Proprietary workflow

I can make a quicktime movie of 4k dimensions. It won't play back though, just the odd frame every second or so, and stepping through didn't work too well, but that frame size IS supported.

Graeme
 
What are your system specs Greme? are you on a Quad? would be interesting what the specs to play back 24p 4k quicktimes would be.. staying away from H.264 of course, unless on the pc side as some new video cards offload H.264 processing from the CPU.
 
Graeme -

....but it is just about pointless to try to say QT can or can't play back a 4k res file right now...since there's no way to monitor it. 2560x1600 is the biggest screen presently availble. Kona3 can be configured to do HDSL at about 15 fps for traditional 2K (2048x1556), so that's about as big as is useful right now. Otherwise, just do HD/2K proxies of 4K and render out at the end. Render 4K, zoom in and look at 4K, but edit and color in 2K/HD. Even as recently as a year or two ago, 2K DI was being done with 1K proxies, and 4K is being done with 2K proxies just because the data rates are so high.

The only time I'd want 4K to hit FCP would be for the final conform and output to...DPX or TIFF files I'd imagine to send out to the post house.

Monitoring 4K is a pretty collosal task.
 
Mike & Graeme,

There is one 4k display device, Sony SXRD 4k projector. We have worked out that we can play 4k out on a quad core system like the new Glidewell Intel systems or on a tweaked top-end AMD 285s. Of course at full frame rate for theatre presentation. The only hitch was the 4 channel HDSDI interface was going to be costly to develop for what was going to be pretty much a publicity stunt. Still looking for that backer who wants to see 4k playback of a workstation running a couple of drives in RAID 0. I would have thought Mark Cuban would have been into it, as he is purchasing these projector for Landmark, but no response via email.
 
you guys also are forgetting about multiple monitors.. 4k resolution with multiple monitors isnt that hard to do... The system i am typing this on right now has a 3840x1080 pixel span.
 
Well since your doing exactly the same thing to get to 4k with my idea and yours, Its actually the same "4k experience", one just has a crosshair in the middle of it :) ha ha ha..

but the best experience wasnt the question, it was color timing and monitoring in 4k, and i dont think you would want to do timing with projectors, although monitoring would be fine .
 
Timing with projectors is done all the time and is actually preferable since they have a much larger and targeted color-space compared to most LCD monitors . . . visit any of the DI suites at high end houses like Laser Pacific, I/O Film, Technicolor, etc., and you'll see a high-end Christie or Barco powering the DI suite, not a small LCD monitor. The control surface will use a LCD monitor, but the Director, DP, etc. will be watching the projector for the WYSIWIG theatre experience.

I think there were also some 4K LCD monitors floating around this year's NAB show floor.
 
Ive never seen a colorist use anything other than a HD CRT reference for color. There is always a projector in the room for sure for shiits and giggles, but decisions are never made off of it. And im talking Technicolor, Toybox, etc. they bragged about Sin City being timed with a DLP monitor but the actual operator was using a crt.
 
Jarred Land said:
Ive never seen a colorist use anything other than a HD CRT reference for color. There is always a projector in the room for sure for shiits and giggles, but decisions are never made off of it. And im talking Technicolor, Toybox, etc. they bragged about Sin City being timed with a DLP monitor but the actual operator was using a crt.
Click to expand...



If they are timing for a theatrical release, they should be looking at a projector, and that projector should be calibrated to emulate a film print.

That doesn't mean that they don't have a CRT sitting in there with them.

The director and DP will be making their decisions based on the digital projection.

Even if a colorist used a CRT, the look has to be approved by someone else on the final medium, be it film or video.
 
You could all also just save yourself all the headache and pain and do what I do now. Work completely in proxies with higher res footage.

In fact, above HD, I don't see any reason to work with the footage directly. I think people shoudl approach UHD just like film. An incredibly high data density medium which shouldn't be worked with until the very last step. Why? Because Hard drives are by and far the slowest improving component of the digital workflow, and I don't see them improving dramatically in the near future. Conforming just makes sense, you don't get any generational loss, it's only rendered once, maybe twice. All of your footage can be kept on an inexpensive file server not a super fast RAID. All of our tools that we've already developed and refined for HD footage will be available. And you could even edit it on a laptop.

Shake, Fusion, Combustion, they all handle resolution independent footage. Fusion and Combustion have absolutely TOP NOTCH grading tools. In fact I'm just evaluating Fusion right now for my future desktop CC app. It will produce all of the monitoring you might want such as vector scopes on an overlay. Incredibly handy for grading video originated footage.

Best of all both apps also have integrated proxy creation and handling. Grade in SD, render in UHD. Grading in FCP or Avid is possible, and works great for those little tweaks, but if you really want to dig in and get dirty you're going to either need to buy a dedicated solution such as davinci, Final Touch, Lustre etc or put up with the speed of software based solution such as Combustion or Digital Fusion.

Thomas Mathai said:
If they are timing for a theatrical release, they should be looking at a projector, and that projector should be calibrated to emulate a film print.

That doesn't mean that they don't have a CRT sitting in there with them.

The director and DP will be making their decisions based on the digital projection.

Even if a colorist used a CRT, the look has to be approved by someone else on the final medium, be it film or video.
Click to expand...

Depends. I've seen client rooms with HD CRTs for client monitoring. I've seen blown theaters for DI with the op using a CRT. You will always need to use a CRT for work because you don't want to project your interface to the client. They don't need to see you shift the hue, and you need to see the interface. But when it comes to the client anything beyond a monitor is gravy, even the interface monitor is almost always as accurate as the projector, usually more.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Mathai said:
If they are timing for a theatrical release, they should be looking at a projector, and that projector should be calibrated to emulate a film print.

That doesn't mean that they don't have a CRT sitting in there with them.

The director and DP will be making their decisions based on the digital projection.

Even if a colorist used a CRT, the look has to be approved by someone else on the final medium, be it film or video.
Click to expand...

Ha ha true.. but for color accuracy and matching the CRT is used.. its kinda like previewing SD material on a standard television, which is always in SD edit suites.. the argument of watching it on the end result is fine, but your not going to see professionals color timing on a Toshiba 27" tele.

I think we both may be more right though.. DLP projectors get better every 6 months it is becoming more and more and more accurate with dare i say real blacks and a decent contrast ratio.
 
Well a CRT for working on and a CRT for monitoring are 2 different things.

And you're wrong when you say an HD CRT is as accurate as a projector for DI for film output.

HD CRT is in Rec 709 color space, which is very small compared to film color gamut. A high end digital projector like a Barco or Christies has a wider color space than an HD CRT, so it would be better for color accuracy and matching.

If someone is using a HD CRT for DI work, they are mapping the film gamut into the Rec 709 space, and they are cutting off the high and low ends.

Now if you're doing an HD DI, and not going back to film, it's essentially what you are doing with telecine.

im.thatoneguy said:
Depends. I've seen client rooms with HD CRTs for client monitoring. I've seen blown theaters for DI with the op using a CRT. You will always need to use a CRT for work because you don't want to project your interface to the client. They don't need to see you shift the hue, and you need to see the interface. But when it comes to the client anything beyond a monitor is gravy, even the interface monitor is almost always as accurate as the projector, usually more.
Click to expand...

Jarred Land said:
Ha ha true.. but for color accuracy and matching the CRT is used.. its kinda like previewing SD material on a standard television, which is always in SD edit suites.. the argument of watching it on the end result is fine, but your not going to see professionals color timing on a Toshiba 27" tele.

I think we both may be more right though.. DLP projectors get better every 6 months it is becoming more and more and more accurate with dare i say real blacks and a decent contrast ratio.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top