Is YouTube doomed?

[Tom Lowe]

Why?

 

People have been shooting timelapse with pin-registered SLRs (also arguably more than 4K, 6.4K if you assume 8-perf resolves double of 4-perf.) for decades.

 

What I honestly don't understand is why this stuff wasn't "exciting" before it was digital. Was it too hard? Too expensive?

 

5-perf. 70mm, arguably the equivalent resolution of 8K or so, was around in the '60s.

 

Yes, but could anyone display it at home? How many people had 70mm projectors at home? 35mm projected on movie screens is roughly 720p, but now people at home can watch better-than-720p resolution, and they are gobbling it up. Look at the sales of Planet Earth and Sunrise Earth Blurays for confirmation. Or just look at the sales of 1080p screens in general.

[K Borowski]

Yes, but could anyone display it at home? How many people had 70mm projectors at home? 35mm projected on movie screens is roughly 720p, but now people at home can watch better-than-720p resolution, and they are gobbling it up. Look at the sales of Planet Earth and Sunrise Earth Blurays for confirmation. Or just look at the sales of 1080p screens in general.

 

As the proud owner of a 1080P TV, I can say that I am certain that a release print, *OPTICALLY PRINTED* looks better. 2K, no, not really.

 

Digital might have made things better on the consumer level, but it has, and usually always does make things worse on the professional level, where people are used to solving problems by throwing money at them.

 

And, yes, I do have a 35mm projector at home. It cost less than half of what my HD TV did. . .

 

 

You don't NEED a 70mm projector at home, because there is no way to utilize the resolution of 70mm without the big screen. 16mm was the most anyone would ever need, and it was about the same resolution as HD assuming you are dealing with a reduction print from 35mm.

[John Sprung]

Right now, a lot of Red One 4K shooters are not completely obsessed with viewing their stuff in 4K, because it actually holds up better at 1080p or 2K.

 

Yes, that's because of the difference between Bayer 4K and pixel 4K.

 

Red is Bayer 4K, one color sample at each of the 4K locations. Sony's projector is pixel 4K, a set of three samples, red, green, and blue, at each of the 4K locations. This has been noted here numerous times.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, but could anyone display it at home? How many people had 70mm projectors at home? 35mm projected on movie screens is roughly 720p, but now people at home can watch better-than-720p resolution, and they are gobbling it up. Look at the sales of Planet Earth and Sunrise Earth Blurays for confirmation. Or just look at the sales of 1080p screens in general.

 

This is rather like asking if most people look at their photographs as slides projected on the wall or as prints. One takes over the room for the screening, whilst the prints allow other activities to happen at the same time.

 

There always have been people who wish to have the latest, highest, resolution means to view images, but it's a much smaller market. Once you go above 1080p there's a law of diminishing returns, the money would be better spent on a higher quality sound system. The improvement in sound quality was the major development in the cinemas during the late 1970s and 1980s.

 

Currently, I believe Blu Ray sales are 8% as against 92% for DVD. The Blu Ray share will increase, but it will take time.

[Brian Drysdale]

Currently, I believe Blu Ray sales are 8% as against 92% for DVD. The Blu Ray share will increase, but it will take time.

 

Of course, being a statistic it doesn't actually seem to reflect the volume and since apparently Blu-ray has only 460 titles compared to approx 85,000 DVD titles in the USA. So I assume they are using a available titles comparison.

 

The sales percentages came from Home Media Magazine.

[Karel Bata]

Planet Earth Blurays selling well? Interesting that. I thought the majority of Planet Earth was shot on Super16. So (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there can't be much of a difference between the DVD and Blu-Ray versions? So people are buying the Blurays because they think they must be better. Rather like getting Casablanca on BR. Actually a waste of money.

 

So... I'm curious to know (if there is no real difference) if the public actually notices? And what does that imply for this debate?

[Brian Drysdale]

Planet Earth Blurays selling well? Interesting that. I thought the majority of Planet Earth was shot on Super16. So (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there can't be much of a difference between the DVD and Blu-Ray versions? So people are buying the Blurays because they think they must be better. Rather like getting Casablanca on BR. Actually a waste of money.

 

So... I'm curious to know (if there is no real difference) if the public actually notices? And what does that imply for this debate?

 

They've used HD on any of the diary stuff I've seen.

 

PAL DVD looks pretty good on a 720p LCD. I've seen Blu Ray on a 1080p and you can see a difference, but a 40" screen at a distance of 8ft isn't the same viewing angle as sitting in a cinema with a large screen.

 

There's an article in the Sunday Times about internet bandwidth and the volume that the BBC iplayer is taking up in the UK - currently 5%.

 

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle6169488.ece

[Ian Cooper]

They've used HD on any of the diary stuff I've seen....[/url]

 

It's been discussed on here previously, but Planet Earth was shot on a mixture of S16, 35mm and HD. It's just all the publicity, 'video diaries' etc. concentrated on the use of digital HD cameras, and didn't bother mentioning vast swathes of the series was actually shot on traditional film! Lol.

 

The 'making of' book shows many photos of Arri SRII's and Aaton's in use - indeed the front cover of the book shows an Aaton pointing at a flock of penguins. I think it was probably a good example of using the most appropriate tool for the job in hand: In some cases that was a digital HD camera, in some it was S16, in others it was 35mm. There are some sequences in the caves episode that were shot and lit one frame at a time on a Digital SLR (shot by Gavin Newman where the camera was tracking in a circle around some formations).

[Ian Cooper]

...Oh, and a lot of the video diaries themselves were shot on the PD170 (according to the photos in the book)

[Brian Drysdale]

It's been discussed on here previously, but Planet Earth was shot on a mixture of S16, 35mm and HD. It's just all the publicity, 'video diaries' etc. concentrated on the use of digital HD cameras, and didn't bother mentioning vast swathes of the series was actually shot on traditional film! Lol.

 

I suspected good old Super 16 was in there as well. I know it does get used for slow motion FX shots over the Varicam because of the greater colour space.

[Ian Cooper]

I suspected good old Super 16 was in there as well. I know it does get used for slow motion FX shots over the Varicam because of the greater colour space.

 

Yeah, some of the photos of Arri's are the "HS" version. There's a piccy of one all wrapped up in sheets of plastic for filming in the desert. Despite the extra protection the text says they experienced problems filming one of the approaching sand storms due to "technical problems" with the film cameras, so on the second attempt they fitted a digital SLR into a plastic sandwich box set to take 1 frame every second. The sped up footage made it look a bit more dramatic and interesting - "...give it a little more zip" as the book puts it! The plastic tub was also more effective at keeping the sand out of the camera! Apparently the cameraman's film equipment needed a pricy repair job after a month or more in the Sahara filming sand storms!

 

There's also a photo of a 35mm camera on a jib arm looking over the lip of a volcano at the lava lake 150ft below. Emperor penguins in Antarctic were captured with Aatons - the two camera crew setting up home there for an entire year, my powers of camera identification don't reach far enough to say S16 or 35mm I'm afraid.

 

What I did find interesting at the time it was first broadcast was that the video diary of capturing the Snow Leopard showed their first filming trip had used S16 equipment - the example footage shown was horribly grainy, low contrast and generally pretty lousy. The diary then went on to give details of the second trip to try and film the leopard when they had greater sucess. On this occasion they made a point of commenting on the 'HD' camera used, and this time when they showed footage it was all nicely graded examples as used in the final edit. Just based on that video diary the casual observer would go away with the impression that film footage looks dreadful against the 'new' HD cameras. They'd be totally unaware that they'd been watching S16 and HD edited and graded smoothly together with no obvious differences throughout the series!

 

I only saw the series in SD, I don't know if differences are more apparent on the HD version, but to be honest I was more interested in the subject matter when I was watching it! Given that the project started in 2003, who knows what equipment choices would be made for a similar exercise today ...presumably we'll find out when the next natural history unit series is released in four year's time! ;)

[Tom Lowe]

Planet Earth Blurays selling well? Interesting that. I thought the majority of Planet Earth was shot on Super16. So (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there can't be much of a difference between the DVD and Blu-Ray versions? So people are buying the Blurays because they think they must be better. Rather like getting Casablanca on BR. Actually a waste of money.

 

So... I'm curious to know (if there is no real difference) if the public actually notices? And what does that imply for this debate?

 

I believe that most of it was shot on F900s and Varicams. Of course, the overcranked Varicam stuff will only hold up at 720p. When you're viewing the Planet Earth series at 1080p on a 1080p screen, you can notice the parts that were shot 720p vs the ones shot at 1080p.

 

Sprung, of course I know about the issue with Bayer-pattern resolution, which is why I said that the reason current Red One shooters are not completely obsessed with viewing their stuff at 4K is because it won't even hold up at 4K. BUT... once people start shooting on 5K and 6K, and posting at 4K, THEN they will really, really want to see it and edit it and screen it at 4K.

 

BTW, there is a shadow thread of this topic over at Reduser, and it's quite interesting to note that a lot of the Red team members chimed in with very bullish things to say about 4K display, including Graeme Nattress. It definitely leads me to believe that Red very much believes that 4K displays for homes and editing PCs are coming.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Tom Lowe

[Brian Drysdale]

once people start shooting on 5K and 6K, and posting at 4K, THEN they will really, really want to see it and edit it and screen it at 4K.

 

BTW, there is a shadow thread of this topic over at Reduser, and it's quite interesting to note that a lot of the Red team members chimed in with very bullish things to say about 4K display, including Graeme Nattress. It definitely leads me to believe that Red very much believes that 4K displays for homes and editing PCs are coming.

 

They'll have a hard time persuading the various broadcasters who still have the larger audiences plus production budgets to invest in a 4k infrastructure while still investing in the current HDTV systems during a recession. Theatrical sure, that's already happening and high end 4k home cinema perhaps, but they'll need the software (the films) in order to make the latter happen. In the end the decisions will be made by the corporate bean counters, not people wanting to make films on a 5k camera they've just bought.

 

You'd expect the RED people to be bullish because they're making the stuff, but they'll have to build up a complex web of relationships to make it happen including getting into bed with that old Sony company. Worthwhile 4k productions won't be cheap to make, even though the RED cameras may be coming out at high end SD prices.

[K Borowski]

It definitely leads me to believe that Red very much believes that 4K displays for homes and editing PCs are coming.

 

No sh*& Sherlock. They want to sell it to every household, so of course they are going to "believe" that it is coming.

 

Whether it actually does is another story.

 

Do you believe Kodak's marketing hype too? I sure-as-he!! don't. . .

[Tom Lowe]

They'll have a hard time persuading the various broadcasters who still have the larger audiences plus production budgets to invest in a 4k infrastructure while still investing in the current HDTV systems during a recession.

 

What "infrastructure" are you talking about? If 4K can be transmitted at the same digital bandwidth that today's 1080p uses, there really are not a whole lot of changes that need to be made.

 

As for you guys saying, "Of course Red thinks 4K displays are coming, because it's in their interest." Well, sure it is, but so are 4K cameras. When Jim announced his 4K camera back in 2006, many of the members here claimed he was a fraud or was nothing but "marketing" and hype. They told us that Jannard was delusional if he thought 4K cameras were the next step. They personally mocked other members here who believed Jannard's claims as "red fanboys" or "DIY filmmakers." And they tried to discredit any talk of 4K cameras in the same way you are doing here -- by claiming that of course Red employees would claim 4K cameras are going to be the next big thing, because they have an interest in doing so. Fast forward two years, and now every camera company on earth has completely stopped designing new 35mm film cameras, and they are racing at break-neck speed to produce 4K RAW cameras.

 

So who was right and who was wrong?

 

It's amazing to me that some of the same people who told us that 4K cameras were not needed are here once again telling us that 4K displays are "not needed."

Edited April 26, 2009 by Tom Lowe

[K Borowski]

It's amazing to me that some of the same people who told us that 4K cameras were not needed are here once again telling us that 4K displays are "not needed."

 

I'm not saying that 4K displays are not needed. I'm saying that they won't catch on, because HD hasn't even caught on yet.

 

As for "new 35mm cameras" what exactly would you recommend changing or improving on a 35mm camera? Hell, the Panavision was unchanged for almost 30 years in its basic form.

 

Sure some cameras have gotten lighter, but they are still basically the same as the Mitchell model that came around in the early '50s.

 

The only improvement I can think of left for 35mm film would be thinner film base to allow for longer running time.

[Brian Drysdale]

What "infrastructure" are you talking about? If 4K can be transmitted at the same digital bandwidth that today's 1080p uses, there really are not a whole lot of changes that need to be made.

 

As for you guys saying, "Of course Red thinks 4K displays are coming, because it's in their interest." Well, sure it is, but so are 4K cameras. When Jim announced his 4K camera back in 2006, many of the members here claimed he was a fraud or was nothing but "marketing" and hype. They told us that Jannard was delusional if he thought 4K cameras were the next step.

It's amazing to me that some of the same people who told us that 4K cameras were not needed are here once again telling us that 4K displays are "not needed."

 

To fit more 4 times more data into the same bandwidth you're going to need more compression. People are already commenting on the high compression levels on the 720p and 1080i HD channels.

 

I suspect the other camera manufacturers thinking in terms of 4k theatrical projection, not 4k home entertainment. The 4k RAW cameras with their Bayer sensors, seem to work out fine for the current 2k plus the smaller number of 4K theatres using oversampling method. Aaton still seem to be working on their Penelope 36mm camera, although with a possible 6k digital mag in the background. You don't really need to keep designing new 35mm film cameras, the 4O year old cameras with the modern optics and the latest film stocks give the same image quality as the camera designed last year. It's the accessories that get changed.

 

For the 4k displays to work in the domestic market, you'll need to change how people watch TV/films in that market. There are always people who sit in the front row of the cinema, but if you look at that overall sitting pattern you can see that most people sit towards the back. For the 4k display to be worthwhile you'll have to reverse that, otherwise the audience won't see any difference with 1080p displays. I suspect RED know they're selling the RedRay to a niche market of professionals, hobbyists with deep pockets and home cinema enthusiasts rather than the mass HDTV market.

 

RED need their own 4k display because most of the people buying their 5k plus cameras would never get a 4k theatrical distribution, so they have to create a way to fulfil their customer's need to see their extra pixels. They also need a system to view their rushes properly.

 

I'm not knocking RED making a 4k display, there are a number of creative possibilities, such a video installations etc., but that very different to 4k catching on in mass market home entertainment systems.

[K Borowski]

To fit more 4 times more data into the same bandwidth you're going to need more compression. People are already commenting on the high compression levels on the 720p and 1080i HD channels.

 

It is certainly bothersome to me. The *only* place you can't see it is in the static shots.

 

How about getting better 720- and 1080P instead of 4K footage with MORE compression.

 

I think compression technology has reached a plateau anyway. It can only get so much more out of it. As the old saying goes: "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know about that -- compression technology seems to keep improving. The problem is that broadcasters / TV stations are using a fairly crude and heavy form of it and they probably will stick to it long after better compression technology is available.

 

After seeing the original Peter Jackson RED short, Mike Most and I had the same reaction... that compression works, it's not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, it makes things (like 4K RAW) highly practical with minimal visible loss if done well.

 

But it's also true that there are always drawbacks, but there are drawbacks with uncompressed footage too -- not visual ones, just practicality issues.

 

I find that good compression works for display devices but for camera origination, it may create some post issues as you try to manipulate the image. But I also think it is here to stay.

 

I remember years and years ago when the industry was moving from D1 to Digital Betacam with its DCT compression -- at first, a lot of people were appalled ("it's compressed!") but within a few years, almost everyone stopped worrying about it because the quality was high enough for most applications except mastering features.

 

Compression is here to stay. As long as the quality works for its intended application, then it starts to become an academic debate with no practical value. On the other hand, compression is a form of compromise so the degree and type of it becomes a critical decision. But I think the notion of avoiding it altogether only makes sense for certain types of shoots, like for effects shots or for a D.I. to create a digital archive master.

 

Which brings up my real issue with compression -- will these complex schemes be translatable in the far future when someone digs these digital masters out of a vault? Or will it be gibberish? I assume programs exist or will exist that can look at any compression scheme and figure out what it going on in order to decompress the data.

[Tom Lowe]

Highly compressed acquisition is indeed the problem rather than highly compressed distribution. A lot of these newer H264-based 1080p cameras illustrate that. The footage can be a disaster to work with in post.

 

This is why I like the direction Red is headed with DSMC, with higher "RAW" bitrates for acquisition. Save the super-heavy compression for distribution.

[Karel Bata]

Thanks for clue-ing me in re Planet Earth. And there was I thinking "Wow! Super-16 looks good these days!" :D

 

As to compression, I agree that it's plateau-ing out. For now anyway. There was the same general feeling about PC processor speed a few years ago, and then along came dual/quad processing which completely changed everything. Could be something similar will happen with compression. Some clever new idea...

[Paul Bruening]

Wow. Compression. What a great idea. Why don't we compress the Mona Lisa until it looks like it was done with a kid's crayons. It could even be done with film. Compress 35mm film's size down to 8mm. My wife says she wants compression in the bedroom. Less snoring from me. What did you think I was talking about?

[David Mullen ASC]

Thanks for clue-ing me in re Planet Earth. And there was I thinking "Wow! Super-16 looks good these days!" :D

 

There IS some Super-16 in "Planet Earth" -- you can spot it OK on Blu-Ray. Looks pretty good though.

[Vincent Sweeney]

Planet Earth Blurays selling well? Interesting that. I thought the majority of Planet Earth was shot on Super16. So (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there can't be much of a difference between the DVD and Blu-Ray versions? So people are buying the Blurays because they think they must be better. Rather like getting Casablanca on BR. Actually a waste of money.

 

So... I'm curious to know (if there is no real difference) if the public actually notices? And what does that imply for this debate?

 

Sorry, what are you saying here? You don't think S16 can be turned into HD effectively? If that is what you think, I'd like to know where you (and others) keep getting this kind of info from. I can tell you that you are very wrong if this is the case.

[Marc Alucard]

Here is a link that covers home theater design, including resolution in relation to viewing distance. For the most part IMHO it is pretty good info.

 

Home Theater Excel Calculator