Tom Lowe

Obviously you can add film grain to it in post, if you want. There are dozens of good plugins for that type of thing.

I would assume that the answer is emphatically yes - if you compare them on a 4K screen. Even a high-bitrate DVD rip (7GBs MPEG) gets annihilated utterly in any kind of comparison against a 1080p rip (7GBs H264), even with similar bitrates, assuming that both are being displayed on 1080p panels. I mean, it's no comparison at all. Of course, with the latest H264, that same DVD could be encoded at 1.5 GBs, so you are dealing with a point of diminishing returns on the DVD. One issue that does seem to plague highly compressed encodings is color. Color seems to be lost first on a lot of highly compressed DVDs and Blurays. So I suppose color is one of the key factors in deciding how much you can compress something.

What does this mean? Either footage holds up at its stated resolution or it doesn't. If a clip is 4K and it looks great, pixel for pixel, on a 37" 4K display, then it's met the test. Why would the footage suddenly "fall apart" on a 60" display? Obviously, with a large screen you sit back farther. But that is always the case.

AMC ruins a lot movies with their lame censorship.

Wishing you a speedy and safe recovery, John. You're one of my favorite people on this board.

glen, just want to say that the photography has been tremendous this season once again. BTW, i notice that erica durance seems to keep looking hotter and hotter! i didn't think she was photographed very well when she first came to the show, but you guys really have the lighting and framing nailed with her now -- suddenly she seems more beautiful with every show. kudos.

Even their 2007 effort, a year after Red's announcement, was apparently nothing but a box with a lens. These guys were never serious about putting out 4K cinema cameras anytime soon until Jim put his boot up their #ss. I mean, you can say that they had some lame, pixel-shifting "4K" Frankenstein contraption back before 2006, and if that's true, why haven't they come to market with it? I mean, I remember seeing a Jeep Wrangler that ran on 100% electricity and looked like a Halo jeep about 7 years ago. That's all well and wonderful pie in the sky stuff, but if you never bring it to market, what use is it?

I very seriously doubt that. If I recall, Red announced their 4K camera in spring or summer 2006.

Wow, you're tying to take a dig at Jim Jannard because JVC is putting out a 4K camera? Why do you think JVC is putting out a 4K camera in the first place!? These companies like JVC, Panasonic, Arri, and Sony were all asleep at the wheel until JJ gave them a kick to the ribs.

John, I get what you're saying about maturity of technologies, but the rate at which new technology in general is adopted actually INCREASES dramatically over time. So, for example, it took something like 25 years for landline phones to be adopted by most Americans across the nation. It took only a handful of years for cell phones to catch on. It took 5 years for email to catch on with most Americans, and only a few months for new social networking sites like Twitter or Facebook. It's called the Law of Accelerating Returns, and the idea is that over the coming years and decades, technology will continue to increase at a near exponential rate. Certainly CPU power is still following that trendline, as are storage (GB per $1), graphic processing power, etc. I think for video, 4K would represent "maturity" for the foreseeable future, and given current trends, I don't see anything getting in its way. Of course, to me, the scarier thing in making predictions like these is not whether people want 4K, or whether science can provide 4K, but rather, will there be some type of even worse, ongoing global financial meltdown, or god forbid that the Dollar were to collapse or something horrendous like that. Those are the only issues that would prevent the rise of 4K, IMHO. I actually really enjoy this type of technological prediction stuff. It's a lot of fun to ponder these things, and the beauty is that rather sitting around a pub talking about this and having no record of it, all of these preditions will be checkable in a few years. :lol: :o

Well your numbers are more conservative than mine, David. My long-standing prediction here is that more major features films will be SHOOTING digitally by January 1st, 2011 than shooting film. That means, in production at that time and from then on. I think 4K will rise sooner than many expect. Maybe 2-4 years, something like that, though as you say, 4K will start small at first with multimedia producers (who obviously want to view their own 4K+ acquired footage), 4K projection at theaters like AMC, video game and computer LCDs, and wealthy AV aficionados. There was a time not that long ago when there were only like 10 titles available on Bluray. That's probably how 4K content will roll out as well. And it may not even be disc based, but rather downloadable.

This is absolutely mind-boggling to me that people would be arguing AGAINST the progression of technology and more resolution for display by those watching entertainment at home. :blink: I remember when people on this very forum were saying that 4K digital cameras were "not needed." Now every camera company on earth has completely ceased designing new 35mm film cameras and is racing to build 4K and 6K digital RAW cameras. What happened to all those the predictions here about film continuing to rule cinema? I remember being on DSLR forums were people said, "You don't need megapixels beyond 8MP! The human eye... blah blah blah." What happened to all those predictions? You can now buy a 21MP DSLR for under 3 grand that blows the doors off of any 8MP camera ten times over, and photographers are still craving more and more and more resolution and better sensitivity. If anyone honestly thinks that 1080p is "enough," I would advise them to look at the recent history of the adoption of technological innovations. I remember many people also arguing on AV forums that DVD would be "enough" resolution. "You don't need more than DVD resolution.... the human eye blah blah blah...." very similar to what Walter is actually arguing here! What happened to all the predictions that DVD would be "enough" resolution for consumers? Those predictions are now in the dustbin along with the "8MP" DSLR and "4K cameras not needed" predictions, where they will soon be joined by the "4K resolution is not needed for consumers" predictions. You can take that to the bank. ;)

I think that games like "Crysis" already support close to 4K resolution. People are playing at 2560x1600 on the Dell 30" panel right now, I believe. So the question is, what comes after 2560x1600? 4K or quad HD seem to make sense. As to David's point regarding whether 35mm-acquired movies, for example, will hold up at 4K resolution. I guess it depends on the condition of the negative or source material. But even if some films won't really hold up at 4K, people will still buy the 4K screens for the newer stuff that will. TNT's HD channel, for example, plays scans of older movies that barely hold up at 720p. But they still play them, and they look marginally better than DVD. But there is pretty much no argument that any of this legacy stuff will hold up beyond 4K. That's why I think 4K is the sweet spot where display is headed. I have already been shooting 5.6K RAW timelapse footage on the 5D2 that is absolutely jaw-dropping at 4K. Down-resing it to 1080p seems like copying a Bluray onto VHS. It's a huge step down. Once people begin to acquire ultra-pristine footage at greater-than-4K res (say, 5K or 6K) they are going to be dying to deliver that content at 4K.

David, keep in mind that many young people, for example, don't watch movies on traditional TVs or HDTVs. They are planted in front of their computers watching 1080p downloads or Blurays. Same thing with gaming. Their face is like 2 feet away from the screen. So a 40-inch 4K monitor, for example, would definitely increase viewing pleasure for movies or gaming. It's just the natural, obvious progression of technology. Gamers spend $5,000 - $10,000 on new PC rigs. It's like the center of their life. Believe me, they will pay for 4K. Same thing with AV aficionados. Keep in mind that only a short time ago, "big screens" and "flat screens" were a very niche market for audio-visualphiles. Now they are in most homes. Only a short time ago Bluray was very niche and very expensive. IMO, Bluray would be getting adopted even faster right now if we'd not suffered through that useless HD DVD vs Bluray war which left Sony nearly bankrupt, causing them to have to charge huge, punishing Bluray "licensing" fees. I am absolutely convinced that 4K (or quad HD?) will be the new display Gold Standard.

Brian, wanna make a long-term bet on this? Anytime you bet against the advancement of technology and the lust of AV aficionados for more resolution and fidelity, you are on the wrong side of that bet. Watch and see what happens. Rumors out of NAB are that Sony is launching a 4K monitor. Not only will 4K+ cameras fuel this quest for 4K resolution, gamers are also driving the resolution arms race.

No offense, but we have heard this argument many times before, and it's always wrong. People always want more resolution, and sound and image fidelity. 4K is actually a perfect sweet spot, because the huge amount of entertainment shot over the last century on 35mm scans to roughly 4K in many cases. Going beyond 4K, though, will not happen for a long time, because of precisely that same issue.

They will be able to make youtube profitable soon enough. I doubt that these reported losses are legit. Youtube can simply plaster ads on their pages and on their vids; that's a business model. It's how Google got rich in the first place - advertising. The real question is, will youtube be able to jump into the content delivery business that Netflix seems to have gotten a big headstart on. For nearly a decade we have known that instant HD delivered to home entertainment is the way of the future. But even now, it's unclear how that market will shake out. If fiber optic to the door becomes the norm for broadband, instantaneous 1080p and even 4K will become the norm. The question is, who is going to provide that content? ISPs? Cable companies? Netflix? Microsoft? Youtube? Right now, it's mainly pirates and bit torrents supplying 1080p to homes.

Thanks, Satsuki! Well I haven't been flooded with custom timelapse shoot requests yet. I really want to work on music vids, TVCs and features more than anything.

thanks!

They probably did a lot of takes, and it was probably a mixture of trying to time it, as well as getting lucky. Of course, a lot of times, especially if the clouds are moving somewhat rapidly, if you just look up at the sky, you can see several minutes in advance when a break will come in the cloud cover.

yeah, that's me. i just put out a new reel here: http://www.vimeo.com/4038064 yes, i am very much a disciple of Malick. are you talking about these DPs operating themselves, and basically "riding" the iris? you said shutter angle, so i was a little confused. i remember reading an article about Children of Men that said Lubezki rode the iris like 9 stops or more on a scene where Owen moves from a window to a dark part of an interior. i thought that was pretty impressive for a moving shot.

I saw the trailer at the theater and thought it looked very "video-ish". Not impressed.

Just some recent stuff I've shot on my Canon 5D Mark II around the American Southwest: http://www.vimeo.com/4038064 I am very interested in getting jobs shooting timelapse or cutaways for feature films, commercials and music videos. Please feel free to contact me if you're working on a project that might benefit from my work.

I'm still waiting for the 70mm print to come to the Aero in LA!!! I missed it last year.

Evanescence - "My Immortal" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idd_92ajjwY beautiful b&w photography in barcelona.