Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

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

D

Daniel Kunz

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
202
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Switzerland
Hi, i know this sounds a bit harsh around here, but i wanted to know if any of your clients ever needed more than a 2K export.
Please don't answer with "i once did a test.." type of film. only videos or films that were paid jobs or for a film festival.

I really don't see that much use of 4K in the next 3-4 years. Any arguments against my statement?
 
I have finished several since I do theatrical movie trailers.

Very little of it has actually been displayed at 4K to the consumer though.

But clients often ask for 4K because we're dealing with typography and very thin lines with aliasing. Then they do a nice downsample to 2K in the online.

Ironically, the last big movie I worked on asked for titles at 4K but footage at 2K.

Also, have done some stereo TV spots that we delivered extra wide - around 2.5K so they can adjust convergence in the online, I think.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
I don't have an argument against your statement from the perspective of finishing a project in 4K. All of my work has been finishing in 1080 or lower, but here's how I see it:

With 4K, I can reframe an image that I don't particularly like the look of, stabilize a shot without a steady cam setup and without losing quality (when going to 2K or lower), and grade cleaner images. I'm not talking about lazy cinematography, but I am talking about flexibility of having those options if I need them or plan explicitly for them.

On top of that, as many others have mentioned, while finishing in 4K might not be a need, VFX work will benefit greatly from the added resolution.
 
We are finishing a documentary for a non profit client (fully paid job) in 4K. The documentary will end on DVD (not sure BD) and for internal use only....they ask to shoot and edit with the best quality available to be able to work and/or re-edit the film in 10-15 years if needed...client argument.
 
Client gets what client wants/pays. Thats a win:win situation right there, no loosers. keep it up.
 
look up ivy bridge on wiki....4k is in the home in 6 months... surely if the intel chips all support it someone will make a monitor that consumers can afford? apple has a 2.5k 27 inch imac, i bet that will be replaced with a 4k imac when ivy bridge ships...
 
Daniel Kunz said:
I really don't see that much use of 4K in the next 3-4 years. Any arguments against my statement?
Click to expand...

I've been working with 4k material since 1999 on features. Some things finishing at 4k, the vast majority at 2k. 4k finishes have been happening more and more. Growing trend.

As for the next 3-4 years, and I've mentioned this before on Reduser, keep in mind that next year we'll see the first 4k television broadcast during the Olympics.

Based on all evidence surrounding us, 4k is coming. Projectors exist, televisions exist, the bandwidth for 4k streams even exist. It's just a matter of it becoming saturated at theaters and affordable to consumers. Once panels televisions hit sub $8k, we'll see a lot more opportunity.
 
We have worked on a number of multiple-screen digital signage arrays with up to nine HD screens. Resolutions have easily exceeded 5k, and some have been touch screen interactive.

Http://designreactor.com
(my day job)

I hate seeing 1080 scaled across multiple monitors. Often, the clients will spend a fortune on hardware for an installation, but not have proper content for the resolution. Red has been a key advantage in selling content creation services.
 
Cid J Salcido Uyarra said:
if you don't see much use of 4K in the next 3-4 years your on the wrong forum.
Click to expand...

This quote made me actually laugh aloud.


But just want to add my voice to the sentiment: even if you're not delivering 4k, having the 4k for VFX, especially for greenscreen work, is SUPER helpful, and makes a huge difference in your 1080p deliverable. Better tracks, better keys, more flexibility . . . needed for every shoot? Of course not; not every shoot needs VFX work in post. But when you want 4k, you WANT FOUR KAY.
 
Daniel Kunz said:
Hi, i know this sounds a bit harsh around here, but i wanted to know if any of your clients ever needed more than a 2K
Click to expand...

you sound more uninformed than harsh.

a thread with this type of question recently ran its course, so no need to re-invent the wheel - although in the future you might want to do a search first. there's nothing new here.

i'll save you the time by saying, just read everything Michael Cioni writes on reduser (and in the thread), and your questions will be answered: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?67108-Whats-the-use-of-4k-in-a-budget-camera

if you still think you don't need it, go buy something else. many do. the best places to get good info on lesser camera systems are dvxuser and dvinfo.
 
Daniel Kunz said:
Hi, i know this sounds a bit harsh around here, but i wanted to know if any of your clients ever needed more than a 2K export.
Please don't answer with "i once did a test.." type of film. only videos or films that were paid jobs or for a film festival.

I really don't see that much use of 4K in the next 3-4 years. Any arguments against my statement?
Click to expand...

Instead of trying to answer your question, which is pretty much a rhetorical one anyway, I'd just ask: what is your motivation for asking it?

Do you want to shoot a Scarlet/Epic at 2K and are wondering if that makes sense? Do you disagree with the RED philosophy and are trying to recruit others to agree with you? Are you implicitly hoping to belittle those of us who DO see the vale of shooting with 4K? As others have pointed out, the question isn't really a legitimate question if you have spent any time at all learning about RED and talking to REDusers. So, what's the underlying motivation? :mellow:
 
Just finished 6 ads in 5k (that were then downrez'ed to 720p for final delivery).

Delivered 4 stills yesterday that were 12k.

Have delivered animations in 6k before.
 
There is an old saying...Shit in, shit out. Even if I never deliver a 4k project, the color grading, image controle, HDR...will make my 2k export look better than it ever could have with my 2k camera.

Further more I like being an early adopter of technology. Where is my 28K camera and my firewire directly into my brain upload?
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Instead of trying to answer your question, which is pretty much a rhetorical one anyway, I'd just ask: what is your motivation for asking it?

Do you want to shoot a Scarlet/Epic at 2K and are wondering if that makes sense? Do you disagree with the RED philosophy and are trying to recruit others to agree with you? Are you implicitly hoping to belittle those of us who DO see the vale of shooting with 4K? As others have pointed out, the question isn't really a legitimate question if you have spent any time at all learning about RED and talking to REDusers. So, what's the underlying motivation? :mellow:
Click to expand...

I think it's just another person who wishes that the Scarlet was a less powerful and cheaper camera. I could be wrong.

As a side not though, for 3D we need to delver each eye in as high a resolution as possible because there is resolution loss when the two images are combined of a passive line by line display.
 
Hi everyone.

First of all THANK YOU for your responses. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand.
I don't argue about 4K beeing awesome and incredibly nice, i'm not saying that it is "overkill" or anything for that matter.
tho i would argue about reframing. If you have seen Philipp Bloom's beautiful piece "Chim Chim Che-ree" you can spot the reframes pretty easely because of the lens characteristics. (and if you would output the film at higher than 1080p you would resample... and loose your glorious sharpness anyway. so reframing is basically just for 2K delivery.)

What i'm asking myself is this: How long will it take until clients need more than 2K.

I know that there are (1 maybe 4) tv-sets coming in 2012 that have 4K (or most probably QuadHD)
I know that bandwidth is there. But there is no content (exept for a few youtube test-uploads, "yay look it's 4K on my 1080p screen!")

if i look at the market today, stores, tv, internet, trade-shows, cinema's... 99.9% of commercial clients, cinemas, tv-channels have just RECENTLY upgraded to HD or even FullHD.

HDTV here isn't FullHD, alot of Screens in Shopping malls and Tradeshows are 720p,
I haven't yet seen a 4K display, projector or anything close to that. And i live in Switzerland, the richest country on the planet.
Have you ever seen one?

Advertisements in theaters are shown either in 2K or even 1080p. and these are the biggest screens around.


Alot of people are yelling "Futureproof"... well who's to say that in 5-10 years everyone won't say "wow, look at that. it's not even 3D"
since most people buying a TV-Set nowadays are thinking... "3D, why not, it doesn't really add to the cost of the TV"

so you should probably shoot everything in 8K, 3D, 48fps and with a Lightfield sensor... (i know... dragon...)

That is kind of my first point.

My second point is: if i look at the films i made in the past, there is not one that i would consider worthy of the hassle of reopening my project, reloading all the footage and remastering it in 4-5K just to see it again. I'd much rather make a new one. People in those films look oldschool, the shooting-style is old, the grading is not how i do it today etc... you get my point.
Do you have alot of your films that you would want to watch where 2K isn't enough?

I watched a heartmoving Video that my brother cut together for my wedding. It was footage from my childhood and that of my wife. Incredibly beautiful to watch because of all the glorious memories. It was shot in Hi8 and Super8mm. both aren't 4K.
And i bet that those of you who are parents arent filming all of your kids soccergames, schoolplays and pottytalks in Redcode 5:1 4K. so why not go all the way? Those are the things your Kids will actually want to watch in 20 years on their wedding day! (And yes you should probably film their wedding also in 4K like tonaci is doing)

Most people don't even see the difference between 720p and 1080p.
(i have to admit that on my 1080p Epson cinema projector i have a hard time telling the difference in most movies myself.)

That's why i'm stating that 4K will not be relevant to my clients in the next 3-4 Years.
Except if i would make highres applications like Design Reactor or if i need high-res stills for publication.
I know i'm being a little stubborn about this subject. But i honestly believe that it's early-gadget-adopter fever for 95% of us. Myself included.

Yes i want a >4K camera, No i will probably not finish any video in more than 2K in the next 3-4 years.

PS: Those who have answered with YES, please post a link to your video so we can enjoy what you made!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top