Death of HD? "2013...2K and 4K to Consumer Cameras"

bruceallen said:
I think this conversation is sorely lacking a proper discussion about audience and content.

You don't need 50% of the world to have a 4K screen or a 3D screen to make a profit selling content in those formats.

You need a sufficiently large audience and for that audience to provide enough financial support (whether by buying your product, by watching ads, by buying other related products, by subscribing, etc). That audience can be really small.

For example, in the fine art world, the audience paying the artist per work is usually... 1.

Personally, I doubt that the people who just pay for cable and have 5 standard-def LCD TVs in their house will ever be a great market for my content anyway. So I don't care if they upgrade to 4K or not.

The enthusiastic young consumer is more of my target market. And they are far more likely to demand a quality standard that at least approaches other media.

If the game or app they are using on their phone or the other content they are watching on their computer or interactive TV is crisp and my content looks like blurry HD with bad colors, it is a problem.

I do a lot of post work... and there are real advantages to having a > HD camera in order to end up with good crisp HD content. So yes, HD will be a less-preferred acquisition format for me.

Just because it's TV does't mean it needs to be mass media. This is the digital, personalized world. Personally I think that the "long tail" is over-hyped... but the people thinking in 20th century terms are similarly off-the-mark.

At the same time, I saw a 35mm print of Barry Lyndon last night. Wow. Wonderful stuff. Who cares if it is 1080p or not. If some camera manufacturer wanted to offer a digital camera that offered color rendition like that I'd rent it in a heartbeat for certain projects. Oh yeah... it's called film!

Theatre was packed BTW with a standby line out the door. Surprisingly, there were people for whom watching it on a crappy TV just didn't cut it :)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...


I know they don't have 50% of the world to sell 4K to, because 50% of the world is women, and this tech thing is a guy thing.
 
bruceallen said:
For example, in the fine art world, the audience paying the artist per work is usually... 1.
Click to expand...

That is sometimes correct. One person is buying an original. But just perhaps more money is made overall by copies of that work? Not too much a stretch of imagination is it? And the more people you can reach the more profit you can realize.
 
Westside71 said:
That is sometimes correct. One person is buying an original. But just perhaps more money is made overall by copies of that work? Not too much a stretch of imagination is it? And the more people you can reach the more profit you can realize.
Click to expand...
That is always correct, I do a lot of work in the art world, and most of an artist's profit comes from copies of his own originals; it's quite simply easier to sell 10 works for $5000 than one for $50,000.
 
Kolor-Pikker said:
That is always correct, I do a lot of work in the art world, and most of an artist's profit comes from copies of his own originals; it's quite simply easier to sell 10 works for $5000 than one for $50,000.
Click to expand...

OK but my basic point stands, right?

Even if only 1% of American households had 4K, 3D TVs... they nevertheless are a market that you as a content creator or distributor could sell to, perhaps profitably.

Since those folks paid for a lot of expensive hardware, they're likely willing to pay more for content too. Some filmmakers might have a greater chance getting $10 out of them than $1 from the general population. Advertisers would love to reach those people too. Product placement wants to reach them... they are people with disposable income who don't seem to mind wasting it on immature technology!

I don't want to make elitist cinema. And I'm also the same guy on Red's forum arguing with Jarred when he says The Avengers are screwed because they shot 1080p :)

But at the same time, the idea that it is desirable to shoot in a lowest-common-denominator format just because that's what broadcasters are asking for and because most people can't see the difference because they haven't upgraded their TVs yet is silly.

When 4K cameras become cheap to rent and post costs come down then I see no real reason to hire an "HD" camera that probably only resolves 70% of what HD is capable of. Heck, even if you're working on a talking-head show... why NOT just use a 4K cam if it can down-sample to pristine HD in-camera (like Sony's new cams... and I'm sure this will become the standard for any new 4K cams) and have a 4K master on hand as well?

With Red One etc there were workflow compromises (you had to trade 4K for a more convoluted HD workflow) but in 2013 and 2014 those compromises should no longer be around.

Do I think the broadcast world as a whole will change overnight? No. But do I care about the broadcast world much? No. Heck, I have never owned cable. I have a fast internet connection, a 1080p 3D projector and a bunch of blu-rays. Am I in the minority? Yes. Am I still a market you can sell to? Of course.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Last edited:
androbot2084 said:
What held back the Avengers from being future proof was shooting it at 24 frames per second.
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure where to begin on that one, let alone the concept that a hugely successful movie was "held back"... :)

Though as one of the guys who removed a lot of cables, pulleys, C-stands, explosive hydraulic lifts and camera towers out for VFX shots for the trailer on that actual film... I am quite glad that it was a 24fps release! Then again, funnily enough, we did also do quite a few slow-mo effects for later trailers where having source material shot at 48fps would have saved days and days and days of Twixtoring (and hand-mattes and hand patches to fix every single glitch Twixtor made). Win some, lose some...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
The content is the problem with higher frame rates. It makes the costumes look phony. Maybe 30 frames per second would be a better choice.
 
androbot2084 said:
The content is the problem with higher frame rates. It makes the costumes look phony.
Click to expand...

No, the high frame rate makes everything look live, and thus like a stage play or a soap opera. If you want it to look fictional, you want the slower frame rate.


Maybe 30 frames per second would be a better choice.
Click to expand...

There's not a whole lot of difference in terms of motion cadence between that and 24. Some, but not that much.
 
David Jimerson said:
No, the high frame rate makes everything look live, and thus like a stage play or a soap opera. If you want it to look fictional, you want the slower frame rate.
Click to expand...

An excellent and often overlooked subtle point of differentiation in this debate. You don't have to choose fictional movie 'magic'.

Although you'd think a fantasy like the Hobbit surely begs for it.
 
Gary Huff said:
Films are shot at 24fps because it was a technical compromise to have the most workable motion without using the most film. We associate it with "fictional" because that's what we're used to.
Click to expand...

I dont think its just an association because we're used to it. 60 fps looks more 'live' and 'real' because its closer to the framerate of our eyes :)

24 fps doesnt look like real life and thus takes us 'out of our world'. More dream like.
 
Gary Huff said:
Films are shot at 24fps because it was a technical compromise to have the most workable motion without using the most film. We associate it with "fictional" because that's what we're used to.
Click to expand...

That's one theory as to why it was chosen, but I disagree that it stuck only because we're "used to it." It just doesn't look like real life. A faster frame rate does.

Shows which normally shoot at 24 or 30 who decide to do live shows never shoot them at 24 or 30, because no one would buy them as live.
 
Stab said:
I dont think its just an association because we're used to it. 60 fps looks more 'live' and 'real' because its closer to the framerate of our eyes :)

24 fps doesnt look like real life and thus takes us 'out of our world'. More dream like.
Click to expand...
Our eyes don't really have a "frame rate" or "resolution" per say, they are persistant scanners with a light-intensity variable perception of motion. Our eyes generate a composite image of what we see over time, and constant microscopic eye movement "paints" the image we see as we look over a given scene; in other words, the resolution of our vision is additive, like cameras with "pixel-shift".

Eye "Frame-Rate" is a function of light intensity vs. ambient light level, in other words a white object flashing by in a dark space is easily perceptible to a person (possibly as fast as 1/320th of a second), while a grey object in a muted space is harder to track; our frame rate is on a per-object basis. 24fps and the 1/48 shutter that typically comes with it is just below the lower limit of what our eyes accept as constant motion, and with a suitable display method that blanks out persistence of vision, it creates that cinema look.

The reason phosphor-based displays (CRT) appear crisper to our eyes regarding motion than LCD tech, is because the amount of time a pixel stays lit is shorter than it's "off" time, which blanks our vision of the previous frame, whereas LCD just shows frames consecutively with no "off" time. Newer LCD screens and digital projectors now have black-frame insertion, which inserts a black frame after every video frame to compensate for this. Film projectors have black-out by nature of a physical shutter, which is also a part of why we see 24p the way we do in theaters.

In the end, the best frame rate for your project depends on the project, I can imagine 48fps looking great in a Sci-Fi with lots of CG and a very slick/sharp aesthetic, but not for an epic fantasy...
 
Last edited:
Zephyrnoid said:
while 2K/4K are fine and dandy, some of the most pressing issues dogging the prosumer cameras, have yet to be resolved.
I speak of Moire, Jello effect from rolling shutters and the less than stellar DR from some of the sensors out there.

This may all change simultaneously but I sure hope that we don't see 2k/4K DSLR's before the other issues have been worked out first ..
Besides. I'm confident the DSLR form factor is almost over.
Click to expand...

+1

Here are things I'm waiting for:

- global shutter
- 13-15 stops of dynamic range
- ISO 1600 (clean)
- 60+ frames per second
- affordable media ($10-20 / hour)
- affordable camera (sub-$5,000)
- renderless editing

Some of those things are already here, but nothing exists with all of them together. And if you look at every single one of them, having more and more pixels pushes them further and further into the future.
 
Kolor-Pikker said:
The reason phosphor-based displays (CRT) appear crisper to our eyes regarding motion than LCD tech, is because the amount of time a pixel stays lit is shorter than it's "off" time, which blanks our vision of the previous frame, whereas LCD just shows frames consecutively with no "off" time.
Click to expand...

No no no. It's because CRT's are actually crisper. A CRT at 85hz will BLOW any LCD in motion. Gamers know this. Filmmakers don't.

There is a persistent motion blur with LCD's. Just move your mouse around and follow it with your eyes. That's called "pixel response time". The time it takes for a white pixel to turn black. It's not that fast.

LCD's that insert a black frame... are still bad. Maybe even worse.

Then compare this to plasmas. They are excellent for motion compared to LCD's.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top