Results 1 to 9 of 9
06-04-2012, 06:00 AM #1
Sony: 4K isn't just about the resolution
Interesting article from engadget, Sony: 4K isn't just about the resolution
"With M. Night Shyamalan already shooting his next movie -- After Earth -- on the F65 4K camera, Sony's PR machine is going all out to assuage remaining doubters in the film industry.
One of the more curious aspects of the awareness campaign is that it doesn't focus solely on the exorbitant resolution -- in fact, it gives almost equal weight to other visual promises that Sony hopes will persuade producers, directors and cinematographers to make the leap before anyone else does.
What might those eyeball treats be? Philippe Ros, a DoP hired by Sony to shoot a 4K promo film, put it succinctly at a showing we attended in London this week: "Only the first row in the cinema may notice the resolution, but I'm more interested in the colors than in the 4K."
According to Ros, every terabyte that floods out of the F65 per hour of filming contains color and dynamic range info way beyond what you normally get when shooting digital. The end result?
Crews on the ground can relax just that little bit more, knowing that any mundane-looking scenes can be given far greater impact later.
Now, even bearing in mind that Ros couldn't have said anything bad about 4K without things getting awkward, it's still interesting that he admits to being skeptical of the resolution itself.
But if others on independent shoots discover the same post-production flexibility that he did, then the push for 4K might come from filmmakers rather than those further down the food chain."
Last edited by TrippleJ; 06-28-2012 at 01:14 PM.
06-04-2012, 07:54 AM #2
FINALLY someone, surprisingly Sony, is focusing on more than just the resolution of 4K to help frame their argument. That being said, the article is light on sizzle and frankly doesn't really explain what color and dynamic range means, so it's a conversation starter, but there needs to be more.
06-04-2012, 09:58 AM #3
Andrew, other than you, this is the first I have heard of the other possibly greater benefits of 4K. Every 4K campaign that I have seen to date, leads and concentrates on the resolution.
06-07-2012, 08:45 AM #4
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
How does a review of a Production Camera fit into a Home Theater equipment site? It's all about bandwidth and storage. You can use it for resolution in addressable pixels, or color depth. 4K by definition is about resolution. 14bit, would be about color depth.
This looks like another plug for the Sony 4K Home Theater projector which is maximum 8 bit color at 4K. More confusion for the reader.
06-07-2012, 08:59 AM #5
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
Sony..... Sony......... Sony?...?
Ah, now I remember!!
That is the company which persuaded us to adapt to the SACD standard just moments before letting it down them self.....
Am I truly still prepared to listen to these people when assessing new standards?
Don't think so......
Last edited by sam buffer; 06-07-2012 at 09:26 AM.
06-07-2012, 09:15 AM #6
Hey sam - remember Qualia?
And yes - SACD a format for high res audio that needed 8 cables and a new preamp to connect but didn't have video but was nice enough to cause a format war that basically killed of HD music on a disc despite what you can do in 24-192 or 7.1 on a $59 Blu-ray player with a one-cable copy-protected HDMI cable. Thanks Sony. You rule.
06-07-2012, 09:18 AM #7
Does anybody give Andrew credit for NAILING this argument in writing AND in public at CES? He was ALL OVER THIS!!!
4K resolution is nice but you need a HUGE screen to enjoy it. There are other benefits like color space that are worth talking about however.
I wonder how much people will be willing to go back and reinvest in flat HDTVs to get 4K. No broadcast or Blu-ray standard (yet) it just seems too early for 4K for most of us.
06-07-2012, 09:24 AM #8
06-12-2012, 09:35 AM #9
- Join Date
- Jul 2000
- Lansdowne, VA, USA
4K is about more than just resolution, and we all know it
I agree with Andrew and with those that bring to surface that 4K is more than just 4 times the pixel count of HD. Color space, higher bit per color, and overall impact and quality of the resultant image, upscaled or not, are some factors to mention.
I am reviewing the Sony 4K projector now, a projector I decided to buy in advance and trust for my own HT because of its technological importance and its potential when 4K content becomes available, and in the mean time is doing a great upscaling of HD and SD content.
I believe putting the money where the mouth is one important factor when evaluating an opinion about a technology or a product. While many would not like to admit "my expensive baby is ugly" many also give rush negative opinions when not able to afford the product and look for excuses and negative angles, such as "there no 4K content yet", "4K is stupid", "SD upscaling to 4K has 25 times too many interpolated pixels", etc, and disregard the value of innovation and of being ahead of the curve as an early adopter, which was never economically cheap.
How many can raise the hand with me and say they purchased a $8K-$10K legendary Elite RPTV in 1998/99 as early adopter just to see loops of the same HD content in the couple of channels available back then, or to upscale DVDs, the main driver back then.
I agree that 4K maybe overkill for small screens in price and image benefit, but I also agree with Andrew in that the way 4K was criticized with a dead upon arrival no-chance approach, starting with using the "stupid" in a title, is a lost opportunity to properly educate the public.
I have a 130 inches 2.35:1 Cinemascope screen and I use a large part of the 2160 vertical resolution lines of the 4K projector chip for a great widescreen image that makes unnecessary and inferior my previous method with anamorphic lens upscaling 800+ pixels to the 1080 vertical resolution of the chip and optically stretching the image horizontally to restore geometry and get rid of the black bars.
The image looks very good in CinemaScope aspect ratio and screen, one can say that it is a product of more pixels, but the overall result in image quality, detail, increased angled of view if I want to get closer, and its cinematic impact to the peripheral vision, is much more satisfying than just counting pixels and say more are better without qualifying why, or more are not necessary if you seat far away from the screen, and we are only seeing the 4K benefit of higher resolution for the moment.
I will be drafting an article soon after I finish my evaluation of the projector, and about the significance of 4K for large screens at home, and also to reduce 3D passive FPR obviousness while increasing the 540 resolution per eye to 1080, benefitting those that are affected by the active-shutter method.
Keep up the good work.
Rodolfo La Maestra