|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Sony Marketing of 4K. Have a look.
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 08-12-2009 11:18 AM
Near 100% 4K (or above) production for cinema movies will arrive yes or yes.
It's a question of when, not a question of if. We can all rest assure.
Therefore, we shouldn't really bother considering whether most movies today are 2K or what not.
Five years from now (or 10 or 20 or just 2, time will tell), most-all movies will be 4K and beyond.
The only consideration is: why didn't we have 4K systems in the cinema sooner?
Nobody argues today about the validity of 1.3K systems touted for MANY years as the replacement for 35mm in the industry. It may take 2 years, 5 years, 10 years or even 20 years, but, valid or not, we'll be all LAUGHING at 2K DCI solutions one day. We can all bet on it.
So I think it's better to concentrate on getting over of this 2K phase the industry is going through as soon as possible. After we reach 4K as a replacement for 35mm film, we can stop arguing about "quality" and stuff and concentrate on what has always set products appart in this industry: reliability, cost, etc.
Small differences in picture quality between projectors has always been overshadowed by huge differences between prints etc, and it has never stopped the industry.
2K has "proved" it was good enough to most people instead of 35mm. 4K will prove it will be "four times" as good as 2K. After that, minute differences in color, contrast, etc, won't put a single more customer on the seats, so it's only a moot argument to see who has the larger pipi. Hell, even the "huge" 2K-over-4K difference will doubtfully put any more customers in seats, but at least it will stop somehow those that argue that 35mm is waaaayyyyssssssssssssssssssssssssss better and nobody will get out of their houses to watch 2K at all.
If Sony is the only guy in town with quirky, propietary equipment that MEETS a quality level SIMILAR to 35mm film, well, then I guess we all will have to go Sony. If TI can stop acting like jerks and come out with inexpensive 4K systems, then they may get something to win and so will the industry. If it doesn't pay for them, then we are all screwed.
Attempting to pass a 2K product as a replacement for 35mm for 5-10 times the price is, in my humble opinion, a scam. Exactly as 1.3K was 6 years ago. No more, no less. I don't see any advantage on doing that unless the price goes down to 35mm level or the quality goes up to 35mm level. As it stands, I see would see no reason to pay for a change of the 35mm equipment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 08-17-2009 08:12 AM
Steve I have to disagree with you.
Striving to keep the cinema "Better Quality" then a home experience is a game you will inevitably loose. And the sooner the exhibition owners realize this, the better.
There is MUCH more money behind consumer technology then the world cinema industry can ever have. Even if 4K does become more used and prolific, before you know it, there will be 4K LCD's and 4K domestic projector systems hitting the streets. (Look at 3D, we have domestic screen/projectors, we are just waiting on some modifications to the BlueRay spec for distribution)
What we need to realize here is that, once a level of quality is reached, and I think 2K is good enough, it is not so much about being 2k or 4k, but the fact cinema offers an experience that you cannot get at home.
A screen/room/sound bigger then anyone at home will have. A nice and relaxing, appreciable environment. More seats of better view angle then could get at home. Top class resturants outide the cinema door. "NOT home", a group experiance etc. etc.
Ultimately the Cinema offers a night out that cannot be matched at home. This is what you as an exhibitor should be focusing on and promoting.
Until the industry realises this, it is fooling itself.
Of course there will be acceptations. I know some art house cinemas who have very devoted (And usually older) patrons who will complain, usually just on principle, even at a sniff of digital projection.
But looking at the outer MEGA-plex chain-cinemas with 24 screens who do the bulk of the movie going public...
If you think patrons care about 2k/4k, even if marketed to them. Your fooling yourself. They may drift towards 4k due to the marketing initially, but once they realise they cannot see the difference, they will not care. Convenience is the better option. round the corner for 2k or next suburb for 4k.. I assure you, it's the EASY option.
James
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-17-2009 10:19 AM
quote: James B Gardiner
What we need to realize here is that, once a level of quality is reached, and I think 2K is good enough, it is not so much about being 2k or 4k, but the fact cinema offers an experience that you cannot get at home.
Yeah, commercial movie theaters do offer an experience one cannot get at home. Unfortunately, more often than not it is a negative, distracting experience. Many commercial movie theaters have more of a fast food feel about them than that of a classy establishment. The factor of whether the theater has film-based or digital-based projection is irrelevant with this matter.
With profit margins shrinking ever more narrow theater companies have no choice but to cut staff down to minimal levels. The quality of customer service suffers over that. There's longer lines at the box office and snack counters. Not enough staff members are on hand to deal with presentation issues or disruptive people in the audience.
quote: James B Gardiner
There is MUCH more money behind consumer technology then the world cinema industry can ever have. Even if 4K does become more used and prolific, before you know it, there will be 4K LCD's and 4K domestic projector systems hitting the streets. (Look at 3D, we have domestic screen/projectors, we are just waiting on some modifications to the BlueRay spec for distribution)
I am very skeptical "home theater" will be able to show movies in native resolutions higher than 1080p anytime soon. 4K in the home probably won't happen for another 10 years, if ever. Broadcast and cable is certainly stuck at 720p/1080i due to bandwidth limits.
The other problem is the content providers (the movie studios) aren't doing anywhere near enough to generate native 4K resolution content. Very few movies have CGI and digital intermediates rendered in 4K. Most of it is still merely 2K and will stay that way for at least a few more years to come. 2K is conveniently close to HDTV and Blu-ray resolution. And it costs quite a bit less than 4K. The "suits" would usually rather pocket the difference than put that extra money up on the big screen.
I'm also very skeptical about full color 3D in the home taking off in a big way. That's going to require customers to buy a different kind of Blu-ray player, a different kind of TV set, possibly a different kind of audio video receiver and, of course, the electronic 3D glasses for the setup to work. That's going to cost a lot of money. At best, the general public will only transition very slowly to 3D capable HDTV sets, Blu-ray players, etc. as the need comes up to replace existing gear whenever it finally breaks.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I disagree. It can considerably raise the bar over film showings in may instances for a majority of locations. It also has the ability to raise the consistancy as well if implemented and maintained properly. Few film locations have competant projectionists, few locations have properly maintained film equipment!! just a small percentage of owners of film locations even give a crap.
The problem is, just like film projection, it takes people and money to keep digital projection equipment properly maintained. D-cinema service provider companies like Cinedigm are suffering from the same very narrow profit margins that are affecting theater operators. The movie studios are carving away the bulk of box office earnings for themselves and everyone else involved in the food chain just gets to starve. In the end, the service providers are going to be stuck in the same position as the theater chains: doing a "good enough" job to fit within a meager budget.
With most theaters I have visited where presentation quality is suffering, sound is usually the bigger problem than the on screen image. Digital projection is doing very little to deal with that situation. Uncompressed Linear PCM audio is fine and all. But when the sound system is maintained in the same manner as it was with the previous film-based setup (which usually means little if any maintenance at all) the benefits of using high bit rate audio are lost.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
That's my job title ... to give a crap.
Printer-friendly view of this topic