The Big Questions

[Eric Matthew]

46" is not decent sized! I'm now running a 135" projection screen for a more cinematic experience in the home.

Graeme

WHOA!

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

For me it seems Josh points to and is concerned of a social phenomenon that has repeated itself in the history of industries: Typically when things start to grow exponentially people get excited and this inspires them to make amazing predictions of the future.

A college of mine told me once of the history of railroads in Northern American. When the boom really started people started to make predictions of how quickly new railroads will be constructed to USA, and he added, if those predictions were right, now the whole are of USA including every single square of inch of land would be covered by 7 or 8 layers of tracks. Many Finns wittnessed the same phenomenon when Nokia started to sell phones like mad in the latter half of 90's. Nokia grew and grew beyond what anybody thought, and eventually as a consequence the share value of the company went sky high up to about 65 euros in the of year 1999. Now it's somewhere around 4.0 to 4.5 euros. The moral is, although the exponential progress may temporarily be amazing, at some point the growth tends to saturate.

I remember another example from my youth. As a kid read some books written perhaps in early 60's predicting that in year 2000 people did not use cars but instead some sort of a fusion between a car and a small airplane that could fly. Can still see the drawings of the future cities of year 2000.

To condense the long story in short, the way I understand Josh is, he makes a legitimate question where are the limits of the camera markets we all are exicted about, and how the ongoing trend will affect businesswise the people whose living depends on the available cameras?

What comes to the details, while I personally also feel 1080p of the TV in our living room is not "good enough", still understand Josh's concern how the mass finds the image quality. For, although I don't find myself (highly compressed) mp3 as an audio format good enough many others do.

Summing up, feel Josh raises a valuable topic for discussion. Time will show what happens, and in the mean time will enjoy with my whole heart the 5K image.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

WHOA!

And that's only because the 150" wouldn't fit

But seriously, cinema is meant to be an involving experience, and to me, a good part of that is the size of the projected image. If the image is small, it feels like TV no matter how good it looks, and I prefer the more relaxed nature of the projected image to the more intense experience of a TV.

Graeme

 

[Felix K.]

And that's only because the 150" wouldn't fit

Graeme

That actually is one of the key problems. Many people can't fit or don't want to have screens of that size in their apartments/houses.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Which projector are you using, Graeme?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Which projector are you using, Graeme?

An Epson one at the moment - very affordable and pretty good. I've not had a chance to measure it yet though as I'm still working on blocking light from the room that it's in!

Graeme

 

[Stuart English]

Many people can't fit or don't want to have screens of that size in their apartments/houses.

Many people is not all people though There a lot of people or groups of people who can put a large screen in a room.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Many people is not all people though There a lot of people or groups of people who can put a large screen in a room.

And you can't hope to get a home cinema experience without a large screen. Sure, you can sit close to a smaller screen if it's just you, but try getting a field-of-view filling screen for a family - you'll be butting heads!

Fact is many people do want that kind of experience in their home and without enough resolution so that they get a sharp image and no visible pixels, it's not going to "suspend disbelief" the way a good professional cinema experience can.

Graeme

 

[Zeb B]

For me it seems Josh points to and is concerned of a social phenomenon that has repeated itself in the history of industries: Typically when things start to grow exponentially people get excited and this inspires them to make amazing predictions of the future.

A college of mine told me once of the history of railroads in Northern American. When the boom really started people started to make predictions of how quickly new railroads will be constructed to USA, and he added, if those predictions were right, now the whole are of USA including every single square of inch of land would be covered by 7 or 8 layers of tracks. Many Finns wittnessed the same phenomenon when Nokia started to sell phones like mad in the latter half of 90's. Nokia grew and grew beyond what anybody thought, and eventually as a consequence the share value of the company went sky high up to about 65 euros in the of year 1999. Now it's somewhere around 4.0 to 4.5 euros. The moral is, although the exponential progress may temporarily be amazing, at some point the growth tends to saturate.

I remember another example from my youth. As a kid read some books written perhaps in early 60's predicting that in year 2000 people did not use cars but instead some sort of a fusion between a car and a small airplane that could fly. Can still see the drawings of the future cities of year 2000.

To condense the long story in short, the way I understand Josh is, he makes a legitimate question where are the limits of the camera markets we all are exicted about, and how the ongoing trend will affect businesswise the people whose living depends on the available cameras?

What comes to the details, while I personally also feel 1080p of the TV in our living room is not "good enough", still understand Josh's concern how the mass finds the image quality. For, although I don't find myself (highly compressed) mp3 as an audio format good enough many others do.

Summing up, feel Josh raises a valuable topic for discussion. Time will show what happens, and in the mean time will enjoy with my whole heart the 5K image.

Well stated. I personally feel that the topic of resolution is vastly overstated and hyped. It is a narrow view debate that avoids the bigger question of relevancy and sustainability of our industry/profession/career. My buying interest in Red/Epic has 5K resolution about #6 on the list of things that matter. Not sure my view of spec sheet resolution is far off from how the average consumer of the content we create makes their buying decisions.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Of course, if it's just a TV in the corner of your living room, even 1080p is way too much and SD is much better, and indeed given the same bandwidth for transmission you'd get a better image for an SD transmission over an HD transmission.

However.....

SD was 480i or 576i for how many years? And what were all those movies you watched at home on the TV or VHS shot on? 35mm film, the specs of which were far superior than that of the distribution mechanism.

Why?

Because higher specs (resolution included) make for a better image no matter what the quality of the distribution, and although you're an artist and story counts above anything else, do you want to shoot on a Panasonic MS4 S-VHS camcorder (as I used to when I was learning) or an Epic. After all, it's only the story that matters, right?

Graeme

 

[jake blackstone]

That actually is one of the key problems. Many people can't fit or don't want to have screens of that size in their apartments/houses.

I have to agree with that.
Home ownership in US is the lowest now, since the Great Depression. Many people can't afford an apartment, let alone a HUGE and expensive screen, when they need to move back in with their parents, because they can't find a job...

 

[Zeb B]

After all, it's only the story that matters, right?

Graeme

If you're in the business to make maximum ROI . . . I would venture that the story/emotional hook/marketing is more important than pixel count.

Top Ten Movies based on Return on Investment:

1. Paranormal Activity (Budget: $15,000; Revenue: $193 million): 645,801.51%
2. Tarnation (Budget: $218; Revenue: $1.1 million): 266,416.97%
3. Mad Max (Budget: $200,000; Revenue $99.7 million): 24,837.50%
4. Super Size Me (Budget: $65,000; Revenue: $29,529,368): 22,614.90%
5. The Blair Witch Project (Budget: $600,000; Revenue: $248 million): 20,591.67%
6. Night of the Living Dead (Budget:$114,000; Revenue: $30 million): 13,057.89%
7. Rocky (Budget: $1 million; Revenue: $225 million): 11,150.00%
8. Halloween (Budget: $325,000; Revenue: $70 million): 10,669.23%
9. American Graffiti: (Budget: $777,000; Revenue: $140 million): 8,909.01%
10. Once (Budget: $150,000; Revenue: $18 million): 6,232.39%

 

[M Most]

Of course, if it's just a TV in the corner of your living room, even 1080p is way too much and SD is much better, and indeed given the same bandwidth for transmission you'd get a better image for an SD transmission over an HD transmission.

However.....

SD was 480i or 576i for how many years? And what were all those movies you watched at home on the TV or VHS shot on? 35mm film, the specs of which were far superior than that of the distribution mechanism.

Why?

Because higher specs (resolution included) make for a better image no matter what the quality of the distribution, and although you're an artist and story counts above anything else, do you want to shoot on a Panasonic MS4 S-VHS camcorder (as I used to when I was learning) or an Epic. After all, it's only the story that matters, right?

I think I get your point, but the reasons you cite are a bit simplistic.

Features have always been targeted at theatrical distribution and presumed exhibition on large theater screens. That's why film has always been used for features, because no video format would ever stand up to that kind of screen size until very, very recently. Not to mention the "accepted" aesthetic of 24 frame capture and projection, which was not available in common video formats until the last 15 years or so. The reasons for using film for television production were not necessarily archival robustness, although that became a bit more important as home video took off. The real reasons were production related. Shooting on film required no video engineers, had far more flexibility in terms of lighting and production conditions, provided images of a production value unmatched in video formats, allowed film post production methods to migrate to television, which in turn allowed access to the many editors, sound editors and mixers, and other post professionals who were trained in features, and allowed crews and directors to work in a familiar, single camera manner that allowed for maximum quality in terms of look, editorial flexibility, and perhaps most of all, performance. Resolution was about number 50 on the list of reasons why film was used for high end television work in the days of standard def. When HD came along, and more recently "digital cinema" cameras, film began to lose favor because the electronic alternatives were economically very attractive, and because ultimately similar production values could be captured in that medium. SD video was never really "good enough" for network drama level production. HD video is. If pure oversampling resolution was the overriding factor, most shows today would be either on film or Red. They're not. This season, they're primarily on Alexa, captured at HD resolution. I certainly don't disagree that there are advantages to higher resolution, and that mantra is one of Red's primary tenets, which is a good thing. But the reality is that the television industry doesn't particularly care until they are required to. If higher resolution distribution becomes a common reality - and my own opinion is that's quite a ways off - things will change. The entry of Sony into the 4K market may push that a bit, but I would keep in mind that one of the attractive features of the F65 is that it can record HD directly - just like the Alexa. My own feeling is that it will largely be used in that mode in the foreseeable future, with the higher resolution recording being reserved primarily for projects where it's deemed necessary, like features. Just like the Alexa.

I could be wrong. But I don't think I am.

 

[Zeb B]

Call it personal aesthetic but . . . some things just look better in lower def. I prefer porno on VHS, not 5K.

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

Because higher specs (resolution included) make for a better image no matter what the quality of the distribution, and although you're an artist and story counts above anything else, do you want to shoot on a Panasonic MS4 S-VHS camcorder (as I used to when I was learning) or an Epic. After all, it's only the story that matters, right?

This condenses well my feelings. Although it's the story that only matters, still don't want to shoot with Panasonic MS4 S-VHS camcorder or Canon XL1. The same with musicians: although people listen mp3-files, the artists would not like the original recorded tracks of the master to be mp3's.

 

[Zeb B]

This condenses well my feelings. Although it's the story that only matters, still don't want to shoot with Panasonic MS4 S-VHS camcorder or Canon XL1. The same with musicians: although people listen mp3-files, the artists would not like the original recorded tracks of the master to be mp3's.

well stated

 

[Erich Ocean]

That actually is one of the key problems. Many people can't fit or don't want to have screens of that size in their apartments/houses.

That is, until they meet someone who does. Once you go big, you don't go back. (I have a 14' wide screen in `scope aspect ratio; best money I've ever spent.) And yes, I had that setup in a 2-bedroom apartment in downtown Hollywood.

Projector quality/pricing has gotten crazy good the last 5 years, to the point where it's accessible to virtually anyone. (I projected onto a white wall for the first 3 years.)

 

[Colin Hubick]

"I think there is a world market for maybe five 5K productions." --Not really said by Thomas John Watson in 1943.

"480p ought to be enough for anybody." -- Not really said by Bill Gates in 1981

I believe Bill Gates said "256K ought to be enough for anybody"

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Colin, I thought it was 640k, but who's counting bytes!

Erich - agreed, once you live with what a big screen gives you it's very hard to go back...

Lauri - you exemplify my point well. Thanks.

Mike, I remember how visually compelling a 4K monitor showing downsampled 8K NHK content was at IBC a few years back. It literally stopped traffic in it's aisle. True high resolution content that uses that resolution as a creative part of the storytelling isn't really there yet, but I think when it is, coupled with the right kind of display, we'll see some change. Just like when colour came into TV there was a real issue of what to do with it and we got some ugly results for a while.

Graeme

 

[Marc Wielage]

...there is a bunch of FCP 7 pro editors who just got their years of experience and certifications blown up by Apple with the introduction of FCP X which, with Magic Bullet etc, will allow any 17 year old make films that Red Bull might buy.

Small correction: merely owning software does not turn you into an editor who knows how to cut. Spending $400 does not turn you into Walter Murch overnight, just like buying a great camera, lenses, and lights doesn't make you a brilliant cinematographer in a day, or a week, or a month.

I certainly don't disagree that there are advantages to higher resolution, and that mantra is one of Red's primary tenets, which is a good thing. But the reality is that the television industry doesn't particularly care until they are required to. If higher resolution distribution becomes a common reality - and my own opinion is that's quite a ways off - things will change. The entry of Sony into the 4K market may push that a bit, but I would keep in mind that one of the attractive features of the F65 is that it can record HD directly - just like the Alexa. My own feeling is that it will largely be used in that mode in the foreseeable future, with the higher resolution recording being reserved primarily for projects where it's deemed necessary, like features. Just like the Alexa.

I agree as well, at least for TV or direct-to-video projects. I know that in the real world, "good enough" isn't always really good enough, but on a TV budget and schedule, I'm not sure if 4K end-to-end can work. Heck, it's hard enough to do if you've got 6-to-8 weeks and doing a feature with a much, much bigger budget.

How many post houses can really handle doing multiple simultaneous 4K projects, especially if you dealing with hundreds of terabytes of data for conform, color correction, titling, effects, and outputting? This is a massive problem that I don't think a lot of casual users really grasp. I think it can work if you have a well set-up facility with an experienced staff and some very big pipelines, but it's tough if you're doing it all on your own. Heck, raw 2K is challenging if you're swamped with material.