I would like to discuss when 4k technology will be available, and how much better the picture will look in our theaters. I have a 110" screen and cannot wait for 4k. 4k or bust is what I say. But the other question is, will 4k make blu-ray absolute?

4k is available. all you need is $$$

Depends on your criteria for a quality image. There's no sense in going to 4k for that size screen until it can eclipse the image quality that is currently available from a 2k machine. This may take a long time. The current advancements are are being made the fastest in the 2k market. It's gonna be a catch up game for 4k. 2k is way out ahead.

Were not even close to exceeding our current 1080 capabilities.

What about DCI color, gamma, and data rates. Have a look at some DCI in a domestic setup if you can. A real eye opener.

Lets get the best from what we have before embarking on a, resolution based, fools errand.

Not only that, I both seen and used current 4k PJs and can assure you they are very underwhelming.

...
What about DCI color, gamma, and data rates...

DCI has a 2.6 gamma and 6300K color temperature? But what's their data rates mean as compared to what we have now?

DCI has a 2.6 gamma and 6300K color temperature? But what's their data rates mean as compared to what we have now?

DCI color, not color temperature, very very different thing altogether. Our own HT color spaces are still way short of film.

There is also far more to the gamma possibilities than just a given fixed number, such as S shaped gamma curves.

Data rates are astronomically higher at up to 250Mbit.

coldmachine
In some ways the RS2 is ahead of its time, close to DCI color gamut at least in size? In other ways RS2 has both good and bad points. :)
2k is just fine for home theater. I can not guess how they will try to sell 4k if the other parameters are not competitive. I hope Sony has a surprise beside just 4k.
JVC has just made public their new 8k4k panel!

coldmachine
In some ways the RS2 is ahead of its time, close to DCI color gamut at least in size? In other ways RS2 has both good and bad points. :)
2k is just fine for home theater. I can not guess how they will try to sell 4k if the other parameters are not competitive. I hope Sony has a surprise beside just 4k.
JVC has just made public their new 8k4k panel!

If we are talking about the DCI gamut, then "close" doesn't really cut it, as there would be no possibility of certification.

The only application I see for 4k in the domestic arena is to allow much larger screens. When they get the issues with CR and motion sorted, then bring it on.

2k has a lot more to offer us yet.

4K projectors are going to bring an additional complication when interfacing to other devices.

All the 4K projectors that I have seen or am aware of require TWO HDMI inputs for a true 4K input and the image data is split between the two inputs. In the case of the JVC, one input supplies the top half of the image and the other the bottom half of the image.

So plan on installing much more than the projector. Forget about feeding it from any of the current batch of HDMI devices including BD players, receivers, HDMI switchers, HTPC's etc.

For example, how many PC video cards available today have TWO HDMI outputs with HDCP enabled on both?????

Vern

The differences in DCI and consumer HD color are much more than just the 50% larger DCI gamut. The DCI bit depth is 12 log and it can be 4:4:4. In comparison, the 4:2:0 consumer HD has one fourth the chroma resolution. We are less sensitive to chroma resolution compared to luma, but how many here know that consumer HD has a chroma resolution of 960x540 while 2K DCI can have the full 2048x1080.

The differences in DCI and consumer HD color are much more than just the 50% larger DCI gamut. The DCI bit depth is 12 log and it can be 4:4:4. In comparison, the 4:2:0 consumer HD has one fourth the chroma resolution. We are less sensitive to chroma resolution compared to luma, but how many here know that consumer HD has a chroma resolution of 960x540 while 2K DCI can have the full 2048x1080.

O, As you well know, a proper back to back comparison shows that there is still a lot to be extracted before we need to think about 4k.

The differences in DCI and consumer HD color are much more than just the 50% larger DCI gamut. The DCI bit depth is 12 log and it can be 4:4:4. In comparison, the 4:2:0 consumer HD has one fourth the chroma resolution. We are less sensitive to chroma resolution compared to luma, but how many here know that consumer HD has a chroma resolution of 960x540 while 2K DCI can have the full 2048x1080.

All I know is I saw the Spiderwick Chronicles on DLP locally no doubt it had colors which never occur on anything I see with HDDVD and BD on my HT 5000 at home.

Art

O, As you well know, a proper back to back comparison shows that there is still a lot to be extracted before we need to think about 4k.

I agree fully and 4K which is upconverted 2K has less resolution because of what's lost by the scaling. Without a 4K source, the only advantage for scaling 2K to 4K is with a very close viewing distance. At anything more than 1-1.3x width (this will vary somewhat), it's a step back.

In any case, the answer to the original question is when there is a consumer 4K source.

The differences in DCI and consumer HD color are much more than just the 50% larger DCI gamut. The DCI bit depth is 12 log and it can be 4:4:4. In comparison, the 4:2:0 consumer HD has one fourth the chroma resolution. We are less sensitive to chroma resolution compared to luma, but how many here know that consumer HD has a chroma resolution of 960x540 while 2K DCI can have the full 2048x1080.

Thats a huge difference. A real shame and sad someone representing the consumer decided we would not see the difference and what we have is good enough. J6P mentality.


O, As you well know, a proper back to back comparison shows that there is still a lot to be extracted before we need to think about 4k.

All I know is I saw the Spiderwick Chronicles on DLP locally no doubt it had colors which never occur on anything I see with HDDVD and BD on my HT 5000 at home.

Art

Glad to see there are those here who witness the visual difference first hand
and point out the shortcoming to our current color system which is being marketed as the wholly grail.


I agree fully and 4K which is upconverted 2K has less resolution because of what's lost by the scaling. Without a 4K source, the only advantage for scaling 2K to 4K is with a very close viewing distance. At anything more than 1-1.3x width (this will vary somewhat), it's a step back.

In any case, the answer to the original question is when there is a consumer 4K source.

It is rumored we may see a consumer 4k from Sony this year or next. Curious how it will perform.

All I know is I saw the Spiderwick Chronicles on DLP locally no doubt it had colors which never occur on anything I see with HDDVD and BD on my HT 5000 at home.

Art

Last movie I saw at the local cinema was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The only thing I noticed was how poor the black levels were. I was too busy trying to make out muddy details, and didn't notice any color differences. When my wife got the DVD for Christmas, I popped it into my SDI DVD player to my now dead CRT projector. It was amazing the difference. All the details I was trying so hard to make out, were crystal clear. All the color difference and data rate isn't going to make one damn bit of difference, if you can't see those difference because the CR is so piss poor. Current deficiencies need to be fixed before trying to add more positives.

That's why I'm taking my time and saving up to build the perfect home theater in the home my wife and I are looking to purchase right now.

Current deficiencies need to be fixed before trying to add more positives.

What ??? Are they mutually exclusive ?

Art

Last movie I saw at the local cinema was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The only thing I noticed was how poor the black levels were. I was too busy trying to make out muddy details, and didn't notice any color differences. When my wife got the DVD for Christmas, I popped it into my SDI DVD player to my now dead CRT projector. It was amazing the difference. All the details I was trying so hard to make out, were crystal clear. All the color difference and data rate isn't going to make one damn bit of difference, if you can't see those difference because the CR is so piss poor. Current deficiencies need to be fixed before trying to add more positives.

That's why I'm taking my time and saving up to build the perfect home theater in the home my wife and I are looking to purchase right now.

Dont mistake the low CR of the PJs with the vastly superior capabilities of DCI software and source material.

What ??? Are they mutually exclusive ?

Art

Those DCI colors capabilities and 250 megabyte+ transfer rates have to be a HUGE chunk of the R&D budget of the current POS quality 4k projectors right now. No one uses those sorts of chips, and have to be either in-house designed or from a third-party vendor, who since doesn't have a huge market for them, because of economies of scale, will charge more than if you bought a regular REC 601 or 709, or 165 mhz BW chips.

What I meant is the designing budget could be used to figure out how to make a 4k panel which has better CR and response times, etc. Right now it seems like a joke. They're splitting up their budget between too many items, and thusly all parts in the product chain are deficient. Just like a "Jack of all Trades, Master of None."


Most of the money in a projector at the beginning part of the product life-cycle on these premium business units is development. In my opinion they need to start out one by one making each most noticeable portion of the product perfect, then work on the least important ones. In that way you have a product which looks the best possible, rather than try to fake one that's as complete as possible. Car manufacturers have known this for a long time. Their concept cars are more for show than a working model. Because they know you're not going to test how fast 0-60 the car can go in the show room. But you'll notice their design flaws had they put more money into making it actually work, rather than looks. The same for a projector.

I doubt people will notice the greater colors or 250 megabyte data rate. Like Tryg says, "99% want the overblown and overly saturated colors, and thats all that counts."

Dont mistake the low CR of the PJs with the vastly superior capabilities of DCI software and source material.

I know the vastly superior capabilities of the DCI software and source material, is great and all. But I doubt the vast majority would care, after seeing a current HT setup with like a 11S2 etc. Size aside, if both the current DCI 4k pjs were pitted against each other on the same sized screen and adjusted for the same brightness, very few if any would choose the DCI features and 4k res. That's the challenge a DCI 4k HT pj has to overcome.

The OP's question was "when will 4k become mainstream." What I'm saying is the reason they're not going to be, probably for a really long time. And unless they start doing like I suggest, they're not going to make the regular public even want to start lusting after one. Look at how much they screwed up HD movie discs. Look on the front page of AVS. Pretty much sums it up, "Blu-ray may have won the battle, but the consumer doesn't care and will still buy DVDs."

I would like to discuss when 4k technology will be available, and how much better the picture will look in our theaters. I have a 110" screen and cannot wait for 4k. 4k or bust is what I say. But the other question is, will 4k make blu-ray absolute?


LOL... blu-ray is barely a blip on the electronic consumers horizon (DVDs are still outselling HD by 10:1 and J6P isn't interested in HD) and you want 4K? Wow, what are you smoking? I want some... :p

LOL... blu-ray is barely a blip on the electronic consumers horizon (DVDs are still outselling HD by 10:1 and J6P isn't interested in HD) and you want 4K? Wow, what are you smoking? I want some... :p

That's what I was talking about. 4k has the potential to blow away anything the average J6P has ever seen. But, it has to be introduced properly. It can't be done like the current J6P joke Blu-ray has become to them.

It's not just enough to make it. You need support from investors, but to get those investors you need a public outcry wanting to see it. There are some investors who like to invest in question marks, but most investors want to invest in stars which turn into cash cows. They don't want to risk investing in a question mark which turns into a dog. Companies like Sony need to work on the 4k/DCI image more, and aren't doing a good job. Who else besides AVSrs really knows what 4k/DCI is? And now the OP wants to know when it'll become mainstream? 4k/DCI first needs to be known and have a PR makeover before anyone can even begin to ask, "when will 4k be mainstream."

reio-ta,

You do understand that the CR limitation in a commercial theater is the safety ambient light? A typical level is .01fL. At the DCI white target of 14fL, that's a 1400:1 limit with a projector that has infinite CR. The current DCI units have a CR of 2400:1 and you would gain only 200-300:1 more at the screen if they were improved by a large amount. For this reason and the need to maximize light output, the CR of the projectors is a low priority.

reio-ta,

You do understand that the CR limitation in a commercial theater is the safety ambient light? A typical level is .01fL. At the DCI white target of 14fL, that's a 1400:1 limit with a projector that has infinite CR. The current DCI units have a CR of 2400:1 and you would gain only 200-300:1 more at the screen if they were improved by a large amount. For this reason and the need to maximize light output, the CR of the projectors is a low priority.

A CRT projector can do it. In the same environment as a commercial theater, a CRT CR wise will blow away 2400:1 CR. And a CRT usually only gets less than 8 foot lamberts. I remember the days when there was no digital projectors, only 35 mm film. I was seeing more detail by leagues, than what we're currently seeing.

A CRT projector can do it. In the same environment as a commercial theater, a CRT CR wise will blow away 2400:1 CR.

You missed the point. Yiou are right a well set upo CRT with gamma control probably hits several hundred thousand to one but it would look no better than the DCI units in that environment.

Art

You missed the point. Yiou are right a well set upo CRT with gamma control probably hits several hundred thousand to one but it would look no better than the DCI units in that environment.

Art

So as a kid when I was watching ET at the local cinema in 35 mm format, there was less ambient light back then? Am I spoiled by the pitch blackness in a HT setup?

So as a kid when I was watching ET at the local cinema in 35 mm format, there was less ambient light back then? Am I spoiled by the pitch blackness in a HT setup?


I'm sure the ambient light was lower when you were a kid but the tort lawyers have caused the movie theaters to raise the ambient light because of lawsuits.

As front projection becomes a more visible part of the business, I think that 4k is inivitable, and sooner rather than later.

The reasoning (IMHO) will be the same as point-and-shoot cameras that have 8,9,10 megapixels. There is no good reason for that resolution in that kind of camera 99.995% of the time. If the manufacturers had put that effort into bettering low light performance, lowering noise, and improving image stabilization, everyone would have an awesome 4 or 5 MP P&S. They all got caught up in the megapixel race whether they wanted to or not. Look at the D-SLR market. They've been hanging around 10-12MP and improving other aspects that actually make the picture quality better.

I guarantee you that the pinhead in the corner office who gets to make the call will opt for a 4K projector over a 2K/DCI spec projector in a heartbeat.

Yeah no upconverted content, True 4K content could get more people into movie theaters, they would have to warn people that they might get motion sickness, sea sickness with oceanic feature films, epileptic warnings. Hey I'm all for it. I can handle it. But please no cloverfield type movies in 4K. I hear movie studios are doing 4K at the same time when doing Blu Ray. RED or some company like RED needs to push the industry like RED does with cameras.

Yeah I hope that they do focus on the 2k image quality a lot first.

Yeah I hope that they do focus on the 2k image quality a lot first.

Yes, if there is only that choice eg more resolution with poor uniformity, poor panel alignment, motion blur, and poor ANSI or 2K with those all superior I'll take 2K.

Art

Art S.
Sony has nothing to gain by investing in 2k. They can not beat TI with 2k. Sony has to make the push for 4k. 4K@48fps would be nice then we should start to really notice the extra resolution. The benifit might be that TI is forced to 4k faster if Sony can at least prove there is some benefit in a true 4k source to projection chain.
Sony´s approach is selling a single floor standing unit that contains the projector head , media server and control systems.

I think they would all like to see some other technology emerge besides microdisplay devices. They work well for smaller projectors but going up above 2k seems to demonstrate some limitations

Bring on the lasers :)

You can experience 4k resolution today. Just have the wife slap you up side the head. For a few moments one pixel will look like two:)

The benefit might be that TI is forced to 4k faster if Sony can at least prove there is some benefit in a true 4k source to projection chain.

I don't see this happening any time soon.
When you have a 99.9% market share (Digital Cinema), nobody can force you do anything until they have proven they can compete with you. Sony cannot at this point.

The main problem with 4k DMDs at this point would be the size of the chip and the equivalent Optics size increase this would require.
Bigger Optics for the same throw = $$$$$$
Unless the 4k DMD is close to an inch diagonally (0.95" or 1.2" DMD) I don't see this happening.

Add to that the inability of the current A/T screens to resolve 4k better than 2k and you can see another major hurdle in the way..
Replacing A/T screens to enable 4k resolution will, again, be $$$$$$.

A no-go in my opinion.

You can experience 4k resolution today. Just have the wife slap you up side the head. For a few moments one pixel will look like two:)

Either that or a bottle of cheap Vodka! :D

I'm not sure how a 4K would benefit us in the home market with the current source at 2K. Am I missing something?

Tryg
That is my line!

Alan G.
That´s only 4k interlaced. :)

Who is most powerful TI or Hollywood. If the latter party says they want 4k they will get 4k and let us pay for it. I am sure Stewart would love to replace alot of screens in cooperation with new tech that lets the screen act as a loudspeaker.

Lens quality seems to be a popular topic at the moment. Having big panels should not be a downside as far as sharpness is concerned. It would be the opposite an advantage to have big panels. The Sony 4k panel is 1.55 inches.

I am not playing the role of the bean counter!

Given the studio's concern's over piracy and copy protection, bearing in mind 4K gives you the potential to have a picture thats identical to the studio master negative, for anything shot up to 35mm, then do you honestly think they will allow this in the home anytime soon?! If there's no 4K media to watch on it it's a v limited market.

M

Never say never, In a few years I could see a brave manufacture stepping forward offering a closed consumer format just as JVC offered in the past with DTheater.
We will see two 4k projectors at Cedia targeted for HT & you will pay dearly for these extra pixels. For the time being the additional pixels will serve only as fill factor for those wanting to sit closer or wanting a smoother image.

Dont be surprised if new technology comes out soon that eliminates the fixed pixel nature of "resolution" of the projector. Its possible to build something that delivers whatever you feed it.

2k 3D > 4k
Bring it on!

Prefer the optimistic side here. Read a post by a producer at reduser.net today. He's been recording 4k/3k nature shows with his 4k-sensor (3.2k-effective-rez) RED One (http://www.red.com/cameras/tech_specs) cameras for over a year. This ~$17.5k camera (sans lens), as we all know, is aimed at independent producers. Numbers of indie Red-One movies are growing (see a reduser.net thread), as well as at least one major Hollywood feature (also see user site).

And of course any existing film can be scanned at 4k, and digital-intermediate 4k scans, for production purposes, exist for some feature films; search imdb.com technical section for 4k . A 5k EPIC camera (http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37) and Red One 35mm-size sensor upgrades should deliver full ~4k effective resolution or higher. The upcoming RED Ray (http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=38) optical disc players, based on standard red lasers, is meant for production purposes AIUI. But it might serve for theater projection, too, some speculate.

No need to list them all, but as mentioned initially above, professional 4k-capable displays have been available for years if you have the $$$. High-end consumer versions seem quite feasible. As for the "look" of 4k versus current HDTV, the "wow" reactions of professionals viewing Red One productions at the recent NAB show or earlier (see reduser.net, etc.) suggests the resolution boost is visually dramatic. Assuming an earlier spectrum analysis review (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235) of telecined films on ~270-Mbps 1080/24p master tapes is accurate, indicating typical 800--1100 line maximum effective horizontal resolution, a jump to ~3.2k maximum, it seems, should be dramatic in any viewing environment. -- John

Dont be surprised if new technology comes out soon that eliminates the fixed pixel nature of "resolution" of the projector. Its possible to build something that delivers whatever you feed it.

Prefer the optimistic side here. Read a post by a producer at reduser.net today. He's been recording 4k/3k nature shows with his 4k-sensor (3.2k-effective-rez) RED One (http://www.red.com/cameras/tech_specs) cameras for over a year. This ~$17.5k camera (sans lens), as we all know, is aimed at independent producers. Numbers of indie Red-One movies are growing (see a reduser.net thread), as well as at least one major Hollywood feature (also see user site).

And of course any existing film can be scanned at 4k, and digital-intermediate 4k scans, for production purposes, exist for some feature films; search imdb.com technical section for 4k . A 5k EPIC camera (http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=37) and Red One 35mm-size sensor upgrades should deliver full ~4k effective resolution or higher. The upcoming RED Ray (http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=38) optical disc players, based on standard red lasers, is meant for production purpose AIUI. But it might serve for theater projection, too, some speculate.

No need to list them all, but as mentioned initially above, professional 4k-capable displays have been available for years if you have the $$$. High-end consumer versions seem quite feasible. As for the "look" of 4k versus current HDTV, the "wow" reactions of professionals viewing Red One productions at the recent NAB show or earlier (see reduser.net, etc.) suggests the resolution boost is visually dramatic. Assuming an earlier spectrum analysis review (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235) of telecined films on ~270-Mbps 1080/24p master tapes is accurate, indicating typical 800--1100 line maximum effective horizontal resolution, a jump to ~3.2k maximum, it seems, should be dramatic in any viewing environment. -- John

I second Andrikos comment, bring it on.

JVC has just made public their new 8k4k panel!

Here is the press release:
http://www.victor.co.jp/english/press/2008/1-75_8k4k.pdf

Lots of interesting info in it related to this thread:
"Super Hi-Vision is a TV broadcasting service currently under development at NHK; a single image has approximately 33 megapixels (7680 x 4320 pixels), with 60 frame/second sequential scanning and 22.2 multichannel sound. Image format is international standard ITU-R BT.1769, SMPTE 2036. Diagonal size is 1.67 inches at Super Hi-Vision standard pixel dimensions of 7680 x 4320."

"a high contrast ratio of 20,000:1 for device contrast."

"In addition to the contribution that the device will make to progress in next-generation ultra-high definition imaging technology such as Super Hi-Vision, JVC also plans to utilize it in development of the ultimate in imaging technology: ultra-realistic 3D display technology.".

So Odyssey and Art, when are you going to roll out 3D, 7680x4320 and 22.2 channel sound in your HTers? :)

So as a kid when I was watching ET at the local cinema in 35 mm format, there was less ambient light back then? Am I spoiled by the pitch blackness in a HT setup?
No and yes. The current crop of cinema projectors are poor in the On-Off contrast department and the quality of the 12 bit sources goes to waste. It's pointless to go beyond 10 bit when the projector can not resolve the information and it drowns in gray goo.
The projectors have a lot of catching up to do to show the source as it is. And due to the lights in cinema halls it will never be optimal. The only hope for real good quality is at home. With high contrast projectors and DCI source material. The former is available and improving all the time. The latter is not in sight.

Add to that the inability of the current A/T screens to resolve 4k better than 2k and you can see another major hurdle in the way..

There is no such general inability. It depends on screen size. I have seen 4K projection on normal large screens and it was easy to see the difference to 2K.

So Odyssey and Art, when are you going to roll out 3D, 7680x4320 and 22.2 channel sound in your HTers? :)

Come on motion sickness and bring out the barf bags! I can handle it :D

Ohlsen is right, 48fps should be the next step, not more resolution.

4k is relatively pointless for home theater; you think it's hard to see the difference between 720 and 1080? Try 2k VS 4k at home. Dumb.

New display technology (LED, lasers, etc) will make a far more dramatic difference in picture quality than resolution.

On top of that, higher frame rates also increase image clarity and give the appearance of higher resolution.

Personally, I think the next step for theaters to stay ahead of home theaters will be 3D and 48 fps - it's going to be a while until we have the ability to do this at home, and so it will drive traffic back into commercial theaters.

But 4k at home? Who cares.

MoJo do you really believe that frame rate will drive theater ticket sale ?

Art

Good films drive theater ticket sales. I will bet that more than 95% of the people sitting in there chairs do not even know what good picture quality is or even care if the movie is lousy.

Ohlsen is right, 48fps should be the next step, not more resolution.


That's not true at all. For digital, refresh rate and response time are better than frame rate. Who cares if you can do 120 frames like some LCDs "claim" to do. It still won't beat a 60hz CRT. No one EVER bitched about 24 frame 35mm film movies, which usually close the shutter twice or more a frame. Use a CRT front projector, show it at 96p hz refresh rate with ~10 ms response time. That will look higher resolution( like on a proper Mike Parker modded Marquee 9500) than even a 120 hz motion flow Sony VPL-VW200.

reio-ta
I am talking about capturing at 48fps and you can display at whatever multiple of 48Hz of your choosing. It is about the capture not about the display rate.

reio-ta
I am talking about capturing at 48fps and you can display at whatever multiple of 48Hz of your choosing. It is about the capture not about the display rate.

I understand what you're saying. But Joe Public doesn't care. I'm saying what really matters is display rate and refresh rate. Maybe ONE person out of a hundred, if that, if you gave them a survey after a movie could tell or care and it made a big difference being 48 fps rather than the regular. Also, the one person who did care would probably not like 48 fps and would say, "the movie looked odd, it wasn't like watching film." A lot of the time you're sitting one screen width or closer at a movie theater, people at that distance can see a difference between 4k and 2k, especially if you make it Imax size and ~0.8x seating distance.

Also my point was the technology needs to be better than DLP to realize the difference in FPS. Currently DLP is nowhere near CRT or even plasma refresh and response. Poor refresh and response results in reduced spacial resolution, and in turn makes your images look effectively a lesser resolution.

Another thing, 48 fps is bad because it breaks home theater setups. Blu-ray doesn't have a 48 fps because 48 fps isn't part of SMPTE. Let's say you add it, now what? Lots of displays show 24p film at 72 hz. Many US displays don't show 50 hz PAL. You can't convert 48 hz to 3:2 and show on 60hz. You've just broken watching film on nearly all US televisions. Even on a PAL tv, 48 -> 50 hz has to either be:

1) an extra two frames per 50 resulting in a jerk
2) sped up to 50 hz and making the movie longer and higher pitched
3) same as #2 but pitch corrected.

All three of those solutions are very easily noticed. I once watched a PAL 48 hz -> 50 hz version of a 24p movie. It drove me nuts, more so than 3:2 judder.

You can't just take away every other frame either. Some movies would rely on special effects that would look horrid if you did that. One easy test is take the Nintendo Entertainment System's Super Mario Bros. Hook up the NES to a tv capture card, which will show 30 fps, the NES is 60 fps. Become Super Mario and get hit. On a CRT NTSC tv, you'll see Mario flicker, on the capture card at 30 fps, Mario disappears! So you break how the movie looks and it can be unwatchable for home viewing on TVs.

Well, how many people have seen film shot at 48fps or 60fps. Showscan used 60fps. 48fps at 2k is in the DCI standard. I hope 48fps at 4k will be included but really if we are to dump film projectors I would say go for 60fps.
With 60fps at 4k imagine with what detail we could capture moving objects.

With black frame insertion we can fool the brain with lcos and DLP is not half bad at 144fps for the newest Digital cinema units.

With black frame insertion we can fool the brain with lcos and DLP is not half bad at 144fps for the newest Digital cinema units.

That's just what we need, 144 fps units too. Theater sales have been dropping in the past years, and a movie's only hope is home DVD and in the future Blu-ray.

I still say 24 fps has its place and is needed.

24 fps for cinematic stuff
30 fps for documentaries
60 fps for sports and television shows

No offense to any of you Euros and other PAL countries, but 25/50 frames was plain stupid. 50 hz has terrible flicker, 60 hz is bad enough.

What would cure everything is if the whole world decided to start over and only use 24/30/60 and displayed it all as 120 hz in the digital world. Suggesting we add 48, 72, 96, etc isn't going to solve anything and make matters worse. The situation is already FUBAR enough as is.

As far as resolution goes, I personally think 4k is overboard.

1/ ( tan ( 1/60) * 3438 ) = 0.9999x the screen width.

Meaning a resolution of 3440x1935 would be plenty. 1935p would allow you to get 1x or a tad closer and the further distances like the 1.3 - 1.6 that most use at home would be satisfied too, by adding aliasing for free, the image would look very much like 35mm film.

You can't just take away every other frame either. Some movies would rely on special effects that would look horrid if you did that.

You can take every other frame away . As long as the footage has nominally been shot with a shutter speed not much faster than 1/48 ( for 48fps capture this means a totally open shutter, I don't think a mechanical film camera will run at 48fps and get close enough to a 1/48 exposure time. However you can shoot open shutter on the digitals and shoot 48fps.

As long as you have 48fps shot in this way you should be able to frame cull it down to 24fps and have footage that will look little different to nominally shot 24fps film with a 1/48th shutter.

Not that I am advocating this. I actually quite like 24fps with appropriate motionblur.

That's just what we need, 144 fps units too. Theater sales have been dropping in the past years, and a movie's only hope is home DVD and in the future Blu-ray.

I still say 24 fps has its place and is needed.

24 fps for cinematic stuff
30 fps for documentaries
60 fps for sports and television shows

No offense to any of you Euros and other PAL countries, but 25/50 frames was plain stupid. 50 hz has terrible flicker, 60 hz is bad enough.



I don't readily have a problem with 50Hz flicker ( bear in mind most digital panel technologies don't flicker regardless these days): certainly I find it less objectionable than 3:2 pulldown , which I also don't find that objectionable anway.

30fps I feel doesn't warrant the hassle over 24fps: the difference is subtle at best possibly even a little strobey unless its shot carefully.

48fps is potentially bacwards compatable with 24fps workflow for home release again if its shot carefully.

60fps I doubt would feel much different to 48fps.

So if you insist on more frames per second then certainly multiples of 24 are a much more sensible target.

Mr D
Why is it a good thing in your opinion to have some motion blur?

Imagine this scene
We see a car coming around the corner in the direction of where the camera is located. Next the car passes the camera and drives away. With higher fps we can actually read the logo for the company owning the car, a bakery for example. Why would it be better to just see some text on the car but being able to read it?

Mr D
Why is it a good thing in your opinion to have some motion blur?

Imagine this scene
We see a car coming around the corner in the direction of where the camera is located. Next the car passes the camera and drives away. With higher fps we can actually read the logo for the company owning the car, a bakery for example. Why would it be better to just see some text on the car but being able to read it?

You need a reasonable level of motion blur with lowish frame rates .

Otherwise things start to strobe: examples of which would be some of the fight scenes in Gladiator shot with a deliberately small shutter angle to minimise motionblur: end result is a stacatto strobing look to the motion.

Most things shot at 24p use a shutter angle of about 180degrees give or take: this gives an exposure time of 1/48th a second for every frame (1/24 frame rate halved by the shutter spinning in front of it...hence a 180 degree shutter angle halves the exposure time...its never that exact but you get my point).

When you shoot at higher frame rates you don't need the motionblur to smooth out delivery ( you won't have much anyway if you were shooting at 60fps your exposure time per frame is going to be south of 1/60th before you even start trying to further modulate it.

I can't understand the fascination with higher frame rates myself but to each their own. Handy for sport but I like the way 24fps looks.

4k is relatively pointless for home theater; you think it's hard to see the difference between 720 and 1080? Try 2k VS 4k at home. Dumb.

Have you actually tried 4k and compared it to 2k?

Have you actually tried 4k and compared it to 2k?

Yes.

30fps I feel doesn't warrant the hassle over 24fps: the difference is subtle at best possibly even a little strobey unless its shot carefully.


I mention 30 fps not because it's better than 24 fps but because some semi-pro cameras used in low budget documentaries. The Sony HVR-A1u is such an example. You can get the camera itself for under $2,000 and start shooting with everything, including a new computer, NLE software, accessories, etc for under $5,000. The HVR-A1u's native resolution is 1440x1080i which is expanded to 1920x1080i using the HDV mpeg-2 variant at 25 mbit per second. The A1u has a fake 24p mode, but it's not that good. You're best using the 1080i mode which can be edited to give you 30p.

The A1u has a fake 24p mode, but it's not that good. You're best using the 1080i mode which can be edited to give you 30p.

Or a camera with a better 24p mode remembering to keep the exposure speed down to 1/48th to avoid ugly strobing.

Or a camera with a better 24p mode remembering to keep the exposure speed down to 1/48th to avoid ugly strobing.

I'm looking for a HD video camera that's of the semi-pro quality, meaning the footage is good enough for Discovery HD Theater. The A1u is an authorized video camera by Discovery's HD Theater channel. You have a suggestion for a 720p24 - 1080p24 video camera which is the same quality or better than the Sony HDV-A1u for the same price? Right now the A1u can be had for $1,850.

The Sony HVR-V1u has a proper 24p mode stored as 1080i60 3:2 and can be extracted for a lossless 1080p24 footage. But that one is a lot more, $3,100, over 40% more.

Do people care about image quality or alternate forums of projection?

How about the introduction of widescreen? 3D? Imax? These are all "gimmicks" to get people back into the theater. They work. Of course the story is what's most important, but when people turn on their TVs at home after walking out of a 3D Imax shot at 48fps, believe me, they will remember the difference.

A 48fps film will be noticed. The clarity of image will astound people. They'll come up with some wacky name like "presented in UltraClear 4D" and people will buy a ticket for that before they spend money on a "regular 24 frame" movie. Absolutely.

I'm looking for a HD video camera that's of the semi-pro quality, meaning the footage is good enough for Discovery HD Theater. The A1u is an authorized video camera by Discovery's HD Theater channel. You have a suggestion for a 720p24 - 1080p24 video camera which is the same quality or better than the Sony HDV-A1u for the same price? Right now the A1u can be had for $1,850.

The Sony HVR-V1u has a proper 24p mode stored as 1080i60 3:2 and can be extracted for a lossless 1080p24 footage. But that one is a lot more, $3,100, over 40% more.


I've always quite liked the frame mode on the Canons but I'd avoid CMOS if you plan on shooting 24p and you may not find an HD camera that offers both at this price level.

24 fps for cinematic stuff
30 fps for documentaries
60 fps for sports and television shows
.
No thanks. That's an artificial genre classification. Nothing wrong with feature films in 30 or 60 fps.

I've always quite liked the frame mode on the Canons but I'd avoid CMOS if you plan on shooting 24p and you may not find an HD camera that offers both at this price level.

I can't find a Canon HDV based camera for under $3,200, slightly more than the Sony HVR-V1u, which does real 24p too.

Do people care about image quality or alternate forums of projection?

How about the introduction of widescreen? 3D? Imax? These are all "gimmicks" to get people back into the theater. They work. Of course the story is what's most important, but when people turn on their TVs at home after walking out of a 3D Imax shot at 48fps, believe me, they will remember the difference.

A 48fps film will be noticed. The clarity of image will astound people. They'll come up with some wacky name like "presented in UltraClear 4D" and people will buy a ticket for that before they spend money on a "regular 24 frame" movie. Absolutely.

Except for a few people here no one will care about frame rate. I believe that 3D may help a bit but there are severl things at work in the decline of commercial theaters that these things will not reverse.

Art

Except for a few people here no one will care about frame rate. I believe that 3D may help a bit but there are severl things at work in the decline of commercial theaters that these things will not reverse.

Art

I think in the future ( when we all wear silver foil and have flying cars) going to the cinema will be regarded as a curious antiquated past time like communal bathing and laundrettes.

I tend not to visit commercial cinemas in my leisure time these days.

I think in the future ( when we all wear silver foil and have flying cars) going to the cinema will be regarded as a curious antiquated past time like communal bathing and laundrettes.





I don't think you are exaggerating much.

Art