SONY 4K projector May 1st Redcode vs JPEG2000?

[Nik Manning]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/25/s...oming-may-1st/

Looks like Sony is releasing there 4k projectors May 1st. It is huge! Super huge, but what I wanted to talk about was their encrypted JPEG2000 format. It takes 300 gb for a 4k movie. Seems to me redcode is more efficient so is there away to make redcode encrypted for something like this? That would be a marvelous workflow to just go back to redcode as the final viewing format.

When Red says they are making 4K projectors are they talking for home , studio , or movie theater usage?

[Graeme Nattress]

REDCODE leverages RAW, which is great for capture, but useless for delivery though....

We're not talking about the projectors other than we're working on them...

Graeme

[Nik Manning]

Thanks for the quick response. I don't understand however what you mean by useless for delivery? A little more info please.

[David Newman]

Projectors will need a developed RGB (or XYZ) colorspace, RAW only has one primary per pixel and requires demosaicing for full res presentation.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yup, making it efficient for capture, but useless for delivery.

Graeme

[Nick Shaw]

What about REDCODE RGB? In camera data rates may be optimised for the ultra-clean images from the camera, but could it not be used at higher data rates for editing and delivery?

[David Newman]

Depends on the advantages REDCODE RGB can offer over DCI JPEG2000, remember bit-rate advanatages (if there is any) is not a compelling reason for the D-Cinema market (and E-Cinema its name for non-DCI formats.) We know a lot about this as CineForm Intermediate just got picked up for a theatre presentation format in India (press release should be out in a week or so.) Our data rates and quality are very similar to DCI JPEG2000, but our player and encoding costs are significantly lower (no hardware required.) If REDCODE RGB is unique in other compelling ways then maybe it could be a theatre format.

[Graeme Nattress]

There's lots of possibilities in this market due to the DCI spec being a bit silly and way too expensive. It was really designed for film scans, not digitally acquired material.

Graeme

[Chris Kenny]

That article mentions $12,651/screen. Did someone misplace a decimal point?

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, they did muck up the price somewhat....

Graeme