Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Sony asks "is 4K worth it?" Their own research says...

29 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/474.jpg"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/474.jpg[/img][/url]

Sony have published a study into 4K in theaters. Called "Does 4K really make a difference?" the advice is aimed at cinema companies upgrading to digital projection, who are faced with the choice of either 2K or 4K projection systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I would trust a study like this a LOT more if it did not come from Sony, who obviously has a huge vested interest in 4K. I remember reading another article about 2 years ago by a more independent source, and they concluded that in a regular sized theater, you would have to be sitting in the first 6 rows to really notice the difference in 4K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

48fps wont be the new standard, 24fps has always been the staple and I dont see that changing. On the other hand, if cinema's wanted me to pay a premium, it'll be for watching a screen thats not horribly projected(bulb turned down for cost reasons) and being seated with actual polite audience who dont bring their kids/baby's to a Rated-R movie, and having people use their phones during a movie.

So I'd rather pay for a more polite humanity haha :D
OzNimbus and nahua like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oh I would pay for a more polite humanity too.

Where can we get one!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hi,
> So they key to home cinema is probably more in the seating position and screen size than whether you choose 4K or 2K

it's also the choice of how much of your viewing space (FOV) would be filled with the screen. If we match the optical resolution of 2 screens, 2k and 4k, the 4k one would go much farther into your peripheral vision. That has an interesting effect involving vestibular apparatus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353995882' post='22400']
Oh I would pay for a more polite humanity too.

Where can we get one!?
[/quote]

When we have to get mandatory chips installed in our necks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

As a digital projectionist and a cinéaste (getting my eyes checked at least once a year, they work perfect for distances), I can tell the difference between 2k and 4k, and of course I prefer the latter. Sony's argumentation, that viewing distance is of bigger importance than screen size, is rubbish nonetheless, because you can get audiences only so close to the screen as is necessary to let them enjoy 4k by completely rebuilding your cinema. The rows would have to be almost vertical, like in some IMAX-theaters. I watched [i]Inception[/i], [i]The girl with the dragon Tattoo[/i] and [i]Skyfall[/i] (this one 'false' 4k) on a 10m x 24m screen, from row 5. Note, that nobody voluntarily chooses these seats, because inevitably there is also a heavy [color=#ff0000][i]distortion[/i][/color] of the image and people consider it a disadvantage not to be able to overview the whole screen (while, in fact, this is the idea of a big screen). What is more, most content still is produced in 2k, a very high percentage is still even filmed in SD interlaced (regional ads, but astonishingly also commercials for cars, and from row 5 these often -but not always- are unendurable).

I believe that within one or two decades, 4k will be the [i]de facto[/i] standard, but not because the audience calls and pays (more) for it, but simply because the equipment needs to be replaced anyway, and 4k will be quite affordable soon.

The reasons why videographers are attracted by 4k are:
> They think 'bigger is better', which is arguable, because bigger is just bigger.
> They never saw a true HD image in their life, because either their cameras didn't make it or (if they watch a BD on their HD-TV-set), they keep the aforementioned distance, shrinking the image to the size they are used to.
> They stare at their computer displays from the same distance, relatively, as they did with their old 800 x 600 CRTs. Tell anybody, that he should move to a one-foot-distance to his 24" display ([color=#ff0000][i]distortion![/i][/color]), and he will disapprove this advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Let's calculate. With a typical home 42 inch panel sitting 3 meters away. The screen width is around 1 meter, so you have 2 right triangles with major catheti of 3 and minor catheti of 0,5, ok?So the tangent of the angle of one of the triangles is 0,5/3. We need to know the arctangent of 0,5/3, arctangent (0,166) = 9,46 degrees. We have 2 triangles, 9,46*2= 18.92 degrees. You can do the calculations with the windows calc in scientific mode. With the value on the screen (0,166) press [b]Inv [/b]and then [b]Tan [/b]to do the arctangent.

1920 pixels divided by 18.92 degrees of vision = aprox. 101 pixels/degree.

Sitting at 2 meters from the same screen you get 68 degrees, more than that 20/20...

Well, now DIY.

Simon.

P.D. I am not very good at maths so if there is one or several errors tell me. If somebody is very interested in the design of the living room (size of TV and positon of the sofa) I could make an excel spreadsheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Living in France where the theaters are kitted out in 2K, even spectacular theaters like the Max Linder Panorama, I can say that I often find the 2K projection disappointing and far from seamless. At the Max Linder, the best seats in the house are at the front of the mezzanine, where you're just below the center of the screen and about 2.5 screen lengths away, but from there I often feel that I can see the pixels. Of course fortunately this is a city with dozens of little cinemas showing gems on 35. Got to see a fabulous, nearly pristine copy of Marker's [i]Le joli mai[/i] in 35 the other day — stunning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Great picture! For the first time I get Sony's 'make believe' slogan :D. I don't think more resolution is a giant step forward for viewing. But 4K offers a lot more freedom in composing (cropping) the image or stabilizing it. Will moiré be less or will it just appear in finer detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Albert' timestamp='1354014807' post='22420']
Great picture! For the first time I get Sony's 'make believe' slogan :D.[/quote]

That's it. The believers join the queue at the stores, the makers are doubting Thomases, who rather believe their eyes. Moire is always an indicator that the recorded resolution is beneath the true resolution. Also, ironically, if the recorded resolution was [i]higher[/i] than the final resolution, because with downscaling you run into more issues with interpolated pixels (and patterns, you may have heard about that) than with upscaling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='jcmbender' timestamp='1354013929' post='22419']
Living in France where the theaters are kitted out in 2K, even spectacular theaters like the Max Linder Panorama, I can say that I often find the 2K projection disappointing and far from seamless. At the Max Linder, the best seats in the house are at the front of the mezzanine, where you're just below the center of the screen and about 2.5 screen lengths away, but from there I often feel that I can see the pixels. Of course fortunately this is a city with dozens of little cinemas showing gems on 35. Got to see a fabulous, nearly pristine copy of Marker's [i]Le joli mai[/i] in 35 the other day — stunning!
[/quote]

This is interesting. I value real life cinema experience about the science actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

No, 4K is not worth it. In fact, digital projection is a disaster and I believe the only reason the movie industry gets away with such inferior quality is because people don't care about it and, of course, there's no competition to the media. Every movie I've seen -including Skyfall - at AMC which blasts its Sony 4K notification at the start - suffers from color loss, brightness loss and poor dynamic range (Xiong's bulb turned down??). I do far better on my cheap Mits projection screen with an old Cinemascope production (viewing distance??). There's a reason why this particular form of entertainment is - or was - called the dream factory and that's because the medium's "limitations" were a way to present a story that, even in its most "realistic" tone, still had a dreamy, not of the day-to-day reality quality. That is simply not there with digital anything because neither of the ???'s or any of the new limitations, were an issue "back in the day". Without significant change in this current situation, the digital madness at theatres will only accelerate the advent of the home theatre as more people finally realize that the price they're paying for non-quality isn't a value proposition. And, with an aging population, that's a more serious problem that it might seem.
nahua likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Movie name: End of Watch
Budget: $7,000,000
Gross: $39,000,000
Camera:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II,Canon EOS 7D,Canon XA-10,GoPro HD Hero

People pay for content, not pixels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

@Ben

[b]Camera's used:[/b]

Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon Lenses
Canon EOS 7D, Canon Lenses
Canon XA-10
GoPro HD Hero
Silicon Imaging SI-2K 'Nano', Zeiss Ultra Prime Lenses
Silicon Imaging SI-2K Mini, Zeiss Ultra Prime Lenses

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Again if we take the view that it is JUST content that is important, there's no motivation for filmmakers to put any artistry into their camera work and cinematography. A disaster.

If we take the view that it is JUST image quality that matters and that the camera is the most important thing, you lose the motivation to work on the content and just churn out pretty timelapses.

Is this balance so difficult for people to grasp?

Why is every argument in 2012 polarised, be it about cameras, politics, music, anything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Very interesting. Based on similar calculations, my home cinema consisting of a 720p native DLP projector on about an 80 inch screen would only benefit those sitting closest to the screen if going to a 1080p model. From my usually sitting position in the room it would theoretically make no difference. 4k in this instance would be completely pointless. I suggest the same for most homes, be it a TV or home cinema. Only on gigantic screens, sat very close do you need anything more than 1080p and if you do the chances are you are going to want 4k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes, a proper balance. Mine - don't forget about resolution while thinking of content. When it comes to resolution that describe camera quality, 4K should have a 4 times more resolution not just 4 times pixel count. This is clear while watching an example of Canon 1 Dc footage - a 4K version looks like upscaled 2K footage. I would really like to have 4K equipment not just for having it, but for more details in a movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I know this is not that relevant to the article but when I saw the shot on the article it just struck me. Male gaze!
Will Turner likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"[i]I remember reading another article about 2 years ago by a more independent source, and they concluded that in a regular sized theater, you would have to be sitting in the first 6 rows to really notice the difference in 4K.[/i]"


Check this page: http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

Written by a much more trustworthy source than a Sony marketer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='jcmbender' timestamp='1354013929' post='22419'] Got to see a fabulous, nearly pristine copy of Marker's [i]Le joli mai[/i] in 35 the other day — stunning! [/quote]

Even more so since it was shot in 16mm...
One of the most beautiful documentaries ever made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354039266' post='22468']
Again if we take the view that it is JUST content that is important, there's no motivation for filmmakers to put any artistry into their camera work and cinematography. A disaster.

If we take the view that it is JUST image quality that matters and that the camera is the most important thing, you lose the motivation to work on the content and just churn out pretty timelapses.

Is this balance so difficult for people to grasp?[/quote]

Because we tend to forget Platos wisdom: The idea creates the form. It shouldn't read content [i]or[/i] style/quality. The need to express something lets you seek for the appropriate means. But the content must be there first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Paddy' timestamp='1354052502' post='22480']
"[i]I remember reading another article about 2 years ago by a more independent source, and they concluded that in a regular sized theater, you would have to be sitting in the first 6 rows to really notice the difference in 4K.[/i]"


Check this page: [url="http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels"]http://magazine.crea...uture-of-pixels[/url]

Written by a much more trustworthy source than a Sony marketer...
[/quote]

Well even thought I agree that that article is very enlightening especially as it pertains to sensor technology, I really don't see how you can say this is a more "trustworthy" source? John Galt is from Panavision who as it so happens, stands to loose a lot of camera rentals if everyone suddenly starts thinking they need to use 4K. At the time of this writing they only had digital cameras cameras made by Sony. Also, I'd like to see what he says about 4K now a days. Panavisoin was the king of Hollywood up until the last 5 or so years before digital started making any kind of dent in their business (however tiny is may be). It's in their best interest to keep everyone thinking that they still make the best cameras. I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying this is every bit marketing material as the Sony research is. It's an industry trying to justify their choices in technology.

Just saying.

[edit] The more I think about this, the more I feel like I'm probably being a little to harsh. Sorry folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354039266' post='22468']
Again if we take the view that it is JUST content that is important, there's no motivation for filmmakers to put any artistry into their camera work and cinematography. A disaster.

If we take the view that it is JUST image quality that matters and that the camera is the most important thing, you lose the motivation to work on the content and just churn out pretty timelapses.

Is this balance so difficult for people to grasp?

Why is every argument in 2012 polarised, be it about cameras, politics, music, anything...
[/quote]

why you limit the "artistry" to Resolution? and why not make balance in resolution? I think a 48 fps real 2k image is more balanced than a 24 fps (maybe fake) 4k. why not interprete "more is better" as bigger pixel area, which leads to more dynamic range and S/N ratio?
I dont have any problem with 4k or 6k or 8k. good for hollywood, they have no issue buying hundreds terrabyte of storage for their RAW multimilion dollar projects. but for me, if %99 of my content is going to be viewd on phablets and tablets, 1080p is enough. I prefer whinning about deficencies like DR and color noise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354039266' post='22468']
Again if we take the view that it is JUST content that is important, there's no motivation for filmmakers to put any artistry into their camera work and cinematography. A disaster.

If we take the view that it is JUST image quality that matters and that the camera is the most important thing, you lose the motivation to work on the content and just churn out pretty timelapses.

Is this balance so difficult for people to grasp?

Why is every argument in 2012 polarised, be it about cameras, politics, music, anything...
[/quote]

Because western culture is based upon binary oppositions. Middle grounds do not exist within our thinking.



[quote name='Kev' timestamp='1354050806' post='22478']
I know this is not that relevant to the article but when I saw the shot on the article it just struck me. Male gaze!
[/quote]

Haha excellent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0