Brian Drysdale Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 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. I suspect these people will need special venues for such material or road show events rather than mainstream TV which has other dynamics driving it than screening ultra pristine 4k plus footage. It's like projecting 35mm Kodachrome slides, which look wonderful, but that may not be the method that most people will see the images - magazines is a more likely method. The fine arts will certainly explore this medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 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. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Taylor Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Tom, 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: No one's against progression of technology. 4k in the home isn't needed! HDTV hasn't taken off the way you seem to think it has, so why would 4k? 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? Right. Both Panavision and Arriflex threw out all their film cameras so that they could build Red knockoffs! Also, last time I checked, most movies the big studios are putting out are done on film. That doesn't count as "ruling 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. The biggest reason for higher mega-pixels is for enlargements! And photographers are NOT craving more and more resolution. They do want better sensitivity, better color reproduction, etc, etc. Basically, they want everything BUT resolution improved. Resolution is taken care of! Unless you need to fill a billboard. 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. ;) They're obviously not in the dust. More people watch SD DVD then they do Blu-Ray. In fact, a lot of people watch more crappy resolution youtube videos, and low resolution clips on their cell-phones then they watch television at all. Jay Edited April 20, 2009 by Jay Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Taylor Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Duplicate post… Edited April 20, 2009 by Jay Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 20, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 20, 2009 Just because I predict that 4K home entertainment is not going to take off this decade doesn't mean I'm against it. There's a difference between projecting a trend and being an advocate for something. I thought we were trying to predict a trend here. The reason I don't think it will take off is because the increase in data, bandwidth and resolution does not produce a large enough jump in visible quality for most viewers. Hell look at the current struggle to get filmmakers and studios to work in 4K for theatrical release -- if that battle hasn't been won yet, then why would it be easier to institute a 4K standard for the home??? Isn't it a bit premature to predict 4K movie delivery for the home when we don't even have it for movie theaters yet? Besides, bandwidth has not been keeping up with increased video resolutions so what will the delivery format be for home 4K features? Because the system is already choking on 1080P. You wonder why many HD channels don't look as good as they should? It's due to the massive amount of compression they are adding to fit that much resolution in the pipeline. So what would be the point of receiving 4K if, for example, it's compressed to all heck? I've looked at RED footage transferred at 2K and 4K for cinema release, and while there is a small increase in quality visible on a large theater screen, honestly, it's not dramatic. So while I'm all for more quality, you have to ask yourself what you are giving up to squeeze in more resolution, whether you are giving up more days of color correction or adding more compression for a broadcast, whatever, because nothing in life is free. Again, this comes back to practicality, which sucks to consider, but we have to work in the real world afterall. Do we want to discuss some fantastic world of the future where the best possible things are available to us at reasonable prices? Or do we want to discuss a more likely future made up of compromises based on practicality and cost? As for still photos using higher resolutions, well, they have to be -- they are one single frame that we stare at, not 24 frames flashed at us in succession. A 35mm movie frame is rather soft & grainy when stared at as a still image, but when projected 24 fps (or higher) it benefits from the averaging of frames. At this point in the game, rather than expand beyond 1080P for the home and hopefully 4K for movie theaters, I'd like to see improvements in color, contrast, black levels, and dynamic range. Fix those and then return to the resolution issue. Even your best current digital projector does not have the depth of blacks that a film print does, and your best digital camera doesn't have the dynamic range that color negative has. Sometimes I think we're arguing over the difference between probable and possible. And sometimes what's possible actually does happen, but more often, what's probable is what actually happens. I think, Tom, you need to shoot and take a feature length project through a 4K pipeline to 4K projection, just to get a realistic sense of the amount of data involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 The fact of the matter is that NHK broadcasting of Japan is developing 8K at 60 frames per second that is intended for the home theatre using a 100 inch screen. Of course the implementation of this technology will be one or two decades into the future but the research is being done this very minute. 4K will be the interem solution to greater picture quality. The problem with 1080p is that the prices of the flat panels are going down so rapidly that higher resolution panels will be needed to restore the high end. Thus in the future 1080p will become the new standard definition. 720p is already today today's standard definition because it is very difficult to find a television sold today with lower resolution than 720p. And yes more and more consumers will in fact demand 70mm projection quality for their high end home theatres simply because consumers will want real high definition. At first since there is a limit on true 70mm content the televisions will simply uprezz "standard definition" 1080p content to match the native resolutions of their 4k displays. But as 4k increases in popularity there will be pressure for more and more originated 70mm material. The fact of the matter is that while 35mm film is indeed the most popular format for film production today this may not be the case ten years from now if 70mm film rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 20, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 20, 2009 Let's have this discussion again in ten years and see where we are then. Anything is possible; the issue is what is probable. I think currently 25% to 30% of U.S. households have 16x9 HDTV sets. What we're imagining could happen is a near 100% switchover very soon and then a switchover all over again to 4K TV sets within the decade, plus the infrastructure to deliver 4K content to the home, with all the piracy and bandwidth problems solved. Sure, it's possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Walter Graff Posted April 20, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 20, 2009 Sorry to sound flippant but shouldn't this thread be moved to the science fiction section? Is there a fantasy section maybe? :) NHKs system is two 4k projectors and wouldn't fit in most homes. The reason you don't find any Tvs <720p is that the baseline of broadcast is 720p. Not any less than 1080i (1080p broadcast does not exist), just a different way to make a picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 20, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 20, 2009 I don't normally like to do this, but I'll go out on a relative limb here and make some predictions. Soon it will be May 2009, which I believe is 7 months before 2010, when some people were predicting that the majority of feature films would be shot digitally. Don't see that happening myself. My guess is that the "final" nail in film's coffin will be the next generation of digital cameras, starting with the EPIC next year. Give EPIC a year to really get out there, another year to sell in high enough quantities to be commonplace in rental houses (sorry, I still see the rental model as being how most feature films are going to be made, under short term limited liability business arrangements). So that's the middle of 2011. Figure by then, whatever new digital cinema camera ARRI is going to release is out there; maybe the successor to the Genesis too. Give all of those products another year to catch on, get the kinks out, and the workflows worked out -- now it's the middle of 2012. By now, a lot of productions are shooting digitally, Kodak's film division is sinking rapidly, but there is product and cameras and labs out there for the passionate die-hards who want to keep using it. Besides, even by 2012, 2013, half the U.S. theater screens will still be using film projectors. So, since everything takes longer to happen than you think, let's make the year 2014 as the year digital feature production for studio products outnumber film productions -- television has already gone over to nearly 99% digital, the majority of indie movies have as well. But film prints are still needed worldwide, if not also for half the screens in the U.S. By that time, five years from now, the majority of households will have 16x9 sets, either smaller 720P sets or larger 1080P sets. Home computer screens will be even higher in resolution, varying from 2K to 4K. Post houses will have moved to nearly an all-data environment, though some tape ingest and delivery will still be happening, thanks to Sony flogging the 1/2" betamax format for another decade, not to mention that LTO is a form of tape. OK, so it's 2014-15. Then what? Does the industry keep changing at a constant rate, or does it go into a period of stabilization, partly to save costs. Or maybe the movie and TV industry has become a lower-profit industry and everything is all about supporting the gaming industry and employing millions of CGI artists, and I get to retire early and teach a history of film technology course somewhere... Or maybe not, maybe there will always be an endless supply of people who want to make films with real people in the shot, in real locations... and viewers who want to watch those movies. You can say I'm being too conservative with my dates, but I'm just going by precedent, how fast things have changed since the first 24P HD camera hit the market in 2000. Back then, I was arguing with someone here who predicted that every household would have an HDTV set by 2001-2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted April 20, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 20, 2009 This is absolutely mind-boggling to me that people would be arguing AGAINST the progression of technology .... The human eye... blah blah blah." It's not that we don't want progress to happen. We're talking predictions, not preferences. I would argue that going beyond 1080p/2K at home is likely to be only a high end niche for quite a while. The rate of progress is not constant. In general, it tends to get slower as technologies mature. Consider audio recording: Listen to Enrico Caruso from 1907, then Dave Brubeck from 1957, and any example you want from 2007. Which half century produced the most progress? Perhaps we were closer to the limits of the ear in 1957 than we are to the limits of the eye today. But the closer we get to those limits, the harder it is to do better. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Marc Alucard Posted April 20, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 20, 2009 I have a Sony SXRD 1080P projector and a ten foot wide screen in my home theater. I would need a much bigger house to justify a higher resolution projector. A 20 to 30 foot wide screen would be nice If I wanted to sit REALLY far from the screen. High Definition content is still slim pickings, and uprezzed content doesn't count. Back to the OP I still think without the intervention of the Underpants Gnomes business acumen, You Tube will never be profitable under it's current business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 It's not that we don't want progress to happen. We're talking predictions, not preferences. I would argue that going beyond 1080p/2K at home is likely to be only a high end niche for quite a while. The rate of progress is not constant. In general, it tends to get slower as technologies mature. Consider audio recording: Listen to Enrico Caruso from 1907, then Dave Brubeck from 1957, and any example you want from 2007. Which half century produced the most progress? Perhaps we were closer to the limits of the ear in 1957 than we are to the limits of the eye today. But the closer we get to those limits, the harder it is to do better. -- J.S. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted April 21, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 21, 2009 Long live the daguerreotype! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karel Bata Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 I was invited by Sony a few years back, along with a few other guys from different parts of the industry, to a kind of brainstorming session. We were first asked what we wanted, and then what we predicted. Everyone agreed that broadcast camcorders would pretty soon record on to CD (it was that long ago!). I said that I thought CDs wouldn't be too robust, and felt certain that recording to solid state memory wouldn't be too far behind. I was nearly laughed out of the place! :lol: Seriously. But really, I wonder what on Earth the benefits of such high resolution actually are - apart from sport and porn. I'm perfectly happy with the res I currently get from my DVD - and I'm very particular about image quality. I can see how the latest Batman would look good in Blu-Ray, but I'd rather see that in the cinema. Is this whole revolution really being powered by Joe Public insatiably wanting the next Big Thing? The next must-have gadget? Some endless desire to 'keep up with the Jones's'? :( BTW this thread was about Youtube. Now it's about 8K. Same thing, I suppose... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Actually according to Phillips a 56 inch 4K television that sells for $25,000 is the minimum resolution needed to make a good 3D television that does not need those silly glasses. Phillips is promising a total of 46 different viewing angle to be displayed at once which means the effective resolution will be 384 megapixels. Of course most of these viewing angles will be mathematically interpolated because I cannot imagine using 46 different 65mm cameras. But I don't think that these Blu-Ray 3D movies are any good simply because they halve the resolution of the existing display and produce a weak dilluted picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 21, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 21, 2009 This sounds like Thomas' dream camera -- 4K RAW 60P (quad-HD): http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/prc/10809.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 No wonder Jim Jannard of Red Digital Cinema did not want to show up in person at NAB 2009 because now he has to compete with JVC which is demonstrating a prototype that claims to be a vastly superior product. Of course Jim is not out of the race by a longshot because his Epic line of cameras will exceed JVC specifications but right now he may not have a working Epic prototype to showcase his work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted April 21, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 21, 2009 No wonder Jim Jannard of Red Digital Cinema did not want to show up in person at NAB 2009 because now he has to compete with JVC which is demonstrating a prototype that claims to be a vastly superior product. Not as I read the link. This is the same 4K Bayer that Red already has, plus HD video out. What's the big deal? -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 JVC is claiming that its camera has a live 60p output which makes its camera the ideal choice for live sports broadcasting. So this means that theatres with 4K projectors will be able to show the Olympics or the Super Bowl live in 4K at 60 frames per second with absolutely no motion blurring. Red on the otherhand is a digital cinema camera which has 4K limited to 30 frames per second which makes it not the best choice for live events even though it is a good choice for movies. And the second thing is this is not just talk but JVC will actually demonstrate its 4K 60p footage at NAB using a 56 inch 4k monitor using working prototypes in order to demonstrate the superiority of its live footage compared with the more cinematic footage of the Red. Jim Jannard on the otherhand has the specifications on his Epic cameras to rival and exceed JVC specifications but because he has no working prototype so his position will be very difficult to defend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 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 The main problem is that you can put in 4 HDTV channels instead of one 4k channel. Assuming that a market develops for domestic 4K, it would need to have content worthy of that extra resolution above HD. - most productions actually don't. It would tend to be a premium channel for people who have a home cinema rather than HDTV, because unless you have a large enough screen it's pointless having 4K. Perhaps, this could be a subscription channel with a slower download rate than for real time viewing and there may or may not be a time limit for viewing the program. You can have a supersonic airliner, but the economics worked against the concept and the beautiful Concorde had to be retired early. The economics have to make sense, just because something is possible, unless the product some significant advantage in the market place that outweighs the opposition's product it's not going to survive. IF you can barely see a difference at typical domestic viewing distances there's no must have factor to buying into 4K. It would be better improving HDTV screens and the distribution chain, so that you have less artefacts with HD. You Tube has nothing to do with 4K, its place in the market is about democratic video distribution. How economically viable that concept is remains to be seen, at least in the current form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karel Bata Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 "Concorde had to be retired early." Concorde entered service in 1976, and up to 2003 Air France and British Airways continued to operate the New York services daily. That's 27 years. How long is a supersonic airliner meant to last..? :lol: It used to fly over me each day around 2. Man it was noisy! But you're right, it wasn't economically viable to update it - insufficient demand. Back to 64K (or whatever). Have you guys ever noticed that a lot of folk will stretch the picture to fit the screen? Or even use that horrendous 'panoramic' setting which keeps the middle looking ok, but stretches the edges to fit? And then they'll go for a preset that ups the contrast and sharpness so they can 'see it better'. As for the sound... So doesn't that make a joke of upping the res still further..? You guys may watch it in a true 'home cinema' environment with the proper settings, but you're in the minority. p.s. This thread is still about YouTube. :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted April 21, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 21, 2009 Youtube is the past. I think Hulu is the future.. that or maybe youtube needs to work on incorporating higher production quality content with advertising partners as Hulu does and keep the user-upload bit on the back burner. Perhaps it would be smart to really look into what people are watching on the site and for how long and selling that to producers, or maybe some sort of "on demand" functionality which they charge a flat monthly fee for (focus on college kids and what they want to watch? maybe). I'm just throwing out business models. I still think this whole online thing is a fad ;) Ok seriously, Youtube has the problem that it's, well, Youtube, user created (for the most part). It's hard to really make money off of: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karel Bata Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 Is that one of yours? Cool. Did you have the image stabilizer switched on? What people are watching? http://www.viralvideochart.com/ :huh: It's like some other planet with no taste, no sense of culture, no aesthetic judgement... And man, that 'Brtiain's Got talent' is so embarrassing. :( I had to watch an episode once where a guy got in the semi-finals for his skill at dribbling a football! I felt like that audience watching Springtime For Hitler" You really want this in 8K..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 And man, that 'Brtiain's Got talent' is so embarrassing. :( I had to watch an episode once where a guy got in the semi-finals for his skill at dribbling a football! I felt like that audience watching Springtime For Hitler" You really want this in 8K..? You Tube is a mix of everything from serious training videos to total nonsense. The Susan Boyle phenomena is an interesting one, but personally I don't watch Britain's Got talent, although I suppose it's that end of the pier talent contest element that does attract the Saturday night viewers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now