Amen.
Owen's iphone
On Aug 29, 2013, at 3:41 PM, "Mikeparsons.tv" <mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com> wrote:
> You do know that as a flame guy I run a 16 bit half float pipeline as standard and that most of my complex work is full float in nuke?
>
> I don't want resolution at the expense if color depth. I've said all along in this thread that I want it all. Higher res. Float. Higher fps. Stereo.
>
> I'm not advocating everyone needs everything but there is a segmenting the market where 4k is hugely advantageous and that's commercisl finishing.
>
> So if I'm talking finishing why do I want a 4k editorial workflow? Well us massively more fun in these file based days to be able to go from. 'Offline' to 'online' with a change of attitude rather than a relink and more. Now with avid fusion I can be delivering final comps back into the editors offline timeline - there's an interesting workflow. Would you prefer I sent low res renders back for delivery?
>
> Finish once deliver many times has been the cry for years - well I do tvcs that go to cinema regularly as well as with 8-10 country deliverables. Do I adopt the lowest common denominator for production or the highest?
>
> The best thing about file based finishing is escaping vtr colour depths and frame rates - high speed shots used to be a pain now phantom files are an every day occurrence. Good job the 4k phantom is a reality.
>
> Yes it will cost more and yes some people will choose to ignore it but so did HD and I've not finished a tvc in SD in close to 10 years.
>
> My career has been:
> 6 years of analogue online SD (cmx)
> 13 years digital SD (harry henry flame)
> 10 years digital HD (flame smoke)
> So it's really not like we're not due a change.
>
> In that same period I've gone from off lining on a steenbeck to avid msp, mc, symphony, FCP and back to symphony and now mc again. With home ownership of avid mcexpress, avid dv and now smoke.
>
> I've seen us move from grading in dubner, digi grade, amigo and topsy, through sunburst, pogle, davinci 422 then 888 and forwards to baselight and resolve. Never had a Copernicus... But all these areas of post and indeed production have one trajectory. More. More color depth and more resolution Snd now we're finally seeing movement on frame rate for deliverables.
>
> And I say good. More is good. Much more is better. Even more than that us better still. I want tv with do much resolution I can smell the food shots. I want color of such depth it's like being there.
>
> There's a book called Broadcasting since 1900 written in 1950 by the first chief engineer of the bbc. Read it if you can. He's retiring but his excitement about the possibilities of future advancement is intoxicating. Course he's excited about how good the ballet will look in colour rather than big brother but that's not the point. The future should be better and it should always be exciting.
>
> It's also always expensive to be on the cutting edge. Nonlinear editing used to involve Winchester disks (actually Fujitsu smd drives) the Harry had a whole rack to give me 80 seconds of SD to play with and cost a million pounds for the full suite if Harry paintbox encore and mirage. Every single one of us has better performance than that room on our laptops today.
>
> I once paid 50,000 us for 2 gig if dual interleaved ram for an onyx 2 to run flame. Not one of us has less than 2 gig in a computer we check email on today.
>
> So saying hard disk capacity is the break point or ram for 4k is ludicrous. Look at USB sticks. The average stick in my office is 64 gig and I don't think you can buy less than 8 or 16 these days. 4k masters in your pocket right there.
>
> So it's happening. Yes some people on some tvs might not see the benefit. But there will be people who can and one of those people will be me while I'm doing my work.
>
> Hopefully a lot of you guys will come along too, the future after all is still pretty exciting.
>
> Mike
>
> On 29 Aug, 2013, at 1:10 AM, "prberg2" <prberg2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I have not yet done any h265 tests on a full size display under normal viewing conditions. So I can't comment on that. Although I'm confident that newer codecs will have the potential to improve image quality.
> >
> > So you didn't comment on my desire to improve the final quality for viewers. Do you not think it's just as important to improve the other aspects of the image (compression, bit depth, color space, etc)? I'm just thinking that with our existing delivery pipelines (and the ones in the near future) if we used the new codecs on our 1920x1080 content it would make them look even better.
> >
> > That is where I think we should focus our attention. Are you saying that you would choose an image with higher resolution but lower quality otherwise (higher compression, lower bit depth, etc) over a HD image with higher quality (lower compression, higher bit depth, etc)? You choose more over better? Personally I'm a big fan of quality over quantity.
> >
> > I've seen this on Blu-ray discs. They can cram more on the disc and you get 'more'. But they have to reduce the quality and increase compression to do it. I'm much more in favor of improving quality and not just cramming in more pixels (which again I have not seen proof that you will actually be able to resolve on your home television).
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Mikeparsons.tv" <mikeparsons.tv@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you seen h265 tests?
> > >
> > > Megapixel domestic cameras are not what we are talking about it - we're talking about delivering more if the resolution many of my clients already come in with.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On 28 Aug, 2013, at 8:13 AM, "prberg2" <prberg2@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the most depressing thread? I have been enjoying it and it's very interesting to get everyone's perspective.
> > > >
> > > > So you talk about picture quality. Let's talk about picture quality shall we? It seems like you are focusing on quantity over quality. I would guess that you were upgrading your DSLR camera every time they increased the megapixels (more resolution is better right?). The problem with that, is that more pixels does not always mean higher quality. It can mean the opposite actually. With the increased megapixels, there is often increased noise in images. Also many cameras had more megapixels, but inferior lenses. I can tell you that my 6MP DSLR took MUCH better photos than my friends 14MP point and shoot camera. He had more pixels (and his camera was newer), but my images were sharper and had much better quality (confirmed by my very friend with that camera, and many of my family and friends who loved the photos from that 6MP DSLR). Now sensors have finally caught up and images have improved as a result. But it took about 10 years for the higher resolution noisier sensors to improve and get there.
> > > >
> > > > I think many of us here are fighting for quality, and the push to UHD/2160p/4K/8K could actually set us back in terms of beautiful image quality (and I'm speaking mostly to home entertainment and not so much about theatrical presentation). It's going to take more time for the consumer bandwidth pipelines (where most of the content is actually viewed) to increase on a major level. Until the pipeline receives a major upgrade (Think HDMI 3.0, Fiber internet to the home, etc.) the push to UHD/2160p/4K/8K will actually reduce quality. I'm sure compression will improve with time, but I will bet that it will not improve enough to compensate for the extra pixels (which you probably can't see anyways at normal TV viewing distances). Thus we will see more blocky compressed video (which I think looks absolutely terrible).
> > > >
> > > > I would much rather see an increase in actual video quality. To achieve that, we need much better compression all the way to the consumer's viewing device (TV in many cases). We need to abandon 8bit video and move to higher bit depths. That will reduce banding, and other video noise. A wider color space would also help improve picture quality.
> > > >
> > > > I was able to do a side by side test at my local electronics store. I saw the Sony 65" UHD set, setup near a same size HD set. It was showing the latest Spider Man movie. In all honesty, the UHD set did not look ANY better at all. There was alot of compression noise, and some strange smearing going on. Also the black levels were not as good as the Plasma set I was comparing it to. So to me, the UHD set had lower quality.
> > > >
> > > > Now when we get to the point where the compression ratio, bit depth, contrast ratio, black level, etc. are better on the UHD sets (or 8K or whatever it is by then) I would consider buying one for my living room.
> > > >
> > > > For now (and likely the next 5-8 years) I will stick with my plan on buying a great OLED 1080p set (once the prices drop to more reasonable levels). I will continue to push for higher bit depths, lower compression, and wider color spaces. I just don't think that UHD/2160p/4K/8K means higher quality for home entertainment.
> > > >
> > > > I hope my comments don't depress you. It's just good debate, which is what makes the L2 such a great group!
> > > >
> > > > -Peter Berg
> > > >
> > > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, mike parsons <mikeparsons.tv@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this thread has been one of the most depressing I have ever read on
> > > > > the Avid-L
> > > > >
> > > > > For a group of forward thinking industry leading creatives and engineers I
> > > > > do not for one second understand the Luddite sentiments expressed.
> > > > ...
> > > > > People care about picture quality. They really do. As pros we might care
> > > > > more but its not just marketing hype that drives people to buy more mega
> > > > > pixels than they need. Its a desire to document their lives and their
> > > > > experiences with as much fidelity as possible. Its a desire to get as close
> > > > > to the experience of being there at a sporting event on their 55 inch
> > > > > plasma. Its a desire for an immersive entertainment experience. And for
> > > > > that folks you can never have too many pixels or too big a TV. You can
> > > > > never have too big a tv or too much money.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its made me sad to hear smart people here saying 'I'll never need to edit
> > > > > 4K'. Well you don't actually need to edit HD. AVR70 is perfectly good for
> > > > > editing decisions it is after all 'broadcast quality'. Im particularly sad
> > > > > to hear 'tv manufacturers just want to move product' because whilst at some
> > > > > fundamental business level thats true I'm pretty sure thats not what drives
> > > > > the engineers when developing new technology. From spinning disks to Philo
> > > > > and his brother in law blowing glass to shadow mask and trinitron, plasma,
> > > > > OLED, LCDs and onwards display technology has been a constant unbroken line
> > > > > of technological leaps the like of which has not been seen in many other
> > > > > industries. 4K is just the next step down that path.
> > > > ...
> > > > > At the end of the day I'm with Barry Stevens, I'm glad my career lasted
> > > > > from composite analogue vtrs to float images off compact flash cards. I've
> > > > > enjoyed the ride and I'm looking forward as eagerly to the next leap as the
> > > > > ones we've all taken so far. Come on guys, get on board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Terence Curren <tcurren@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, owen <owen@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "With all that power, you'll be able to do things like seamlessly edit
> > > > > > full-resolution 4K video while simultaneously rendering effects in the
> > > > > > background"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't wait to see how you are going to do that over thunderbolt. And
> > > > > > what type of drive array you will need.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (148) |
No comments:
Post a Comment