PDA

View Full Version : Digital Cinema OBSOLETE - ULTRAHD is IN!!



ironwolf
10-05-2006, 04:17 PM
http://www.tdgresearch.com/pdfs2006/TDG_Opinions_UltraHD_100506.pdf

There have been only a few moments in my technology career when I saw something that truly excited me - that is, made shivers run up the back of my neck and goose bumps appear, letting me know I was witnessing was a truly breakthrough technology, not just some repackaging, re-integration, or re-combination of the existing, but something capable of really changing the digital technology landscape......

CONTINUED

http://www.tdgresearch.com/pdfs2006/TDG_Opinions_UltraHD_100506.pdf

THoff
10-05-2006, 05:46 PM
Great, the RED is obsolete, and it hasn't even been released yet. :-Mad(DBG):

darwinandpaine
10-05-2006, 05:54 PM
I think people are getter crazy with this stuff. We can't even get people to switch over to HDTV or desire anything more than 16-bit CD quality audio --- hell, we've even backtracked on that with MP3s and the like. At a certain point, the returns are so marginal for most people as to make stuff like this complete overkill. If this weren't the case, every movie we see at theaters would be shot on 70mm.

bluetuned
10-05-2006, 06:32 PM
I really don't see this becoming a standard of any sort in the near future. Hell, the benefits of HDTV don't become really apparent until you get a sizeable tv in front of you, and even then, most people really don't care that much. Standard definition really looks just fine on average sized tv's, and the vast majority of families cannot afford anything more. Having an uber high quality image isn't going to make anyone rush back to the theaters either. When it costs 40 bucks for two people to go see a crappy movie and get popcorn (next to 5 bucks to rent a movie and get some microwave popcorn at home), and the movie must rake in a hundred million to even begin seeing profits, the studios have lost. Making the image nicer won't solve those problems. An image that nice is for techies only, the average consumer doesn't want or have any need for something like that.

DavidBeier
10-05-2006, 09:07 PM
This resolution craze is killing me. I really think it absolutly has to stop at 4k. 4k delivers all the resolution of the best 35mm negatives. That's more than enough. That's all we could ever want considering film NEVER delivers anywhere near that kind of resolution when all the gerations are made and it's projected. Honestly, there's only so much resolution we need.

I want us to reach a level and just stop. As far as HDTVs, I think we need to get to 1080p and quit. Cameras I can understand wanting a 4k imaging chip.

There's a lot of things more important than resolution. This desire to get resolution at the cost of other things is what frustrates me so much about HDV. If Pansonic knocked on my door and asked me if there was one thing I wanted them to add to the HVX200, I wouldn't tell them higher rez chips, I'd ask them for some more lattitude, maybe more sensitivity and less noise.

Erik Olson
10-05-2006, 09:26 PM
I hope it goes - and it has already - to 8k and well beyond. Moore demands it, and as the rule goes, we will embrace it... eventually. He states clearly in his article that "theatrical" exhibition should be at the very highest resolution technically possible.

Remember, just because NHK has the capacity to resolve and capture 8k and beyond does not mean that they have a way to manage and distribute it. Anyone who counts Sony out of the game only needs to look to where they acquire nearly all of their technology - ah yes, NHK.

As is everything else in technology - 4k is the future tomorrow and forever - until it isn't... in roughly fifteen minutes.

What remains to be seen is whether the government is ready to subsidize the transition of consumer America from the much vaunted, but now seemingly obsolete (and as yet fully unrealized in a commercial sense) 1080p HD standard. Recall that we haven't even hit the digital divide threshold where all NTSC becomes ATSC Digital.

It might be a little early to declare that the 4k Horsemen of the Apocalypse (oops, better make that 8k Horsemen of the Apocalypse) are beset upon us.

If you use your way-back machine, you'll see that those wacky engineering fools at NHK had interlaced 1080+ images going waaay back in the late 1980s. You can see how long that took to finally "get" here.

It got here twenty-five years later - except that it hasn't gotten here yet.

Someday, they'll have TVs you can tape to your wall. Don't buy anything until then and please don't make any movies until this emerging technology settles out.

e

philnerd
10-05-2006, 09:53 PM
Good grief, my eyes can't resolve 4K....

majormorgan
10-06-2006, 09:26 AM
In the UK we are struggling to get people to switch over from Analogue SD to Digital SD, let alone adopting HD which is only available on 3 channels on SKY. And ultra HD, you gotta kid me.

Red was saying that their 4K camera is Ultra HD and I believe it. 8K, who needs it at our level. Working at HD res with render times and disk storage is big enough and future proofing with the Red is cool in my book. But I'm not looking any higher than that [talk to me in 3 years time].

Lol.

Stay safe

Majormorgan

lpcvideo1
10-10-2006, 07:25 AM
IMAX theaters would be the only argument for larger resolution currently available.

Erik Olson
10-10-2006, 07:49 AM
IMAX is definitely the defest definition available. I'm happy that it is now available in so many markets. Gives those guys from the OC a good place to peddle their lovely films.

e

BenB
10-10-2006, 09:13 AM
Can't get a new technology to overtake another technology that no one is buying. It means absolutly nothing until it's in theaters and/or peoples homes.

harddrive
10-10-2006, 10:45 AM
This resolution craze is killing me. I really think it absolutly has to stop at 4k. 4k delivers all the resolution of the best 35mm negatives. That's more than enough. ............ As far as HDTVs, I think we need to get to 1080p and quit.
For home use I agree. I see little point in going beyond 1080p, it's the law of diminishing returns.

But I've got the flyer from IBC about UHDTV, and home cinema isn't even mentioned. Examples include museum archives, lifelike live relays, and exhibitions, with "medical, security and monitoring" mentioned at the bottom.

I don't see UHD as a general format, but I do see it fitting a definate niche. A bit like IMAX. Digital cinema comes somewhere in between.

There's a lot of things more important than resolution. This desire to get resolution at the cost of other things is what frustrates me so much about HDV.
I fully agree with the first sentence, and the move to CMOS from CCD must be seen as significant here, with the much improved highlight handling it promises. That may be more significant in overall image quality than the difference between HDV and such as DVCProHD.

DavidBeier
10-10-2006, 11:30 AM
But I've got the flyer from IBC about UHDTV, and home cinema isn't even mentioned. Examples include museum archives, lifelike live relays, and exhibitions, with "medical, security and monitoring" mentioned at the bottom.

I don't see UHD as a general format, but I do see it fitting a definate niche. A bit like IMAX. Digital cinema comes somewhere in between.

Perhaps. What I don't want however is for the film industry to adopt it as the norm. 4k is where we should be heading and where we should quit. It gives us the full resolution 35mm is capible of and, with digital projection, actually will end up looking far sharper than 35mm ever could. 35mm/4k resolution has been the top of the line since we stopped doing 70mm. It's a good platue to stop at. My concern comes that if some feature films adopt something higher than 4k then others will want 8k and others even more and we'll be in a new technology physicle that will end up being never ending like computer games (ever few months a new resolution becomes the true high rez) and it'll also most likely increase the costs needed to make feature films which are already obscenely high.

harddrive
10-10-2006, 11:58 AM
I'll agree with all that, and I think that's more or less what will come to pass (a 4k digital cinema norm) - just as 35mm became the cinema standard, whilst 70mm found a very valuable IMAX niche.

But the UHD "niche" could be MUCH broader than IMAX ever was, especially for lifelike live viewing, not just what we think of as cinema, and that's before we get onto scientific/medical applications.

THoff
10-10-2006, 12:07 PM
If and when resolution beyond 4K becomes practical and affordable in the home, why would you not want that? It's not going to happen next year, or in five years, but eventually we'll look back at 1080p and think of it as primitive and low-resolution.

ksteiger
10-10-2006, 12:38 PM
If and when resolution beyond 4K becomes practical and affordable in the home, why would you not want that? It's not going to happen next year, or in five years, but eventually we'll look back at 1080p and think of it as primitive and low-resolution.
I wish it worked that way. In the audio world we have become so used to unnatural sounds and low resolution delivery (MP3's thank you) that we forget that the technology of 50 years ago was, in some ways, superior.
This UHD technology sounds like a novelty for theatrical projection not a home based system. I notice that the vast majority of video programming in this country is SD. Consider how long it has been taking to switch over. My Ford Focus was supposed to be airborne at this point...

villeluna
10-10-2006, 12:46 PM
3D moving holograms is what we want

Pukki
10-10-2006, 12:57 PM
Maybe well get new cameras with pixel shifting from 540 pixels to 4320... wee!

DavidBeier
10-10-2006, 01:28 PM
If and when resolution beyond 4K becomes practical and affordable in the home, why would you not want that? It's not going to happen next year, or in five years, but eventually we'll look back at 1080p and think of it as primitive and low-resolution.

I don't think so. Wasn't the case with 70mm. It was popular for a bit and now hardly any feature films use it because of the expense and other issues. Good 1080p is pretty damn nice. Considering how much is lost through countless generations and digital intermediates, digitally projected 1080p can resolve more detail than the average 35mm film projected in theaters (wish I had a link to the report about that on hand). Personally, unless people want TVs that are going to be the size of their back wall, I really don't see too much of a reason beyond 1080p. For that matter, I don't even know if any of these technologies will catch on. Most plasma screens which are the most people are only doing something like 1024x786? There's also whether or not people are actually going to go out an re-buy their how video collection for HD-DVD or Blue-Ray even though they just got finished getting everything on SD DVD. What I'm saying is that there is hopefully going to be a point where we agree the resolution is "good enough" and don't want to keep blowing our cash on upgrades. 1080p for home, 4k for theater, and perhaps 8k for IMAX seems reasonible for me.