4K Movies Releases

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I can't wait until they do. I think sports would benefit from the extra resolution far more than movies. At least I don't find myself wanting a better picture with Blu-ray, like I do for Comcast sports feeds.

Extra resolution would be nice with sports, but with Time Warner cable (now owned by Comcast) and sports, I find video noise to be the biggest issue and this is likely due to excessive compression. I doubt this will ever change.

[Penton-Man]

The technical issue though for sports is that most viewers demand realism rather than a ‘cinematic look’, ergo, when you bump up spatial resolution recording ( HD -> 4K), you’re then pretty much required to bump up temporal resolution to at least 60p, which you don’t have to do for movies…..as audiences still remain happy with capture and presentation at 24fps. In fact, if memory serves, Warner didn’t even offer theatrical audiences a 2D 48fps version of Hobbit, despite the fact a master was available and D-Cinema projection of such a deliverable wouldn’t have been much of an issue.

The real time capture at 4K 60p (or, to be precise, 59.94p - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...9#post10216243 ) and its handling is still in a stage of early infancy even for specialized presentations at limited venues…much less, ready for delivery and display into consumer homes.

Patience will be required.

[ramicio]

It should be done for movies. Resolution offers nothing but being able to sit closer, or a bigger screen...whichever way you want to look at it... Staying at 24 FPS with larger screens means more distance moved per frame. The eye keeps moving while the image doesn't. With 4k movies need to be at least 60 FPS. 100 FPS should be a new standard worldwide for both broadcast and movies.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ramicio

It should be done for movies. Resolution offers nothing but being able to sit closer, or a bigger screen...whichever way you want to look at it... Staying at 24 FPS with larger screens means more distance moved per frame. The eye keeps moving while the image doesn't. With 4k movies need to be at least 60 FPS. 100 FPS should be a new standard worldwide for both broadcast and movies.

Well my wife tells me I “should” eat more broccoli and veggies, but I don’t like the taste of broccoli and I was brought up on pasta, steaks and beef burgers (chicken and turkey burgers taste like cardboard to me), so it’s a struggle to finish my veggies.

Point is, my temporal http://journal.smpte.org/content/123/4/50.abstract friend , I think that it’s going to take a whole new consumer viewer generation for HFR to take hold with dramatic movies, e.g. those who’ve never shot a photo with a film camera, those unaware that the only way to have used a telephone was requiring it be hooked up to a wall outlet via a cord (which means there once was no such thing as driving and talking on the phone), those who’ve never heard of artists like Paul McCartney, but are familiar with Kayne West, etc.

Generation Z ?

[Penton-Man]

Plus, independent testing - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...t#post10317649 has determined that despite camera manufacturer official specs, at the current time, not all gear works well for continuous (entire scenes) shooting in a high frame rate (> 60fps) mode.

So that's yet another hurdle to be overcome.

[ramicio]

HFR increases resolution, anyway. Details also aren't lost to motion blur. 4k is cool for photos, but I don't think it will do any good in scenes that will be motion-blurred. I'd say we should push for 1080p120. If people don't like high frame rates, then there can be some kind of processing in their TV or player that goes from 120 to 24 and adds motion blur. That's a whole lot better than trying to go from 24 to 120. You can't erase motion blur from 24 when going to 120, and the motion is fake, not real. Motion interpolation is mostly what people are basing their HFR fears off of.

[BozQ]

I appreciate HFR. And I don't mind the occasional big budget movie in HFR. But I don't want it to be the default frame rate. Resolution and picture quality aside, the way 24fps works brings about a sense of escapism when I watch a movie.

But who am I kidding? It will be decades before we will see 48fps or higher become the default frame rate in cinemas.

[ramicio]

That makes no sense. How the heck does a slow, choppy frame rate make you more immersed in a movie? What a bogus claim. What you are referring to is a result of work done by the artist, and has nothing to do with a technical detail like frame rate. A high frame rate would make a person think what they're seeing is real. I think there may be an "uncanny valley" with frame rates; a range of frame rates where things look unpleasing and unrealistic. Maybe this 48 and 60 FPS nonsense is in that valley.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by ramicio

A high frame rate would make a person think what they're seeing is real.

Which is precisely why it works for real-life sporting events, but why it doesn't work in the cinema. Hobbits, for example, are not real. HFR didn't make them seem more real -- it revealed them to be quite fake.

I don't think most narrative filmmakers are concerned with their movies seeming "real" to the audience. A great many films are made with a far more impressionistic sensibility in mind -- for which the 24fps rate has proven ideal.

[ramicio]

That makes no sense, and I don't buy it. Frame rate has nothing to do with a "cinematic" experience.

[Spike M.]

Yes it does. The aesthetic of traditional cinema is largely dependent on that standardized frame rate. It's what people have come to expect a film to look like, to move like, and the 'look' it creates is how the masses define cinema visually. That's not to say there aren't a slew of other factors involved, but it's a central one.

[ramicio]

Nope. Sorry. 24 FPS was chosen because of technical limits with the audio track printed on the side of film, not because it made things "look like a movie." If they would have been able to do something like 100 FPS right off the bat, no one would know any difference today.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ramicio

That makes no sense, and I don't buy it. Frame rate has nothing to do with a "cinematic" experience.

I beg to differ – https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...A#post10317649 . Ram, I think the point is not why 24fps was originally chosen, but why filmmakers continue to prefer it for capture and delivery…to this day, despite the standardization of higher frame rates… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...g#post10329804

Heads-up !



ASC Open House (like in free and open to the public) at zee clubhouse in a couple weeks, esp. good for queries about frame rates, soft lenses, soft lighting and such - http://www.theasc.com/site/news/asc-...et-for-feb-14/

[ramicio]

They prefer it because it keeps costs down. To jump to 48 FPS, you need twice the storage, or twice the length of film. Jump to something rational like 100 FPS, and are basically quadrupling the requirements. They like it because it's easy to shoot. Most people shooting movies are technically clueless, and pretty talentless. Those who understand technology and how to actually use cameras are the ones pushing for HFR. 24 FPS doesn't remind me of a movie, it makes me disgusted at how luddite people are. With wide shutter angles and little motion blur, some 24 FPS actions scenes I've seen have looked horrendous. You really can't follow what's going on because the frame rate is too slow. I'd rather let my mind do motion blurring. HFR needs to be standard. I don't give a crap what anyone thinks. I've already said this multiple times...if people don't like it, there can be some kind of hardware processing to dither down to 24 FPS and blur the frames together. That would be a lot better than people who want HFR being stuck with motion interpolation nonsense that looks fake, because 1. you can't generate detail after motion blur has erased it, and 2. the motion is not real, AND IS THE REASON WHY MOST EVERYONE THINKS ACTUAL HFR FOOTAGE WILL LOOK BAD.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Beginning after the Super Bowl is the new season of The Blacklist...

Zee BIG bet by NBC...http://www.medialifemagazine.com/nbc...bet-blacklist/

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

which is shot in 4K on the Sony F55 and ultimately finished in 4K, i.e. the 4K conform is done directly from the 4K raw camera files). What is interesting in terms of logistics is that even though the series is not a ‘local’ show (meaning it is shot in New York but the editorial and color grading is done in L.A.), the dailies lab in L.A. receives the HD proxy files by midnight of the same day of shooting (via internet - http://asperasoft.com/company/why-aspera/ ) and the 4K files (on AXS cards) are shipped on a plane to L.A. the next day.

A few more specifics as to the workflow to come later as we approach the BIG game.

The HD proxy is captured on SxS cards (p.24 - https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/...structions.pdf ), while, as I said above, the 4K is captured on AXS cards (p.28).

One reason why this workflow works so well (efficiently) for editorial of a non-local show that demands a tight turnaround to work is the capability of the F55 camera to record 4K and HD proxy simultaneously . The data wrangler only needs to handle the media cards and, as an aside, no Digital Imaging Technician is needed on set because all color is done back in the lab in L.A.

[Richard Paul]

The NHK has made a proposal to add their HDR system to HEVC. As a relative luminance HDR system I think the NHK proposal is even better than the BBC proposal since it is very simple, can deliver a maximum brightness of 2,000 nits, and the NHK is honest when they say that it should use 12-bit video.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

The NHK has made a proposal to add their HDR system to HEVC. As a relative luminance HDR system I think the NHK proposal is even better than the BBC proposal since it is very simple, can deliver a maximum brightness of 2,000 nits, and the NHK is honest when they say that it should use 12-bit video.

Very exciting, but how is any of this going to be ready for forth quarter 2015.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by ramicio

AND IS THE REASON WHY MOST EVERYONE THINKS ACTUAL HFR FOOTAGE WILL LOOK BAD.

While I do think motion interpolation of 24p content looks horrible, the reason I don't like HFR is because when I gave it a chance (The Hobbit) IT LOOKED HORRIBLE. Reduced the look of the movie to what I would expect from a SyFy movie of the week with crappy sets, costumes and makeup. It took me out of the movie continually. Maybe that is a limitation of the production design itself, but so far that is the only feature film to go buy and it wasn't even in the least bit compelling.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by ramicio

They prefer it because it keeps costs down....

Well I would imagine so for those motion pictures which also do things like homemade DCPs in order to keep costs down, or have their friends and family provide homemade sandwiches to the cast and crew rather than going with a catering service (http://www.riseandshinecatering.com/craft-service.htm).

Seriously ram, probably over a year ago on some thread here in the Tech forum, I gave a heads-up at that time. to an as yet commercially distributed small independent film which was in production and which, since then. has come to fruition….being shown at more than a couple film festivals.

Said film is feature length and was recorded at 50fps….in 3D (so, multiply your data rate by another 2, from ‘keep the costs down’ 2D 24fps acquisition)….and the production budget was modest.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

maximum brightness of 2,000 nits...

Just pondering how display at such a high peak luminance, even on a small screen, will affect future air travel on overnight flights…