4k or Bust

A

androbot2084

Carbonite Member
When I show up at at a gig I want the main thing that seperates me from the competition is my ability to shoot, record, capture, edit, deliver and display 4k video. From the way I see things if I can't accomplish those tasks then I am a failure and I might as well just hand over the job to someone who is infinitely more qualified than me. In other words I promise my clients the moon and I deliver.

What concerns me is just like with high definition technology there is tremendous pressure to downconvert in order to facilitate mainstream distribution. Unfortunately downconversion defeats the purpose of high definition which is to provide better picture quality although I have no objection to downconversion as long as content is delivered as a 2 disc set with one copy in standard definition and one copy in high definition. So just like with high definition there will be tremendous pressure to shoot in ultra high definition and downconvert to high definition and this should be avoided as much as possible as this will undermine support of the 4k format.

What the proponents of downconversion will argue is that the delivery of 4k content is not feasible at this time and the Red camera offers a way of shooting the best high definition possible yet will not be obsolete when 4k technology matures. My counter is that 4k technology must be developed using existing technology that is readily availble even if one must resort to using a parallel means of aquisition and delivery. The 4k formats suggests using a quad system so I suspect that a quad system should be promoted for the compression and capture. The camera should be equipped with a battery of 4 compresion engines dedicated to each quadrant of the picture and a battery of 4 hard drives for recording. This should be captured to a battery of 4 computers each equipped with a 2k editing system dedicated to each quadrant of the picture. Final deliver should be as a four disc set with each disc displaying 1 quadrant of the picture. A battery of 4 HD-DVD decks can be used hooked to a battery of four 2k projectors.
 
So... umm.... you edit on four computers at once?

Why not just use proxies for editing?

Rendering in quadrants will vaastly increase the chances of strange compression glitches (Just try saving a Jpeg2000 using a grid based optimzation, you'll see every square.)

Syncing 4 2k projector could prove.... nightmareish, and well 4 times as expensive as a 2k projector.

Who cares what resolution you shoot in, if the quality is infinitely worse than somebody who could do the same job?

4 hard drive raids are large heavy, power hungry little monoliths which are best used in a studio, not in the field.

Just who is this objecting to? Almost no theaters will buy a 2k projector let alone 4. And even then there is no financial incentive.

No average joe has, or may ever have, a 4k television.

If you're doing a film print, many already print at 4k, so they wouldn't mind you bringing in a hard drive or two with your film on it.

I don't see what any of this would hope to accomplish, or why.
 
yes.. most people will be shooting 2k ceiling with Red.. no question about it. Everyone will turn on the 4k switch for a moment when they get the camera, go wow, they switch it back. Lets learn to play with 2k first, then in a couple years when everyone is just cranking upto 4k we can switch the camera back to 4k.

And.. remember.. the sensor is replacable in the Red. So 10 years from now when your shooting with the Red Three in 8k, you can bring in your old dinasour Red One and upgrade the sensor to use as a B camera.

Just like we still use those old 35mm Russian Tank Konvas today.
 
I think the modular upgradability of the Red camera will be a tremendous advantage. I know from experience that it is no fun spending a lot of money on a camera and then having it become obsolete with no way of upgrading it. Red promises to make obsolete concept of obsolete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top