Ian-T
Veteran
Ha ha....Nice....very nice!!!! His "bluntness" used to irk me...but it's posts like this that gives me a new found respect for him.
First Epic Shipped
- Thread starter Jeremy_Sawatzky
- Start date
Ha ha....Nice....very nice!!!! His "bluntness" used to irk me...but it's posts like this that gives me a new found respect for him.
Tomas Riuka
Well-known member
looking at all of that from the wide perspective, those people should be really concentrating on craft and saying that 'current technology is good enough for any movie, because it's people, not the camera who create value for the movie'... and now they look like newbies, waiting when 5k will come out, as 2k now does not have future...
Jeremy_Sawatzky
Well-known member
david mullen is awesome. that post is well grounded and well said. Like i said in my original post i think 1080p is just a stepping stone. We could never have just instantly made the jump from dvd to 4k. I do think (and im a massive red fan) that jim does get caught up in all the ooohhs and ahhhhs of his new cameras and the huge resolution and forgets what hes actually saying. ie. the post david mullen commented on.
I think the dose of reality was the ridiculousness of Jim saying that people won't want to watch Slumdog Millionaire or any other classic film because it didn't originate on 4K. Statements like that just feed the kool aid machine. A classic film is a classic film. There's tons of stuff that is shot on old film stocks that looks dated for the time, and that has never stopped my enjoyment of it. It's actually nostalgic. I love that Hitchcock films look nothing like the pristine film stocks of today, or that Taxi Driver is grainy as hell. That's unique, and I don't see why it should be any different for 1080 material. It is unique to this time. Don't be surprised if in five years when everyone is shooting 4K that people are degrading their perfect looking Red footage and adding grain and artifacts to give it an organic feel. 
Adam J McKay
Veteran
Amen to David Mullen. Jim's words didn't sit well with me. I also can't help but wonder what people who have shot 120 fps at 2k are going to do when the "future" happens. Or better yet, what red or Epic users are going to do when everything is 8k or 16k. I think the vast majority of people on REDUSER have forgotten that cinema is about telling stories, not what a resolution chart reads. Sure I pixel peek as much as the next guy, but I am currently planning a short to be shot 4x3 on a pd150 because it suits the story im telling. Congrats on epic being shipped, im excited to see what it can do, but it is definitely not going to end world hunger.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I think the dose of reality was the ridiculousness of Jim saying that people won't want to watch Slumdog Millionaire or any other classic film because it didn't originate on 4K. Statements like that just feed the kool aid machine. A classic film is a classic film. There's tons of stuff that is shot on old film stocks that looks dated for the time, and that has never stopped my enjoyment of it. It's actually nostalgic. I love that Hitchcock films look nothing like the pristine film stocks of today, or that Taxi Driver is grainy as hell. That's unique, and I don't see why it should be any different for 1080 material. It is unique to this time. Don't be surprised if in five years when everyone is shooting 4K that people are degrading their perfect looking Red footage and adding grain and artifacts to give it an organic feel.
Exactly. We are just about at a point where digital imaging is, in pure technical specs, going to surpass film. With that we are going to be getting into an aesthetic that has never been used, and may not be appropriate for, fictional narrative filmmaking.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
Regardless of how many pixels things are now or are in the future, 720p-1080p is more than good enough for 99.9% of all consumers. Sure, "we" care because we understand the difference. Perceptually speaking though, the mind adjusts to whatever you're watching and the pixels don't matter after a couple of minutes if the quality is decent. Your brain does some interpretation . I believe that many TV makers are starting to realze that most people won't care about the next resolution increase, most people are still more than happy with DVD's quality. So many companies have shifted their focus to 3D and other special things that make people go wow. They are already "wowed" by resolution so manufacturers are finding other ways to wow them.
As far as Epic goes for the industry, I'm finally glad to see that the never ending speculation machine can finally come to a rest...for a short time at least. I'm sure the next great thing from RED will be talked and talked about to the smallest detail at VERY great length. It's definitely an exciting time for many camera makers and it's getting even more exciting for us, the video community, because we get to reap the benefits of better gear at lower prices. Personally, I am satisfied with how things are and things will only get better and cheaper and easier and more convienent.
. I believe that many TV makers are starting to realze that most people won't care about the next resolution increase, most people are still more than happy with DVD's quality. So many companies have shifted their focus to 3D and other special things that make people go wow. They are already "wowed" by resolution so manufacturers are finding other ways to wow them. As far as Epic goes for the industry, I'm finally glad to see that the never ending speculation machine can finally come to a rest...for a short time at least. I'm sure the next great thing from RED will be talked and talked about to the smallest detail at VERY great length. It's definitely an exciting time for many camera makers and it's getting even more exciting for us, the video community, because we get to reap the benefits of better gear at lower prices. Personally, I am satisfied with how things are and things will only get better and cheaper and easier and more convienent.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
Kit, what you say is simply not true.
I think he has a valid point.
The leap from SD to 1080p is very, very noticeable to most consumers watching on the average 40" screen, in their average sized living room. The leap from 1080p to 4K will not be as noticeable (again, for the average consumer).
I don't think there will be anywhere near as much interest in moving to 4K in the home.... sports fans, film enthusiasts.. sure... but the general public might see it as a marketing gimmick or just not worth the upgrade, they will just upgrade when their HDTV needs replacing.
Look at the audio market, CDs (even MP3s) are now good enough.... a super high quality "standard" could easily be put on the market, but the big guns know the public wont bite.
4K will come, but not at the same rate as 1080p did.
That is not to say that if you can acquire and finish in 4K, it is not worth doing...
Tomas Riuka
Well-known member
i'm 99% sure consumers would not notice any difference on 42 inch screen between full hd and 4k. it's beyond eye abilities to see such tiny pixels. Industry wise, yes, 4k most likely will end up in huge screen theatres, some special purpose etc, but not in consumer market... good comparison between audio, super audio cds are available, but only audiophiles buy them and they won't become the standard anytime soon.
Furthermore, you live in US, i live in Europe, my country is still on ANALOUGE TV! and they will go digital at the end of next year, in europe we got a very limited number of HD channels, mostly showing very limited amount of HD stuff or just general demo purpose stuff..
Furthermore, you live in US, i live in Europe, my country is still on ANALOUGE TV! and they will go digital at the end of next year, in europe we got a very limited number of HD channels, mostly showing very limited amount of HD stuff or just general demo purpose stuff..
I saw demos at Infocomm last June of quad HD (3840x2160) medical videos on a 50" quad HD display. The difference compared to 1080p is very visible at normal 4x-6x screen height viewing distances on that size display. While you can't see the pixels in either case, you can see the difference in the rendering of fine image detail and micro contrast. It is just as visible as the difference between high quality 480p and 1080p.
Entertainment is not the only application for hi rez technology.
Entertainment is not the only application for hi rez technology.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
It's absolutely postively 100% true for the average consumer.
Resolution may be something that we as a video community are accutely aware of, the general population is not nearly as educated on the subject and most people simply don't care or are ignorant to the differences. One of my businesses that I currently do on the side is wall mount flat screen TVs for people and companies. You would be amazed at how many people really don't notice the difference between the SD and HD channels. It would be easier if you were doing a side by side comparison, but very rarel do you run into a situation where that is even possible to show. Some think that their TV looks just fine in SD. Some don't have good enough eyesight to tell the difference. On a cinema screen? Sure, of course you'll be able to tell the difference.
Well said. It's funny because many people get on here and they have the perspective a "video person", not an "average person". To think that everyone cares about resolution is absurd. Go ask your parents if they care, most of them will say no. And ask them if they would dump their new 1080p TV for a 4k next year. Highly doubtful. Although manufacturers won't come out with that next year for mainstream because it doesn't make good business sense yet. But I do believe there is no problem in futureproofing work so that later on it can be renderd at a higer resolution. Why not, right?
Yep... the parent yardstick is a good one to follow. Mine upgrade their TV every 10 years or so... they are happy with 1080p (and my parents are probably above average for tech, my mum has a PS2).
4K will take another 5-10 years to be where 1080p is, in my opinion... we might see a new technology come out that takes us all by surprise though. 3D seems most likely, and I mean ALOT better than what we have now.
Most people would go for perfect 3D/2K rather than 4K and current 3D.
Anyway, exciting times.
4K will take another 5-10 years to be where 1080p is, in my opinion... we might see a new technology come out that takes us all by surprise though. 3D seems most likely, and I mean ALOT better than what we have now.
Most people would go for perfect 3D/2K rather than 4K and current 3D.
Anyway, exciting times.
3D reproduction from a 2d display is too stressful on the brain and eyes to ever be much more than a novelty IMO, though virtually every new model flat panel introduced this year will support it.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/watching3d-tv-could-be-harmful.html
Some other display technology will have to emerge before long term 3d viewing is reasonable.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/watching3d-tv-could-be-harmful.html
Some other display technology will have to emerge before long term 3d viewing is reasonable.
Tomas Riuka
Well-known member
Greeat.... let's get back to this discussion, when at least 1 of 4 homes will something quad 50 inch display... probably never. Unless everyone will start living in palaces. 50 inch is probably the biggest size normally accomodate and watch at home.
Kit Hannah
Veteran
I definitely agree with that too, especially about the 3D. I am going to purchase a new TV for my new place next month (Sony LED 55") and I have to say that I could really care less about 3D at this point. I think it's a cool concept on paper, but in practice, it really takes some getting used to, and until they come out with something that doesn't require stupid uncomfortable galsses, I don't think it will be a big hit. They are obviously pushing for that, but the "2D" 3D TVs are really just a fad because soon enough they will have commercially available 3D without glasses. The technology exists (has for over 15 years), but is still developing and will be ready soon.
The whole problem with technology for the end user is that it all comes down to business. Take an Intel Pentium processor. They release their processors every few months with slight upgrades. They go from a Quad Core 2.83 to 3.00Ghz with the same specs and the cost difference is substantial, sometimes as much as $500 just for .17Ghz. But by doing so, they control the market, some people are willing to pay the $1000 for the newest, latest and greatest. Some are happy buying 6 month old technology that dropped from that $1000 to $300 (myself included) because it is close enough. But they need to give it time to make profits. If they came out tomorrow and said they are releasing an 8 core, 6Ghz processor, high end people would buy it, but it would make everything beneath it pale in comparison and nobody would want the old technology anymore. The technology is there, but it doesn't usually make for a good business strategy (unless you're the only one doing it, eheem, RED). Same goes for TVs. Same goes for professional cameras. What RED has done though is exactly that, and it will force a resolution war because at this point in time companies have fooled people into thinking that's all that matters. Just like still cameras and MegaPixel counts. A 14.1MP camera will not do anything more for the average person than an 8.1 will do, unless you're making poster size prints or something (and even a better processed 8.1, I would take any day over a cheap 14.1). RED look like it's fantastic and they have forced a resolution war, but don't get too caught up in resolution unless you're making posters (or, uh, cinema movies for IMAX). You may be able to tell the difference looking at each pixel from a couple inches away, but when you're sitting in a normal viewing position, your 1080p camera on a properly equipped 42-65" home display will still look fantastic as it does now.
steventimothy
Well-known member
In France a lot of old French films are cleaned up and remastered from the original negative for HD transmission. The colorists have a good eye and seem to match the intent, colour-wise, of the original film. I have my 1080P Samsung plasma screen set up to display colours as true as possible. On top of that, the transmission is digital over the air, coming into an antenna. So the compression artifacts are minimal.
As a result, it's a great experience, like watching the movie in a theatre, circa 1969. So I'm glad that the original film had enough resolution to be able to give me that.
Once people get used to HD 1080 resolution and as it matures, they will become more discerning. Then, when higher resolutions are introduced, the importance of 4K will be as Jannard stated.
As a result, it's a great experience, like watching the movie in a theatre, circa 1969. So I'm glad that the original film had enough resolution to be able to give me that.
Once people get used to HD 1080 resolution and as it matures, they will become more discerning. Then, when higher resolutions are introduced, the importance of 4K will be as Jannard stated.
I suppose that might be a valid argument if the only market you are interested in serving is the lowest common denominator home market. There are many valid production markets other than home entertainment video where higher than HD resolution already has significant application potential. Large scale video walls for digital signage and other specialty presentation venues is a huge potential market now. Medical imaging is another.
Large screen commercial theaters are already moving to 4k projection as they upgrade from first generation digital over the next few years.
This doesn't even address the many creative advantages of acquisition at higher than presentation format resolutions, bit depth, and dynamic range. You don't see recording studios capturing and mastering audio in MP3 format because most people will buy the music off iTunes. Personally I want the biggest and broadest digital palette I can afford for acquisition.
The key word in your argument is "potential". And both those markets you listed are niche markets, meaning that the demand for this sort of thing is so specific that it's a stretch that it will have the kind of market saturation that you're suggesting.
Hollywood is trying to get people to make the switch to Blu-ray, and this is after it took fifteen years for DVD to displace VHS. People are not about to drop another chunk of money on 4K when they've only just bought into 1080P. I am excited about 4K and in theaters it makes perfect sense and for archiving for future release that makes perfect sense too. But the reality today and the present needs of consumers is not pushing the technology. The only way that this stuff would make sense is if it were affordable, like Black Friday 600 bucks for a forty inch 4K LCD affordable. That seems pretty far off, and how many of us are billionaires who can plunk down the money for the best that's out there? Jim can afford these toys, and he can afford all this bleeding edge tech, but for the rest of us we are going to have to wait till advances in producing this tech for cheap catch up.
Lowest common denominator? You mean the people who actually buy DVD's and televisions and who are responsible for insuring the technology is saturated in the market. Right...
Kit Hannah
Veteran
I agree with Isaac, most people are interested in producing what most people will watch. I do agree with the fact that using the highest possible quality you can (or at least you can afford) makes senses, but that's what everybody does anyways. I would love a REDone, I can't afford it nor do I have the clients that will pay for it nor near the amount of work for it. I would love an Epic, would live a Scarlet, but right now I have a 5DmkII and am going to stick with it because it fills what I need. There will always be specialty markets for video, there have been for a long time and it's not going away. But unless you're specifically focused on those markets, creating content for them is pointless. Movie screens? Sure. Big LED screens have very poor resolution, but their intention is to be big and bright. And as to the recording studios comment, of course they are not mastering a mp3 levels, but many (or most) are not necessarily mastering at 96khz or higher either. There are good mediums, acceptable professional quality and it doesn't have to be outrageously beyond what is mainstream now. For me, I will probably wait on a 4k camera until it is a need for me, I imagine that will happen in the next 5 years, but someone like Canon will probably come out with a solution before then and depending on cost and features I may or may not upgrade. The Epic is definitely ahead of its time and the people that can utilize all of that now, jump on it. Hell, look around in just these forums and check out how many people are still shooting SD footage on SD cameras and making perfectly acceptable results.