Description image

Jim Jannard and RED Give Hat Tip to Sony, 1080p/2K Still a 'Scam,' Price Reductions Coming Tonight

11.1.12 @ 2:35PM Tags : , , , , , , ,

Jim Jannard, the man with the plan for RED, has said a lot of interesting things on the RED forum over the last few years, mostly about how 4K is the only format we should be aspiring to, and 1080p and 2K is not enough — even stated by Arri’s own material on film scanning to 4K. It’s not very often that he gives credit to another product, but that’s exactly what he does here. Why does this matter? RED didn’t have any competition as far as price was concerned until now, and with a little pressure, we could see some drastic reductions in price. Read on for what Mr. Jannard had to say about Sony.

Here is what he said on REDUser, again putting it all here just in case it ever gets deleted.

I am going to give a tip of the hat to Sony tonight. These two camera announcements are significant.

While I do not see them as a threat to EPIC or Scarlet… I do see them as a threat to the conventional and outdated thinking of the industry that tried so hard to cling to “1080P and 2K are good enough”.

We began to champion 4K as the respectful replacement for film in the digital motion world back in 2006. We were embraced. We were ignored. We were revolutionary and we were a scam.

Others in the industry incredibly (and successfully in some circles) attempted to convince the industry that 1080P and 2K was good enough. On one page of Arri’s website they extolled the virtues and increased detail of a 4K film scan and then on another sold the Alexa as a feature worthy camera that “had more resolution than other so called 4K cameras”. (rolls eyes)

Every single camera manufacturer now has a 4K and/or 5K sensor program in the works. Why? Because 1080P and 2K acquisition was the biggest scam in the history of the film industry.

Sony has come to the party. God love them. The F65 is a true 4K camera (although not 8K as it is advertised). The F5 and F55 are 4K cameras soon to be released.

There are 4K display panels being released. 4K projectors. The world is finally coming to its senses. We predicted this 6 years ago. Now it is here.

What does this mean?

There is a new standard from Japan (not exactly sure why they get to call the shots) for consumer 4K . It dictates that you can’t up-rez to 4K.

It means that features and TV shows shot on 1080P or 2K are destined to be left out of a second bite of the apple for a 4K delivery opportunity.

It means that we were right after all. Not that we want to gloat. We are just sad we didn’t do a better job of clearly explaining our position to more people over the past 6 years.

In the end… Sony has validated what we have believed in all along. 1080P is not a respectful film replacement and 4K (or more) is. Actually we believe in 5K+ bayer to a 4K finish. But I don’t want to nit-pick Sony’s announcements.

The image needs to get better over time. There was a moment in history when it got worse. It was called 1080P and 2K acquisition. Mercifully that time has passed. Thanks to Sony for acknowledging this truth.

Did I mention that 4K is 5 times the resolution of 1080P?

As far as the new standard goes, I hadn’t remembered reading anywhere about not being able to up-res anything into 4K. There is so much 1080p and 720p (not to mention 480) material out there, I don’t see that as a realistic possibility for U.S. broadcasters. There are plenty of standards that are not adhered to in the U.S., and that’s probably going to be one of them if, in fact, that is the case and part of the standard is not interpolating anything to 4K.

With that out of the way, this is the first time that Mr. Jannard has admittedly publicly that he’s been impressed with a camera system. This is the first time anyone has really come up with a competitive camera against RED not only in price, but in specs, in design, and in functionality. It’s clear Sony knows the direction is 4K, but they’ve also designed a system that takes into account the fact that most people won’t be using 4K for a long time for many projects. The thing is, RED has been very specific on not offering other options for recording to any other format, that is, until now with the Meizler Module. People still need 1080p and 2K, regardless of how much of a “scam” they actually are — and let’s not get into how many feature films have been distributed in 4K, because you can count the number on one hand.

So why talk about all of this? It means a lot for the future of the camera industry. RED dropped the RED One MX like a bomb on the rest of the film industry, and it brought real filmmaking quality to a level that many people could actually afford to buy. It also made renting a 4K RAW (and RAW in general) camera realistic for many productons, and it was offering a quality unmatched in the space. RED also introduced an entire workflow with REDCODE RAW that is slowly maturing into a really complete system. We don’t know what Sony is going to do about their workflow options, but it’s clear they are working on compatibility with manufacturers, but how easily the Sony RAW format will work into people’s current workflows is unclear at this point. Certainly everyone doesn’t need 4K RAW, but 2K RAW is also an option on these Sony cameras, something RED will likely never enable on their models. 4K is the next frontier, but it’s clear that a hybrid approach might make the most sense for a modular camera like those from Sony, especially since those cameras can simultaneously record RAW as well as different formats internally.

The real reason this is important, however, is because RED hasn’t felt the heat until now. The Arri Alexa is the go-to camera for mid to high level productions. No one is really using the F65. That means at the mid to low level budgets, you’ve got some decisions to make. Besides everything that’s already out there, you’ve now got at least the F5 as a possible camera many can afford, with the F55 being a more expensive option that will mostly be a rental. There is one important place RED can theoretically beat the competition, and that’s in price. No one is offering a 5K camera that can do 96fps — or at least at the moment anywhere near where people could actually afford or consider using. I think 5K and high frame rates are going to get a lot more affordable tonight.

RED sees the competition, and with Sony withholding pricing information, they’ve got a decision to make. Sony basically gave a hat tip to RED by waiting to announce a price until RED does. The people at Sony could have very easily released an MSRP just like they’ve always done for most announcements and then announced a real price later on. That’s standard practice for Sony and Canon and many others. That’s not what happened here. There is nothing else going to be released in the near future besides what RED might do, and what they’re considering price-wise. That’s a clear indication that they are listening in Japan and they know who their real competition is.

RED will be announcing price reductions tonight at 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific, and there are a few things that could happen as we’ve already speculated about. With Sony announcing a serious competitor for a serious price, we will surely see a sub-$30,000 EPIC. We also could see a sub-$10,000 SCARLET, and unless you got in on the recent RED deal or you ordered before 2012, that’s a serious consideration, especially since SCARLET will have an upgrade path to EPIC. We don’t know what that will be yet, but I wouldn’t put it past RED to do something really crazy, especially since a camera equipped with the new Dragon sensor will have to cost more. A sub-$20,000 EPIC and $5,000 SCARLET would turn the industry on its head completely. I don’t know if anything near those prices will happen, but it’s clear the guys in California are now seriously considering what the guys in Japan are doing.

What do you guys think? Is 1080p/2K the “biggest scam in the history of the film industry”? What do you think RED will do with the price reductions tonight? At what price would you jump at SCARLET or EPIC? How about Dragon? Will you be considering the Sony options instead? Let us know in the comments.

Link: Sony F5 and F55.. — REDUser

Related Posts

  1. 'We Just Aren't Up for the Grief,' Jim Jannard and RED Give Up on June 4th Camera Shootout
  2. RED EPIC-X Now Available for Ordering, SCARLET-X Increasing in Price by $2K
  3. 4K at 60FPS is Coming from Sony, New Cameras Likely Not Far Behind


We’re all here for the same reason: to better ourselves as writers, directors, cinematographers, producers, photographers... whatever our creative pursuit. Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

Description image 129 COMMENTS

  • The revolution will be televised. Exciting times indeed.

  • “Future proofing” is the second thing Red likes to proclaim all too gladly – this may be important for productions able to afford to store and transfer the master until that day comes these films get a 4K distribution of any kind which 90% doesn`t need anyway and downrez to 2K/HD, wrangling excess data around where time is precious and robustness is a prime factor: the shooting and dailies period.

  • Carl Weston on 11.1.12 @ 5:12PM

    I’m so very tired of Jim’s 4k jihad. 2k and 1k a scam, lol!

    • …..1K is HALF the resolution of 1080p.

      • In that case I like 720p to, I’ve shoot with the Hvx200, hpx2000, hpx2700, 720p is more that good enough.

        • 720p… interesting you say that. Scott Billups’ book from a few years back said the same thing for theatrical projection, that 720p was enough given the shitty quality of most projectors, etc.

          Of course, now we have HDTV and HD web stuff, and most theaters are starting to at least think about investing in better quality projection.

      • What’s up with the comment about 4K being 5 times the rez of 1080p, it’s not.

        • It’s 4.3 times the resolution.

          1920×1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
          4096×2160 = 8,847,360 pixels

          • And what resolution is that? Static resolution chart resolution. Is that what we put on films? If you put a filter on a 4K shot production you will see that there is very little over 2K resolution, very few shots, specific frames. You can’t get 4K in motion, or even 2K. Who can pull focus with such precision and how much will be in focus anyway? There is focus error, lens quality, blur from camera and subject motion, and so on. If MTF is high enough even in 720p and there is no compression, it will be sharp enough and project fine in film and 2k. Companies will only step higher than 4K for more profit by enforcing upgrades. Low compression 2K is already more than enough and viewers will get no benefit.

  • Interesting. So since all these other resolutions have been a “scam”, what will happen with all the new media being produced in 1080p currently? For the moment being films can be transferred to 1080p since they’re technically higher resolution, but will1080p have to upscaled later on ? Is it safe to assume that upscaling isn’t favorable towards the image quality either?

    Ultimately, what will happen with this non-”future proof” media output once higher resolutions start to slowly roll out?

    • P.S. I know some projects are shot in higher resolutions, and they can go back to the original footage to pick from. I’m talking about low-budget filmmakers that shoot their projects at 1080p, and they can only picture lock at 1080p.

      • Go watch something shot in 1080p on a 4k display. Can you tell that it is lesser quailty? Maybe I don’t know. But for most people 1080 is good enough (the average home viewer). And when is the market of homes going to have a 4k display? 20 years? I’m not talking movie theaters (even though I think that’s 10 years away) I’m talking livingrooms in America. When is this 4k on every screen revolution going to happen. It will happen when consumers see a definite benefit to upgrading and that requires content available for them to view. I just don’t see this happening anytime soon on a mass scale, which means in America 1080 p is the home viewing standard. It’s taken a decade just to get this kind of saturation for HDTV’s. And that is with a very easy to see benefit to upgrading, and even with that 50% of the homes I go into have the thing hooked up incorrectly so they are not getting an HD picture.

        When the masses say we want 4k people will begin to make 4k content, then people will buy more 4k displays. But I just don’t see that happening in the next decade.

        • Good points, good points indeed. As a matter a fact, a good chunk of people are still transitioning to HD televisions, players, etc. as we type all this.

        • its coming faster than you think, people forget that in the age of highspeed broadband, we no longer need to rely on the broadcasters to deliver content, i mean even youtube supports 4k, and the new i pad, i macs and mackbooks have screens twice the resolution of 1080p, give it 2 years when and i’d be willing to put money on all the apple stuff having 4k displays. as for it being 10 years till cinemas adopt the technology, well i guess i’m living in the future, as my local cinema has sony 4k projectors installed on all 10 screens…

          • No Apple machine is 4K or twice 1920p. No computer or home cinema on the market is 4K. Try buying a 4K display or projector and see how much it costs and what you have to go through to get it. Consumers are trying to save $100 when buying a TV set. 93% of desktops and laptops sold today and low end or mid level systems. 89% of TVs are value models, not top of the range models. There is no market for 4K until it hits very low cost. Think 2% (two percent) the cost it has today. That doesn’t happen in a year or even 10 years.

  • The thing that most excites me about all of this is the price decreasing. This is one thing that the free market and competition are good for. By the cost going down on these, it will likely drive the cost down on many other segments of the market, or sony/canon/red/arri/etc will begin to offer more and better options on their lower cost products. This is good for filmmakers. Particularly the ones at the lower end of the budgets. It gives you more options. It allows you to make a movie that looks more expensive than it is, and that’s a way to build a name for your self and get more work. The cheaper these tools are, the more options I have on my next project. Or the more I can invest in other aspects of the production. It’s a win for us.

    Personally I’m tired of all the strutting about with their tech specs. The same resolution numbers can be produced from a variet of different ways, some clearly better than others. The same with frame rate/shutter. But at the end of the day does the picture serve the story. Soon, if not already, dirctors and DP’s will select a camera cause they like the picture it’s sensor produces, in the same way they used to choose various kodak or fujifilm stocks for the quality of image they produced. I personally would love to shoot on an Alexa, not for any specification or number stat, but because I love the picture it produces. I don’t care for the majority of pictures from RED. That’s my preference. But I can’t curretly afford either of them. But these prices coming down means that my options are opening up. Yay.

    I am excited about what’s happening in this market. Let’s go make movies.

  • I’m starting to think there is more to the story about that truckload of discount Scarlets they sold off a week or two ago. It seemed to good to be true at the time. It may have been a trial run.

  • all this mumbo jumbo about “ks”, seriously, only industry or hobby people understand it, if you ask the generic audience, they still won’t be able to tell the difference between SD and HD, nor would they care for that matter. just because we could shoot in bigger res doesnt mean we should, the world isn’t even ready for 1080p, what the hell is jim talking about

    • It isn’t ready for 1080p? How so?

    • So if the general audience doesn’t know what dynamic range is, then that doesn’t matter either? Hell, why was anyone ever shooting on film once DV cameras came out since no one can tell the difference? And what of all those chumps shooting 70mm, what idiots…obviously it was overkill because most people don’t notice the difference. And hell, people watch mediocre movies by the truck load, so clearly it’s not worth spending more time on the script either since most people won’t care. Let’s just make mediocre garbage for people to consume, why should anyone strive for something better? Let’s just aim for lowest common denominator!

    • this may be an unpopular opinion (but remember, it’s an *opinion*, not a fact!) but i agree with ukle; the world probably isn’t even ready for 1080p, at least in television/web markets. When he wants to watch the next Lakers game, my dad would turn the tv to the standard definition TNT channel, when he could just as easily go to HD. I usually poke fun at him and change it to HD for him, but he has a good point; if he can see the game, he can see the game. Who knows, perhaps he uses his imagination to fill in the gaps that we perceive in standard def?

      Perhaps movie theaters could use 4k as a standard, seeing as how massive and impressive they are. But I believe, at least for the time being, that TV and even web content need not progress past 2k, because at the distance you sit away from the screens, the average person can’t tell/won’t care what resolution it is. Heh, most wireless internet connections (at least in the US) could barely handle 1080p! Imagine internet with 4k content…

      • Thats exactly the point. These thoughts that you described are not new…allot of people on here are getting too excited about 4K…if your 1080p buffers too long just watch some of the few 4K content on Youtube…it chokes…also the 1080i and 720p content on Satelight and cable is struggling so hard…Direct TV 1080i is often 1280x1080i or 1440x1080i heavily compressed and we are now just seeing H.264 being used instead of MPEG-2 for TV…TV always lags behind web. Let 1080p become more full and less watered down like it already is so 4K doesn’t come out the gates half cocked. I love 4K I really do, I have worked with it in NLE’s and it gives me allot to work with and with REDCODE RAW (the few times Ive used it!) lots of color correcting…but I downsample to 1080p and keep my 4K or 2.5K master archived…most of the time I only need 2.5K for projects (even though I only get 1080 *sigh*). We need to build the infrastructure for 4K first…internet speeds are getting faster but not fast enough.

        • I will take lower compression 1080P over 4K. It’s a much better use of bandwidth and I will see less artifacts and an effectively better image quality. Increasing data rate by even 50% massively improves the motion quality.

          If I’m paying for the content, I know 1080p streaming will cost 3x less than 4K streaming at about 3x the data rate. 1080p with lower compression will cost half the 4K bandwidth and look better in any situation. Would I pay more for something I can’t see on most displays and viewing situation? Would a company think about providing such a thing when consumers can’t use it and take all the extra cost?

    • That is so true. The general population doesn’t understand and wouldn’t care if they did. In fact they have already spoken. In general, people prefer convenience and low cost over more dots or better sound. CD was better than MP3 but try and find a Tower Records. Blu Ray is better than streaming but one is growing really fast and the other represents a shrinking space in Best Buy.. At a normal viewing distance, with movie content, it is hard to see the additional resolution of a 4k set over a high end 1080p one. Turn frame smoothing off, and they look fairly ordinary. It makes a little more sense on a 30 foot wide theater screen where they have access to 4k content. Right now, trying to sell us expensive 4k tv’s and projectors without any way of buying new content is an insult to our intelligence. Until there is a way of streaming 4k movies, it will remain the real fraud. 1080p is not a fraud because we all have 1080p screens and can buy movies at that resolution. Surely the fraud is the one where they take 1080p Blu Rays and write “mastered in 4k” on the box to make people who don’t know better think that there is really 4k content for the over priced tv they are trying to sell them. That sounds more like fraud to me!

  • shakezoolah on 11.1.12 @ 6:06PM

    anything above 480p is HD to me

  • 1080p is a scam when it comes to feature films but 2k isn’t. We have been watching films in 2k on movie theatre screens for decades. Jim is just up selling 4k and Its smart marketing. And its working. It is such great marketing that Technicolor just finish restoring Sunset Blvd. and the re-releasing is in 4k. It will be showing at the Chinese Theatre in LA next week.

    On RED price reduction the only way I would buy another RED camera is if the Scarlet was in $6k or less, or if the epic-m (not the epic-x) was under $30k

    • I’ve seen some great films on large screens shoot on uncompressed 1920x1080p…Not a scam!

    • Billy_Dee_Williams on 11.1.12 @ 7:38PM

      I honestly don’t see much of a difference between 2048×1536 and 1920x1080p, and the general public probably won’t see any.

    • The Avengers was finished in post at 1080p, no one will deny that it looked great.
      99.9% of all feature film footage is finished at 2k, the remainder being the occasional IMAX sequence (parts of the Dark Knight, Transformers etc.)

      I’ve worked with 5k Epic footage in post, and its not a significant improvement on the 2k down-res footage that is the norm for RED footage vfx workflow.

      On a cinema screen, I don’t think many people in the world could differentiate between a sharp 2k plate and a 4k plate

  • Has anyone here heard of TV Land?

    They show programming from 50 years ago. Those shows still generate considerable money after five decades. You can watch All in the Family on a 1080p television and it’s tolerable, but it doesn’t look great. The same thing goes for I Love Lucy. The difference is, when TV goes to 4K, whenever it happens (remember, we’re talking about a 50 year shelf life), All in the Family will be pretty much done. I Love Lucy, on the other hand, will look great because it was shot on film. All they have to do is go back to the film vault and remaster for the higher resolution.

    THAT’s what Jim is talking about when he talks about future proofing. Many people aren’t looking far enough ahead. Will studios and production companies go back and remaster shows shot at 4K or higher but were finished at 2K or 1080p, including redoing all of the effects. If it means decades more of syndication money, the answer is probably a resounding yes. As I recall, remastering and rereleasing worked out pretty well for George Lucas.

    Any successful producer will tell you it’s all about the back catalog.

  • Can someone explain this?

    He says 2k and 1080p are a scam…but then says:

    “I am proud to announce that the Meizler Module now supports recording to ProRes to REDMAG Mini cards. You will be able to record 720p, 1080p and 2k in ProRes 422 LT and HQ flavors.”

    I am confused!

    • Translation: “You know how we feel about it but, for those of you who insist on the lower resolutions and other formats, we’ve got you covered.”

    • JH Holloway on 11.1.12 @ 7:27PM

      He has said he doesn’t want to do it but has been beaten over the head for demands for it…
      Who can blame them? At least they are listening.
      I still have to work in Sony HD Cam tape 1440×1080 3,1,1 bullshit….and that’s for a major network…
      Just because post wont roll with the times.

  • “A sub-$20,000 EPIC and $5,000 SCARLET would turn the industry on its head completely”

    It’s crazy, but Reds are the mad men.

  • I REALLY don’t get this obsession over resolution. Just a few years ago 99.9% of us would be more than happy just to have a Canon T2i available for shooting and now we’re talking 4K?!? Sure it is better than 2k just as a Mercedes is better than a Hyundai but that doesn’t mean the Hyundai isn’t good enough for driving around. I think Jim Jannard is losing it (or he’s just a sore loser!). Having personally used both the EPIC and the ALEXA I have to say the ALEXA is so much better in so many ways that make you forget about resolution. Before digital there was super8mm, 16mm, 35mm and 70mm and even though 35mm was “the standard” it didn’t meant that 16mm was a scam… it was just… different! I really feel privileged to be living in these times because there are so many good/cheap cameras for us to make films with that I just can’t be bothered with all that tech talk… PEACE!

  • One thing that won’t change about RED? Their huge ego. On the press and in person.

    • JJ did snub me slightly when i went to shake his hand at a conference. but then i’m not George Lukas.

  • Brian Lucas on 11.1.12 @ 9:44PM

    When I see all these technical mambo-jumbos, I ask myself, what about the story? Great movies and other not so great, but big blockbusters were shot 1080p and even SD 480. Audience won’t notice technical things if you engage them with an interesting story. Said this, I have to admit that anyway we have to care about the quality of the image… But good story first, then technical thing… A good movie starts with a great screenplay, not with people talking about what resolution they are going to have. And yes, people at RED have a huge EGO…

    • Yes I agree! There is allot you can do with 1080p. Act of Valor was 1080p for 90% of it and it shows sometimes, but Shane Hurlburt did a fantastic job ON SET making sure he got the best image possible out of those poor 5D Mk.II’s that often paid the highest price in the name of cinematic patriotism! Jim Jannard, I respect the man but he can be arrogant in a way that is just unprofessional sometimes, I’m not “talking behind his back either” if I sat down had a drink with him Id say it to his face politely because he called allot of cameras “pathetic” and criticized people for there choices…I get it EPIC RED EPIC ITS SO EPIC EPIC!! But not everyone wants, or can use an Epic…I love allot of there ideas and products because they just work and just make sense but Jim has said some things in the past that left a bad taste in peoples mouths…that said I have an account on RedUser and lurk allot and find allot of useful information still even though I only own a t2i I’m an editor and photographer with allot of knowledge.

  • Red makes me laugh out loud!!!
    Jannard brings grist to his mill

  • This is awesome news, I am going spend some money in updating my editing hardware. All these new 4k shooters are going to need some editing power to handle their footage, that’s where I come in.

  • I’m so sick of hearing about 4K. You don’t need it unless you plan to crop in the picture. Dynamic Range, Light Sensitivity, and Color Rendition are FARRR more important.

    Marketers seem to have so much trouble understanding image rendering of sensors, so all they can talk about is resolution.

    Avatar was shot and projected in 1080p and won best cinematography. Enough said.

    • If you’re going to call yourself a DP then act like one. Shoot like you mean it.
      Couldn’t agree more with Trent.

      Light for your camera and frame your shots so they don’t need to be cropped.

      The craft of photography is being eroded by technological innovation.

      • Agreed. RAW shouldn’t be a crutch rather a tool. RAW is really a digital negative but I feel like some people will use it as a crutch…one thing I love about having a DSLR: I gotta work HARD to make that damn image look good! haha

  • Ile Kalivas on 12.8.12 @ 8:55AM

    Red has no doubt made an impact on cinematography but the facts should be separated from the marketing bravado.

  • I love RED, own it and champion the brand.

    But honestly, movies shot on Alexa just look better to me.

    • ikchyadhari on 10.1.13 @ 6:36AM

      i will better buy a canon t4i and few 50 dollar vintage lenses and make a good movie with the money i will save from not buying 4k red camera.

  • Simon Shephard on 01.27.13 @ 5:57AM

    I’m an audio guy and I wonder if the 4K push is the same as the 192k (Hz) push that happened in audio a few years ago? Converters improved rapidly and became capable of recording at the higher rate. After everyone went out and bought these converters, bigger machines/HD’s to handle the bandwidth and upgraded their software, the industry settled back down to 44.1 (music) 48 (film) with the occasional 96kHz – for specific needs such as those recording top end symphonic work without compression. In particular, when the quality of the anti-aliasing filters improved (so that the area above 48/2 Nyquist was not needed to make up for the damage caused by lower quality filters) the perceived need for the higher resolutions receded.
    Now, as I said, I’m from the audio world and don’t have the experience to take a stand on the resolution issue when it comes to moving images but I do wonder. Also, audio is typically recorded at 24 bits and dithered down to 16 for distribution. The move to 24 bits DID make a lot of sense. Perhaps this is the equivalent of dynamic range (in fact, it’s the same thing in the audio world) whereas 192kHz recording was producing files that contained bugger all above around 35-40k and even above 20k (accepted limit of human hearing), little was recordable by most microphones or playable by most monitors.

  • Simon Shephard on 01.27.13 @ 6:06AM

    Of course, there were, and are, those who said there was some (as yet unmeasured) magic occurring above the limit of human hearing and as it was as yet unmeasured, I for one did not discount it. Most of this ‘magic’ turned out to be a lack of the distortions produced by less than ideal brick-wall anti-aliasing filters forced to cut the signal off so sharply, but DSP coding and processing improvements seem to deal with most of this. Another thing, the whole film/digital thing is a mirror of the analog/digital argument in audio. This is still going, but the majority of people use digital for convenience and more importantly, price. Also, and this won’t come as a shock, plugins to give the ‘analog’ feel became pretty good – generally considered as getting 90-95% of the way there, except for a small hard-core of the top mix engineers and the typical rash of audio school students. And, of course, the technological improvements have narrowed the gap. Analog doesn’t sound objectively better than digital any more, it is different and just does certain things to the signal we tend to like. Sound familiar?

  • When some one searches for his necessary thing,
    so he/she wishes to be available that in detail, therefore that thing is maintained over here.

  • ikchyadhari on 10.1.13 @ 6:37AM

    i will better buy a canon t4i and few 50 dollar vintage lenses and make a good movie with the money i will save from not buying 4k red camera.

Comments pages: 1 [2]