backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 39 comment(s) - last by dever.. on Jun 29 at 1:21 PM

Oceans 13 was mastered with HP Media Storage and 4K Digital
HP sets up Warner with massive storage for 4K Digital movie-making

HP is lending a hand to Warner Bros. Entertainment in helping it store the data needed while in the post production of new films, as well as the restoration of older titles.

HP Media Storage is helping Warner Bros. move to an environment that uses 4K Digital, the industry’s highest resolution format for digital video, which provides four times the resolution of today’s HDTV.

Using HP Media Storage, creative teams can store and retrieve the massive 4K files in real time while working on the task of transforming a director’s raw footage into a finished movie that will be ready for distribution into many different formats, such as 35 mm and digital cinema screens, high-definition discs, Internet TV and mobile devices.

At its Motion Picture Imaging (MPI) facility, Warner Bros. uses HP Media Storage to support high-resolution post-production tasks such as dailies, 4K digital intermediates, color correction, mastering for cinema and high/standard definition video, digital clean-up, and laser film recording.

One concern of film purists is that digital formats are unable to retain all the information captured by celluloid, though HP and Warner believe that their 4K digital masters preserve enough information to guarantee the value of the film for future generations and presentation technologies.

“HP studied our post-production processes and worked with us to deliver a flexible storage solution that supports our directors’ creative needs – and allows us to work at the quality we consider essential,” said Chris Cookson, president of Technical Operations and chief technology officer, Warner Bros. Entertainment. “Working in 4K generates enormous amounts of data and HP has made storing and retrieving that data effortless, while helping to streamline the post-production process. The bottom line is we can now meet the creative needs of filmmakers as well as the image quality demands we have as a studio. HP has helped us make that possible.”

Warner Bros. relied on HP Media Storage to produce its recent titleOceans 13. To see a video of the Warner facilities and 4K process, click here.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Well, now they're future proof...
By Das Capitolin on 6/27/2007 11:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
Well, now they're future proof... at least until the future become the present, and we have HDTV's diplaying these movies at the 4K rate they offer. 1080P is great, but it won't be very long before that's old news.




RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By smilingcrow on 6/27/2007 11:38:42 AM , Rating: 1
1080P = 1920 x 1080 = roughly 2 mega pixels.
So does 4K = 4 mega pixels?
Hardly a quantum jump!


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By ForumMaster on 6/27/2007 11:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
if you read the article, is says four times the resolution of today's HDTV's. so i'm assuming 8 mega pixels?


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By colonelclaw on 6/27/2007 12:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
4k res is 4096x2160 = 8847360 pixels

i assume 1 megapixel = 1000000 pixels unless for some weird reason it follows the binary system in the same way bytes do


By glenn8 on 6/27/2007 12:15:01 PM , Rating: 3
From wikipedia it's confusing as there are several "4K" resolutions ranging from 7 to 9.7 megapixels:

Sony 4K
4096×2160 1.85:1 8,847,360

Academy 4K
3656 × 2664 1.37:1 9,739,584

Digital cinema 4K
4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#Te...


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By TomZ on 6/27/2007 12:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on the aspect ratio. If you assume 2:1, then the resolution is 4096H x 2048V ~= 8MP, but if you have an aspect ratio of 1.33, then it would be 4096H x 3072V ~= 12MP.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By Oregonian2 on 6/27/2007 2:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that "2 megapixels" calculated that way is equivalent to about 6~8 megapixels counted the way digital cameras do (they count the red, green, and blue (etc) dots separately as pixels while the screen resolution count has each RGB triplet as a single pixel).


By dubldwn on 6/27/2007 2:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
Really? I didn't know that. So, a single frame of 1920x1080 video is what would be considered a ~6.2MP photo? Thanks for the post - that's interesting.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2007 4:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "Keep in mind that "2 megapixels" calculated that way is equivalent to about 6~8 megapixels counted the way digital cameras do (they count the red, green, and blue (etc) dots separately"

Incorrect. My 5MP camera has a maximum resolution of 2592x1944. That's 5.03 million pixels...or 15 million, if you attempted to count RGB subpixels.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By Oregonian2 on 6/27/2007 6:04:11 PM , Rating: 4
Sorry, you've been "had" by the digital camera industry. It outputs that many pixels in the files that it produces, but it's being faked in software. If it's a 5MP digital camera, the optical CCD or CMOS sensor has 5 Million sensors TOTAL, typically half of which are sensitive only to green, a quarter only to red, and a quarter only to blue (Kodak now has a new pattern for the split). Software then fakes it into 5MP the "regular" way with 5 million of RGB triplets. Some cheap cameras fake the output file resolution to an even higher ratio. Foveon sensors actually pick up all three main colors at each sensor spot -- but they multiply that number several fold in advertising in order to give "equivalent" performance as not to be beaten by the marketing fluff numbers everybody else uses. Note that scanners don't do that, they actually have an R, G, and B sensor for each pixel in their normal output files.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By Oregonian2 on 6/27/2007 6:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - To be fair, the Bayer-pattern and processing yields better than having the number of sensors divided by three and doing direct mapping to output file pixels. At least typically (there are special cases like a room that's lit by pure red light where ONLY one fourth of the sensors have any luminance output at all and the rest all having nil-output). So when I say 'software faked', it's not totally faked, but only partially faked. I suspect Kodak's new replacement for the Bayer pattern is a great deal better (although still faking things, it fakes less for the luminance which is more important that the color resolution -- and fakes the color resolution more as the tradeoff).


By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2007 11:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies; you are correct.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By CCRATA on 6/27/2007 12:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
not really. If you do the research you can see that on most TV sets from average viewing difference a person cannot physically see the difference between 1080p and 720p. Going above 1080P would be useless for tv sets <100" in size, unless of course you want to sit 2 feet from you 60".

http://www.hdtvsolutions.com/HDTV_Viewing_Distance...


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By paulpod on 6/27/2007 12:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
This is a misleading argument because if everyone had a 1080p TV, the average viewing distance would come down.

I watch on a 1920x1200 LCD monitor driven in 1:1 pixel mode from and ATI graphics card. (There is a small letterbox effect going from 16:10 to 16:9) Source is a Fusion HDTV tuner.

With 1080i material, I am compelled to pull in close because of the awesome clarity. Wide shots on golf broadcasts are stunning.

720p, however, never looks sharp at close range, in spite of ATI's scaling which works without introducing artifacts but can not make up for the missing pixels. I have to pull back from the monitor on a 720p broadcast until the lack of sharpness matches my perception how sharp things should look from a given distance.

Fox and ABC should be embarassed and had better be planning an upgrade to 1080i to coincide with wider 1080p TV adoption.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By TomZ on 6/27/2007 12:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Many sources I've read say that 1080i give no noticable improvement over 720p. Can I assume you would disagree with that statement?


By Oregonian2 on 6/27/2007 2:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking about current implementations or what the format could do if the infrastructure was made for it?

If higher res were standard, the source and delivery system would move up in quality to match what can be shown. For instance, if the source is an upconverted SD DVD , going to 720 will help a lot because a normal SD set doesn't show all that a DVD can do. But going to 1080 from such as source directly (or one that was converted at the TV station previously) won't show improvement because the source isn't that good. So in the short term it makes no difference, but in the long term (if 1080 were the normal receiver) then the improvement would be visible later on.

And as has bene mentioned, once higher res is the norm, TV sets will be bought larger (or people sit closer) to take advantage of it and to be more theater like.

P.S. - And again, my mother once showed me some REALLY HORRIBLE fuzzy pictures of my sisters (that reel sort of film format, I forget its name) and asked me if I didn't think those photos were really wonderful! Some won't see improvement even if it were tremendous. Depends what one cares about. :-)


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By Whedonic on 6/27/2007 2:31:53 PM , Rating: 3
I for one do notice the difference between 720p and properly deinterlaced 1080i.


By Clenathan on 6/27/2007 4:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
Depending on your TV (I have a 46" Sony RP), I also agree that's it's very easy to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i. Live sports games look noticeably different - 1080i has more vibrant colors but gets fuzzy/static when the camera pans from left to right while 720p is always smooth and without fuzziness/static but is not as sharp/vibrant. Personally, I do not have a preference as each resolution has it's own advantages.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By Brockway on 6/27/2007 1:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
Of course viewing content at non-native resolutions will look blurry. My laptop has the same 1920x1200 res, and running games at anything below 1600x1200 looks god awful. I've never tried tried this, but watching 720p content on an actual 720p display probably looks much better than upscaling to fill a 1080p screen.


By kextyn on 6/27/2007 1:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If you are watching 720p on a 1920x1200 screen the video is either stretched or you scaled down the resolution on the screen. Either way it's not going to look like 720p should. On my 19" LCD which has a native resolution of 1280x1024 I can put it down to 1024x768 but it's noticeably blurry and nowhere near as sharp as the native resolution.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By CCRATA on 6/27/2007 2:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
One I was referring to 720P tvs vs 1080P tv's displaying their native res.
Two. No its not going to shrink average viewing range. People will not sit closer to their tv's as resolution increases. If you read the entire article you would have come to the part about optimal viewing ranges depending (The tv should consume 30-40% of your viewing range). Thats not going to change simply because of higher resolutions. People aren't going to want to have to move their eyes back and forth to watch tv. They like it to be consumed in their area of focus so they can see all the action. Hence going above 1080P will pretty useless since you have to be within 6'5" of a 50" tv to get the full effect of 1080P whereas optimal viewing range is 5'8.5" - 8'. Upping the resolution is only going to shrink the distance you have to be from your tv.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By MPE on 6/27/2007 2:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
The often quoted 'lack' of perceivable difference between 720p and 1080i is misleading.

People often do not realize that test comparison is based on 720/60 (aka 60 frames per second) and 1080/60i (30 interlaced frames per second.

Human visions perceive higher resolution not only because of 2D dimensions (H x V) but also over time (frame rate). Since 720/60p (the standard 720 format for TV broadcast in North America) has twice the frame count 'resolution' the difference between that and 1080i is not perceivable.

If you actually count the actual resolvable resolution per second

((1920 x 1080) x 30) x Kell Factor = 55987200
((1280 x 720) x 60) x Kell Factor = 49766400

Compare to the raw numbers of 20739600 pixels vs 921600 pixels the difference is not as huge in reality.

The proposed 1080/60p format is of course a different story. :)

Nevertheless, most TV in America is nowhere near these numbers for many reasons (reception, actual TV resolution, viewing distance, noise, interference, compression, etc).

HTH


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By dever on 6/27/2007 12:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about average... some of us want to put our 20/15 vision to good use.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By TomZ on 6/27/2007 1:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, 20/15 may be average for Americans. I noticed years ago that my vision was 20/10 to 20/15 when I am wearing my contact lenses (i.e., all the time). According to my eye doctor, they typically do "overcorrect" your vision down to 20/15, instead of 20/20. If that is true, then if you count all those folks with corrected vision, there are probably a lot of us who effectively have 20/15.


By killerroach on 6/27/2007 2:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, make me feel even worse about my eyesight than I normally do (mine is 20/250 in one eye and 20/500 in the other)...


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By archcommus on 6/27/2007 12:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, this should be pretty future proof. I don't think standard household TVs will be above 1080p for a long time, if ever. There's simply no need. And this 4K resolution is probably more than sufficient for digital cinemas.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By dever on 6/27/2007 1:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
Join the long procession of people who've claimed that things won't progress past current technology. Read your statement again in 15-20 years. "Simply no need." Maybe not, but it will eventually happen nonetheless.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By TomZ on 6/27/2007 1:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - technology often plows ahead pointlessly, ahead of actual needs. For example, 10MP or higher resolution on digital still cameras is of no practical value to practically anyone, but still I predict we'll all be buying 20-30MP cameras for our family pictures and shots of the Grand Canyon in 5 years.


By Oregonian2 on 6/27/2007 2:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
I sure hope so. While looking through pictures on my computer (where they are stored), I love hitting the "+" key repeatedly to drill-down on a section of a photo to see the detail. Love it!

If all one is going to do is print 3x5 prints on one's printer with it (full photo) then I agree that'd be useless (but such as waste!).


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By dever on 6/29/2007 1:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think technology "plows ahead pointlessly." Most of the time there is some demand from the consumer. If not, you wouldn't see it thrive in the marketplace. You can try to make value judgements on what is necessary, but that is an excercise in futility.

Speaking of which, I was just answering a question at one of the photo clubs I attend, and the gentlemen wanted to crop in close, but his two+ year old camera just didn't have the resolution. I understand the resolution trade-off with small sensors, but resolution is not irrelevant to the average person.


By Oregonian2 on 6/27/2007 2:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely right! "Never" is a VERY long time. We advanced from SD to HD in only 70 years or so, and that's nowhere near "never". Mind you, it may not move another notch until all of us are dead, but our children or their children may see the next move up before death.

In any case, if it only improves in resolution I'd be disappointed. I'd hope that it'd at least get to be stereoscopic first. A MUCH larger jump in improvement than just resolution (especially that there is a definite trend for movies to be made in stereoscopic form, one of the studios has switched 100% that way -- the move to 3D digital projection in theaters has shown the 3D versions to outsell per screen by huge margins for the same movie).


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By rninneman on 6/27/2007 1:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
The ATSC television standard does not specify resolutions higher than 1080p. Since the country has not even finished converted to the ATSC standard, don't expect a new one any time soon. Technologies like 4k will be relegated to broadcast and production purposes for some time. 4k requires 4x the bandwidth to store, transfer, and process the video. Consumer electronics manufacturers are having a hard time working with 1080p and maintaining great image quality as it is. I wouldn't hold my breath on consumer 4k products.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By TomZ on 6/27/2007 1:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
4k requires 4x the bandwidth to store, transfer, and process

Wouldn't that require 16x the bandwidth etc., since the resolution is 4x in both the width and height?


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By Oregonian2 on 6/27/2007 2:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
Nahhhh... they'd probably increase the compression like crazy seeing as how the resolution is so high nobody will care that the details are full of digital compression artifacts up the kazoo. Even if that seems like a why-bother-then situation.


By Oregonian2 on 6/27/2007 2:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - And in any case, if it were 4x in each direction, they'd call it 16x format. Marketeers will always use the best sounding twist they can make on things. Heck, they'd call it 20x just to round it off.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By glenn8 on 6/27/2007 2:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
Nah... their "4K" just means ~4000 pixels "length wise" which equates to about 8 megapixel, meaning roughly just 4 times the pixel data of 1080p. So it's actually just 2x the width/height of 1080p.


RE: Well, now they're future proof...
By TomZ on 6/27/2007 3:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I see - 1080p is 1920x1080 - I forgot that the 1080 is the length (height), not the width. So it would be only 4x the bandwidth, etc. Thanks.


By Terberculosis on 6/27/2007 4:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to point out that the human eye, when in color vision mode, only has a maximum resolution of 7 megapixels per eye (thats by digital camera standards, 7 million cells in each eye sensitive to color wavelengths)

I would be willing to wager that we're not going to really need resolutions higher than this fancy 4K thingy until we manage to interface directly with the brain, leaving those pesky eyes out of the loop.


Lamest post lately
By maxusa on 6/28/2007 1:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
This newsbyte post is soooo lame. It says nothing about the technology behind the storage arrays, or the digital format, or much about the agreement between the studio and vendor. It rather resonates as an echo of a stupidified press release to stay "in the news." Too lame for DT to repost it here. Are you guys filtering junk or just link and watch RSS feeds from the comfort of your home offices?




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki