or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Redray 4K player with Odemax -Could this be the better than Bluray we have all been lloking for?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Redray 4K player with Odemax -Could this be the better than Bluray we have all been lloking for? - Page 3

post #61 of 244
So please explain again why Sony which makes HD cameras and display devices and just happens to own and control a large amount of content is going to enable a company that designed a distribution system for a Sony hardware competitor and pay fees to Odemax for this privilege.
post #62 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectionist2 View Post

So please explain again why Sony which makes HD cameras and display devices and just happens to own and control a large amount of content is going to enable a company that designed a distribution system for a Sony hardware competitor and pay fees to Odemax for this privilege.
Maybe they won't.
Don't expect everybody to jump on this. Sony has hinted that they will launch their own 4K distribution system or something at CES for their own 4K display devices.
At the same time; Sony isn't the only major Hollywood studio in existence.

Maybe even Sony in their true form will do whatever they can to lobby the other major studios to not sign up for Odemax.
On the other hand, how much love is there between the major studios, and why could they not use both platforms?
All the studios parallel distributes title rights to the same tiles to competing platforms today.
post #63 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectionist2 View Post

So please explain again why Sony which makes HD cameras and display devices and just happens to own and control a large amount of content is going to enable a company that designed a distribution system for a Sony hardware competitor and pay fees to Odemax for this privilege.

Very simple,they won't. Sony will have it's own vertically integrated 4K next year.
post #64 of 244
They'd be a lot cooler if they weren't always late to the party....
post #65 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Maybe they won't.
Don't expect everybody to jump on this. Sony has hinted that they will launch their own 4K distribution system or something at CES for their own 4K display devices.
At the same time; Sony isn't the only major Hollywood studio in existence.
Maybe even Sony in their true form will do whatever they can to lobby the other major studios to not sign up for Odemax.
On the other hand, how much love is there between the major studios, and why could they not use both platforms?
All the studios parallel distributes title rights to the same tiles to competing platforms today.

Its been very quiet re sony coming out with something at CES. Not a peep.

I am pretty sure we are going, sooner or later, to see from Sony a 4HD player with playable optical discs. The question is when and exactly what.

I am beginning to suspect a Cedia launch in September and its late September for Cedia this year. And it won't just be bluray quality with 4 times the pixels. It has to be better if it is to succeed with smaller size screens. More bit length etc etc so it looks better at normal viewing distances.. To succeed, 4K will have to look noticeably better than 2K at normal viewing distances.

I am curious what the Sony loaner servers are putting out and what is on the source material rather than generated. You can always increase bit length but I would be curious what the bit length started with is.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/15/12 at 7:05am
post #66 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Its been very quiet re sony coming out with something at CES. Not a peep.
I am pretty sure we are going, sooner or later, to see from Sony a 4HD player with playable optical discs. The question is when and exactly what.
I am beginning to suspect a Cedia launch in September and its late September for Cedia this year. And it won't just be bluray quality with 4 times the pixels. It has to be better if it is to succeed with smaller size screens. More bit length etc etc so it looks better at normal viewing distances.. To succeed, 4K will have to look noticeably better than 2K at normal viewing distances.
I am curious what the Sony loaner severs are putting out and what is on the source material rather than generated. You can always increase bit length but I would be curious what the bit length started with is.
I think Sony is going to nail things with the PS4 release next year which will probably support 4K/48/60FPS
post #67 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Odemax will host the 4K .RED encoded material with REDCrypt™ digital media encryption for the producers, which can only be played back through a RedRay player.
Odemax will take care of payment to the producers and other administrative services and promotion through their website + of course the network for sending the material to the RedRay player owner that buy the movie.
So it becomes more like the way Cable or Satellite companies operate. You surf through the different channels an find a movie you want to download to your RedRay player/projector and pay for it before you get to download it.

Download 4K?? You got to be joking. There is no need for a player if it's going to be a download and they would have to crush the video. Nobody offers this service for 1080p without heavy compression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectionist2 View Post

So please explain again why Sony which makes HD cameras and display devices and just happens to own and control a large amount of content is going to enable a company that designed a distribution system for a Sony hardware competitor and pay fees to Odemax for this privilege.

How is Sony 'enabling'?
post #68 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

I also think RED does have deep pockets - how deep? Remember it's the Oklay sunglasses guy.

$2.8 Billion As of September 2012 according to Forbes in this Interview wit Peter Jackson about his involvement in developing the RED cameras.

'The Hobbit' Director Peter Jackson: How Billionaire Jim Jannard Made The Film Possible
post #69 of 244
Quote:
Download 4K?? You got to be joking. There is no need for a player if it's going to be a download and they would have to crush the video. Nobody offers this service for 1080p without heavy compression.
I think you've missed some important details about what this system is. Downloading 4K content is precisely what it is for.
post #70 of 244
The Redray player can play hard digital memory such as memory cards and drives.etec. So material could be distributed as it presently is to digital commercial theaters and the key sent by the internet.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/18/12 at 6:38am
post #71 of 244
Redplayer and it's OdeMax distribution network are more akin to iTunes and an iPad. OdeMax is simply a distribution system whereby anyone can distribute their content.

The rights owners decide when the content goes on sale or is rented, how long it remains on sale, what price, format, etc. basically they have complete control over all distribution details through OdeMax.

Content is downloaded to redplayer, and the OdeMax system keeps track of sales and revenue collected. It can even interface directly with commercial ticketing software for commercial venues that want to use Redplayers to play content.

Channels are merely the way OdeMax defines a storefront for a particular rights holder- say Warner bros or some independent producer. Content can be free.

Sales kick 30% of gross, I believe, back to OdeMax.
post #72 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

Redplayer and it's OdeMax distribution network are more akin to iTunes and an iPad. OdeMax is simply a distribution system whereby anyone can distribute their content.
The rights owners decide when the content goes on sale or is rented, how long it remains on sale, what price, format, etc. basically they have complete control over all distribution details through OdeMax.
Content is downloaded to redplayer, and the OdeMax system keeps track of sales and revenue collected. It can even interface directly with commercial ticketing software for commercial venues that want to use Redplayers to play content.
Channels are merely the way OdeMax defines a storefront for a particular rights holder- say Warner bros or some independent producer. Content can be free.
Sales kick 30% of gross, I believe, back to OdeMax.
20% to Odemax if content to a commercial theater. 30% to Odemax if a HTI do believe any seller could distribute hard content on say a USB drive and it could be played on the Redray player without any involvement by Odemax.
post #73 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

Redplayer and it's OdeMax distribution network are more akin to iTunes and an iPad. OdeMax is simply a distribution system whereby anyone can distribute their content.
The rights owners decide when the content goes on sale or is rented, how long it remains on sale, what price, format, etc. basically they have complete control over all distribution details through OdeMax.
Content is downloaded to redplayer, and the OdeMax system keeps track of sales and revenue collected. It can even interface directly with commercial ticketing software for commercial venues that want to use Redplayers to play content.
Channels are merely the way OdeMax defines a storefront for a particular rights holder- say Warner bros or some independent producer. Content can be free.
Sales kick 30% of gross, I believe, back to OdeMax.
There is no currently economical model for this to work. Royalties for digital distribution of movies are often so high that they cause negative margin for retailers. If there was a profitable model for a middle man like this, we would have them today but there isn't. Companies like Amazon, Apple, Netflx, Wall-Mart, etc. all host content themselves. Pushing bits from an origination server to clients is commodity business and no one wants to pay a premium for it in this atmosphere.

This may change in the future if the studios decide to drop their wholesale prices. But sitting right here, what they are aiming at is Field of Dreams, pun intended. biggrin.gif I see nothing compelling from Red for anyone to change their business model.

So the business if there is any, is what I said before: independently produced films. These guys don't have set royalty and most would want the additional distribution so will drop their you know what to get there. I don't see how a real business can be built this way but may be an avenue for folks to get demo content for their 4K systems.

There are also concerns regarding patents rights and such which would come into play for high-value content but since they won't get that, it is moot. No one is going to go after them for making two bucks....
post #74 of 244
A patent gives one the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for a limited term of years unless thay pay royalties etc sio thatr the patent holder doesn't exercise those rights. Red has lots of money so attacking them for violating patents while it could take many years could rsult in a big pay day. Most patents are worthless often being held invalid by the courts anyway.

It is not about the masses. Its not about low res ituns and video viewed on phones. its market is small but its there. both commercially and for the higher end HT. Not for the block buster releases but now that production costs have been lowered by digits instead of film, more distribution will be needed to get the growing content out and small venues whether small locals and HTs will be needed to view it. The porn industry alone should love Odemax. porn in 4K at 12 bit 4:2:2 and 48FPS. maybe not 48FPS.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/21/12 at 1:32pm
post #75 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

.... but now that production costs have been klowered by digits instead of film, ....


Interesting analogy but often not the case. Because digital media is re-usable and bad takes can be recorded over on the spot, the drive for perfection becomes much more intense. No wasted film stock to answer for. And as the DP can see what he recorded on set in a semi calibrated environment, re-takes are often requested whereas with film they would not. Running a crew on overtime costs much more.

The same thing happened in the 1990s when non-linear work stations replaced cut and printed dailies. Because it was easier and cheaper to "print" dailes as it was just a tape copy, everybody involved in the production with a VHS machine in their office now wanted a copy. So the tape duplicating costs actually exceeded the earlier film print costs. Today of course it's DVD and internet delivery but many studios scoff at internet delivery for security reasons. They don't want the material in an easily EMAILED format, so plain old DVD still rules for now.

It's the same analogy with the paperless office. Computers and cheap printer actually INCREASED the amount of paper consumed. Hey just print it out. It's so easy to do now!
post #76 of 244
Question. More and more people are now trying to produce films. I thought this was because of the lower equipment costs and not the potential for profits being any higher. I would think things like Odemax would offer those with no real shot at distribution getting one and the costs of making copies goes way down by supplying it say on hard drives instead of film spools. Just questions. You have the knowledge here, thanks for your time and generosity in sharing it.
post #77 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Question. More and more people are now trying to produce films. I thought this was because of the lower equipment costs and not the potential for profits being any higher. I would think things like Odemax would offer those with no real shot at distribution getting one and the costs of making copies goes way down by supplying it say on hard drives instead of film spools. Just questions. You have the knowledge here, thanks for your time and generosity in sharing it.

Agreed. That is another side of the business which digital technology will certainly grow.. My point above is that the studios embraced digital cameras for many reasons. But the cost savings of daily film processing is not always realized. Because you can do more with digital cameras, more is done, and that often eats up any savings.

Also nature only spits out so many talented directors / producers in each generation. Possession of a digital film rig does not make one a talented film maker. Just as digital publishing software in the 1990s did not make an abundance of good writers. But it will certainly help jump start some careers.
post #78 of 244
Well CES has come and Sony is pretty negative on a 4K optical disc format. They are gung ho on reissuing 1080p Blurays with a wider coded color format anda longer bit and hyping some relationship to 4K because they will use 4K sources tomake the 1080p Bluerays and we wll call them something super sexy 4K. .

Forthe distribution of the real stuff, content in 4K, Sony will go the server route and will bring one to market alsa la Red in the summer some 6 months behind Red. But no worries. Sony will maintain they were first.

Distribution like Red, could be by hard drive or card or by internet. Sony hjead honcho seems to understand that internet distribution of 4K content is the likely future byt Sony is so far behind the curve here they don't have a map for how the content can be economically transmitted. red seems ahead here having a decent codec already.

Anyway, Odemax, the Red network for content to its servers lauches in one week from today at Sundance. So we should no some more about initial content offerings over Odemax next week.
post #79 of 244
Sony studios should just sign up to the Redray/Odemax system and not try to build their own proprietary delivery system. One less money loser system they have to finance and maintain in the future.
They have tried and failed so many time with proprietary Sony systems. Even HD discs like BD they should have left to Toshiba to worry about and saved themselves a lot of money in the process.
post #80 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

Well CES has come and Sony is pretty negative on a 4K optical disc format.

My thought was that there are still likely a number of "industry wide" issues to be resolved before 4k future disk appears, and I would expect that (something like) the announcement of a "firm date" for release of the next HDMI Standard will be a signal that the CEMs and content providers have reached a useful level of consensus about those issues.
_
post #81 of 244
There are a whole bunch of countries, where internet downloads of a 30GB to 40GB per movie won't be practical. I think both the download option and a disk format will cater to all possible consumer needs are required if full market penitration is sought. Both can co-exist.
post #82 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundChex View Post

My thought was that there are still likely a number of "industry wide" issues to be resolved before 4k future disk appears, and I would expect that (something like) the announcement of a "firm date" for release of the next HDMI Standard will be a signal that the CEMs and content providers have reached a useful level of consensus about those issues.
_

People are already using current HDMI cable to display 4k. The only 'issue' is disc space.
post #83 of 244
4K pixels but at only 24 fps. great. the industry is moving past 24 fpss and there will be a new hdmi to handle what will emegrge as 4k. 4k won't make it at 4k and current bit rates..r
post #84 of 244
I read that the new htmi will support the new fps said to be called 2.0.
post #85 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

4K pixels but at only 24 fps. great. the industry is moving past 24 fps

What Industry? Film?? The Hobbit is an experimental film, one of many through out film history, no other director has confirmed using 48 fps for future projects. You might as well say the same about Quintaphonic Sound just because Tommy had it. Nor are there any even remote plans for a 48 fps home video where as there are concrete plans for 4K 24fps home video thanks to the existing HDMI. The Stereovision BDs are a crippled version of the theater experience I might add.

But hey, keep with the 48 fps 4K home video or nothing mantra.
post #86 of 244
The ability to capture cheaply at higher frame rates has arrived. 24fps really sucks. We obviously have gotten used to it and it has survived for many years. Is there any reason not to go to higher frame rates? Must we have blurred motion. Tthe technology is now here
post #87 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

The ability to capture cheaply at higher frame rates has arrived. 24fps really sucks. We obviously have gotten used to it and it has survived for many years. Is there any reason not to go to higher frame rates? Must we have blurred motion. Tthe technology is now here

I'm certainly not very knowledgeable about these issues, Mark, but what about all the moaning about the 'soap opera look' that was so much decried in recent years.    I thought that it was attributed to 60p sources, and that 24p was what was desired.    Has the worm turned?

post #88 of 244
There is no question that the long history of films is 24 fps. its part and parcel of the look of films. The basics of home theater was to reproduce the commercial theater visual experience. With the coming of the digital age of films with film no longer being the medium, we have a new film standard for reproduction, DCI. Unfortunately we do not yet have DCI source material for reproduction by the HT enthusiest.

24 fps is the legacy frame rate and it was chosen masny years ago as the minimum where people would not see much flicker. It is fast enough to present a sort of poor illusion of seeing it as a continuous picture. The frame rate should be higher but it was chosen because film costs were high. Of several bad artifacts besides flicker is motion blur. Fast moving objects are not captured as ones eye would see them. Your eye would see things between each of the capture frames.

Now, digitally, we can shoot many more frames per second without increasing the the capture and reproduction costs. By shooting at a higher rate, film can look like high quality video, moreover at higher rates it can exceed video.


What's the effect? The artifacts of film which we have become quite acustomed too can be vanguished. The look is completely different. Because there are more frames per second, it is more tiring. There is more info for the brain to process. It's not as easy on your eyes. It's different and many things that are different are not liked by some.

I would give up the cinematic look for greater realism. putting me there. But that is me. My preference.
Edited by mark haflich - 1/15/13 at 3:40am
post #89 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark haflich View Post

There is no question that the long history of films is 24fps. its part and parcel of the look of films. The baiics of home theater was to reproduce the commercial theater visual experience. With the coming of the digital age of films with film nno longer being the medium, we have a new film standard for reproduction, DCI. Unfortunately we do not yet have DCI source material for reproduction by the HT enthuseist.

24 fps is the legacy frame rate and it was chosen masny years ago as the minimum where people would not see much flicker. It is first enough to present a sort of poor illusion of seeing it as a continuous picture. The frame rate should be higher but it was chosen because film costs were high. Of several bad artifacts besides flicker is motion blur. fast moving objects are not captured as ones eye would see them. Your eye would see things between each of the capture frames.

Now, digitally, we can shoot many more frames per second without increasing the the capture and reproduction costs. By shooting at a higher rate, film canlook like high quality video, moreover athigher rates it can exceed video.


whats the effect? The artifacts of film which we have become quite acustomed too can be vanguished. The look is completely different. Because there are more frames per second, it is more tiring. There is more info for the brain to process. Its not as easy on your eyes. Its different and many things that are different are not liked by some.

I would give up the cinematic look for greater realism. puting me there. But that is me. My preference.


So why did so many 'videophiles' decry the 'soap opera look' over the last few yrs?     Is this now what is wanted?

post #90 of 244
I'm all for higher frame rates.....the manufacturers can put in a 24fps mode option where every other frame is skipped when displaying.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Redray 4K player with Odemax -Could this be the better than Bluray we have all been lloking for?