Apple sends out invitations for Oct. 16 iPad event: 'It's been way too long'

1910111214

Comments

  • Reply 261 of 287
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member

    I really don’t like that they’re using film for those. If they shoot with an 8K camera, that’s perfect future proofing. Super Hi-Vision’s density is all we will ever need.

    Film and lots of actual set design. I'm actually looking forward to the next Trilogy after those horrible polishing of the originals and horrible prequels.
  • Reply 262 of 287
    wigby wrote: »
    You're not seeing the switch to 4k but that doesn't mean it's not happening. Most things these days are shot in 4k just like having an original 35mm negative. However, most things are finished in 2k or 1080p because there is no established network to run 4k. Any movie or commercial or series has all of these assets stored and 2 or 5 years from now can spit them out as 4K or higher. Of course 1080p content can also be uprezzed and most people wouldn't know the difference the same way most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. iTunes in 4k for instance, would only make a small dent in the situation but it would create ripples and disrupt the industry and that would accelerate everything just like Apple Pay is going to. It all starts with the first hardware entry into 4k or 5k from Apple so let's hope at least the iMac rumors are true.

    If most shooting is done in 4k, 5k, 8k; cool. But I have yet to see any websites stating this to be true. I'm sure there are many to be found, but looking at TV studios I don't see those already moved to 4k, which was my point: I don't expect to see most TV channels delivering their content in 4k in the near future.

    Now a 4k iMac is something different; people get to see 8 megapixels photos @ 100% This would be cool!

    wigby wrote: »
    On the other hand, 35mm approximates 4k closely so everything before then is future-proofed.

    Is it? It was my understanding that we can't compare the two formats, as film negative has grain, and digital, oh well, let my guru Ken Rockwell explain this. Yes, a photographer, but this applies to film too:

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
  • Reply 263 of 287
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    If most shooting is done in 4k, 5k, 8k; cool. But I have yet to see any websites stating this to be true. I'm sure there are many to be found, but looking at TV studios I don't see those already moved to 4k, which was my point: I don't expect to see most TV channels delivering their content in 4k in the near future.



    Now a 4k iMac is something different; people get to see 8 megapixels photos @ 100% This would be cool!

    Is it? It was my understanding that we can't compare the two formats, as film negative has grain, and digital, oh well, let my guru Ken Rockwell explain this. Yes, a photographer, but this applies to film too:



    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm



    You're right. TV studios will be the holdouts. They have the most invested in regular HD so they have the most to spend to upgrade to 4k. However, on the other side you have very affordable 4k cameras, editing systems and streaming HEVCs like h.265. So now anyone with a few bucks can shoot, edit and upload 4k to Youtube. It's only a matter of time before these two (content providers and content creators) meet in the middle. This has already happened in cinema. Most theaters have upgraded to 2k and 4k projectors because every movie file (even the independent titles) they receive is in 4k. This will certainly happen across the internet very soon. It only takes a few big moves and Apple is probably the biggest player and mover. Unfortunately, Apple is traditionally conservative when it comes to embracing cutting edge standards unless it's their own proprietary one. So if they release a ultra HD iMac retina and include h.265 in the next FCPX release, I'll be happily waiting and busy producing 4k content ready for release.

  • Reply 264 of 287
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    ...lots of actual set design.

     

    That I’m happy about. Practical effects still look better than CG in many cases.

  • Reply 265 of 287
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,494member
    wigby wrote: »
    You're right. TV studios will be the holdouts. They have the most invested in regular HD so they have the most to spend to upgrade to 4k.

    That's what I would presume. Ergo, they probably need to replace everything, not simply upgrade a few components. And that will be one hell of an investment. So 4k TV, I just don't see the whole world moving towards anytime soon.
    However, on the other side you have very affordable 4k cameras, editing systems and streaming HEVCs like h.265. So now anyone with a few bucks can shoot, edit and upload 4k to Youtube. It's only a matter of time before these two (content providers and content creators) meet in the middle. This has already happened in cinema. Most theaters have upgraded to 2k and 4k projectors because every movie file (even the independent titles) they receive is in 4k. This will certainly happen across the internet very soon. It only takes a few big moves and Apple is probably the biggest player and mover. Unfortunately, Apple is traditionally conservative when it comes to embracing cutting edge standards unless it's their own proprietary one. So if they release a ultra HD iMac retina and include h.265 in the next FCPX release, I'll be happily waiting and busy producing 4k content ready for release.

    This I can see happening. The HW price is doable for most, and 4k in cinema, as a download, and streaming (to a smaller audience to to bandwidth) I think is indeed happening.
  • Reply 266 of 287

    I think is about both, the Apple Tv And the iPod Touch. Both have not been updated for too long. Also I see the possibility to add a feature to the iPad so it can be used a cash register at point of sales using Apple Pay. That will push the iPad to be adopted in large numbers by lots of businesses. It completes the Apple pay system and makes it easier to adopt and implement.

  • Reply 267 of 287
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    40 million? Is that the new minimal unit sales for first year sales for whether it will be a success or not? That sounds very excessive. What Apple HW product has sold 40 million units in its first year on the market?



    40 million? That's way too optimistic.

     

    It's more like the iWatch is gonna sell some 40 thousand...a totally useless, clunky, DOA device.

  • Reply 268 of 287
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    If most shooting is done in 4k, 5k, 8k; cool. But I have yet to see any websites stating this to be true. I'm sure there are many to be found, but looking at TV studios I don't see those already moved to 4k, which was my point: I don't expect to see most TV channels delivering their content in 4k in the near future.



    Now a 4k iMac is something different; people get to see 8 megapixels photos @ 100% This would be cool!

    Is it? It was my understanding that we can't compare the two formats, as film negative has grain, and digital, oh well, let my guru Ken Rockwell explain this. Yes, a photographer, but this applies to film too:



    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

     



    40 million? That's way too optimistic.

     

    It's more like the iWatch is gonna sell some 40 thousand...a totally useless, clunky, DOA device.




    Ok maybe you don't care for Apple Watch or understand it but anyone with a brain can guarantee multimillion unit sales in the first year so your hyperbole just makes you look ignorant.

  • Reply 269 of 287
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wigby View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    If most shooting is done in 4k, 5k, 8k; cool. But I have yet to see any websites stating this to be true. I'm sure there are many to be found, but looking at TV studios I don't see those already moved to 4k, which was my point: I don't expect to see most TV channels delivering their content in 4k in the near future.



    Now a 4k iMac is something different; people get to see 8 megapixels photos @ 100% This would be cool!

    Is it? It was my understanding that we can't compare the two formats, as film negative has grain, and digital, oh well, let my guru Ken Rockwell explain this. Yes, a photographer, but this applies to film too:



    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

     



    40 million? That's way too optimistic.

     

    It's more like the iWatch is gonna sell some 40 thousand...a totally useless, clunky, DOA device.




    Ok maybe you don't care for Apple Watch or understand it but anyone with a brain can guarantee multimillion unit sales in the first year so your hyperbole just makes you look ignorant.


     

     

    Nope; he's right.

  • Reply 270 of 287

    I really don’t like that they’re using film for those. If they shoot with an 8K camera, that’s perfect future proofing. Super Hi-Vision’s density is all we will ever need.

    Abrams still prefers the discipline of film, which I can respect. Also, you can bet that footage is immediately digitized after its developed.
  • Reply 271 of 287
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Abrams still prefers the discipline of film, which I can respect. Also, you can bet that footage is immediately digitized after its developed.

    The beauty of film is that it can be digitized to whatever resolution you want.
  • Reply 272 of 287
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    The beauty of film is that it can be digitized to whatever resolution you want.

    Plus film negatives can be stored in an archival YCM format that could last more than 100 years, whereas digital formats are continually changing.
  • Reply 273 of 287
    rolyroly Posts: 66member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    Oh my, not this 4k nonsense again. You'll need ?20Mib/s Internet connection for that. The US average out at 10Mib/s, never mind the rest of the world. No, no 4k for many years, no matter what Carl says. Or nut for that matter.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds



    Only South Korea is able to get it. Still, they'll need 4k content, which simply isn't there:

     

    I live in a developing country (Thailand) but have a 30 Mbps fiber optic connection with local provider TOT. I typically see 6 ms ping times (to Bangkok) and consistent 30 Mbps downlink (10 Mbps uplink)......it's the connection to the rest of the world that's still shitty.   ;-)

     

    Most people I know have at least 20 Mbps ADSL....and don't forget that the Apple TV doesn't have to stream in real time, it can take a few hours to buffer. I know that's not a great user experience, but I personally wouldn't mind waiting a few hours to buffer up a full 4k movie, go out shopping and then watch it when I get home. :-)

  • Reply 274 of 287
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,494member
    roly wrote: »

    I live in a developing country (Thailand) but have a 30 Mbps fiber optic connection with local provider TOT. I typically see 6 ms ping times (to Bangkok) and consistent 30 Mbps downlink (10 Mbps uplink)......it's the connection to the rest of the world that's still shitty.   ;-)

    Most people I know have at least 20 Mbps ADSL....and don't forget that the Apple TV doesn't have to stream in real time, it can take a few hours to buffer. I know that's not a great user experience, but I personally wouldn't mind waiting a few hours to buffer up a full 4k movie, go out shopping and then watch it when I get home. :-)

    Lucky you! I envy you as I'm still on old school DSL. 20/1. They did actually put in empty pipes through my neighbourhood for fiber, but their survey showed that only 28% wants to upgrade to fiber. So, without their goal of 30% it's not going to happen now as they don't feel like investing any more than they have already. Now my DSL is fast enough for 4k I just don't see TV broadcast going 4k any time soon. We need content, delivery and a set that can display it.

    Sure, downloading 4k would be cool but regular TV is far from 4k.
  • Reply 275 of 287
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    philboogie wrote: »
    Sure, downloading 4k would be cool but regular TV is far from 4k.

    Shoot, regular TV is still far from true 1080P. The best HD I've seen so far was movies I rented from Vudu.
  • Reply 276 of 287
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    Sure, downloading 4k would be cool but regular TV is far from 4k.

    Shoot, regular TV is still far from true 1080P. The best HD I've seen so far was movies I rented from Vudu.

    Very true. That's why I don't get why people tell me 4k is coming very very soon. I say 4k TV broadcast will take a generation to be a global thing.
  • Reply 277 of 287
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    The beauty of film is that it can be digitized to whatever resolution you want.



    Not really, it has an inherent, depending on grain structure, functional resolution limit beyond which you're just magnifying noise. Sure you can technically create enormous files beyond what's functional but why?

  • Reply 278 of 287
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    jfc1138 wrote: »

    Not really, it has an inherent, depending on grain structure, functional resolution limit beyond which you're just magnifying noise. Sure you can technically create enormous files beyond what's functional but why?

    Noise can be easily cleaned up. I see many old movies converted to HD, and they look phenomenal. Some even look better than movies filmed in HD.
  • Reply 279 of 287
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Noise can be easily cleaned up. I see many old movies converted to HD, and they look phenomenal. Some even look better than movies filmed in HD.



    True. There are film grain control tools in the digital realm that are amazing.

  • Reply 280 of 287

Sign In or Register to comment.