And again...
Titanic was 1k. Don't think it was 'just there' resolution isn't the whole story :)
But i personally welcome 4k, and I hope it's 32bit float at 48 fps. Far as I'm concerned more is always more.
The biggest step in my career after going 422 and getting my first yuv monitor on the Harry was moving to flame and rgb. Next was the move to hd then 2k file based work witg 10 bit Dpx sources. In all cases the quality of my work increased exponentially, on tvcs 10 bit 2k Dpx let me key and retouch with astonishing reality regardless of the output medium.
Good enough is never enough during production, and if you have it why not flaunt it to the end viewer.
I think hd-2k isn't a big enough leap for most people though. It's time to dial back the crappy compression and send better colour depth. I still can't watch images comparable to d1 on an rgb monitor in my home. Well I could if I bought a d1 for $100 on eBay - but you get my point.
Best regards
Mike
On 14 Jun, 2013, at 4:45 AM, "Tom McDonnell" <ltr54@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >The same factor applies to 4K in a theater. Once you get enough rows back
> you won't be able to see the difference between 4K and 2K.
>
> The difference being 4K in theatrical projection makes practical sense. 2K
> was "just" there but 4K is much better like 70mm was to 35mm. I normally sit
> slightly forward of center row. When I saw my first 4K projection Batman:
> The Dark Knight Rises I noticed the difference immediately in more detail,
> better contrast, clearer viewing and obvious missed focus. The inconsistent
> nature of the various film stocks was even more noticeable so production now
> has even more concerns on the shooting end. Going any higher than 4K would
> be wasted on present day "mall" screen sizes except IMAX screens.
>
> I think on the good side of 4K is better compression algorithms and more
> care in re-mastering and home release quality. The downside that I haven't
> seen mentioned anywhere is having to scale present 1920x1080 material to 4K.
> I was at Fry's recently watching Skyfall on Blu-Ray on the new Sony 4K and
> it was very disappointing with the typical up-scaling artifacts. I confirmed
> it was a 1080p signal feeding the monitor but the sales person could not
> find the remote to let me get into the menu. While I know this is a poor
> example to cite it's the only example I've seen of 1080p material on a 4K
> TV.
>
> 4K in the home is a necessary marketing strategy to overcome the falling 3D
> craze, sell TVs and give techies something new to push. When 4K comes down
> in price to $799 for a set I'll switch. Till then my opinion of 4K in the
> home is...yawn.
>
> Tom McDonnell
> Cinematographer/Operator/Editor
> Los Angeles, CA
> New Orleans, LA
> 818-675-1501
>
>
[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 (33) |
No comments:
Post a Comment