Sony 8K CineAlta rumor
- Thread starter BlackWolf
- Start date
2016 announcement and 2017 release sound reasonable. Let's not forget that the 2018 Winter Olympics will be held in Korea and all the Korean manufacturers will be getting major exposure there. Samsung and LG are leading a coalition of the local electronics firms working on an 11K mobile display that is expected to have 2,250 PPI (the highest density current models top out at 700'ish). Samsung's consumer priced NX-1 already has a 6K sensor and, if you follow a typical Korean company trajectory, it's not unlikely that there will be a fully functioning and yet affordable 8K camera within a year or so (A7RII, as we've mentioned before, does have an 8K resolution in the photo mode). With the new generation of processors arriving in 2015 (14-16 nM), most of the heat problems associated with A7RII should be avoidable. Then add your Samyang XEEN lens onto your Samsung 8K camera, power it with the LG batteries and record it onto Samsung SSD's and you can shoot a feature film on only a few million won.
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
The world is aiming at shooting the 2020 olympics in Tokya in 8K, maybe Sony is collaborating and it will be shot on 8K f65 successors. I don't think they're going with an f65 soon ans I don't think they'll settle for sub 8K, the f65 is as good as 4K standard gets (and 6K somewhat), so I'd expect a successor at that time frame, 2017-2018-ish. The C300II, red dragon/weapon are on IQ and functionality (2015-2016 releases so will be updated 2018-2019) league of the f65, so not much pressure or lagging behind.
“The Japanese government has accelerated 4K and 8K in order to be ready for the 2020 Olympic Games, and we will prepare a team to develop 8K [technology],” said Shoji Nemoto, corporate executive officer, and president of Sony's Professional Services Group.
“The Japanese government has accelerated 4K and 8K in order to be ready for the 2020 Olympic Games, and we will prepare a team to develop 8K [technology],” said Shoji Nemoto, corporate executive officer, and president of Sony's Professional Services Group.
Analog HD.
Which reminds me of a story. Back in 1995, a cousin of mine came for a visit from an old country. When my dad proudly displayed his Sony 27" Trinitron born in 1991 or so, my cousin remarked, "My TV is better". At first, we thought he was full of crap because he was coming from a country with a sub-$100/mo income. But the good old cuz was right. The country, however wretched, was using the French/Soviet SECAM system, which had more lines of resolution than the American NTSC.
Run&Gun
Veteran
As weird as it sounds, technology is actually what's hurting this industry the most and dragging it down, now.
Viddovation
Veteran
There's a drastic difference between the cutting edge and mainstream adoption. It's not terribly long ago that broadcasters adopted 1080i/720p, and rewiring their soundstages and engineering bays for that upgrade cost even small shops millions. If they do the same for 4k, I assure you, they'll not want to upgrade to 8k or 16k anytime soon at all. It will drive too high a debt burden without return.
And consumers, likewise, if they buy into 4k tvs, won't be quick to buy 8k or 16k displays when they can't see the difference or afford a 100+ inch display where they do see the difference.
And consumers, likewise, if they buy into 4k tvs, won't be quick to buy 8k or 16k displays when they can't see the difference or afford a 100+ inch display where they do see the difference.
I'm sure you are correct about broadcasters, but not sure about consumers; or how much traditional broadcasters are going to factor in adoption of 4k+ resolution screens in the mid-term.
What I don't think a lot of naysayers are considering, is cheaper and more advanced display and content delivery technologies. Flexible screens, non-LCD/OLED, digital signage, VR hardware, etc. VR and flexible screens are barely even in their infancy. There are a lot of factors/uses driving development of ever-higher resolution, lower power-consuming displays. It's certainly about a lot more than traditional television.
It's no coincidence that giant conglomerates like Sony and Samsung are selling devices for consumers to make 4K (and soon enough more) content. They will in many forms go back to buy displays to enjoy said content.
In what sense?
IMO, the paying public is what drags everything down. The public wants loud action flicks. The public gets loud action flicks. The public doesn't want dramas. The public doesn't get dramas (except on TV/cable).
I was talking to a friend yesterday about the "Graduate", particularly its opening sequence with Dustin Hoffman riding the "moving sidewalk" at the airport and with Robert Surtees framing the shot with the actor at the very right edge. And I thought, it's not that they don't make films like the "Graduate" anymore - that would be nigh impossible anyway - but that no one aspires to make anything of a kind. The studios don't want it. The actors aren't interested in it. The directors just look at something else. It's the time we're in. An I do hope that the technology aids in the ability to make a gorgeous looking human story film on a relative budget and film can be successfully marketed with the new means of reaching masses too.
Run&Gun
Veteran
It's a double edged sword. Technology has given us incredible, affordable, tools that we only dreamed of 10-15 years ago, but now we have really good looking cameras that are 'dirt cheap', so just anyone "can do it" and that's the way that a lot of people(people in decision making positions) are looking at it- Anyone can shoot, because everyone has a camera. And while this has allowed some very talented individuals in, so to speak, it's opened up the flood gates to anyone that can just afford to buy a camera, now. I wasn't really referring to the movie industry specifically, but TV, production and camera technology in general. I see it personally right now on the TV side. I have a network client that has bought all of their producers toy cameras(fixed lens 'handycams'). They actually produce a good image, for what they are and under the right circumstances and unfortunately, that has become "good enough" for them. They don't care what they can't do or the limitations, that they're small chips, slow lenses, servos make zooms impossible, focus is by wire, most of the settings are internal menus, etc. They care that they spit out an HD image and they can buy one for about double what they pay a camera guy & sound guy with gear for one day. In fact, they're now using them on certain multi-camera remote LIVE productions(!!!). We're talking about a multi-billion dollar-a-year profiting company. I'm not talking about shooting The Super Bowl, but we're still talking about productions that should be using professional level equipment with professional level control and image quality.
We've hit a sad time because the quality of even the inexpensive stuff is 'good' and that has become 'good enough' and it's all about hitting a low price point, now. James summed it up, there is no money in making top of the line, cutting edge cameras anymore.
Paul schefz
Well-known member
i honestly doubt that....look at the arri 65....if any of these companies had unlimited resources to come up with one camera...what would it be? 8K 20 stops DR 200fps? reminds me of the days when NASA and secret defense agencies had crazy kodak (and who knows what) sensors.....yes they were bigger and better but wouldn't be used in a cellphone these days in terms of quality....
no matter how much money you throw at one camera, the R&D that goes into making a 4K 100fps camera that fits into your phone and runs all day off a sliver of battery in the end provides insight into making a better and larger camera....because it will sell 100s of millions.....
the hard part about making things smaller and more efficient is that you have to squeeze everything out of the resources you have, in this case make every pixel capture as much light as possible with the least effort in the most efficient way.....then take that technology and make a bigger sensor and bigger pixels....
the new intel mobile chips will be able to run 3 4K monitors at 60hz off a single macbook pro....at lower energy consumption....todays top of the line can barely run one at 30z....
Naturally, I agree with this but this is why I bring up the old music industry example. Prior to the early 1950's, a professional musician actually had to play a real acoustic instrument. That was replaced by the electric guitar and a cheap amp and, suddenly, everyone could become a musician. The quality of an average song or an average live performance went down precipitously but there was so much more of everything and that drove to the point that the small portion at the very top was also very good and there were so many more choices to go around.
As a side note, over the last couple of years, I became interested in the Second Viennese light opera wave (Lehar, Kalman, Abraham, Fall, et al) and the quality of many of those songs is tremendous but even the top composers wrote about 40 truly great songs in their lifetimes. Compared that with 200+ songs that the Beatles and the Rolling Stones wrote each. Then add a zillion of "smaller" performers who have 1-5 hits. It's a different industry now than was before the electric age and the same is happening with the doc/news/film/sports/TV market too. Or Milton Berle would still be alive.
I remember walking into Burbank's Fry's in 1998 and seeing the first generation flat screen by Philips - 46" for $14,000. Now, you wouldn't be able to give it away. 4K was going for around $10,000 three-four years ago and now you can get a Hisense or Spectre for under $500. The image acquisition world is much the same.
Viddovation
Veteran
I'm not really getting your argument, it feels all over the place.
Sure, economies of scale mean highly sophisticated equipment can be produced at very low unit costs, assuming you make enough units. But that works at maximum capacity for consumer and mass market goods where there are millions and millions of potential costumers.
And when you design for consumers, you have to develop the interface, menus, and controls to suit how consumers and laypeople operate gear. Which isn't going to ever match up with how professionals in our industry expect their cameras to work. And since you now have to make a second product - even if it shares some components - you have all sorts of new development costs - and a far smaller user base to spread those costs across. So unit price goes up.
Considering the performance of a $50k USD camera package today, I certainly think that one costing 4x or 5x as much would deliver far more.
Paul schefz
Well-known member
sorry i did not make myself clear....i guess what i am saying is that the only reason why we actually have the kind of 50/60K$ cameras we actually have is only because of the now probably billions of $ R&B put into smartphones, p&s cameras and DSLRs....the technology is taken to the top by the highest end companies but they would not be able to do what they are doing without the groundwork of the mass produced devices....
nobody would say that a small, niche computer company could make this amazing thing outpacing anything intel and such are doing just because they could sell one (or 1000) of them for a much higher price....
let's face it, sony is right now putting a 8K sensor 14 stops DR, great noise/low light along with a full camera body, screens, an amazing finder (that would be 1000s alone if coming from a third party cine company) in a 3000 camera package we will be able to buy for probably 2000 a year form now.....i am not taking about the video functions now, but the only reason this is possible is mass production....
the only reason blackmagic is doing what they are doing and are able to do it is because they have a LOT of other products that compliment their cameras and probably a lot of parts in the cameras or at least R&D from those other products.....RED does not have that...they just had to make the decision to pretty much give up on the lower end and gamble for the highest end....but it is tough when everybody looks at their iPhone (free, carrier provided) and then their 3000$ RED screen and it is easy to see the advantages of mass production right there and then.....
JMtheDP
Veteran
The Alexa 65 I would estimate probably cost ARRI about 300K a piece. They are using the model that Panavision did with the Genesis (and all their cameras). If you only rent, it doesn't care how much it cost to make. You can get the money back. You would choke if you knew how much a Panavision SSD drive for the Genesis cost, but back then it was revolutionary technology. The ALEXA 65, whilst interesting, I feel is not that cutting edge. I actually think Panavision's Primo 70s represent a more interesting technical development than the ALEXA65.
Viddovation
Veteran
Gotcha. No argument. And even RED benefits because - well - I assume - they use plenty of fairly off the shelf semiconductor parts - which would be way too costly in not mass produced for multiple markets.
Bu that's because of "Macht den Arbeitnehmern" (Made in Germany).
Seriously, Pentax 645Z with the medium format Sony sensor is retailing for $8,500 in the US now (B&H). Its video is crippled - and most people don't buy MF for video anyway - but, in theory, getting 6K out of it would require a combination of several technologies already on the market - a dual-readout of a C300 MK II, a powerful processor, faster ADC, a heatsink and/or a fan and you can get probably get by with no more than $20,000 in the manufacturing costs. Should C500 MKII be announced at the NAB'16, you'll probably see these specs in a $30,000 camera (though, perhaps in only a FF sensor)
JMtheDP
Veteran
I would have thought it was more that fact that they just aren't making many. I probably should re-write that and say "if ARRI sold it it would have to cost about 300K a piece".
They do have a number of bespoke parts in them, although I understand it (I am sure I read it but can't seem to find it) that the SXT has a lot of the processing power from the ALEXA65 in it, which has led some people to believe that means ARRI will upgrade the SXT's sensor at some point.
Last time I spoke with ARRI they said there were 30 of them, which is actually more than I expected them to make. I think it has been an incredibly popular camera with them. They seem to have issues finding enough glass for them, hence a number of them now have a giant PV mount on.
They do have a number of bespoke parts in them, although I understand it (I am sure I read it but can't seem to find it) that the SXT has a lot of the processing power from the ALEXA65 in it, which has led some people to believe that means ARRI will upgrade the SXT's sensor at some point.
Last time I spoke with ARRI they said there were 30 of them, which is actually more than I expected them to make. I think it has been an incredibly popular camera with them. They seem to have issues finding enough glass for them, hence a number of them now have a giant PV mount on.
JMtheDP
Veteran
I think a more interesting philosphical question would be what if we no longer expected our "regular" camera to be capable of 200fps? What if it was like film where you could have cameras that were suited for sync production but were heavier and quieter and cameras that were suited for VFX/MOS work but were much lighter and louder - although ironically in digital it would be the other way round (ie. an ARRI 435 is much lighter than a 535, a digital camera not doing as much work could be made much smaller)
Paul schefz
Well-known member
i think the 4.6 ursa and ursa mini could change the high end situation...if the image delivers, there is really no reason not to go with those cameras...i am aware that this is a huge IF, but in terms of specs red and arri would face serious competition at a fraction of the price point.....
and in many ways these cameras really only go head to head with red and arri because of the raw workflow....sony, panasonic seem happy to provide different versions of compressed workflow in different price ranges, some with raw options....
for BM, it really comes down to the sensor alone on this one (i doubt it will be limited like their first off the shelf ones)...if it does deliver the DR and resolution, their color hasn't been a problem, they have a very professional software side....i can't wait to see what they will come up with next year....
in the still world this happened years ago to pretty much all "pro" giants....rollei (flex), hasselblad, leica, contax, pentax,....all gone, or gone through serious restructuring only to come out and survive as pure luxury brands (leica, doing well, but more like a watch brand) or trying to go the luxury route (hasselblad) and not really succeeding (slap the hassi logo on a sony nex and sell it for 10x?) and now hanging on in a dead MF market which used to be a solid 'pro" platform....
in other words: 40,30,20,10 years ago the avedons, newtons, penns,....all shot MF and there was no question....then came digital and people went with digital backs but soon realized that a DSLR really gives you the same quality at a much lower cost and much, much easier workflow....yes there was still a question of "good enough" but in the end, the leibowitzs, meisels,...of today all shoot with 5DIIs, IIIs or maybe nikon 810s these days....even if the rented hasselblad is sitting on a tripod to keep the client happy.....along with the 5 primes while every shot ending up on times square comes out of the 24-105.....this is the reality.....
there was a time when people rightfully said: well if you want the best, you have to shoot with the latest phase back (costing 50K) but like tests (numbers and pixelpeepers and judging from prints) show, the latest sony sensors in the nikons, or sonys are just as good, if not better and much smaller, easier, cheaper, faster,.....
the problem arri and red have is that dentists will keep buying leicas because their are beautiful accessories (who would not want the latest leica just run around with on their vacation, even if the pics you end up with are from your iPhone) but i doubt we will ever see anyone with an alexa or dragon hanging around their neck....
maybe they can keep clinging to the top of the top end for a couple years more, arri has ma much much wider base there and still has the film and lens base.....IMO red lost the race because they won't replace arri at the top and BM is killing them from the bottom.....
sony will be more then happy to sell 20mill iPhone sensors each year
and in many ways these cameras really only go head to head with red and arri because of the raw workflow....sony, panasonic seem happy to provide different versions of compressed workflow in different price ranges, some with raw options....
for BM, it really comes down to the sensor alone on this one (i doubt it will be limited like their first off the shelf ones)...if it does deliver the DR and resolution, their color hasn't been a problem, they have a very professional software side....i can't wait to see what they will come up with next year....
in the still world this happened years ago to pretty much all "pro" giants....rollei (flex), hasselblad, leica, contax, pentax,....all gone, or gone through serious restructuring only to come out and survive as pure luxury brands (leica, doing well, but more like a watch brand) or trying to go the luxury route (hasselblad) and not really succeeding (slap the hassi logo on a sony nex and sell it for 10x?) and now hanging on in a dead MF market which used to be a solid 'pro" platform....
in other words: 40,30,20,10 years ago the avedons, newtons, penns,....all shot MF and there was no question....then came digital and people went with digital backs but soon realized that a DSLR really gives you the same quality at a much lower cost and much, much easier workflow....yes there was still a question of "good enough" but in the end, the leibowitzs, meisels,...of today all shoot with 5DIIs, IIIs or maybe nikon 810s these days....even if the rented hasselblad is sitting on a tripod to keep the client happy.....along with the 5 primes while every shot ending up on times square comes out of the 24-105.....this is the reality.....
there was a time when people rightfully said: well if you want the best, you have to shoot with the latest phase back (costing 50K) but like tests (numbers and pixelpeepers and judging from prints) show, the latest sony sensors in the nikons, or sonys are just as good, if not better and much smaller, easier, cheaper, faster,.....
the problem arri and red have is that dentists will keep buying leicas because their are beautiful accessories (who would not want the latest leica just run around with on their vacation, even if the pics you end up with are from your iPhone) but i doubt we will ever see anyone with an alexa or dragon hanging around their neck....
maybe they can keep clinging to the top of the top end for a couple years more, arri has ma much much wider base there and still has the film and lens base.....IMO red lost the race because they won't replace arri at the top and BM is killing them from the bottom.....
sony will be more then happy to sell 20mill iPhone sensors each year