Marcus Moore
Forum Replies Created
-
He’s right on that- I’m tagging sub Roles on the show I’m on for each character, and they all come in clean as a whistle, tagged and everything. We just need a faster and more efficient way to mass apply Roles to footage.
-
Yeah, I’m not explaining myself.
Moving to this display would give me more horizontal space (not resolution) for the Project timeline, but vertical space is what I need more of in complex Projects.
That’s why I say I’d probably go with two displays over this extra-wide one. Since being able to put the whole timeline to the second display (which we can’t even do at the moment- feature enhancement sent) would give me OODLES of vertical height for the timeline (and a whole 27″ screen’s width too!).
But this ultra-wide screen would definitely be a better single-display option than the current ACD. Same height, extra width for timeline and Event Browser.
-
But it’s not strictly speaking more resolution. It’s still a 1440 pixel high panel. You’ve gained width (and horizontal pixels), naturally…
-
I think I’m mostly referring to sit-coms, like FAMILY TIES or THE COSBY SHOW, which were shot video. In the 90s it seems like they went back to film with shows like CHEERS, SIENFELD and FRIENDS. I’m not sure when these kids of shows moved to digital.
I mean, it’s hard to say what the market for that 80s material is in the long run. But it is always amazing to think that shows from the 50’s and 60’s like LEAVE IT TO BEAVER or GILLIGAN’S ISLAND could conceivably be given a 4K treatment, while shows made decades later will forever be trapped in 480i hell.
-
Ultimately I think that’s exactly what it is- people want Vistavision in their homes- one aspect of that is certainly clarity. Depth and quality of colour is a much harder metric to quantify.
And I think “digital” has a lot to do with it. I think analogue scaling is much more forgiving. If you take an 8mm film and project it in a theatre, the image will be soft, but it will still look “natural”. While digital images blown up past their original resolution degrade in a very unnatural way. I think that’s why resolution IS an important part of the picture.
If you went back 20 years, when all those shows were shot on videotape at 480i- if those people knew that their shows would be technically sidelined in just over a decade, do you think they would have thought harder about shooting on film (since no HD alternative existed)?
-
I mean resolution, not height. Both displays are 1440 pixels tall.
-
[John Davidson] “I don’t perceive this as being a limitation of a single screen. Literally everything can be open. The 34 isn’t just screen size, it’s resolution.”
But it’s no more vertical resolution than a 27″ ACD.
-
It looks very nice, and I’ve heard great reviews. The only disadvantage I see here is the lack of available vertical space for the Project timeline- which is always at a premium. I’d love to be able to throw just the timeline out to the second display, giving me oodles of vertical hight for complex project with no need for scrolling up and down.
-
Considering the lack of flexibility in the FCP X UI on a single screen, I’m still leaning towards a second cinema display. Especially working in Motion on two screens, with one for JUST the timeline (and option FCP X needs) is just great.
There’s been lots of scuttlebutt about a 4K ACD coming in the fall, but I’m honestly thinking I may just get another current TB Display. The way I figure it, a 4K ACD is definitely going to come at a price premium- maybe $2,000-$2500? For that money, I think I’d rather just get another current gen, which still looks great, and then spend my 4K money on a larger TV display for the studio instead, where the resolution will be more noticeable.
The only way I’ll be cheesed off is if Apple releases an 4K display at the same or only marginally more money, but I just can’t see that happening.
-
yes, h.265 is more processor intensive to both encode and decode, but I’d wager not as bad as when we first started encoding h.264 files way back when. And it’s not just resolution, a broader colour spectrum is part of the h.265 spec, thankfully.
As to the 4K vs 1080 “no visible difference” argument, that could be made about any resolution, depending on the size of screen and the distance you’re sitting from it. Many people today aren’t benefiting from 720p vs 1080p, cause they’re watching those 65″ screens they bought from a couch 15′ across their basement rec-rooms.
I can only point to my own personal setup- in my house I have 3 screens I watch movies on. Here’s how I’d benefit. Calculations via https://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/
Living Room, 42″ TV from 9 feet: 0% BENEFIT
Office, 27″ Monitor from 2.5 feet: 300% BENEFIT
Home Theatre, 110″ Projection screen from 8 feet: 299% BENEFITSo I’d benefit enormously in 2 out of 3 scenarios.
As resolutions get higher and higher, yes, absolutely fewer and fewer people benefit. For instance I don’t think I’d benefit from 8K on any of my screens. Which is why digital distribution is the perfect for this- because they can have 20 versions of the same file that they can feed to you depending on whether you’re watching on your iPhone on the train, or your 110″ home theatre. Or, depending on the quality of your internet connection.
Those who want 4K are going to be the same self-selecting group that bought into higher end video formats before. They’ll have the larger screens, be sitting closer for a more “theatrical” experience, and have beefy internet connections to get the highest bandwidth version of files possible.
Sure, it’s going to sell to people who probably don’t benefit- but people get oversold all the time, so that’s nothing new.