F55: 4K is the future (video presentation)

There's no doubt ARRI is an industry leader and doesn't need to improve anything their EXISTING customers are already happy with (or won't switch to). But let's take a look at ARRI camera sales numbers going into 2013 to support what Marc Shipman-Mueller is in fact saying.

You can guarantee behind the scenes ARRI is working on a 4k (or better) camera and just some buying time for now.
 
starcentral said:
There's no doubt ARRI is an industry leader and doesn't need to improve anything their EXISTING customers are already happy with (or won't switch to). But let's take a look at ARRI camera sales numbers going into 2013 to support what Marc Shipman-Mueller is in fact saying.

You can guarantee behind the scenes ARRI is working on a 4k (or better) camera and just some buying time for now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am sure they are.... But I would be willing to bet that they are not going to release a 4K camera until they are satisfied with the image quality that it makes.
 
I question who is driving 4K.

I have NEVER heard anyone leave a cinema complaining that a film shot on HD/2K looked soft. Avatar didn't seem to suffer from its "lack of resolution" even on Imax screens. Resolution is NOT the most important factor in image quality. The people I hear lauding 4K are Red and Sony. Both these companies have obvious business interests in doing so.

I was recently at the BSC show in the UK where one stand was demonstrating the new Sony 4K monitor attached to an F55. A group of pros gathered around it nodded as a sales rep pointed out the giant leap it was over HD. I asked how the monitor was being fed 4K via a single HD SDI cable. Turns out it was 1080p all along! What I dislike is the patronising attempts to sell the Emporer's Fantastic 4K Clothes. For the record, I am certainly not accusing Alister of this, I always appreciate his balanced, knowledgeable opinions.

That said, it is starting to become a situation where 4K acquisition costs little more in terms of money or effort so I the question becomes "why not?" Sure, I'll have it for free but otherwise I have other priorities. We just mustn't let the tail wag the dog.
 
mmm said:
I have NEVER heard anyone leave a cinema complaining that a film shot on HD/2K looked soft.
Click to expand...

I hereby complain that a picture projected in 2k, at least with DLP, looks extremely pixelly to me. (I like to sit close.)

Yes, I DEFINITELY want 4k at my local multiplex. You're quite right that resolution isn't everything, by a long way, and it's certainly interesting that Arri is blowing their competitors out of the water with a camera which on paper has much worse resolution. But 2k isn't cutting it for me.

mmm said:
A group of pros gathered around it nodded as a sales rep pointed out the giant leap it was over HD. I asked how the monitor was being fed 4K via a single HD SDI cable. Turns out it was 1080p all along!
Click to expand...

Har! Yes, that kind of crud certainly doesn't help. You really need to cut through the marketing muck to the reality beneath. Arri vs Red is a superb example. But still...

David G. Smith said:
Yeah, I am sure they [Arri] are.... But I would be willing to bet that they are not going to release a 4K camera until they are satisfied with the image quality that it makes.
Click to expand...

That camera I want to see.
 
i would think the more pressing question for the new F's would be how widely implemented the codec will be.
 
MPB said:
i would think the more pressing question for the new F's would be how widely implemented the codec will be.
Click to expand...

+1

As nice as the features are on the F55 (and the updated Red Dragon/accessories for that matter), built-in ProRes4444 on the Alexa makes it my top choice on larger budget shoots. It's not just the image quality of the files, it's the simplicity and efficiency of the workflow pipeline it offers.
 
AtticusLake said:
I hereby complain that a picture projected in 2k, at least with DLP, looks extremely pixelly to me. (I like to sit close.)
Click to expand...

Until recently a majority of theaters were 2k, and even now most of the movies are projected in 2k, so they should all look the same in that regard. Digital 2k projection is digital 2k projection no matter what the aquisition method. Noisy video will look pixelated no matter what resolution it's projected at. To a point, clean video will look clean even for projected DVDs.

I'm firmly convinced that low noise and the codec used are more important than resolution.

If you don't believe me take a fairly clean clip, run it through neat video to remove noise, burn a DVD and project it with a good projector. It looks very good just like a DVD up rezed on your HDTV looks good.
 
Duke M. said:
... Noisy video will look pixelated no matter what resolution it's projected at. To a point, clean video will look clean even for projected DVDs.

I'm firmly convinced that low noise and the codec used are more important than resolution.
Click to expand...

Low noise and a good codec are definitely important, but I'm talking about being able to see the actual pixels from the projector it. With DLP, you can quite easily see the outlines of the individual pixels. Now, it's fair to say that better projection technology will eliminate the outlines, but those are still some pretty darned big pixels. And that must limit the image quality. It may not in all cases be the main limiting factor, but as the other factors are improved -- particularly as cameras improve and actually provide the resolution they advertise -- it will become increasingly important.
 
AtticusLake said:
Low noise and a good codec are definitely important, but I'm talking about being able to see the actual pixels from the projector it. With DLP, you can quite easily see the outlines of the individual pixels. Now, it's fair to say that better projection technology will eliminate the outlines, but those are still some pretty darned big pixels. And that must limit the image quality. It may not in all cases be the main limiting factor, but as the other factors are improved -- particularly as cameras improve and actually provide the resolution they advertise -- it will become increasingly important.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a pretty rotten projector. On a 40' wide screen (480" wide) divided by 1920 pixels wide and each pixel is .25". If you can see a quarter inch pixel you're either way too close or its a bad projector. (You mentioned seeing an outline, and you shouldn't.)
 
Hmmm... well, this was on their small screen -- would it have been 1k? I just found out that "DLP S2K" is actually 1k:

The new S2K chip for those smaller screens boasts the same technology and pixel size as DLP Cinema’s 2K and 4K chipsets, Duncan affirms. “It’s exactly one-fourth the size. Everything scales appropriately—the optics, the lens, the box, the electronics.

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/news-and-features/features/technology/e3ide2e0f4b10149d21ef0b0b4f9d00bf63

It seems insane to go to the cinema and watch a movie at 1/4 the resolution of my laptop...
 
mmm said:
I question who is driving 4K.

I have NEVER heard anyone leave a cinema complaining that a film shot on HD/2K looked soft. Avatar didn't seem to suffer from its "lack of resolution" even on Imax screens. Resolution is NOT the most important factor in image quality. The people I hear lauding 4K are Red and Sony. Both these companies have obvious business interests in doing so.
Click to expand...
mmm said:
Right...I've just watched the Oscar winning film "Searching for Sugarman" that was basically shot on a Sony EX1, ( maybe the EX1-R I'm not totally sure ).
That held up fine on screen even though no doubt Sony did a lot of post work on it after buying the film out of Sundance.....But there's only so much post work you can do on EX1 media before it falls apart.
So, there you go.
Click to expand...
 
Right...I've just watched the Oscar winning film "Searching for Sugarman" that was basically shot on a Sony EX1, ( maybe the EX1-R I'm not totally sure ).
That held up fine on screen even though no doubt Sony did a lot of post work on it after buying the film out of Sundance.....But there's only so much post work you can do on EX1 media before it falls apart.
Click to expand...

Once you get a little bit of noise out of and EX1 image it looks great. The Michael Jackson movie 'This is It' was 90% shot on an EX1. No one noticed. Parts of 'Battlefield LA' were shot on an EX1 (I know the graveyard scene was).

Most of Crank 2 with Jason Stratham was shot on an Xh-A1, which is only 1440x1080i but no on noticed on that one either. Resolution is not a holy grail. Color rendition to convey emotion is, IMHO, much more important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top