Interesting point about the dynamic range of film vs HD video.

I have always wondered about the dynamic range of the eye / human perception.

"our eyes can see over a range of nearly 24 f-stops."
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

CAMERAS VS. THE HUMAN EYE
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm

How does the dynamic range of the human eye compare to that of digital cameras?
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/21579/how-does-the-dynamic-range-of-the-human-eye-compare-to-that-of-digital-cameras


VMP

and in the end, that FILM, SD, HD, 4K whatever, STILL has to fit inside the tiny displayable dynamic range of the final display -- be it theater projection, home TV or iPhone -- I say the final "MIXED/MASTERED" dynamic range must fit between "here" and "here", thus leveling the playing field tween film and digital.

And whether they capture the same is in the eye of the director and DP... if it needs darkened they flag it, need lit, they light it... so.... film VS digital is a wash to me.

It's exactly like how music is compressed.... NOBODY is listening to full 90db dynamic range on CDs, and not even close to live music.

It's all relative.

Indeed wwjd.

The final display / presentation methode is very important as well.
But that is always up to the end user how they consume it.

I grinch when people view my finely crafted footage and music through their phones and cheapo sounding tablets, but thats what they do.

But it's great to able to capture footage and audio with a large dynamic range at the first place, thats our part in the media-for-consumer-chain, making good source material.
With large dynamic range I mean for example capturing image by which the lightest sky doesen't clip while capturing all the details in the shadow areas.

VMP

Guys, What file sizes are you getting for compressed AVCHD/XAVC 4k recording per hour?

Like the GH4?

Camera recording info

GH4: http://www.panasonic.com/global/consumer/lumix/gh4_video_formats/

MP4
4096 x 2160p / 24 fps (100 Mbps)
3840 x 2160p / 23.98 fps (100 Mbps)
3840 x 2160p / 24 fps (100 Mbps)
3840 x 2160p / 25 fps (100 Mbps)
3840 x 2160p / 29.97 fps (100 Mbps)

Sony PXW-FS7
http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/product/broadcast-products-camcorders-digital-motion-picture-camera/pxw-fs7/specifications/#specifications

XAVC-I mode:QFHD 59.94P CBG, bit rate 600Mbps, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC
XAVC-I mode:QFHD 50P CBG, bit rate 500Mbps, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC
XAVC-I mode:QFHD 29.97P CBG, bit rate 300Mbps, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC
XAVC-I mode:QFHD 23.98P CBG, bit rate 240Mbps, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC
XAVC-I mode:QFHD 25P CBG, bit rate 250Mbps, MPEG-4 H.264/AVC

How can one convert these Mbps value to per hour value?
They must not be constant bit-rate right?

Edit, I just found this chart:
http://www.4kshooters.net/2014/06/25/how-much-hard-disk-space-do-you-need-shooting-4k/

Size per hour
GH4 H.264 42 GB
BMPC 4K ProRes 318 GB
BMPC 4K RAW 741.6 GB


VMP

4k appears to be coming whether it's the right time or not.

Just about everybody has an HDTV these days. The manufacturers NEED them to have a reason to buy a new TV. How do you do that?

They tried 3D and it didn't work.
Next up is 4k. Hey four times the pixels of FullHD! Wow we can sell 'em that way.

Unfortunately I think most people would be better served with a display that has better contrast ratio and viewing angles.

If I were to replace my 2008 52" Sony XBR set today I'd have a hard time justifying a 4k set over a equally priced 1080p set with much better contrast ratio, viewing angles, and color reproduction. Think Vizio 4k vs. higher end Sony/LG/Samsung 1080p.

There is also talk of HDR being the next big thing. I was reading just today about a demo display with 18,000 individually addressable LED backlights with high dynamic range. It won't make it to production but the point is to demonstrate how important dynamic range is when it comes to that "window to reality" aspect of a display.

i think hdr is about as far removed from reality as it's possible to get photographically.

no offence intended ;-)

Why? Lots of HDR going on out there, and some of the latest cameras (Pro stuff included) is building HDR into it.

HDR is enhanced or orchestrated "reality". Just like reality TV broadcasts are related to real reality. It is a science of photography and has nothing to do with documentation.

so, it is the same as color correcting, grading, altering bright/contrast, adding special FX, mixing audio: Designing the visual reality and experience

HDR makes wider fit in to lesser, nothing wrong with that - kind of a sereallistic look sometimes, but brings lots of detail with it. I can see more and more of HDR happening in video ONLY WHEN it becomes much easier to do. People are over doing it to a fake cartoony look, but I see it more like capturing more Dynamic Range - just like Alexa always tries to do.

HDR + HFR + 4K = heaven!! :D

I feel really bad that our society is raising a lot of young people who seem smitten with Vegas as an NLE that have to do nothing better than promote the wizardy of bedazzlement with 4k, HDR, and counting the number of pixels represented by the container of the frame from 3 feet away of their UHD curved screen.

Very bad very bad- no wonder Utube is such a crisis in presentation of ideas with poor story telling tech. Play with the science and admit who you are, and what your attempting to do with your frazzled head.

videoITguy: What ARE you talking about???

He thinks we peaked with 80's broadcast television. :)
Besides, Youtube is filled with people falling down, not kids with the latest toys making quality video.
What makes me sad is that people don't like to progress.

Progress is learning and practicing how to communicate better than what preceded in generations before - something very amiss in todays young populace. I digress as I reflect on how many smart-phone camera users are out there who NOW do not know much about the art of communication thru the photography ability of their equipment or even the voice and text capability of such devices.

HDR is very useful and great when used properly. Most HDR (photographically speaking) is overcooked - to the point where it almost looks like a painting or mythical scene.... fine if that is what you are after, but in the majority of cases, it can be used subtly to enhance areas of the photo that are either burned out or underexposed due to the sensors lack of dynamic range. I use this and a process I call RAW blending to give many of my photos some "pop" but no one would instantly shout HDR. If this is used in video, I'd love to have a bash at it.

Please, stop with broad inaccurate ageist posts. It is discriminatory & offensive. Think of it as a form of racism.

@ushere,

The article I was referring to was in this month's Home Theater Magazine (I think that's the one I get a few of them). To boil it down. What the author was saying is that if you look at an outdoor scene of say a car in broad daylight. The glare spot from the sun will be many magnitudes brighter than the shadow by the curb or wheel of the car. The author has actual numbers but I don't remember them right now. The mag is upstairs...

Anyway the author further states the while the human eye can see the bright spot on the hood of the car as being very bright indeed, it can also make out detail in the shadow. Current display technology can neither reproduce the bright spot on the car correctly and especially not the shadow area. Of course do represent this correctly you would need not only a high contrast display but higher bit rate recordings. I believe they are talking about moving from 8 bit to 12 bit.

Finally it's the authors point that more than resolution or color, it's the lack of contrast that impedes the illusion of the display looking like a window into reality. This was reported from testing the HDR prototype with 18,000 LED backlight zones.

Of course everyone has a different perception of "reality" and what a good display looks like but I found the article worth my time and presenting here.

I hear you. It's my hope that at least some of those young kids evolve their technique as you and I have done over the years.

The earliest "film" I ever did as a kid was pretty awful. I only did one--8mm film cost about $20 for a 4-minute roll ($160 in inflation-adjusted dollars!) so I made sure my masterpiece was no longer than 4 minutes and that every take was a good one.

I actually agree with you there VideioITguy. But the qwest for profits have forced a business hand that doesn't care if it dumbs down the future generations with slick toys and smart phones that allow people to get dumber and lazier. I'm way older than that crowd - and although none of my productions have been rocket science in any way, they were not meant to be. I have yet to WRITE anything for real. I'm just learning to use cameras and make films before trying to do anything "real". But I am enjoying the tech that I can afford at this stage in life and don't mind blazing a path if I don't know others that are already doing it, clearing the path for me.

Yet the world will continue to be plagued with pointless cat videos - what is the rate now: one hour of video uploaded to Youtube EVERY SECOND??
I have faith that the very best CONTENT will always float to the top. And that won't be cat videos.... but guess what is watched the most? ;)

This just came in via email from Sony:

Sony 4K delivers maximum impact

http://www.pro.sony.eu/pro/lang/en/eu/article/projectors-sony-4K-delivers-maximum-impact

VMP

Even if I were ready, my budget is not and will not be until at least 5 years from now.

Sell all the 2k stuff and get a 4k or two? At this time, considering what I have, it is not worth it. A trade-up has to be truly worth it for me.

Five years from now, what will they be selling then?

They need to sell new technology to keep making profits. I need to stop spending so much money on this stuff!

Sure one of the main driving forces behind new tech for companies is selling their gear to make profit. They invent the tech and then work out how they can convince us we need it...... BUT, this has a pretty good side effect for us if we are sensible enough to see through the hype.

I don't feel for a single second I was tricked into moving to HD - sure they took my money gladly and made a pretty profit from me, but I was not forced. Same with 4K. I don't buy too much into the marketing but I see the amazing pictures for myself. I want a piece of that when the time is right. There comes a point for each of us when that is. For me it is always earlier than most, but when it has just broken into the bigger market when it is clear it is going to take off and prices become reasonable. That is not quite yet.

to pilsburypie - I am sorry to say that I think you are somewhat amiss on the thrust of this thread in understanding the world economy. Yes, given a vibrant and growing world economy, then there is continual push to support higher and higher levels of consumption. You sound like a perfect first-adopter in your own buying forecast for future consumption. Well and good, but that is not the state of the economy in general.

Many converse trends, such as gradual diminishing of natural resources, increase in global pollution, tight financial binds on governments and world banking, global warming and upsets in world weather are all going to cut down wild consumption over the next decades.

Yes, 4k will be out there, but who needs it, who can afford it, what good is it?