Why 4K?

[joshua csehak]

mainly due to the fact I can't stand the number of rude people in the audience,

Drives me crazy too, but sometimes it's good. I saw Cloverfield with a theater full of spastic teenagers, and for the first minute or two they were talking and being really annoying. Then the movie got going and shut them all up. It was pretty cool.

But normally I can't stand people texting or even checking the time during a movie. It's like a shining beacon of light -- so distracting. One time someone in the front rows had one of those bluetooth headsets in and it kept blinking this retarded blue light the whole time. Drove me crazy.

Okay, done ranting.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I've had people answer the phone and start talking like it was okay! Amazes me sometimes that people really have no regard for others.

Which is probably why I put a 126" screen up in my house that at the moment I am just driving with 720p. I can at least pause it when I need to go get a beer!

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

As 4K might be the future, there's still one aspect we need to think about. That being 100 years of film not suitable for 4K. When studios can't even deliver a crystal clear edge sharp 1080p version of their 35mm copy, I find it hard to believe that they'll be able to output to 4K. That being said, sure - future movies will be in this format, but when you hold it against 100 years of film history it's not gonna' be tomorrow that people are gonna invest in a 4K television set/projector. I think 4K is further away then Red claims. And of course they need to push it, because things take time, and if no one pushes the tecnology it won't happen.

 

[Elsie N]

I think 4K is further away then Red claims.

Vaporware?

 

[Andrew Rieger]

As with all things, tech moves forward and naturally, the next step from HD is to go into the K's. The Japanese have been working on some super high res TV projects for the last couple of years so it may be a decade away but adopting now will make easier down the road.

Red is not overoptimistic, 4K delivery for TV may be some years away but film is really pushing for it, especially for fx work. In fact, Red has become one of the most popular cams for effects work due to the increased resolution. Within a decade, I can see a 6K workflow being commonplace.

The amazing thing about that is that it allows you to create lesser quality versions that are night and day better than recording in that format from the start. I can see a film being shot in 6K for an IMAX projection, converted to 4K for standard digital projection, 2k for a 35mm print out (how ever long they keep doing that) and a 1080p version for Bluray and HDTV. All of that from one source. Red is making that happen.

 

[David Rasberry]

As 4K might be the future, there's still one aspect we need to think about. That being 100 years of film not suitable for 4K. When studios can't even deliver a crystal clear edge sharp 1080p version of their 35mm copy, I find it hard to believe that they'll be able to output to 4K. That being said, sure - future movies will be in this format, but when you hold it against 100 years of film history it's not gonna' be tomorrow that people are gonna invest in a 4K television set/projector. I think 4K is further away then Red claims. And of course they need to push it, because things take time, and if no one pushes the tecnology it won't happen.

We were watching Heavens Fall the other night on standard DVD, not even blu-ray, at 480p analog component on a 32" 720p HDTV. Some of the scenes were a bit noisy and one could clearly see the grain of the original film even at 480p! This was shot Panavision S35 with Fuji film stocks and is a pretty recent release.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think you have to think of 4K distribution/exhibition as any other presentation format like Blu-Ray, IMAX, 70mm prints, whatever -- all sorts of images and levels of technical quality will be released once the infrastructure is in place. 4K digital origination is just going to look sharper and more detailed compared to older movies, etc.

A lot of people raved at the 4K restoration and digital release of "Blade Runner", only to find out later that it was projected on the 4K Sony projector using a 2K DCP. It looked great on the big screen.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

MPEG2 compression for DVD can really emphasize the film grain at times. But also grain structures are typically visible on a good encode of a film if they preserve the details well. And if they don't do a lot of touch up to to the HD master in order to remove the grain.

Judging by the trend at CES this year and last year, it seems the next jump for HDTV displays is going to be quad-HD (4KHD) 3840X2160. We will see some displays at that resolution hit mainstream channels by the end of this year. Mostly high-end computer displays, pro monitors, etc.. TV makers are ready with the tech, but are not too eager to push it onto the mass market just yet with so many people having just recently adopted a 1080p display.

You can bet that 4K or QHD displays will be common within the next 2 years. Initial marketing will be similar to how HD sets were marketed 8 years ago. There's really no content, but they will try to upsell people with upconversion. Hopefully REDRAY can find inroads to fill the content gap and give people something pretty to look at.

For now though, I think the big push is going to be more focused on firmly establishing 1080p broadcasts and content as well as 3D. ESPN and DirecTV will be broadcasting the World Cup game (June 12 I think) in 3D.

Most current 120Hz and faster LCD TVs, as well as all Samsung DLP and Sony LCOS TVs sold over the past 2 years are "3D ready" in that all they need is an IR sync box and shutter glasses. Some may need a firmware update if they attach the sync box via USB. Panasonic's 2010 V series plasmas are 3D capable as well and so are a couple of the upcoming Pro series plasma models. IMO, I think the plasmas give the best 3D experience of all these, however all the consumer 3D tech gives me a headache when I watch for more than about 10 minutes.

I'll probably pick up a 3D enabled Panny TC-P50V25 or the 50" pro series panel with 3D when released. Mostly because I would like to be able to do more 3D creation here.

...I wonder what the solution will be for 3D and RED Rocket™™ in terms of workflow. Perhaps we'll need two Rocket cards? Preliminary details are only trickling out on the new Panny Pro plasmas, but it seems the 3D models can sync two inputs on the display for 3D, meaning the 2x dual-link HD-SDI board may be just what the doctor ordered, along with two RED Rocket™™ cards, for posting in 3D with RED content. Of course HDMI 1.4 spec supports 3D over a single connection, but I don't think the Rocket will allow for this... Or will it??? Technically HDMI 1.3a is the same as 1.4, but 1.4 just has some extensions added without adding to bandwidth and has new provisions for audio. The PS3 is HDMI 1.3a compliant and is said to support the upcoming Blu-Ray 3D... The real difference between the two specs is the audio, which PS3 HDMI audio has always been crippled anyway.

 

[Chris Clogg]

I agree completely about HDTV or even bluray being rather new to most people... I think a lot of people live in the DVD world and are quite oblivious to bluray and 4k. Hopefully bluray will become the norm soon and then 4k can slither it's way in!

I noticed Jim is posting measured resolutions for cameras in his thread... What would something like an hv20 (uses hdv compression) be considered? Because it is 1440x1080 but stretched to 1920...

-cc

 

[Stephen Matthews]

I know this sounds crazy for a cinefile but I never got into blu-ray. I just built up my DVD collection, now I have bills to pay and blu-ray just isn't enough incentive to change. My main beef is that optical discs is a failed format, from scratches and storage to light warping and read errors, I hate them. Why not dvd-ram or mini disc style similar to old floppy disc's. I just hope the next step up in format takes this into consideration, along the lines of red-ray.

 

[David Rasberry]

How much resolution do we really need in a practical sense for normal viewing distances vs screen size? With digital displays if you can't see the pixel matrix of the display at your normal viewing distance, then you have already exceeded the level of detail your eyes can resolve.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I know this sounds crazy for a cinefile but I never got into blu-ray. I just built up my DVD collection, now I have bills to pay and blu-ray just isn't enough incentive to change. My main beef is that optical discs is a failed format, from scratches and storage to light warping and read errors, I hate them. Why not dvd-ram or mini disc style similar to old floppy disc's. I just hope the next step up in format takes this into consideration, along the lines of red-ray.

I'm not understanding you; DVD-RAM and Mini disc are optical disks. The failure you describe is the result of negligent and improper handling rather than a failure of the media itself, so how does that make the format a failure?

 

[Elsie N]

How much resolution do we really need in a practical sense for normal viewing distances vs screen size? With digital displays if you can't see the pixel matrix of the display at your normal viewing distance, then you have already exceeded the level of detail your eyes can resolve.

All I know is that I can look at a 4K image on my 2k 23" monitor at 1/4 rez, then 1/2 rez, then full rez, and see great leaps in quality each time.

 

[Stephen Matthews]

I'm not understanding you; DVD-RAM and Mini disc are optical disks. The failure you describe is the result of negligent and improper handling rather than a failure of the media itself, so how does that make the format a failure?

yes but they are never exposed to the elements or scratches because they are only exposed when they are in a machine. you are right me referring to optical discs as a failed format is improper, I mean the use of them without a protective case is a failed format of delivery and makes no sense to me. It's similar to giving consumers a roll of tape for VHS and having them handle and load it into a projector each time risking handling the delicate information. All I'm saying is that we should never have released CD's DVD's or Blu-ray on a disc that is not protected by a case. Now that is just my opinion there are obviously industry standards and the potential to make more money that comes into play here.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Anyone who has seen the Red reel projected in 4K knows that it looks great -- and Red One footage isn't technically "4K" in resolution. So this notion that only "true" 4K resolution is going to look good or be acceptable for 4K projection is basically saying that anything currently shot on the Red One is not future-proofed. Which is not true. Lots of things under 4K in terms of measurable resolution could look good with a 4K projector on a big screen. Otherwise, there is hardly anything made today or in the past that can be released in 4K, is there?

 

[Felix K.]

Question: these 4k projectors, what is their measured resolution?

 

[Jannard]

Anyone who has seen the Red reel projected in 4K knows that it looks great -- and Red One footage isn't technically "4K" in resolution. So this notion that only "true" 4K resolution is going to look good or be acceptable for 4K projection is basically saying that anything currently shot on the Red One is not future-proofed. Which is not true. Lots of things under 4K in terms of measurable resolution could look good with a 4K projector on a big screen. Otherwise, there is hardly anything made today or in the past that can be released in 4K, is there?

David... nothing delivered at 1080P measures full 1080P resolution either. So the argument needs to be "what does the industry consider enough resolution packaged in a 1080P (or 4K) wrapper that "is good enough" in terms of percentage of output resolution.

My opinion, not that it is worth anything, is that roughly 80% of packaged resolution is probably good enough. That means for 4K and that means for 1080P... as these specs have already been adopted for 1080P.

So what qualifies at these specs for 4K? Film (4K scan) and RED (so far).

Jim

 

[Rick Burnett]

My questions have been about compression methods. For instance, digital cable where I live in HD is HORRIBLE. Absolutely horrible. The artifacts in the blacks are very very annoying.

One thing that happens when resolutions get higher and higher is that

(1) Codec issues become clearer since the sharper the image reveals more issues.

(2) Upscaling technologies in consumer equipment are usually pretty crappy.

I've not seen anyone really talk about those issues. A lot of non-technical people I know refuse to watch shows from Netflix because their codecs produce strange strobing when the scenes shift a lot.

With higher data rates needed for these larger images, either better codecs need to be developed or cheaper media.

That's my main concerns anyways.

 

[Jannard]

My questions have been about compression methods. For instance, digital cable where I live in HD is HORRIBLE. Absolutely horrible. The artifacts in the blacks are very very annoying.

One thing that happens when resolutions get higher and higher is that

(1) Codec issues become clearer since the sharper the image reveals more issues.

(2) Upscaling technologies in consumer equipment are usually pretty crappy.

I've not seen anyone really talk about those issues. A lot of non-technical people I know refuse to watch shows from Netflix because their codecs produce strange strobing when the scenes shift a lot.

With higher data rates needed for these larger images, either better codecs need to be developed or cheaper media.

That's my main concerns anyways.

How about less artifacts at lower data rates? Ask someone who has seen RED Ray (RED 4K) at 10-15 mbits/sec.

Jim

 

[Elsie N]

My questions have been about compression methods.

With higher data rates needed for these larger images, either better codecs need to be developed or cheaper media.

That's my main concerns anyways.

Don't worry, I think Graeme is on it. :emote_happyhappyRed 4k, formerly known as Red Ray)

edit: oops! Didn't know Jim was gonna respond.