The Big Mistake...

[Gunleik Groven]

I thought Jim was supposed to be on holiday...

He just has to revolutionise one more business before christmas.

And a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do...

 

[Marc Wielage]

In your opinion, where does this leave a film like Avatar, say 10 years down the road?

Don't forget that Avatar was very carefully tweaked, processed, and uprezzed to 4K at several critical stages (particularly when output to film). Trust me: it's as sharp as a pin. Its humble HD origins didn't seem to stop it from winning an Oscar for best cinematography and making $3 billion.

Also, don't forget that some great movies have been put through post at 2K and held up very well. Social Network is a prime example. 4K alone is not going to make a movie look sharp or good. Exposure range is a much bigger factor, as is the lighting and the final color-correction.

Given that something like 60% of the channels on Time-Warner Cable and DirectTV satellite are still standard def (and highly-compressed and ugly, to boot), it seems to me a little premature to worry about 4K for broadcast just yet. They've got years to go before they have the bandwidth to even provide 100% HD, and the content still isn't there yet.

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.

You guys should take Mike Most's words to heart and put it on a gold plaque. Truer words have never been spoken. Pay attention to this guy -- he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Art is all about the artist and never the tools, that goes without saying. I would like to think that it isn't mentioned more because everybody thinks the same way, but I don't see this being about the material anyway. I think we are talking about how nice it will be for us to work with this new tool, and about how it will make broadcasters think: "Since they have 4k, why not distribute it at 4k?" After all a nicer image would make all their content "better", good or bad.

So if it comes to the cost of the switch or upgrades necessary. If this can be done at no/small additional cost, then it is about bringing in new customers, or losing customers if they are the late to adopt. I don't know much about broadcasting infrastructure but I will assume that if the switch is relatively low-cost, then they would sweep that into the price of the boxes and make early adopters pay for it.

 

[Steven Caesare]

I've seen the "broadcast is uncompressed" claim elsewhere as well. Seems to be a widespread belief, which is funny when the difference between broadcast HD and Cable/Satellite HD is something like 20 Mbps for broadcast and 10-12 Mbps for C/S... Both broadcast and C/S should start using a better delivery codec than MPEG-2, though getting enough decoders to the population is still a problem.

--

Graeme or someone said that the realistic bitrate of 4K RedRay was 15 Mbps last time I heard.

There is significant traction for at least the sat providers in using H.264/AVC... I know both Dish and DirectTV are using it. It was easier to adopt for them because they weren't tied to haivng to use ATSC as the terrestrial broadcasters were... and any expense to upgrade their head-end and set-top-boxes in the field was likely much cheaper than launching a fleet of new birds.

Unfortunately I think they simply used much of the additional bandwidth to just cram more channels online, rather than improve the quality of the existing progremming.

As for terestrial broadcasting, they can use H.264/AVC now too, as the ATSC ammeded the specification back in '08. But I haven't heard much about many places adopting it... probably because it would require people to purchase new TVs.

-sc

 

[Elsie N]

Art is all about the artist and never the tools, that goes without saying. (snip)... and about how it will make broadcasters think: "Since they have 4k, why not distribute it at 4k?" After all a nicer image would make all their content "better", good or bad.

I think when we begin to watch something our first impression is of the quality of the image. And if that quality is very good, I believe we will watch mediocre content to the end if it is presented well.

I wish some institute of higher learning (UCLA?) would do a blind study of this by presenting an identical movie in poor quality vs high quality and observe the audience's reaction.

Or maybe this test has already been done? Would like to know the results, if so.

 

[Jim Retar]

Is the world ready for "The Biggest Loser" in 4K jellovision?

 

[Felix K.]

Although I totally understand Jim's viewpoint I still cringe at the word "mistake". If you can't afford shooting in film or even HD, your movie is going to be in SD. Maybe it then is not upgradeable to future technology (which of course is sad/bad) but it is not a mistake.
But once EPIC and Scarlet are released and the technology becomes more and more affordable to everyone and people then decide to shot in HD eventhough they could shot in 4k as well, THEN it is a mistake.

 

[David Dennis]

Art is all about the artist and never the tools, that goes without saying.

It amuses me that we always say Art is about the Artist and not the tools, and yet here we have many artists just salivating over the tools Jim makes. If tools didn't matter, there would be no RedUser and Jim would still be making sunglasses. (Poor Jim, in that case. Isn't it great to see how much he loves making cameras?)

In reading this discussion, I actually think tools may matter more to the artist than they do to the general public who watches their stuff.

I think when we begin to watch something our first impression is of the quality of the image. And if that quality is very good, I believe we will watch mediocre content to the end if it is presented well.

I think it depends on the material. To make a spectacle like Avatar you need the highest quality presentation to make it work. But to make a small-scale, story driven drama or comedy you can shoot it on MiniDV and if it has a great story, people will still be entertained.

It's interesting to me that even though I know the story and characters are what will make whatever film I make compelling, I still want to buy the best equipment and make it beautiful. So in the end Jim gets his money and hopefully my audience enjoys the result .

D

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Felix.

The sentence has a lot of "other" functions... -

One of them being already having gotten 1/8th of the views Jim was aiming at within a couple of days...

Diplomacy was never the way of RED.

 

[Bob Gruen]

I'm still skeptical that 4K will become a home standard simply due to the limitations of the human eye and the size of the average home's living room. It may very well become the pinnacle for true home cinema buffs who actually dedicate a room to media, but I just don't see the average consumer wanting it bad enough to push these industries in that direction. You might see titles at $12~18 for DVD, $22~25 for BluRay, and $50+ for limited release RedRay/4K, but I really think it would be a niche market for many years to come.

There is no doubt that Red is on the cutting edge of compression techniques, and if these techniques get integrated into cable and satellite transmissions I think you see large numbers of channels switch from 720p/i to 1080i or even a 1080p broadcast spec, and a lot more channels added. These are marketable aspects of competing providers: "We have more 1080 channels then they do!", and these providers are different companies than the ones providing the viewing equipment. How long did the transition from analog broadcast to digital take here in the U.S.? And the government had to force it... And they still missed the dates...

Licensing this technology to these various industries would be very profitable for Jim/Red, so aggressively pursuing it is a no-brainer, but I respectfully disagree with how these established industries will want to leverage this technology.

Of course generating 4K+ content is a no-brainer as well.

Bob

 

[Lee Fingersh]

2. 1080P is not a quality replacement for film.

No, it's not. It's usually superior to film. Film's problem was that the tiny S35 format meant really grainy visuals. To me, grain is the most distracting aberration (worse than out-of-focus even) and it means I've never really seen a regular movie with good visuals unless it was animated or digitally cleaned up and projected digitally. While 1080P may not have the resolution of 35mm film, it's so much cleaner and smoother that it's more pleasant to watch, at least for me, even when shot on tiny 1/3" sensors. The reason Red shots look good is that they are both high-res *and* clean - like IMAX, which is the only decent-quality source of visuals I've ever seen. Bottom line for me - S35 film set the bar really low, and you guys are having relatively little trouble jumping that bar with tons of room to spare.

IMHO, your S35 format should be able to compete directly with IMAX if it weren't for the really wide/short aspect ratio (IMAX is projected at 3:2 to 4:3, mostly). It should have the resolution and cleanliness. Your FF35 format, if ever produced, should be able to replace IMAX cameras for essentially all purposes.

 

[Elsie N]

I'm still skeptical that 4K will become a home standard simply due to the limitations of the human eye (snip)...
Bob

I am thinking the human eye may only be limited by training... that is, if we see higher quality images from an early age, perhaps we will eventually be able to see the difference between 3k and 5k, for example, and may come to view 3k as grossly inferior.

With science and medicine actively participating in human evolution, it may not take thousands or even hundreds of years before our brains, which are the actual decoders of what our eyes "see", will be able to intuitively make these distinctions. In some, maybe we are there already.

 

[Alessio G.]

Uhm, i don't know. To me 35mm film is the absolute top. Red MX is the best thing I've seen on screen with SN that is really close to that.
To be fair I've also seen a couple of 1080p movies that "fooled" me.
IMO it's all about not being distracted into thinking "is this digital?- is this 35mm?" while watching a movie. So as a viewer I don't much care about whatever number of Ks is there.
And i definitely don't wanna see any soccer in 3D unless it's once for novelty:biggrin:

But as a filmmaker having more resolution is extremely important for me to have more option in post and I'm happy and excited that Red is where it's at.

 

[Felix K.]

Felix.

The sentence has a lot of "other" functions... -

One of them being already having gotten 1/8th of the views Jim was aiming at within a couple of days...

Diplomacy was never the way of RED.

Hey Gunleik!

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

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

 

[Felix K.]

Then again Episodes 2 and 3 still aren't even out in 1080p yet.

That's because they are re-shot clandestinely at 4k at the moment

 

[M Most]

If you walked into the office of an HD network and offered them a free license to air Monty Python ...There's no chance for Monty Python...No matter how great it is, there will be no Blu-Ray disc and no network 4K premiere for Monty Python. Youtube and XBox Live won't be streaming it in 4K. Those potential revenue streams simply do not exist for Monty Python...the channels with the greatest quality, are closed to Monty Python. Nobody will care how good it was...Monty Python was mastered on (at the very best) 280i?...

: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.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Well, it's not Monty Python but I did - quite enjoyably - watch a few episodes of Fawlty Towers recently at a very low resolution. I still enjoyed it...I probably would have enjoyed it more if the actors heads weren't each one giant macro-block, but I kept watching. Then again, I don't think that show is frequently hailed as a masterpiece of television cinematography...

Of course, I don't think any major content provider would ever let something like that on the air.

 

[Adam Lee Welch]

I just need Mark's contact info...

Jim

Mark seems like the kind of guy you'd have on your speed dial..

 

[Stephen Williams]

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? .

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

 

[Jim Retar]

I think DPs and directors should be applauded for pushing the boundaries to get an artistic look rather than thinking about future proofing and further profits.

Rodriguez clearly didn't make a big mistake when he shot Sin City in 1080p... it was a fantastic artist choice and will be a classic for decades to come. He could have shot film, reigned in some of his creative ideas to future proof his work. Instead, he shot digital and really pushed to get the look he wanted... It was a brave move and the sort of forward thinking that RED should want to associate themselves with, not distance themselves from.

The same brave guys who were looking to go 1080p digital, when they had film budgets, are the same brave guys that will be grabbing every Epic they can.