The Big Mistake...

[Hywel Phillips]

Every production has to be funded. I think higher resolutions are sensible, but only when the question becomes "Why WOULDN'T you choose it?" rather than "Can we afford to choose it?"

Today, right now, I make movies sold online. I'm a small business, I make my entire living from my still and moving picture output. I am not a Hollywood studio, nor the BBC. Today, the "Why WOULDN'T you choose it?" format is 1080p. Today, you'd have to have a pretty damn good reason to shoot in SD or to buy a camera which was SD only, because HD camcorders and the hardware needed to edit it downstream doesn't cost anything extra and is available from every manufacturer.

That time will come for 4K, I'm sure, but it isn't here yet. Making the decision to shoot 4K incurs SIGNIFICANT costs at every stage of the process, and 4K is hardly a no-brainer option for your camera choice TODAY. Specifically, you've got a choice of the RED One or... well, the RED One. In a few months time you will have the RED One or the Epic. Even when the Scarlet appears, it won't do 4K. So even the company whose boss is preaching can't actually deliver it on his own low end products right now.

That means 4K is the future. 1080p is the "why wouldn't you?" format for the next couple of years at least.

If you are a Hollywood film maker with multi-million-dollar budgets, I absolutely agree that 4K is probably the way to go, it might have come down in cost enough to be a no-brainer for you guys already.

For cottage industry producers like me, it isn't there yet. The costs are too high, the choice of equipment is too limited and the money would probably be better spent on other areas of the productions until 4K becomes the "why wouldn't you?" choice for people at my levels of budget. I do get the future proofing argument (I shoot my stills with a digital Hasselblad at 31 megapixels for exactly that reason) but until 4K is more mature, more widespread, and dramatically cheaper, 1080p is the sensible choice to make sure I actually produce enough stuff to sell to stay in business.

Cheers, Hywel.

 

[Steve Gibby]

All the talk about sports programming being the push for 4K for broadcast TV, which I agree with, but there is no solution for that now. Sports TV is live. RED cameras do not have a studio configuration, and do not have live output that delivers the high quality that redcode does.
I'm all for Grass Valley becoming a RED partner and throw a bunch of RED Rocket cards in a Kayenne switcher, but it would be so much more than that to get 4K in home.

I can see a Studio module (REDLive) for an EPIC/Scarlet spitting out a R3D codec with sound & sync over a cable (with a solid locking connection- BNC, ethernet CAT7 or invent a one)*to a switcher with the ability to fully grade the RAW video signal.

RED doesn't have to do it all, but this future you talk about, lay the foundations!

Check out my post #46 on this thread...

So you know where I'm coming from, each year I'm an invited judge for the separate national Emmy Awards competitions of Daytime, Sports, and News & Documentary. I've contributed to 800+ broadcast and cable TV programs over a 30+ year span, and around 400 of those programs were sports productions. About 120 of those sports programs were hardlined EFP style using truck (Football, hockey, etc). The remainder of those sports programs were shot mobile non-hardlined EFP style, featuring alternative sports.

Stuart English has just posted (with a smile) that Red is well on top of the technical needs of live switching for hardlined EFP production. That shouldn't surprise anyone who knows Stuart's pre-Red background with Panasonic helping develop high-end EFP camera systems.

Beyond that, Epic (and fixed lens Scarlet) have extensive EFP-friendly features built into the cameras - which I'd guess only a small part of which have been revealed to the public yet.

The X factor in all this is Red Ray. My guess is that Red is way down the road in developing the technology and alliances to quickly and efficiently integrate Red Ray into the broadcast infastructure. I have no hard knowledge of that - just a hunch.

You state that "Sports TV is live". Actually by far the largest percentage of overall sports TV productions are not live, and are shot in non-hardlined EFP style, then edited in post to create the programs for later airing. Some of those programs are edited for a live-lookback presentation, including getting talent in the audio booth in post to give a "live" call that essentially tricks the audience into thinking they are watching a live program. Alternative sports TV is a giant portion of the overall sports production quotient - and very rarely are alternative sports a live trucked production such as the X Games, etc. The trucked (live) sports productions are naturally high profile (NFL, NBA, NHL, etc.), but the mobile alternative sports productions outnumber the trucked productions by a large margin each year.

Obviously Red is on top of the hardlined EFP production needs for the new cameras (Epic, Scarlet). But trust me, Red is also on top of the non-hardlined EFP needs for the cameras, since there is such a massive demand worldwide each year for that style of production. In fact of the overall quotient of professional motion media productions done each year (both cine style and EFP style), non-hardlined EFP style productions are the single largest portion of the industry.

Sports TV has been an early mover in 3D TV production and broadcast. IMO sports TV will also be an early mover in 4k production and 4k3D production. The delivery of such may eventually be via satellite, but it will probably be first via Internet delivery because of infa-structure upgrade challenges. Also, IMO when the sports TV industry embraces 4k production (and 4k3D production), the majority of the programs will still be non-hardlined EFP style, but as now, the hardlined (trucked) EFP style productions will get most of the publicity because of their high profile.

On this thread there have been some very valid points raised on both sides of the issues. I would point out that my friend Jim Jannard, who I've known for 25+ years, is driven to visualize, develop, and make the things happen that he visualizes. In early 2006 the production world was laughing at him for daring to visualize the new "vaporware" Red One camera. Nobody is laughing now...

Epic is real and now out in the world doing high-profile features, etc. If Jim starts a thread like this and says he's going to do something, his track record in putting his performance where his mouth is should be taken very seriously. I for one would never bet against Jim when he says he's going to do something. I learned that about Jim way back in his early Oakley years (early to mid '80's) when I was working in the televising of professional sports tours, and Oakley was sponsoring many of the athletes we were televising - and I learned it over again with Red. It took me about 1 second of thought to jump onboard the Red train when Jim personally described his Red dream to me in the Spring of 2005 - long before anyone here ever heard about Red. Just sayin'...

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out...the cool thing is that the industry is progressing as companies like Red help push the boundaries outward. All production styles of this industry have my utmost respect....all you people here have my full respect. We're all in this together. Its a great time to be in the image creation industry...

 

[Andrew Salter]

Agree totally with you steve, come on guys it wasn't that long ago that VHS tape was the bees knees and a 500mb hard drive on the computer was really high powered. Progression now is so rapid, my view is, its better to take large steps forward than shuffle. Jim is a true visionary with a proven track record, with the ability to create the right structure to bring his visions and dreams into reality, a very rare gift.

 

[Adam J McKay]

Jim is just being a troll hahah I get it. And a very effective one at that.

 

[Liam Hall]

Agree totally with you steve, come on guys it wasn't that long ago that VHS tape was the bees knees

VHS was never the bees knees. Not ever. Indeed, VHS serves as a reminder that having the best affordable technology is not in itself a recipe for success.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Jim is just being a troll hahah I get it. And a very effective one at that.

Not really.

What other 3 year old camera is still quite "good enough" for TV and features.

Sure, we have MX and Epic by now, but I have finnished two M projects this autumn in parallell with new MX productions. The images def holds up. This is for TV.

At the same time we see bigtime migration for 4k setups for cinematic deliveries. Today.

And the Redcode RGB for web and cinematic distibution sounds more likely thwe more I think about it.

So, the question remains

3 years from now, which camera are you most likely to pick up for a drama/feature production, the then 6 year old R1 M or any of the other currently available alternatives from any of the competitors? I am not talking MX here.

I think that there may be many good reasons to pick the M the way things are moving...

I don't particularilly agree with Jim on the "what will happen with all the lovely 2k productions when they have to be redistributed in 4k" argument.I really don't agree that format is the most important thing as to the longlivedness of a project.
There are many factors in that soup, and a format that matches the project is one of them.

But I wouldn't bet against him on the general development of the industry. And I am all for 4k+ production for most cases, independently of deliveryformat... when given the option.

And really, I don't see a single reason not to join the evolution, as long as it goes in a better for all direction, as it does with RED.

 

[Clint Johnson]

After all my posting here about ensuring that the visuals were up to the next generation of deliverables... I just put on my writer's hat and spent a few hours trying to convince a director and DOP to sacrifice some visual quality to ensure that the story made it onto the drives. Time and resource limitations meant it was a zero sum game in this instance. I know that is the case more often than not- but I'll fight tooth and nail to get both.

Mike would be proud of the arguments I made

 

[M Most]

What other 3 year old camera is still quite "good enough" for TV and features.

Genesis. Except that it's actually 4 years old. Or, for that matter, any 35mm film camera, many of which are a LOT older than that.

You asked....... :biggrin5:

 

[Gunleik Groven]

LOL! -

Thanks Mike.
Filmcameras will still be good enough.
For sure.

Genesis... Ok... -

 

[Bastien Tribalat]

I think in that case I'll pick a DSLR...

I'm kidding !:hurray:

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

Dear Jim ignore all the discussions about 4K Sports and HDTV
what you gonna say about this post?

The Social Network was onlined, vis-effected, DI'd, and mastered in 2K based on number of factors. 4K is becoming a serious discussion point for a lot of films, which is really encouraging. And most of the studio meetings I attend routinely have a "what about 4K?" discussion. -So even though 4K distribution is not here yet, I can testify that from a studio perspective, it is on everyone's radar.

Speaking specifically about this film, Paris makes an interesting implication: -That it was not clear whether or not the film was projected in 2K or 4K. Here's another question for you, Paris- do you know that it was a digital projection? Or could it have been a print?

The flattering implication is that the projection was good enough to possibly exhibit 4K qualities, even though it was not. But that statement may also support claims that 4K is unnecessary and, perhaps, invisible. But consider this: Even high-resolution images that are evaluated up-close seem to lack resolution. Think of the film Ferris Bueller's Day Off when Cameron views George Seurat's painting, "Sunday Afternoon." As the camera moves in closer and closer, the (effective) resolution seems to get lower and lower. I'm experiencing the same characteristics with RED footage for large-format projection.
I watch different iterations of our "RED Reels" with Jim and Jarred probably 3 times a week while in between watching 2K versions of The Social Network and other films. When I am up close, 4K is clear and impressive. But when I stand at the back of the theater (nearly 100 feet away), it's unbelievably magnificent! That's where the resolution really starts to settle in and begin to offer up another level of compelling imagery that cannot be replicated with scaling.
But in order to achieve this additional dimension of a film, one needs to oversample because 1080p up-close vs. 1080p far away exhibit very similar characteristics. With RED starting with an unsharpened oversample, the 2K debayered result with mild sharpening delivers much more temporal resolution than a normal camera-sharpened 1080p source. The Social Network is a perfect example of this working successfully (thanks, Paris, for noticing). The images people will see on TSN are 2K results in a 2.40:1 aperture from a full debayer / RED 4K 2:1 source. 90% of viewers will see 35mm prints, which were made from the 2K DSM. As everyone knows, release prints will only carry 1.5K resolution at best. So when it comes to high fidelity in a world dominated by low-res exhibition, once again, it pays to oversample.
m

 

[Jannard]

Dear Jim ignore all the discussions about 4K Sports and HDTV
what you gonna say about this post?

With regards to what?

Jim

 

[Michael Moreno]

Wait wait wait big Jim..
Ignore all that and answer me this..lol

How do you like Hollywood?
As compared to the old spot in Lake Forest ; )
Seemed a little more peaceful over there away from crazy Hollywood and the traffic on top of traffic ; )

I know your putting in work and power to you for setting up in Hollywood and knocking them down.
The feature list as well as Talent involved on upcoming Epic shows is just amazing.
Serious congratulations.
Keep going.
Power to you guys.

 

[Marc Wielage]

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.

That's pretty much true. 16mm, 35mm, 2K, 4K, even standard-def... it's all about the content. And for image quality, I still think it's more about the skill of the cinematographer (aided by the colorist and/or the lab).

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.

I started to raise this earlier, but you said it a lot better. I can't tell you the number of 2K projects I've worked on where the DP or director has seen a close-up, then sucked in their breath and said, "oooh... can we defocus this person?" Sharpness is not always our friend, especially for actors of a certain age. I've worked on a few major feature films where every close-up of a certain actress got tons of selective defocus (only on skintone). Nobody noticed, except to say, "wow, she really looked glamorous!"

Having said that, I have no problem with 4K and we routinely do deliver 4K files in the restoration world on certain projects, usually on LTO-4 or LTO-5 data tapes. And almost all of the film-outs I know of done on the Arrilaser are done as 2K -> 4K uprezzes. It takes twice as long to record a 4K reel to film as it does 2K (about 40 hours vs. 20 hours), but no question, the 4K film version looks better.

I watch different iterations of our "RED Reels" with Jim and Jarred probably 3 times a week while in between watching 2K versions of The Social Network and other films. When I am up close, 4K is clear and impressive. But when I stand at the back of the theater (nearly 100 feet away), it's unbelievably magnificent! That's where the resolution really starts to settle in and begin to offer up another level of compelling imagery that cannot be replicated with scaling.

In addition, I've seen the opposite problem: when I work on 1080 HD-originated projects, the close-ups and medium shots generally look fine; it's the wide shots that look bad. Something about them looks soft and "chunky," for a lack of a better word. I don't see this with 35mm negative.

So from that perspective, I think 4K might provide better detail on stuff like wide shots, even when downrezzed to 2K. I certainly saw nothing in Social Network (like the big opening scene) that either reminded me that it was digital, or it looked soft. So maybe the important thing is how the image is initially captured -- not so much how it's finished.

This is probably something the ASC should address in a future bake-off -- comparing different resolutions of the same camera, against different cameras. It'd be interesting to see how they all compare in a 2K theatrical situation, or even a film projection environment.

 

[Jeremy Hughes]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought The Big Mistake was going to be a new EPIC movie...

Just think of all the remastering George is going to have to do on Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith...

 

[paulherrin]

sorry, but why bother?

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Correct-o.

Jim

I'm a little late on this one, but I couldn't stand not adding my .02 to this discussion.

I COMPLETELY agree with Gunleik. The display industry is only going to move forward, and with an option like REDRAY to decode 4K on the consumer end of the pipeline, we could be seeing this sooner than later. In much the same way, when plasmas were first introduced, they were introduced at a premium. Technological advances, along with a ton of marketplace competition has since made them as affordable as Thai hookers.

YouTube is even poised to deliver 4K content.

Filmmakers with dreams and aspirations of controlling their own content, and being able to play in a historically constrained system with the same tools and resolutions as the fully financed, major players are witnessing that scenario play out.

We are living in a time akin to the development of the printing press. The difference is this press is not going to be controlled by a select few, obscenely wealthy individuals hoarding the technology and using it to disseminate their own propaganda.

RED is perfectly formed. Thematically, technologically and with a definite measure of altruistic purpose. I am sure Jim would like to see his bottom-line increase, but somehow, I don't think that was what was driving him.

Eryc

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

I just need Mark's contact info...

Jim

I think I have his number. Seriously.

Eryc

 

[paulherrin]

don't let jim get into any more trouble until AFTER the cameras ship.

 

[Eryc Tramonn]

Sorry for the long post.

Well, I wasted tens of thousands of dollars shooting a low budget feature over ten years ago. I'm an aggressive early adopter (which is sometimes french for "stupid"). I could see the change coming on the horizon-- in fact I always see the change coming so far in advance it bites me in the ass sometimes. I wasted the money on the front end of the digital wave, when accessible digital acquisition was little more than SD.

So, with me, you are preaching to the choir and always have been, Jim. To anyone who thinks shooting 1080 will give them a future, I always tell them my story. My story is a perfect microcosm of where we all find ourselves now. I've been down this road before, and "professionals" were the first in line to advise me to go for it. So, if you've noticed some less than deferential attitudes coming from me regarding "professionals" -- its because I've been burned by their advice. But I don't lay the blame at their door. Ultimately I'm responsible.

But, I hear that same advice echoing through these threads even today. That 1080 is "good enough". I vowed that if I ever got the chance to shoot anything ever again, it will be with the highest resolution acquisition device possible. And folks, the "HD" piped into our homes hardly qualifies as "high definition".

Trust me, we will be drowning in 4K displays and exhibition before we even realize we are wet. I thought I knew a thing or two about digital imaging-- I'd been working in it for ten years before I shot my "film". And I took the advice of many working pros who said that HD was at least five years away and the then new Sony DVCAM system will be more than adequate for your feature. Of course we all know now how that story ends.

Over the last twelve years I've been to "school". I made damn sure nobody calling themselves a professional could ever piss on my leg and tell me it was rain. I devoured every bit of technical information I could get my hands on. I drained the minds of every engineer I ever worked with. I asked more questions, read more articles, and learned about the tools of my trade and my art. I became an insufferable critic of Sony, Panasonic, Kodak and Polaroid, et. al.

In the case of Kodak and Polaroid, I went to Rochester and met with the staff of the Advanced Imaging Division. I met with Polaroid's senior development engineers. If you made digital acquisition devices in the 1990's, I knew about you and if I felt you had something to offer me, I met with you. My clients then were very serious and well-funded, so I had some great toys to play with.

When I couldn't figure out why they weren't making the camera I wanted, I started delving into their financials, their business models, their development programs. Where is the digital Panavision? When will the digital Arri get here? For years and years and years I waited. The more I learned, the more pissed off I would get. I was pissed off at the Alexa specs. If you want to play in this game, you gotta bring the resolution and raise the bar.

Then I hear a company in Orange County is going to build this new camera. Its everything I've been waiting for. I'd given up hope. I was afraid this company would build their camera and then immediately go under or get bought out by some idiot from a Fortune 500 conglomerate and the tech would die dry rotting in a vault somewhere. That's why I bought. To protect my future. I put cash down on a Red before I knew anything about Jim or Jarred or Ted or Graeme or the rest of the team.

So if you are faced with the task of picking the camera for your production and you opt for a 1080 camera - don't say I didn't warn you. I laughed my ass off a few months ago when some guy said he was going to shoot a feature on a DSLR. Yes, they're great cameras. Yes, they're more than adequate for shooting weddings and bar-mitzvahs, but you want to bet tens of thousands of dollars on that format for a feature when for a little more money you can shoot a Red? Puh-leeze!

People are beginning to cut the cord on the cable TV and the Satellite services and opting to get their in-home entertainment from the web. When this happened in the 1950's it was called television and it nearly killed the movie theaters until vista vision and the wide screen spectacle saved their bacon.

So if Time-Warner cable, Dish, and DirecTV, wants to strip mine my wallet again, they gotta bring me something I can't get from the internet. Sports programming in 4K is a Saudi oil field and Fort Knox all rolled into one. Nascar in 4K? This is coming sooner than you can imagine.

Thanks for providing me with an opportunity to vent, Jim. I'd forgotten how pissed off I've been over the years waiting for the Epic. Feels good knowing I'll be shooting with it in just a few months. It feels better knowing that whatever I shoot with it won't become extinct in less than a decade. Thanks for not compromising.

Exactly. Precisely. Definitely. Could not agree more.