Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Maybe 4k has a real chance after all

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Maybe 4k has a real chance after all (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Maybe 4k has a real chance after all

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 10-21-2007 07:29 PM

Thanks for the earlier link Mark, very sad but informative.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 10-21-2007 08:12 PM

(not to continue off-topic, but have to put my 3 cents in..)

..almost sounds and looks like "white slavery"... And you wonder why the price of gasoline has risen...from the last statement in 'feeding the US Marketplace' due to the massive increase of oil purchases by the Chinese to fuel their factories.

and buying SUVS doesn't help in the matter..

What a viscious circle of events that has been created due to the 'supply and demand' syndrome that this country has fallen into.

| IP: Logged

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 10-21-2007 08:32 PM

YAWN...

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-21-2007 09:41 PM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
..almost sounds and looks like "white slavery"...

To say the least... And Richard thinks these folks are just like everyone else and that every things fine and dandy... I guess they are great illusionists towards us Americans and they sure pulled the wool over his eyes...

Mark

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 10-22-2007 11:23 AM

Back to topic.........

quote: Tristan Lane
Some key points about these projectors:
To achieve 18,000 lumens, two high wattage xenon lamps must be used. Meanwhile, Christie and Barco are pumping out projectors that produce 30,000 lumens or more using a single 6.5K lamp. SXRD technology just isn't efficient with the light. The LCOS chips absorb much of the heat from the lamps, so cooling is an issue.

Maybe you should tell sony that the projector requires 2 bulbs because that's not what the spec says. From the spec available online:

Lamp SRX-R220: 4.2 kW Xenon lamp x 1
SRX-R210: 3.0 kW** Xenon lamp x 1 or
2.0 kW** Xenon lamp x 1

According to the spec, the SRX-R220 puts out 18,000 lumens with one (1) 4.2 kW Xenon lamp.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 10-22-2007 05:06 PM

keeping it on topic

Now that the cheap $20 000 Red Camera has been released, with its raw data having a potential 6k resolution possible, which is clearly higher resolution than any 35mm camera! I feel 4k is going to be a real option, real soon.

Interesting to think that those that keep 35mm projection will be able, if film is done right, due to 4k internegs becomeing standard for 35mm prints, will allow a higher quality image than those that have spent a fortune on 2k gear (for close to hdtv or the emerging home standards.)

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-22-2007 06:36 PM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Now that the cheap $20 000 Red Camera has been released, with its raw data having a potential 6k resolution possible, which is clearly higher resolution than any 35mm camera! I feel 4k is going to be a real option, real soon.

Cameron,
The 20 grand is just for the camera head.... you still need glass and all the usual crap to completely outfit the camera. Well over 250 grand by the time you're done... you will still need the fancy Zeiss or Panavision optics to get good images and camera glass always costs about ten times the cost of the camera.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Interesting to think that those that keep 35mm projection will be able, if film is done right, due to 4k internegs becomeing standard for 35mm prints, will allow a higher quality image than those that have spent a fortune on 2k gear (for close to hdtv or the emerging home standards.)

There is no standard for digital intermediate... in fact most are still being done at 2K. I too hope that some day 4K is a reality but at this point in time you have to spend two fortunes to get it. Not the measly single fortune it takes to get 2K. $85K for a complete 2K booth and $190K for a complete 4K booth with only 16,000 lumens output... there is a slight difference there man, some 2K projectors can do around 30,000 lumens. I certainly don't predict being able to buy a 4K projector down at the corner drugstore any time in the near future. Then someone also has to build a goofy standards converter to convert that 6K camera RAW do-do to 4K. That will also be very expensive and may not be able to run in real time as thats one heck of alot of data! Ok, I'll predict 100 grand for that accessory.

It all sums up to that 4K projection is here before its time... sort of the Edsal of D-Cinema.

| IP: Logged

Tristan Lane
Master Film Handler

Posts: 444
From: Nampa, Idaho
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 10-22-2007 10:08 PM

quote: Lyle Romer
Maybe you should tell sony that the projector requires 2 bulbs because that's not what the spec says.

Ditch the sarcasm.

I was incorrect in regards to the 210/220. I was basing my knowledge on old information...and old models.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 10-22-2007 11:16 PM

Mark. Im not in the market to buy one! If your making a feature its always safer, cheaper and easier to insure, if you rent. For what its worth the RED its still just a glorified digital still camera sensor but $20 000 is a extremly low start price point for a camera head to do a 4k feature with, with the other notable finacal incentive of no need for a multimillion dollar raw stock budget.....

Personally I'm not a betting man, but I dont think cinemas are going to have it too easy when 2k reaches saturation point in both homes and cinemas.
Cinema has traded since the mid nineteen fifties on the reputation of quality "unseen on tv" with cinemascope, 70mm, digital sound ect. I only seems to be able to get an idea of how real the value and the scale of this commodity of "cinema quality" is by looking at the billions of dollars being spent in the growing home audio visual market.

Personally seeing the emergence of technology which will could evolve to exceed 35mm excites me. Its been a long time coming. A 4k camera and a 4k projector is a lot more exciting than a projector by itself. Perhaps its a chicken or egg story but the ideal of aiming to better seems like a good start. Any reason for an increase in 4k workflow will also improve the look of well projected 35mm eventually. Cinema can still claim to have an edge.

I guess Im just interested in seeing if or when cinema has its next fightback.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 10-23-2007 12:16 AM

You have a point, Cameron.

Studios act as if theatrical is no longer important and point to the massive profits of the aftermarket. But if cinemas all became redundant, that aftermarket would collapse to about the state of commercial tv.

As for production, costs depend on many factors as you know. In some circumstances, you could buy a nice used Arri Super 16 and a lot of stock before you paid the rental on an equvalent digi set up.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-23-2007 07:50 AM

Cameron,
Have you actually sat and watched a presentation of a properly set up 2K system on a 70 foot wide screen? I have yet to meet anyone that hasn't been impressed.

As for rental instead of purchase... keep in mind that the average Panavision camera package totals well over a million $$ for use on the average feature shoot. While you have the virtual guarantee of the Panavision system behind you on the film indeed it may be less expensive to purchase... even with really good glass. Film stock and processing costs on a feature shoot are but a tiny dot of the total budget today. Shooting 65mm only doubles the stock costs but other costs such as the lab and opticals go out of sight. Shooting is often slowed down drastically as well because not as many cameras/lenses are available and reloads take a bit longer. I've seen 35mm reloads done in 15 seconds!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-23-2007 01:43 PM

quote: Bill Enos
What we need to export to China is lawyers and plenty of them.

Here here!
[beer]

The United States doesn't need 70% of the world's attorneys!

To get back to topic, projection quality will get only so good based on the quality of the original material.

I'm all for 4K, even if it has Sony's brand name "infecting" it, so long as at least a decent amount of movie material is being rendered in native 4K resolution.

Unfortunately that's not the case right now -even despite the massive geometric levels of improvement in computer processing power that have been made during this decade. Hollywood prefers to translate all that increased power into ever faster and cheaper 2K renderings.

It even seems like it's a waste anymore to find really good 35mm film projection unless you're watching an older movie on it. Most movies these days are funneled through a 2K resolution digital intermediate bottleneck. You're not gaining anything watching a film print of a movie that was digitized at roughly HDTV resolution anyway. You have to go "old school" analog from film camera to film projector to preserve the quality (and do things correctly at every stage) -or perhaps have everything in the digital work flow rendered at higher levels like 4K or more.

Computer technology and Internet delivery may eventually smash the 1920 X 1080 HDTV barrier and propel movie storage formats well beyond that. Lots of new computer games are tailored for display on 30" monitors with 2560 X 1600 native resolutions. Computer monitors will certainly go bigger and sharper than that (along with pulling double duty as HDTV sets). The Internet can bypass the limitations of a 6MHz broadcast signal or the 30GB to 50GB storage capacity of HD movie discs. The Internet is going to get much faster and ultimately destroy traditional models of media broadcasting.

With all that potential out there, I think its foolhardy for Hollywood to have so much of its product locked into 2K resolution (or even lower with certain video-based origination). We're stuck with 2K now, but I don't think 2K will be able to hang around for a long time.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Personally seeing the emergence of technology which will could evolve to exceed 35mm excites me. Its been a long time coming.

It will continue to be a long time in coming. Video cameras still have a ways to go to match 35mm on image resolution. But the even more challenging aspect is capturing superior color and motion quality. Portions of digitally originated movies like Miami Vice didn't look all that great due to image smear from the camera sensors struggling with low light subject matter. You can under-expose a film image, but not get any video smear at all.

One of the nice things with shooting in "analog" is you can scan that analog original at higher resolution levels without the image quality falling apart. It's not so easy to "up rez" a digital image without it turning into a soft, funky mess.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 11-02-2007 03:48 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Have you actually sat and watched a presentation of a properly set up 2K system on a 70 foot wide screen? I have yet to meet anyone that hasn't been impressed.

Well no I have not! Ive only seen a demo on a more regular sized screen. Mark I do not doubt you when you say its good! My issue is how good Blue Ray and HD DVD are and the percieved value of cinema quality. ie will peoples movie going habits be affected.

Statistically here in Australia people see on average 45 movies per year, this figure has remained constant since the 1920's. The major difference today is that in the 20's all these movies were seen in cinemas! Today only 3 of these movies will be seen in a cinema with the other 42 being seen via cable and free to air tv or DVD ect.

If home 2k changes that balance even in the short term, like vhs did, many cinemas will be lost.

Personally I now tend to pay to watch more movies at home since I bought a big screen for the backyard, even though I can watch them for free at work.

| IP: Logged

Bill Enos
Film God

Posts: 2081
From: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 11-02-2007 06:45 PM

No, Mark I haven't watched 2K on a 70 ft.screen, but I have seen 2K on our 26 ft. 1.85 screen. Not bad I'll admit. In the first 2 or 3 rows pixels are about as visible as film grain at the same distance. No contest on steadiness, blacks are dark gray in most instances, I'd say film and digi each have their limitations. Shot to 70 ft. I think it and 35 would be just about equal except for the steadiness which is to say neither would be very good. The film demoed was Leagally Blond I. Was able to compare 35 & 2K.

| IP: Logged

Tristan Lane
Master Film Handler

Posts: 444
From: Nampa, Idaho
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-03-2007 05:37 AM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
My issue is how good Blue Ray and HD DVD are and the percieved value of cinema quality

Cameron,

I invite you, when you have a chance to play an HD-DVD or Blu-ray on a big screen, using a quality scaler, on a 2K project. You will see (as I have) how much of a difference there is between the user-grade stuff and what is presented on a day-to-day basis in d-cinema. The new HD-DVD/blu-ray stuff may look good at home on a 100+ inch screen, but will pale in comparison to JPEG2000 when shown on a 40 of 50 foot screen.

We recently watched "Batman Begins" recently in HD-DVD, scaled to 2K with a Cine-IPM2K scaler and it really wasn't that pleasing or impressive.

The two home grade formats just can't compete with JPG2K

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.