Jump to content
Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

How Something Is Filmed and How Something Is Shown

Recommended Posts

Using a line chart to determine the "max resolution" of a digital representation of a frame of film in lines/mm makes little sense to me, because the creation of that line chart is subject to the vagaries of the camera lens, film stock, how well the image was focused, etc. That is, the film/camera's ability to resolve those lines have little to do with the scanner's ability to scan the film at higher and higher resolutions. At a certain point, you hit the limits of even the best lenses and film stocks in making an image.

But aren't those factors identical with digital? The digital world places an image within a confined space or resolution, but that doesn't mean the image contains that much pixel depth.

 

My whole point is that if one is mixing analog and digital in a DI, for example, the best practice would be to do all your scans at resolutions higher than those you will be outputting, so as not to cripple the image in any way. In the same way one uses extremely slow, fine-grained film stocks for intermediates and prints, one should scan at higher resolutions than what conventional wisdom says are the "limits" of the film, in order to ensure that no damage is done to the image in the digital realm (that also buys some flexibility compositionally, having a larger scan to crop or scale down).

Ohh I whole heartedly agree when talking about film. When discussing digital capture and finishing, things become a bit more confusing because again, there is no way to re-scan at a higher resolution in the future. So a lot of people are opting for higher resolution capture then the current presentation standards which max out at 4k. What they don't realize is editing, finishing and storing material with that high of a resolution in RGB quality for cinema presentation, is extremely challenging and expensive. A cut and conformed camera negative is a few can's of film that can sit on a shelf for over 100 years and deliver similar quality for MUCH less money. The problem is, people don't understand that workflow, they've almost forgotten the benefits of film because they've become so use to shooting digitally, they don't even contemplate the older technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But aren't those factors identical with digital? The digital world places an image within a confined space or resolution, but that doesn't mean the image contains that much pixel depth.

 

 

 

Of course that much information is there in the real world. One could argue about whether or not it looks good, but an 8k, HDR digital capture of the real world is going to have a lot more information in it than a similar 4k capture. That assumes you're shooting digitally. And one could probably make a good argument that it looks totally weird and unnatural. Kind of an uncanny valley effect.

 

 

In the film/digital workflow, more pixels is what you want, and more dynamic range, and more color depth, if what you want to do is manipulate the image without introducing artifacts from the digital realm.

 

 

What they don't realize is editing, finishing and storing material with that high of a resolution in RGB quality for cinema presentation, is extremely challenging and expensive. A cut and conformed camera negative is a few can's of film that can sit on a shelf for over 100 years and deliver similar quality for MUCH less money. The problem is, people don't understand that workflow, they've almost forgotten the benefits of film because they've become so use to shooting digitally, they don't even contemplate the older technology.

 

 

If you were to scan a film at 4k DPX and edit at 4k, even today, you'd need some serious horsepower, and ridiculous amounts of drive space. But a carefully considered post production workflow can be constructed that works with something like 2k ProRes files (or similarly compressed formats), giving you much more reasonable working files that you can use on modest hardware. The final master is pretty much a media relink and render away, in most editing and grading tools. ...As long as you're careful about how you go about it in post, this is totally doable, even if you do your editing on a laptop.

 

-perry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I do most of my work in 1920x1080 and my pretty powerful Mac Pro system with high speed raid drives can barely deal with it. I've set up numerous post houses around LA and everyone sends their low-res offline edits with EDL's to shop's like FotoKem to conform for finishing because they can't afford the appropriate storage and CPU's. This is part of the reason so many people finish in 2k, it's just a lot simpler and "good enough".

 

The problems I have with shooting in 4k and finishing in 2k, is that you don't give the audience anything different then what they can watch at home on their own TV's. Also, 20 years from now when someone buys the library your film is included with, those camera original files are going to be LONG GONE. Nobody is storing the 50TB worth of camera originals for every single movie made, that's not happening. However, that's exactly what needs to happen if you plan on going back to the camera original for a higher resolution finish in the future. Sure, you COULD pull the selects only and store them, but most people aren't doing that. Most of the modern films are being put on to LTO as final products and the camera originals are being stored on a shelf on tape. Good luck getting those back 20 years from now, it's just not going to happen and even if the tapes do work, nobody is going to go through all that effort of relinking everything, recoloring everything and distributing it in 4k. No, they're going to upres the 2k, which is practically free!

 

The frustrating part is, we've had solutions to these problems for decades, but we've moved away from them. Partially I suspect because nobody really cares... at least what's what it sounds like when I talk with the "big shots" at other post houses around L.A. Once they're done, it's off to Iron Mountain and wipe their hands clean. The 2000's have been the first generation of filmmaking that's lower quality then all the previous generations thanks to 2k DI and distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"K's" are horizontal, so your figure isn't necessarily in disagreement. I remember getting in a long-winded argument with a projectionist who INSISTED that 2K was "twice the resolution" of 1080i, and this guy, in addition to running film had an engineering degree, I think.

 

Well I guess if he meant resolution per field then it's something like 540 per field which is going to be quite a bit less than half but in practice it will probably be de-interlaced onto some kind of progressive display...although that leads to a loss of resolution in itself. The BBC ran some tests on this stuff as there was an argument about whether 720p might actually be higher res than 1080i. They found that the 1080i was better than the 720p in resolving detail but it wasn't as big a difference as you might expect. So there isn't actually very clear agreement on whether 720p or 1080i is better, hence the use of both out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, you've got Sony's failed UHD BluRay and steaming service. None of the studio's are signing on because they don't have UHD masters. It's a complete failure because nobody cares and honestly, I feel that is the same case about UHD across the board. See, the government forced everyone to buy new TV's, even when people were perfectly happy with their old ones. Most people are sick and tired of constantly upgrading and honestly 1080i is so much better then what they're use to, upgrading isn't even on the radar. So without the consumers jumping on board in droves like they were forced to for the HD roll out, UHD is going to be a long road.

 

Well it's a bit early to say that UHD BluRay is a failure thankfully (to say the least, it's only arrived last couple of months) and it's not that much to do with Sony as Sony are ironically not that behind UHD BluRay, which could be a real problem for the format. Sony have so far been more interested in trying to make some kind of special digital upload movie server thing. Maybe they will get with the UHD BluRay thing down the line.

 

UHD Blu-Ray is the best hope for anything like a "4K" future tho.

It's possible that sat TV broadcast of UHD will take off as a premium thing.

It's possible there will be government moves to HEVC and some aspect of UHD broadcast in the future assuming that terrestrial broadcast TV can hold out that long.

 

I tend to the opinion that if UHD blu-ray doesn't happen then the internet will dominate. Probably at 720p for quite a few years with 1080p making more of an impact in the distant future with more advanced codecs. (VP10/11?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of TV shows aren't mastered at 4K.

Yes I would say it is a total failure.



I'm not sure how film, which has a finite number of silver grains (randomly-scattered picture elements of their own, although not limited depending on angle like a grid is) doesn't have a finite resolution.

Also, realistically speaking, 500T film, 35mm, most certainly does not need higher than a 4K scan, maybe a down-sample. But it's not 6K.

You're talkinga bout, at best, half of a 35mm still frame. About 1" x 3/4" There's no 24 megapixels/6K of resolution there, sorry. You might see some benefit in that higher-resolution scan, and, keep in mind, I'm most definitely a film guy, but let's not delude ourselves. I've heard ACs with decades of experience talking about how film is "10K!" No that's not correct, not correct at all.

And resolution is not the most important thing, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to the opinion that if UHD blu-ray doesn't happen then the internet will dominate. Probably at 720p for quite a few years with 1080p making more of an impact in the distant future with more advanced codecs. (VP10/11?)

Internet already dominates. I've already streamed 4k material off Netflix, youtube, vimeo and the vast majority of content I stream from other sites is 1080p. Rumors are ALL Amazon, Netflix and Hulu original content will be 4k streaming by the end of this year, as they're all shooting in 4k as a way to differentiate themselves from broadcast.

 

What kills me about the VP9/10 codec's is that they require substantially more processing power to playback. So sure, they're more efficient bandwidth wise, but if your computer can't process the data, it won't playback. VP9 is what Google uses and let me tell you something, even with a 300Mbps pipe and a pretty fast computer (8 core 2.8ghz) it's nearly impossible to playback youtube in 4k, yet .h265 plays back fine. This is why I use Vimeo for all of my content distribution, it flat out works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For analog Film... one sees such numbers for resolution as 50 line pairs per millimeter... one sees specs for the resolution of lenses, say 100 line pairs per millimeter... and of course the formula for what the overall resolution is... is not 'straight forward'...

 

Depending... it would be 1/R-system = 1/R-film + 1/R-lens... which if one calculates out... leads to about a 30% loss from the 'manufacturer's spec on the film'... so for the above it would be about 30-35 line pairs per millimeter for the resulting image on the negative.

 

For all intents and purposes analog Film goes 'smoothly' to junk, and so the max resolution for such is given as when the MTF curve crosses the 30% line, one reads off the corresponding LpM value... but yeah, since it is a 'smooth' curve to junk, someone could 'see' something in the grain 'noise' if they looked for it...

 

Digital has a hard cutoff at the pixel sample rate, which is usually listed in horizontal pixels.... so a 2K or a 1920 have essentially the same 'resolution' for most purposes... are you going to see that sharper an image by loosing 128 pixels across the line...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of TV shows aren't mastered at 4K.

 

Yes I would say it is a total failure.

 

Virtually nothing was mastered at 4K. Some indie projects, Some Netflix shows, and the stuff for those UHD TV Channels.

It's still early days for the whole UHD thing tho.

 

You would say what is a total failure?

If you mean UHD Blu-Ray it's been around for a matter of weeks so it's really a bit early to decide and it also depends on what you think success or failure looks like. A lot of people might argue that Blu-Ray itself was hardly a massive success but on the other hand it has its fans...

 

If it fails, which is a strong possibility, then the whole scope of this thread will become irrelevant, from the 4K/8K question to this whole idea of "future proofing" your content because the future won't be like that. That's one of those thing no-one is going to want to hear tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet already dominates. I've already streamed 4k material off Netflix, youtube, vimeo and the vast majority of content I stream from other sites is 1080p. Rumors are ALL Amazon, Netflix and Hulu original content will be 4k streaming by the end of this year, as they're all shooting in 4k as a way to differentiate themselves from broadcast.

 

What kills me about the VP9/10 codec's is that they require substantially more processing power to playback. So sure, they're more efficient bandwidth wise, but if your computer can't process the data, it won't playback. VP9 is what Google uses and let me tell you something, even with a 300Mbps pipe and a pretty fast computer (8 core 2.8ghz) it's nearly impossible to playback youtube in 4k, yet .h265 plays back fine. This is why I use Vimeo for all of my content distribution, it flat out works.

 

Oddly... for my day job at the moment we are using a 3 Mbs 'pipe' to play demo clips transmitted from our 'box', and received by such things as iPhones and Android widgets... and soon to Chromebooks... and the intended market is 'educational'...

 

People seem to be more impressed with a cheap 'small area' (as in like a few classrooms worth of 'broadcast') and acceptable quality than worry about UHD... with Ultra... how can you go up from there...

 

For my own personal home use... I'm still viewing anything from any source at 720p...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kills me about the VP9/10 codec's is that they require substantially more processing power to playback. So sure, they're more efficient bandwidth wise, but if your computer can't process the data, it won't playback. VP9 is what Google uses and let me tell you something, even with a 300Mbps pipe and a pretty fast computer (8 core 2.8ghz) it's nearly impossible to playback youtube in 4k, yet .h265 plays back fine. This is why I use Vimeo for all of my content distribution, it flat out works.

 

VP10 codec isn't finished yet but I would imagine it will be slower than VP9 but who knows depends on how much the code is optimised.

 

Neither YouTube or Vimeo support h.265 but if they did it would also be very slow.

Faster computers will solve that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet already dominates. I've already streamed 4k material off Netflix, youtube, vimeo and the vast majority of content I stream from other sites is 1080p. Rumors are ALL Amazon, Netflix and Hulu original content will be 4k streaming by the end of this year, as they're all shooting in 4k as a way to differentiate themselves from broadcast.

 

DVD's are still popular, as is broadcast somewhat, so the internet does not entirely dominate.

The future for home video might be entirely internet based however.

We will have to see.

 

I'm sure you are streaming video at 1080p Tyler but then you are directly involved in moving image stuff.

The vast majority of people I know have computers that max out at about 720p playback.

A lot of people have to make do with 360p for all kinds of reasons.

A lot of people are watching on phones and tablets now too.

 

YouTube invented VP9 to make 720p and 1080p streaming more viable.

In streaming 4K will be the high end but 720p is likely to be the happy medium.

In the future I expect that 720p will be available to almost everyone.

In the more distant future that may be true of 1080p too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Netflix... Netflix finally owns up to capping streaming speeds for 'mobile' devices...

 

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/netflixs-blockbuster-admission-throttles-att-verizon-video-will-focus-attention-data-caps/

 

From the blurb, Netflix has been capping rates at 600Kbs for ATT and Verizon, ostensibly to protect the customer from excessive data usage... (I got a warning last month for getting close to 75% usage of my 30 GB allotment...)

 

On the other hand the article reports that Netflix doesn't throttle T-Mobile or Sprint, because according to Netflix, those services just degrade the bandwidth if the consumer exceeds their monthly limit... which is transparent to Netflix.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVD's are still popular, as is broadcast somewhat, so the internet does not entirely dominate.

It depends on the age group. I've noticed a lot of older people, don't consider the internet as their first source for anything. News papers and broadcast, are the news sources for them. Heck, when my dad wants to know about traffic, he listens to AM radio, instead of grabbing his computer and checking the traffic online.

 

By contrast, younger people go to the internet as their first source for everything. Since they are the next generation, it's clear to me the internet will be the future and will dominate completely. The only reason it doesn't dominate everyone today is because a legal single source for all content doesn't exist today. Youth have found a way to bypass those issues and get any content at any time. So yes, the internet does entirely dominate, but it depends on how far you're willing to go.

 

DVD's are to the point of extinction here in the US.

 

I'm sure you are streaming video at 1080p Tyler but then you are directly involved in moving image stuff.

Sure, but my point is the content exists and is streaming in resolutions up to 4k, how the user chooses to stream it is almost irrelevant. So to say 1080p will be coming soon, doesn't make any sense since it's the USER that's limiting the ability to get that resolution, not the content streamer/provider.

 

YouTube invented VP9 to make 720p and 1080p streaming more viable.

Yea it's quite an interesting codec, it doesn't work well though. I have nothing but problems with their service and if it wasn't for the fact it's connected to google so tightly, I would never use it. Vimeo is a far better service, I never have any problems with it and at 1080p, it looks far better then youtube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"as they're all shooting in this way to differentiate from TV broadcast."

-Sorry, Tyler, but I'm going to have to interject on behalf of the [non] reader here who doesn't care about cinematography. No one watches something because it's in 2K or not on their computer who is not a filmmaker.



That is a filmmaker fantasy. I'm no techie, and laugh at "filmmakers" who want to know how old my laptop is, but my 2014 DESKTOP computer can't stream 1080P properly.

Netflix is glitchy and doesn't look like full 1080P HD when I stream it.

I still rely upon my TV set for watching HD content, along with BluRays. No issues with glitches, crashes, Then again, I'm not into dumping thousands of dollars into this.

I'm sure there are some very good laptops out there, but I for one am not willing to frequently invest and reinvest the money into financing their development.


My 2009 BluRay player and 2005 TV do just fine in delivering me HD content. I go out if I want over 2K :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By contrast, younger people go to the internet as their first source for everything. Since they are the next generation, it's clear to me the internet will be the future and will dominate completely. The only reason it doesn't dominate everyone today is because a legal single source for all content doesn't exist today. Youth have found a way to bypass those issues and get any content at any time. So yes, the internet does entirely dominate, but it depends on how far you're willing to go.

 

From the various NAB articles I've read, I seem to be about 3-4 sigmas out from the rest of my peer age group... for a bunch of geriatrics who 'want the world and we want it now'... they sure have turned into a bunch of stick in the muds...

 

On the other hand... the Daughter is much better on the various wedgetry of iPhones... but then she did make a small business out of providing custom user support for people who didn't have the time, but did have the money to set their phones up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but my point is the content exists and is streaming in resolutions up to 4k, how the user chooses to stream it is almost irrelevant. So to say 1080p will be coming soon, doesn't make any sense since it's the USER that's limiting the ability to get that resolution, not the content streamer/provider.

 

Well I didn't say that 1080p will be coming soon. I didn't say anything remotely like that.

 

You say it's the user that is limiting the ability to get that resolution is just as true of UHD blu-ray or even Blu-Ray.

If the user chose to buy those technologies they could use those too.

 

Although you also ignore economic considerations and it is these that are most likely to affect things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's what the content producers are aiming for, a way to differentiate themselves from broadcast television. If it's the availability of commercial free 4k content, so be it. Sure, the vast majority of people don't know what that means, nor do they care. However, those that do care, will make every effort to make it a reality.

 

Now, I'm a pretty big tekkie, but I don't have the money for fancy things. My decade long investment was in a decent surround sound system, high def cinema-grade, color calibrated DLP projector, Mac Mini and BluRay player HDMI sources. It's a great little kit, works better then BluRay because there is far more control and finding content is a three second click away online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To differentiate themselves." I know that you are a film guy, but that sounds exactly like what someone says before they go and shell out tens of thousands to get an extra K.

That's an approach that has failed time and again, and it's something to sell cameras, not something that the consumer wants.



I am a HUGE consumer of movies of TV. However, I can't think of a situation where I'd conceivably stop watching a TV show because there's a different show on Netflix at 4K.

And the budgets on those, not always, but a lot, suck. Seeing low-budget sets in 4K if anything brings out into the open low production values they'd be better off hiding.


Isn't the overall trend CUTTING budgets? 4x the spatial resolution for low budget mush I wouldn't clal an improvement. That goes for film, digital, 2K 4K, anything, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I didn't say that 1080p will be coming soon. I didn't say anything remotely like that.

...1080p making more of an impact in the distant future...

To me that means it's not here now because if it were, it would be making an impact.

 

Well, I'm here to say, unless someone uploaded something in less than 1080p, everything I watch is 1080p or better.

 

You say it's the user that is limiting the ability to get that resolution is just as true of UHD blu-ray or even Blu-Ray.

If the user chose to buy those technologies they could use those too.

Unlike disk formats which require special pieces of hardware to play them, computers are don't require such things to function at different resolutions. Now I'm not a windows/PC guy... so I don't know how those devices function and they aren't even on my radar. I have three computers; 2010 Mac Mini, 2008 Mac Pro Tower and 2009 Macbook Pro, all of them running antique operating systems and all playback 1080p Pro Res, .h265, Vimeo, Youtube, Netflix, Hulu and any other streaming service, perfectly fine. I even stream live races from Europe in 1080p every weekend flawlessly.

 

I didn't pay for 1080p , 2k or 4k streaming. All of a sudden those technologies became available and the same devices I've owned for years, appear to play them back fine. Sure I have decent internet. Sure I have a decent wireless router. Sure I understand how to maintain my computers and they have plenty of memory. Yet, they're pretty darn old in the grand scheme of things and none of my computers were "top of the line" when released originally.

 

Now... I do completely understand the vast majority of people, don't understand this technology. I'm FULL aware of that. However, that doesn't mean it somehow doesn't exist. It does exist and if you own old windows computers that can't play it back, that's not the fault of the content providers, that's the fault of the end user not keeping up with technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Tyler, my BluRay cost I think $100, seven years ago. It has lasted, what, two generations of laptop?


I honestly don't understand the aversion to instrumentalities, especially one that is backwards-compatible with DVD and CD.



And that is with the admission that I find it stupid and ironic that companies would go back to a spinning disc after convincing everyone to drop records for cassettes. It happens to be a stupid, fragile instrumentality but as opposed to the cloud, a compact disc is not a bad investment.

Makes more sense than the people with the HDTVs who still don't have HD, and a DVD player only in lieue of anything else, or HD streaming but no investment in anything to plug that into the TV set.

There is plenty of glitchiness and hickups with Netflix and the like, and that's with a new computer and the fastest speeds. Pretty sure, at least with Netflix it's more compressed than what comes on the set, even cable.

Not sure about the 4K services, but there seems to be plenty of obvious drawbacks that streaming hasn't solved in over a decade now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To differentiate themselves." I know that you are a film guy, but that sounds exactly like what someone says before they go and shell out tens of thousands to get an extra K.

And people do it all the time! It's nuts! I've personally invested in 1080p digital cameras and presentation devices for this exact reason. I personally don't want to be involved in the evolution, it doesn't interest me at all. I want to make content and when you add complications like 4k, it's no longer fun because the cost factors skyrocket.

 

That's an approach that has failed time and again, and it's something to sell cameras, not something that the consumer wants.

Ohh the average consumer doesn't care, let alone want. The vast majority of people would still be happy with their CRT's had the government not forced digital onto everyone as a way to boost sales for that industry. As a side note, just wait for electric auto-pilot cars. I bet our government will ban older cars from being on the highways to boost sales of new vehicles.

 

I am a HUGE consumer of movies of TV. However, I can't think of a situation where I'd conceivably stop watching a TV show because there's a different show on Netflix at 4K.

For sure. I mean you watch the content you want to watch. However, quite a bit of people have bit onto the UHD bug and currently own UHD monitors. So they will be wanting to show them off and the only way is to have UHD content. The web providers are working hard to deliver that, where everyone else is dragging their feet. I'm ok because it's just TV for gosh sakes, who cares what it looks like, it's mostly commercials anyway.

 

Isn't the overall trend CUTTING budgets? 4x the spatial resolution for low budget mush I wouldn't clal an improvement. That goes for film, digital, 2K 4K, anything, really.

IDK about that, we've had bigger and bigger budgets for TV and film in the last few years then we've ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Sorry, Tyler, but I'm going to have to interject on behalf of the [non] reader here who doesn't care about cinematography. No one watches something because it's in 2K or not on their computer who is not a filmmaker.

 

It’s funny that you should say this. There’s this singer in Serbia who likes to cover Greek music: for example,

,
another,
kind of resembles a Greek song. But that’s irrelevant. What I find intriguing is why does he believe it is necessary to label them as 4K right there in YouTube titles. I don’t know if it’s him or his directors, but since that’s plural (directors), I think it’s he. Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...1080p making more of an impact in the distant future...

 

 

To me that means it's not here now because if it were, it would be making an impact.

 

Well, I'm here to say, unless someone uploaded something in less than 1080p, everything I watch is 1080p or better.

 

 

Seriously? Try again Tyler.

 

There seems to be a growing problem with reading comprehension skills on this forum...

...or maybe this is deliberate seeing as you left those little dots there to show that I said a whole bunch more but that you are quoting me completely out of context and trying rather badly to skew what I said.

 

...but lets just go with the highly skewed out of context stuff you wrote for a moment because it says a lot about the way you are thinking about things.

 

Why do you think it's impossible for 1080p internet delivery to be around without making much of an impact?

You seemed to suggest that 4K UHD discs could be around and not make much of an impact, in fact you declared them to be a failure in spite of the fact they have only been around for mere weeks!

 

Yes for yourself Tyler you watch everything in 1080p if it is available in that format and why not? After all you have the bandwidth and computing power to support that but it's not all about you Tyler. Earlier in this thread you said "how the user chooses to stream it is almost irrelevant." Surely what the user is doing is the most relevant thing of all! This along with economics which is another thing you ignore, are the key aspects to all this.

 

Setting all that aside, in any case please note Tyler, that even in the tiny bit you quoted. The word "more" was there. This implies an increase in something. So I didn't say anything even remotely like "1080p will be coming soon". Not even close.

 

Freya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now... I do completely understand the vast majority of people, don't understand this technology. I'm FULL aware of that. However, that doesn't mean it somehow doesn't exist. It does exist and if you own old windows computers that can't play it back, that's not the fault of the content providers, that's the fault of the end user not keeping up with technology.

 

The end user might have good reason not to keep up with technology. As I keep saying you ignore economics. Also plenty of people are consuming content on phones and tablets which so far have more limited computing power. Often these mobile devices can also be on 3g and 4g which can be expensive in terms of bandwidth. Again this is an economic issue of course but one that is of concern to people. There is the issue of whether is it worth streaming in even 1080p if you are watching on a tiny 10 inch screen or less. Lots of issues which are all relevant to the end users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Rig Wheels Passport



    FJS International



    Abel Cine



    CineLab



    Tai Audio



    G-Force Grips



    Metropolis Post



    Just Cinema Gear



    Visual Products



    Ritter Battery



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Wooden Camera



    Glidecam



    The Original Slider



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Serious Gear


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...