I tech specialising in cinema exhibition technology.
I did see this Panasonic, and was told you can load a production quality 3D lut into it as well. It did look great and at the price WOW. It does look like the sweet spot for HDR grading at 1000nits.
This issue here is . do you need to go over 1000 Nits. Does it makes that much of a difference? Does it make a difference for the content type your producing?
I did mention to Bram (Of FSI) that its monitors like the Panasonic that he will need to compete with. Thats where most indy HDR will likely come from.
He made it clear that the OLED used in such monitors will burn in very quickly and that they should not be used for grading (As it is common to sit on an image for a long period).
Would like to get some other opinions on this.
For example, the OLED in the Sony X300 is a different type of OLED that is suppose to be more suited to mastering. (Top as opposed to bottom emissive? Forget the exact description)
In any case, with panasonic and other top of line domestic screens landing quality specs that makes them as good as what we considered production quality, there will be some interesting developments.
I contracted for Kodak on the cineon project back in the day. 2k and 4K were chosen as they were considered to match or slightly better 35/70mm based on what could be archived on a theatrical cinema screen.. (at that time with common film stock used)
Yes. 35/70 "can" look better then those resolutions, however, that is NOT the norm based on typical duplication requirements etc for film to reach a theatrical screen.
This also does not take into account possible digital work (DI) that is so commonly done on every frame in modern productions. Requireing digital transfers. Again best if kept in digital domain and presentation.
Then there is the issue of film degrades when used...
I can tell you. As a person who has worked on cinema film to digital all my life. If I had a choice it would be to see the film on a 4K 6P primary laser. Typically the Barco.. would look better then the 70mm.. (in my opinion) argue all you want. Based on my experience it would be the best result..
Apart from the proprietary Dolby Vision. Ok yes that is currently the best..
But then we could get into what possible with the Samsung new emissive cinema screen. 700 nits. Again even better picture but crap sound .. and not possible as yet as I am not sure if they have come up with a new mastering technique to target the screen capabilities.
It's always moving guys.
Finally. I don't begrudge this 70mm release. If anything it's an effective marketing technique.
Good on them keeping our heratige of film going..
Yes, you are very right. I have been doing some tests using Linux/Windows/MacOS of similar hardware sets doing some CPU intensive video encoding work.. With a very multi threaded codec. Basically it comes down to under windows/Mac, over 8 cores, the limitation of the OS makes high number of CPU systems chock. Linux was twice as performant on the same system (Target system was a dual core 2x12core/48thread. Linux killed the others in terms for taking advantage of the horsepower.. And we NEED this horse power moving forward with 4K and high bit depth workflows needed for HDR.. HDR will become standard, and time is money. These super powerful systems are becoming cheaper and very affordable (Sorry Apple, your a phone company now.. sorry to see you leave the high end pro market behind)
As such, Linux is needed..
And considering Fusion is Linux. They must be thinking about this. as the reason they released Fusion under linux as there is a need for it.
Resolve and its need to hardware compatibility etc makes it a harder path.. But again. we need to go there. God knows, even WIndows, bastardised with its focus being on building services etc for the mass market makes it less and less suitable for the pro market and stable, non-changing workstations..
I highly advice others to go sign this partition so that PeterC will allocate more resources to the Linux version of Resolve for the Free/Studio markets as well.
Other interesting news. From my understanding, there is quite a large move away from Apple at the moment due to the limitation of Apple and its hardware not moving with the needs for Revolve users.. Obviously this is towards Windows, as Linux version.. you need the $30,000 dongle that is the control surface..
Especially now we have 64bit native ProRes (Import) support in Windows/Linux. The need to stay with Apple and best compatibility with camera ProRes files is gone..
Wolfcrow has made some great videos, but I would have to disagree with this video from nofilmschools perspective. It completely misses the issues that affect choosing aspect ratios for those targeting a theatrical (in commercial cinema) release.
Firstly I would point out this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bryGMHgSc9g by Jerry Piece who is the Chairman of the ISDCF group. (InterSociety Digital Cinema Forum), a group including all the studios and industry experts whose job it is to make cinema work around the world.
This video came about due to a few non-standard aspect ratio films coming out.. I remember one was Tomorrowland. Its aspect ratio is 1:2.20, in a Flat container.
"Whats a Flat container?" I remcommend you check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives as it has all the resolutions and specs for 2K/4K.
But in essence, all cinemas around the world are set up to show ONLY these two aspect ratios. They can be modified in many cases, but in the new digital world of automated boothe, moving away from these standards is fraught with problems.
Jerry Piece;s video is a good starting point, but in some way I feels it is not very accessible and was considering making something that explains it with more depth.
This is a big reason why I started my CineTechGeek channel on cinema technology 8 or so years ago, as I have always felt the best way to understand how a image will appear on screen is to understand the process from camera all the way to projection. Unfortunately many seem to treat the process from master to projection screen as a black box.. And I can tell you a lot can go wrong between those steps..
So I recommend those interested to check out my channel too.
Otherwise, are people interested in a video that goes into more detail on exactly why it is this way? Not just a video saying. do it this way?
Thats a good move by RED, but I hope they also adopt VC-5 or the open version of Cineform when its finished. It is a better codec (Better pixels per byte then DNxHD) and has more capabilities that make it especially important going forward with HDR. Its also far more future proof etc..
The only issue is that it would devalue REDCODE as it can do a REDCODE type compression that you don;t need a RED-ROCKET. Its not as complex a compression (REDCODE is based on J2K), VC-5 is similar but 1/8 as had to compress. (Ie about 8x faster to encode/decode) then something like J2K. But has about 15-20% extra size. (Some more disk and runs real time on anything, or REDCODE and runs slow or needs a RED-ROCKET.)
Bring on VC-5.. I think it is looking like the better path. Disk is cheap.
Gee.. some hate speech on Adobe.
Competition is good. But even when BMD reach a very usable level with editing on Resolve, its not going to displace Adobe or Avid. The tools are all different and fit different markets. Adobe has been a huge winner of late as FCP retracts to more of the Videographer, videoblogger and corporate level tool, Adobe the best middle ground. Avid, the feature and incumbents. Resolve really has a place with those doing features and better then 709 finishing from what I see.
Apple and FCP looks interesting but professionals or larger companies are not willing to take the risk of the next big application Apple kills of, or sells of. Who knows. Apple have done a very poor job with corporate level customers. They really are a consumer focused company. (Not that there is anything wrong, there is more money in editing there then any other part of the market. UNIT SALES!!!)
From what I hear, I see Resolve doing well with those going to cinema/P3 as the offline editing system (Whatever) transition into a online colour tools is always difficult. Offline and Online in the same tool is a "more for less" path.. And at the level of many a indy film maker.. that is the road most taken.