HD upres on RED 4K monitor

[Mark L. Pederson]

Dear Santa -

I want a 56" RED 4K LCD for my living room.

In addition to playing all my 4K material from REDCODE RGB - please make sure it has sharp scaling for all that LOW RES HD broadcast stuff.

These guys are damn good with upres algorithms ...

http://www.algolith.com/index.php?id=63&no_cache=1

[Graeme Nattress]

They're not the only ones..... :-)

Graeme

[Mark L. Pederson]

LOL! I was pretty confident that would get your attention!

[Graeme Nattress]

It sure did..... But that's the beauty of RED - we have our own magic pixies.

Graeme

[Mark L. Pederson]

Graeme -

This one's for you -

http://archive.computerhistory.org/lectures//pixels_and_me.lyon-richard.ecture.2005-03-23.102656918.wmv

[Emery Wells]

Ill have to 2nd the quality of algoliths algorithms. I believe some of their algorithms were used in the 'revolutionary' Realta HQV processor.

I dont doubt Graeme though! :biggrin:

[Graeme Nattress]

With studio quality sources, there's lots you can do with uprezzing etc, but with other sources, all you can do is make the most of the bad mess you've been handed.... Shame really....

Graeme

[Emery Wells]

Well thats always been Algoliths specialty - dealing with messes.

[Graeme Nattress]

:-)

I like the RED camera approach where you just don't make a mess to begin with.... :-)

Graeme

[Mark L. Pederson]

me too - but you guys can't make cameras fast enough ... and I really like CSI ...

so, I'm pretty damn sure I'll be seeing plenty of Upressed HD on my 4K RED LCD!!

[Emery Wells]

I cant say Id be oppose to having a RED 4k LCD in my living room but If I had to guess... Id guess that the RED 4k monitors will have a more 'professional' price tag and would be intended for 'professional' monitoring. In which case 'pristine' 2k/4k would be mostly what the screens are monitoring.

I would love to have a consumer 4k screen. If the broadcast networks and telecoms insists on 1080i and 720p, I say RED develops affordable 4k monitors with ethernet built in, and we build a 4k IPTV network. :biggrin:

[Mark L. Pederson]

Watch Peter Jackson's new film in 4K ... streaming live over REDWIRE ...

[hmurchison]

I got excited about 4k and was promptly put in my place. It appears that unless you're right in front of the screen at the proper proximity 4K advantages will disappear :(

That sucks but I still think there's a need for 4k acquisition.

[Emery Wells]

The difference between 720p and 1080p is 'indiscernible' to the human eye at a certain screen size/ viewing distance combo. Im sure the same mathematics apply to a 4k screen. I can tell you though, Ive seen a 4k LCD in person and it is stunning. Granted I was quite close but Id be darned if a 4k screen with a 4k source would not be visually more compelling than a similarly sized 1080p set with a 1080p source, at an average home theater viewing distance. The good news is, as the screen gets bigger, you can definitely discern the difference. Gives you a good reason to get a 70" set!

[hmurchison]

Or a projector. I'm reading some good things about the Epson $3000 1080p projector.

Life is HD good. I cannot wait to see a nice 4k display with a high PPI to set off my lust o meter.

Sigh...Rome wasn't created in a day. I'll get there soon enough.

[Tom Lowe]

I can think of several movies I would lose a limb to see at 4K on my RED monitor.

[Stephen Gentle]

Or a projector. I'm reading some good things about the Epson $3000 1080p projector.

Life is HD good. I cannot wait to see a nice 4k display with a high PPI to set off my lust o meter.

Sigh...Rome wasn't created in a day. I'll get there soon enough.

I've heard good things about this too, but we're waiting to see how much the RED projectors are. :biggrin:

[Jeremy Hughes]

I can think of several movies I would lose a limb to see at 4K on my RED monitor.

Were they finished in 4K too? Or are you just dreaming? Or are you talking about interpolation? Or do you want the movie scanned at 4K?

[Emery Wells]

Were they finished in 4K too? Or are you just dreaming? Or are you talking about interpolation? Or do you want the movie scanned at 4K?

Not much point in watching anything on a 4k screen if it doesnt have a 4k source.

Sure a good upres might look 'ok' but 4k monitors are really for 4k sources.

Just like SD looks like crapola on most HD sets...

[Tom Lowe]

Well most modern movies are shot on 35mm, and so if they have been decently maintained, a 4K scan should look marvelous.

[Graeme Nattress]

SD can look rather poor on HD sets, but i'm often amazed at how good some SD progressive sources can look on a computer, blown up to the 23" HD LCD display. But they've never been through composite, which is more than canbe said for a lot of USA "digital" broadcasts.... I mean, for goodness sake, they use SP still!!

Graeme

[Paul Hazlett]

hey I still get plenty of business for my betacam packages....

If they want to use it I am more than happy to supply. heheh.

[Graeme Nattress]

I'm sure you do, but in the UK, SP stopped being a broadcastable standard quite a while back, especially with the move to widescreen. And I'd prefer PAL any day to the "HD" I've seen broadcast over here. It's just not funny what people can do to an image if they don't take care over it.

Graeme

[Emery Wells]

The US is so far behind ::sigh::

[Graeme Nattress]

<Rant>

The major issue I have with USA broadcasting is lack of foresight: With the comming of HD, they knew it was going to be 16:9, yet, surprisingly, TV is still made in 4:3. In the EU, they knew HD was coming, and it would be 16:9, so guess what, about 7 years ago they moved to 16:9 programme making for TV and for all commercials, and it's now practically impossible to buy a 4:3 TV. How's that for foresight, as we know 16:9 SD converts up to HD oh so much nicer than 4:3 SD.

And, knowing they were moving to digital for HD, do they keep the utterly mad 29.97fps or do they say, you know what, let's move to a system where 24fps material gets broadcast as 24fps without that daft pulldown, because, you know, you can add that at the receiving end if you need it, and all displays are going progressive. OK, that's too much to expect, but seriously, they could have gone to true 24.00 and true 30.00 so easily, and think of all those extra seconds a day they'd have for commercials due to the tape running slightly faster.

At least Japan ditched the daft 7.5 IRE setup in the 80s, but again, North America goes on regardless, and even still engineers try to put digital tapes at 7.5IRE when that's the most utterly stupid thing ever to do..... So many lost chances.....

</Rant>

Graeme

[vanguy]

Graeme, I've been looking on Nattress.com for a upres plugin (for FCP preferably) and can't find it. Am I blind?

[Graeme Nattress]

It's an R&D project that's not for sale, I'm afraid.

Graeme

[vanguy]

Crap. Any idea when it'll be for sale? I'm working on a project and could use it June or so...

[Stephen Gentle]

And, knowing they were moving to digital for HD, do they keep the utterly mad 29.97fps or do they say, you know what, let's move to a system where 24fps material gets broadcast as 24fps without that daft pulldown, because, you know, you can add that at the receiving end if you need it, and all displays are going progressive. OK, that's too much to expect, but seriously, they could have gone to true 24.00 and true 30.00 so easily, and think of all those extra seconds a day they'd have for commercials due to the tape running slightly faster.

I thought that Europe was PAL, so they would have 25fps, wouldn't they?

We do in Australia, except I wish that all our HDTV wasn't 1080i... It wouldn't be too much harder to broadcast progressive, would it?

I don't even see why we have interlacing in digital...

[M Most]

<Rant>

The major issue I have with USA broadcasting is lack of foresight: With the comming of HD, they knew it was going to be 16:9, yet, surprisingly, TV is still made in 4:3.

If you're talking about commercials, that's somewhat true. If you're talking about programming, only some live programming and reality shows are still done in 4:3. All scripted programming, with very, very few exceptions (Scrubs comes to mind as one) is in 16:9, essentially all of it posted in HD. That's been the case for almost 10 years now, starting with standard definition 16:9 posting back in 1997-98 or so.

We're not quite as backwards as you seem to believe, although I probably have to agree about the interlace/progressive thing. Not sure I agree with the 24 frame comments, though. Backwards compatibility is an issue when your entire infrastructure is involved, whether one wants to admit it or not. What they did was likely the least painful way of accomplishing that, just as NTSC was the least painful way of accomplishing B&W/Color compatibility back in the 50's.

[Graeme Nattress]

For digital stuff, you could flag the data stream to tell the MPEG2 / MPEG4 data stream what fps it is. As long as you don't try to change that every second, you'd be fine. Or, just like DVD or some HDV camcorders, flag the pulldown fields, but don't actually store them as data, and then if you've got a progressive display, you don't need to decode the 3:2 as picture data, just to have to remove it again in the display. All very possible with yesterday's technology.

Graeme

[Rob Lohman]

It's interesting how even within Europe things can be quite different. A lot of stuff in Holland is still 4:3 SD (at least that's how it's broadcast). Now that digital transmission is gaining a bit more ground I do see more 16:9 stuff. But still almost no HD :(