October 3, 2013

Submit Your 4K Short Film to Sharp's 'The Art of Amazing' 4K Film Competition

Ready to put your 4K filmmaking to the test? Well, now that Sharp has launched the world's first  THX Certified 4K Ultra HD TV, they're partnering with THX and RED to enlist filmmakers to compete in their 4K Film Competition "The Art of Amazing." If you're looking to get your 4K work out there, read on to find out the details on how to enter, submission requirements, as well as information on prizes.

Sharp is seeking short 4K films that are 4 minutes or less. Given the name of the competition, these films should capture something "amazing" using concepts like "energy, light, and scale.” Sharp defines amazing as, "the impeccable interaction of energy, light and scale. It's full of dynamic, precisely directed energy. It glows with crisp, radiantly bold light. Its scale is larger than life, its proportions exact.”

That leaves the door open to all sorts of films, be them narrative, technical, abstract, experimental -- essentially anything that you think will amaze the judges and the voters. Also, obviously, it must be filmed in 4K.

Four finalists will be selected on November 14th by a panel of judges represented by Sharp, THX and RED. These finalists' films will then be voted on by fans from November 14th through December 4th by "liking" Sharp's Facebook page and choosing which film they like best. The video with the most votes will be the winner. Submissions will be judged based on their creativity, technical quality and the use of required elements.

Now, on to prizes. The four finalists will receive a trip to Hollywood for the Shot on Red Film Festival (December 4th and 5th.) The winner will receive one of Sharp's 70” Class AQUOS® 4K Ultra HD LED TVs ($7,499.99,) as well as a trip to CES 2014 from January 7th to January 10th in Las Vegas. Their film will play live in the Sharp booth, which might give the winner's film a chance for exposure.

A couple of stipulations to keep in mind are:

  • The contest is open only to legal U.S. residents that are 18 years or older.
  • Your film must be original, but could have been submitted in other competitions.
  • Submitting your film grants Sharp and its distribution partners to use stills and video content for promotional purposes.
  • You can enter multiple films.

For more info on requirements and guidelines, make sure to read the submission form carefully.

To enter, first "like" "The Art of Amazing" Facebook page, which gains you access to the submission form. Once you're done filling out the form, you can email it to 4KFilmCompetition@SharpUSA.com. Be sure to put your film on a USB 3.0 hard drive or flash drive and mail it to the address given in the submission form. All submissions must be received by November 8th, 2013.

What do you think? Does this sound like a competition you'd like to enter? Have you heard of some other 4K only competitions? Let us know in the comments.

Links:

[via Indiewire]

Your Comment

28 Comments

I would be careful about submitting to this competition. It looks like you are giving away the commercial rights to your film. "Submitting your film grants Sharp and its distribution partners to use stills and video content for promotional purposes."

October 3, 2013 at 4:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Daniel

I'm wondering if the payoff of being recognized would make it worth it. Wouldn't that actually make giving those rights of that one video away a profit? Sharp would be circulating stills and clips from that video at their expense.

October 3, 2013 at 9:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
Gene

Wait. If a film is really exhibiting "The Art of Amazing" it shouldn't matter if it it's 4k digital, or on expired 8mm film. If someone can really make something great, the resolution won't matter. If Sharp really wants stock footage for their TVs why don't they just hire out?

October 3, 2013 at 5:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply

What if I made a film using my 500D but just put 4 clips in a grid. The final would be 4K, but the content may be questionable.

October 3, 2013 at 6:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Tyler

4K and sucks = IN
HD and awesome = OUT

I know industry is on a mission but this is an awkward and imo wrong way to promote the "need for 4K".
That's coming from someone owning a 4K camera.

October 3, 2013 at 6:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
hansd

Jeez. Sharp is giving away something for nothing. Rejoice one and all!
.
PS. Prices for 4K/Quad HD sets are falling rapidly. These are currently available or soon-to-be-arriving models : http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57605520-221/price-comparison-every...
.
I reckon the machinery to take that footage is going to be available en masse as well.

October 3, 2013 at 7:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

4
Reply
DLD

Thanks for that link. I'm salivating for that 39" Seiki to come down to around $500.00!! HiSense isn't on that list. They're bringing a line of 4K tvs to WalMart some time this fall. They have Android-Smart OS in them.

Really not a well done interview of HiSense. But you'll get a little information on the company:

[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KzFvhxKtn0 ]

October 3, 2013 at 9:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Seiki, Sony, Samsung---and now Sharp---going to 4K in tvs. Is there any doubt 4K tv broadcast is soon on the way? ESPN wants to be up and running with 4K tv broadcasting by early 2015. They are building a large, 4K tv studio that is projected to be completed by the end of 2014. They may broadcast 4K via the internet first. But who knows, with how fast the video world is going 4K we may see 4K tv sooner than we thought.

I hope some commenter from nfs is the winner of this contest! Is Joe Marine going to submit something?

October 3, 2013 at 8:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gene

they can't even handle fullHD by now but marketing already convinced you, the consumer, to need to upgrade to 4K. Just don't buy it and wait.

October 4, 2013 at 2:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
hansd

You seem like a troll hans

October 4, 2013 at 4:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

just ignore me and buy that 4K TV ;)

October 4, 2013 at 5:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
hansd

I actually think Gene works for some company tryng to promote 4k, seems pretty obvious from the way he attacks anyone who has anything negative to say about 4k/RED. Also he's always insisting on how 4k is coming and how vital it is. You make the very obvious and accurate statement about broadcast not even being able to handle HD- perfectly correct and of course he calls you out for being "a troll".
The way 4k is being marketed right now is just so laughable and i'm a RED owner!

October 4, 2013 at 5:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
andy

4K will be streamed (and is already being streamed, in fact). The broadcast, if one thinks OTA/free TV as such, is not likely to be involved here as it was with the roll-out of the HD. Instead the shows will be made available online for streaming or download (YouTube and Amazon are already allowing the latter). Netflix has been reported to want to do 4K by 2015 with their own in-house compression system that is similar to HEVC but royalty free. One would probably need at least 13 MB broadband to watch something in real time.

October 4, 2013 at 9:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DLD

man are you silly andy

and BTW, when did i ever say it is vital??

October 4, 2013 at 11:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

andy,

do you use any names other than "andy" to post comments on this blog?

October 4, 2013 at 11:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Gene

andy

you overlooked this comment above from hans

"4K and sucks = IN
HD and awesome = OUT"

Sounds like a troll, doesn't it.

October 4, 2013 at 11:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

"hansd on 10.4.13 @ 5:59AM

just ignore me and buy that 4K TV ;)"

I will be buying at a 4K tv to be used as a monitor as soon as a video card manufacturer makes a low cost 4K resolution video card. I am sure it is not just me that will be happy to do it. I can't see why there is this putting on the brakes when it comes to higher K's. Higher K's clearly look better than 1080p. You say you own 4K. Why did you go to 4K? 4K is coming into the video world and there is nothing to stop it. And hey, I don't work for a company that needs to pay people to put comments on the internet to help sell 4K. 4K is better than 1080p. 6K is better than 4K. 8K will be better than 6K, and so on. Isn't that great! :-)

October 4, 2013 at 11:35PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

DLD,

there's a few cities in America that have well beyond 13MB internet.

October 4, 2013 at 11:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

An average broadband speed in the US is 8 MB. With HEVC or a similar tier compression, one could stream a 2.5K footage at that speed reasonably well.

October 5, 2013 at 12:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
DLD

I understand. But I meant that a few cities have Gigabit internet.

October 5, 2013 at 12:44AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

3
Reply
Gene

Hi Gene, no i dont use any other name on here. I dont mean to offend but i find the way 4k is being thrown about quite silly. The best image out of a digital camera is 2.5k(alexa), simply because instead of just being about "look at all our k's" they have actually concentrated on things that do make for a nicer image- colour, dynamic range, highlight roll off etc. But maybe thats because i dont like super sharp, plasticy, digitally images. Film is beautiful and digital hasnt really gotten that close in terms of mimicking it imo. Everything seems to be about hyping up the amount of resolution cameras can give when that isnt improving the image at all. On top of that, we all know the tv manufacturers are pushing it just because it means you need a new tv, just like 3d. There were high level studio people throwing around phrases like "in a few years time people wont even know that there were none 3d films" as if every none 3d film would be rendered obsolete. Personally i find 3d ridiculous and it takes me out of the film world. Much in the same way that over sharp high frame rate digital(the hobbit) looks too real(or like a day time soap as many have said), what we need is a greater divide between the audience and the screen, more allusion if you will, not less. that is the quality film has and digital lacks. Here in the UK they arent even broadcasting proper hd. Does a 4k image actually even look any better on a 40 inch tv than true hd? The screens people watch content on are getting smaller not bigger arent they?

October 5, 2013 at 4:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
andy

I keep seeing the same debate, filmic vs. digital. I've ask this question a few times: will the generation growing up with digital think the same thing about how film looks as those who grew up with film. The upcoming generation may think film looks dull and outdated.

3D didn't catch on, in part, because it gave headaches to people. There's also warnings now that children shouldn't use 3D-for-TV glasses since it can affect brain development. 4K does look better than 1080p/BluRay. And for that reason people will buy it. The general public moved up from VHS to DVD because it looked better, and, was also easier to use. Then, they moved to BluRay because it looked better than previous DVD--not because of a marketing scheme. And I know they will move 4K since it looks better than BluRay---not because of big business marketing.

I think what's going on with 4K is the opposite of what you are saying. I think manufacturers are putting it into the public because people want it not because they want people to want it.

I'm not even going to be looking for 4K tv broadcasting via traditional broadcast. I will be looking for tv to be streamed in 4K over the internet. I will also buy a 4K DVD player when they come out, not right away since the 1st generation will be very expensive. 4K DVD movies will look even better than 1080p. 4K already looks better than 1080p over the internet and we haven't even seen 4K in full 4K resolution. I am certain that Americans will buy 4K DVD players, and rent and buy 4K DVD's when the see 4K in its fullest resolution.

I don't think 4K is a marketing scheme just like I didn't think DVDs were a marketing scheme to attract people away from VHS, and just like I didn't think BluRay was a marketing scheme to attract people away for previous DVD quality. These all improvements that people could see. And since they could see it for themselves they wanted it---and not because marketing personnel at the headquarters thought they could convince people it was something better. It's always easier to sell something to people that sells itself than to try to convince people the thing you are selling is better than what they have now---even though they can see for themselves it isn't. 4K sells itself just like BluRay sells itself. I have stood by poeple at store who are checking out 4K tvs. I hear them say it looks awesome, they want it, but it's too expensive now, they will wait, and they want the DVD player that would go with it but it isn't available yet, so they are waiting.

I can't agree with you that ARRI looks better than Red. I was at Best Buy about a month ago and they just so happened to have Life of Pi and The Hobbit playing next to each other. Side by side comparisons are always very telling. The Hobbit did look better. It was more fascinating to watch. And yes, it did look more life-like. But I don't care that it did. I wouldn't have wanted film grain added to it to make it look 'filmic'.

I'm not only happy to have 4K when I can get it but I am looking forward to 6K, or 8K monitors. Apparently 16K is feasible with currently know materials. I am wondering how high ISO can go with a 16K sensor. Will it be able to see in the dark? I am very curious to see what video from a 16K sensor would look like.

October 5, 2013 at 5:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

5
Reply
Gene

My screens are getting smaller. I have a 21" 2K HP monitor, and a 60" 1080p tv I use as a monitor too. The bigger the better.

October 5, 2013 at 5:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gene

typo: aren't

October 5, 2013 at 5:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

1
Reply
Gene

Download the 108.88 MB file from YouTube of this 4K video and watch it on a player in your computer.

[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDMP3i36naA ]

Then download a 1080p file and watch it. See which looks better.

October 5, 2013 at 5:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Gene

Try this 28.79 MB file made from a phone:

[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6-ms7H_ouc ]

October 5, 2013 at 6:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
Gene

I will upscale and sharpen my short, nobody will see the difference.

October 3, 2013 at 10:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

0
Reply
Marcus

If It's from a Canon dslr Your footage is already uscaled from +- 640p To 1080p, the image won't hold up if you upscale to 4k...

October 4, 2013 at 4:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:21AM

2
Reply
henri108