WHO has ever finished a video in more than 2K?

[Patrick Lavaud]

Here is the 8K camera... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgsERKX1bfw&feature=player_embedded

but well, do you saw the size of this compare to an 5K epic ! Hilarious ! don't know what the price is and won't even take the time to look for it !

I believe Red will come with an 8K camera faster than we thought !

 

[Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig]

The F65 Sony is much smaller and it's already 8K.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

The F65 Sony is much smaller and it's already 8K.

It is not capable of an 8k delivery any way I know of, which is ok, BTW.

I'll get some days with it once it is released...

 

[Daniel Kunz]

Again, thank you all for your replies.

I'm all for high-resolution aquisition. I do all of my work at the highest possible quality available to me.
for stills that is 5.5K Raw, for Video that is 1080p AVCHD (FS100) soon to be 4K Redcode (Scarlet).

I'm not saying that the technology to aquire 4K isn't relevant. i'm saying that the delivery of 4K isn't relevant (at least for the next 3-4years)
You see, output-resolution is always related to the delivery medium. If i have a 1080p Projector, there is no need to deliver in higher than 2K, it is even better to output at the exact same resolution than your delivery medium, because of the scaling-chips that projectors and monitors use.
So moving images are allways related to their output medium.

For stills it's easy. you can print a poster-sized print to experience the high resolution of your camera. People see high-resolution prints on a daily basis. Print-ads, Posters, Magazines, Billboards, Brochures, even newspapers. It's cheap, it's everywhere and everybody has seen it.

But for motion it's a little harder. The average High-resolution medium for motion people have available are in the following order:

Mobile Screens: 480x320/960x640
Tablets: 1024x768/1280x800
Business-Projectors: XGA/SXGA
Monitors/laptops: 1280x800/1600x1200/1920x1200
Advertising Screens: 1920x1080/1080x1920 (vertical)
Theaters/Cinemas: 1998x1920
iMac 27" and 30" Monitors: 2560x1600

There are no higher than 2K screens available to the public, and if there are they probably lack the horespower to play a video at that resolution.

again. This is not about the RED camera, this is about DELIVERY.
On 5 Pages of replys there have been 7 People who have finished at 4K and only 3 of those were shown at higher than 2K...

I know that canon's C300 isn't RAW, but it beautifully downsamples a 4K Bayern-Pattern to true-2K.
Same as the Sony F65 downsamples a 8K Bayern-Pattern to true-4K.
i'm not arguing about any other camera beeing better or worse than the Epic/Scarlet,
just wondering about the enormous increase in Workflow-cost of finishing in 4K over 2K. (VFX excluded of course)

 

[sam karr]

I know that canon's C300 isn't RAW, but it beautifully downsamples a 4K Bayern-Pattern to true-2K.
Same as the Sony F65 downsamples a 8K Bayern-Pattern to true-4K.
i'm not arguing about any other camera beeing better or worse than the Epic/Scarlet,
just wondering about the enormous increase in Workflow-cost of finishing in 4K over 2K. (VFX excluded of course)

you're right on the fact that, if you exclude vfx, stabilization, reframing, photos grabs, we don't really need 4k output resolution. but we were stuck for years with cameras that do downsampling, denoising, sharpening, and a lot of tricky stuffs, in the camera before outputting anything. that's what is exciting about that cam, outputting untouched image. like a scanned film negative. you do the reframing, denoising, sharpening, downsampling yourself. the less the image is processed in the camera the more freedom we have.
And I agree too that we will need some extra hard drives, but working with R3D files in premiere and after effects on my iMac is easier than working with my 5D or HPX.

 

[Christian Munoz D]

There are no higher than 2K screens available to the public, and if there are they probably lack the horespower to play a video at that resolution.

Yes there are. Here there are a few cinema theater companies equipped with 4K projection.

http://sony.links.channelintelligence.com/oemsites/6553221/4K/sony4k.html?pg=2

again. This is not about the RED camera, this is about DELIVERY.
On 5 Pages of replys there have been 7 People who have finished at 4K and only 3 of those were shown at higher than 2K...

And here there are some features released in 4k.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-di...nema-latest-4kmoviereleaseslisting.shtml#2011

 

[Phil Holland]

There are no higher than 2K screens available to the public, and if there are they probably lack the horespower to play a video at that resolution.

That isn't exactly true. I've been working for years exporting 2k (upscaled and sharpened to 4k) and 4k to film via an Arrilaser. Prior to Arrilasers, the Lux. Prior to those a CRT based Solitaire recorder. 4k is actually nothing really new in the feature world. Much of the post workflow has existed in 2k (downsampled 4k, 6k, or now 8k scans) for a long time due to technological restrictions. However, things have been slowly changing towards higher resolution pipelines since about 2006/2007. More and more motion pictures will be utilizing a 4k pipeline this year and next year. This is theatrical and larger budget productions use though, so maybe outside of the point you're making.

4k home projectors, albeit expensive for most, became available to the public this year. There are also theaters with 4k projectors out there. I can also encode and export a 4k h.264 stream that will playback at 4k on a 4k monitor in realtime. With specialized hardware it's possible for 4k 16bit frame (individual files) playback, which is what several VFX studios are now using.

Being so concerned about what was and what is will only cloud your vision about what tomorrow will bring.

Keep in mind that depending on the industry Redusers and shooters work in, it can reflect their delivery methods. I still know an editor who only works in SD and has never worked with HD material. Terrifying, but that's the world he works in. I'm exactly the opposite of that, but I work on features that typically do have hefty VFX budgets where bleeding edge technology is often desired and adopted.

Starting next year we'll be seeing 4k delivery happen more and more. I would imagine by 2014, if I was in advertising at least, that would be a lovely time to punch people in the face with affordable 4k televisions. The industry is evolving. 4k will happen in theaters first which will trickle down to the home market. It will take time to saturate, but it will happen. The interesting thing here will be the odd blend of 1080p material and 2160p material (or whatever they land on as a standard) as this evolution transpires.

If you don't think 4k is coming, you're not paying attention.

 

[Daniel Kunz]

It will take time to saturate, but it will happen. The interesting thing here will be the odd blend of 1080p material and 2160p material (or whatever they land on as a standard) as this evolution transpires.

If you don't think 4k is coming, you're not paying attention.

so you're agreeing with me that 3-4 years for the advent of 4K in public is realistic?
I'm not arguing that it's not coming, i'm just cautious about the whole hype of finished 4K material.
99.999 don't see the difference between 2K and 4K in normal viewing distance.

Aquisition and VFX in High resolution is a no-brainer for me.
As a graphic designer i hate working with images that are low resolution because of the amount of work you have to put in to make them look adequate in print.

@Matthew. I've seen most of those movies. but you probably agree with me that 4K doesn't make 80% of these movies any better. And for the 20% of the better ones i don't think that you see a difference in detail since it's shown at 1/48th at 24fps, motionblur, bokeh make 95% of the picture anyway.

i hope that Jackson is right with 48fps, i bet that would help enourmously with detail in motion!

 

[Hector Berrebi]

NHK is doing it again!! 1964 begins development of HD; 1982 begins producing programs in HD; 2002? Release the first two 8K video cameras; 2005 First demonstration of an Ultra High Definition TV and 2011 first LCD 8K display. wow! Broadcast is leading the way.

yup... they are

and they plan to shoot and broadcast parts of the London 2012 Olympics in UHD (ultra high def) which is roughly 8K
http://www.electrictv.com/?p=11696

human advancement is exponential, it took roughly 10 years for HD broadcasts to go from experimental, to public, to households in the US ...
but HD acquisition was around much longer.
should take the same or less for UHD.
which puts us right in the 4K era

not the future... not 3-4 years, but now, at least in acquisition, which is separate and very different from delivery.

the pro video/film industry has always advanced on different speeds in a wide range of standards. work is delivered daily, world wide, from SD to 4K (and apparently more).
just pick where you want to be. the ones that master 4K workflows today, will lead tomorrow's industry.


hector

 

[Hector Berrebi]

so you're agreeing with me that 3-4 years for the advent of 4K in public is realistic?
I'm not arguing that it's not coming, i'm just cautious about the whole hype of finished 4K material.
99.999 don't see the difference between 2K and 4K in normal viewing distance.

Aquisition and VFX in High resolution is a no-brainer for me.
As a graphic designer i hate working with images that are low resolution because of the amount of work you have to put in to make them look adequate in print.

@Matthew. I've seen most of those movies. but you probably agree with me that 4K doesn't make 80% of these movies any better. And for the 20% of the better ones i don't think that you see a difference in detail since it's shown at 1/48th at 24fps, motionblur, bokeh make 95% of the picture anyway.

i hope that Jackson is right with 48fps, i bet that would help enourmously with detail in motion!

99% don't see the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:4:4, a calibrated monitor and a cheap TV set, 8 bits or 10 bits (or 12...)... don't see, or don't recognize what they see, so what? they always feel the difference.

and if acquisition in 4K is a no brainer for you, then you've answered your own question about the need for it.
aspiring to acquire the best picture possible and to deliver the best picture possible are two different things, one does not cancel the other. and in that aspect, affordable 4K is bliss

hector

 

[Christoffer Glans]

It doesn't matter what you have done... it matters what you can do next.

Jim

I think the biggest problem isn't around what you shoot with, but how you work with it in post and delivery. How to store it and so on.
I'm very interested to hear more about the Red Ray and the Redcode and how it could be used for better distribution of 4K media.
If the public had a codec which is easy and not very demanding of hardware, 4K will explode. As of now, there is a codec warfare with a lot of really awful codecs, technology like interlace that should just die painfully and so on. Would be nice to see the Redcode soon and it's capabilities.

 

[Daniel Kunz]

Hi Hector, thanks for your reply.
if you look at people watching the UHD television you see how they come too close to watch it to get at a level where they can appreciate the details.
somehow weird if you ask me.

I question the need for higher resolution in Delivery in the next 3-4 years, since there won't be such a staggering demand as there has been for HD.

"they always feel the difference." not sure about that. People actually look at the content, not the image. that's why they don't see the difference.
It's like this whole 200Hz/600hz trumotion hype. I'ts bullshit. If you don't put a fake side by side comparison, people don't see the difference. and even then they wouldn't see the need for it. We think that logically 600Hz MUST be better than 200Hz since it's 400Hz more! look at the contrast race for example. 350 - 1'000'000!!! again bullshit. 90% of People don't even get glaring errors like wrong Aspect-Ratios. I see it all the time! Conventions, Conferences, Shops, Gas-Stations, everywhere! Why on earth would we want to add another marginal difference into the round?

I much prefer a nicely graded 480p movie that has well balanced contrast, color than a FullHD video coming from any Phone. everybody does.
did resolution matter? after 2 seconds in, people concentrate on content.

And in this industry i have the bad feeling that 95 of newcomers are jumping into this weird Tech-Gadget-Ultra-everything race.
OMG! i shot this testvideo of my garden in FullHD with a Mattebox and a steadycam and i edited it in XXX Pro HD added some twixtor and graded it in DaVinci!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhgcugEU6VY

 

[Hector Berrebi]

Hi Hector, thanks for your reply.
if you look at people watching the UHD television you see how they come too close to watch it to get at a level where they can appreciate the details.
somehow weird if you ask me.

I question the need for higher resolution in Delivery in the next 3-4 years, since there won't be such a staggering demand as there has been for HD.

"they always feel the difference." not sure about that. People actually look at the content, not the image. that's why they don't see the difference.
It's like this whole 200Hz/600hz trumotion hype. I'ts bullshit. If you don't put a fake side by side comparison, people don't see the difference. and even then they wouldn't see the need for it. We think that logically 600Hz MUST be better than 200Hz since it's 400Hz more! look at the contrast race for example. 350 - 1'000'000!!! again bullshit. 90% of People don't even get glaring errors like wrong Aspect-Ratios. I see it all the time! Conventions, Conferences, Shops, Gas-Stations, everywhere! Why on earth would we want to add another marginal difference into the round?

I much prefer a nicely graded 480p movie that has well balanced contrast, color than a FullHD video coming from any Phone. everybody does.
did resolution matter? after 2 seconds in, people concentrate on content.

And in this industry i have the bad feeling that 95 of newcomers are jumping into this weird Tech-Gadget-Ultra-everything race.
OMG! i shot this testvideo of my garden in FullHD with a Mattebox and a steadycam and i edited it in XXX Pro HD added some twixtor and graded it in DaVinci!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhgcugEU6VY

Hey Daniel


i think they do feel the difference,
i've been in video for 17 years, one thing that was always present is trying to achieve "film look" an elusive term for many, who tried so hard to pull tricks on their videos from strange capture setups on avid (anyone else remembers 12s?) to strobbing, using "film look" filters and exaggerated contrast ratios, to shutter games and mounted lens adaptors (damn rotating mirrors) and so much more, just to be disappointed each time, cutting close but not really there.

then large sensors brought it close,
and 4K RAW brought it even closer... so close that real film is dying at the fastest rate ever

there is a democratization of everything in the tech pro industry... Avid works with 200$ video cards, Da vinci sells for 900$ NUKE and The Foundry are butchering high-end compositing systems of the past and and i can run Smoke on my MacPro at a fraction of what it cost before. hardware configurations cost less and less every year, and today even grading monitors and cinema grade camera become available and affordable.
there are so many more examples my head spins... YouTube by itself is a huge distribution revolution (the one aspect which was really out of reach for most)
the time we could relay on excuses such as "they shot on XYZ and finished on UVW, that's why it looks so much better. we couldn't afford it" are slowly passing away. of course there will be tons of BS pseudo pro stuff running around, and thousands of new self appointed experts, these are the signs of our times, everyone can voice their work, be it BS or pure beauty and inspiration (we use YouTube for brainstorming and preping client presentations all the time)

i definitely want to acquire in 4K RAW if i can. even more so today, when it still gives me a certain edge on my 1080 competition. my delivery will look better, even if its only limited to 1080
i have had clients return just because they felt the compressed WMV i emailed them looked better than any other they saw before, it had a lot to do with acquisition.

hector

 

[Brian Merlen]

I can't understand why anyone would think 4k is 3-4 years away from being in the home? Ivy Bridge supports it. Its 6 months away, and they wouldn't support it if monitors weren't going to get on board with the idea, right?

 

[Daniel Kunz]

Ivy Bridge supports it. Its 6 months away, and they wouldn't support it if monitors weren't going to get on board with the idea, right?

ivy Bridge in your home doesn't mean that manufacurers of TV's and Projectors have enough demand to justify opening new factories... Tho if Apple would finally make their iScreen it will probably be a 4K display to be different and innovative. That would turn the industry around. But as you know apple hardware isn't keen on supporting higher resolution as their AppleTV has shown (720p) They know that the content isn't massivly available, and that 360p youtube videos still look bad on a 55" screen.

Support doesn't mean it's going to come.
Much of the Graphic cards 10-15 years ago were 3D capable. and look at how long and what it took to get the 3D-wheel spinning again.
Niche markets. not interesting for the big companies. Look at apple and their MacPro lineup. The biggest computer-company is going out of the niche-market (professionals).

 

[Phil Holland]

so you're agreeing with me that 3-4 years for the advent of 4K in public is realistic?

Yes and no. The point I was making was for some 1080p works fine today as their delivery method as that is what their clients desire.
For others 4k delivery is desired by their clients and has been for some time.

The entertainment industry isn't as black and white as many would think or would like it too be.



If we're going to look at history 4k and 2k existed as delivery formats long before 1080p was born. You can create 1080p from 4k and 2k content.

4k is not something new as a delivery format in the world of feature films and this is the world I work in. Perhaps I have a skewed opinion due to that, but I understand that 1080p is the wide standard today due to broadcast and ease of use. In feature film land much work is still being done at 2k, but 4k and higher pipelines now exist and are happening. 4k finishes have already happened. Top filmmakers are doing this today, more will be doing this tomorrow.

Also remember S35 resolves 4k-6k, and that has been the "standard" for a very long time.

Very soon, like next year soon, we will see that digital 4k projection will be used by companies and studios to attract people to theaters. It will be a selling point as it's not something many would get at home. We will see several 4k broadcasts happen next year as well. This will be how 4k lands first to the masses. And in reality this has already happened on a theatrical level.

If we are talking the general public and broadcast, I'd say more like 1 to 3 years to come to the wide market/affordable home viewing solutions. 1080p televisions "happened" pretty darn quick. I think we'll see a variety of 4k monitors and solutions at the end of 2012. They already exist now.

Another point I'll make is the "masses" will be shooting with 1080p cams for a long while and it will be something that separates "them from us".


Basically to wrap that into a nice package: 4k has been a target and is a target. 1080p has been a target and is a target. Initially we will see 4k theatrically, while broadcast will stay at 1080p. This will be that way until broadcast at 4k is adopted.

 

[Stuart English]

I know that canon's C300 isn't RAW, but it beautifully downsamples a 4K Bayern-Pattern to true-2K.

Same as the Sony F65 downsamples a 8K Bayern-Pattern to true-4K.

Not to go too off topic here, but Canon's own explanation of the C300 refutes that statement, there is no downsampling happing there, just pixel picking, and not to nitpick but 1080p isn't 2K. And re Sony, reading their less explicit technical explanations, I suspect it may be a similar non-debayer / non-downsample approach to create 4K.

 

[Arnaud Paris]

We just finished post-production on a set of 4 films shot on the Epic that will be soon playing on 4K+ displays all around Charles De Gaulles airport in Paris, and the client required us to do a 5K delivery...

 

[Brian Merlen]

Agree to disagree, Apple TV is over a year old at this point and the new model is rumored on consistently, Itunes is 1080P now, and the 27 inch Apple monitors are already beyond 2k. Youtube has 4k, cameras shoot it for quite some time now, and GPU's are coming in 6 months. The infrastructure is there for a reason, the costs have already been addressed on every angle other then monitoring. 4k is the new gimmick to move tvs/monitors in 2012 and beyond. Everyone and their dog has 1080p in the home, who is still buying them? Maybe there is a 1080p market in the third world but I am hard pressed to find anyone using 4/3 SD these days in the United States. With all the Sharp/Apple and other rumors of brands making 4k monitors/tvs I am fairly sure all brands at this point are looking into it just to survive in this economy. No company wants to be last to market on the cutting edge new trend and unlike 3D there isn't a ton of different standards/methods to choose from.

This debate is tiring because since the Red One first came out people have been talking about it, but looking at the list of films finished and distributed in 4k these past 5 years I would say your debating this a little late. If 4k is so bleeding edge why is canon making a dslr that can shoot it? DSLR's are supposed to be cheap and sell like wildfire. Clearly the markets are turning. If Red Ray has a consumer model, and it debuts this year, then what? Someone will bring a monitor to market that is affordable, and its not going to take another 4 years for darn sure. Innovation sells products, how many more years can people ride the HD wave? Flip cams shoot it, phones shoot it, tiny laptops display it, the market is saturated. How much more saturation do we need of 1080p?

ivy Bridge in your home doesn't mean that manufacurers of TV's and Projectors have enough demand to justify opening new factories... Tho if Apple would finally make their iScreen it will probably be a 4K display to be different and innovative. That would turn the industry around. But as you know apple hardware isn't keen on supporting higher resolution as their AppleTV has shown (720p) They know that the content isn't massivly available, and that 360p youtube videos still look bad on a 55" screen.

Support doesn't mean it's going to come.
Much of the Graphic cards 10-15 years ago were 3D capable. and look at how long and what it took to get the 3D-wheel spinning again.
Niche markets. not interesting for the big companies. Look at apple and their MacPro lineup. The biggest computer-company is going out of the niche-market (professionals).

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

if you look at people watching the UHD television you see how they come too close to watch it to get at a level where they can appreciate the details.
somehow weird if you ask me.

Term "weird" often gets labeled over "unfamiliar with".

What they are doing is using the usual principle of exploring something new, by defining its extremes.
They are not getting that close to appreciate the details, but to see how close they can get and still see the details.
They can appreciate the details on normal distance, as the eye has much larger clarity perception than the resolution of that screen.