The Big Mistake...

[Gunleik Groven]

Hey Gunleik!

I know, I know! He still gets me every time

I'm sending a snowy "God Jul!" up north!

God Jul!

And yes, it's snowy. I think 50 cm only the last 24 hours.

Living virtually in the forest, as I do, it makes a splended view. I should really grab that Epic and...

(ouch... dreaming myself away again. It will at least be summer until that's an option...)

 

[Sergio Perez]

Well, I can agree that having more resolution is better than having less resolution, but I saw Benjamin Button on a cinema with digital projection and it looked simply stunning. Let's not also forget that On the same year the 2k Slumdog Millionaire swept both cinematography and best film at the Oscars... The silicon Imaging 2k was portable and suited that film's cinematic language. I'm sure the Epic will be able to do most jobs out there, but there's absolutely room for 1080p for Broadcast and for film applications- at least on the indie world.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

So, after rethinking this, first thing will be a redcode RGB module, still in 4k...

 

[Jannard]

Well, I can agree that having more resolution is better than having less resolution, but I saw Benjamin Button on a cinema with digital projection and it looked simply stunning. Let's not also forget that On the same year the 2k Slumdog Millionaire swept both cinematography and best film at the Oscars... The silicon Imaging 2k was portable and suited that film's cinematic language. I'm sure the Epic will be able to do most jobs out there, but there's absolutely room for 1080p for Broadcast and for film applications- at least on the indie world.

Perfect example... what is going to happen when it is time to re-release Academy Award winning Best Picture "Slumdog Millionaire" in 4K?

Jim

 

[Clint Johnson]

:banghead: :frown2:
:beatdeadhorse5:

You really don't want to let this go, do you?
I've said all I have to say, and it wasn't necessarily about Monty Python except as an example of my larger point, which you still refuse to grasp. But as for me, I'm done.

I'm not sure how this got personal for you? I was under the impression we were discussing distribution channels, ensuring future revenue streams and cost amortization... which doesn't strike me as something to get terribly emotional about. I honestly didn't intend to rile you up with what I considered a discussion on accounting and budgeting.

This thread is about the merits of capturing 4K and 5K as a means to maximize distribution options going forward - as compared to capturing at 1080p and lower. Maybe we were talking about completely different things but rereading your posts I admit I am still too thick to parse what else you could be talking about in the context of this thread.

If the content has little or no artistic or entertainment value then it doesn't matter how good the format is. The higher the artistic or entertainment value is, the better chance it has to overcome format limitations to some extent- but the format limitations are there and they are real.

If a content creator believes that everything they create is going to be of such artistic and entertainment merit that it transcends the limitations of visual quality then they can stop worrying about what they acquire it on. For the other 99.99% I would suggest that it makes sense to put in the time and effort to make it look as good as they can- especially when the cost difference is so low and can even be less in many circumstances.

Hi,

The BBC never used U-Matic tapes for mastering other than news.
The U-Matic recorder was released in September 1971. The first episode of Monty Python was recorded on 7 September and broadcast on 5 October 1969 on BBC One. 2" would have been used to record & Edit.

Stephen

I was under the impression that, while it did start on 2" Quad, they were transfered to U-Matic for (sadly incomplete) archiving and that the '72. '73 and '74 seasons exist on 3/4" U-Matic only. I may be wrong about the particulars but both tape standards are very low visual quality and have bumped up against distribution limitations because of that.

The pace of technical advancement is accelerating so I don't think that content creators today can rest on the assumption that the next forty years will move as slowly as the last forty.

 

[Michael Mayda]

Perfect example... what is going to happen when it is time to re-release Academy Award winning Best Picture "Slumdog Millionaire" in 4K?

Jim

It will be up-rezed to 5K (!) and co-opted to faux 3D...

Mike

 

[Lee Fingersh]

Perfect example... what is going to happen when it is time to re-release Academy Award winning Best Picture "Slumdog Millionaire" in 4K?

Jim

No one will buy it but enthusiasts. The problem is architecture. Most people have their homes set up so that they sit in such a way as even a large screen occupies only about 20 degrees of their field of view. In that situation, even 1080p is just about full saturation on 20/20 vision. Until we either sit much closer (unlikely, except to our computers) or switch to projection systems so we can have 120-180 inch screens in most people's homes (too much energy use, too expensive right now, screens are too expensive, people don't want to have one whole wall occupied by a screen for aesthetic reasons, problems with room darkening), there's just no point in distributing 4K to anyone but enthusiasts.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

No one will buy it but enthusiasts. The problem is architecture. Most people have their homes set up so that they sit in such a way as even a large screen occupies only about 20 degrees of their field of view. In that situation, even 1080p is just about full saturation on 20/20 vision. Until we either sit much closer (unlikely, except to our computers) or switch to projection systems so we can have 120-180 inch screens in most people's homes (too much energy use, too expensive right now, screens are too expensive, people don't want to have one whole wall occupied by a screen for aesthetic reasons, problems with room darkening), there's just no point in distributing 4K to anyone but enthusiasts.

a screen can be rolled down/up.
with a screen at home 3D suddenly makes sense.
energy use and price is a matter of time, it gets cheaper every day.
did you ever noticed the difference between a screened dvd and a blueray?
multiply this with 4 times the quality and you have your own cinema experience in your home if you wish.

 

[Elsie N]

No one will buy it but enthusiasts. The problem is architecture. Most people have their homes set up so that they sit in such a way as even a large screen occupies only about 20 degrees of their field of view. In that situation, even 1080p is just about full saturation on 20/20 vision. Until we either sit much closer (unlikely, except to our computers) or switch to projection systems so we can have 120-180 inch screens in most people's homes (too much energy use, too expensive right now, screens are too expensive, people don't want to have one whole wall occupied by a screen for aesthetic reasons, problems with room darkening), there's just no point in distributing 4K to anyone but enthusiasts.

I have a brother who is not an enthusiast. But when he sees something that looks better, he wants it.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Perfect example... what is going to happen when it is time to re-release Academy Award winning Best Picture "Slumdog Millionaire" in 4K?

Jim

What's going to happen is that if people like the movie, they will still watch it regardless of how it looks compared to something shot in 4K.

Look, if there is some premium 4K channel, let's say, then obviously they are going to want 4K content to show off their channel.... but if everything is broadcast in 4K, then obviously stuff will also be chosen for whether there is an audience for it, regardless of technical quality, i.e. Monty Python reruns, old movies, whatever. You'll see a wide gamut of technical quality, just as you do now on the HD channels.

When I got a blu-ray player, I went out and bought a bunch of movies I thought would show-off the blu-ray disc and look great on my 1080P monitor. Nowadays I find myself buying old 3-strip Technicolor movies and Kurosawa movies and whatnot on blu-ray, i.e. I'm buying for content not technical quality. Otherwise I would have bought the new blu-ray of "The Sound of Music" before I bought the new blu-ray of "The Seven Samurai" -- only one of those two movies has the potential to reach 4K quality, only one really shows-off the quality of HD, but I'd rather watch the other one that doesn't.

So I don't think you can make the argument that any movie from the past that doesn't measure up to 4K resolution simply won't be watched anymore. Look at the movie this year that has been winning cinematography awards: "The Black Swan" -- shot in Super-16 and cropped to 2.35. It's never going to measure out to 4K. And whether people watch it 20 years from now will have little to do with how sharp it is, it will be whether they find the movie compelling or not. Same goes for "Casablanca" or "Gone with the Wind" or "8 1/2" or "The Godfather" -- good-looking movies, yes, but not a 4K-level of resolution in those images.

Even if I shoot on a 5K Epic today, if I stick a #1/4 ProMist filter on the lens for the whole movie, it's not going to measure near 4K on a line chart, so what does that mean? By putting a diffusion filter on the lens, I've automatically killed its future distribution potential? Just as uprezzing a 2K movie to 4K doesn't make it 4K, shooting on 4K with an old lens or diffusion filter also means that the resolution isn't 4K anymore.

The future sellability of these older 1080P and 2K titles, whether "Revenge of the Sith" or "Slumdog Millionaire" or "Avatar", will be more based on long-term audience popularity than it will be on their resolution.

But sure, if there are some premium 4K distribution outlets, they are first going to opt for buying titles that look good in 4K as part of their selling point. But if everything is distributed in 4K, then distributors are going to put out a mix of material that they feel there is an audience for, and there are more complex factors that determine that than simply the resolution of the image.

 

[Clint Johnson]

Make sure the script is as good as it can be, cast it the best that you can, get the best locations and set dec that you can manage, make sure that the sound is as clear and clean as you can get it... and make sure that the image is as good as it can be.

One film in a thousand can get the audience to look past failings in any one or two of those areas but for everyone else, there are so many barriers to a creative work succeeding, why accept another hurdle for it to leap?

 

[Jody Neckles]

What's going to happen is that if people like the movie, they will still watch it regardless of how it looks compared to something shot in 4K.

Companies will make a quick buck upressing the film, taking it through a HD to 4K 'pixelization' process where they will just magically add resolution ;-)

 

[Tim Duran]

Who's this guy David Mullen? What does he know.

 

[Jim Retar]

Slumdog seems to be a good yardstick, as it was shot in a time where RED, 1080p and film were all viable options.

Were there shots in Slumdog that could be achieved with the small format of the SI-2K that would not be possible with film, RED or whatever alternatives they could have afforded?

It seemed there was a clear decision to sacrifice resolution/dr/low light etc to gain something artistically. The film had budget constraints, but it was no micro budget film... so RED or film were surely options?.... therefore it must have been an artistic choice.

Surely pushing the art of film making must be respected equally or above technical merit?

 

[Aaron Newsome]

Incredible post David.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Perfect example... what is going to happen when it is time to re-release Academy Award winning Best Picture "Slumdog Millionaire" in 4K?

Jim

I am all for 4k cinematic releases and +4k production pipelines, even for 1080 TV.

But as long as they're not shown side by side, for technical comparison, I am with David. I still enjoy Chaplin, Kurosawa, Buster Keaton, Kubric, Hitchcock, Alan Parker, Scorsese, Coppola and... whatever.

I'll probably slap silly-old, unfocusable glass on the Epic if I feel like it, and be a happy camper if the result is what I want.

The extremely cool thing about 5k/4k and better DR, is that it gives more options and that it can look "more perfect" if one so wish.

For TV, I think some periods of SD production may become largely prohibitive over time. And the main problem with a lot of the 1080 options out there, is that they really are a far cry from 1080 in delivered resolution.

But if we look into the future:Content is king.

I think the need for 5k is more of a "here and now" issue, for commercials and cinematical productions. No need to do worse than the best options around as long as the format suits the production.

There are a zillion good reasons to shoot 5k.
And I really look foreward to do so.

But don't tell me I am going to stop see the stuff I like, just because technology has evolved. If I thought that to be true, I'd just probably find something that interested me more to work with...

At the moment I am rather enjoying it, though.

I think it is more likely we will see retro-trends when the 4k cinematic and in-house release is all well and done.

Technical issues have allways become "looks" and stuff people, value, try to copy and emulate.

Like shooting 8mm, 1080 HDCAM, PD-150, prores 1080, Varicam, 16mm, SR, digibeta, etc.

 

[Jim Retar]

A quote from Boyle regarding Slumdog:

“We started off using classical kinds of film cameras and I didn’t like it. I wanted to feel really involved in the city. I didn’t want to be looking at it, examining it,”

An artistic choice.

Was it worth sacrificing the future proofing of his film in order to make the film the way he wanted? I think the majority will say yes.

If Epic was available to him, i'm sure he would of used it (and maybe this is the real point of this thread :001_cool:?)... but it wasn't... he chose the format that best told the story in a way that he felt could capture the city the way he wanted to. I applaud him for doing so.

 

[Alessio G.]

What's going to happen is that if people like the movie, they will still watch it regardless of how it looks compared to something shot in 4K.

Look, if there is some premium 4K channel, let's say, then obviously they are going to want 4K content to show off their channel.... but if everything is broadcast in 4K, then obviously stuff will also be chosen for whether there is an audience for it, regardless of technical quality, i.e. Monty Python reruns, old movies, whatever. You'll see a wide gamut of technical quality, just as you do now on the HD channels.

When I got a blu-ray player, I went out and bought a bunch of movies I thought would show-off the blu-ray disc and look great on my 1080P monitor. Nowadays I find myself buying old 3-strip Technicolor movies and Kurosawa movies and whatnot on blu-ray, i.e. I'm buying for content not technical quality. Otherwise I would have bought the new blu-ray of "The Sound of Music" before I bought the new blu-ray of "The Seven Samurai" -- only one of those two movies has the potential to reach 4K quality, only one really shows-off the quality of HD, but I'd rather watch the other one that doesn't.

So I don't think you can make the argument that any movie from the past that doesn't measure up to 4K resolution simply won't be watched anymore. Look at the movie this year that has been winning cinematography awards: "The Black Swan" -- shot in Super-16 and cropped to 2.35. It's never going to measure out to 4K. And whether people watch it 20 years from now will have little to do with how sharp it is, it will be whether they find the movie compelling or not. Same goes for "Casablanca" or "Gone with the Wind" or "8 1/2" or "The Godfather" -- good-looking movies, yes, but not a 4K-level of resolution in those images.

Even if I shoot on a 5K Epic today, if I stick a #1/4 ProMist filter on the lens for the whole movie, it's not going to measure near 4K on a line chart, so what does that mean? By putting a diffusion filter on the lens, I've automatically killed its future distribution potential? Just as uprezzing a 2K movie to 4K doesn't make it 4K, shooting on 4K with an old lens or diffusion filter also means that the resolution isn't 4K anymore.

The future sellability of these older 1080P and 2K titles, whether "Revenge of the Sith" or "Slumdog Millionaire" or "Avatar", will be more based on long-term audience popularity than it will be on their resolution.

But sure, if there are some premium 4K distribution outlets, they are first going to opt for buying titles that look good in 4K as part of their selling point. But if everything is distributed in 4K, then distributors are going to put out a mix of material that they feel there is an audience for, and there are more complex factors that determine that than simply the resolution of the image.

I agree with all of it, except I'm not even gonna buy that blue-ray thing. It's gonna go from SD DVD (which i prefer to watching old movies over b-ray) to HD streaming. Blu-rays remind me of Mini-Discs or laser-discs:tongue_smilie:

 

[Aaron Newsome]

I agree with all of it, except I'm not even gonna buy that blue-ray thing. It's gonna go from SD DVD (which i prefer to watching old movies over b-ray) to HD streaming. Blu-rays remind me of Mini-Discs or laser-discs:tongue_smilie:

I'll never own a Blu-ray player or any Blu-ray discs. I haven't had a DVD player hooked up in my entertainment center for at least 5 years. All of the few hundred SD DVD were ripped to .iso files AND converted to H.264 a long time ago too. My HD movies of today are delivered via apple TV by just pushing a button on my remote. The quality will eventually improve. I may replace the box with one that does it better but the delivery will be the same for me.

I agree with you 100% but the net still doesn't reach everywhere. People still want physical media, archiving, etc.

 

[David Quinn Carder]

Jim Retar, I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but explain to me what artistic advantages there are to shooting in 1080p/2K over film/4K/5K.

Off-topic: am I the only one here who hated Slumdog Millionaire?