Web Analytics

Resolution, was 8K Samsung TVs


Thomas Gleeson
 

I am afraid I don’t understand the negativity to increased resolution in cameras and presentation. This is a complex issue but a very interesting one and I hope we can have a reasoned discussion here on CML.

Firstly I find it odd that people still make the argument that 4K presentation is a waste and the human eye cannot see the difference. While nowhere near the jump that was SD to HD the jump to 4K is still a significant step forward. For reference I am watching a 55” LG OLED at about 3 meters and I can clearly see the difference in the images and the 4K images show superior detail in textures and more subtle tonal gradations. Its hard using words to describe images but there is a clarity to 4K that 2K does not have. I have never seen images on my TV look as amazing as they do now. Of course there is a distance from any TV where you will no longer perceive extra resolution but every year the average TV grows larger.  Also I should qualify my observations as I have a good internet connection and can easily suck down the 4K 20Mbit stream but if this was throttled and over compressed the 4k love would be lost.

I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy between TV manufacturers and Content Suppliers to foist 4K onto consumers. Of course TV manufacturers would do anything to sell new TV sets but suppliers such as Netflix are simply protecting their investment by stipulating 4K Masters for their in-house productions just as in the past Networks would mandate 35mm film even though it outperformed SD transmission and in the long run that has guaranteed the longevity and ROI of many older programmes. 

The cost of finishing in 4K in 2019 is only trivial when you can invest up to 100 million dollars in one season of a Top End TV Series. I understand that 4K VFX can create a serious burden but last I heard Netflix allowed uprezzing from 2K for VFX shots? Regardless there are multiple 4K VFX heavy shows streaming at the moment so its certainly doable.

Do not misunderstand my arguement as resolution is only one facet of any image and resolution alone will never make a great image it just seems strange to say it is not one of the parameters of good images. Together the improvements in dynamic range, sensitivity, codecs, colour space and resolution have all combined to produce multiple amazing modern digital cameras.

Shortly this discussion on the camera side will be moot as not one of the top end camera manufacturers have released a sub 4K resolution camera now for years and this includes Arri. Next year Arri will release the replacement of their venerable ALEV III Sensor with a 4K sensor and there will simply be no more new sub 4K cameras. 

Importantly while the resolution has increased it is simply just another photographic parameter that we can control as cinematographers. Some DOP’s choose vintage or lower resolution glass and this is partly a conscious choice to control the resolution just as they are controlling all the other photographic parameters. I would never suggest that the highest resolution is always the best way forward for every project but as DOP we can control this aesthetic with our lens choice and use. 

For me I don’t believe that the improvements in image capture and presentation in both TV and cinemas are a disservice to cinematography. Time will tell and I include myself in the generation that grew up with just 720 pixels on their TV sets. But anyone growing up today only sees super high resolution on their phones, tablets, computers, video games and now their TV sets and I suspect younger DOPs will have no issue with higher resolution images.

Oddly here on CML back in the early naughties we saw exactly the same arguments being thrown against the improved resolution of HD. History repeats.


Tom “Where’s Walter” Gleeson
Sydney DOP



Geoff Boyle
 

I am not, and never will, arguing against increased resolution.

However, I do think that far too much emphasis is placed on it because it has easily quantifiable numbers that people who don’t really understand what they are talking about can throw around.

 

I would suggest that Dynamic Range and colour space are far more important to the majority of cinematographers and if the energy that manufacturers of Cameras and TV’s was redirected into making cameras with a better response and lights with a better response first there would be very little objection if they then moved on to resolution.

 

It’s a question of priorities.

 

I have posted before about an engineering based person dragging me to the Olympus booth at an NAB in the early 00’s to show me their 4K camera.

“ Isn’t the resolution great?”

“Yeah but the DR is about 6 stops”

“But look at the resolution”

“Yeah bit the colour is awful”

“But look at the resolution”

 

I’m paid to make pretty pictures and/or pictures that help the story not accurate or razor sharp ones.

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Thomas Gleeson via Cml.News
Sent: 14 October 2019 04:51
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Resolution, was 8K Samsung TVs

 

I am afraid I don’t understand the negativity to increased resolution in cameras and presentation. This is a complex issue but a very interesting one and I hope we can have a reasoned discussion here on CML.

 

Firstly I find it odd that people still make the argument that 4K presentation is a waste and the human eye cannot see the difference. While nowhere near the jump that was SD to HD the jump to 4K is still a significant step forward. For reference I am watching a 55” LG OLED at about 3 meters and I can clearly see the difference in the images and the 4K images show superior detail in textures and more subtle tonal gradations. Its hard using words to describe images but there is a clarity to 4K that 2K does not have. I have never seen images on my TV look as amazing as they do now. Of course there is a distance from any TV where you will no longer perceive extra resolution but every year the average TV grows larger.  Also I should qualify my observations as I have a good internet connection and can easily suck down the 4K 20Mbit stream but if this was throttled and over compressed the 4k love would be lost.

 

I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy between TV manufacturers and Content Suppliers to foist 4K onto consumers. Of course TV manufacturers would do anything to sell new TV sets but suppliers such as Netflix are simply protecting their investment by stipulating 4K Masters for their in-house productions just as in the past Networks would mandate 35mm film even though it outperformed SD transmission and in the long run that has guaranteed the longevity and ROI of many older programmes. 

 

The cost of finishing in 4K in 2019 is only trivial when you can invest up to 100 million dollars in one season of a Top End TV Series. I understand that 4K VFX can create a serious burden but last I heard Netflix allowed uprezzing from 2K for VFX shots? Regardless there are multiple 4K VFX heavy shows streaming at the moment so its certainly doable.

 

Do not misunderstand my arguement as resolution is only one facet of any image and resolution alone will never make a great image it just seems strange to say it is not one of the parameters of good images. Together the improvements in dynamic range, sensitivity, codecs, colour space and resolution have all combined to produce multiple amazing modern digital cameras.



Shortly this discussion on the camera side will be moot as not one of the top end camera manufacturers have released a sub 4K resolution camera now for years and this includes Arri. Next year Arri will release the replacement of their venerable ALEV III Sensor with a 4K sensor and there will simply be no more new sub 4K cameras. 



Importantly while the resolution has increased it is simply just another photographic parameter that we can control as cinematographers. Some DOP’s choose vintage or lower resolution glass and this is partly a conscious choice to control the resolution just as they are controlling all the other photographic parameters. I would never suggest that the highest resolution is always the best way forward for every project but as DOP we can control this aesthetic with our lens choice and use. 

 

For me I don’t believe that the improvements in image capture and presentation in both TV and cinemas are a disservice to cinematography. Time will tell and I include myself in the generation that grew up with just 720 pixels on their TV sets. But anyone growing up today only sees super high resolution on their phones, tablets, computers, video games and now their TV sets and I suspect younger DOPs will have no issue with higher resolution images.

 

Oddly here on CML back in the early naughties we saw exactly the same arguments being thrown against the improved resolution of HD. History repeats.

 

 

Tom “Where’s Walter” Gleeson

Sydney DOP

 

 


Ganzo
 

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 07:51 PM, Thomas Gleeson wrote:
I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy between TV manufacturers and Content Suppliers to foist 4K onto consumers. Of course TV manufacturers would do anything to sell new TV sets but suppliers such as Netflix are simply protecting their investment by stipulating 4K Masters for their in-house productions just as in the past Networks would mandate 35mm film even though it outperformed SD transmission and in the long run that has guaranteed the longevity and ROI of many older programmes. 
I wish that was the case but I have it from the horse's mouth that deals have been made and the 4K requirement for original programming is purely a legal necessity, not one of quality. In fact the horse agreed with Steve Yedlin's demonstration that , as Geoff also points out, there are more important components to making a better picture. Bit depth, DR, etc. I won't name names but believe me it comes from a very knowledgable inside source.
And ultimately I agree with Geoff's response in this forum.

Roberto Schaefer, asc, aic
Venice, CA


Noel Sterrett
 

Absolutely.


Noel Sterrett
Admit One Pictures

On 10/14/19 10:27 AM, Ganzo wrote:
And ultimately I agree with Geoff's response in this forum.


tom@gleeson.net.au
 

Gentlemen,

I agree that there is a whole bunch of parameters that go into good images and resolution is only one of them and certainly not the most important. Not sure I agree that the improvements in camera resolution has been at the expense of other areas as the last ten years has seen improvement not only in resolution but in virtually every other aspect of camera performance. I have confidence that the new 4K Arri sensor will see improvements on every level and there will be no compromises due to its 4K resolution.

There is no doubt that the question of resolution has become tainted by marketing simplification and the marketing wars between competitors but as a professional I just ignore the marketing and get on with it although some people do drink the Kool Aid 😀

I am by no means an expert in the area of distribution but every discussion and project I have been involved there is an assumption that a 4K master will be supplied. While Netflix may be the most obvious with their 20 billion dollar annual production spend it seems most Distributors and Sales Agents "prefers" 4K if they expect a project to have longevity.

Roberto I too had read Steve Yedlins articles among others and so I had low expectations of 4K for TV but you can’t buy a HD 55” panel anymore so when I plugged my new TV into 4K content I had a real "Road to Damascus” moment. Are there people out there with 4K TVs watching 4K streaming services who believe they see no difference in the images? Am I an outlier on this?

Roberto this is a difficult conversation as English struggles to find words to describe nuance in imagery but IMHO I don’t find high resolution images “sharper.” For me they have more “clarity" and I would argue they are in some ways “smoother." For me one of the best aspects of higher resolution is that it reveals the texture of objects. Modern high resolution images are polar opposite to the awful low resolution images with added sharpening of the past. But I do understand we are talking aesthetics and this is in the eye of the beholder.

Finally Gentlemen I think we agree on more than we disagree on and discussing issues such as these with other talented cinematographers is what makes CML great.

Tom Gleeson
Sydney DOP


John Brawley
 




On Oct 15, 2019, at 12:42 AM, tom@... wrote:

I am by no means an expert in the area of distribution but every discussion and project I have been involved there is an assumption that a 4K master will be supplied. While Netflix may be the most obvious with their 20 billion dollar annual production spend it seems most Distributors and Sales Agents "prefers" 4K if they expect a project to have longevity.


4K masters are rare for a lot of TV in my experince.

In my world of television production, you’re forgetting that there’s a STUDIO in between the distributor / sales agents and they are the ones that determine what you shoot on.

Sometimes the STUDIO is the same as the DISTRIBUTOR, but even then they are often at odds with each other.

The majority of Network TV in the US is still shot and mastered 1920 ProRes. That’s my impression anyway.  FOX and ABC are still technically broadcasting 720 for example and they really don’t care for 4K anything.  I think we’re all living in a 4K bubble thinking that everyone must be doing 4K+ but I actually think there’s still an awful lot of content that’s 1920.

And while the streamers are where the sexy TV is being done that we all like and watch, a massively high number of punters also watch network TV the old fashioned way in 720 or maybe 1920.  And a lot of the shows that are popular on the streamers are re-purposed from broadcast and therefore are also not 4K. I’ve seen several of the shows I’ve done as 1920 shows on streamers as a popular option.

I just started on a series for Hulu who DO REQUEST 4K origination, the STUDIO that are making the series were nervous about the post deadline when we tested and creatively liked Alexa 65 and instead we compromised on good old Alexa SXT RAW, which is obviously, NOT 4K. 

I wish it were different.  But the reality is that sales agents are only doing sales after the primary deal is done and don’t really have much say...

Except actually, for the first time since about 1998 I’m framing for two aspect ratios. Because Paramount are the distributors for non-Hulu sales on this show and they want a 1.78 master even though we’re shooting 2:1

JB


John Brawley
Cinematographer
LA - Currently London UK


Video Assist Hungary
 

In Hungary, about 90% of the content (a lot of Netflix, and the rest is American and Canadian TVs) is shot in 4K, the rest is 3.2k or something else. Basically nothing is shot in HD for years anymore. 

Balazs Rozgonyi
CEO video assist hungary 


On 2019. Oct 15., at 11:29, John Brawley <john@...> wrote:




On Oct 15, 2019, at 12:42 AM, tom@... wrote:

I am by no means an expert in the area of distribution but every discussion and project I have been involved there is an assumption that a 4K master will be supplied. While Netflix may be the most obvious with their 20 billion dollar annual production spend it seems most Distributors and Sales Agents "prefers" 4K if they expect a project to have longevity.


4K masters are rare for a lot of TV in my experince.

In my world of television production, you’re forgetting that there’s a STUDIO in between the distributor / sales agents and they are the ones that determine what you shoot on.

Sometimes the STUDIO is the same as the DISTRIBUTOR, but even then they are often at odds with each other.

The majority of Network TV in the US is still shot and mastered 1920 ProRes. That’s my impression anyway.  FOX and ABC are still technically broadcasting 720 for example and they really don’t care for 4K anything.  I think we’re all living in a 4K bubble thinking that everyone must be doing 4K+ but I actually think there’s still an awful lot of content that’s 1920.

And while the streamers are where the sexy TV is being done that we all like and watch, a massively high number of punters also watch network TV the old fashioned way in 720 or maybe 1920.  And a lot of the shows that are popular on the streamers are re-purposed from broadcast and therefore are also not 4K. I’ve seen several of the shows I’ve done as 1920 shows on streamers as a popular option.

I just started on a series for Hulu who DO REQUEST 4K origination, the STUDIO that are making the series were nervous about the post deadline when we tested and creatively liked Alexa 65 and instead we compromised on good old Alexa SXT RAW, which is obviously, NOT 4K. 

I wish it were different.  But the reality is that sales agents are only doing sales after the primary deal is done and don’t really have much say...

Except actually, for the first time since about 1998 I’m framing for two aspect ratios. Because Paramount are the distributors for non-Hulu sales on this show and they want a 1.78 master even though we’re shooting 2:1

JB


John Brawley
Cinematographer
LA - Currently London UK


Bob Kertesz
 

The majority of Network TV in the US is still shot and mastered 1920
ProRes. That’s my impression anyway.
I don't believe that's correct. In the U.S., the majority (if not all)
of one hour or longer episodic network shows are shot on 4K or higher.
Most 'game show' shows, talent competitions, and most live shows
(awards, sports, etc.) are shot at 1080, although the vast majority of
the big trucks and cameras used are downrezzed from their native 4K to
1080. The big trucks are mostly all 4K capable.

In sitcom world, things have rapidly transitioned to 4K, although the
basic cable sitcoms on channels like Nickelodeon are still being shot on
1080 (I think - it's been a little while since I worked on one).

The two satellite companies and most cable companies each have one or
two 4K "tech demonstration" 4K channels, although the last time I saw a
4K DirecTV feed in a barker kiosk at the local Costco, I just couldn't
believe what overly compressed garbage it was.

I mean seriously, I haven't seen trash like that since I first saw HD in
MPEG at 5 or 6 mbits on the initial cableco trials of HD transmission.
Which does beg the question: What's the point?

Both Netflix and Amazon Prime do an excellent job of delivering 4K
content at roughly 20 mbits if you have a good Internet connection and a
hard wire connection from your streaming hardware to your router. I
don't understand people who try to stream 4K wirelessly.

On Netflix, everything new produced by them is in 4K. Older seasons of
episodics and sitcoms are at 1080. Most all non-Netflix movies are at
1080 (I was really disappointed by that). Same with Amazon Prime (where
any movie you actually want to watch, incidentally, even if it's years
old and running on basic cable, needs to be 'rented' - the worthless
movies are free). Nobody gouges their client base like Bezos does.

HDR on both Netflix and Amazon Prime is a complete crap shoot, with no
rhyme or reason I can see why some shows have it and some don't. There
is no HDR on Spectrum Cable. I don't know what satellite is doing in
that area.

And on a side note, the audio is always downrezzed to the lowest
possible 5.1 much of the time (always on Spectrum Cable), and the rest
of the time, like on Netflix and Amazon Prime, it seems purely random
whether it's 5.1, or 7.1, or DD+, or with/without Dolby Atmos. As
someone with a 9.2.2 sound system installed, it's kind of annoying.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted
them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *


John Brawley
 

On Oct 16, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Bob Kertesz <bob@...> wrote:

I don't believe that's correct. In the U.S., the majority (if not all)
of one hour or longer episodic network shows are shot on 4K or higher.
Hey Bob, in my recent experience shooting episodic in Atlanta, most of the NETWORK shows were 1920 ProRes originating, or maybe 2K ProRes. Not just my own shows (FOX and USA) but it seemed like a lot of others in town were.

...There were 92 shows shooting in ATL when I was trying to crew my last one.



On Netflix, everything new produced by them is in 4K.
Yes, Netflix Originals.



HDR on both Netflix and Amazon Prime is a complete crap shoot, with no
rhyme or reason I can see why some shows have it and some don’t.
Hulu seem to be asking for 4K and Dolby Vision HDR. Though as I said, they are OK with us shooting on not 4K Alexa as well.

JB



John Brawley
Cinematographer
LA - Currently London UK


Bob Kertesz
 

in my recent experience shooting episodic in Atlanta, most of the
NETWORK shows were 1920 ProRes originating, or maybe 2K ProRes.
I should have been more specific and said "In Los Angeles...". I don't
know of any here shooting 1080, which of course does not mean there
aren't any.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted
them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *


Geoff Boyle
 

Hi Bob ,

Just to be difficult, I stream 4K Netflix wirelessly with no problems.

I just checked my connection speed with the Netflix settings option and it's 71.5 which seems to be fast enough 😁


From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> on behalf of Bob Kertesz <bob@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 7:21:53 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...>
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Resolution, was 8K Samsung TVs
 
The majority of Network TV in the US is still shot and mastered 1920
ProRes. That’s my impression anyway.
I don't believe that's correct. In the U.S., the majority (if not all)
of one hour or longer episodic network shows are shot on 4K or higher.
Most 'game show' shows, talent competitions, and most live shows
(awards, sports, etc.) are shot at 1080, although the vast majority of
the big trucks and cameras used are downrezzed from their native 4K to
1080. The big trucks are mostly all 4K capable.

In sitcom world, things have rapidly transitioned to 4K, although the
basic cable sitcoms on channels like Nickelodeon are still being shot on
1080 (I think - it's been a little while since I worked on one).

The two satellite companies and most cable companies each have one or
two 4K "tech demonstration" 4K channels, although the last time I saw a
4K DirecTV feed in a barker kiosk at the local Costco, I just couldn't
believe what overly compressed garbage it was.

I mean seriously, I haven't seen trash like that since I first saw HD in
MPEG at 5 or 6 mbits on the initial cableco trials of HD transmission.
Which does beg the question: What's the point?

Both Netflix and Amazon Prime do an excellent job of delivering 4K
content at roughly 20 mbits if you have a good Internet connection and a
hard wire connection from your streaming hardware to your router. I
don't understand people who try to stream 4K wirelessly.

On Netflix, everything new produced by them is in 4K. Older seasons of
episodics and sitcoms are at 1080. Most all non-Netflix movies are at
1080 (I was really disappointed by that). Same with Amazon Prime (where
any movie you actually want to watch, incidentally, even if it's years
old and running on basic cable, needs to be 'rented' - the worthless
movies are free). Nobody gouges their client base like Bezos does.

HDR on both Netflix and Amazon Prime is a complete crap shoot, with no
rhyme or reason I can see why some shows have it and some don't. There
is no HDR on Spectrum Cable. I don't know what satellite is doing in
that area.

And on a side note, the audio is always downrezzed to the lowest
possible 5.1 much of the time (always on Spectrum Cable), and the rest
of the time, like on Netflix and Amazon Prime, it seems purely random
whether it's 5.1, or 7.1, or DD+, or with/without Dolby Atmos. As
someone with a 9.2.2 sound system installed, it's kind of annoying.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted
them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *


Noel Sterrett
 

My wife (the accomplished background artist) was in 14.


Noel Sterrett
Admit One Pictures

On 10/16/19 1:34 PM, John Brawley wrote:
...There were 92 shows shooting in ATL when I was trying to crew my last one.


Bob Kertesz
 

Just to be difficult, I stream 4K Netflix wirelessly with no problems.

Yes, but you're in the EU, where good connections, low latency, and
reliable service with decent range in relatively smaller houses and
apartments is taken for granted.

Many if not most people in the U.S. are using the garbage all-in-one
modem/router/wi-fi hardware supplied by their ISP, often installed in a
corner of the house closest to the utility pole, covering about half the
living space with mediocre speeds and high latency at best.

Things are starting to improve somewhat with the new mesh wi-fi
technology, but getting people to spend $200-$400 (plus installation for
the less technically knowledgeable) to improve their wi-fi streaming is
often difficult.

Streaming 4K is still a big problem for many. They don't understand why
when they've been endlessly told forever that the U.S. is the most
technologically advanced nation in the world.

I have excellent fast low latency wi-fi in my three story
lath-and-plaster home (all aftermarket, including the cable modem), and
I still use hardwire for anything that has an ethernet jack.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted
them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *


Luis Gomes <gomes.luis@...>
 

Military advanced in the world. You mean?

Feel your pain Bob. 



Quote

when they've been endlessly told forever that the U.S. is the most 
technologically advanced nation in the world.
Unquote

On Sun 20. Oct 2019 at 18.16 Bob Kertesz <bob@...> wrote

Luís. 
Finland. Where they spend more money on roads than people. 
Still the same o broadcast gig. 


--
Luis Gomes

Conforming
Digital Media Services
Field and News Gathering
Post Production


Geoff Boyle
 

I’m always shocked when I visit the US just how bad your infrastructure is.

I don’t mean in rural areas, where there is no chance of coverage for very good reasons.

I mean in your major cities.

It was bad compared to the UK, which isn’t wonderful, but compared to the Netherlands and surrounding countries it’s so bad as to be unusable a lot of the time.

Why do I give a damn about this?

Because as a large production and consumption market for our work it will influence badly decisions made by major players.

I’ve had a producer in LA call me and be shocked to find out that I was on a train as the call was clearer than he’s used to on a landline.

If he has such low expectations about a phone call WTF is he experiencing in terms of images and what decisions is he making based on that?

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Bob Kertesz
Sent: 18 October 2019 19:06
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Resolution, was 8K Samsung TVs

 

Streaming 4K is still a big problem for many. They don't understand why
when they've been endlessly told forever that the U.S. is the most
technologically advanced nation in the world.


 


Philip Holland
 

It's frustrating in the US, but improving in areas that are obviously key markets.  Part of the difficulty is the size of the land itself and servicing about 300 million people spread out pretty massively.  As well as the expense and red tape that hinders quicker deployment of newer technologies.  That's a common theme out here.

Early gigabit and 5G were deployed in smaller lower risk markets, but that's finally expanding to places like Los Angeles.  California alone is about 40 million people. South Korea where much of my "tech forward work" comes from is about 50 mil.  As is England for that matter.

These days in major cities and surrounding areas 4G coverage is good and premium internet via cable of up to 300Mbps is pretty common.  Gigabit is still getting out there.  I was the third household in my city to get "consumer gigabit" and it's the good old fiber to node, not fiber to door.  Which by the time 5G gets rolled out might be a hilarious battle between landline and mobile speedy connections.

If you're at any major studio however in the last two decades fiber and other high speed data was pretty common like T1.  Our old studio even had line of sight laser connection between two buildings for a bit.  A pretty major uptick in the earlier days of cable and DSL, but that cost a fortune back then.  As does the dark fiber that connects a couple studios across a few states these days.  But it allows dailies and even offloads to get to LA pretty damn fast without shipping drives.  A project I worked on with NASA actually was interesting because bandwidth opened up about half way through the shoot and suddenly it didn't take 24 hours to send 15-30 minutes of footage back home.

Fun times.  Always room to improve.  LA isn't the first 5G market for instance, but with so many customers sprawled out it will take a minute to do it right.  To that point however I've been able to stream a decent data rate stream of 8K footage since about 2015 out here.  But in terms of what's deployed focus is always on the mass market, which typically means a television or box potentially only hooked up via WiFi to deliver 4K streaming content from the usual suspects and often w/ shared connections.  Which is why the target really is sub-20Mbps.

Learned a great deal about this a few years back on when one of my projects delivered to 135 countries streamed and why things were encoded the way the were.  And data capped connections were far more common just a couple years ago before "unlimited plans" became even more common.

The expense and skittishness of upgrading infrastructure in the face of rapidly changing times also is a big factor.  I know a few entities that held off on moving to 4K-land until the landscape and standardization of what 8K is as of 2019 exists.  The next 2-5 years it's pretty much game on with everybody going 4K however out here.  Hard to tell which streaming service will go 8K first in the US, but it's already happening in Japan via NHK's channel at 60p.  The EU demonstrated 8K satellite this year at 50p.  While that gets sorted, the consumer focus globally is 4K from television manufacturers to content providers.

Phil

-----------------
Phil Holland - Cinematographer
http://www.phfx.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0390802/
818 470 0623


From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> on behalf of Geoff Boyle <geoff@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 10:58 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...>
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Resolution, was 8K Samsung TVs
 

I’m always shocked when I visit the US just how bad your infrastructure is.

I don’t mean in rural areas, where there is no chance of coverage for very good reasons.

I mean in your major cities.

It was bad compared to the UK, which isn’t wonderful, but compared to the Netherlands and surrounding countries it’s so bad as to be unusable a lot of the time.

Why do I give a damn about this?

Because as a large production and consumption market for our work it will influence badly decisions made by major players.

I’ve had a producer in LA call me and be shocked to find out that I was on a train as the call was clearer than he’s used to on a landline.

If he has such low expectations about a phone call WTF is he experiencing in terms of images and what decisions is he making based on that?

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Bob Kertesz
Sent: 18 October 2019 19:06
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Resolution, was 8K Samsung TVs

 

Streaming 4K is still a big problem for many. They don't understand why
when they've been endlessly told forever that the U.S. is the most
technologically advanced nation in the world.


 


Bob Kertesz
 

But in terms of what's deployed focus is always on the mass market,
which typically means a television or box potentially only hooked up
via WiFi to deliver 4K streaming content from the usual suspects and
often w/ shared connections. Which is why the target really is sub-20Mbps.
What concerns me is that in the effort to deliver 4K and sooner or later
8K, we are going to have a years-long repeat of how badly HD was rolled
out by satellite and cable in the U.S., how utterly horrible and
compressed to death it was.

Which is to say, both cable companies and satellite companies will
undoubtedly do their best to squeeze 20 lbs. of shit into a 5 lb.
container with the same horrendous attitude of "We need to put this into
the same space as a currently highly compressed HD channel. So let's
turn the compressor up to '11'."

And of course the current mantra of "No one will notice anyway - for one
thing, they're watching on 7" screens."

It's not like that's not the exact history of how things have gone. And
if the 4K feed from DirecTV I saw just a few weeks ago is any
indication, it's going to suck hugely. Just jaw-droppingly awful
compressed to death trash.

Netflix and Amazon don't have to worry about putting more and more
channels that pay for carriage onto the service, nor do they have to
deal with launching satellites or building out physical infrastructure,
a very labor intensive endeavor. It's just simpler for satellite and
cable to compress the image harder, and it's what they are used to doing
for two decades now.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted
them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *


Robert A. Ober
 

Philip Holland wrote on 10/21/19 1:26 AM:

It's frustrating in the US, but improving in areas that are obviously key markets.  Part of the difficulty is the size of the land itself and servicing about 300 million people spread out pretty massively.  As well as the expense and red tape that hinders quicker deployment of newer technologies.  That's a common theme out here.

Early gigabit and 5G were deployed in smaller lower risk markets, but that's finally expanding to places like Los Angeles.  California alone is about 40 million people. South Korea where much of my "tech forward work" comes from is about 50 mil.  As is England for that matter.

––––––––––––––––––––––––

I laugh at all the ruckus over 5G.  4G has never been properly rolled out to some of us.

I'm on the west side of Houston, TX.  Houston is the 4th largest US city in population, third largest in area. 

My neighborhood is middle class and was built in 1965.  Using Verizon 4G I'm lucky to get 3mb/sec inside or out.  I have called them several times.  Upload is around .6 mb/sec.  Fortunately I have a wired connection that is around 55 down and 11 up.  I usually have no problems with Netflix UHD (let's use the correct term, it is NOT 4K.) delivered via an Apple TV box to a Sony XBR.

My word to telecom providers would be, let's fix the current problems before promising another technology that you can't deliver.

Y'all take care,
Robert

Robert A. Ober
IT Consultant, Vidcaster, & Freelance Preditor(Producer/Editor)
www.infohou.com
Houston, TX



Video Assist Hungary
 

That’s pretty crazy.
Hungary (Central-Europe) has about 90% 4G coverage. Sitting in my home I get about 15/15 up/down on my wired provider, and 50/50 on my phone.

Balazs Rozgonyi
CEO video assist hungary


RICHARD ROEPNACK
 

On the other hand, it’s heartening to know that they finally have compressors that go all the way up to 11.

Richard Roepnack

Man With A Movie Camera LLc

New York 



Richard Roepnack

Richard Roepnack Motion Pictures LLC

New York 917 655 5790

On Oct 21, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Bob Kertesz <bob@...> wrote:


But in terms of what's deployed focus is always on the mass market,
which typically means a television or box potentially only hooked up
via WiFi to deliver 4K streaming content from the usual suspects and
often w/ shared connections. Which is why the target really is sub-20Mbps.
What concerns me is that in the effort to deliver 4K and sooner or later
8K, we are going to have a years-long repeat of how badly HD was rolled
out by satellite and cable in the U.S., how utterly horrible and
compressed to death it was.

Which is to say, both cable companies and satellite companies will
undoubtedly do their best to squeeze 20 lbs. of shit into a 5 lb.
container with the same horrendous attitude of "We need to put this into
the same space as a currently highly compressed HD channel. So let's
turn the compressor up to '11'."

And of course the current mantra of "No one will notice anyway - for one
thing, they're watching on 7" screens."

It's not like that's not the exact history of how things have gone. And
if the 4K feed from DirecTV I saw just a few weeks ago is any
indication, it's going to suck hugely. Just jaw-droppingly awful
compressed to death trash.

Netflix and Amazon don't have to worry about putting more and more
channels that pay for carriage onto the service, nor do they have to
deal with launching satellites or building out physical infrastructure,
a very labor intensive endeavor. It's just simpler for satellite and
cable to compress the image harder, and it's what they are used to doing
for two decades now.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted
them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *