Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: feppe on August 26, 2013, 02:38:31 pm

Title: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: feppe on August 26, 2013, 02:38:31 pm
The article Why 4K matters (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/why_4k_matters.shtml) is right on all accounts. But the discussion about resolution ignores a critical deal-breaking factor: screen size.

Looking at Amazon's top 20 TVs (http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Televisions/zgbs/electronics/172659), majority of them are 40 inches or smaller. At this screen size, you'd have to be at 5 feet or closer to the TV to get any benefit from the 4K TV according to this chart (http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html) widely used by home theater enthusiasts. The largest TVs in the top 20 are 60 inches, and at that screen size you don't get a benefit until you are around 7'6" or closer to the screen. *

While I have no actual data to back me up, I'd say that most living rooms have setups which put the screen farther away than the latter, and certainly farther than the former. This results in little to no benefit from 4K. Note that these distances are the minimums, and you get the full benefit of 4K at much closer distances: 2'6" for 40" TV, and 4' for 60" TV - much too close for comfort for most people.

Even at IMAX movie screen sizes you need to be closer to the screen than most people are comfortable with: John Galt - of Panavision, so he has a vested financial interest in getting 4K adopted - says that you need to sit on first six rows to get a benefit from 4K (http://library.creativecow.net/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/1) (interstitial warning), when most people in the theaters I frequent sit back at the farthest 1/3 of the seats.

Manufacturers will start pushing 4K this year or the next aggressively, but TVs need to get much bigger, or projecting needs to become more common for 4K viewing to make sense. But 60" or larger 4K TVs will likely be prohibitively expensive for years, and projectors will remain a niche product. Even if manufacturers manage to realize economies of scale for larger screen sizes, it is highly questionable whether people will have room for or can and will dedicate 80" or more of wall space to a TV. So it will be up to marketers to convince the public to convert to 4K based on emotional grounds, as there's little to no objective benefit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for 4K. I've seen 4K in person, and it is absolutely stunning - although the viewing distance was much closer than people are accustomed to. At home my projecting screen is 86" which I view from around 10' which is comfortably in the 4K benefit zone. When my current projector dies, I'll probably get a 4K projector. But only if movie selection is much better, and content delivery has been sorted by then - two huge ifs.

4K is not ready for the general public, and I'm afraid won't make sense for many years.

* You can play around with screen sizes, viewing distances and your own visual acuity using this expanded 4K screen size calculator (http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/).
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: RFPhotography on August 26, 2013, 07:52:07 pm
I was in the video dept. of a local shop recently picking up a couple things.  There was a Black Magic shuttle on the counter charging, a v2 I believe.  I asked the guy I was dealing with about it, whether it was a good device and the answer I got was that it was like anything else Black Magic makes; great if it works but a good chance it won't.  He said if you want to order anything BM, tell us to get 2 in... just in case.  Selling at the prices they do there have to be compromises somewhere.  It appears that the compromises come in manufacturing QC.

On a different note, thanks for linking the article.  Few people do that and it sometimes makes determining the point of reference a bit difficult.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Rhossydd on August 28, 2013, 05:32:25 am
The article Why 4K matters (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/why_4k_matters.shtml) is right on all accounts.
Well not really;
To take some quotes from the articles
Quote
one can't even buy an SD TV any more
Well you can, they're still available.
Quote
Flat screen HD TVs are now so ubiquitous and inexpensive that they are found in almost every home in the developed world.
This is a wild exaggeration. The highest percentage ownership I can find recent statistics for is North America where it's claimed 79% owned an HD capable TV last year. I believe the figure for Europe will be significantly lower than that. How many of those are actually connected to a source of HD content is not known.
You'd be making a big mistake if you thought that people buying 'HD capable' TVs are making the purchase because they want the quality of HD, very many simply want a bigger, thinner TV and won't bother watching any HD content at all, many don't have access to any HD anyway.
One of the biggest producers of TV content in Europe, Sky, still expect sport to be shot in 4:3 protect mode because so many subscribers haven't even got widescreen TVs yet, let alone watch in HD.

Quote
So are 4K videos and movies in your entertainment future? I would say 'Yes' - definitely yes. The technology will lead and the consumer will follow.
Video standards are driven by TV broadcasting, which is still the most watched form of video. At the moment there's almost no professional 4k aquisiton kit in existance, but NHK are pushing their 'Super Hi-Vision' 8k system and it's in use now. Who'll win ?
Will consumers just fall into line and buy what the industry wants them to ? It didn't work with 3D.

Quote
There are also those that say that unless you're watching a really large screen you won't be able to see the difference. I'll simply reply to that with the observation that I've seen enough 4K demos at trade shows and conferences that this is nonsense. This is akin to those that say – why shoot with medium format if you're never going to make really big prints? This argument simply doesn't hold water for anyone who has seen the difference in even small prints for themselves.
There are two different fallacies here.
Judging a technology by trade show demonstrations is fraught with difficulties and opportunities to mis-represent things. Just because an imaging professional sees a difference, doesn't mean that the general public will see the difference or think it's worth the extra expence IF they can see it.
The second one is that a higher technical standard will drive market success, there are many examples to disprove that assertion. I speak to lots of people that don't see what all the fuss is about with current 1080 HD, if they can't apperciate 1080, higher resolutions won't appeal.





Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on August 28, 2013, 06:16:42 am
There are two different fallacies here.
Judging a technology by trade show demonstrations is fraught with difficulties and opportunities to mis-represent things. Just because an imaging professional sees a difference, doesn't mean that the general public will see the difference or think it's worth the extra expence IF they can see it.
The second one is that a higher technical standard will drive market success, there are many examples to disprove that assertion. I speak to lots of people that don't see what all the fuss is about with current 1080 HD, if they can't apperciate 1080, higher resolutions won't appeal.
There is also the possibility that if ever 4k becomes the standard, our current 1080p televisions may finally have access to live content that does justice to the display (although in a hardware and bandwidth-wasting way): relatively heavily compressed (per pixel) 4k content may look better on 1080p displays than does heavily compressed (per pixel) 1080p content, at least if the transition to 4k means higher total bandwidth and/or better lossy codecs.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: bartjeej on August 28, 2013, 08:18:43 am
Well not really;
To take some quotes from the articles

Quote
There are also those that say that unless you're watching a really large screen you won't be able to see the difference. I'll simply reply to that with the observation that I've seen enough 4K demos at trade shows and conferences that this is nonsense. This is akin to those that say – why shoot with medium format if you're never going to make really big prints? This argument simply doesn't hold water for anyone who has seen the difference in even small prints for themselves.
There are two different fallacies here.
Judging a technology by trade show demonstrations is fraught with difficulties and opportunities to mis-represent things. Just because an imaging professional sees a difference, doesn't mean that the general public will see the difference or think it's worth the extra expence IF they can see it.
The second one is that a higher technical standard will drive market success, there are many examples to disprove that assertion. I speak to lots of people that don't see what all the fuss is about with current 1080 HD, if they can't apperciate 1080, higher resolutions won't appeal.

There's one more fallacy. Much of the difference in medium format is due to the sensor size, not just due to the resolution. A 4K video sensor need not be larger in size than an HD sensor or an even smaller resolution sensor, hence, unlike the example of medium format photography, there's no inherent advantage to 4K other than resolution; and as was pointed out elsewhere, for the higher resolution to be visible you either need a fairly large screen or a fairly close viewing distance, as the human eye can only resolve a certain amount of detail.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on August 28, 2013, 09:56:29 am
Can you really shoot video consistently at a standard to show the difference between HD ands 4K without serious expense and time? Think hollywood rather than TV sets and certainly in comparison to run and gun video? I think all you'll be seeing is just how bad the focus pulling and hand holding really is.

Add to that the fact that content is being viewed more on ipads than huge screens and..
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 28, 2013, 10:07:27 am
I appreciate that higher resolutions are on the way, no one is going stop that. Movie theatres want it, some home viewers want it (many on this board), but I don't care much one way or the other, and I suspect I'm not alone. But I won't care unless I'm forced to upgrade when I don't want to, of course. When we went from analog to digital, I welcomed the thinner TV and new aspect ratio, I get all the TV signals I want off-air (live in Ottawa), but I am not happy that I lost the ability to record programming for later viewing. The ability to do that seems to be tied to paid-for boxes from either the cable companies or satellites, so what used to be free now would cost me money. I understand why that is, but regardless, I lost something. (I have heard of off-air PVRs, but have not looked into them.)

But my HD TV is only 32 inches (or maybe 36), perfect for my viewing room, and I am never going to live anywhere bigger, so the benefits of higher resolution don't mean much to me. I have rented movies from iTunes in both HD and SD and can't tell the difference. If I could them view side by side, I might be able to tell, but don't care enough to try to find out if that's true. When I'm watching Wallander or Inspector Lewis, minor gains in picture resolution are irrelevant, but since I can still save a buck by getting the SD version, that's ok with me. Others can buy whatever they want. I would not be happy, when 4K becomes ubiquitous, if the SD choice goes away and I have to pay more (and it WILL cost more, it always does) for what I don't want because the other choices disappeared. In many ways, DVDs reached a point of sufficiency for me, from the picture quality point of view. Given that so much viewing is occurring on iPads and laptops anyway, the consumer need for higher resolution is not so obvious to me. As MR says, though, the need to sell more TVs may be real enough and may be part of the driving force, I don't know whether he was being facetious when he wrote that.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 28, 2013, 10:16:14 am
Hi,

One thing to consider is that a HD screen is just 2 MP. 4K would be 8MP a great way to look at images from vintage APS-C cameras. 8K would be a good match for recent DSLRs and MFDBs, coming in at 32 MPix.

Best regards
Erik

I appreciate that higher resolutions are on the way, no one is going stop that. Movie theatres want it, some home viewers want it (many on this board), but I don't care much one way or the other, and I suspect I'm not alone. But I won't care unless I'm forced to upgrade when I don't want to, of course. When we went from analog to digital, I welcomed the thinner TV and new aspect ratio, I get all the TV signals I want off-air (live in Ottawa), but I am not happy that I lost the ability to record programming for later viewing. The ability to do that seems to be tied to paid-for boxes from either the cable companies or satellites, so what used to be free now would cost me money. I understand why that is, but regardless, I lost something. (I have heard of off-air PVRs, but have not looked into them.)

But my HD TV is only 32 inches (or maybe 36), perfect for my viewing room, and I am never going to live anywhere bigger, so the benefits of higher resolution don't mean much to me. I have rented movies from iTunes in both HD and SD and can't tell the difference. If I could them view side by side, I might be able to tell, but don't care enough to try to find out if that's true. When I'm watching Wallander or Inspector Lewis, minor gains in picture resolution are irrelevant, but since I can still save a buck by getting the SD version, that's ok with me. Others can buy whatever they want. I would not be happy, when 4K becomes ubiquitous, if the SD choice goes away and I have to pay more (and it WILL cost more, it always does) for what I don't want because the other choices disappeared. In many ways, DVDs reached a point of sufficiency for me, from the picture quality point of view. Given that so much viewing is occurring on iPads and laptops anyway, the consumer need for higher resolution is not so obvious to me. As MR says, though, the need to sell more TVs may be real enough and may be part of the driving force, I don't know whether he was being facetious when he wrote that.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Rhossydd on August 28, 2013, 10:17:44 am
but I am not happy that I lost the ability to record programming for later viewing. ......(I have heard of off-air PVRs, but have not looked into them.)
PVRs work extremely well. The difference in quality between off-air and the  high quality HDD recording choices is very small. Plus with some boxes you can archive to Blu-Ray too.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 28, 2013, 10:32:15 am
... 8MP ... vintage APS-C cameras...

"Vintage APS-C cameras", great line. What, am I old already?
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: BJL on August 28, 2013, 03:17:18 pm
One thing to consider is that a HD screen is just 2 MP. 4K would be 8MP a great way to look at images from vintage APS-C cameras. 8K would be a good match for recent DSLRs and MFDBs, coming in at 32 MPix.
Be careful though: AFAIK, a good full HD screen is "1920 x 1080 x 3", displaying all three colors at each of about 2 million locations, so capable of showing more in some respects than a 2MP Bayer CFA sensor gives. But definitely, stills on the screen are often viewed close enough that our eyes can see more than 1920x1080 delivers, even if the "2840x2160x3" of a 4K screen goes a bit beyond what we have a need for.

One difference between viewing prints and viewing on-screen: when we want to examine some detail of a large, sharp print, we might often move in close, far closer than "normal" viewing distance (by which I mean about the same distance as the screen width or screen diagonal), but if we want to explore part of an image on screen, we are more likely to zoom and pan, staying at about normal distance or further away. So even if our image files and prints can sometimes benefit from more resolution than is useful at normal viewing distance, screens probably do not. If so, then somewhere between 3K and 4K is probably all most of us will benefit from.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 28, 2013, 04:13:40 pm
Hi,

What I see is that looking at my projected screen at comfortable viewing distance the image is quite fuzzy, depending on seating position. ideally, the pixel pitch on the screen should be smaller than the angular resolution of the eye. That obviously depends on viewing distance.

Best regards
Erik




Be careful though: AFAIK, a good full HD screen is "1920 x 1080 x 3", displaying all three colors at each of about 2 million locations, so capable of showing more in some respects than a 2MP Bayer CFA sensor gives. But definitely, stills on the screen are often viewed close enough that our eyes can see more than 1920x1080 delivers, even if the "2840x2160x3" of a 4K screen goes a bit beyond what we have a need for.

One difference between viewing prints and viewing on-screen: when we want to examine some detail of a large, sharp print, we might often move in close, far closer than "normal" viewing distance (by which I mean about the same distance as the screen width or screen diagonal), but if we want to explore part of an image on screen, we are more likely to zoom and pan, staying at about normal distance or further away. So even if our image files and prints can sometimes benefit from more resolution than is useful at normal viewing distance, screens probably do not. If so, then somewhere between 3K and 4K is probably all most of us will benefit from.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Telecaster on August 28, 2013, 05:35:36 pm
Got no dog in this fight really. No objection to 4k cameras, theater screens & TVs...but no strong desire either. My current set is a 40"...it takes up just the right amount of space in my rec room, leaving enough space for more important things like guitars, amps & books. I do love displaying photos on the TV...one reason why I print less than before. My friends & family like this too. But they're not in any way pixel-peeping types (nor am I) so the extra res would/will have little practical benefit. The big plus with displaying photos on a TV or monitor is the transmissive nature of the image. Friends who mostly yawn at prints take notice when the same photo appears on the screen. There's a particular pop that you don't get from a reflective image...and this has little to do with spatial resolution.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: BJL on August 28, 2013, 06:35:11 pm
Hi,

What I see is that looking at my projected screen at comfortable viewing distance the image is quite fuzzy, depending on seating position.ideally, the pixel pitch on the screen should be smaller than the angular resolution of the eye. That obviously depends on viewing distance.
Oh yes: no question that from 'normal" still image viewing distance, 1920x1080 is going to be visibly imperfect to people with reasonably sharp vision --- I was just warning about the hazards of "equivalence". In fact, I have said elsewhere that screens with 4K horizontal resolution will have their greatest visible benefits with still images rather than video, so I look forward to them becoming more common and affordable.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Fine_Art on August 28, 2013, 09:24:23 pm
I'll take 4K for my stills. Future video is a bonus.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: bcooter on September 01, 2013, 10:05:25 am
I'll take 4K for my stills. Future video is a bonus.

Last night went to the Odeon in the west end and saw the Lone Ranger.  Great technique, lame script and direction, but there were twenty minutes of trailers and I was amazed at how beautiful and clear (mostly beautiful) they were.  They looked like they had depth, like an amazingly good art print.

I thought s__t, this must be how good 4k can be because I've seen a lot of 4k and before never noticed the difference, but this time . . . wow what an image and not just on one trailer or the movie but everything shown.

So when I got back late I had to look up what kind of system they use and it's called the  ODEON Digital 8000 HD and I thought s__t 8k, wow.

Turns out it's not 8k, or 4k but 2048 on the long side, it's just something there projector system does.  It crushes the blacks a little, adds a richness to the middle tones and opens the white up some.

I think it also helps that the screen wasn't that large for the theatre and the theatre was pitch black except for the screen.   So regardless of how it's shot, the display made a huge difference and I went back and looked at streaming HD trailers of the Lone and it looked nothing like the movie, so it must be the projector.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Rhossydd on September 01, 2013, 11:25:20 am
Turns out it's not 8k, or 4k but 2048 on the long side,
There's the irony of some folk wanting cinematic looking video, when all they're actually watching when they go to the cinema is projected HDTV.

No many people complained that Star Wars III didn't look 'cinematic' enough when it was shot on the HDC-F950 which has the same 2/3" size chips that normal production broadcast TV cameras use. SWIII wasn't the only feature to use normal TV standards either, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineAlta

Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: michael on September 01, 2013, 11:35:24 am
There's the irony of some folk wanting cinematic looking video, when all they're actually watching when they go to the cinema is projected HDTV.

No many people complained that Star Wars III didn't look 'cinematic' enough when it was shot on the HDC-F950 which has the same 2/3" size chips that normal production broadcast TV cameras use. SWIII wasn't the only feature to use normal TV standards either, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineAlta



The cinematic look has relatively little to do with system used to shoot, or system used to display. It's about lighting, frame rates, motion cadence, and DOF among others.

Michael
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: bcooter on September 01, 2013, 01:58:42 pm
I've really never understood 24 fps, (I know I'm alone on this) because it was only used to save film, not for any other reasons.

I know everyone swears they can see a difference between 24 fps and 30 but I can't, unless I have titles that crawl across the screen in horizontal motion, then 24p kind of stutters 30 fps is smoother.

I'd rather edit in 30 fps or 29.97, but have finally given in and shoot everything at 24, because that is what everyone asks for.

I think the film look is over rated, but then again that's me.  For movies they've gone to digital intermediates for a long time and with all the post work they do, it's hard to tell what the original content was shot in.

Back when I started shooting motion and the best camera I could afford was a Canon xl1, I would trick out the footage by keying out certain tones, putting different color on different tracks and then drop a matte in the whole thing and put a darker track underneath and mimic light fall off from the lens.  Did it all in fcp and it took forever, but looked pretty cool.

When I'd go to the tape duping house (boy have those places disappeared) they'd ask did you shoot this 35mm or 16mm and I'd say mini dv they'd say naw, I'd say yes . . . .

As far as lens fall off, it's just what lenses you can put on a camera.  If you have a bunch of 1.2 primes then focus fall off, even in mft cameras looks good.  If you shoot at f8 then it looks more video like, at least that's my perception.

But I do think film has it's own inherent qualities, especially in being able to hold a look in different scenarios.

AS still photographers, morphing into film, I believe we can learn more from videographers than cinema film makers.  Videographers work more like us, they usually have smaller crews, smaller budgets and less time.  The good ones (and there are some very good ones) know how to use light to produce separation rather than just focus.

IMO

BC

Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: markd61 on September 01, 2013, 02:01:05 pm
The comments about theater projection are right on.

Local theaters are projecting gorgeous images with digital projectors with current technology. I know they are far outside our budgets but this (I believe) is largely due to the demands of projecting in a huge theater.

I get to photograph a lot of ultra -deluxe home theaters in my work and I have had the pleasure of watching  a number of Blu-Ray movies on them and can scarcely believe the excellence of the image. I am NOT a video theater geek and know little about the available gear but I can say that I have never seen images projected as brilliantly as I do today.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Stefan.Steib on September 01, 2013, 03:03:31 pm
4 K will come ,it´s hen and egg as always, but when more people use it prices will go down, then more people will use it and prices will go down further.
In latest 5 years the discussion should be obsolete, it will be a choice with a comparably moderate premium fee, not much discussion to use or not, just do when the
funding is there.

For Photography that´s another story, but this will be more interesting when 8k will arrive (first prototypes already in use, Japan doing first test broadcasts in 8k already)
I predict this will kill most of the print business, nobody will have much reason left, if you have 2 m screens with 8k, maybe Oleds, with daylight capable 2000 lumen if needed.
As soon as this arrives also 8k still from video captures will run into quality level of competing with photos.

That will be the day when photography as we all know it, will come to a tipping point. Not immediately for the highend users, but the structure that will build up
will probably completely erase print (we can see this coming already with retina tablets) and as a follow up many changes will appear.

Just think to the change in gear flash/continuous lighting, or lenses with even higher apertures, signal processing/codecs to be used universally for both (probably raw video)
cheap presentation technology for mass ads outdoors and much more which right now has not even been thought about.

I think the 8k change will even go faster than 4k so lets see that timeframe in 7-10 years from now.

I welcome this devellopment and I see a lot of chance to come for new industries, save resources (think about paper or distribution costs of printed matter...)

Greetings from Germany
Stefan
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Rhossydd on September 01, 2013, 03:32:22 pm
The cinematic look has relatively little to do with system used to shoot, or system used to display. It's about lighting, frame rates, motion cadence, and DOF among others.
It's simpler than that, it's just fashion; It's whatever people think is right at the time.
The odd thing at the moment is that a bunch of inexperienced experimenters, by virtue of their prolific comments on the internet, are attempting to define 'cinematic' by their own values.

Shallow depth of field ? does that make something 'cinematic' ? if so, that rules out Citizen Kane that was famous for it's pioneering deep depth of filed.
Frame rates and motion ? As bcooter has pointed out 24fps is just a historical legacy. Does it really look better than 50 or 60 ?
Flat low contrast film 'looks' with coloured highlights and shadows ? That would have been thrown out by many of history's great film directors as just plain bad.

What's quite remarkable is how many people have managed to appoint themselves as masters of a craft they've no credible experience of.
Title: OT: what is it about lower, more flickery frame rates that some people like?
Post by: BJL on September 01, 2013, 06:45:54 pm
I've really never understood 24 fps, (I know I'm alone on this) because it was only used to save film, not for any other reasons.
It is a mystery to me too, beyond the sheer comfort of familiarity, even when it is just a subliminal touch of flicker. Maybe it's like the talk of digital images looking too smooth and plasticky, and some people "fixing" that with a film-grain filter.

So, is 24p basically an up-scale Instagram filter for moving pictures?
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 02, 2013, 03:30:41 am
I've really never understood 24 fps, (I know I'm alone on this) because it was only used to save film, not for any other reasons.
What is remarkable is how good excellent craftmanship is able to (to some degree) work around the limits of 24p, not that 24p in itself is a desirable limitation.

I much prefer a content delivery system that does not limit the creativity (and gear) of the content producer: given 120+ fps, those who want to make jerky films will still be able to insert black frames/duplicate frames or something similar in order to give the "good old cinema feeling". The opposite is not true: you cannot recreate the smoothness of 120fps capture through a 24fps delivery system.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 02, 2013, 03:36:18 am
It's simpler than that, it's just fashion; It's whatever people think is right at the time.
The odd thing at the moment is that a bunch of inexperienced experimenters, by virtue of their prolific comments on the internet, are attempting to define 'cinematic' by their own values.

Shallow depth of field ? does that make something 'cinematic' ? if so, that rules out Citizen Kane that was famous for it's pioneering deep depth of filed.
Frame rates and motion ? As bcooter has pointed out 24fps is just a historical legacy. Does it really look better than 50 or 60 ?
Flat low contrast film 'looks' with coloured highlights and shadows ? That would have been thrown out by many of history's great film directors as just plain bad.

What's quite remarkable is how many people have managed to appoint themselves as masters of a craft they've no credible experience of.
Perhaps it is even simpler: "good" cinema productions tends to include a large cast of professionals. Whatever their artistic goals, they tend to be able to come close to them, using the combination of time, budget, talent, vision, experience. Be it lighting, make-up, lenses or whatever.

If you give me a any motion camera I will (probably) not be able to produce results anywhere near the same league, for oh so many reasons.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Manoli on September 02, 2013, 04:04:48 am
What's quite remarkable is how many people have managed to appoint themselves as masters of a craft they've no credible experience of.

You may well be right, Rhossydd.

The net result of all these posts is that last week I took my RX100 and finally pressed the 'red' button. Yes, the movie button. Now, I don't know s**t about cinematography, but when I played the clips back later, even the 'strife' went 'Ooooh' ! That was straight OOC , no iMovie, no FCP X, not even Lightroom. Built-in auto everything (or so it seemed), built-in steady shot etc etc.

It's never been so easy to get out of the starting blocks, not even in still photography. So, extrapolating my experience down the line, I can see that even though the requirements and knowledge, for quality, professional cinematogs are probably as great, if not greater than yesteryear, today, the result is that technology has enabled a raft of users (inexperienced experimenters, as you call them) to assume the 'mantle'.

And as we know only too well, it's not long before a modicum of knowledge is exaggerated into yet another expert.

--
ps No disrespect intended to any resident experts. Only a comment on how technology has enabled so many users, myself included.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 02, 2013, 07:19:11 am
ps No disrespect intended to any resident experts. Only a comment on how technology has enabled so many users, myself included.
It used to be that in order to produce a record, you needed a record label and a big studio. In order to pass those hurdles you probably had to have some talent, luck, looks, stamina etc.

Now you can produce a record using little more than a laptop and a microphone. Does this mean that every record released is as "good" as a record released in the 60s? Perhaps not, as some less talented people will do it today "just because they can". Does it mean that some artists can make music today that would not have been able to in the 1960s? I think so.

If the net result is that there is more good records today than in a 60s type setting, then I am all for the spread of good, inexpensive tools, even if it means having to wade through more uninteresting records in order to find the good ones.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Manoli on September 02, 2013, 11:01:55 am
If the net result is that there is more good records today than in a 60s type setting, then I am all for the spread of good, inexpensive tools, even if it means having to wade through more uninteresting records in order to find the good ones.

h,
I think you misunderstood my post.

What I said, in essence, was

(a) it's amazing how technology has allowed inexperienced users, like myself, to produce 'good' footage, with no prior experience. Never said or implied that I was not in favour of technological advancements, but that
(b) producing 'good' footage alone does not make one an expert, even though many may think that they are.

The post was self-deprecating, but I never described my efforts as uninteresting !! (sense of humour required)
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: michael on September 02, 2013, 12:40:22 pm
It's simpler than that, it's just fashion; It's whatever people think is right at the time.
The odd thing at the moment is that a bunch of inexperienced experimenters, by virtue of their prolific comments on the internet, are attempting to define 'cinematic' by their own values.

Shallow depth of field ? does that make something 'cinematic' ? if so, that rules out Citizen Kane that was famous for it's pioneering deep depth of filed.
Frame rates and motion ? As bcooter has pointed out 24fps is just a historical legacy. Does it really look better than 50 or 60 ?
Flat low contrast film 'looks' with coloured highlights and shadows ? That would have been thrown out by many of history's great film directors as just plain bad.

What's quite remarkable is how many people have managed to appoint themselves as masters of a craft they've no credible experience of.

I can only assume that your jibe was directed at me. If so, so be it, though it would have been braver to be more direct.

Credible experience. Humm. Worked in the motion picture industry since 1966. Past member of IATA, National video product manager for JCV, Panasonic, Colortran Studio Lighting, on staff at CBC television for nine years, and have worked with widely respected industry veterin and cine award winner Chris Sanderson producing dozens of productions for the past eleven years. Guess there's a bit of cinema and TV experience here.

As for you comments on 24fps, sorry, you're now at odds with some of the great cinematographers of the past century. Do some reading and online research. It won't take you long to realize that rejecting 24fps is a facile position.

Similarly throwing up straw man arguments against shallow DOF and other cinematic conventions is childish. Examples of anything can be found, but these exceptions prove nothing other than the shallowness of your argument.

It's a big world out here. There's room for lot's of differing perspectives, including yours. There's no need though to be judgemental when supporting you own. It simply weekens your arguments.

Michael
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: feppe on September 02, 2013, 01:30:01 pm
The odd thing at the moment is that a bunch of inexperienced experimenters, by virtue of their prolific comments on the internet, are attempting to define 'cinematic' by their own values.
...
Frame rates and motion ? As bcooter has pointed out 24fps is just a historical legacy. Does it really look better than 50 or 60 ?

Yes, films at 24fps looks subjectively better than at higher frame rates. Frame rate (specifically, 24fps) is absolutely a requirement to reach what most people currently consider a cinematic look. Almost everyone who has seen The Hobbit in 48fps thinks it looks more like a National Geographic documentary than a feature movie, and dislikes the look. I saw it in 48fps in "normal" and IMAX theaters, and really wanted to like the look. I didn't.

That's not to say things can't and won't change, or that all video regardless of content and intent looks better at 24fps. Preference in feature films for 24fps is certainly about familiarity rather than technological superiority. It might be that seeing The Hobbit and Avatar sequels in 48fps will get people accustomed to the look, and more such films might be released.

As pointed out by others, the cinematic look is a combination of several factors. Shutter speed/shutter angle, fps, lighting, DOF, and production values all play into it. But there is a lot of variance in that look, from IMAX footage of Dark Knight to RED of Prometheus and 65mm of The Master - and I would say practically everyone agrees all those movies have a cinematic look.

But things can get murky: another technical factor is shutter angle (http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/shutter-angle-tutorial). This can make even a multi-million dollar feature at 24fps shot by the best in the business look like video. Witness Michael Mann's Public Enemies, Collateral and Miami Vice, all shot with a 360-degree shutter.

The opposite is not true: you cannot recreate the smoothness of 120fps capture through a 24fps delivery system.

An important addition here about source material: you can interpolate frames into 24fps source to get 48fps, 96fps or even higher output. This was an integral part of making "bullet time" work smoothly in The Matrix. Tech advances so fast that many consumer TVs and projectors do this on the fly these days, with varying degrees of success. This makes pans in Gone With The Wind as smooth as The Hobbit, and the tech will only get better.

This actually might be a back door into making 48fps more palatable to the general public. As people get used to movies with higher fps (real or interpolated), they might start demanding higher-fps movies in the theaters. Even with my reservations after seeing The Hobbit, I'd much rather see 48fps (or better yet, 60fps) get a hold than gimmicky 3D.
Title: 24p: "better" or a Pavlovian conditioned preference that will go away in time?
Post by: BJL on September 02, 2013, 03:31:49 pm
Yes, films at 24fps looks subjectively better than at higher frame rates. Frame rate (specifically, 24fps) is absolutely a requirement to reach what most people currently consider a cinematic look.
My first question is about how we get from "detectable difference" to "better". One possibility is Pavlovian conditioning: most people are familiar with the 24FPS look, can detect it as _different_ from video, associate the difference with the _better_ experience of viewing in a cinema, which might quite possibly be better due to other factors, and so by "association" or "conditioning", react to it more favorably. As I mentioned before, many people at first reacted badly to the absence of film grain, but most of us have got over it now!

My second question is if people in PAL countries, have the same reaction, with PAL reading each line 25 time per second but split into 50i? If so, it cannot be the difference between 24 and 25 "per pixel" read rate, so is seems likely to be the difference between 24 and 50 (or 24 vs 60 in NTSC countries). If so, down-conversion from 50p to 25p should be simple and adequate simulation of the old-style cinematic flicker, and going from 60p to 30p would I suspect give about the same look ... all while retaining compatibility for future audiences that are no longer conditioned to like the older, more flickery frame rate!
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 02, 2013, 03:54:01 pm
An important addition here about source material: you can interpolate frames into 24fps source to get 48fps, 96fps or even higher output. This was an integral part of making "bullet time" work smoothly in The Matrix. Tech advances so fast that many consumer TVs and projectors do this on the fly these days, with varying degrees of success. This makes pans in Gone With The Wind as smooth as The Hobbit, and the tech will only get better.

This actually might be a back door into making 48fps more palatable to the general public. As people get used to movies with higher fps (real or interpolated), they might start demanding higher-fps movies in the theaters. Even with my reservations after seeing The Hobbit, I'd much rather see 48fps (or better yet, 60fps) get a hold than gimmicky 3D.
It is also possible to interpolate my 8MP old DSLR images into 30MP. That won't make them similar to the quality of a 30MP camera. Framerate upconversion tries to make something out of nothing. It may work 70% or 90% of the time, but never 100% of the time. What does it do with classic western wagon wheels spinning backwards?

It is beyond me why any film maker would want a distribution system that limits her artistic expression. We got colors these days, but it is still entirely optional to make use of that capability; those that prefer to make movies in "B&W" are free to do so. Same thing with 120fps, it would simply increase the range of expressions that a film maker may or may not choose to use.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: RFPhotography on September 02, 2013, 06:16:27 pm
Can you really shoot video consistently at a standard to show the difference between HD ands 4K without serious expense and time? Think hollywood rather than TV sets and certainly in comparison to run and gun video? I think all you'll be seeing is just how bad the focus pulling and hand holding really is.

Add to that the fact that content is being viewed more on ipads than huge screens and..

I posted this in the Motion & Video section but it seems apropos in context of the bolded part as well -

http://fstoppers.com/want-to-take-4k-video-with-your-phone-meet-acers-new-liquid-s2

I think I know what folks on here are going to think.  Grin  But when you consider that an Academy Award-winning film was finished with an iPhone because the filmmaker ran out of money for film, http://petapixel.com/2013/02/28/oscar-winning-documentary-fimmaker-used-his-iphone-when-money-ran-out/, is 4K video in a phone really that much of a stretch?
Title: Re: 24p: "better" or a Pavlovian conditioned preference that will go away in time?
Post by: feppe on September 02, 2013, 07:47:05 pm
My second question is if people in PAL countries, have the same reaction, with PAL reading each line 25 time per second but split into 50i? If so, it cannot be the difference between 24 and 25 "per pixel" read rate, so is seems likely to be the difference between 24 and 50 (or 24 vs 60 in NTSC countries). If so, down-conversion from 50p to 25p should be simple and adequate simulation of the old-style cinematic flicker, and going from 60p to 30p would I suspect give about the same look ... all while retaining compatibility for future audiences that are no longer conditioned to like the older, more flickery frame rate!

I live in a PAL country, and have the same reaction, as would most of my compatriots. I and most people will see a difference between a cinematic look and that of video.

But as mentioned in my previous post, it's not only about frame rate. Feature movies shown on TV are 50i - not 24p like Blu-Rays with good players/TVs/projectors - yet they retain their cinematic look. Shutter angle is a big factor as well, as is DOF, grain and bokeh (http://hqwalls.org/wallpapers/denzel_washington_in_training_day_wallpaper-1024x768.jpg).

It is also possible to interpolate my 8MP old DSLR images into 30MP. That won't make them similar to the quality of a 30MP camera. Framerate upconversion tries to make something out of nothing. It may work 70% or 90% of the time, but never 100% of the time. What does it do with classic western wagon wheels spinning backwards?

I don't have experience with such TVs, but I'd imagine they are "good enough" for 99% of viewers, or will be in the near future. Just like extrapolating an 8MP image to 30MP is good enough for most people.
Title: Re: 24p: "better" or a Pavlovian conditioned preference that will go away in time?
Post by: BJL on September 02, 2013, 08:18:17 pm
Feppe,

thanks for this interesting comment
Feature movies shown on TV are 50i ... yet they retain their cinematic look. Shutter angle is a big factor as well ...
This could mean that the up-conversion from 24p (roughly by splitting each of the 24p frames into two half frames) retains timing aspects of 24fps, like a 180º shutter angle meaning blurring motion over 1/48s and the position of each part of a moving objects still only updated at intervals of 1/24th of a second with a gap of 1/48s between the end of recording on one image and the start of recording of the next, whereas an image recorded at 50i has less temporal blurring and more rapid position updates.

How does "shutter angle" work with the continuous sensor output of interlaced readout on a video camera? Is it like shutter angle of 360º, with no "gaps"?

I will try to to re-see The Hobbit in 48fps, which I saw in the 24fps version!
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: bcooter on September 02, 2013, 08:28:55 pm


This actually might be a back door into making 48fps more palatable to the general public. As people get used to movies with higher fps (real or interpolated), they might start demanding higher-fps movies in the theaters. Even with my reservations after seeing The Hobbit, I'd much rather see 48fps (or better yet, 60fps) get a hold than gimmicky 3D.

I agree with not liking 3d.  It just bothers me in most cases, though I thought Avatar really used it well.

48fps, I understand that's the new standard for 3d based movies.  Not wild about it, but then again I don't watch many 3d movies.

My thing about 30fps vs 25 for pal broadcast or 24 progressive for movies is when we go into editorial with 24fps source material, titles scrolling left to right or right to left look a little jerky on a computer or pad.

On a broadcast monitor their fine, but broadcast monitors usually switch the frame rate so everything is smoother.

Personally I think being able to throw focus is a great tool when used well, not always necessary when there is not a reason.  Not everything can be painted with a broad brush and I know that a lot of times I'd swear something was shot digital due to smoothness (The Lone Ranger) when it was shot film, or something was shot in film when in reality they shot 2k arri, or 4k red.

I do know at the theatre I was worried about losing the feeling of film when they project digital,  but now I feel the opposite.  There are still a few film projectors left in every city and if I go into a theatre and see jumping on the sides of the frame, I know it's film and I know it probably will be a degraded print with old bulbs, which is true 90% of the time.

Really, there is no standard if it's good.   I've heard people say video was awful and I've seen some very interesting video shoots, especially with the old tube cameras that streaked highlights.  They're cool for a 30 second spot, but I don't think you'd want to watch 90 minutes of them.

Anyway, if 4k becomes the rage or a magic number that people want, the camera, software and computer companies are more than happy to oblige, because they'll just sell more stuff and more stuff makes the world spin.

I personally don't think anyone will notice the difference if the production values are good, but people love to get caught up in catch phrases.  They did it with stills talking and selling megapixels, they'll do it in movies saying the same.  Sooner or later motion imagery will be like digital stills, where almost every camera is so good that nobody cares anymore.  The 24p thing I believe is a catch phrase.  I know, I know people swear by it, but on a computer where 99.999999% of all video is viewed I really don't think there is a lick of difference, but as I mentioned before I gave in, shoot 24 progressive and let it rip.

But speaking of catch phrases, this evening I had a client's european agency want a take from a shoot we did about 3 weeks ago.  Edited down to a 1 minute cut and he asked for uncompressed quicktime in 4:2:2 10 bit.  I did a primary grade in cinex, secondary in fcp and burned it out made a zip and it's going on line as I write this. Just looked and in one hour only 477 mb is up.  At this rate it will be 14 hours before it makes it on the server, if it makes it on the server.  I asked why they wanted uncompressed and never got an answer, other than that's what they want.  I played in on a huge monitor and honestly can't see a bit of difference between the proezz version and the uncompressed version.

Those catch phrases.

For stills I can shoot a 30mpx phase, a 18mpx Canon or a 16 mpx gh3 and OMD and nobody in the still business will bat an eyelash, because they all resolve as well if not better than what goes on paper and post production that is done well evens the score to the point it's non discernible.

BTW:   In TLR the DP said they shot film, pulled in processing to hold more detail.  I guess, but you know I kind of wonder because 10 days ago we shot a scene of a family getting out of a mercedes suv, running under the tailgate to unload and back.  It was a quick cutaway on a day in Malibu when there was no moisture or dust in the air to diffuse the light and it was the hardest light I've seen in LA in a long time.

We didn't have much time or I would have flown a 12x with two shiny boards shot through for a soft fill, so instead we shot it tight and wide, thinking the wide shot would never hold up with the subjects under full shade and 14 stops of hot sun blowing all around them, but when I put it into cinex and pulled it down there was detail in the white, pulled it up and there was nice texture in the faces.   I processed twice, did a quick key and wa-la a nice 14 stop or more image, so I kind of wonder if on a 200 million dollar film like TLR that has 36k of fill light minimum, that they really needed to shoot film pulled down to 25iso, but what they did worked so what the heck.

Maybe I'm just jealous that they had 200 million to spend.  

Now that would be fun.

IMO

BC

P.S.  In regards to shooting 4k, I'm all for it.  My only experience is with the RED's and I love the look of the files, I mean really love them.  I haven't shot a million ft. of motion film stock, but have shot a billion hours of sd, hd in all flavors and nothing to me looks like the RED and nothing to me that is cmos looks as good as the red files.  They're not perfect, but man I do see a difference from the 4k capture down to the 2k edit.

P.S. 2  In regards to the blackmagic, I really hope they get there.  Seriously get there because the more good cameras the better.  I talked to a IATSE guy that worked with us the other day and he's only used the first blackmagic and said it just wouldn't go past low iso without a lot of ugly noise and I just saw some test footage of the pocket blackmagic that had black holes in the specular highlights and some blooming so I hope they fix it, hope the 4k version gives everyone a run for their money, but I'd sure wait a while until they get the bugs worked out.
Title: Re: 24p: "better" or a Pavlovian conditioned preference that will go away in time?
Post by: hjulenissen on September 03, 2013, 01:54:12 am
But as mentioned in my previous post, it's not only about frame rate. Feature movies shown on TV are 50i - not 24p like Blu-Rays with good players/TVs/projectors - yet they retain their cinematic look. Shutter angle is a big factor as well, as is DOF, grain and bokeh (http://hqwalls.org/wallpapers/denzel_washington_in_training_day_wallpaper-1024x768.jpg).
Broadcasts tend to be 720p50 or 1080i50. 1080i50 can be converted back to 1080p24, and I believe that most tvs attempts to do this.
Quote
I don't have experience with such TVs, but I'd imagine they are "good enough" for 99% of viewers, or will be in the near future. Just like extrapolating an 8MP image to 30MP is good enough for most people.
I have one such tv. I am hoping for true high-rate production and broadcast.

8MP -> 30 MP may be "good enough for most people", but then again 8 MP may be good enough for most people. I am not most people, and neither is most people on this thread.

Having a 30 MP file format does not limit my artistic freedom, and having a 72 fps cinema format should not limit the artistic freedom of Hollywood.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 03, 2013, 01:56:21 am
As for you comments on 24fps, sorry, you're now at odds with some of the great cinematographers of the past century. Do some reading and online research. It won't take you long to realize that rejecting 24fps is a facile position.
I believe there were similar disputes over "talkies" and color. Whenever new possibilities appear, those who have invested their career in making the old possibilities shine will be critical.

In short: when a "great cinematographers of the past century" are used as an argument for a limiting format, I take it with a grain of salt.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Manoli on September 03, 2013, 03:26:45 am
In short: when a "great cinematographers of the past century" are used as an argument for a limiting format, I take it with a grain of salt.

"Il futuro ha un cuore antico"
( The future has an ancient heart )
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: dreed on September 03, 2013, 03:35:46 am
That's not to say things can't and won't change, or that all video regardless of content and intent looks better at 24fps. Preference in feature films for 24fps is certainly about familiarity rather than technological superiority. It might be that seeing The Hobbit and Avatar sequels in 48fps will get people accustomed to the look, and more such films might be released.

I thought the goal of 48fps was so that 3D could be presented in 24fps "per-eye"?
Title: Re: 24p: "better" or a Pavlovian conditioned preference that will go away in time?
Post by: feppe on September 03, 2013, 01:18:59 pm
This could mean that the up-conversion from 24p (roughly by splitting each of the 24p frames into two half frames) retains timing aspects of 24fps, like a 180º shutter angle meaning blurring motion over 1/48s and the position of each part of a moving objects still only updated at intervals of 1/24th of a second with a gap of 1/48s between the end of recording on one image and the start of recording of the next, whereas an image recorded at 50i has less temporal blurring and more rapid position updates.

That is my understanding as well.

Movies are shot at 24p, and converting to 50i in post will not affect motion blur. Motion blur can't be adjusted without heavy lifting in post-process - it's essentially the same as getting rid of or adding motion blur in Photoshop to each frame, amount depending on subject matter and camera movement. Thus increasing framerate in post will have some detrimental impact on the cinematic look, but the motion blur will remain.

That has my curiosity piqued: I should go to a TV shop to see how interpolating TVs look with feature films.

Here's a list of theaters showing The Hobbit in 48fps (http://www.hfrmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/). Since it's been almost a year, it's not showing anymore at most theaters. The upcoming sequels will also be in 48fps, and I believe Avatar sequels will also.

Quote
How does "shutter angle" work with the continuous sensor output of interlaced readout on a video camera? Is it like shutter angle of 360º, with no "gaps"?

I don't shoot motion, I'm just a film geek, so I'll let those who actually know what they're talking about answer that :) I'm curious myself.

Anyway, if 4k becomes the rage or a magic number that people want, the camera, software and computer companies are more than happy to oblige, because they'll just sell more stuff and more stuff makes the world spin.

Not only about tech, but technicians and pros (jobs). All visual effects need higher fidelity, make-up and prosthetics needs to be more detailed and higher quality, lenses need to resolve more, etc. Focus pulling will become even more critical with 4k than it already is with digital and the shallow-DOF craze. You can see out-of-focus face shots in many (HD)TV shows and even some feature films. These were much rarer in film days - but admittedly viewing DVD movies on SDTV hides a lot of imperfections which are visible on BD and HDTV.

I share your enthusiasm for RED at the viewing end. I saw Elysium in IMAX, which was shot with 4K RED EPIC (http://www.red.com/news/elysium-di-colorist-talks-4k-finish-and-big-picture), and it was stunning.

I thought the goal of 48fps was so that 3D could be presented in 24fps "per-eye"?

Yes, but that's just one goal. 2D 48fps allows for smoother (and faster) pans, for example.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Rhossydd on September 04, 2013, 03:32:46 am
I can only assume that your jibe was directed at me. If so, so be it, though it would have been braver to be more direct.
Not especially at you, there  are plenty of others that seem to think posting a few home video on Vimeo gives them the authority to be an expert. I've said before, you'd retain more respect by sticking to subjects you really excel at.
Quote
Credible experience. Humm. Worked in the motion picture industry since 1966. Past member of IATA, National video product manager for JCV, Panasonic, Colortran Studio Lighting, on staff at CBC television for nine years, and have worked with widely respected industry veterin and cine award winner Chris Sanderson producing dozens of productions for the past eleven years. Guess there's a bit of cinema and TV experience here.
If you'd given some actual credits of productions you've worked on made for cinema, maybe membership of BSC/ASC or similar, then you might have some credibility as a cinematographer.
Just selling stuff and rubbing shoulders with film makers doesn't really count.
Quote
As for you comments on 24fps, sorry, you're now at odds with some of the great cinematographers of the past century. Do some reading and online research. It won't take you long to realize that rejecting 24fps is a facile position.
Missed point, read what I said, 24fps isn't a necessity for cinema any more, ask Peter Jackson.
Quote
Similarly throwing up straw man arguments against shallow DOF and other cinematic conventions is childish. Examples of anything can be found, but these exceptions prove nothing other than the shallowness of your argument.
Again you're not getting it. I'm not saying shallow DoF is wrong, just that it isn't the defining property of a cinematic look.

Title: Re: 24p: "better" or a Pavlovian conditioned preference that will go away in time?
Post by: hjulenissen on September 04, 2013, 03:49:38 am
I don't shoot motion, I'm just a film geek, so I'll let those who actually know what they're talking about answer that :) I'm curious myself.
I dont shoot motion either (neither am I an expert), but is it my impression that there are several different ways that a video camera may operate. Sometimes user-selectable.

The "best" would (from many persepectives) be a true progressive signal feeding a true progressive stream at whatever desired framerate.

I believe that some "interlaced" video cameras works in the intuitive way: reading odd lines at time 0, storing them as an interlaced field, then reading even lines at time 1, storing them as an interlaced field. This would give you an e.g. 50i of 50 discrete fields /second where each field is subject to whatever integration time/mechanical shutter is used.

I believe that other "interlaced" cameras does spatio-temporal filtering: Each line of each field may be a weighted sum of neighboring (time/space) fields. This might improve noise, or it might reduce aliasing (although aliasing seems to be a desirable property of interlaced systems).

I believe that other "interlaced" cameras will simply grab a progressive frame 25/30 times/second, and split the lines into a 50/60i signal.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 04, 2013, 05:58:10 am
I have always found the argument over 24p Vs 30P a bit odd, as the difference in look between the two is due is almost certainly down to other factors like capture medium or budget and not FPS.
Images viewed at 24fps tend to be seen in the cinema and were usually shot on film, usually S35 [i.e. a large sensor in video terms] and with large budgets, careful lighting and so on.
Stuff shot at 30fps [until quite recently with the advent of DSLR video capture] tended to have been shot on smaller chip video cameras which gives a very, very different look to film, both through sensor size and image quality of video vs film, not to mention much lower budgets too. A lot of TV has fast turnarounds compared to film and because lighting for say soaps or sitcoms tends to be set up for multi-camera shooting, you get a less interesting and a much flatter look. Bearing in mind that lighting can also cause separation, albeit in a different way to a fast lens on a big sensor/film. And if you were to shoot these things in 24p it would make bugger all difference to the overall look in my view. Which is probably why BC can't see a difference between frame rates as it isn't the defining thing that changes the look.

So do films when shown on TV at 30 fps suddenly not look cinematic? Can't comment myself as I do not tend to watch TV whilst I'm in the US, TV is 25fps here and although the look of films does not seem to change on UK TV, the impact of seeing things on a much smaller screen does.

I never saw The Hobbit to see how that looked in 48fps, because I wasn't exactly a fan of the tedious LOTR films and even as a 10 year old I thought the Hobbit was a childish book. Interestingly Douglas Trumball, who did SFX on 2001, Blade Runner, Tree of Life etc did tests with 35mm film shot+projected at different rates and concluded faster was better for emotional involvement of audience, which doesn't surprise me actually as higher sampling rates in music, which cannot be directly heard makes audio sound better in my experience. He then developed Showscan [65mm @ 60fps] to utilise his findings which was too ahead of its time to be commercially viable.
Just saw Kick-Ass 2 which was rubbish in many ways, not least of all because it looked like a cheap soap with the nasty look people ascribe to 30fps, despite being shot at 24fps. One of the ugliest looking films I've seen in a long time.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 04, 2013, 07:12:11 am
...which doesn't surprise me actually as higher sampling rates in music, which cannot be directly heard makes audio sound better in my experience.
Despite a lot of effort, no-one has to my knowledge been able to credibly prove (i.e. repeatable, peer-reviewed science) that >CD spec digital audio leads to audible improvements.

Moving images are very different, as todays technology can be proven to be worse than the capabilities of our vision on a number of parameters.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Manoli on September 04, 2013, 07:37:58 am
Despite a lot of effort, no-one has to my knowledge been able to credibly prove (i.e. repeatable, peer-reviewed science) that >CD spec digital audio leads to audible improvements.

Huh ?
No audible improvements ? And how exactly do you define audible improvements ?

CD spec is 44.1/16bit. HD is usually 24bit and > 96k.
A bit like saying, there's no visual improvement between an 8-bit jpeg and a 16-bit RAW, or digital is no better than film.

Perhaps you should refer to Daniel Weiss.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 04, 2013, 07:44:51 am
Huh ?
No audible improvements ? And how exactly do you define audible improvements ?
>.95 confidence in a blind test suitable for such test (e.g. ABX)
Quote
CD spec is 44.1/16bit. HD is usually 24bit and > 96k.
Yes?
Quote
A bit like saying, there's no visual improvement between an 8-bit jpeg and a 16-bit RAW, or digital is no better than film.
Nowhere like saying anything like that.
Quote
Perhaps you should refer to Daniel Weiss.
I don't know him. I do subscribe to and read scientific journals about sound. Such as the article below:

http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Manoli on September 04, 2013, 08:09:20 am
-h
I don't want to hijack this thread BUT, briefly
Your article contains so many caveats it's almost self defeating

“From the many different recordings we used it emerged that almost no music or voice program, recording venue, instrument, or performer exceeds the capabilities of a well implemented CD-quality record/playback loop. The CD has adequate bandwidth and dynamic range for any home reproduction task,”

well implemented ? home reproduction ?

to begin to understand the many variables that go into a 'recording' try
http://www.digido.com/articles-and-demos12/13-bob-katz/27-back-to-analog.html
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 04, 2013, 08:37:21 am
Huh ?
No audible improvements ? And how exactly do you define audible improvements ?
it sounds better.  :P

When CDs first appeared, I recall testing them against vinyl and the thing that struck me was that I tapped my foot to the vinyl track and not the CD. I only realised this after the fact and being quite surprised by it. Later when players increased their sampling rate, they sounded better and only then did I buy one. S

Quote
CD spec is 44.1/16bit. HD is usually 24bit and > 96k.
A bit like saying, there's no visual improvement between an 8-bit jpeg and a 16-bit RAW, or digital is no better than film.

No it's like saying a 24MB image looks better than a 8MB image, or a MF print looks better than a 35mm print. You don't necessarily see the underlying structure of the image under normal viewing. But the higher resolution/quality image just looks better, all other things being equal.


P.S.  Folks -  please, please don't go down the pointless 'I can't hear any difference, so you crazy audiophiles must be imagining things' route.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: BJL on September 04, 2013, 08:38:04 am
No audible improvements ? And how exactly do you define audible improvements ?
I propose "Detectable at a level well above chance in ABX testing".
And certainly not a list of differences in the procedure used to produce the recording, or "some of the spec. sheet numbers are bigger, so it must be better", which is what you seem to propose next:
CD spec is 44.1/16bit. HD is usually 24bit and > 96k. ...

Can you cite any positive evidence of detectable audible differences, detected in ABX comparisons or the like? I have read examples of "golder ears" reviewers describing in elaborate detail the differences that they perceive between two high-end alternatives, and then failing to distinguish the two at all in an ABX comparison.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 04, 2013, 08:44:47 am
Interestingly Douglas Trumball, who did SFX on 2001, Blade Runner, Tree of Life etc did tests with 35mm film shot+projected at different rates and concluded faster was better for emotional involvement of audience, which doesn't surprise me actually as higher sampling rates in music, which cannot be directly heard makes audio sound better in my experience.
Despite a lot of effort, no-one has to my knowledge been able to credibly prove (i.e. repeatable, peer-reviewed science) that >CD spec digital audio leads to audible improvements.

Moving images are very different, as todays technology can be proven to be worse than the capabilities of our vision on a number of parameters.

Please try reading posts before replying, there's a good chap. Did I mention CDs? Nope, I said music.  Would you say a 64kbs mp3 sounds as good as a 320kbs or a lossless format or compared to the original.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 04, 2013, 10:04:14 am
... Would you say a 64kbs mp3 sounds as good as a 320kbs or a lossless format or compared to the original.
No, because listening tests shows us that there (can be) an audible difference. Are you switching topic from sample rates to bit rates?
...which doesn't surprise me actually as higher sampling rates in music, which cannot be directly heard makes audio sound better in my experience.
Can we please talk about a topic and not about those that discuss the topic?
Please try reading posts before replying, there's a good chap.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 04, 2013, 10:11:37 am
Your article contains so many caveats it's almost self defeating
The article is peer reviewed and published in the most relevant scientific journal. You are, of course, free to attempt to publish an article of your own, or to publish comments to this article in the JAES.
Quote
“From the many different recordings we used it emerged that almost no music or voice program, recording venue, instrument, or performer exceeds the capabilities of a well implemented CD-quality record/playback loop. The CD has adequate bandwidth and dynamic range for any home reproduction task,”

well implemented ? home reproduction ?
I.e. it may be _possible_ to design a playback system (or playback situation) where errors that are inaudible in normal situations, suddenly become audible. Try adding 40dB of gain at at narrow band around 1kHz, or applying 70dB of dynamic compression. Or equipping a CD record/playback loop that uses 8-bit ADC and DAC. This article tries to tell us what is needed from a system designed by competent people, not what is needed from a system designed by monkeys.

There are reasons to use >CD specs when recording music in your studio, just as there are reasons to use 14-bit raw files in photography while 8-bit JPEG may suffice for distribution.
Quote
to begin to understand the many variables that go into a 'recording' try
http://www.digido.com/articles-and-demos12/13-bob-katz/27-back-to-analog.html
Many noted recording engineers don't really have a clue about the issue we discuss. Really.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Manoli on September 04, 2013, 10:32:28 am
Later when players increased their sampling rate, they sounded better and only then did I buy one. S
I can't remember what the original CD sampling rate was but 44.1 has been the standard for a long time. The major improvements, if I'm not mistaken, came when the A/D converters improved, and became 'seperates', moving them out of the CD player.

No it's like saying a 24MB image looks better than a 8MB image, or a MF print looks better than a 35mm print. You don't necessarily see the underlying structure of the image under normal viewing. But the higher resolution/quality image just looks better, all other things being equal.
Agreed. You put it far more succinctly. The important part here is the "all things being equal" - which in the audio world, they rarely are.

Another example, as Jeff Schewe illustrates in his book, the undetectable difference between a Canon S100 shot and the P65+ identical shot as printed. The same two shots enlarged to A0 size - a different story.

"some of the spec. sheet numbers are bigger, so it must be better", which is what you seem to propose next:
No. I was referring to both the bit rate and the sampling rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate

"The Audio Engineering Society recommends 48 kHz sample rate for most applications but gives recognition to 44.1 kHz for Compact Disc and other consumer uses, 32 kHz for transmission-related application and 96 kHz for higher bandwidth or relaxed anti-aliasing filtering."   (Can't remember where I've seen that term used before!)

I have read examples of "golder ears" reviewers describing in elaborate detail the differences that they perceive between two high-end alternatives, and then failing to distinguish the two at all in an ABX comparison.
Yes, but they're discussing differences in hardware as opposed to whether or not different sampling/bit rates make any noticeable difference.

FWIW, my own empirical experience is this:
Yes, sampling rates can and do, sometimes, make a substantial difference.
The quality of the recording is more important than the output medium. A poor HD recording pales next to a good CD recording.

I own both a Musical Fidelity DAC (about $200) - truly excellent and excellent value for money and a WEISS DAC202 (about $ - I'd rather not say) an exceptional DAC. A difference between them exists, but has no relevance to the price differential. Nevertheless, good as they both are the WEISS makes a difference not only on HD recordings but also on iTunes 192K downloads.

It is quite true that some esoteric high-end audio engineers/manufacturers have debated the value of exceeding the 96k/24 bit level - but at this point I check out - this is the domain of audio engineers, which I am not.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Manoli on September 04, 2013, 10:43:12 am
Many noted recording engineers don't really have a clue about the issue we discuss. Really.

I'll take your word on that. Really.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Manoli on September 04, 2013, 10:48:29 am
... a system designed by competent people, not what is needed from a system designed by monkeys.

Now, aren't we getting a little bit over-excited ?
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 04, 2013, 10:52:05 am
Can we please talk about a topic and not about those that discuss the topic?
Hard to talk about a topic if you don't bother to read posts correctly and then wander off on a different subject.

Plus the thread is about moving imagery, frame rate and resolution and so forth.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 04, 2013, 11:43:05 am
So the relevance of all this audio discussion to 4K is what?   

Are we saying this?: "4K doesn't reveal enough improvement in picture quality for the average viewer at home, and just like HD sound isn't worth it, neither is 4K picture"

If so, I agree.

(note: I said "for the average viewer at home")
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 04, 2013, 12:38:12 pm
So the relevance of all this audio discussion to 4K is what?
No relevance, it was to with frame rate.

Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: bcooter on September 04, 2013, 01:15:34 pm
Michael's right if he likes 4k and 24fps.  

I can see his point because he instructs and shows still landscape imagery and at 4k he can show the detail he likes to present.  Makes sense to me, but his delivery method of sd cards sounds a little problematic, but I'm sure he'll work it out.

Then again so are the guys that shoot video for a show like Top Gear are also right,  because they shoot a very good video production and I don't think they are worrying about frame rates or 4k.

JJJ is right because the "cinematic look" is more than cameras, lenses, focus throw and fps.  It's the total look and films, even cheap films take a long time to get right.

It just depends on what you do.

What is interesting though that most people who have moved from stills to motion, are not going to be directing and shooting full length features, at least none that will go into a cinema.

After all there are great DP's and Directors in Hollywood that can smoke us all that aren't overly booked.  Why do you think so many of them are giving classes, testing cameras for manufacturers and doing how to videos?

I've worked on gigs where an academy award winning director, (one who has a current movie hitting the screens as I write this) worked as DP where the director knew less about his craft than most amatuer film makers but the award winning director did it because . . . a gigs a gig.

Still, comparing 4k to 2k on a movie screen is almost a mute point for this forum because that's not what most of us are hired to do.

Me, I think if I had to describe what I did now I'd say multi media.  Shooting MOS lifestyle on the beach with a moving camera is not a lot different than shooting the stills, other than you gotta stop shaking around and I know that when a client reviews dailies the last thing they care about is camera make, 4k or 24fps.  

They care about the shot that resonates with them, their product, their marketing plan, or just personally turns them on.

Lately we've booked a lot of dialog work and dialog vs. mos is night and day.  I love dialog directing, but find the pace slow and I really have to forget most of what I know from the still world, to do dialog correctly.

The point I was trying to make in my earlier too long responses was learn the basics (the same points I think Michael was trying to make) and then have a reason if break the rules, because really . . . there are no rules.

I can pull up google info on the last 4 movies I've seen, last 10 tv shows and I can promise you not one will have the same workflow, camera lens combo, editorial suite, coloring and finish apps as the other.

It's all a roll your own business in digital motion, much like what digital stills has and is still going through.

In fact two of my favorite tv shows moved from RED's to Sony's because they were Sony properties and I never could tell the difference when I watched them and I really explored them.

Now.  The most interesting aspect of motion imagery to me is workflow.  I think the workflow of motion is the black hole of time.  Just getting one light dailies out on a large scale is maddening and if you shoot multiple cameras with multiple file types it's pure hell.

We're finishing up a gig we shot in 5 parts, three countries, 6 cities.  The first part I shot like a mad man, because the creative brief was huge, the time allowed not so huge.  I ran gh3's, Sony FS100's, A go pro, A g16 for underwater, Two RED One's and a Scarlet.  Had a reason for each camera, mostly how fast and good I could get it in the can (or is that in the drive?).

I had a billion hours of footage and it took a lot of long, long days and nights to get it out to the client for review.

The next productions I slowed it down and shot 99% of the footage on the RED's, only used the gh3's for tight spots like cars or fluid fast movement like on the beach.

The reason had nothing to do with 4k, 2k, or fps.  I stuck with the RED's because I thought they produced the prettiest file, gave me the most head room for processing, but the main reason? . . . was Cinex.

With the RED's I could sit down for a few days, correct hundreds of files and then let the RED rocket take over for the evenings, processing out prorezz with an image that was based out and professional enough to show.

The time saved was weeks, not days so as much as I respect these new little cameras, I'm sticking with the RED's as much as possible, but once again, it's workflow.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: feppe on September 04, 2013, 01:50:55 pm
Missed point, read what I said, 24fps isn't a necessity for cinema any more, ask Peter Jackson.

Neither Peter Jackson or James Cameron are a central authority who define what is a cinemetic look - viewers do. And overwhelmingly viewers think that The Hobbit in 48fps looks plastic-y, unreal, hyper-real, artificial, like a cheap theater production or a documentary.

Are we saying this?: "4K doesn't reveal enough improvement in picture quality for the average viewer at home, and just like HD sound isn't worth it, neither is 4K picture"

If so, I agree.

(note: I said "for the average viewer at home")

That's exactly my argument in the OP, and no one has really contested my conclusion.

4K is great for the home theater geeks and photographers who have money and plenty of physical space, but vast majority of laymen will see no return on investment from 4K, other than making the neighbor jealous.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: peterv on September 04, 2013, 02:09:59 pm
Michael, perhaps you and Chris should also take a look at the new Sony 4k FDR-AX1 Handycam, before you buy into the blackmagic. No raw I think, but for stuff like the tutorials you guys produce in your studio that would not be a necessity anyway.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Rhossydd on September 04, 2013, 02:48:25 pm
And overwhelmingly viewers think that The Hobbit in 48fps looks plastic-y, unreal, hyper-real, artificial, like a cheap theater production or a documentary.
How much of that is due to 48fps ?
From what I've read you could only see it at 48fps in 3D and that opens another whole can of worms in terms of how a production is perceived.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: PierreVandevenne on September 04, 2013, 03:56:27 pm
Hobbit: to me it looks like a video game. Much of that attributable, at least for my eyes, to their color post-processing/synthesis. Very subjective indeed. As far as 4K is concerned, I was very close to buying a Samsung UE75F8000 but after a bit of comparison, I found out I preferred my projector for movies and a smaller 55" TV for standard stuff. At larger size HD is really an issue. Probably not if I am fully immersed in the movie (some DVD stuff is quite OK on the projection screen), but as soon as my mind notices something it breaks the spell. I think I'll wait for 4K for a larger screen. I also found out that as the resolution increases, my relative distance to the screen diagonal goes down. 55" at the correct distance seems like a tiny window in another world to me. 150" on the screen is  about right. A bit overwhelming at first sure, but what I want. (and yes, I have a dedicated home theater approximately 6mx6m).

I am eagerly waiting for 4K media and devices to keep my weekly movie a special occasion.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 04, 2013, 04:05:01 pm
How much of that is due to 48fps ?
From what I've read you could only see it at 48fps in 3D and that opens another whole can of worms in terms of how a production is perceived.
You could view it in [pseudo] IMAX, 3D and 2D.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 04, 2013, 04:08:36 pm
I found out I preferred my projector for movies and a smaller 55" TV for standard stuff. At larger size HD is really an issue. Probably not if I am fully immersed in the movie (some DVD stuff is quite OK on the projection screen), but as soon as my mind notices something it breaks the spell. I think I'll wait for 4K for a larger screen. I also found out that as the resolution increases, my relative distance to the screen diagonal goes down. 55" at the correct distance seems like a tiny window in another world to me. 150" on the screen is  about right. A bit overwhelming at first sure, but what I want. (and yes, I have a dedicated home theater approximately 6mx6m).
I sit towards front of cinema and you'd need a much bigger screeen than 150" to match that size!  ;D
Probably 4-5m wide depending on aspect ratio.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: feppe on September 04, 2013, 05:35:05 pm
How much of that is due to 48fps ?
From what I've read you could only see it at 48fps in 3D and that opens another whole can of worms in terms of how a production is perceived.

I doubt 3D is the reason: there are a lot of 3D movies out there already, and people accustomed to 3D had the same poor viewing experience with 48fps as everyone else. I don't see 3D and I certainly had that experience.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: PierreVandevenne on September 04, 2013, 05:44:35 pm
I sit towards front of cinema and you'd need a much bigger screeen than 150" to match that size!  ;D
Probably 4-5m wide depending on aspect ratio.

Yeah, I know, unfortunately I don't expect to ever become rich enough to put a full size theater in my house :-) and my current projector isn't bright enough to comfortably go above a 4m diagonal....
Title: John Knoll on The Hobbit's 48fps problems
Post by: BJL on September 04, 2013, 08:03:21 pm
Here are some thought on what might be bad about the Hobbit at 48fps, including some attributed to John "Photoshop" Knoll:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/01/11/the-reason-why-many-found-the-hobbit-at-48-fps-an-unexpectedly-painful-journey/
One idea I get from this: going from 24fps to 48fps at the same shutter angle halves the amount of temporal blurring, which can bring out imperfections (in make up, lighting effects, actor's contact lenses, etc.) that are smoothed over by the lower frame rate and its longer exposure times. This could be particularly bad in a movie like The Hobbit that is full of prosthetics and such, making the goblins' faces and such more obviously fake. And when combined with the bigger apparent image size on a cinema screen these defects are likely more visible than when high frame material is seen under typical home viewing conditions.

If so, then perhaps the challenge is to double the "resolution" of the make-up, prosthetics, CGI scenery, and such when the frame rate is doubled.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 04, 2013, 08:37:41 pm
One idea I get from this: going from 24fps to 48fps at the same shutter angle halves the amount of temporal blurring, which can bring out imperfections (in make up, lighting effects, actor's contact lenses, etc.) that are smoothed over by the lower frame rate and its longer exposure times. This could be particularly bad in a movie like The Hobbit that is full of prosthetics and such, making the goblins' faces and such more obviously fake. And when combined with the bigger apparent image size on a cinema screen these defects are likely more visible than when high frame material is seen under typical home viewing conditions.

If so, then perhaps the challenge is to double the "resolution" of the make-up, prosthetics, CGI scenery, and such when the frame rate is doubled.
When you normally alter frame rate you should also alter shutter angle[which=shutter speed] to match. Sometime you use the 'wrong' settings such as say a narrower shutter angle which makes for sharper individual frames and gives a staccato look to the moving image - often used for zombies and battle scenes.

"The Hobbit was shot at 48p, but with a shutter angle of 270°. This translates to a shutter speed of 1/64 of a second. The traditional “film look” rule for film is that the shutter speed should be twice the frame rate. For 24p, the shutter speed is usually 1/48 (or 1/50 if your digital camera doesn’t support 1/48.)"

Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: BJL on September 04, 2013, 10:17:58 pm
When you normally alter frame rate you should also alter shutter angle[which=shutter speed] to match. Sometime you use the 'wrong' settings such as say a narrower shutter angle which makes for sharper individual frames and gives a staccato look to the moving image - often used for zombies and battle scenes.

"The Hobbit was shot at 48p, but with a shutter angle of 270°. This translates to a shutter speed of 1/64 of a second. The traditional “film look” rule for film is that the shutter speed should be twice the frame rate. For 24p, the shutter speed is usually 1/48 (or 1/50 if your digital camera doesn’t support 1/48.)"
To be pedantic (and you clearly know this anyway) shutter angle is not directly shutter speed, it describes the shutter speed as a fraction frame rate, so for example keeping the shutter angle at 180º while increasing frame rate from 24 to 48 would reduce exposure time from 1/48s to 1/96s. Thanks for the detail that "The Hobbit" uses something intermediate, shutter speed 1/64s, so only 50% faster than the traditional standard of 1/48s, but still potentially causing the reduced "motion smoothing" that I was speculating about. Do you know why Jackson went for the 270º shutter angle? Is it a compromise to help down-conversion to 24fps?

P. S. I think the most famous recent example of exotic shutter angles is the 45º used in the D-Day scenes in "Saving Private Ryan".
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 05, 2013, 02:48:10 am
Hard to talk about a topic if you don't bother to read posts correctly and then wander off on a different subject.
Please let me know exactly where this happened.
Quote
Plus the thread is about moving imagery, frame rate and resolution and so forth.
When you introduce audio as an analogy into the thread, I think it is reasonable to expect discussion about that analogy. Don't you?
...which doesn't surprise me actually as higher sampling rates in music, which cannot be directly heard makes audio sound better in my experience....
-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 05, 2013, 02:54:01 am
Now, aren't we getting a little bit over-excited ?
That was not my intention. I tried to illustrate how system designs that deviates significantly from the norm considered "good practice" may render knowledge about thresholds of audibility moot, as an explanation to question marks about the paper. Like I often do, I used an extreme case to illustrate what I think is true for less extreme cases: "CD-players designed by monkeys" may or may not need 20 or 24 or more bits in orderto be transparent. The JAES paper makes a good case that 16 bit is sufficient for sensible designs.

It was not my conscious intent to compare the electronics designers of "boutique" audiophile equipment to monkeys.

As they did introduce "CD-quality distortion" to a high-rez signal, they avoided the common "apple vs pears" comparision that many do (a SACD may sound different from a CD but the formats limitations might not have anything to do with it)

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 05, 2013, 03:09:31 am
I think it is more interesting to discuss the limits of human vision, rather than aesthetics. After all, the success of audio formats is partially that they are not limiting the content (at least monaurally), thus musicians and producers are free to apply whatever aesthetics they please. If the cinemas had a similar quality for their images, then Peter Jackson & friends could consentrate on "what looks good" rather than "how to beat the limitations of the system".

This paper might be relevant:
High Frame Rates and Human Vision: A View Through the Window of Visibility By Andrew B. Watson
http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/publications/Watson-2013-SMPTEMotImag.pdf

(I know nothing about the SMPTE motion imaging journal)

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 05, 2013, 05:29:34 am
I went to cinema late yesterday and my choices were a Mark Wahlberg cops buddy drama or a Mark Wahlberg criminals buddy drama. :-\  Ended up seeing Pain + Gain which was quite interesting to watch after the conversation in this thread, because Ben Serensin, the DoP used a whole heap of different cameras on this [by Hollywood standards $26M], low budget film. In the mix were Reds, film, Phantom, Anamorhic, Go Pros, 7Ds and others and it's a great looking film, though at times it's kind of obvious when a GoPro is being used. Despite how amazing Go-Pros are for the size, when cut with film there is a very noticeble difference. Most of the time the audience won't have time to realise as it's cut very quickly which hides these issues and is why they knew they could get away with it. But at one point a Go-Pro is used on car to catch some dialogue of the characters within and it's a relatively long take and it stands out as being quite different to rest of film - it actually looks like they forgot to grade that take. The reason I mention all this is that the Go-Pro shots also tended to look less cinematic and more Top Gear (http://www.topgear.com/uk/) - and as Go-Pros can shoot 24p, it was nothing to do with frame rate, but image sensor size/quality.

Cameras were apparently chosen simply for their size and what the scene required, not for any particular aesthetic reason and interestingly the film was not storyboarded, They usually just rocked up to a location and winged it, apart from a few more complex shots where there was CGI used and when it involved the set being built to facilitate it. Amazingly, they averaged 60 takes a day, which is simply astonishing and film doesn't appear rushed or 'low' budget.

As for the film itself, it's based on a really interesting true story, but the film strikes the wrong tone for me as it tries to make a quite serious drama into a jolly comedy and completely and utterly missed the mark. It feels a bit confused as to what kind of story it is telling as it changes half way through into a quite different film. Violent, vicious kidnappers and murderers do not usually make for a light hearted comedy, particularly when mixed with graphic gore. Particularly as it's telling the story of some quite horrific crimes which only happened fairly recently and the people who suffered and their families probably don't find it quite so funny.
Comedy and gore can be done well - Peter Jackson's 'Braindead' is a good very OTT example of that. Black Comedy about a murderous psychopath can also be done well as in 'Man Bites Dog', which is quite exceptional in how it addresses such a difficult area of film making, a very powerful film indeed.
I didn't know who the director was until the end credits and when Michael Bay's name rolled up, that explained a lot about the tone [and homophobia] as he's never going to be the Coen Brothers.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Rhossydd on September 05, 2013, 02:49:33 pm
and as Go-Pros can shoot 24p, it was nothing to do with frame rate, but image sensor size/quality.
Add to that lack of control of white balance and exposure. They're a nightmare to use in a lot of ways.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Telecaster on September 05, 2013, 03:24:42 pm
Just an aside re. audio & bit-depth/sampling rate. Playing & recording music is my other hobby. My experience is that 16/44 via a high-quality converter will tend to sound better than 24/96 via an average one. Using the same high-quality converter, and paying close attention to recording levels, my 53-year-old ears can't hear any difference between 24/96 and 16/44 worth fussing over. Converter quality is the key.

I almost always record at 24/88. There's no harm in capturing more data than is strictly necessary, and 24 bits gives you extra headroom to avoid digital clipping. A higher sampling rate can help mitigate the audible impact of an average converter's low-pass filter too. (I like recording while traveling using my iPad with a small clip-in mic.)

As for video, I'm all for the tech supporting 8k @ 120fps. Or 16k @ 240fps.   ;D  Then whether you shoot at 24fps or 30 or whatever...it becomes an æsthetic choice rather than a technology-limited one.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 05, 2013, 03:28:40 pm
Add to that lack of control of white balance and exposure. They're a nightmare to use in a lot of ways.
The auto exposure on Go-Pros is amazing and they do produce amazing results, but on a big cinema screen as opposed to the TV, they are not a patch compared to film.
In fact the DoP on 'Pain + Gain' said all the digital cameras struggled at times with bright Miami sunshine.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: trichardlin on September 08, 2013, 03:31:36 pm
... My experience is that 16/44 via a high-quality converter will tend to sound better than 24/96 via an average one. Using the same high-quality converter, and paying close attention to recording levels, my 53-year-old ears can't hear any difference between 24/96 and 16/44 worth fussing over...

-Dave-

Talking about sound quality is akin to talking about religion.  Scientists/engineers have repeated showed, under controlled conditions, test subjects can not reliably tell the difference between 24/96 and 16/44.  Of course, there is a whole industry built on the 'belief' that this is not true.  I am the most discriminating listener in the house, yet I have the worst hearing (no hearing beyond 10k Hz).  Go figure.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: michael on September 08, 2013, 05:55:13 pm
The new Sony doesn't interest me. Small sensor, deep DOF and no raw.

A couple of years from now camcorders without raw will seem very dated.

True it would do for our interviews and tutorials, but we have other plans as well. :-)

Michael
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: bcooter on September 08, 2013, 09:44:14 pm
The new Sony doesn't interest me. Small sensor, deep DOF and no raw.

A couple of years from now camcorders without raw will seem very dated.

True it would do for our interviews and tutorials, but we have other plans as well. :-)

Michael

Don't know your plans and everybody has a different opinion when it comes to raw vs. broad gamma prorezz, but I'm curious if you have other plans and your going to higher production values, why you would chose black magic?

I don't know much about their cameras and the price looks good, but the other stuff would worry me.  Delivery first off and the fact it seems to take any motion camera company a year or so to work out the kinks.

I just saw the footage that Phillip Bloom did on the bm mft pocket cam and it looked nice, much nicer than previous footage from China, but 5 batteries for 50 minutes shooting and no ability to format in camera are just basic things that would send me crazy.  

The new 4k, might be beyond all of that and I hope it is, but from personal experience I can tell you RED (and no I'm not selling or pushing RED) has most of their issues worked out to the point they are reliable and full featured.

Without RED I don't know what cameras I'd buy.    I know I'd look at the F5, but have never been that big a fan of Sony's motion cameras and of course for the price I'd have to look at black magic, but I'd also investigate even the Arri, though the price is steep.

What I do know that compared to the h264 cameras I have and continue to use, the workflow on RED is a dream and the ability to really move the file is up there in still photography land.

But as I said, everybody is different.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 09, 2013, 03:32:37 am
Talking about sound quality is akin to talking about religion.  Scientists/engineers have repeated showed, under controlled conditions, test subjects can not reliably tell the difference between 24/96 and 16/44.  Of course, there is a whole industry built on the 'belief' that this is not true.  I am the most discriminating listener in the house, yet I have the worst hearing (no hearing beyond 10k Hz).  Go figure.
What those scientists do, is fail to show that there are audible differences. That is not the same as showing that there are do differences.

I can spend my career looking for the easter bunny. If I fail to find him, that is inconclusive proof that he does not exist. If I find him, it is pretty conclusive proof that he does exist.

This puts many audiophile phenomena in the same cathegory as homeopathy, abduction by aliens etc: have not been proven, cannot be disproven.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2013, 04:33:16 am
Talking about sound quality is akin to talking about religion.  Scientists/engineers have repeated showed, under controlled conditions, test subjects can not reliably tell the difference between 24/96 and 16/44.  Of course, there is a whole industry built on the 'belief' that this is not true. 
Since when?
There is however an audio industry that makes sound equipment of very varying quality, which some people can certainly tell apart and others cannot - just like some people can discriminate between certain cameras or lenses which others counldn't give a monkey's about.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2013, 04:51:25 am
I don't know much about BM cameras and the price looks good, but the other stuff would worry me.  Delivery first off and the fact it seems to take any motion camera company a year or so to work out the kinks.
Sounds awfully like RED, but they took far more than a year.


Quote
The new 4k, might be beyond all of that and I hope it is, but from personal experience I can tell you RED (and no I'm not selling or pushing RED) has most of their issues worked out to the point they are reliable and full featured.
Yet they have a dismal reputation for reliability. Philip Bloom sold his despite the fact it produced images better than his other cameras, because he couldn't trust it to always work. And I also seem to to recall RED/Jim Jannard getting a bit annoyed that he did this and there was a bit of an silly online hoo-haa about it all, which didn't do RED any favours.


Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 09, 2013, 04:55:29 am
Since when?
There is however an audio industry that makes sound equipment of very varying quality, which some people can certainly tell apart and others cannot - just like some people can discriminate between certain cameras or lenses which others counldn't give a monkey's about.
There is also an industry of homeopaths, curing people from illness. The problem (for scientific or critical minded) is that reports of their successes have (AFAIK) never been recreated under controlled conditions, documented and passed the scrutiny of peer reviewers. As such, we don't know if homeopathy (or hirez audio) does what their proponents claim, only that we have so far been unable to prove that it does.

If no-one have ever been able to pick out 96kHz from 44.1kHz in, say 19 out of 20 attempts in a simple ABX test, why should anyone waste money on it, as long as there are other parts of the audio chain that really does affect audible performance? And if anyone think that they can pass such a test, why not just go ahead and do it, instead of endless debates on internet forums?

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2013, 05:05:46 am
No-one cares about 96KHz Vs 256KHz Vs 1028KHz Vs 1 billionKHz .
Does the music sound better yes or no? That is what matters. And is the bit you accountant types repeatedly ignore by talking about irrelevancies.
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 09, 2013, 06:43:58 am
No-one cares about 96KHz Vs 256KHz Vs 1028KHz Vs 1 billionKHz .
I don't. I just listen to the music that I love. To the audiophiles, sampling rate specs seems to matter a lot more than those of us who have had any engineering or scientific experience (and indeed, most of the musicians I know). One example:
...which doesn't surprise me actually as higher sampling rates in music, which cannot be directly heard makes audio sound better in my experience....
Quote
Does the music sound better yes or no? That is what matters. And is the bit you accountant types repeatedly ignore by talking about irrelevancies.
Either it is audible or it is not. If the music sounds better if you have 96kHz AND can see a nice expensive audiophile box, but not if it is 96kHz and you cannot see a nice expensive audiophile box, then I shall leave it up to the reader to conclude about what part is irrelevant.

-h
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2013, 06:57:35 am
Don't post irrelevant nonsense then. If you bothered to read posts correctly in first place, then there would be less of an issue with your pointless replies.
This is a thread about video resolution on which I touched upon how music can sound different, not about the absolute limits of human hearing. Try and reply to the actual posts, not what you incorrectly assume them to mean.

Post this was a reply to has now vanished!
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2013, 07:30:40 am
To the audiophiles, sampling rate specs seems to matter a lot more than those of us who have had any engineering or scientific experience (and indeed, most of the musicians I know).
So you think MP3s, no matter what the encoding quality is from say from 32-320kps, sound exactly the same as each other and also identical to a lossless file or even the original sound?

Quote
If the music sounds better if you have 96kHz AND can see a nice expensive audiophile box, but not if it is 96kHz and you cannot see a nice expensive audiophile box, then I shall leave it up to the reader to conclude about what part is irrelevant.
Usually the part where you post anything.  :P  And as if to prove my point above, no-one claimed anything about this sort of comparison. Once again you are arguing against points not made.

Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: bcooter on September 09, 2013, 08:34:44 am
Sounds awfully like RED, but they took far more than a year.

Yet they have a dismal reputation for reliability. Philip Bloom sold his despite the fact it produced images better than his other cameras, because he couldn't trust it to always work. And I also seem to to recall RED/Jim Jannard getting a bit annoyed that he did this and there was a bit of an silly online hoo-haa about it all, which didn't do RED any favours.





Full disclosure.  I've had my up and downs with RED, especially in their buying process.  

I also waited until the mx sensor was available AND in wide use before I bought my first then second R1.  

I had heard the things about overheating, you need two, etc. etc., but ours have been virtually perfect, around the world, from Zero C in New York and Paris to hellish hot and humid conditions in Thailand and KL. In fact for dialog I usually run very long takes and had no issue.  

Now the Scarlet, I bit early and yes . . . it's been more than a year since I find it really all around usable.  But RED came through made hardware fixes for sound, fan, connections and it is a useable production camera and now well worth the money. 

I'm not a RED fan boy like you see on their forums, rarely go on their forums unless I want to buy something, but there was and is no completely capable 4k, to 5k raw camera, with it's own software suite, that is available today, that is tested in battle for the price RED sells for.  

In fact I'm so pleased with the R1's that if I needed a 4th RED, it would be an R1, but I use the scarlet and now as a c cam . . .  use it for shoulder mounted and quick set up shots, usually with Canon I.S. lenses.

But to Blackmagic. I can promise you nobody would like them to succeed more than I.  The price is good, (not great considering what it takes to make one really work) and I believe they will get there, though it seems to take even Sony, a year or so to really get a 4k camera working in mainstream and varied conditions.

I had my pocket book out for the little mft pocket camera, and if I like it, maybe the 4k camera,  but Phillip bloom's testing kind of threw me back.   No camera formatting which I'm sure they'll fix in firmware, though 5 batteries for 50 minutes is not going to work for most people.  Just like the in handle Scarlet and Epic batteries, they're is just not enough juice in small batteries to run a 4k camera.  I know, because I own more V-locks than I do SSD, CF and SD cards.

BTW:  Either the camera or Phillips color grading for his quick tests was very, very pretty for such a quick test.

But back to why 4k matters.  Go get a small dslr, or a mft camera.  Set a jpeg at around 2000 pixels across and throw it into fcp.  Drop a filter in and start working.  Then take the same image shot raw at 4k and do the same.  Even for a still you'll see the difference and more than a looks a little better difference, you'll see a holy s__t what a difference.

4k is here in production.  In output I'm not that sure, but in acquisition 4k is the deal.

Yea, Sometimes Mr. Jannard does himself no favors, but he's bold, he's proud, he did what he said . . . not all . . . but more than the big players and he doesn't take any lip.

In a world that bold and proud has been turned to a negative, I find Mr. Jannard refreshing and he puts himself out there for the world to swing at.  I like him.

Consequently medium format cameras fall into the same high quality niche and the Phase one CEO essentially does the same thing, in a much more understated manner, but he makes no apologies for making good camera backs that are professional.

The part I don't understand with both of these companies is people like to diss them, few that do have actually worked with their equipment under heavy, lots of money on the line production, but everybody, even part time testers love to complain and unfortunately the web gives everyone an equal voice.


IMO

BC
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: Manoli on September 09, 2013, 09:00:09 am
I shall leave it up to the reader to conclude about what part is irrelevant.

Excellent idea.
And in the meantime, for some noted authorities and a whole stream of comments ..
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial

Now, back to 4K ..
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2013, 11:17:38 am
Yea, Sometimes Mr. Jannard does himself no favors, but he's bold, he's proud, he did what he said . . . not all . . . but more than the big players and he doesn't take any lip.
I certainly admire JJ, particularly with regard to bypassing the deliberately crippled product that gets very slightly less crap each year that Sony/Canon liked to do and also making movie cameras more affordable. Still too expensive unless you're a pro film maker, but the non-pros are not quite his market.
But I'm not a fan of paying to beta/alpha test equipment/software......
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: michael on September 09, 2013, 12:30:56 pm
Returning to the BMCC 2.5K, after a couple of weeks of daily use I'm very pleased. I am assuming(?!) that the 4Ks when they come will be about the same when it comes to field ruggedness.

I'd been working exclusively on a tripod, since my hand-held rig isn't here yet, but it's no better or worse than any other cine or even MF or LF camera in that regard. Yesterday I was in and out of the car 30 times in the afternoon, and the rig sits on the back seat, bouncing around. Sets up quickly.

The large rear LCD is a pleasure to work with in anything except direct sunlight. For that I have a Cineroid EVF on order. I feel like I'm looking at a 4X5 view camera ground glass, except unreversed. Might even bring a black cloth with me for outdoor work next time :-)

Raw workflow is a breeze. I've now got DaVinci Resolve under control, and I can do a one light grade on about 30 files (as I did yesterday) in about 45 minutes. On my Macbook Pro Retina rendering to ProRes HQ runs at about 50% realtime. Once done it's normal workflow in FCPX. I don't roundtrip at this point.

My only concern will be rendering 4K footage out of DaVinci. When that begins, if the Retina laptop is too slow I may just render proxies and roundtrip from FCPX. Then render out the final overnight if needs be.

Michael

Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: bcooter on September 09, 2013, 03:16:19 pm
I certainly admire JJ, particularly with regard to bypassing the deliberately crippled product that gets very slightly less crap each year that Sony/Canon liked to do and also making movie cameras more affordable. Still too expensive unless you're a pro film maker, but the non-pros are not quite his market.
But I'm not a fan of paying to beta/alpha test equipment/software......

Your right.  None of us should beta test.  Michael's doing it with the BM, I did it with the Scarlet, Apple, Adobe, Canon, Leaf, Olympus, Nikon (barley), Not Phase, Not Contax, Not Panasonic.

Red did address virtually every issue with all three of their cameras, except of course their fixes cost money, but hey, they fixed them.

All are pros.  We'll that's their original market, but now I'm sure they'd love to pick up the non pro, serious amateur and probably thought the Scarlet was the answer (it may be I don't know).

But if you glance over the RED or for that matter any photography forum, what is the percentage of people that make 100% of their household income off of paying photography?

I'd bet the numbers would surprise you.

But I still agree, RED did have issues, today many less and the thing with digital, still or motion, it's a fright to buy any new camera because until your really under fire you never know what's going to happen.

IMO

BC

P.S.   T Mark made an interesting remark that the systems in all genres of still and motion need to be faster.  Every 4k or 2k for that matter motion camera should have a dedicated or access to a dedicated processing and transcoding suite that use cpu and gpu power with approved video cards that worked with the system.

When I saw that 4k tablet, my eyes lit up.  I thought, now how cool that would be for editing.   Touch, drag, drop, lock edit, drag timeline into coloring suite, turn a few flat screen knobs and wa-la, your done.

Even if the tablet had to interface with a tower, what a great idea and think of the time savings.  Post is huge, huge, and did I say huge when it comes to time and budget.

There needs to be a more cohesive and standard way to work, instead of the roll your own system we have now.  (No I don't think fcpX is the answer as it sits today, but something like it could be).

IMO

BC
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2013, 05:35:35 pm
The large rear LCD is a pleasure to work with in anything except direct sunlight. For that I have a Cineroid EVF on order. I feel like I'm looking at a 4X5 view camera ground glass, except unreversed. Might even bring a black cloth with me for outdoor work next time :-)
I often wonder why similar isn't done more often. The hood that comes with a SmallHD [ext] monitor is pretty good, you can even rest it quite comfortably against your face for a large style EVF.

(http://www.lensprotogo.com/uploads/product_img/2013/02/25/smallhd_ac7_hood_1600-1.jpg.400x275_q85.jpg)
Title: Re: Why 4K matters - and why it's not ready for prime time
Post by: hjulenissen on September 13, 2013, 08:56:14 am
And in the meantime, for some noted authorities and a whole stream of comments ..
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial
Yeah, and my magic homeopathy potions "really" works, except when you test them blindly, then they stop working all of a sudden. $200 per box. 99.99999% natural ingredients. Interested?

I wish that the general public would have a look at the video below and think through why we do what we do, why we think what we think.
"Audio Myths workshop from the October 2009 AES show"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

The sad part is that there are known problem areas in sound reproduction (spatial reproduction, mastering practices,...), but certain audiophiles tends to pick the things that are least likely to matter (as in: have never been scientifically proven to matter at all), and divert the publics attention and money (and thereby manufacturer effort) away from the things that are most likely to matter (as in: have routinely been proven to matter, see e.g. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092). That is an image problem for all of us interested in high-quality reproduction of music: we are largely seen as middle-aged men with more money than critical sense, instead of the music lovers that many of us are.
Quote
Now, back to 4K ..
Good idea.

-h