GH4 Delivering "4k"...

[Thomas Smet]

Well, if most people cannot visually benefit from 4K, why is there a push or talk at all about 8K? Supposedly they want to make 4K standard by 2017 - that's only 2 years from now (it's almost 2015), and then immediately 8K:

8K Resolution

"8K resolution is the highest ultra high definition television (UHDTV) resolution to exist in digital television and digital cinematography. 8K refers to the horizontal resolution of these formats, which all are on the order of 8,000 pixels, forming the total image dimensions (7680x4320).[1] 8K is a display resolution that may eventually be the successor to 4K resolution. 4K is speculated to become a mainstream standard in televisions by 2017.[2]One advantage of high-resolution displays such as 8K is to have each pixel be indistinguishable from another to the human eye from a much closer distance. On an 8K screen sized 52”, this effect would be achieved in a distance of 50.8 cm (20 inches) from the screen, and on a 92” screen at 91.44 cm (3 feet) away. Another practical purpose of this resolution is in combination with a cropping technique used in film editing. This allows filmmakers to film in a high resolution such as 8K, with a wide lens, or at a farther distance from a potentially dangerous subject, intending to zoom and crop digitally in post-production, a portion of the original image to match a smaller resolution such as the current industry standard for High-definition televisions (1080p, 720p & 480p).[3]
Few video cameras have the capability to film in 8K, with innovators NHK being one of the only companies to have created a small broadcasting camera with an 8K Image sensor.[4] Sony and Red Digital Cinema Camera Company are both working to bring larger 8K sensors in more of their cameras in the coming years.[4] Although 8K will not be a mainstream resolution anytime soon, a major reason filmmakers are pushing for 8K cameras is to get better 4K footage. Through a process called downsampling, using a higher resolution 8K image downsampled to 4K could create a sharper picture with richer colors than a 4K camera would be able to achieve on its own with a lower resolution sensor.[4]"

In other words, it's not stopping at 4K - the push is on for 8K. After that, I don't know if there is more, but there you have it - 4K is old tech.

So companies can sell more TVs. This is why they are pushing 4k right now. Sales of HD equipment has really dropped out and because of the competitive pricing there is little to no profit left in HD. Some of the best movies the world has ever seen were edited and mastered at 2k. Resolution is the lazy method to make people think quality is getting better. Don't get me wrong resolution can be nice but there are so many other areas that could be improved when it comes to quality like using 10bit or 12bit color in distribution formats to help eliminate banding. How much longer are we going to force high resolution into an 8 bit world? Heck even SD looked better at 10bits. I would rather see cameras and displays improve dynamic range, color depth and image compression long before I would like to see 8k recording.

 

[M. Gilden]

So companies can sell more TVs. This is why they are pushing 4k right now. Sales of HD equipment has really dropped out and because of the competitive pricing there is little to no profit left in HD. Some of the best movies the world has ever seen were edited and mastered at 2k. Resolution is the lazy method to make people think quality is getting better. Don't get me wrong resolution can be nice but there are so many other areas that could be improved when it comes to quality like using 10bit or 12bit color in distribution formats to help eliminate banding. How much longer are we going to force high resolution into an 8 bit world? Heck even SD looked better at 10bits. I would rather see cameras and displays improve dynamic range, color depth and image compression long before I would like to see 8k recording.

My name is M. Gilden and I approve of this message.

 

[M. Gilden]

Lead, follow, or get out of the way

Speaking of quoting idiocracy, this whole discussion reminds me of the Brawndo advertising. Its got what plants crave.

More resolution is not necessarily what viewers crave. But we'll buy it because we are told it is. And anyone I respect in this industry thought the high frame rate thing was totall bullocks. I hated it, it looks like sports coverage. I was not at all lost in the story of the Hobbit, I was constantly aware of the sets, the costumes, everything. It felt like a giant behind the scenes feature. I was waiting for the movie to start.

24p and Judder may not be how you see, but it makes your brain think there is something more to take in. Something surreal, fill in the extra missing frames with your imagination. The magic of cinema is that it doesn't feel real- if feels other worldly. Make it too real, it looks like a video camera capturing the evening news.

4k and high frame rate were available long ago to film makers. But they chose not to change anything because the classic aesthetic WORKS. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Marketing, folks. It makes a profit because it works.

 

[OldCorpse]

Well... sure, but personally, I do buy the argument that you need to acquire in 8K so that you can re-edit in 4K. I mean, the same way that you can reframe from 4K to 2K giving the filmmakers flexibility in post, it's the case that you need 8K to do that in 4K. But after that, I agree, I don't see 16K, because you're reaching the limits of human perception with 4K, so 8K is strictly for post, and that's the end of the road for resolution... no 16K. Maybe there is a silver lining in all this - after we all move onto 8K, finally they'll have to address other aspects of the image, since pushing to 16K would make zero sense.

 

[M. Gilden]

Well... sure, but personally, I do buy the argument that you need to acquire in 8K so that you can re-edit in 4K. I mean, the same way that you can reframe from 4K to 2K giving the filmmakers flexibility in post, it's the case that you need 8K to do that in 4K. But after that, I agree, I don't see 16K, because you're reaching the limits of human perception with 4K, so 8K is strictly for post, and that's the end of the road for resolution... no 16K. Maybe there is a silver lining in all this - after we all move onto 8K, finally they'll have to address other aspects of the image, since pushing to 16K would make zero sense.

See, some would argue that we've already reached that point. Like, we all can agree that at SOME point resolution makes no perceptible difference anymore. We're just throwing numbers out there now, like 8k, 16k... Who's to say its any of those? I want to say that 2.5k is already about the most I'd ever need in my home theater, and 4k is ALREADY overkill as a distribution format. This is my opinion, there are plenty of valid opinions that disagree with mine. But I'm someone who embraced HD when it first came out because SD was too limiting when blown up. It wasn't clear. 720 improved, and 1080 made my home projector pretty much as clear as a digital theater, which is really all I ever wanted. I don't know that I can see the difference between that and 2.5k, but I'd imagine there's room for a bit more resolution. I really just don't buy this whole 4k thing. It just doesn't impress me.


But that's me. I think I've rained on this parade enough, sorry if I'm bringing anybody down here. I could go on about that one comment someone left that no one addressed yet regarding digital already at the point of surpassing film (I almost spit up my milk, and I wasn't even drinking any). I think I've said anything there is to say, so I'll step out and let this conversation continue.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Well... sure, but personally, I do buy the argument that you need to acquire in 8K so that you can re-edit in 4K. I mean, the same way that you can reframe from 4K to 2K giving the filmmakers flexibility in post, it's the case that you need 8K to do that in 4K. But after that, I agree, I don't see 16K, because you're reaching the limits of human perception with 4K, so 8K is strictly for post, and that's the end of the road for resolution... no 16K. Maybe there is a silver lining in all this - after we all move onto 8K, finally they'll have to address other aspects of the image, since pushing to 16K would make zero sense.

Thing is most movies are edited, do their VFX work and mastered at 2k from a 4k source so we are already there. 4k cameras made sense, especially in a single sensor world so we could have amazing 2k movies. Ender's Game is a prime example of a visually stunning movie shot at 5k, DI at 4k and all VFX work and editing at 2.5k. The final print we all saw was 2048x888. Yeah that looks small but I doubt a single person in the theaters felt the movie was soft or not detailed enough. In fact the reaction was the exact opposite and people felt that visually the movie had so much going on. Not saying it was a great movie but visually it was a prime example of how good a digital movie can look. Could we see more if they mastered at higher resolution? perhaps but who cares if we can? As long as we get immersed in the movie the resolution doesn't matter.

With the GH4 we already have this great workflow very similar to what big budget movies are using. We can shoot at 4k and edit/VFX/distribute at 2k for amazing quality. This is more or less the workflow of every massive big budget and low budget movie in Hollywood and will likely be so for a few years yet.

The other thing about 4k TV's is the older content. We have over 100 years of great movies which at best are 2k or HD. There are many movies shot on film that barely make it to HD status. Go any higher and all you really get is more grain. Most digital movies including the big budget movies are 2k and will always be 2k. How many films still don't have a Blu-ray or HD version of any kind because there is no longer a decent enough film print to create a HD master? I still would like to know where the heck all of this 4k content is supposed to come from. None of our beloved visual art from the past 100 years will ever really make sense at 4k. Even Avengers 2:Age of Ultron which isn't out yet isn't a 4k source. It was shot on a ARRI Alexa XT Plus using the open gate at 3414 x 2198 and likely mastered at a lower resolution crop of that. I just don't understand where all of this 4k content is going to come from.

 

[Ozpeter]

Keep in mind any 4k media player that would come out now would likely be very expensive

Oh. I thought there were cheapish Android-based media players which are supposed to be 4K capable.

See http://www.amazon.com/Tronsmart-Android-Amlogic-Set-top-Blu-Ray/dp/B00JGGK8II for instance - $90. (But I admit I'm not up to speed enough in this area to know whether what it calls 4K is the same as what you people call 4K).

This link also seems relevant - http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/05/philips-new-curved-tv-and-4k-media-player-run-on-android/ - "Philips has just revealed a new lineup of 4K TVs, along with a way to actually play something on them."

Because TVs are being sold with 4K resolution, people are buying them. Soon, as with 3D, they may become pretty much the standard offering. We just bought a new (HD) 3D TV but the non-3D version was actually more expensive (probably because it doesn't sell enough to be discounted). But several weeks on, we haven't tried out the 3D element and have no particular interest. My point being, that standards can occur not due to consumer demand, but due to manufacturer supply.

I see parallels with current audio standards. The vast majority of audio is being listened to in mp3 form. A tiny number of consumers are interested in 'high definition' flac playback but it's limited in appeal due to the difficulty in delivering it / storing it / need for special equipment. 4K is perhaps the flac of video.

 

[Jim Simon]

final print we all saw was 2048x888. Yeah that looks small but I doubt a single person in the theaters felt the movie was soft or not detailed enough.

I missed Ender's Game in theaters, but I did catch Mocking Jay Pt 1 on a 2K screen, and I thought the presentation was disappointing. It did look soft and very 'home theater' like. Normally the cinema I visit shows at full 4K and looks stunning. This 2k viewing didn't impress. As an interesting side note, this is the first of the Hunger Games films to be shot digitally (first two were shot on film), and to my eye, the least impressive visually as far as color, contrast and detail.

We have over 100 years of great movies which at best are 2k or HD.

Those were all shot on film, which has about 6k native resolution if scanned properly. (Whether or not a good enough print exists is a different subject.)

 

[wwjd]

So everybody here bought their GH4 so they could down scale?? I didn't.

And yes, higher res and frames were available to film makers, but so were higher costs and no projection standard for that. And until recently, no one could project any more than 24 frames from FILM. Now they've all gone digital and we have newer, modern options.
With consumers all leaving on the HFR "Motion Enhancement" look on their newer HD and 4K TVs, only a matter of time before everyone is used to that, and theaters project faster to keep up with the look of quality.
If a film requires a certain LOOK to keep you interested, than the script is lacking to suck you in. Everything starts with the script.

Everybody isn't going to like everything, especially when change is involved... people balked at sound, at color, at radio, at TV, at telephones, at faster modems, at satellites, at HD... and it will always be like that. Progress continues anyway funded by marketing. NOW, would you prefer we DIDN'T have HD tvs and go back to SD?

10-bit SD looking BETTER than HD? .....hmmmmmmmmm.....

B. O. T..... I now have a contact inside Sony Tech who I will work with about delivery to their 4K TVs (when I get some time), but I think the manual spells it out pretty well - I just gotta tray it. (DARN DAY JOB!)
Next, I will contact Samsung and see what is up.

Keep posting up here if you try anything, have any ideas or recommended options.
And the tech acceptance discussion is interesting as well.

 

[M. Gilden]

So everybody here bought their GH4 so they could down scale??

And punch in / reframe.

And until recently, no one could project any more than 24 frames from FILM.

False. High frame rate is and was possible with film. I remember seeing examples of a roller coaster filmed in 60fps during a film class- They were experimenting with it before I was born.

With consumers all leaving on the HFR "Motion Enhancement" look on their newer HD and 4K TVs, only a matter of time before everyone is used to that, and theaters project faster to keep up with the look of quality.

QUALITY? Excuse me for a moment while I VOMIT.

I go around turning that stupid mode OFF on everyone's TV when I visit. They all thank me afterwards, said their shows looked weird. I hate that mode, it ruins otherwise perfectly cinematic looking television.

If a film requires a certain LOOK to keep you interested, than the script is lacking to suck you in. Everything starts with the script.

This was Tolkien, and I'm a fan. To that end, folks still watch stuff on DVD and get sucked in, so why bother with 4k/60?

Everybody isn't going to like everything, especially when change is involved... people balked at sound, at color, at radio, at TV, at telephones, at faster modems, at satellites, at HD... and it will always be like that. Progress continues anyway funded by marketing. NOW, would you prefer we DIDN'T have HD tvs and go back to SD?

As I said before, I was happy HD came out. I wanted to see movies the way they look in the cinema, and projecting an SD image wasn't cutting it. 720p was a huge leap. 1080 brought out more finesse, and knowing that its very close to the 2k used to master feature films, I was finally satisfied. I still don't believe you'd be able to notice a difference at a comfortable viewing distance between 2k and 4k.

10-bit SD looking BETTER than HD? .....hmmmmmmmmm.....

Than 8-bit HD? Its not so outrageous. I know plenty of people who like the look of a Hollywood produced DVD more than their 1080p HD footage captured on a prosumer camera in 8-bit.

B. O. T..... I now have a contact inside Sony Tech who I will work with about delivery to their 4K TVs

I have family that actually work for Sony's entertainment department.

::runs back into the corner to lurk::

 

[Bern Caughey]

With consumers all leaving on the HFR "Motion Enhancement" look on their newer HD and 4K TVs, only a matter of time before everyone is used to that, and theaters project faster to keep up with the look of quality.

I stay at a lot of hotels where this "feature" is often enabled & unchangable. Makes even great movies look like cheap soap operas.

Cameron & Jackson shoot HFR because their films are 3D & not because it looks better in 2D.

 

[Batutta]

I have family that actually work for Sony's entertainment department.

::runs back into the corner to lurk::

I bet they had a fun week.

 

[M. Gilden]

I bet they had a fun week.

LOL, indeed. Thankfully he doesn't work in that department- more about digital TVs and Playstation.

 

[wwjd]

well have them fill you in on the 4K TV thang, will ya? and post the info here!

 

[M. Gilden]

well have them fill you in on the 4K TV thang, will ya? and post the info here!

LOL- I've posted everything I know so far, but I'll let you know if anything else comes up! I'm pretty sure he only owns a 1080p TV at the moment.

 

[dannyjl]

Great post wwjd, a topic I have wondered about for many months. I saw this a while back and it seems like one of few 4k players out there - https://ntek.com/npc.php. A cheaper version, https://ntek.com/np1.php, also is offered. I think I remember reading a review on this but the reviewer shot it down citing limitations on the streaming bit rate or something similar. Anybody with more technical knowledge care to comment on this?

Sony just released a new 4k player in Japan but it's crippled by what you can actually load into the player - including pc edited films - so that's pretty useless for most the forum members here. Still searching.....

 

[DLD]

... Those were all shot on film, which has about 6k native resolution if scanned properly. (Whether or not a good enough print exists is a different subject.)

35mm film is about 6-6.5 million pixels or ~ 3.2-3.5K. Of course, so is GH-4, as the Debayering process lowers the final resolution.

In any case, I think 4K Blu-Ray will be a big hit, as will be 4K streaming options. The main reason for YouTube offering such a compressed image (in any format) is due to the average US broadband speed being around 10 Mpbs and that is too low for 4K (25 Mbps seems like the minimum broadband speed required for that).

From the technological perspective, cable can handle 1 Gbps already and 3 Gbps soon. The market acceptance for the ultra-high speed internet hasn't been there because of the variety of issues.

 

[estarkey7]

I hear you regarding pushing the bleeding edge. That's cool.

On the topic of HD being way better than SD, I just want to throw in one more point I made with someone recently while discussing this very thing. SD to 720p hd was noticeably better. Going from 720 to 1080 was less noticeable, however on the right sized screen you can still see it. On a smaller screen at a standard viewing distance, one could argue that 1080 would make no perceptible difference. So, if 1080 on a small screen isn't worth much, what size screen do you need for 4k to be beneficial?

I may eat my words in a few years from now, but someone asked me how long until 4K is standard, and my response was maybe never. If you have a giant, and I mean GIANT #$^@ing TV screen, I think matching the movie theater's standard 2.5k would be discernible from 1080p to a very trained eye...

All you have to do is go to Best Buy and you can see the difference yourself. The difference is very noticeable even on a 55" screen.

 

[estarkey7]

I thought THE HOBBIT in 48fps HFR looked fantastic and groundbreaking...

I hated it! Looked fake to me. The framerate took me out of the story.

 

[mdifilm]

back in 2006, when I was preparing to shoot my feature sci-fi anime film, I thought I would be able to release it within 2006 and so I went and shot the whole thing with the hvx200 as DVPro50 as I didn't think HD would be going in full force by 2007... big mistake, although the movie was distributed worldwide, I also missed out a lot of opportunities due to it was not HD... Even if I have shot it as 720, it would be better lol (I learned)

Now with the GH4, I've been shooting in 4K and thought of delivering it as 1080, then I was approached by a distributor and he wanted my films, and wanted on 4K, cause that's the delivery format he needs, long story, I'm now editing and delivering in 4K and if need to downsize it to 1080 for others.