about $100 million, so the SD cash cow is still giving milk. Unless they were able to sneak in an HD clause they will wait until those contracts have run their course in 2017 - then they will turn around and ask for bids on the rights to the HD episodes.

They have pretty much saturated the DVD market but they are crunching the numbers on how much they could make off the Blu-Ray compared to how much that would cost them when the HD broadcasting rights come up. They did give a tentative announcement of fall 2010 for the Blu-Ray but that seems to have slipped- and may slip a decade or more if the numbers add up that way.

Seriously, If someone offered you even 10% of the difference between what they will get for the HD rights and the SD rights to Friends in 2017- you wouldn't think you'd won the lottery?

Well, it has survived and thrived for about 40 years now, so I really don't see a particular problem here. And it is currently aired on cable, broadcast, streaming video, and every other format known and unknown. And I personally don't know of anyone who's complaining, once again, regardless of your theory.

I ask you, how valuable would a 35mm neg of the complete Monty Python's Flying Circus be right now? You're going to honestly tell me that you couldn't imagine how that would be worth much more than a stack of U-Matic tapes? You don't think you could sell the rights to an HD broadcaster for a few tens of millions of dollars? You don't think you could sell a few more tens of millions of dollars worth of Blu-Ray discs?

I bet there are at least ten people reading this right now who would pay to put that Blu-Ray sleeve right up next to the DVD version they already own.

Clearly, I completely disagree. The difference between my point of view and yours is that mine is rooted in actual evidence. Yours is based on theory that conforms to your personal preference. That doesn't necessarily make me right into the distant future (when I'll be dead and won't care anyway), but it does indicate that history does not support your view.

Yes, it appears that we do disagree. The difference I see is that you're view seems to be irrevocably rooted in the past while I am trying to base mine on events unfolding today and how they look to be playing out over the next ten to twenty years. History may not be on my side, I'm betting that the future is.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

There's some tech brewing on the back burner that may offer significant uprezzing of taped material. The material will have to be economically or culturally worth the costs, but the possibility is there.

This entails taking a frame of video or any other images and completely re-constituting it using advanced image processing. Every structure, prop and person is built automatically as a 3D model, textured, lit, animated to match the camera movement and re-rendered to exactly match the shot - only at resolutions greater than 4K. This goes beyond normal image processing and into the complete virtualization of all known image elements. The footage can be geo-tagged and a database of linked and similar locales and places can be stitched together and then the possibility exists to go into the world and re-compose and shoot from many other angles, thus generating authentic and highly specific new footage from historical events.

Imagine walking through Dealey plaza during the Kennedy assassination and shooting the event from any vantage point you want in 4K or higher. And the footage would not looked processed. The footage will appear to be as real and organic as if you gave Abraham Zapruder a 5K Epic on November 22, 1963.

Now imagine watching every Superbowl from any year, and being able to swoop down on the field in 4K+ resolution and see the game from any perspective.

This is automated video image processing on an unprecedented scale. Completely autonomous eventually, and with the forensic re-construction of the sound, the clothing, the skin, every element rendered with amazing detail.

The implications for the economic renaissance of legacy and historical content are staggering. With this technology, you can theoretically process and build even the things in the reflections in windows, so that even elements not in the picture can be built.

Every family photo ever taken can be ingested, analyzed and cross-referenced to known data on weather, fashion, historical events, products, concerts, time of day, and all of this data can be catalogued, linked and used in the re-processing of motion picture imagery.

Very cool. Very "out there" tech. Yet very near to reality.

 

[Jared Buttars]

I've said it a few times.... the day 4K takes off in the home is the day sports get shown in 4K. Sports networks hold the key to consumer purchasing power, when it comes to upgrading their TVs... not tv, not films.

Until there is a 4K live broadcast camera and the sports networks feel there is enough "groundswell" to sell this format... it is not going to happen, in the mainstream. Moving the sports industry to 4K would cost billions, that's without even thinking about the consumers buying expensive TVs. We are in recession, you know?

As a potential Scarlet 3k buyer, these posts worry me.... but I personally think 2K/1080p is here for a long, long time and is not just "good enough" but is a great format.

Sorry if this sounds blunt.

Second post - long time reader!

I find this whole topic very interesting. Enough so that I wanted to jump in and share my thoughts.

We are soon coming to the end of a complete transition to digital convergence. Our phones, televisions, radio, software are all converging into one 'broadcast' medium that is the internet. What this means is that the television broadcast delivery mechanism will no longer be tied to a specific format. The internet is content agnostic. It couldn't care less if the data it's carrying is a 4k movie stream or a call to your mom on Christmas morning. Nor does it care what format the data is encoded in. The only thing that matters is bandwidth.

Not having any experience in sports broadcasting I'm going to go out on a limb here when I say this -- 4k television adoption will not be driven by live sports broadcast. It will be driven by a new crop of television sets that don't switch between a few hundred TV channels, but surf billions of web locations and run millions of "apps". Those apps are what will be used to download and decode whatever the television viewer wants to download and view. The delivery "format" (ie, SD, HD, 4k etc.) becomes irrelevant and disconnected from the 'pipe' that delivers it. The fascinating thing about this is how quickly new formats will evolve in such a space. The infrastructure will be common to all forms of digital communication and thus innovation in 'format' could litteraly move as quickly as some new company builds an app for it.

Going one step further... 3D stereoscopic video games at 4k resolution will drive 4k TV sales faster than any NFL ticket. Which of course doesn't sell more Red cameras but it certainly gets those TV's into homes. The truth is, networks will have no choice but to come on board with 4K when Madden NFL looks better than the real show... and the viewer gets to play the game.

Maybe that's just me. I'm a web developer by trade and have to look at tomorrow first thing every morning or I would be out of a job.

By the way, Red is absolutely incredible! My hat goes off to Jim and the crew.

 

[Lee Saxon]

...I have lost my mind...

In the best possible way

 

[Brook Willard]

I went to the Spider-man shoot and I fell over dead with what I saw. Unbelievable images and a crew that was so happy with what was going on.

Couldn't be happier. This camera has finally swung the needle.

 

[Brian Ferguson]

I find it interesting that a few people feel the need to "school" Jim about sports and sports broadcasting, really? Ever been to Oakley?

 

[Mark Warren]

When the last human is cornered by the machines some time in the future he probably won't think autofocus was a mistake, or HDRx™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™ was a mistake, or 1080 was a mistake... he'll probably think the wheel was a mistake.

There might be a bird quietly watching him as he's assimilated. :wink5:

I absolutely LOVE technology, but I think it's eventually the death of us. Well, all things change. We gotta go somehow, big asteroid, big bang, or terminator.

With technology, I think that along the development line there comes a moment when a perfect balance is reached between the human user and the tech. Then, as developments continue, (pushed by the quest for mass appeal, ease of use and profit$) the balance shifts to where the tech does more and more and the human diminishes. (As I said in a previous post, the human artist becomes more involved as the machine creator and the users less artisans and more leisure and convenience seekers.)

There's probably a camera in Jim's collection that captures perfectly the delicate balance between human artistry and tech.

It's not too hard to foresee a world where people have implants to make them think better, more "efficiently" or be smarter, where bio-engineering seamlessly replaces and improves the function of all body parts, the balance tips and we morph into a different species.

Fundamentally we love our machines and Jim's journey in many ways reflects a love affair with creating the perfect piece of tech.

It's somewhat ironic that the eyes of his invention look out inscrutably and record the natural world. One day those "eyes" may be narrowing and auto-focussing on the last human. (Probably Amish!!!) :smile5:

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

The Scarlet Interchangeable/Cinema was original $2750 and with the addition of HDRx™™ it will probably be 3750 (which as far as I'm concerned hasn't been confirmed, so you just have my word for it).

Actually, I think it was originally $2,500, then $2,750. We haven't heard much about it recently. Most of the pricing information released about Scarlet has been about the fixed.

 

[M Most]

I ask you, how valuable would a 35mm neg of the complete Monty Python's Flying Circus be right now? You're going to honestly tell me that you couldn't imagine how that would be worth much more than a stack of U-Matic tapes? You don't think you could sell the rights to an HD broadcaster for a few tens of millions of dollars? You don't think you could sell a few more tens of millions of dollars worth of Blu-Ray discs?

No, I don't. And the Monty Python shows don't live on "a stack of U-Matic tapes." But then again, you seem to be missing the entire point of just about everything I said. And I don't see my views being rooted in "the past," I see them as rooted in reality. Concepts such as "the past" and "the future" are inevitably brought up when anything like this is discussed here, and are usually used as polite ways of saying "old" and "young", but I see it more as "reality" and "unproven fantasy." There is nothing any more permanent or magical about HD or 4K than there was about standard definition video, or color, for that matter. All formats are products of their time, and all get supplanted, sooner or later, by something better. That doesn't make the material that exists on those formats any less vital, any less creative, or quite frankly, any less marketable if the material itself can stand the test of time. "Monty Python" has proven that it does stand the test of time. "Riptide" and "Manimal" didn't. Monty Python was created on videotape. Riptide and Manimal were both shot on 35mm film. Which is more valuable I leave up to you to decide.

 

[Steven Caesare]

And yet that hasn't happened, even though HD broadcast has been around for about 15 years and BluRay for about 8.

Well, while the underlying BluRaytech was avaialble is a disc format that was barely more than a protype disc recorder avaialable in Japan in '03, the actual first shipping BluRay dec was June'06. Only about 4.5 years ago... not 8.

-sc