4KIN THE SCANDINAVIAN CINEMAS

4K IN THE SCANDINAVIAN CINEMAS AN ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT PROGRESSION OF 4K BECOMING STANDARD IN CINEMA

PROJECTION AND FUTURE DEMAND FROM THE AVERAGE CINEMAGOER

BY DANN SANDGREEN

Dann Sandgreen

MSc. in Medialogy 2010

Aalborg University Copenhagen

2

ABSTRACT

4K is an image resolution four times higher than the current 2K standard in cinema projection and consid-

ered the next natural step in line of the current transfer from analogue to digital projection in Scandinavian

cinemas. Upgrading the current movie production pipelines to support the 4K format requires the purchase

of a lot of expensive equipment. So far there are no 4K production pipelines in Scandinavia, but in the

American movie industry 4K is well underway to replace 2K as the most common resolution.

However the primary obstacle in upgrading to 4K is not only the price, but also the experts of the movie

industry doubting the demand it will be able to generate. In order to justify the immediate upgrade to 4K a

demand for it must be present also. Meanwhile the trust in the average cinemagoers ability to distinguish

4K from 2K, and thus appreciate the quality enhancement provided by 4K, is very little.

The purpose of this case study is to shine a light on the debate of 4K and answer the question of whether or

not the average cinemagoers are able to the distinguish between 2K and 4K. In this debate I include two

primary viewpoints, the experts of the Scandinavian movie industry and the average cinemagoer.

In order to attain these two viewpoints my study comprise five expert interviews with key persons of the

Scandinavian movie industry, influential on the progress of 4K, and a questionnaire survey with focus on

the average cinemagoers view on image quality and preferences when going to the cinema.

I start by explaining what 4K is, analyse the progress of the format in the Scandinavian movie industry and

professional prospect of the 4K format. Afterwards I go into the visual acuity of the human eye and physical

preconditions for distinguishing between 2K and 4K, and analyse the result of the questionnaire survey to

see if the there are instances in support of 4K generating a public demand. Lastly I review the test devised

to measure the image quality assessment abilities of the average cinemagoers and analyse the results in

terms of whether or not the test participants were able to distinguish 4K from 2K.

The outcome of this case study contradicts the professional predictions of the interviewed experts. Accord-

ing to the test results of both the questionnaire survey and quality assessment of 4K and 2K the future of

4K seems promising. The majority of the test participants were able to distinguish 4K from 2K, and favoured

4K, while the interest in getting the quality enhancement of the 4K format is very high. Many would be

willing to travel additional kilometres to get to a 4K cinema and even pay extra for ticket also.

From these results it is evident that a focused promotion of 4K could generate a public demand and that

the average cinemagoers proven ability to appreciate the quality enhancement will justify the money spent

on upgrading the movie production pipeline to support the format.

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank;

Nordisk Film Shortcut for allowing me to utilize their property in the testing of my problem state-

ment.

Tobias Back Hansen, VFX Compositor in Nordisk Film Shortcut, for providing a much appreciated

help with the execution of my tests.

Martin Madsen, VFX Supervisor in Nordisk Film Shortcut, for participating in an interview on 4K.

Mette H. Hansen, Project Coordinator in Nordisk Film Shortcut, for participating in an interview on

4K.

Jan Weincke, Cinematographer, for participating in an interview on 4K.

Rikart Købke, Head of Films in Cinemaxx, for participating in an interview on 4K.

Ivan Schmidt, Technical Manager in Nordisk Film Shortcut, for participating in an interview on 4K.

Jesper Just, Director, for allowing me to borrow footage from his short-movie Sirens of Chrome to

use in the testing of my problem statement.

Christian Østergaard, Technical Assistant in Nordisk Film Shortcut, for assisting me in the comple-

tion of the Encyclopaedia of technical terms.

Carsten Anker Edmund, Ophthalmologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, for guiding me in the

field of human visual acuity and verification of the calculation methods used.

My test participants, for setting time aside for providing their assessment of 2K and 4K image quali-

ty.

Thomas Bjørner, Associate Professor at Aalborg University Copenhagen, for supervising my work on

this case study.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction to the 4K debate .................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................... 9

1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 10

1.2.1 Expert interviews ......................................................................................................................... 11

1.2.2 Questionnaires ............................................................................................................................ 12

1.2.3 Test setup .................................................................................................................................... 13

2 What is 4K ................................................................................................................................................ 16

2.1 Resolution and aspect ratio ............................................................................................................. 16

2.2 File format and bit depth ................................................................................................................. 17

2.3 The visual benefits of 4K .................................................................................................................. 17

3 4K in Scandinavia ...................................................................................................................................... 20

3.1 4K in the cinemas ............................................................................................................................ 20

3.1.1 Digital projection ......................................................................................................................... 20

3.1.2 Analogue projection .................................................................................................................... 22

3.2 4K productions ................................................................................................................................. 23

3.2.1 The influence from Hollywood .................................................................................................... 24

3.3 The professional prospect of 4K ...................................................................................................... 26

3.4 Summary - How close are we to 4K in Scandinavia? ....................................................................... 30

5

4 4K to the average cinemagoer ................................................................................................................. 34

4.1 The introduction of digital television broadcast and HD ................................................................. 34

4.2 Human visual acuity versus screen size and viewing distance ........................................................ 37

4.3 HD to the average cinemagoer - according to the questionnaires ................................................. 41

4.3.1 The ability to distinguish HD from SD .......................................................................................... 41

4.3.2 Preferences when going to the cinema ....................................................................................... 48

4.3.3 The amateur prospect of 4K ........................................................................................................ 50

4.4 4K to the average cinemagoer - according to the interviewed experts .......................................... 51

4.5 Summary – The public demand for 4K ............................................................................................ 54

5 Testing the average cinemagoers ability to distinguish 4K from 2K ........................................................ 56

5.1 Test methodology ............................................................................................................................ 56

5.1.1 Test setup and validity ................................................................................................................. 56

5.1.2 Selection of participants and instructions given ......................................................................... 62

5.1.3 Test course................................................................................................................................... 63

5.1.4 Test evaluation method ............................................................................................................... 67

5.2 Test results ...................................................................................................................................... 67

5.2.1 Test pair 1-4 – Comparing 2K and 4K .......................................................................................... 67

5.2.2 Test pair 5-8 – Comparing analogue and digital .......................................................................... 70

5.2.3 Evaluation of the participants as representative for the average cinemagoer ........................... 71

5.3 Evaluation of the test validity .......................................................................................................... 74

6 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................. 76

7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 84

8 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................. 86

6

9 Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms ........................................................................................ 92

9.1 DPX, Log and LUT ............................................................................................................................. 92

9.2 Film Grain and Noise ....................................................................................................................... 94

9.3 Megabit and Megabyte ................................................................................................................... 95

9.4 Bit depth .......................................................................................................................................... 96

9.5 Bandwidth ....................................................................................................................................... 97

9.6 RAID ................................................................................................................................................. 97

9.7 CPU .................................................................................................................................................. 98

9.8 RAM ................................................................................................................................................. 99

9.9 GPU .................................................................................................................................................. 99

10 Appendix II – Expert interviews ......................................................................................................... 100

10.1 Interview – VFX Supervisor Martin Madsen .................................................................................. 100

10.2 Interview – Project Coordinator Mette H. Hansen ........................................................................ 106

10.3 Interview – Cinematographer Jan Weincke .................................................................................. 111

10.4 Interview – Head of Films Rikart Købke ........................................................................................ 117

10.5 Interview – Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt ............................................................................... 124

11 Appendix III – Questionnaires ........................................................................................................... 132

11.1 Questionnaire results – Age 20-60 ................................................................................................ 132





12 Appendix IV – Test course ................................................................................................................. 148

12.1 Test course – Test pair votes ......................................................................................................... 148

12.2 Test questionnaire results – Age 20-60 ......................................................................................... 149

8

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE 4K DEBATE

I will start this case study by explaining how 4K was initially brought to my attention. The semester prior to

this thesis I spent as a VFX artist1

Being able to stay ahead in this industry requires that you are able to continuously deliver what the cus-

tomers want, but the competition is strong and in order to stay competitive it is necessary to prepare for

future demands. It was at a Nordisk Film Shortcut staff meeting concerning such upcoming demands that I

was first introduced to 4K. The purpose of this meeting was discussing which initiatives to make in the VFX

branch during 2010 and the question of whether or not to prepare the production pipeline for 4K was a

primary topic that incited a lot of debate. I had only just heard of 4K, but because of this debate I knew that

4K was a topic that concerned a lot people in the movie industry and therefore a topic ideal for further

analysis.

intern at Nordisk Film Shortcut. Nordisk Film is the leading media produc-

tion studio in Scandinavia where Shortcut manages the post-production [1]. During this internship I was

given an excellent opportunity to not only learn the profession of being a VFX artist but also get a more

profound understanding of the turning wheels in the Scandinavian movie industry.

Updating the current production pipeline to support 4K would require the purchase of a lot of expensive

equipment, but at this meeting the attending staff had a lot of doubt towards 4K generating a demand

within a foreseeable future. As a result there was a predominant feeling that such an upgrade would be a

waste of money.

A 4K resolution image is more than four times bigger than HD2 and four times bigger than 2K3

In the American movie industry 4K is progressively taking hold as production facilities and cinemas are pur-

chasing equipment suited to support the format and 4K is expected to become the next resolution standard

in cinema projection [2] [3]. However at the meeting the belief in 4K replacing 2K was more sceptical and

much attention was paid to whether or not the many complications involved could be justified in terms of

, which is the

current cinema standard. In fact the multiplication with four is a general mnemonic rule that goes into al-

most every aspect of going from 2K to 4K, especially when it comes to working with the format in the pro-

duction pipeline. It comprises four times the data size, four times the hardware requirements and, with the

current 2K production pipelines, also four times the workload.

1 Visual Effects artist 2 High Definition, 1920x1080 pixels 3 2048x1152 pixels

9

visual improvement. If the average cinemagoer is unable to perceive a visual difference between 2K and 4K

it would essentially make the upgrade to 4K meaningless.

It is not only the employees at Nordisk Film Shortcut who are in doubt of the immediate 4K future. The

entire Scandinavian movie industry is permeated with 4K as a common concern. With this case study my

motivation was to explore the 4K format, how close to 4K productions we are in Scandinavia and most im-

portantly, what difference it makes to the average cinemagoer.

Consequently the purpose of this case study is to provide an answer to whether the perceived visual differ-

ence is worth the complications involved in progressing from 2K to 4K. This question is exactly what many

in the Scandinavian movie industry is asking and I am positive that the answer will shine a very considerable

light over the 4K debate and bring it closer to a conclusion.

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

My primary focus with this case study is the visual quality improvement 4K will bring to the average

cinemagoer. To justify the initiatives necessary to support 4K in the movie production pipeline the paying

audience must be able to distinguish between 2K and 4K in the cinema. Conclusively, my problem state-

ment for this case study is;

With 4K expected to become the next resolution standard in cinema projection, and with consideration to

the investments necessary to adjust to this standard in the Scandinavian movie industry, will the average

cinemagoer be able to perceive a visual quality improvement when compared to 2K?

This problem statement is divided into two primary parts of my study. The first constitute all that has to do

with explaining what 4K is, how it is progressing in the movie industry and the prospect of 4K generating a

public demand in the future. The second part constitutes the testing of whether the average cinemagoer is

able to distinguish between 2K and 4K and what format they favour. This test leads to an evaluation and

discussion of the results and final answer to the problems statement in the conclusion.

10

1.2 METHODOLOGY

This thesis is a case study of 4K both as a technical and subjective phenomenon. There are three primary

ways in which it qualifies as a case study4

1. It is an empirical investigation of 4K in its natural habitat. This means the movie industry where it is

produced and the cinema where it is projected onto the screen.

;

2. The analysis is based on triangulation, which means that I use multiple sources to cover my study of

4K.

3. These sources act as evidence in my argumentation for the contemporary attitude towards 4K

among experts, how 4K is progressing in the movie industry and how it will benefit the average

cinemagoer.

Much of the analysis benefits from my professional relation to Nordisk Film Shortcut. Nordisk Film Shortcut

manages the post-production branch of the Nordisk Film movie and television production pipeline, but

although owned by Nordisk Film the production tasks at Shortcut are not limited to Nordisk Film produc-

tions alone. Customers come from both Nordisk Film and competitive companies alike and typical assign-

ments span not only within feature films and television broadcasts, but also in music videos and commer-

cials.

I have used this relation to Nordisk Film Shortcut as an access to the infrastructure and key persons of the

Scandinavian movie industry, which was necessary for studying 4K in its natural habitat. These key persons

are all experts in their field and have agreed to participate in qualitative semi-structured expert interviews,

based on the guidelines of Kvale and Brinkmann [4], to encompass their subjective view on 4K.

My study comprises two primary viewpoints on 4K, the experts of the Scandinavian movie industry and the

average cinemagoer. From these two viewpoints I have setup a test scenario5

5.1

to answer the question of

whether or not the average cinemagoer is able to distinguish 4K from 2K and thus make it worth the money

spent on processing the format. In the following I first explain how the expert interviews were performed.

Afterwards I describe the design of the questionnaires devised for my examination of the average cinema-

goers approach to HD and preferences when going to the cinema. Lastly I make a brief review of how the

final testing was setup as this is also explained in further details in chapter .

4 These qualification requirements are outlined in the book “Casestudiet i Praksis” by Knud Ramian [69] 5 This test scenario is detailed in Section 5

11

1.2.1

The interviews were performed in a meeting room at Nordisk Film Shortcut with only the interviewee and I,

as the interviewer, present. In their profession the interviewed experts carry great influence on the pro-

gression of 4K in Scandinavia and thus their opinions weigh heavy in the professional prospect of 4K in the

Scandinavian movie industry. The interviewed experts are;

EXPERT INTERVIEWS

- Ivan Schmidt (Technical Manager at Nordisk Film Shortcut)

- Rikart Købke (Head of Films in Cinemaxx Denmark)

- Mette Høst Hansen (Project Coordinator at Nordisk Film Shortcut)

- Martin Madsen (VFX Supervisor at Nordisk Film Shortcut)

- Jan Weincke (Cinematographer)

The interview questions were open ended and based on a phenomenological approach6

1. The experts’ visual preference between analogue and digital projection and their ability to visually

distinguish between 2K and 4K.

where my purpose

was to find the experts’ subjective opinion on the 4K matter. Every interviewed expert was given the same

main questions, although with follow-up questions to have them further elaborate on a topic if deemed

necessary. The main questions were divided into four categories;

2. The experts’ impression of the 4K demand in the movie industry, both in Scandinavia and Abroad.

3. The experts’ view on the average cinemagoers ability to distinguish between 2K and 4K and

whether 4K will be worth the money spent.

4. The experts’ professional preference of working with either 2K or 4K and their prediction of 4K re-

placing 2K.

Because the main questions were similar for all the interviewed experts the evaluation is a comparative

analysis of each answer which I use in this case study to describe the contemporary attitude towards 4K in

the Scandinavian movie industry.

With the extensive knowledge an expert carry towards a specific topic it is imperative that the interviewer

makes an effort to delimit the asymmetric relation that may be to the interviewed expert. As a result I have

used the advice from Kvale & Brinkmann [4] saying that the interviewer should understand the subject at

hand and master the technical terms beforehand.

6 “Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view” [75]

12

Through my internship at Nordisk Film Shortcut I have spent half a year on my preparation for each inter-

view in order to achieve an understanding of the 4K topic and getting familiar with the technical terms used

in the movie industry. I used this knowledge in my elaboration of both the main- and follow-up questions to

increase the symmetry and have the interview feel more as a normal conversation between equals. All the

interviews were audio recorded and the transcripts can be found in Appendix II – Expert interviews.

1.2.2

As part of my analysis of the average cinemagoers ability to benefit from the visual quality enhancement

given by 4K I have used a questionnaire. The purpose of this questionnaire was to examine people’s supply

of HD channels, their considerations towards HD content on their home flat-screen and visual preferences

when going to the cinema. Each questionnaire had 21 questions and was divided into the following two

categories;

QUESTIONNAIRES

1. HD on the home flat-screen

2. Preferences when going to the cinema

The first category had questions about the size of the participant’s home flat-screen, viewing distance, abil-

ity to distinguish between HD and SD and which of these two formats they prefer. The second category

focused on the participant’s preferences when going to the cinema, why they go to the cinema, if they

would prefer an improved image quality in the cinema and whether or not they have heard of 4K before.

The entire list of questions can be found in Appendix III – Questionnaires.

The distribution of the questionnaires was based on a combination of the Snowball and Quota sampling

method [5]. The Snowball method was used in the sense that in order to achieve a broad dispersion of par-

ticipants the questionnaire was send to people I know personally who could then forward it to colleagues

at their workplace. The Quota method I then used as a tool for managing the sampled participants. With

this method my requirement was to get at least 80 participants distributed equally in gender within the age

spectrum 20-60. Meeting these requirements would allow me to draw general conclusion.

The 20-60 age spectrum represents the target group that I personally believe has the most interest in the

4K format. This is not a claim that cinemagoers outside this group are excluded from the benefits of 4K, it

was simply a way for me to narrow down the target group. The number of participants reached 96 in total,

44 males and 52 females.

The only information given to the participants prior to filling out the questionnaire was that they were

about to answer some questions on their preferences towards HD and going to the cinema. Furthermore

13

the only requirement for answering was that they had been to the cinema within the past year and could

agree to have normal or corrected-to-normal vision. The questionnaire was protected from double answers

by the use of computer cookies.

The resulting data was evaluated as interferential statistics [5] to compare and make inferences based on

the relation between participants and given answers. My focus with this evaluation was especially on the

relation between age/gender and the different question categories, for example the relation between

age/gender and the ability to distinguish between HD and SD on the home flat-screen. The results of the

questionnaire are evaluated in chapter 4.3.

1.2.3

This following is a brief overall description of how I tested perceived visual difference in image quality. A

more detailed version can be found in chapter

TEST SETUP

5.1.

The sole purpose of the test was the quality assessment of eight paired movie sequences where the par-

ticipants were told to vote for the sequence they preferred for each pair7

The test had 17 participants in total and consisted of 8 males and 9 females distributed equally in age 20 to

60. The reason for this specific age spectrum was the same as mentioned in my review of the question-

naires in chapter

. The movie sequences comprised

all of the 2K and 4K scenarios available in the cinema. Test pair 1-4 was a comparison of 2K versus 4K as

either both analogue or digital, while test pair 5-8 was a comparison of digital versus analogue versions of

the same 4K/2K sequence. The movie sequences were all similar in content and differed only in resolution

and being either digital or analogue. In this way the changing variable of each test pair was reduced to reso-

lution and analogue/digital format only.

1.2.2. Apart from fitting the necessary age and gender there were three primary require-

ments the participants had to meet;

1. They must have been to the cinema once within the past year

2. They must agree to have normal or corrected-to-normal vision

3. They must not carry any expert knowledge about the movie industry

7 The sheet used for the participants to note their vote on can be found in chapter 12.1 Test course – Test pair votes

14

The physical setup of the test was a cinema setup at Nordisk Film Shortcut conforming to the cinema rec-

ommendations defined by SMPTE and THX8. It consisted of a 144 inch screen9 and seating distances of up

to 10 meters, while the projector was a digital 2K DLP10 projector.11

The instructions given to the participants were that they were looking specifically for image quality, but not

that the only changing variable of each test pair was the resolution and analogue/digital format. Subse-

quently they were given the same questionnaire as specified in chapter

1.2.2. This enabled me to evaluate

each participant’s assessment of image quality combined with their stated ability to distinguish between

HD and SD and preferences when going to the cinema.

8 This is detailed in chapter 5.1.1 9 3,2 meters x 1,8 meters 10 Digital Light Processing 11 See chapter 5.1.1 for further details on the viewing distances used.

16

2 WHAT IS 4K

In this section I explain of what 4K means, what file format it is usually processed in and how 4K differs

from current cinema projection in 2K. This is both to provide a general understanding of the 4K format at

because I use the terms presented here in the setup of my test in chapter 5.1.1.

2.1 RESOLUTION AND ASPECT RATIO

The expression 4K refers to the approximately 4.000 horizontal pixels of a 4K resolution image. Some call it

by its actual size 4Kx2K, but in the movie industry 4K is the most common abbreviation. An actual 4K image

would have 4.000 pixels both vertically and horizontally making it an equilateral square, but in order to

conform to the aspect ratios used in movie industry the vertical pixel count of a 4K image is closer to 2.000.

The more precise pixel count depends on both aspect ratio and image size in the 4K category, but a stan-

dard 4K image holds 4096x2304 pixels in a 16:9 aspect ratio. This means that it is four times bigger than

today’s digital cinema standard 2K, which has 2048x1152 pixels in a 16:9 aspect ratio.

FIGURE 1: THE SIZE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 4K, 2K AND HD (1080P AND 720P). 4K IS FOUR TIMES BIGGER THAN 2K.

Although the 4K abbreviation refers to a pixel count it does not mean that 4K is a digital format only. The

name comes from it being processed digitally, but the final format can be both digital and analogue. With

17

digital 4K the movie is distributed as a digital file for digital projectors, whereas with analogue 4K the movie

is printed onto a 35mm celluloid film and distributed for traditional 35mm film projectors. The difference

between analogue and digital 4K is returned to in chapter 2.3.

Today’s highest resolution standard in Scandinavian cinemas is 2K12, which is only a bit higher than 1080p13

Figure 1

.

However, just like 4K images, the exact pixel count of a 2K image is subject to the aspect ratio used and

while 16:9 has become the standard ratio for HD television broadcasts there is no single standard for mov-

ies [6]. For this case study however I have chosen to refer to both 4K and 2K as 4096x2304 and 2048x1152

pixels respectively. These are also the sizes shown in .

2.2 FILE FORMAT AND BIT DEPTH

As with all image resolutions there is no predetermined file format and bit depth associated to working

with 4K images. It depends on whatever quality you want from your images and here the file format de-

termines the kind of compression done to them while the amount of colour values available for each pixel

is given by the bit depth14. However the most common file format used in the movie industry for the proc-

essing of images is DPX15. The DPX file format is used as a common standard for HD, 2K and 4K by the

movie industry as it is designed specifically for cinema distribution16

[7].

2.3 THE VISUAL BENEFITS OF 4K

The transition from 2K to 4K resolution in the cinema draws parallels to a similar transition that happened

back in the late 1950’s. Today’s highest resolution standard in celluloid film projection is 35mm film, but

back in 1958 selected Scandinavian cinemas adopted 70mm film [8], which is four times the size of 35mm.

70mm film was, like today’s 4K, presented as the future in cinema projection and it introduced the cinema-

goers to never before seen image quality. The additional film space allowed for finer image details and

grain17

12 2048x1152 pixels

was reduced to an almost invisible scale giving an unmatched sharpness to the footage [8].

13 1920x1080 pixels 14 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.4 15 Digital Picture Exchange 16 For further details on the DPX format see Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.1 17 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.2

18

FIGURE 2: A COMPARISON OF 70MM AND 35MM FILM. 70MM IS FOUR TIMES BIGGER THAN 35MM AND COMPARED TO 35MM.

The grain density of celluloid film is the same no matter if it is 35mm or 70mm film. The only difference is

the physical size of the film space, but seeing that the size of the cinema screen is the same, no matter the

millimetre size of the projected film, the visual size of the grain becomes smaller on the screen when

switching from 35mm to 70mm18

In theory 4K will provide a similar quality enhancement compared to 2K as 70mm compared to 35mm film.

This does not necessarily mean that digital 4K equals the quality of 70mm film and many film enthusiasts

will continue to claim that 70mm remain unparalleled until the digital format reaches 8K at least [10]. Nev-

ertheless, the switch from 2K to 4K holds some of the same difference properties as 35mm and 70mm film

in the sense that 4K is four times bigger than 2K and allows for much more image information and thus

sharper details.

. In other words the grain of a 70mm film is less visible, making the image

appear sharper when compared to 35mm [9].

The disadvantage of 70mm film was that it required new and very expensive projectors installed in the

cinemas as the physical proportions of the film reel did not fit the already installed 35mm projectors. Today

an analogue 4K movie does not have this issue as it is printed onto a 35mm film and projected from the

same projector as analogue 2K. However with digital projection it is a little more complicated. A digital 4K

movie projected in full resolution requires a digital 4K projector. Still it is not as either-or as with 35mm and

18 As an example Nordisk Films largest cinema Imperial has both a 35mm and 70mm film projector, but the same screen size is used for both [9].

19

70mm film as the digital 2K projectors commonly installed in the cinemas are able to scale down 4K to 2K

and thus project 4K files, but it will never be in full 4K resolution [11].

Theoretically the difference between digital 4K and 2K should be more noticeable than between analogue

4K and 2K. Both analogue 4K and 2K are printed onto 35mm film. This means that they both contain grain

and that the amount and size of these grains are the same no matter if the resolution is 4K or 2K. A digital

file does not have grain. Instead it may contain noise19

70mm film was ultimately abandoned due to its high production cost [8] and although many enthusiasts

still hold a special affection towards this format the only way to experience 70mm projection in Scandinavia

today is at one of the rarely held 70mm festivals [9]. Despite providing an improvement in image quality

the fate of 70mm film shows that 4K is not necessarily an obvious next standard in cinema projection. Still I

believe that the general cinema audience has become more fastidious towards image quality, together with

the distribution of HD movies and television for home usage, and for that reason 4K may be able to pro-

duce a greater demand than 70mm did.

depending on the camera settings used and lighting

conditions when shooting [12], but when compared to an analogue image it will appear “cleaner”. As a

result the digital image should benefit more from being 4K than 2K as the noise will decrease in size and

thus be less visible when projected onto the same screen size. The result is an image with less noise and

more visible details, just like 70mm compared with 35mm film.

19 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.2

20

3 4K IN SCANDINAVIA

The distribution of Scandinavian 4K movies is limited, but when looking abroad there are clear signs of 4K

becoming the prevalent standard in the movie industry [13]. In the following I review the progression of 4K

in Scandinavia. First I look at the available 4K technology in the cinemas, afterwards I turn my focus to the

current production and distribution of 4K movies and finally I make a sum-up analysis of how close we are

to 4K becoming standard in Scandinavia and worldwide.

3.1 4K IN THE CINEMAS

Any cinema can potentially be a 4K cinema, and has probably been at some point. As mentioned in section

2, 4K is a resolution that exists in both digital and analogue form and when printed on celluloid any cinema

with a traditional film projector is essentially a 4K cinema. The average amount of individual silver-halide

crystals in a 35mm celluloid film is around 13 – 15 million and when compared to the 9,4 million pixels of a

digital 4K image20

3.1.1

a 35mm film should be able to portrait what corresponds to the image information of

digital 4K [14]. 4K is however commonly referred to as a digital format and that is primarily because of the

long-drawn-out debate of what format rules superior, analogue or digital [14] [15] [16] [17]. In this regard

the introduction of digital 4K projectors has been used as a trump by supporters claiming that digital pro-

jection is finally able to exceed the quality of 35mm film [18]. The main arguments in this comparison often

points to the physical properties of both formats and more specifically the non-degradable quality of digital

files as oppose to film being gradually worn down [18] [19].

Currently in Scandinavia there are only three cinemas capable of digital 4K projection and they are all situ-

ated in Denmark and owned by the German chain of cinemas Cinemaxx. In autumn 2009 Cinemaxx invested

millions in new Sony Cinealta 4K projectors in 56 of their cinemas, including the three in Denmark, and

premiered on October 2nd with Pixar’s Up as the first movie in digital 4K [20]. So far these projectors have

been coupled with RealD, the high-end stereoscopic 3D imaging technology, as this combination hold some

advantages in being able to project two images simultaneously onto the screen rather than sequentially

[21]. Consequently these 4K projectors are yet to project a 4K movie without stereoscopy enabled and so a

direct comparison of a resolution related quality enhancement between 2K and 4K is not yet feasible just

by going to the cinema.

DIGITAL PROJECTION

20 4096x2304 pixels

21

Many small Danish cinemas are currently struggling with the prospect of eventually investing in digital pro-

jectors as 35mm film is progressively being replaced by hard-disks [22]. The advantage of current 35mm

film projection is that it has been standardized over the past hundred years, and with digital projection it is

the very foundation of film distribution that has to be changed as the two technologies are mutually exclu-

sive. An analogue projector cannot project digitally and vice versa.

The advantage of the digital format is that it is easier to process, mass-produce and distribute than 35mm

film reels [23]. Norway has already made a complete transfer from analogue to digital projection, although

all in 2K. In Norway it is Film & Kino21

In Denmark the two biggest cinema competitors are Nordisk Film and Cinemaxx. They both have a substan-

tial budget allowing for bigger investments in new technology and in purchasing the expensive Cinealta 4K

projectors Cinemaxx has chosen to pioneer. According to Head of Film Rikart Købke the trust in 4K is preva-

lent in Cinemaxx [11]. He explains that Cinemaxx decided to skip the 2K step and jump directly to 4K to get

the best equipment possible, but right now all focus is on stereoscopic 3D movies and the combination with

realD is the only financially correct thing to do at this point [11]. There have been plans laid out for future

4K investments, but for now they will be used solely with RealD enabled. When to expect a digital 4K movie

without stereoscopy is hard to predict, but Head of Films Rikart Købke is certain that it will come eventu-

ally.

, in collaboration with the government, cinemas and distributors,

counting some of the biggest studios in Hollywood, who have administrated the transition to digital cinema

in all cinemas nationwide [24]. In Denmark and Sweden such initiatives are carried out by the cinemas

alone and according to their independent budget.

In 2009 Nordisk Film had 9 out of their 17 cinemas in Denmark upgraded with digital projectors and new

screens to project stereoscopic 3D [25]. However, just like in Norway, these are all 2K and when asked

about future investments in 4K equipment Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt says that the advancement to

4K will be lead by the demand for it. He recognises that all focus is currently on stereoscopic 3D, but if 4K is

suddenly the thing that attracts the audience then the money to buy 4K projectors will definitely be

granted.

21 The Norwegian interest organisation for cinemas [24].

22

3.1.2

As mentioned in the beginning of this section 4K is commonly referred to as a digital format, but it also

exist as an analogue format on 35mm celluloid film. When comparing the amount of silver-halide crystals

on 35mm celluloid

ANALOGUE PROJECTION

22 with the amount of pixels in a digital 4K image23

At Nordisk Film Shortcut there are examples of 2K movies being scaled to 4K in the final printing of the

35mm film, thus circumventing the intermediate production costs of processing it in 4K

it should be able to contain the image

information of 4K. Still, in the current Scandinavian movie production pipeline this high resolution image

information of the 35mm film is scanned and processed in 2K. This is primarily due to the high production

costs of 4K as it takes longer to process [26].

24 [27]. However

seeing that these are not Full 4K25

In regards to the visual benefits given by the transition from analogue to digital projection there is great

disagreement to be found among the interviewed experts. They all see the advantages of digital projection

in terms of distribution, but visually both Project Coordinator Mette Hansen and Cinematographer Jan

Weincke have analogue as their favourite while VFX Supervisor Martin Madsen clearly prefers digital. Rikart

Købke and Ivan Schmidt fall in between and state that their visual preference depends on the movie in

question. A digital copy will avoid being worn and thus maintain its initial quality at all time and to Head of

Film Rikart Købke this is a definite advantage of the digital format. To him digital projection does not equal

a fresh 35mm print, but because of the large amount of copies made of the 35mm reel it suffers greatly

from gradual demotion making the benefit of the digital format more apparent.

, and also do not require different projectors than the existing analogue

ones, they are not given the same publicity as when projected digitally. As a result the cinemagoers have no

way of knowing beforehand whether they are purchasing tickets for a 2K or 4K movie when going to the

cinema.

Regardless of their visual preference none of the interviewed experts deny that with the current techno-

logical advancement it is only a matter of time before all cinemas have gone to digital projection entirely

[28]. Ever since the introduction of digital projection in 2004[29] the debate of what format provides the

best visual quality has been on-going, but according to Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt the quality of digi-

tal projection will continue to improve and on that improvement scale lies 4K as the next natural step [26].

22 13-15 million [14]. See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.2 for more information on silver-halide crystals. 23 9,4 million (4096x2304 pixels) 24 The visual improvement given by scaling 2K to 4K is returned to in chapter 3.2 25 Movies that are recorded, processed and distributed in 4K and thus remain 4K all the way through the production pipeline.

23

3.2 4K PRODUCTIONS

From the American movie industry we are used to seeing movie budgets in the proximity of 150 million

dollars, whereas in the Scandinavian movie industry the average is closer to 4 million dollars [30]. Naturally

such a straightforward comparison cannot be made as production costs are different in the two industries,

but still the budgets in Hollywood allow for more money put into image quality and they can afford to have

their movies processed in 4K [31]. In the Scandinavian movie industry 4K productions are a rare sight as the

current 2K adapted production pipelines would easily quadruple the overall movie budget when dealing

with 4K. As mentioned in the introduction the mnemonic rule concerning 4K in a 2K pipeline predicts an

overall quadruple of all instances of the pipeline. As a result the additional costs would come from the pro-

longed production time.

Although a 4K pipeline is yet to be fully implemented in Scandinavia some 4K equipment has already been

taken into extensive usage. One of such equipment is the Arri [32] for scanning and printing film reels in 4K,

while another is the RED camera, which has become immensely popular [33]. “Shot on RED” is today a

common phrase in movie productions and what RED offers is digital 4K recording, instant 4K playback, ease

of use and affordable prices. The camera has been praised by some of the most skilled directors and cine-

matographers in the world, and with its low price even low budget movies can afford to shoot on RED [34].

In Scandinavia a movie may be shot in 4K, but that is not a prerequisite that it is also processed as such. In

fact because of the expense of processing 4K there are no examples of Scandinavian movies being shot,

processed and distributed in 4K [27]. Instead movies are often shot in digital 4K, scanned and processed in

2K and finally printed as up-scaled 2K on 35mm film. This final printing involves the above mentioned Arri

equipment and even though this up-scaling give some of the original 4K quality back it is still preserved for

the biggest budgets only [27].

As technology is right now the final printing onto film can be divided into three quality steps; 2K in the bot-

tom, 2K scaled to 4K26

26 What I call up-scaled 2K.

in the middle and Full 4K in the absolute top [27]. According to Project Coordinator

Mette Hansen the difference between 2K and up-scaled 2K is an improved quality and sharper images, but

providing the Full 4K experience is something that the Scandinavian movie industry is yet to deliver and

here even up-scaled 2K is no equal [27].

24

Being able to print 4K with the same speed as 2K via the upgraded Arri is something new that Nordisk Film

Shortcut has just recently implemented as a natural part of using this equipment. Everything however de-

pends on the amount of time used and many studios choose economy in preference to quality [27].

“Before we upgraded our Arri to print 4K with the same speed as 2K and even though it could

print in 4K beforehand nobody chose it because of the additional costs it gave. I don’t think

it’s a matter of the producers not being able to distinguish and see the product they get, but

simply because the money isn’t there.”

Project Coordinator Mette Hansen [27]27

The demand for 4K within the Scandinavian movie industry is very little, but the one there is derives primar-

ily from the cinematographers involved in the production. Cinematographer Jan Weincke is in no doubt of

what his preferred resolution is and he would love to see it go even beyond 4K, perhaps to 8K in due time.

VFX Supervisor Martin Madsen explains the cinematographers demand with it being rooted in professional

pride towards getting the optimal quality from their images, but to him only the most skilled cinematogra-

pher’s benefit from 4K. When the production studio agrees to have the film printed in up-scaled 2K it is to

please the fastidious eye of the cinematographer and his equals, rather than that of the common cinema-

goer [31].

“There are a few cinematographers, some of the most skilled; Dan Laustsen is the best exam-

ple. [...] He is one of the few people who benefit from 4K productions. [...] Others may also be

able to see it but the difference is so minimal that you’ll never get a production studio to pay

for it.”

VFX Supervisor Martin Madsen [31]28

3.2.1

On a general basis the Scandinavian movie industry is not yet able to comply with the demands of a 4K pro-

duction pipeline, but in Hollywood they are [31]. As mentioned, budgets in the American movie industry

are much higher than the Scandinavian average and although the productions costs are equally high these

budgets make Full 4K a possibility. A few years ago experiencing high resolution movies were preserved for

IMAX theatres only, but recently 167 Hollywood cinemas have been equipped with 4K projectors and it

THE INFLUENCE FROM HOLLYWOOD

27 Chapter 10.2 line 281 28 Chapter 10.1 line 63

25

would seem that this trend is spreading with a similar investment by Cinemaxx in 56 of their cinemas across

Germany and Denmark [3].

There are no publicly accessible numbers showing the percentage of 2K and 4K movies distributed either

analogously or digitally in Hollywood. The big American production studios have a 4K production pipeline

implemented and fully functional, but while the majority of cinemas worldwide project in 2K the most

common practise is to process a movie in 4K and then scale it to 2K just before cinema distribution [31].

This may sound as if all the effort put into processing the 4K format is lost in the end, but down-scaling

does not necessarily carry a negative effect on the final image. It is the same effect as when a HD image is

scaled down to SD. The additional details of the higher resolution image are reduced to only a few pixels

but still they give a richer overall impression of the final image [31].

When asking VFX Supervisor Martin Madsen about the influence of Hollywood’s transfer from 2K to 4K on

the Scandinavian market he believes that there will be an influence, but not until the Scandinavian cinemas

have upgraded from analogue to digital projection.

“It will be in the context of us upgrading our cinemas. I don’t believe that the analogue cine-

mas we have today will ever benefit from 4K images.”


Regardless of which cinemas will benefit the most from 4K the big Hollywood studios are already taking

large steps towards 4K as the next cinema standard. Sony Electronics were the first to introduce digital 4K

projectors for cinema usage and also the first to present stereoscopic 3D in 4K through their collaboration

with RealD [35]. Therefore to support their own technology Sony Pictures has already committed them-

selves fully to 4K productions [36]. Lately Texas Instruments in cooperation with Christie Digital, NEC and

Barco, who all manufacture digital cinema projectors, have announced agreements with the biggest Ameri-

can cinemas for massive distribution of 4K projectors in 2010 [2]. Furthermore both Warner Bros. and

Paramount have done as Sony and committed themselves to 4K productions, which means that Sony is no

longer unaccompanied in the distribution of 4K movies [2]. These initiatives show that 4K is taking its hold

in Hollywood and even though much focus is on stereoscopic 3D at the moment it would seem that the

distribution of 4K movies worldwide is about to increase rapidly.

In regards to the current transfer from analogue to digital projection Hollywood has already made their

influential entry on the Scandinavian market. They contributed to the nationwide transfer in Norway and a

29 Chapter 10.1 line 77

26

similar agreement was signed on March 10th 2010 in Denmark also [28]. This agreement is between a unifi-

cation of thirty-four small Danish cinemas and Arts Alliance Media30

What the Hollywood studios get in return is a wider and cheaper distribution of digital copies and more

cinemas worldwide capable of projecting stereoscopic 3D movies. Stereoscopic 3D movies have increased

ticket sales massively all over the world, and after the success of Director James Cameron’s Avatar[37],

stereoscopy is now more popular than ever [38]. These stereoscopic 3D movies can only be projected digi-

tally and so the wider the implementation of digital equipment the wider distribution of stereoscopic 3D

movies and higher the income for the studios.

. Arts Alliance Media comes with the

support of some of the biggest production studios in Hollywood and with this agreement the small cinemas

are given the financial aid necessary for acquiring the digital equipment.

With the exception of the three 4K projectors owned by Cinemaxx the digital projectors installed in Scandi-

navia have all been 2K so far. As mentioned the Hollywood 4K productions are commonly down-scaled to

2K to conform to the projector technology of the cinemas, but this is not necessarily an obstacle in the im-

plementation of a 4K production pipeline as the overall quality of the image still benefits from the movie

being processed in 4K. However neither down-scaled 4K nor up-scaled 2K equals the quality of Full 4K pro-

jected on an actual 4K projector and perhaps the commitment to the 4K format in Hollywood will mean

that more cinemas choose to do like Cinemaxx and take the step directly to 4K.

3.3 THE PROFESSIONAL PROSPECT OF 4K

When asking the interviewed experts there is no doubt that 4K is the future, but they differ on how exten-

sive they think its usage will be. Cinematographer Jan Weincke is in no doubt that technology will advance

fast and the ability to handle 4K in the same production time as 2K will be reality within the next few years.

He favours 4K and believes that within a decade we will work with even higher resolutions and compare

these with the production costs of 4K which has then become standard.

30 The leading provider of digital cinema equipment in Europe [76].

27

“I think it will be cheaper in time and this means that 4K will not be a problem. We might

even go higher than 4K because the possibilities are there. Today it is clearly too expensive,

but in 10 years time it may cost the same as 4K does today.”

Cinematographer Jan Weincke [10]31

Project Coordinator Mette Hansen is equally sure of the future potential of 4K and says in regards to the 4K

market demand that;

“Directors want it, Cinematographers want it a lot, and I think they have much participation

in such decisions. Also, I definitely believe that Producers want what is best for their project.

It is not by their own good will that they sometimes have to discard elements that would

have improved the quality of their movies. If it could be done within budget then it would be

chosen definitely.”


She continues by saying that the demand may be limited because 4K is still very new, but since Nordisk Film

Shortcut is able to offer 2K images up-scaled to 4K through the Arri the demand is already increasing.

VFX Supervisor Martin Madsen is more reluctant. Because of his belief that only the cinemas with the big-

gest screen sizes will benefit from a higher resolution he says that 4K will continue to be preserved only for

a small elite who will use it merely for projecting in IMAX theatres33

“It has to look realistic and like you actually present yourself. Naturally a guy like him (Chris-

topher Nolan) want as high resolution possible to portray images as detailed as we see them

with our own eyes. In other words it must be free of grain, recorded digitally and distributed

for IMAX.”

[31]. One member of this elite is Direc-

tor Christopher Nolan who with his blockbuster The Dark Knight [39] even went to 8K for selected scenes

where he found 4K insufficient [40].


The Dark Knight was a major success in IMAX theatres breaking all records in ticket sales [41], but whereas

Christopher Nolan is very much in favour of higher resolutions this is not the general attitude among his

31 Chapter 10.3 line 461 32 Chapter 10.2 line 308 33 IMAX theatres have much larger screen sizes than conventional cinemas [70]. 34 Chapter 10.1 line 89

28

fellow Directors. Director James Cameron35

Head of Films in Cinemaxx Rikart Købke says that they wanted to buy the best of the best when they

switched from analogue to digital and so they bought the Sony Cinealta 4K projectors. However using these

without RealD stereoscopy enabled would be ludicrous considering their advantages in providing a more

steady 3D experience when projecting the two images simultaneously instead of sequentially [11]. He

agrees that 4K is the future, but right now it is greatly overshadowed by the financial possibilities of stereo-

scopic 3D movies.

is experiencing immense success with stereoscopic 3D and he

would rather see an increase in framerate instead of resolution as this would benefit the stereoscopic ef-

fect [42]. A similar debate of whether to focus on 4K or stereoscopic 3D is also found in the Scandinavian

cinemas.

“We have no problems getting 35mm film and showing a digital movie without 3D would

mean cancelling a 3D projection, and that would simply not be the profitable thing to do. [...]

After the opening of Avatar everything that has 3D has been number one, two and three on

the charts.”

Head of Films Rikart Købke [11]36

Stereoscopy has become immensely popular and the primary reason is that it adds an extra dimension, so

to speak, to people’s experience of going to the cinema. Stereoscopic 3D has been a key factor for luring

people away from their television screens and into the cinema and it is very much doubted that 4K will be

able to do the same. Head of Films Rikart Købke finds the concept of 4K difficult to communicate to the

general audience.

”In our launch we went out and said that this is 4K. But we stopped because it was too diffi-

cult for the average cinemagoer to understand 3D 4K. What is that? Instead, keep it simple

and say this is about 3D.”


He is not denying that the projectors in Cinemaxx will be used for 4K without 3D in time and that additional

4K projectors are scheduled for purchase as they become available for larger screen sizes. Still, he empha-

35 Director of Avatar 36 Chapter 10.4 line 592 37 Chapter 10.4 line 695

29

sizes his belief that only cinemas with screen sizes greater than 10 meters across will benefit from 4K visu-

ally.

“To the local cinema it’s all about filling the shelves in the sense of getting the movies people

want to see right know. That is their primary objective. Whether it is 2K or 4K is not impor-

tant because it is not important to the audience. So 4K is way down on their to-do-list.”


The demand for 4K on the Scandinavian market may increase as the technology becomes available and

moviemakers find interest in the format. But the general lack of confidence in 4K being able to generate the

same interest among the cinemagoers as stereoscopic 3D leaves the interviewed experts sceptical towards

the future of 4K. Instead Project Coordinator Mette Hansen is confident that the interest will come from

the moviemakers own persistency towards having their movies look as high quality as possible at festivals

among other moviemakers and critics. In that regard 4K will be worth every penny in production cost [27].

The only interviewed expert who is not sceptical towards 4K is Cinematographer Jan Weincke. He is deter-

mined that 4K will bring a change to average cinemagoers experience of the movie being watched.

“I believe that if a movie is processed in the best believable way then it may not be that peo-

ple say; “Wow, what an achievement, not a single technical error”, but; “what a fantastic

movie!” [...] Nobody will say that it was 4K, but instead that they went to see a movie and it

was just amazing, without saying why. [...] It will benefit the experience as a whole, and that

is important.”


Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt supports this thought of 4K adding to the overall experience of the movie,

but similarly he doubts that the general audience will be able to say what exactly made the difference.

Much in line with what Project Coordinator Mette Hansen says about the increasing demand among mov-

iemakers, Ivan Schmidt states that the progress of 4K will come from inside the movie industry rather than

as a result of audience demand. He mentions an example of the numerous times Nordisk Film has rescan-

ned a classic Olsen Banden film to comply with the demand for better quality from TV stations upgrading

their broadcast equipment.


30

With this example he emphasizes the importance of making the visual quality of the recorded material fu-

ture proof. All these scans were obtained from the same celluloid film reel and this is only possible because

the native resolution of the film is higher than today’s standards. Similarly, recording in 4K today can help

to ensure the future usage of the recorded material.

Finally, when it comes to the prospect of 4K Ivan Schmidt is in no doubt that 4K is the future and says;

“There is no doubt that 4K will happen as soon as the computers become sufficient and as

soon as we get a workflow capable of handling it better than we are now. It will come and

then no one will be concerned with whether it is 2K or 4K, they just do it. Back when we went

from 8 bit to 10 bit many said; “don’t do it, it is not worth making it in 10 bit, nobody will be

able to see a difference.” And today no one would dare to not make it 10 bit. The only reason

why people said that was because it was heavy to work with and took a long time to process.

Today people do it without concern, and the same will happen with 2K versus 4K.”

Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt [26]40

3.4 SUMMARY - HOW CLOSE ARE WE TO 4K IN SCANDINAVIA?

All the interviewed experts agree that if 4K was no more problematic than 2K in the current production

pipeline they would naturally prefer to attain the additional image quality given by heightening the resolu-

tion. To Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt there is no doubt that it is the current incapability of handling the

format without additional production cost that is holding 4K back [26], but upgrading to 4K equipment is

expensive and it is from this upgrading price that the entire 4K debate derives.

When it comes to creating a 4K production pipeline that can handle 4K in the same manner as today’s 2K,

there is no single solution. Put roughly a movie production pipeline constitute three phases; recording,

processing and distribution. Each of these phases constitute multiple sub-phases, but since recording in

digital 4K has become more feasible with the introduction of RED41, while extracting and printing analogue

4K is no longer an issue with the Arri42

This processing phase is made up of several workstations handling steps such as cutting, editing, colour

grading and applying VFX to the recorded footage. When asking Technical Assistant at Nordisk Film Short-

, the phase that is in most need of an upgrade is the processing.

40 Chapter 10.5 line 871 41 See chapter 3.2 42 See chapter 3.2

31

cut Christian Østergaard43 the most important goal of a 4K pipeline is to have 4K take up no more time than

2K and here the ability to playback 4K in real-time44 is essential. To achieve such playback there are three

top priorities; hard-disk storage, RAID45 and bandwidth46. Naturally the individual properties such as CPU47,

GPU48 and RAM49 for each workstation have a say also, but without the three top priorities fulfilled the

individual workstations will be severely restricted. One 4K movie as DPX50 files takes up approximately

6,5TB51

4K is well underway to become an established standard in the American movie industry. Meanwhile in

Scandinavia there are only three cinemas capable of projecting digital 4K and as long as focus is on stereos-

copy these projectors will remain close-knit with RealD for improved stereoscopic 3D projection [11]. This

means that the currently only accessible way to experience a 4K movie in Scandinavia is from a 35mm film,

but these film reels are not advertised as 4K and therefore cinemagoers have no way of knowing before-

hand whether it is 2K or 4K they are paying for.

of storage space for the footage alone and requires a bandwidth of 900MB/s if played in real-time.

In comparison a 2K movie take up about 1,5TB and the bandwidth requirement is 225MB/s. Conclusively,

without going into further details upgrading to a 4K pipeline requires some great initiatives if avoiding a

prolongation of the existing production time.

Digital 4K is by supporters considered a way of improving the visual quality of digital projection in compari-

son to analogue. The visual quality of 35mm film is weakened by being gradually worn and as the transition

to digital projection is progressing worldwide digital 4K is foreseen as the next natural step in improving the

image quality. Still, while much focus is currently on stereoscopy there has not been much effort put into

promoting 4K to the cinemagoers. As a result 4K remains an industry term known mostly by people in-

volved in the movie production pipeline.

In the Scandinavian movie industry the advancement to digital 4K is still far into the future. The distribution

of analogue 4K is just starting to immerge, but only as 2K scaled to 4K52

43 Technical Assistant Christian Østergaard was used as a consultant in my analysis of the technical requirements to a 4K production pipeline which I have used to create the content of

. No Scandinavian production pipe-

line is suited to handle Full 4K yet. All the interviewed experts have 4K as their preferred resolution, but still

Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms. 44 25 frames per second 45 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.6 46 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.5 47 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.7 48 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.9 49 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.8 50 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.1 51 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.3 52 See chapter 3.2

32

only Cinematographer Jan Weincke see the format as advantageous for the cinemagoers [10]. Among the

rest a disbelief in the average cinemagoers ability to perceive a quality enhancement is predominant. With

the current pipeline 4K productions are beyond the budget of Scandinavian movies and the expenses in

adopting 4K are questioned in terms of visual value to others than the most fastidious connoisseurs53

Consequently, 4K in Scandinavia is enclosed considerably by economy and expert disbelief, but as technol-

ogy advances and prices are lowered there is no doubt that 4K is the future. Currently there is no telling

when we will be able to see the first Scandinavian movie in Full 4K and for 4K to happen initiatives must be

taken to meet the given requirements. Meanwhile the demand for 4K is present internally in the Scandina-

vian movie industry and as Project Coordinator Mette Hansen put it;

.

“Directors want it, Cinematographers want it a lot.”


53 See chapter 3.3 54 Chapter 10.2 line 308

34

4 4K TO THE AVERAGE CINEMAGOER

All of the interviewed experts prefer 4K from a professional perspective, but when it comes to the actual

perceivable difference by the average eye the belief that 4K will draw attention from the cinemagoers is

very little. Only Cinematographer Jan Weincke is convinced that people will be able to distinguish between

2K and 4K [10]. To him 4K will bring something additional to the experience of the movie as a whole, al-

though some may not be able to point out exactly what the difference is. With the switch from analogue to

digital television broadcast, and increasing supply of HD channels, much effort has been put into accentuat-

ing the importance of image quality to the average consumer [43] and the question is if this has generated

an increased focus on image quality in the cinemas as well.

In the following section my focus is on the average cinemagoer and the influence of the current develop-

ments in television technology on the progress of 4K in the cinema. I start by asking if the increased focus

on HD quality have made the consumers more aware of image quality in general and thus created a de-

mand for HD in the average home. Afterwards I look into the visual acuity of the human eye and the physi-

cal premises for being able to distinguish between different image resolutions. Lastly I review the future

importance of 4K to the average cinemagoer by presenting and analysing the answers given in my ques-

tionnaire survey55

and contrasting these with the predictions of the interviewed experts.

4.1 THE INTRODUCTION OF DIGITAL TELEVISION BROADCAST AND HD

The purpose of this chapter is to set out the increasing focus on HD, the general attitude towards the de-

mand for improved image quality and ability to distinguish between HD and SD on the home flat-screen 56

Ever since analogue terrestrial broadcasting in Denmark was shut off on October 31st 2009 and replaced by

digital broadcasting the selection of HD channels has increased massively. Same has the interest in HD con-

tent among the population. In Denmark there are 2,6 million flat-screen TVs and 1,9 million of these are

either HD Ready

.

57 or Full HD58 [44]. In 2009 every single television sold was a flat-screen and the amount of

sold units was higher than ever with a total of 780.000 [45]. The screens sold are continuously increasing in

size and quality and according to Kurt Frausing, Manager in BFE59

55 See chapter

, this is primarily because larger screens

1.2.2 56 Standard Definition, 1024x576 in 16:9 aspect ratio 57 1280x720 pixels 58 1920x1080 pixels 59 Branchen Forbruger Elektronik

35

have more visual benefit from HD content [46]. Also the sale in Blu-ray discs60

The vast majority of the HD channels available require subscription to either cable of satellite TV. However

despite the additional cost both Yousee and Canal Digital, two of the biggest television distributors in Scan-

dinavia, experience advance in the sale of HD [49]. From both distributors a lot of focus is put into widening

both the distribution of HD broadcasts and the general knowledge towards the visual benefits of HD [49]

[50]. Such general knowledge can be given through marketing, but ever since DR

is rising rapidly with an in-

crease in 2009 of 317 percent and today there are approximately 200.000 Blu-ray players sold in Denmark

[47]. The sale in Blu-ray is expected to have its big breakthrough in 2010 [48], whereas in 2011 the number

of sold Blu-ray players will exceed the sale in Hard-disk Recorders and DVD players altogether [46]. Head of

Communication in Videogramforeningen Ditte Rie Agerskov is in no doubt that with the digitalization of

television the consumers have become more aware of HD and the quality enhancement given by Full HD

compared to SD [47].

61

Despite the increase in HD demand not everybody have a sure belief in the consumers’ ability to distinguish

between SD and HD. There have been studies made on so-called Placebo effects

launched their subscrip-

tion free HD channel, DR HD, the general demand has made a serious leap upwards [50] and it could seem

that in order to truly appreciate HD you have to experience it firsthand.

62

One of such studies were performed at Utrecht University where 60 participants were divided into two

groups and positioned in front of an Full HD screen to watch and evaluate the quality of the same SD clip.

The only difference between these two groups was that one group was told the true SD quality of the clip

while the other was told that it was HD and their results showed that the expectation to watch HD in-

creased the perceived image quality when comparing the two groups [51].

in the perceived image

quality of HD where test participants have been tricked into perceiving a quality enhancement although the

shown footage was no different than SD [51].

The focus of this test was not on the actual comparison of SD and HD, but on the psychological influence on

perceived quality when positioned in a HD framework. The scientists were able to show that a general mar-

keting of HD as “improved image quality” have made the consumers expect exactly this when watching

60 Blu-ray is the successor to DVD and the medium used for distributing movies in HD resolution [71] 61 Danmarks Radio 62 An example of the placebo effect is when false information alters a persons’ impression of something simply be-cause the person has the expectation that the given information is true. This effect is also used in medicine in the sense that the more a person believes that he/she is going to benefit from a treatment, the more likely it is that he/she will experience a benefit [72].

36

what they think is HD. However in the context of being able to distinguish between the two resolutions this

test carries some serious flaws.

First of all the participants of this study were never asked to rate both clips. Therefore in a direct compari-

son of SD and HD it gives no indication on whether they in fact were able to perceive a difference between

the two resolutions. The ability to distinguish is very dependent on screen size and viewing distance and in

the test method used only the distance is mentioned. It says that the participants were positioned 4 meters

from the screen and that the resolution was Full HD. However as calculated in the following chapter about

visual acuity a distance of 4 meters requires a 50 inch screen at least and no less than 100 inches if posi-

tioned ideally with full benefit of all 2 million pixels63

Strong marketing can have great influence on how people perceive the quality of a product. The distribu-

tors know this and there is undoubtedly some who will have more difficulty distinguishing HD from SD than

others. Theoretically with the quality enhancement given by the increase in resolution and the fact that HD

is tailored to perform optimal on a HD screen the difference between SD and HD to the average eye should

be more than just imagined. Looking at the results from the questionnaire survey, I have made on the aver-

age cinemagoers approach to HD, there is a strong belief among the participants in their own ability to dis-

tinguish between SD and HD and many prefer watching HD material. I return to these results in chapter

. Furthermore the test was performed in 2008 and

therefore prior to the vast distribution of HD channels. This is accentuated in their review of the test par-

ticipants where only 33 percent own a flat-screen television. I am convinced that if a similar test was per-

formed today with the right relationship between screen-size and viewing distance the participants would

have a greater ability to recognise HD quality based on the increasing amount of available HD reference

material in everyday life.

4.3

with a thorough review.

Many factors have influence on one’s ability to distinguish between SD and HD on a HD screen. It can be

the quality of the recorded material, the quality of the screen and so forth, but in a direct comparison of

resolution related enhancements there are two primary elements to consider; screen size and viewing dis-

tance.

63 1920x1080 pixels

37

4.2 HUMAN VISUAL ACUITY VERSUS SCREEN SIZE AND VIEWING DISTANCE

In this chapter I detail how to calculate on the visual acuity of the human eye and set out the physical pre-

conditions for distinguishing between different image resolutions. I start by calculating on the ability to

distinguish between HD and SD in the average home. Afterwards the same calculations are transferred to

the circumstances of the cinema and expected ability to distinguish between 2K and 4K. This calculation

method is used as an important tool in the setup of my test in section 5.

The ability to perceive a quality difference between SD and HD footage depends very much on screen size

and viewing distance. There are ways to calculate the acuity of human vision and the average eyes ability to

distinguish individual pixels at different distances. From a Snellen chart64

The eyes ability to perceive details is measured in line pairs per degree of arc

normal vision is referred to as 6/6

meaning that a person can read the letters that define average vision from the prescribed 6 meters away.

Accordingly a 6/3 vision is when a person at 6 meters distance is able to read what should be normally pos-

sible only at 3 meters. 6/12 is when a person at the same 6 meters distance is only able to read what should

be possible already at 12 meters. In other words; 6/3 is twice as good as 6/6, whereas 6/12 is twice as bad

[52].

65

In my research of visual acuity I have used Ophthalmologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen Carsten Anker

Edmund

[19]. The average viewing

angle when looking straight ahead is determined in degrees, but the eye can perceive details smaller than

what can be measured in degrees only. Therefore a single degree is divided further into arc minutes where

one degree equals 60 arc minutes. On a Snellen chart normal visual acuity is measured in one’s ability to

recognise letters at levels as low as 5 arc minutes, but this is aimed specifically at recognising contrasted

shapes and the eye can still perceive objects below this level [52].

66

64 A Snellen chart consists of black letters of different sizes on a white background and is used by

as consultant to verify my methods. He says that the lower resolution of the eye is a complicated

matter. The Snellen chart provides a measurable indication of visual acuity, but the qualitative assessment

of an image is greatly influenced by numerous factors branching into both Ophthalmology and Neurosci-

ence. He agrees that much is measured in arc minutes, but there are even circumstances where the eye is

able to perceive details in arc seconds, which is 1/60 of an arc minute. Still, the most commonly used calcu-

lations considers only the eyes ability to distinguish in arc minutes and these are often used to give an es-

timation of optimal viewing distance in relation to screen size and image resolution [52]. As mentioned

eye specialists and others to measure visual acuity [73]. 65 lp/degree 66 This consulting was performed over the telephone and not audio recorded. Ophthalmologist Carsten Anker Edmund has agreed to have his name mentioned in this case study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_care_professional�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity�

38

above the eye’s ability to perceive details is measured in lp/degree and with 6/6 acuity one should be able

to perceive 30 lp/degree [19]. In image resolution one line pair is compared to two vertical lines of black

and white pixels next to each other. This means that the eye is effectively able to perceive 60 individual

vertical lines of pixels per degree of arc.

These numbers are accentuated in the following example of how the relationship between viewing distance

and screen size is calculated;

Say you have a 40 inch screen and you sit 2 meters away. Drawing an isosceles triangle from the edges of

the screen to the viewing position gives a viewing angle of 25 degrees, as seen in Figure 3. So with the eyes

capable of perceiving 60 vertical lp/degree at 6/6 visual acuity the equation, 25x60 = 1440 give that the eye

is unable to perceive pixels smaller than 1/1440 of the screen width. With a 40 inch screen67

1/1440 means

pixels smaller than 0,026 inch each.

FIGURE 3: A VISUAL DISPLAY OF THE CALCULATION METHOD USED FOR APPROXIMATING HUMAN VISUAL ACUITY. THIS FIGURE SHOWS AN

ISOSCELES TRIANGLE DRAWN FROM THE VIEWING POSITION, 4 METERS AWAY, TO THE EDGES OF THE 40 INCH SCREEN USED IN THIS EXAMPLE.

At 1080p68 resolution each pixel on a 40 inch screen is 0,018 inch. At 720p69 they are 0,027 inch, while at

SD70

67 0,89 meters in width

they are 0,034 inch. This means that the two HD resolutions, 1080p and 720p, are perceived as almost

68 1920x1080 pixels 69 1280x720 pixels 70 1024x576 pixels in 16:9 aspect ratio

39

equal while HD should be distinguishable from SD in this particular example. The crossing point where HD

becomes indistinguishable from SD is at approximately 3,5 meters distance.

However I find that there are influential elements unaccounted for that takes away the reliability of this

calculation method as a conclusive source. Even with images that only differs in resolution and otherwise

are similar in all other property aspects, what is missing from the equation is the fact that SD material is

scaled up to fill the native resolution of the screen. Depending on the algorithm used by the television

manufacturer, this scaling encompasses artefacts that will diminish the overall image quality and aid the

ability to distinguish between HD and SD at even larger distances. In contrast an HD screen is engineered to

make full benefit of HD material and because of the higher resolution an HD image contains pixel details

that simply are not available at lower resolutions.

Ophthalmologist Carsten Anker Edmund argues against this calculation method as conclusive source also.

He explains that it is too simple and encompasses only a fraction of what goes into the subjective evalua-

tion of image quality. Although he agrees that the method can be used as a guideline for what to expect at

different viewing distances.

As a consequence I have chosen to follow the advice of Ophthalmologist Carsten Anker Edmund and use

this calculation method merely as a guideline. Using this method Figure 4 shows the linear relationship

between different viewing distances, screen sizes and visual acuity of the human eye. Given that the eye

may have higher resolution than what can be measured in arc minutes alone conforming to the lines of this

figure should have the average eye physically able to distinguish between HD and SD.

40

FIGURE 4: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCREEN SIZE, VIEWING DISTANCE AND THE EYES ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIFFERENT RESOLU-

TION STANDARDS.

Taking the lines of Figure 4 and transferring them into the physical conditions of the cinema give some in-

teresting results in terms of what to expect from the average cinemagoer. With a screen like the one in-

stalled in Imperial71 at approximately 689 inches in a 16:9 aspect ratio [53] the crossing point for when the

average eye will not be able to distinguish 4K from 2K is as far back as 30 meters from the screen72

Although a big cinema like Imperial would get the most from switching to 4K also smaller cinemas could

benefit from the 4K format. The smallest cinema in the Palads

. Accord-

ing to 6/6 visual acuity the optimal distance is at 13 meters after which the benefit of 4K is diminished

gradually until reaching the before mentioned 30 meters. Moving closer than 13 meters will result in a

wider viewing angle degrading the overall image quality to gradually appear more blurry [54]. In Imperial

the distance from screen to end wall is approximately 30 meters, while the distance to first row is approxi-

mately 6 meters. The optimal viewing distance for 2K in the same cinema is 27 meters and this means that

almost all of Imperials 1102 seated cinemagoers would benefit from 4K when compared to 2K.

73

Theatre with a 144 inch screen would have

an optimal viewing distance of 2,7 meters and only at approximately 5 meters would 4K become indistin-

guishable from 2K. So with consideration to the limited size from screen to end wall of such a small cinema

4K could even benefit in this case also, especially when sitting in first few rows.

71 Nordisk Films largest cinema [53] 72 This is calculated in the same way as with the example in chapter 4.2 73 Palads is owned by Nordisk Film and constitute 17 cinemas in total [55].

41

4.3 HD TO THE AVERAGE CINEMAGOER - ACCORDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES

In this chapter I refer to the results of the questionnaire survey made on the average cinemagoers ap-

proach to HD and cinema preferences. The purpose of this questionnaire was to examine people’s supply of

HD channels, their considerations towards HD content on their home flat-screen and visual preferences

when going to the cinema74 Appendix III – Questionnaires. All the results can be found in , but the essence

of these is gathered in the following figures to ease the readability of the chapter. It is important to empha-

size that the answers given in the questionnaires are the participants’ own evaluation of ability and not

something that I have measured.

4.3.1

As mentioned previously both Yousee and Canal Digital

THE ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH HD FROM SD 75 has HD channels on their list of top priorities for

2010. According to BFE76 the interest in HD material on the home flat-screen is increasing among the Dan-

ish population [46] and when asking the cinemagoers they have a prevalent belief in their own ability to

distinguish between SD and HD77

Figure 5

. In the questionnaires only few of the participants renounce their ability

to distinguish, instead a combined 88,4 percent answer either “Yes” or “Don’t know”. shows the

distribution of answers when asked directly about whether they can distinguish between SD and HD image

quality.

74 See the Questionnaire methodology in chapter 1.2.2 75 See chapter 4.1 76 Branchen Forbruger Elektronik 77 See Appendix III – Questionnaires – Chapter 11.1

42

FIGURE 5: ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SD AND HD ON THE HOME FLAT-SCREEN. N = 96

When comparing the different age spans there is no significant change between them. They all have more

than fifty percent saying that they are able to distinguish and although minor differences the figure show

no obvious correlation between age and ability. The ones most assure of their own ability to distinguish is

the 50-60 year olds and this age span is also the ones who prefer HD over SD the most, as shown in Figure

6. But again there is no big difference and whether one prefers SD or HD seems to be independent of age.

FIGURE 6: PREFERENCES FOR HD OR SD QUALITY. N = 96

43

Rather than focusing on age one thing that stands out the most when looking at Figure 6 is the great

amount of participants unsure of whether they prefer the one format or the other. Comparing Figure 5 and

Figure 6 shows that although a total of 62,4 percent say that they are able to distinguish, 42,6 percent of

these do not know what they prefer. The participants were also asked to specify their access to HD content

at home, which is summed in Figure 7, but comparing this figure with the two above still do not give a defi-

nite signifier of why there are so many unsure participants in each age span.

FIGURE 7: THE DISTRIBUTION OF FLAT-SCREEN TV’S, BLU-RAY PLAYERS AND HD CHANNELS AMONG THE PARTICIPANTS. N = 96

A total of 90,4 percent of the asked participants own a flat-screen TV, and looking at the increase in access

to HD channels you could make a link between this and the almost proportional increase in HD prefer-

ence78. The accessibility to HD channels is highest in the age span 40-60, but then again it is the 20-39 year

olds who lead when it comes to Blu-ray79

In my search for a more profound explanation to the high number of unsure participants I went further in

depth with the individual answers. When separating the “don’t know” answers from the rest it becomes

apparent that many of the ones unsure of what they prefer are also the ones with neither HD channels nor

Blu-ray in their home.

. So although the increasing access to HD channels could be a rea-

son for why the HD preference is slightly higher in the age span 40-60, it is not as if the younger age spans

do not have access to HD material.

Figure 8 shows the access to HD content based on the participant’s answer on

78 See Figure 6 on page 42 79 The Blu-ray format is explained in chapter 4.1

44

whether they prefer HD, SD or “Don’t know”. The figure also includes the amount of participants in each

category and here it is important to emphasize that the percentages given in the “I prefer SD” category is

based on only 2 participants. As a result I have omitted any further analysis of these two answers and fo-

cused solely on “I prefer HD” and “Don’t know” categories.

FIGURE 8: ACCESS TO HD CONTENT ON THE HOME FLAT-SCREEN, FILTERED ACCORDING TO PREFERING EITHER HD OR SD. N = 96

Even though 82,5 percent in the “Don’t know” category own a flat-screen TV, only 24,4 percent of them

have HD channels and 11,9 percent own a Blu-ray player. As oppose in the “I prefer HD” category almost

everybody have a flat-screen TV and 87,3 percent of these use it for HD TV, while 32,1 percent have Blu-

ray. For that reason I am inclined to base the majority of the “Don’t know” answers on the participants

feeling that without a greater access to HD content a distinct preference from their part would be unjusti-

fied.

From the separation of answers in Figure 8 it seems evident that the preference of HD increases together

with the amount of HD material accessible in one’s home. As a result, despite the great amount of partici-

pants unsure of what they prefer, Yousee and Canal Digital may be correct in having HD channels as a top

priority.

In the questionnaire the participants with HD channels were asked to specify which ones and here DR HD,

the only subscription free HD channel, got the highest percentage80

80 See

. Out of the 59 participants with HD

Appendix III – Questionnaires – Chapter 11.1

45

channels 54 noted DR HD and this supports the statement from BFE81 saying that DR HD is the leading con-

tributor to introducing the Danish population to HD quality [50]. Furthermore when looking at the different

answers filtered according to age there is no specific age applied to the participants only having DR HD82

On page

. In

other words there are participants with subscription to additional HD channels spread over the entire 20-60

age spectrum and, with only 2,1 percent of the participants saying directly that they would prefer SD over

HD, the answers indicate a prevalent interest in the image quality of HD.

38 I have an example of a 40 inch screen where the crossing point from when HD becomes indis-

tinguishable from SD is at approximately 3,5 meters distance83 Figure 9. In this context shows the relation-

ship between screen size, average viewing distance and the participants stated ability to distinguish be-

tween SD and HD.

FIGURE 9: ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HD AND SD, COMPARED WITH THE AVERAGE VIEWING DISTANCES OF THE FOUR SPECIFIED SCREEN

SIZE CATEGORIES. N = 96

With Figure 9 it is necessary to mention that the distribution of answers is not consistent in all screen size

categories. A total of 86,2 percent of the participants are enclosed in the “30-49” inch category, whereas

only 8 and 3,4 percent are in the “19-29” and “50-59” categories respectively. The last 2,3 percent, corre-

sponding to 2 participants, are in the “Other” category stating that they do not know their screen size. Con-

81 Branchen Forbruger Elektronik 82 See Appendix III – Questionnaires – Chapter 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5 83 See chapter 4.2

46

clusively my analysis of the answers focuses primarily on the difference between the “30-39” and “40-49”

categories.

The numbers of Figure 9 are somewhat consistent with the calculations on human visual acuity. Looking at

the average viewing distance at 40-49 inch screens it is within the distance zone where HD84 and SD should

be distinguishable from one another85

The calculation on visual acuity is consistent with the participant’s stated abilities in that the ability to dis-

tinguish increases together with an increase in screen size at approximately the same viewing distance. This

is especially given by the significant increase from 53,3 to 81 percent being able to distinguish when going

from 30-39 to 40-49 inches while being positioned at the same 3,5-4 meters away. However having 53,3

percent in the “30-39” category being able to distinguish from a distance of averagely 3,5 meters is slightly

contrary to the predictions of the calculated visual acuity, but no surprise.

. But at the same time with the 30-39 inch screens the average dis-

tance is beyond the crossing point where HD and SD are distinguishable, yet a majority of the participants

are confident that they can differentiate.

As noted by Ophthalmologist Carsten Anker Edmund86

4.2

the method I have used for calculating may be the

most common, but it does not provide a conclusive truth. Instead the calculation is great as a guideline but

should only be used as such. As mentioned in chapter , while HD flat-screens are purposely built for HD

resolution images SD will always encompass a quality reducing scaling to fill out the native resolution of the

screen. HD material has higher detail richness because of the additional pixels, compared to lower resolu-

tions, and these details make the image appear sharper in overall. This may be a contributing factor to why

people are able to distinguish from longer distances than specified in the visual acuity calculation.

Figure 10 show the distribution of answers to why the participants find HD better than SD divided according

to screen size.

84 720p 85 See Figure 4 on page 40 86 See chapter 4.2

47

FIGURE 10: ANSWERS ON WHAT IS IMPROVED BY HD QUALITY COMPARED TO SD, FILTERED ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIED SCREEN SIZE CATE-

GORIES. N = 96

From Figure 10 it is apparent that image sharpness is also what people recognise as the primary benefit of

HD compared to SD. Other image resolution related improvements such as details and noise are not given

as many votes, although the details rank as the second highest when combined. Meanwhile from the high

percentages given to both colours and contrast, which are not specifically related to the change in resolu-

tion, it could seem that HD is considered as an overall improvement to the image quality as a whole. Never-

theless over the entire range of screen sizes the participants perceive a sharper and more detailed image

and this could indicate a visual acuity higher than predicted by calculating in arc minutes alone87. With

normal 6/6 visual acuity you will not get full benefit of every 2.073.600 pixel in a Full HD88

With the answers based on the participants own measure of ability I cannot exclude the possibility of some

participants not actually being able to distinguish between HD and SD from their specified viewing distance

and screen size. However with a combined 62,4 percent

image if placed

beyond the viewing distances specified by calculating in arc minutes, but HD does seem to provide an over-

all quality enhancement that is perceivable even at larger distances.

89

87 See calculation in chapter

stating that they can differentiate and 55,3 per-

4.2 88 1920x1080 pixels 89 See Figure 5 on page 42

48

cent90

4.3.2

saying that they prefer HD it appears as if the general interest in improved image quality is high and

this carries great influence on the future demand for 4K also.

From the answers given on the participant’s ability to distinguish between SD and HD it would seem that

the average cinemagoers are growing accustomed to the improved image quality of HD. In regards to 4K

the question is how this interest in HD influences people’s preferences when going to the cinema and the

prospect of 4K generating a public demand.

PREFERENCES WHEN GOING TO THE CINEMA

Figure 11 shows the distribution of answers when asked why

the participants go to the cinema91

.

FIGURE 11: ANSWERS ON WHY THE PARTICIPANTS GO TO THE CINEMA. N = 96

From this figure it is evident that what draw the most attention are the social aspect of going to the cinema

and the possibility of watching the most recent movies. The more technical aspects such as sound, screen

size, image quality and 3D effect have a say also as they make up 41,23 percent combined, but with the

increasing interest in HD it seems strange that “image quality” is given the lowest percentage in this cinema

context. In fact the “image quality” is the lowest on the entire chart, even lower than “Popcorn, Candy and

Soda”. The only thing that is rated below image quality is the “Other” category where most of the com-

ments are that people want the movie experience as a whole.

90 See Figure 6 on page 42 91 This question had eight possible answers with no limit to how many of these the participants could choose.

49

This low rating of image quality could indicate that the participants generally do not care much for image

quality in the cinema, but when asked about their preferences on improved image quality their answers

show the opposite. Figure 12 shows the percentage of participants who would prefer an improved image

quality along with the percentage of these willing to visit another cinema if necessary and even pay extra

for the ticket.

FIGURE 12: THE FOUR MAIN QUESTIONS ASKED IN REGARDS TO WANTING AN IMPROVED IMAGE QUALITY WHEN GOING TO THE CINEMA. N = 96

If people could choose 71,9 percent would prefer an improved image quality when going to the cinema.

This is no surprise given that the question was asked as an either-or without any detailed circumstances to

getting this quality and so the participants could just as well choose the higher image quality in this particu-

lar context. What makes it interesting however is that 68,1 percent of these 71,9 percent would be willing

to prioritise the image quality enough to visit another cinema and 66,2 would pay extra for it also. Further-

more when specifying the distances the participants would be willing to travel in order to visit the other

cinema they range from five to fifty kilometres. 30,2 percent say that would travel as far as 10-15 kilome-

tres, while no less than 43,1 would pay as much as 20 kroners extra for the ticket92

When filtering the top three percentages in

.

Figure 12 according to age it gives the result shown in Figure

13.

92 For further details see Appendix III – Questionnaires – Chapter 11.1

50

FIGURE 13: PREFERRING HIGHER IMAGE QUALITY IN THE CINEMA, FILTERED ACCORDING TO AGE. N = 96

From Figure 13 it is evident that the will to get higher image quality in the cinema is not restricted to one

specific target group, but distributed over the entire 20-60 age span. What is interesting still is that when

comparing these percentages with the ones in Figure 6, on page 42, the will to higher image quality seems

to increase together with the preference of HD over SD on the home flat-screen.

The percentages in Figure 12 and Figure 13 stand in great contrast with the statements given by Head of

Films Rikart Købke and the advertising strategy laid out by Cinemaxx. Having advertised 4K at the launch of

their 4K cinema Cinemaxx decided to discontinue any further focus on it as they claim that people found it

confusing in the midst of the demand for stereoscopic 3D [11]. The knowledge of 4K is indeed low, as

shown in Figure 12 where only 2,1 percent of the participants have ever heard of 4K in the cinema, but this

does not mean that they do not want the image improvement it entail. If more focus was put into promot-

ing the quality benefits of 4K I believe that it could attract attention from the average cinemagoers. Judging

from the participants of my questionnaire survey the interest in improved image quality is certainly pre-

sent.

4.3.3

According to the 96 questionnaire participants there is a predominant interest in higher image quality

through HD. This interest is transferred to the cinema where more than two quarter would prefer better

image quality if given the choice. Cinemaxx have chosen to focus on stereoscopic 3D rather than 4K, but

THE AMATEUR PROSPECT OF 4K

51

with so many willing to visit other cinemas and pay additional money to get an improved image quality it

could seem that 4K is not as bad business as stated by Head of Films Rikart Købke [11].

No matter how Cinemaxx choose to prioritise, the results of the questionnaire survey radiates a positive

signal towards the prospect of 4K becoming standard. Image quality may not exceed the demand for

stereoscopic 3D amongst the reasons for why people go to the cinema93, but when asked it seems evident

that a higher image quality is something that the average cinemagoer wants and is willing to sacrifice both

time and money to get94

Both VFX Supervisor Martin Madsen and Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt say that 4K is an inevitable part

of the technological process and thus part of the future, but in light of the questionnaires it seems that 4K

could generate a demand among the audience also. In other words, the future prospect of 4K is promising

when asking the average cinemagoer.

.

4.4 4K TO THE AVERAGE CINEMAGOER - ACCORDING TO THE INTERVIEWED EXPERTS

According to the interviewed experts there is a general disbelief towards the average cinemagoers ability to

distinguish 4K from 2K. Head of Films Rikart Købke says;

“On a screen less than 10 meters wide, and most screens are, I don’t think that you will be

able to distinguish.”

Head of Film Rikart Købke [11]95

He is however not all negative towards the average cinemagoers ability to assess image quality and when

asked directly about whether the introduction of HD has aided this ability he answers;

93 See Figure 11 on page 48 94 See Figure 12 on page 49 95 Chapter 10.4 line 734

52

“Yes definitely! Everybody who has an interest in technique and HD has written about this

thing (4K). We are still receiving mails from cinemagoers writing how nice it was to see Ava-

tar the way it’s meant to be seen. They have seen Avatar before in some other cinema, but it

doesn’t compare to the version they’ve seen here. We have never received mails like these

before and they are from normal people who just want to tell us that they’ve had a great ex-

perience. However as they’ve tried to go into detail it is apparent that they don’t’ know why.”


Cinemaxx has stopped marketing 4K as to limit confusion and primarily focus on stereoscopic 3D. When

booking a ticket there is no showing whether the cinema is 4K or not, you have to know beforehand.

Meanwhile in the ticket office they have had people come asking for the 4K cinema, which in Cinemaxx

Copenhagen is number 5, but at the same time it has been difficult to convince people that cinema 5 is

better than 1. Head of Films Rikart Købke describes the difficulty of altering people’s predetermined notion

as something that continues to stick no matter how many times you advertise the opposite. People main-

tain their own notion of how things are [11]. He is not sure of whether or not Cinemaxx will start marketing

4K again, but assures that in due time 4K will be in cinema 1 also. Still, his belief in 4K drawing specific at-

tention is low.

The only one of the interviewed experts who firmly believes that 4K will draw attention from the average

cinemagoer is Cinematographer Jan Weincke. To him it is essential that cinemas adopt 4K to maintain qual-

ity higher than what people can experience at home.

“They need to know that when they go to the cinema they’re getting the highest quality

available on screen. They need to know that it’s the best of the best. If we can maintain that

notion then people will continue to find the cinemas interesting.”


To the rest of the interviewed experts 4K will not draw any particular attention. Technical Manager Ivan

Schmidt is assured that the only thing pushing 4K forward is the demand from inside the movie industry

and the average cinemagoer will not be able to distinguish between 4K and 2K [26]. VFX Supervisor Martin

Madsen agrees. To him the introduction of HD has done nothing for the quality assessment skills of the

average eye and instead of image quality the demand in HD flat-screens is merely a competition in who can


53

buy the biggest multifunctional screen to show off to friends [31]. He is not convinced that people even

notice whether the images are SD or HD as long as they can show off their new furniture, and since 4K is

not something you can show at home it will not yield more attention than normal 2K projection. In order to

have people notice you need something more apparent, like stereoscopy [31].

Project Coordinator Mette Hansen has a similar disbelief as Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt and VFX Su-

pervisor Martin Madsen although to less degree. She explains her view as;

“I don’t think it will mean much to my mom and dad for example. Right now there is a need

for more obvious changes like 3D movies which provide something completely new and dif-

ferent. To the average cinemagoer it is more a matter of narrative rather than image qual-

ity.”


When asked whether an investment in 4K equipment will be a waste of money Project Coordinator Mette

Hansen believes that 4K will carry much importance in terms of selling the movie to foreign countries and

festivals. So from an international point of view the money will not be a waste. Cinematographer Jan

Weincke is in no doubt that 4K will be worth every penny in the competition against flat-screens and to

Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt 4K is a prerequisite for assuring a high level of quality for future usage of

the movies. Meanwhile to Head of Films Rikart Købke the investment in 4K to small cinemas will be need-

less, while VFX Supervisor Martin Madsen underlines 4K as a definite waste in most regards;

“With the cinemas we have in Denmark right now the only reason why we do 4K is for the

cinematographers. Naturally, they have every right to have their movies made in as high

quality available. So if you have a cinematographer and production studio willing to have

their things made in 4K then they should definitely be allowed to. 4K is theoretically higher

quality, absolutely, it has more information in the images. If they can see a difference it’s fan-

tastic, but Mr. and Mrs. Denmark will not pay for it.”



54

4.5 SUMMARY – THE PUBLIC DEMAND FOR 4K

The interest in HD channels and Blu-ray has increased massively over the past few years. With every single

television sold in 2009 being a flat-screen both Yousee and Canal Digital have HD in their list of top priori-

ties for 2010. In the questionnaire 62,4 percent100 of the participants state clearly that they are able to dis-

tinguish between HD and SD and 55,3 percent101

In regards to the test performed at Utrecht University in 2008 I do not deny the possibility of some people

becoming victims to a placebo effect of imagined quality enhancement based on the public marketing of

HD as better than SD. This test was flawed in terms of not being an actual comparison of HD and SD and

although their participants expressed a perceived quality improvement just by believing that what they saw

was HD, technology has advanced and the distribution of everyday HD reference material is now plentiful.

that they prefer HD over SD. You can calculate on the eyes

ability to distinguish according to visual acuity measured in arc minutes. Even so there are participants con-

tradicting this calculation by stating that they can surely distinguish, although it should not be physically

possible with their specified viewing distance and screen size. However with both the word of warning from

Ophthalmologist Carsten Anker Edmund, saying that this calculation can be used merely as a guideline, and

the up-scaling artefacts of SD on a HD screen I reckon that some are able to distinguish HD from SD at

screen sizes smaller than prescribed in this calculation.

With the introduction of HD channels and Blu-ray more attention has been brought to image quality among

the population and the questionnaire results could indicate that the average cinemagoer is becoming more

fastidious towards image quality in general. Although 42,6 percent102

I have a personal notion saying that you have to experience HD in order to truly appreciate it, and this goes

for 4K as well. The large screen sizes available in the cinema are tailored for image resolutions higher than

HD and 2K. It only seems reasonable that cinemas could benefit from the image quality enhancement given

by 4K. However among the interviewed experts only Cinematographer Jan Weincke is in support of this

notion. VFX Supervisor Martin Madsen is the most contradictive stating that HD has done nothing to the

quality assessment skills of the average cinemagoer and that people will be completely incapable of distin-

guishing 4K from 2K.

of the questionnaire participants

“don’t know” if they would prefer HD or SD it seems evident that the preference of HD increases together

with the access to HD content in one’s home.

100 See Figure 5 on page 42 101 See Figure 6 on page 42 102 See Figure 6 on page 42

55

Head of Films Rikart Købke is less contradictive saying that big cinemas will benefit, but those with screens

less than 10 meters across will not. This is the same as with flat-screen televisions, bigger screen sizes bene-

fit more from higher resolutions. A cinema like the smallest found in the Palads Theatre with only 144 inch

screen width will benefit less from 4K than a cinema like Imperial with a 689 inch screen103

4.2

[55]. Still, as

shown in the two calculation examples in chapter even the small cinemas will have some benefit from

4K, allowing the audience to sit closer to the screen without experiencing a reduction of image sharpness.

According to the questionnaire participants “image quality” is very low on the list of why they go to the

cinema. Still if given the option no less than 71,9 percent, distributed over the entire 20-60 age span, would

prefer a cinema of higher image quality and 66,2 percent of these would even pay extra for the ticket to get

it. Meanwhile the knowledge of 4K is almost non-existing and although all focus is currently on stereoscopic

3D it could seem that an increased marketing of 4K could generate an interest from the average cinema-

goers also.

Despite the overall disbelief from the interviewed experts the questionnaire survey shows a high interest in

improved image quality among the average cinemagoers. None of the experts deny 4K as part of the future

eventually, but based on the questionnaire results it seems evident that the public demand for 4K is there

also.

103 See the calculation in chapter 4.2 where Imperial is used as an example.

56

5 TESTING THE AVERAGE CINEMAGOERS ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH 4K FROM 2K

During my analysis of 4K I have found that there is a great deal of disagreement between the presentiment

of the interviewed experts and the average cinemagoers when it comes to assessing and appreciating im-

age quality. Every interviewed expert, besides Cinematographer Jan Weincke, is sceptical towards the aver-

age cinemagoers ability to distinguish 4K from 2K, resulting in a low general interest in the 4K format.

Meanwhile the questionnaire survey detailed in chapter 4.3 show the opposite. Judging from this question-

naire the interest in getting the quality improvement of 4K is high, just like the self-confidence in being able

to assess image quality in general.

In the following section I explain the test I have devised to provide an answer to whether the average

cinemagoer is able to perceive a visual difference in image quality between 2K and 4K in the cinema. After-

wards I present and compare the result given by this test to see if the test participants have been able to

distinguish and lastly I evaluate their assessment in terms of being representative for the average cinema-

goers. A more overall evaluation of the results in context of this case study in its entirety is reserved for the

subsequent discussion in section 6.

5.1 TEST METHODOLOGY

5.1.1

The focus of this test was solely on the evaluation of perceived image quality between digital and analogue

versions of 2K and 4K from the eye of the average cinemagoer. It was constructed as a qualitative compara-

tive assessment of eight paired movie sequences where the participants were told to vote for the sequence

they preferred for each pair

TEST SETUP AND VALIDITY

104

The test had 17 participants in total and consisted of 8 males and 9 females distributed equally in age 20 to

60. My goal was to have results representing the average cinemagoer and, as described in chapter

. The movie sequences were all similar in content and differed only in resolu-

tion and being either digital or analogue.

1.2.2,

the 20-60 age spectrum represents the target group that I personally believe has the highest interest in the

4K format. I am not claiming that this is a fact, merely a matter of specifying a target group. Figure 14 show

the distribution of participants according to age and gender.

104 The sheet used for the participants to note their vote on can be found in Appendix IV – Test course – Chapter 12.1

57

Distribution of test Participants

Age Male Female

20-29: 2 3

30-39: 2 3

40-49: 1 1

50-60: 3 2

8 9

FIGURE 14: THE DISTRIBUTION OF TEST PARTICIPANTS

To assure that the collected data was content valid and therefore transferrable to the reality of a cinema

the test was conducted in Nordisk Film Shortcuts’ cinema setup used for colour-grading. In creating content

validity is it imperative that the circumstances of the test correspond to reality in details [5]. In this case it

meant a cinema setup where the relationship between screen size and viewing distance corresponded to

the cinema recommendations defined by SMPTE and THX105. The chosen cinema at Nordisk Film Shortcut

consisted of a 144 inch screen106 and seating distances of up to 10 meters, while the projector was a digital

2K DLP107 projector. Similar conditions to those of a small digital cinema108

TEST MATERIAL

.

The test footage was borrowed with permission from Director Jesper Just and his short-movie Sirens of

Chrome [56]. This footage is recorded in digital 4K on RED and shows four girls driving through the empty

streets of Detroit with a mix of long-shots109 following the car down the streets and close-ups110

Each sequence for this test was similar in content and had 20 seconds duration in total. They started with

an 8 seconds close-up of the girl driving the car and switched to a 12 seconds long-shot outside the car.

There was no specified narrative as the test concerned only image quality. The first sequence focused pri-

of the girls

inside.

105 THX has become a quality signifier and define the minimum standards cinemas must meet in order to receive a THX certification [58]. SMPTE make more overall recommendations for cinemas to follow without necessarily having to meet THX standards. However in regards to viewing distance the recommendations from THX and SMPTE are very similar. THX have 36 degrees viewing angle as recommended minimum for back row seating while SMPTE have 30 degrees, and a THX certification can be achieved already at 26 degrees [54] [58]. 106 3,2 meters x 1,8 meters 107 Digital Light Processing 108 The smallest cinema in the Palads Theatre has the same size properties, as mentioned in chapter 4.4 109 In a long-shot characters are shown in full figure, but with the background as the dominating element [57] 110 A close-up shows only single elements like the face and emphasizes details such as facial expressions [57]

58

marily on the girls’ facial expression whereas the other showed the street and buildings surrounding the

car. My reason for including both sequences was that they differ very much in resolution related detail

richness. The first has the girl in focus and the background out of focus, which means that the majority of

details are centred on her face features. The second shows the street, trees and buildings in full focus and

with very high detail richness scattered all over the image. Altogether they encompass two of the most

commonly used scenarios in movie making [57]. Figure 15 is a small selection of frames from the two shots

constituting the movie sequence used in the comparisons.

FIGURE 15: SELECTION OF FRAMES FROM THE TWO SHOTS CONSTITUTING THE MOVIE SEQUENCE USED FOR THE EIGHT TEST PAIRS.

All of the sequences were kept similar in content, bit depth111 and file format to limit the amount of chang-

ing variables to image resolution and digital/analogue only. However because the source material was shot

in digital 4K on RED112

Additionally, with the test constituting a comparison of analogue and digital footage a copy of the digital

material was given grain to simulate the appearance of 35mm film also. Naturally the overall validity of the

test would have been heightened with the presence of an analogue 35mm film projector, but in order to

aid the fluency of the test and avoid having to switch between projectors I found it more convenient to

make a grain simulation instead. Such simulations are used in the everyday compositing of digital and ana-

logue footage at Nordisk Film Shortcut and are very much valid in terms of providing a 35mm look. One

important thing to emphasize about this look is that it is equivalent to the visual quality of a fresh 35mm

copy, one that is yet to be worn from cinema projection, and therefore not necessarily similar to that of the

and the comparison required the same material in 2K it was reduced in detail to

simulate the appearance of digital 2K. This reduction was carefully performed as to not disturb the validity

of the displayed 2K material and consisted of a slight reduction of detail sharpness. Each pixel of every 4K

image was enlarged to take up four pixels, as this corresponds to a 2K image up-scaled to 4K, and then

scaled to 2K afterwards to get what would correspond to 2K material shot as digital 2K.

111 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.4 112 See explanation of RED in chapter 3.2

59

local cinema. But seeing that the wear and tear is proportional to the usage of the film I found a further

addition of scratches risky in terms of squandering the validity of the material.

The design of the test encompassed all of the 4K and 2K scenarios available in the cinema. These scenarios

were;

- Digital 4K

- Analogue 4K

- Digital 4K projected as 2K

- Analogue 4K projected as 2K

- Digital 2K

- Analogue 2K

- Digital 2K projected as 4K

- Analogue 2K projected as 4K

In the design was first a comparison of digital versus digital, then analogue versus analogue and lastly digi-

tal versus analogue. This last comparison was meant as a reference to the transition from analogue to digi-

tal projection in the Scandinavian cinemas to include the preferences of the participants in this regard also.

The separation was as following113

- Test pair 1-4: Comparison of digital versus digital and analogue versus analogue

;

- Test pair 5-8: Comparison of digital versus analogue

All the sequences were shown sequentially in pair. Each pair was started with a white on black sign saying

“Sequence 1” and separated by a similar sign saying “Sequence 2”. In between each pair the participants

were given a thirty seconds pause to note down their preference. In a real cinema the audience does not

have access to reference material in their assessment of image quality, but with this test being about the

ability to distinguish I believe that the comparative method used is more content valid than for instance

having the two sequences of each pair make an instant shift from one sequence to the other114

. Further-

more the participants were only shown each sequence once.

113 The individual test pairs are detailed in chapter 5.1.3 114 I return to this issue in my evaluation of the test validity in chapter 5.3.

60

BIT DEPTH AND FILE SIZE

All files were 10bit 2K115 DPX116 files and managed by the Lustre117 application already installed by Nordisk

Film in the chosen colour-grading cinema. 10bit 2K files are the highest bit depth and resolution this Lustre

setup can manage. All of the movie sequences were colour graded with Nordisk Films standard LUT118 pro-

viding the appearance of how the footage is meant to appear in the cinema. This LUT applies an additional

2bit to each 10bit DPX file, but since the Lustre cannot handle 12bit files they were all converted back to

10bit again afterwards. This was done while maintaining the LUT properties applied. The Lustre was con-

nected to a SAN119 unit containing the movie sequences with a 4Gbit/s bandwidth120. With this speed

twenty-five 10 bit 2K DPX files of 9MB121 each were transferred in 0,45 seconds, more than enough for real-

time122

Conforming to these file properties ensured that the visual quality of the projected material equalled the

expected quality of the cinema, both in terms of analogue and digital projection.

playback.

2K AND 4K CANVAS

Since the projector installed in the test cinema could not project 4K and the bandwidth did not support 4K

playback in real-time123 I used the following method to achieve 4K resolution and real-time playback in-

stead. The movie sequences were shown in what corresponds to a 2K and 4K canvas respectively. The 2K

canvas had the entire image within the 2K screen space, whereas the 4K canvas showed only ¼ of the im-

age as full screen in the 2K screen space. As a result the 4K canvas simulated a screen size of 282 inches,

which is four times bigger than the 144 inch screen installed in the chosen cinema. Meanwhile the 4K files

were cropped to 2K, meaning that all that was not visible within the 2K screen space was cut off and the

files reduced to the same file size as 2K124 Figure 16. This allowed the Lustre to play them in real-time.

shows the difference between the 2K and 4K canvas, while a visual representation of how each compared

movie sequence appeared on these two canvases is given in the outline of the test course in chapter 5.1.3.

115 2048x1152 pixels 116 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.1 117 Lustre is a high-end colour grading application developed by Autodesk [74] 118 Look Up Table, see chapter 2.2 119 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.6 120 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.5 121 See how DPX file sizes are calculated in the Encyclopaedia – Chapter 9.1 122 25 frames per second 123 This would require 8-10Gbit/s bandwidth as every DPX file take up 36MB each. 124 See how DPX file sizes are calculated in Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.1

61

FIGURE 16: A VISUAL EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2K AND 4K CANVAS USED IN THE TEST SETUP. [56]

Without having access to an actual 4K projector the division into 2K- and 4K canvases was the closest to full

4K resolution available. However the only proviso for using these two canvases was that the viewing dis-

tance was changed accordingly.

VIEWING DISTANCE AND SCREEN SIZE RELATION

Displaying ¼ of a 4K image on the 4K canvas corresponds to the cinemagoer sitting closer to the screen

compared to the 2K canvas. Therefore for the 4K canvas the participants were told to move backwards to

maintain the same viewing distance versus screen size relation as with the 2K canvas. See Figure 17.

The participants distance to the screen was determined through a combination of the relationship between

human visual acuity, screen size, viewing distance and cinema recommendations given by SMPTE and

THX125. SMPTE and THX recommends a minimum viewing angle of 30 and 36 degrees respectively [58] [59].

With the 144 inch screen used in this test setup it meant that the participants should be positioned 5,4126

meters from the screen at maximum. In this case the optimal viewing distance at 6/6 visual acuity and 2K

resolution is 5 meters, but I chose to position the participants at 4 meters distance to give them a viewing

angle of 43 degrees. To maintain this viewing angle for the 4K canvas the participants were positioned at 8

meters distance to get the same 43 degrees angle corresponding to a screen size of 282 inches. My reason

for placing the participants at these specific distances was to make the average seating distance equal to

that of an ordinary cinema. In comparison sitting in the centre of Imperial127 at row 14128

125 See chapter

give you a viewing

distance of approximately 21 meters and angle of 43 degrees.

4.2 126 THX; 4,9 meters. SMPTE; 5,9 meters. 127 See chapter 4.2 128 Out of 24 rows in total [53]

62

FIGURE 17: THE TWO VIEWING DISTANCES USED IN THE TEST SETUP, MAINTAINING A VIEWING ANGLE OF 43 DEGREES FOR THE 2K AND 4K

CANVAS RESPECTIVELY.

5.1.2

The selection of participants was based on Purposive sampling [5]. This type of sampling falls within the

category of non-probability sampling which means that is does not involve random selection, but instead

you sample participants according to a predefined group. In my case it was very important that age and

gender was distributed equally in the 20-60 age spectrum and for that reason a random selection was sim-

ply not practical. With purposive sampling my goal was to represent the average cinemagoer within a lim-

ited selection of participants from which I could draw general conclusions. Apart from fitting the necessary

age and gender there were three primary requirements the participants had to meet;

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS AND INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN

1. They must have been to the cinema once within the past year

2. They must agree to have normal or corrected-to-normal vision

3. They must not carry any expert knowledge about the movie industry

My reason for not using experts was that they in their everyday role of working with images and the

evaluation of these would be too biased in their assessment of quality in comparison to the average

cinemagoer.

Before the test the participants were told that they were looking specifically for image quality, but not that

the only changing variables of each pair was the resolution and analogue/digital format. Their assessment

63

was quantified in terms of “I prefer sequence 1 or 2”, but not evaluated in terms of what caused the pref-

erence. Instead they were given the same questionnaire as used for the evaluation of HD to the average

cinemagoer in chapter 4.3. Their answers in this questionnaire were afterwards combined with their indi-

vidual votes for each test pair to provide a combined evaluation of each participant’s ability to distinguish

between 2K and 4K.

5.1.3

The following is the exact order of how the test was conducted. I have included a reference figure for each

of the eight test pairs to aid the understanding of how these were projected onto the cinema screen.

TEST COURSE

Test pair 1;

- Digital 2K vs. Digital 4K projected as 2K

o 2K canvas – viewing distance; 4 meters

FIGURE 18: PAIRED MOVIE SEQUENCE ONE

Test pair 2;

- Digital 2K projected as 4K vs. Digital 4K


64

FIGURE 19: PAIRED MOVIE SEQUENCE TWO

Test pair 3;

- Analogue 2K projected as 4K vs. Analogue 4K


FIGURE 20: PAIRED MOVIE SEQUENCE THREE

Test pair 4;

- Analogue 2K vs. Analogue 4K projected as 2K


65

FIGURE 21: PAIRED MOVIE SEQUENCE FOUR

Test pair 5;

- Analogue 2K vs. Digital 2K


FIGURE 22: PAIRED MOVIE SEQUENCE FIVE

Test pair 6;

- Analogue 4K projected as 2K vs. Digital 4K projected as 2K


66

FIGURE 23: PAIRED MOVIE SEQUENCE SIX

Test pair 7;

- Analogue 2K projected as 4K vs. Digital 2K projected as 4K


FIGURE 24: PAIRED MOVIE SEQUENCE SEVEN

Test pair 8;

- Analogue 4K vs. Digital 4K


67

FIGURE 25: PAIRED MOVIE SEQUENCE EIGHT

5.1.4

The evaluation method used for the results is based on interferential statistics [5]. This is the same method

as used with the evaluation of the results of the questionnaire survey described in chapter

TEST EVALUATION METHOD

4.3. With this

method I compare and make inferences based on the relation between the test participant’s assessment of

image quality and their answers in the subsequent questionnaire. Besides the ability to distinguish between

2K and 4K, my focus in this evaluation was also on the relation between each participant’s preference of

either 2K or 4K and stated ability to distinguish between HD and SD.

5.2 TEST RESULTS

The following is a review of the results from my test on the average cinemagoers ability to distinguish 4K

from 2K. The 17 participants of the test are referred to as the test participants, whereas the result from the

questionnaire detailed in chapter 4.3 are referred to as the questionnaire survey.

5.2.1

The focus of test pair 1-4 was the direct comparison of 2K and 4K on the different canvas sizes

TEST PAIR 1-4 – COMPARING 2K AND 4K 129

Figure 26

. The two

compared movie sequences of each pair were either both digital or both analogue, and not analogue versus

digital as in test pair 5-8. show the results from the first four test pairs constituting the part of the

test course comparing 2K with 4K in different scaling versions, described above in chapter 5.1.3.

129 See chapter 5.1.1

68

FIGURE 26: THE TEST RESULTS FROM TEST PAIR 1-4 CONSTITUTING THE COMPARISON OF 2K AND 4K ON EITHER 2K- OR 4K CANVASES. N = 17

Whether it is 4K or 4K projected as 2K, analogue or digital, 4K carries the highest vote in each of the first

four test pairs. The vote is most protruding in test pair three where each and every test participant has put

their vote on analogue 4K when compared to analogue 2K projected as 4K. In test pair two, which is similar

to test pair three apart from being digital, the separation of votes is significant also with more than double

the amount of participants preferring digital 4K. In test pair one and four the separation of votes is not as

high as in two and three, but still 4K projected as 2K is preferred over native 2K. How the analogue and

digital properties have influenced the distribution of votes is hard to tell from these first four test pairs

alone and instead I return to this matter in the later review of test pair 5-8 in Figure 29.

From their utterances subsequent to the assessment of image quality I got the impression that the test

participants found the movie sequences of all eight test pairs hard to distinguish from one another. There

seemed to be an agreement that neither of the comparisons had an obvious choice. Instead they answered

according to immediate impression. Still, Figure 26 shows that this immediate impression favoured 4K.

As part of the test the participants were asked to fill out the same questionnaire as used in the question-

naire survey, described in chapter 4.3. This was primarily to make inferences based on their assessment of

image quality and abilities stated in the questionnaire, but also to see how the answers from the test par-

ticipants differed from those of the questionnaire survey. Figure 27 shows the answers given by the test

participants to the same questions as asked in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7.

69

FIGURE 27: A COMBINED OVERVIEW OF THE ANSWERS TO QUESTION 1, 4, 6, 7 AND 8 IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE. THE RESULTS IN THIS FIGURE

SHOW ONLY THE COMBINED RESULTS OF THE TARGETED AGE SPECTRUM 20-60. N = 17

Although the number of participants differs from 96 in the questionnaire survey to 17 in this test, the per-

centages in Figure 27 show very much the same tendencies as in the questionnaire survey. The total per-

centage of participants having access to HD material in their home is lower resulting in a higher percentage

unsure of whether they can distinguish between SD and HD. Still the preference of HD is very much similar.

More than half of the participants prefer HD and believe they can distinguish between HD and SD. The ma-

jority of the second half “Don’t know” and only few answer directly that they cannot distinguish or that

they prefer SD.

In context of the analysis in chapter 4.1, concerning the average cinemagoer becoming more aware of im-

age quality with the introduction of HD channels and Blu-ray, Figure 28 shows the result from test pair 1-4

separated according to the participants answer on whether they can distinguish between SD and HD. The

purpose with this figure is too establish whether there is a connection between the participants stated abil-

ity to distinguish between HD and SD and subsequent assessment of image quality between 2K and 4K.

70

FIGURE 28: THE VOTES OF TEST PAIR 1-4, DIVIDED ACCORDING TO THE PARTICIPANTS ANSWER ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN DISTINGUISH

BETWEEN HD AND SD. N = 17

According to Figure 28 there is no significant indication that the participants confident that they can differ-

entiate between HD and SD carry an advantage when it comes to distinguishing 4K from 2K. They have a

higher separation of votes on the first three test pairs in favour of 4K, but still the fourth is inversed with a

minor favour of 2K. Meanwhile the participants stating that they do not know if they distinguish HD from

SD have 4K favoured in test pair three and four, while one and two have almost equal votes. With the single

participant unable to distinguish HD from SD, the only vote in favour of 2K is in test pair two.

As a consequence there is no obvious connection between the participants stated ability to distinguish be-

tween HD and SD and their assessment of 4K and 2K. The ones saying that they can distinguish have a

slightly higher separation of votes in favour of 4K. The ones who “don’t know” have a higher percentage in

favour of 2K than the ones who can distinguish130

5.2.2

, but still they have the majority of their votes on 4K. The

last participant unable to distinguish show the same tendency as in the other two groups and favours 4K in

three out of four test pairs.

In test pair 5-8 the focus was on having the two compared movie sequences in each pair only differ in being

analogue or digital as to include the preferences of the participants in this regard also.

TEST PAIR 5-8 – COMPARING ANALOGUE AND DIGITAL

130 If comparing with the total number of participants in each group

71

FIGURE 29: THE TEST RESULTS FROM TEST PAIR 5-8 CONSTITUTING THE COMPARISON OF DIGITAL VERSUS ANALOG. N = 17

From these results it is evident that there is no preponderance of answers and the distribution of partici-

pants preferring either digital or analogue is almost fifty-fifty. The digital versions have a slightly higher vote

in each of the four test pairs, but nothing significant. From this figure alone it is impossible to determine

whether the results are an intentional choice between grain and no-grain or a more intuitive selection

based on first impression. To find an explanation I asked each and every participant if he or she had per-

ceived the grain in the analogue versions and the answer was unambiguous. None of the participants had

made deliberate choices in either of these four test pairs. Instead they simply chose according to their im-

mediate preference in image quality. As a consequence I can only consider the very equal distribution of

answers in Figure 29 as the product of an instinctive selection rather than deliberate choice between digital

and analogue. I return with further critique of these results in the discussion, section 6.

5.2.3

In chapter

EVALUATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AVERAGE CINEMAGOER

4.3.2 I review the answers in the questionnaire survey according to the participant’s preferences

when going to the cinema. In this chapter I do the same for the participants of the test to see how they

compare in terms of preferring a higher image quality in the cinema and knowing what 4K is. The intention

with this comparison is to unveil whether the 17 participants involved in the test carried any additional

skills or interests providing them with an advantageous precondition for assessing image quality. Although

the circumstances of answering the questionnaire were different from that of the questionnaire survey my

criteria for approving the test participants as representative was that the answers would show similar ten-

dencies in a comparison of the two.

72

Figure 27 on page 69 show the participants stated abilities to distinguish between HD and SD and their

preferences of either format. From this figure it is apparent that the percentage of participants sure of their

own ability to distinguish is lower than those in the questionnaire survey, while the percentage of unsure

participants is higher. Still the preference of HD over SD remains almost unaltered. As such the differences

between the answers in the two questionnaires show no sign of any advantageous skills among the test

participants in this regard.

When it comes to why the participants go to the cinema it is still to watch the newest movies. However the

biggest difference compared to the questionnaire survey is that the test participants have a higher interest

in the technical aspects such as screen size and sound while the social get-together is lower on the list. In

the outline shown in Figure 30 the technical aspects take up 59,6 percent in total as oppose to 41,3 in the

questionnaire survey131

. Still, “image quality” is given the lowest percentage, only surpassed by popcorn,

candy and soda.

FIGURE 30: THE DISTRIBUTION OF ANSWERS TO WHY THE TEST PARTICIPANTS GO TO THE CINEMA. N = 17

As mentioned in the analysis of Figure 11 in chapter 4.3.2 the low rating of “image quality” could indicate

that this element is not considered particularly important to the overall movie experience. Nevertheless,

just as in the questionnaire survey, the low rating is contrasted by the percentages in preference of higher

image quality and extensive will to both travel additional kilometres and pay extra to get it. These percent-

ages are shown in Figure 31.

131 See Figure 11 on page 48

73

FIGURE 31: THE FOUR MAIN QUESTIONS ASKED IN REGARDS TO WANTING AN IMPROVED IMAGE QUALITY WHEN GOING TO THE CINEMA. N = 17

The percentages in Figure 31 carry a significant increase when compared to the questionnaire survey132

Figure 27

.

Naturally the percentages in , Figure 30 and Figure 31 are influenced by the difference in number

of participants133

In my selection of participant I found the premise of not having experts among my group of participants all-

important. The group may be represented by a higher overall interest in elements such as screen size and

sound quality, but the stated ability to distinguish between HD and SD is lower than the average of the

questionnaire survey and “image quality” is rated very low as their reason for going to the cinema.

, and with only 17 participants the opinion of a single person has a more significant effect

on the combined percentage. Still, when looking at the answers given by these 17 participants, a generally

high interest in the more technical aspects of going to the cinema and improved image quality is the com-

mon denominator.

In terms of the participants being representative for the average cinemagoers there are some fluctuations

in tendencies when comparing the individual age spans with those of the questionnaire survey. However

the overall tendencies of the 20-60 age spectrum are very much similar and I find that the reason for the

fluctuations can be found in the difference in amount of participants. As a result I have decided to focus

solely on the overall tendencies and because they are so similar I am confident that a greater amount of

132 See Figure 12 on page 49 133 From 96 participants in the questionnaire survey to 17 in the test.

74

test participants would equalize the individual age spans also. Conclusively I am willing to accept the group

of test participants as representative for the average cinemagoers indeed.

5.3 EVALUATION OF THE TEST VALIDITY

The following is my personal reflection on the planning and execution of the test method used for assessing

image quality. In this I evaluate what was done successfully and what could have been changed to aid the

content validity of the test results.

The execution of the test went as planned. Having the only changing variables being the resolution for test

pair 1-4 and analogue/digital format for test pair 5-8 ensured that these were also the variables being

evaluated on by the participants. The footage was carefully processed to reflect the quality of native 2K and

4K material while the viewing distances of 4 and 8 meters were kept for the 2K- and 4K canvas respectively.

This gave the test participants a viewing angle of 43 degrees and although this is closer than the optimal

distance according to human visual acuity134

Many of the participants expressed that they found it hard to make a clear distinction in each of the eight

test pairs, but given the limitation of changing variables I had not expected an obvious choice in any of

them. Reversely had the choice been obvious I would have personally doubted the validity of the test mate-

rial when considering the expected ability from the interviewed experts. Instead I find the fact that the

participants answered according to immediate impression just as valid in terms of assessing image quality.

it corresponds to the reality of sitting in the centre of an ordi-

nary cinema.

In retrospect there are some elements that I would have changed or excluded from the test pairs in order

to have them be more content valid. In overall I am very pleased with the execution of test pair 1-4. With

the comparison of 4K and 2K on a digital 2K projector the division into 2K- and 4K canvases was the closest

to 4K projection I was able to get. Having the same comparisons made in an actual 4K cinema would natu-

rally increase the validity of the result, but given the limited amount of available 4K projectors in Scandina-

via this was not something I was able to do. As a result I consider these first four test pairs as content valid

and thus transferrable to the reality of the cinema. I am not saying that this single test is a conclusive proof

of the average cinemagoers ability to distinguish between 4K and 2K, but it does lay foundation for addi-

tional testing with other material also to see if the favouring of 4K remains.

134 This is approximately 5 meters.

75

In contrary to test pair 1-4 the results of test pair 5-8 are close to useless and should not have been part of

the test at all. The purpose of these four test pairs was to include a comparison of digital and analogue 2K

and 4K to see if the test participants would have a distinct preference in this regard also. However having

only grain or no-grain be the variable indicating analogue and digital material made the test too simple at

the expense of content validity. The simulation of analogue material was done in agreement with the

common practise at Nordisk Film Shortcut, but as such these sequences carried the visual equivalence of a

fresh 35mm film copy. Although this is the quality of a newly printed 35mm film it does not necessarily

equal the quality projected in the local cinema.

The visual quality of analogue material is proportional to the usage of it as it suffers from gradual wear and

tear. So in order to make a more accurate comparison of analogue and digital material the test would have

to include additional versions of analogue footage at different steps of visual demotion. Comparing these

steps with the visual consistency of a digital version would put more emphasis on the differences between

the two formats and allow the test participants to make more distinct choices. For that reason I consider

the results of test pair 5-8 unfit as a valid argument in the debate of which format the average cinemagoers

prefer. Test pair 1-4 encompassed analogue versions of 2K and 4K also, but because this was not the chang-

ing variable in these four pairs I do not find it influential on the votes of the participants.

The purpose of my test was measuring the average cinemagoers ability to distinguish between 2K and 4K,

but naturally in an ordinary cinema the assessment of image quality would have to be done without acces-

sible reference footage to compare with. Still I believe that having the sequences be clearly separated by a

black sign saying “sequence 2” was the most valid approach. Another approach could have been to make

an instant shift between the two sequences. This would have emphasised the quality difference and thus

aided the ability to distinguish, but also been further from the circumstances of the cinema. In a real cin-

ema the assessment of 4K quality will be done without having a 2K reference, but since my purpose was to

see if the test participants could differentiate I believe that I used the most correct method.

In overall I will argue that the test execution and results are content valid and thus transferrable to the

reality of the cinema. The test was performed in what corresponds to a small digital cinema while maintain-

ing the viewing distance and angle of sitting in the centre of a cinema like Imperial. The test material was

processed to reflect the reality of 2K and 4K projected in the cinema and encompassed all of the 2K and 4K

scenarios available. Additional tests with other material and viewing distances will show if the ability to

distinguish remain, but with my evaluation of the test participants as representative for the average

cinemagoers I believe that I can draw general conclusions based on the results of this test alone.

76

6 DISCUSSION

When I was first introduced to 4K it was at a meeting in Nordisk Film Shortcut discussing the future demand

for the 4K format. The outcome of this meeting was that the overall demand for the improved image qual-

ity given by 4K was deemed too little to make it worth the money spent on upgrading the current produc-

tion pipeline to support it. Based on the research and results of this case study I will argue the opposite.

With the introduction of HD channels and Blu-ray I believe that people have become more aware of image

quality in general and thus they are more inclined to appreciate 4K also. In addition, with the competition

given by the home flat-screen I am convinced that cinemagoers want quality beyond what they can get at

home when going to the cinema.

The cinemas have always been competing with television for audience favour and in this competition the

gradual improvement of image- and sound quality at home has only made it harder for the cinemas to offer

something additional to the movie experience [48]. Naturally the cinemas benefit from having exclusive

rights to the newest movies, but from the fear of succumbing to the increase in pirated film downloads [60]

the cinemas cannot rely on this exclusivity alone. Recently stereoscopic 3D has presented itself as an excel-

lent addition to the movie experience attracting hordes of people to the cinema. With stereoscopy both

cinemas and production studios have profited greatly from being this one step ahead of what can be

achieved on the home television [38]. The profit of 3D has even meant that the big Hollywood studios have

come with financial aid to the small cinemas incapable of financing the digital equipment necessary for

stereoscopic projection to expand the distribution of 3D movies [28].

Naturally the television manufacturers want to harvest the popularity of 3D as well. The cinema 3D exclu-

sivity has already come and gone with all the biggest television manufacturers putting all effort into making

3D the leading sales argument for televisions also [61]. This does not mean that the cinemas will cease to

benefit from 3D, just that they will lose 3D as an exclusive argument for going to the cinema and this is

where 4K comes in.

Cinemas are synonymous with large screen canvases, but not with image quality in particular. In fact when

asking the average cinemagoers the image quality rank lower than even popcorn and candy as reason for

going to the cinema135. In other words “image quality” is an element that could be optional for improve-

ment. The current 2K standard136 in cinema resolution is only a little higher than the HD resolution137

135 See

of

Figure 11 on page 48 136 2048x1152 pixels 137 1080p (1920x1080 pixels)

77

home flat-screens, but with the high increase in screen size from television to cinema screen it only sounds

reasonable that the cinemas could benefit from resolutions higher than 2K. The calculations made in chap-

ter 4.2 on human visual acuity show that cinemas with screens as small as 3,2 meters wide would benefit

from 4K, while larger cinemas would have a definite benefit allowing the majority of the audience to enjoy

sharper image details.

Nordisk Film largest cinema, Imperial, is one example where 4K would be very beneficial. Imperial has a

screen of 15,6 meters across while measuring 30 meters from screen to end wall [53]. On such a screen the

end viewing distance where the human eye is no longer physically capable of distinguishing 4K from 2K is as

far back as 30 meters. The optimal viewing distance is at 13 meters giving a viewing angle of 63 degrees.

This is the distance where the eye will have full benefit of each and every 9.437.184 pixel of the 4K image.

Moving from this optimal distance to the back wall mean a gradual demotion of the benefit of 4K, but with

the last row at 29-30 meters distance even these seats would experience a slight improvement of image

quality compared to 2K. Sitting closer than 13 meters from the screen will result in a wider viewing angle

making the pixels more apparent and degrading the overall quality of the image to appear more blurry.

However compared to the optimal viewing distance of a 2K image, which is 27 meters, it means that a

much greater part of Imperials audience would benefit from the sharper image given by upgrading to 4K.

At this point the demand for 4K in Scandinavia is most visible from within the movie industry with directors

and producers showing interest in acquiring the quality enhancement for their movie. Unfortunately there

is no production pipeline in Scandinavia suited for 4K productions yet and the only option of getting 4K is as

2K scaled to 4K size on 35mm film. According to Project Coordinator Mette Hansen and Cinematographer

Jan Weincke 2K scaled to 4K give additional quality to the original 2K image, but it does not equal Full 4K

[10] [27]. In Full 4K I mean a movie that is shot, processed and distributed in 4K, no matter if it is analogue

or digital.

4K is commonly referred to as a digital format. One reason is found in the debate of which format gives the

best visual performance, analogue or digital. The analogue format is movies that are printed onto celluloid

film and although film manufacturers, such as Kodak, continues to improve the quality of the celluloid ma-

terial it will always suffer from gradual wear and tear as the film reel is mass-produced in copies of the

original. The result is copies that suffer from more or less visible scratches and grain, depending on where

in the chain of copies the film originates from. Meanwhile the digital format is movies that are stored on a

hard-disk, which means that the copies will never degrade from the quality of the original. Hard-disks carry

fewer expenses in the making of copies and distribution to the cinemas. However the expenses are trans-

ferred to the cinemas having to replace their analogue projector with a digital one as the two are mutually

78

exclusive. Which of the two formats to prefer visually is essentially a matter of taste, but the supporters of

the digital format emphasize digital 4K as the format that will have digital reign supreme to analogue.

Meanwhile the supporters of analogue will claim the opposite as the pixel information of a 4K image can

easily be fit within the space of a 35mm film. According to Cinematographer Jan Weincke no current format

can equal the quality of a fresh 35mm copy, but the way things are developing he is no doubt that every-

thing will be digital in due time and here the 4K format is the natural next step.

None of the experts I have interviewed for this case study doubts the future in cinema projection as being

digital. They vary in terms of how extensive the usage of the 4K format will be, but they all agree that it is

part of the future. According to Technical Manager Ivan Schmidt the primary obstacle in upgrading to 4K at

this point is that the purchase of equipment capable of handling the format is simply too expensive. There

is a mnemonic rule when it comes to working with 4K compared to 2K and it says that every single step of

the production pipeline has to be quadrupled in terms of performance. As technology advances this

equipment will only become cheaper, but still there is another protruding obstacle preventing an upgrade

both now and in the near future. This obstacle is the common mistrust among the interviewed experts in

the average cinemagoer’s ability to distinguish 4K from 2K and thus appreciate 4K in the cinema.

The only expert that is sure of the average cinemagoers appreciation of 4K as beneficial to the movie ex-

perience as a whole is Cinematographer Jan Weincke [10]. Project Coordinator Mette Hansen and Technical

Manager Ivan Schmidt recognise 4K as beneficial from a professional point of view for distribution to movie

festivals and overall guarantee of the movie material as future proof [27] [26].

Head of Films Rikart Købke does not deny that the average cinemagoer will benefit from 4K, but it requires

a cinema screen of 10 meters across as minimum and this is a feature preserved for the largest cinemas

only [11]. Meanwhile he explains the sudden halt in promoting 4K in Cinemaxx as because it confused the

cinemagoers in the midst of promoting stereoscopic 3D as well. To him the ability to grasp both 3D and 4K

was too much of a mouthful for the average cinemagoer and so Cinemaxx decided to focus only on 3D. He

is not denying that the digital 4K projectors installed in Cinemaxx will be used without stereoscopy enabled

in the future, but right now everything but 3D is bad business. He is convinced that 4K will not attract atten-

tion from the average cinemagoer, not in the way that 3D has.

VFX Coordinator Martin Madsen is the expert in most doubt of the average cinemagoers ability to distin-

guish 4K from 2K. No matter the introduction of HD channels and Blu-ray, to him image quality is not some-

thing the average cinemagoer cares specifically about and so 4K will not yield any more attention than 2K

[31].

79

When asking the average cinemagoers their personal beliefs contradict the predictions of the interviewed

experts138

The demand for HD can be transferred to the future demand of 4K in the cinemas also. There is no sign of

4K televisions emerging on the market and so 4K will remain a cinema exclusive for now. When asked the

cinemagoers may not have image quality particularly high on their list of reason for going to the cinema,

but if given the choice the interest in getting higher image quality is overwhelming

. To them HD on the home flat-screen is greatly preferred over SD by no less than 55,3 percent,

while 42,6 percent say that they do not know what to prefer. However the preference of HD seems to in-

crease together with the propagation of it and the majority of those unsure of what they prefer are also the

ones with no access to HD at home. 62,4 percent say that they can surely distinguish HD from SD and rec-

ognises HD as an overall improvement of image quality, especially sharpness. With these percentages it

could seem that the average eye is becoming more finicky in terms of appreciating image quality in particu-

lar. Two of the biggest television distributors, Yousee and Canal Digital, have put HD channels on their list

of top priorities for 2010 [49] [50], while the sale in Blu-ray disks are expected to have its big breakthrough

in 2010 also [47]. In other words, the demand for HD is already high and only expected to increase

throughout the next year.

139 and independent of

age in the targeted 20-60 age spectrum. 71,9 percent say that they would definitely prefer higher image

quality if given the choice. 68,1 percent of these would be willing to travel over larger distances to get to a

cinema capable of projecting the improved quality140 and 66,2 percent would even pay extra for their ticket

to get it. This extra price range from 10 kroners to some stating that they would give as much as 70 and 90

kroners. Still a combined 80,4 percent range in between 10 to 30 kroners141

Consequently, although image quality is not given much focus when going to the cinema with the current

2K standard the prospect of improved image quality through 4K carry immense interest among the average

cinemagoers. At this point 4K is mostly recognised from within the movie industry. Only 2,1 percent of the

combined 96 asked cinemagoers know what 4K is, but with more resources put into promoting the format

to the public there are promising possibilities of 4K generating a future demand among the cinemagoers

also.

.

In regards to image quality one thing is the cinemagoers own stated ability to assess this quality, another is

their actual assessment when put to the test. The centre point and primary purpose of this case study was

to verify whether or not the average cinemagoers are able to distinguish between 4K and 2K and to do so I 138 See the review of the questionnaire survey in chapter 4.3 139 See Figure 12 on page 49 140 See Appendix III – Questionnaires – Chapter 11.1, for further details on the specified distances. 141 See Appendix III – Questionnaires – Chapter 11.1, for further details on the specified prices

80

devised a test that I consider to be content valid and thus transferrable to the experience of sitting in the

cinema. Through my collaboration with Nordisk Film Shortcut the test was setup in one of their cinemas

used for colour-grading. The physical properties of this cinema was a 144 inch screen, a digital 2K DLP142

In the test pairs constituting a comparison of analogue versus digital the results showed a group of partici-

pants very equally divided in their preferences

projector and seating distances of up to 10 metres. The test comprised a comparative assessment of eight

versions of analogue and digital 2K and 4K respectively. These eight versions were combined in eight test

pairs with two movie sequences in each, and the test participants were told to note down which they found

best in terms of image quality for each pair. The first four test pairs were a direct comparison of 2K versus

4K, whereas the last four were comparisons of digital versus analogue footage. Hence the first four were

the ones central to the topic of measuring the participant’s ability to distinguish 4K from 2K, while the last

four were merely included to take in the debate of visual preference between analogue and digital projec-

tion also. All the movie sequences were similar in all aspects apart from resolution and analogue/digital

format. Thus the changing variable was limited to these two properties only.

143

142 Digital Light Processing

. In each test pair the division of votes were almost fifty-

fifty and when asked specifically about the influence of the grain added to the analogue versions all the

participants expressed an incapability of perceiving the grain at all. None of the participants had made any

deliberate choices between grain no-grain and instead they classified their votes as immediate impression

and random selection. In essence the results of these digital versus analogue comparisons are rendered

useless as they carry a great flaw from my part. The only changing variable in each of these four test pairs

were that one had grain and the other did not. As a result the analogue versions had the visual equivalence

of a fresh 35mm film copy and although this is the immediate quality of a newly printed film reel it does

rarely correspond to the versions distributed to the cinemas. Because analogue footage is gradually worn

down from mass-production and continuous usage the film reel distributed to the local cinema is never the

same quality as a fresh one. This means that in order to make a proper comparison of analogue versus digi-

tal you would need to include all of the common steps of gradual demotion of a 35mm film reel and com-

pare it to the visual consistency of a digital version. Including these steps together with a greater variation

of movie examples would put more emphasis of the differences between the two formats and allow the

test participants to make more distinct choices. Consequently I cannot use the results of these four test

pairs as an argument in the debate of whether the average cinemagoer prefers digital or analogue.


81

For the first four test pairs, constituting the direct comparison of 2K and 4K material, the preferences of the

test participants were much clearer144

When grouping the votes for each format according to the participants stated ability to distinguish between

HD and SD there is no apparent correlation. All groups had a more or less equal distribution of votes in fa-

vour of 4K and 2K respectively and as such being sure that that you distinguish HD from SD give no immedi-

ate advantage in the quality assessment of 4K.

. In each of these test pairs the participants were presented with

analogue and digital versions of 2K and 4K with the only changing variable being the resolution. The result

in each of the four test pairs showed a favour of 4K. The votes for 4K were highest in the comparisons of 4K

versus 2K projected as 4K, while less in the 2K versus 4K projected as 2K. Thus the ability to distinguish 4K

from up-scaled 2K was higher than the ability to distinguish down-scaled 4K from 2K. The analogue version

of 4K versus 2K projected as 4K had the highest uniformity between the participants as all votes were on

4K. However due to the common incapability of perceiving the grain I doubt that the analogue property of

this comparison had any influence on the votes. Analogue and digital versions apart the combined vote

count for the comparisons of 4K versus 2K was 50 in favour of 4K and 18 in favour of 2K.

After the test some participants expressed the comparisons of each movie sequence as difficult to distin-

guish from one another, but still they went with their immediate impression of what they found had the

best overall image quality. In my assessment of the participants as representative for the average cinema-

goers I found that, although the interest in the more technical aspects of going to the cinema were slightly

higher, a comparison of the questionnaire survey and the corresponding questionnaire given to the test

participants show similar tendencies. Consequently I consider the participants as representative indeed and

I am confident that the results of the test are very much transferrable to the reality of the cinema.

Saying that the outcome of my test is a conclusive sign that the average cinemagoer is able to distinguish

between 2K and 4K, and favours 4K, would be jumping to conclusions. Nevertheless I consider the test re-

sults content valid and with the high interest in improved image quality among the average cinemagoers

my test lie foundation for additional testing with other footage to see if the votes in favour of 4K remain.

The test was performed in what corresponds to a small digital cinema, but the ability to distinguish will only

increase together with an increase in screen size. Thus with the majority of the test participants in favour of

4K the possibility of this number increasing in larger cinemas only sounds reasonable.

Performing comparative tests similar to mine in an actual 4K cinema will of course bring the question of

whether the audience is able to perceive and appreciate 4K closer to a conclusion. So far there are only


82

three projectors capable of projecting digital 4K in Denmark and as long as the interest in stereoscopic 3D

remain these will be used for this purpose only [11].

Upgrading to 4K in the movie industry requires the purchase of a lot of expensive equipment and according

to the majority of the interviewed experts it is not worth the money spent as the average cinemagoer will

be unable to distinguish 4K from 2K. From my test I can prove them wrong. Even on a screen size of only

144 inches, compared to the 689 inches of Imperial, I have a combined two-thirds of my participants being

able to distinguish. As such the calculations made on human visual acuity give a good indication of the abili-

ties of the human eye and with Imperial as an example I have no doubt that cinemas and audience alike will

benefit from the quality enhancement given by 4K.

84

7 CONCLUSION

A gradual improvement of home-cinemas requires a gradual improvement of cinemas. With the introduc-

tion of HD much effort is put into the marketing of image quality on the home flat-screen and in the ongo-

ing competition between television and cinemas it is essential to the cinemas that they can bring some-

thing additional to the movie experience as a whole. For now this addition is given by stereoscopic 3D, but

with the manufacturers already distributing 3D televisions the time for this technology being a cinema ex-

clusive is coming to a halt.

Instead with the increased focus on image quality in general this is an area of improvement in the cinemas

as well. Image quality is generally not given much attention from the cinemagoers with the current 2K

standard, but when asked the interest in getting an improved image quality through 4K is high. The major-

ity of the cinemagoers would be willing to accept the additional travelling distance necessary for getting to

a 4K cinema and even pay extra for the ticket also. Consequently the market demand for 4K is already pre-

sent among the cinemagoers, it is merely a matter of putting more effort into promoting the format.

Big and small cinemas alike are currently facing an investment in digital equipment and the future in cin-

ema projection is digital undoubtedly. Furthermore in this transfer from analogue to digital projection 4K is

already considered the natural next step. The primary obstacle however for advancing to 4K is the price

involved in upgrading the movie production pipeline to support it. The 4K equipment will become cheaper

in time, but still there is a common mistrust in 4K being able to generate a demand that will justify the up-

grade. The majority of the interviewed experts doubt that the average cinemagoer is able to distinguish 4K

from 2K, and thus appreciate the quality enhancement given by 4K.

With this case study I have devised a test showing that the average cinemagoers are indeed capable of dis-

tinguishing 4K from 2K and that they favour the visual quality of 4K. By calculating on the visual acuity of

the human eye I have shown that both small cinemas, like the one used in my test, and especially big cine-

mas like Imperial will benefit from the quality enhancement of 4K. Naturally the results of the test could be

emphasised by performing a similar test in an actual 4K cinema, but with the limited access to digital 4K

projection in Scandinavia this is the closest I have been able to get for now. Still I consider the execution of

the test as content valid and thus transferrable to the physical reality of any ordinary cinema.

The demand for 4K is already present within the movie industry and with a focused promotion of the for-

mat the building blocks necessary for it to generate a public demand is present also. Consequently, if the

cinemas want to maintain a peak quality performance that is superior to that of the home flat-screen an

investment in 4K will be both appreciated by the average cinemagoer and worth the money spent.

86

8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]. Nordisk Film. Om Nordisk Film. Nordisk Film. [Online] [Cited: April 22, 2010.] www.nordiskfilm.dk.

[2]. Danske Biografer. Amerikanske Cinemark går efter 4K. Danske Biografer - Brancheforeningen for

landets biografer. [Online] July 24, 2009. [Cited: March 24, 2010.] www.danske-briografer.dk.

[3]. Drawbaugh, Ben. Hollywood Theaters upgrading screens to Sony 4k projectors. EngadgetHD. [Online]

October 27, 2009. [Cited: February 23, 2010.] www.hd.engadget.com.

[4]. Kvale, Steinar and Brinkmann, Svend. InterView - Introduktion til et håndværk. s.l. : Hans Reitzel, 2009.

Vol. 2.

[5]. Trochim, William M.K. Research Methods Knowledge Base. [Online] October 20, 2006. [Cited: April 13,

2010.] www.socialresearchmethods.net.

[6]. CinemaSource. Technical Bulletin - Understanding Aspect Ratios. s.l. : CinemaSource, Inc., 2001.

[7]. Cineon. Cineon Image File Format Draft. Cineon - Digital Film System. [Online] [Cited: March 2, 2010.]

www.cineon.com.

[8]. Hauerslev, Thomas. 70mm i Danmark. Biografmuseet.dk. [Online] [Cited: February 15, 2010.]

www.biografmuseet.dk.

[9]. Biozonen. 70mm Festival i Imperial! Biozonen. [Online] Nordisk Film Biografer A/S, March 5, 2008.

[Cited: April 25, 2010.] www.biozonen.dk.

[10]. Weincke, Jan. Expert interview on 4K. Copenhagen, March 8, 2010.

[11]. Købke, Rikart. Expert interview on 4K. Copenhagen, March 16, 2010.

[12]. CCD vs. CMOS - Facts and Fiction. Litwiller, Dave. January, s.l. : Laurin Publishing Co. Inc., 2001,

Photonics Spectra.

[13]. 4K Digital Cinema. Dickinson, Chris. 9, s.l. : Small World Publishing, 2009.

[14]. Grotta, Sally Wiener. Digital vs. Film: The Real Low-Down. Extreme Tech. [Online] June 25, 2001.

[Cited: March 18, 2010.] www.extremetech.com.

[15]. Kodak. Film. No Compromise. Cinema and television. [Online] Kodak. [Cited: March 18, 2010.]

www.motion.kodak.com.

87

[16]. Rian, Brian Johnson. Red Facts. Bloom Blog. [Online] [Cited: March 16, 2010.] www.rcjohnso.com.

[17]. RED. RED Interviews. RED - Digital Cinema. [Online] RED. [Cited: March 18, 2010.] www.red.com.

[18]. Larsen, Rasmus. Ultimativ HD biograf- oplevelse med 3D og 4K. Flatpanels.dk. [Online] September 25,

2009. [Cited: March 16, 2010.] www.flatpanels.dk.

[19]. Cowan, Matt. Digital Cinema Resolution - Current Situation and Future Requirements. s.l. :

Entertainment Technology Consultants, 2002.

[20]. Hauerslev, Thomas. Cinemaxx installerer digital 3D - Danmarkpremiere på 4K. Biografmuseet.dk.

[Online] August 23, 2009. [Cited: February 25, 2010.] www.biografmuseet.dk.

[21]. AVM. Vi valgte den dyreste løsning. AVM. [Online] December 2009. [Cited: March 18, 2010.]

www.avm.dk.

[22]. Vuorela, Mikkel. Digital film truer lokale biografer. Politiken.dk. [Online] March 6, 2010. [Cited: March

7, 2010.] www.ibyen.dk.

[24]. Film & Kino. Digitaliseringen. Film & Kino. [Online] July 8, 2009. [Cited: March 9, 2010.] www.kino.no.

[25]. Nordisk Film. Nordisk Film Cinemas. Nordisk Film. [Online] 2009. [Cited: April 19, 2010.]

www.nordiskfilm.dk.

[26]. Schmidt, Ivan. Expert interview on 4K. Copenhagen, March 19, 2010.

[27]. Hansen, Mette Høst. Expert interview on 4K. Copenhagen, March 10, 2010.

[28]. Vuorela, Mikkel. Hollywood vil hjælpe de små danske biografer. Politiken.dk. [Online] March 5, 2010.

[Cited: March 7, 2010.] www.iByen.dk.

[29]. Nordisk Film. Danmarkspremiere på digitale biografoplevelser. Nordisk Film. [Online] August 9, 2004.

[Cited: March 9, 2010.] www.nordiskfilm.dk.

[30]. Det Danske Filminstitut. Analyse af Økonomien i Danske Spillefilm 1999-2005. s.l. : Det Danske

Filminstitut, 2006.

[31]. Madsen, Martin. Expert interview on 4K. Copenhagen, March 10, 2010.

[32]. Arri. Arriscan - Pushing Film into the Digital World. Arri. [Online] [Cited: March 10, 2010.] www.arri.de.

88

[33]. RED. RED One. RED Digital Cinema. [Online] [Cited: March 10, 2010.] www.red.com.

[34]. AVM. Vi gør filmen bedre og bedre. AVM - AudioVisuelle Medier. [Online] November 2009. [Cited:

March 9, 2010.] www.avm.dk.

[35]. Murph, Darren. Sony and RealD link up for 4K 3D cinema, our eyes weep for joy. engadgetHD.

[Online] February 27, 2009. [Cited: April 20, 2010.] www.hd.engadget.com.

[36]. Danske Biografer. De amerikanske studier sætter trumf på 3-D. Danske Biografer - Brancheforeningen

for landets biografer. [Online] July 24, 2009. [Cited: March 24, 2010.] www.danske-biografer.dk.

[37]. Twentieth Century Fox. James Cameron's Avatar. [Online] Twentieth Century Fox, 2009. [Cited: May

25, 2010.] www.avatarmovie.com.

[38]. Recordere.dk. 33% 3D. recordere.dk. [Online] April 18, 2010. [Cited: April 20, 2010.]

www.recordere.dk.

[39]. Warner Bros. Pictures. The Dark Knight. [Online] Warner Bros. Pictures, 2008. [Cited: May 25, 2010.]

thedarkknight.warnerbros.com.

[40]. Robertson, Barbara. Delivering 8K VFX Shots for The Dark Knight. Film & Video. [Online] Studiodaily,

July 23, 2008. [Cited: March 16, 2010.] www.studiodaily.com.

[41]. Sciretta, Peter. The Dark Knight is Breaking IMAX Records. Film - Blogging the Reel World. [Online] July

10, 2008. [Cited: March 16, 2010.] www.slashfilm.com.

[42]. Johnson, Joel. RED Scarlet 3K camcorder, James Cameron on the future of digital cinema, and trying to

grok all these pixels. BB Gadgets. [Online] April 15, 2008. [Cited: March 5, 2010.]

www.gadgets.boingboing.net.

[43]. BFE. Den Digitale TV-Konference 2010. forbrugerelektronik.dk. [Online] BFE, 2010. [Cited: April 12,

2010.] www.forbrugerelektronik.dk.

[44]. Möbius, Finn. Det digitale hjem anno 2009. forbrugerelektronik.dk. [Online] 2009. [Cited: April 9,

2010.] www.bfe.dk.

[45]. Branchen Forbruger Elektronik. BFEs Pressebriefing - CES 2010. forbrugerelektronik.dk. [Online]

January 8, 2010. [Cited: April 9, 2010.] www.bfe.dk.

89

[46]. Frausing, Kurt. Salget af fladskærme eksploderet. forbrugerelektronik. [Online] March 8, 2009. [Cited:

April 9, 2010.] www.bfe.dk.

[47]. Forbrugerbehov – indhold og efterspørgsel. Agerskov, Ditte Rie. s.l. : Foreningen af Danske

Videogramdistributører, 2010.

[48]. Jørgensen, Peter. Vi vil se danske film på dvd - ikke i biffen. Politiken.dk. [Online] January 25, 2010.

[Cited: April 6, 2010.] www.politiken.dk.

[49]. Breining, Niels. YouSee – den enkle vej til digitalt tv. forbrugerelektronik.dk. [Online] September 5,

2009. [Cited: April 9, 2010.] www.bfe.dk.

[50]. Arnesen, Jens B. HDTV - Det handler om kvalitet. forbrugerelektronik.dk. [Online] September 5, 2009.

[Cited: April 9, 2010.] www.bfe.dk.

[51]. What You Expect Is What You See. Dirkjan Joor, Wilco Beekhuizen, Lidwien van de Wijngaert and

Pascal Ijegalu. Utrecht : Springer, 2008.

[52]. Cornwall, Joe. 1080p and the Acuity of Human Vision. Audioholics - Online A/V Magazine. [Online]

April 2, 2007. [Cited: April 10, 2010.] www.audioholics.com.

[53]. Kino.dk. Imperial. Kino.dk. [Online] 2010. [Cited: April 11, 2010.] www.kino.dk.

[54]. Bale, Carlton. 1080p Does Matter – Here's When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution).

CarltonBale.com. [Online] November 15, 2006. [Cited: April 10, 2010.] www.carltonbale.com.

[55]. Kino.dk. Palads København. Kino.dk. [Online] 2010. [Cited: April 12, 2010.] www.kino.dk.

[56]. Just, Jesper. Film Works. Jesper Just. [Online] 2010. [Cited: April 14, 2010.] www.jesperjust.com.

[57]. David Bordwell, Kristin Thompson. Film Art - An Introduction. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2008. 0-07-

110159-4.

[58]. THX. THX Certified Cinema Screen Placement. Cinema Certification. [Online] THX. [Cited: April 11,

2010.]

[59]. Bale, Carlton. Home Theater Plasma/LCD/Projector-&-Screen Room Design Calculator. Home Theater

Calculator spreadsheet. s.l. : Carlton Bale, 2008.

90

[60]. Løck, Sten. Avatar sætter ny rekord i piratkopier. Top-ti og problemets kerne. Business.dk. [Online]

Berlingske Tidende, January 11, 2010. [Cited: May 11, 2010.] www.techtjek.blogs.business.dk.

[61]. Ladingkær, Lars. De japanske producenter tror på 3D. Recordere.dk. [Online] January 21, 2010. [Cited:

May 11, 2010.] www.recordere.dk.

[62]. ImageMagick Studio LLC. Introduction to Motion Picture Formats. ImageMagick. [Online] 2010.

[Cited: February 24, 2010.] www.imagemagick.org.

[63]. Woodworth, Charles. How Photographic Film Works. Howstuffworks. [Online] [Cited: March 15,

2010.] www.howstuffworks.com.

[64]. InfiniBand - Trade Association. About InfiniBand. InfiniBand. [Online] 2010. [Cited: March 31, 2010.]

www.infinibandta.org.

[65]. Western Digital. Product List. Western Digital. [Online] 2010. [Cited: March 31, 2010.]

www.westerndigital.com.

[66]. Intel. Intel Workstation Processors. Intel. [Online] 2010. [Cited: April 1, 2010.] www.intel.com.

[67]. NVIDIA. What is CUDA? CUDA Zone. [Online] 2010. [Cited: March 31, 2010.] www.nvidia.com.

[68]. Nvidia. Quadro. Nvidia. [Online] 2010. [Cited: March 31, 2010.] www.nvidia.com.

[69]. Ramian, Knud. Casestudiet i praksis. s.l. : Academica, 2007.

[70]. IMAX. IMAX Technology. The IMAX Experience. [Online] IMAX, 2010. [Cited: April 20, 2010.]

www.imax.com.

[71]. Blu-ray Disc Association. What is Blu-ray. Blu-ray Disc. [Online] 2010. [Cited: April 21, 2010.]

www.us.blu-raydisc.com.

[72]. MedicineNet.com. Definition of Placebo effect. MedicineNet.com. [Online] March 14, 2004. [Cited:

April 21, 2010.] www.medterms.com.

[73]. American Psychological Association (APA). Snellen chart. Dictionary.com. [Online] [Cited: April 21,

2010.] www.dictionary.reference.com.

[74]. Autodesk. Color Grading Software for Creative Look Development. Autodesk Lustre. [Online] 2010.

[Cited: April 22, 2010.] www.usa.autodesk.com.

91

[75]. Colorado State University. Phenomenology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] July 28,

2008. [Cited: May 10, 2010.] plato.stanford.edu.

[76]. Arts Alliance Media. About Us. [Online] 2010. [Cited: May 24, 2010.] www.artsalliancemedia.com.

92

9 APPENDIX I - ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF TECHNICAL TERMS

The purpose of the following encyclopaedia is to provide a more profound understanding of the technical

terms used throughout this case study. These explanations are put aside for this separate encyclopaedia as

to not disturb the fluency of the text in which the terms appears.

Each technical term constitutes much greater fields of study than detailed here, but focus is specifically on

the processing of data like 4K images. I have put everything down in layman’s terms to provide a general

understanding of each.

9.1 DPX, LOG AND LUT

The DPX format is a variety of the older Cineon format, developed by Kodak, and designed particularly for

preserving the scanned image data of celluloid film [7]. It performs a lossless compression, which means

that no image data is lost, and encompasses three colour channels for each pixel, RGB145. It is processed as

either 10 or 12 bit per colour channel giving it either 1024 or 4096 colour variations per channel respec-

tively, or a combined 3072 or 12288 colour variations per pixel146

When scanned the original colour and brightness properties of the celluloid film negative is preserved by

encoding each pixel value of the DPX with a log

.

147

In log mode each colour channel has 10 bit of data, or what corresponds to 30 bit per pixel. However when

displayed on a LCD screen a log image will appear very low contrasted and far from the corresponding im-

age when transferred back on film and projected in the cinema. Therefore to obtain a visual similarity while

working with the scanned images a so-called LUT

curve representing the brightness exponent per pixel

[62]. Other digital images that are not scanned from a film negative represent each pixel brightness directly

on a linear curve, but the reason for the logarithmic curve is that it reflects the density of how colour in-

formation is stored on the original celluloid film, which is necessary if the image is to be printed back on

film eventually [62].

148

145 Red, Green and Blue

filter is used to transfer the logarithmic brightness val-

ues into how the image will appear in the cinema. With the LUT enabled each colour channel is given 12 bit

146 See Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.4 147 Logarithmic 148 Look-Up-Table

93

instead of 10 [62]. Logarithmic curves are also used for digitally recorded material that is meant to be

printed onto celluloid for cinema distribution.

FIGURE 32: A COMPARISON OF A LOG IMAGE BEFORE AND AFTER APPLYING THE LUT FILTER. [56]

A great practical advantage of the DPX format is that the size of the file depends only on resolution and bit

depth, although with a few kilobytes of variation depending on the amount of metadata [16]. Given that

these values are so predictive also makes it easier to calculate hardware requirements for various parts of

the production pipeline. This includes a future transition from 2K to 4K where a 10bit DPX file in 4K take up

36mb, compared to 9mb in 2K149

The equation for calculating DPX size is simple and says [16];

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 × 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑐𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 × 𝑎𝑎𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝑜𝑜 𝑐𝑐𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝8

= 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑒 𝐴𝐴𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝

, thus conforming to the mnemonic rule saying that a transition from 2K to

4K requires a quadruple of all instances.

For a 2K 10 bit image in 16:9 aspect ratio this gives;

(2048 × 1152) × 10 × 38

= 8847360 bytes ≈ 8,8 megabyte

Whereas for a 4K 10 bit image in 16:9 aspect ratio it gives;

(4096 × 2304) × 10 × 38

= 35389440 bytes ≈ 35,4 megabyte

149 The calculation of DPX file sizes is detailed in Appendix I - Encyclopaedia of technical terms – Chapter 9.1

94

9.2 FILM GRAIN AND NOISE

Grain is an inherent part of the celluloid material of film. In this material are layers consisting of silver-

halide crystals, which in theory can be compared to the pixels of a digital image [63]. These crystals are the

photon detectors, which undergo a photomechanical reaction when exposed to light, and thus make up the

final image. The photomechanical reaction for neighbouring crystals is however never exactly the same and

so the ones that stand out more significantly are visible as grain to the human eye [63], see Figure 33.

FIGURE 33: A COMPARISON OF A DIGITALLY AND ANALOGOUSLY RECORDED IMAGE. NOTICE THE FINE GRAIN IN THE ANALOGUE VERSION

WHICH IS AN INHERENT PART OF THE ANALOGUE CELLULOID MATERIAL [56].

Noise is the digital counterpart to film grain and has to do with how light is captured by the CCD150 or

CMOS151

150 Charge Coupled Device

sensor inside the camera. Both types of sensor reads light as electric charges for each pixel, con-

verts it into voltages and finally into bit values for each pixel. The process is not done similarly for the two

and they both have strength and weaknesses in comparison, but when it comes to noise they both perform

an uniformity process that reduces the amount of miscoloured pixels to a minimum [12].

151 Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor

95

FIGURE 34: AN EXAMPLE OF NOISE IN A DIGITAL IMAGE. THE NOISE IS MOST VISIBLE IN CONTRAST WITH THE WOODEN TEXTURE.

9.3 MEGABIT AND MEGABYTE

8 bit constitute 1 byte, also used in the DPX equation to convert bits into bytes. As the number of bits or

bytes is multiplied by a thousand the amount is abbreviated by putting kilo, mega, giga and tera in front

respectively, also outlined in the following chart;

1 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴 = 1 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴 1 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 = 1 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝

1.000 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 = 1 𝑘𝑘𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴 (𝑘𝑘𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴) 1.000 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1 𝑘𝑘𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 (𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘)

1.000.000 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 = 1 𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴 (𝑀𝑀𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴) 1.000.000 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1 𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 (𝑀𝑀𝑘𝑘)

1.000.000.000 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 = 1 𝑚𝑚𝑝𝑝𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴 (𝐺𝐺𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴) 1.000.000.000 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1 𝑚𝑚𝑝𝑝𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 (𝐺𝐺𝑘𝑘)

1.000.000.000.000 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 = 1 𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴 (𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴) 1.000.000.000.000 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1 𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 (𝑇𝑇𝑘𝑘)

96

9.4 BIT DEPTH

1 bit can hold two possible values, 0 and 1, and every time one bit is added the amount is multiplied by 2.

This means that when it reaches 8 bit the number has increased to 256 possible values. Translated into bit

depth 1 bit corresponds to a binary black and white image where a pixel is either 0; completely black, or 1;

completely white. An 8 bit image expands the range between black and white with 256 different brightness

levels, and here black is still 0 while white is 255. An 8 bit image is often referred to as greyscale as it is fre-

quently used to represent shades of grey, but in a colour image it is also used to represent a single colour

channel in the combined colour space. In Europe a colour image consists of a combination of three colour

channels; Red, Green and Blue (RGB), and here each colour is given 8 bit each thus 24 bit combined for a

pixel in total. In America they have a different distribution of colour channels; Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and

Black (CMYK), but RGB is the standard in Europe. 24 bit colour images, also known as truecolour, have been

established as the minimum for recreating a naturalistic colour spectrum, and therefore it is often also the

lowest setting available in graphics applications such as Adobe Photoshop.

When talking about bit depth it is important to distinguish between bit depth per channel and bit depth per

pixel. A colour image may be referred to as 8 bit, but that is per channel, while per pixel it is in fact 24 bit.

Some file formats also contain a so-called Alpha channel, for transparency, which in this example add an-

other 8 bit and brings the total amount up to 32 bit per pixel. The distinction between pixel and channel

can also be seen in the equation calculating DPX sizes, but as DPX files do not encompass an Alpha channel

the amount of colour channels is always 3, and thus the total bit amount of a 10 bit DPX will always be 30.

The following chart exemplifies the most common bit depths used and their corresponding value span;

Bit depth Calculation

1

Value span

2^1 2

8 2^8 256

10 2^10 1.024

12 2^12 4.096

16 2^16 65.536

24 2^24 16.777.216

30 2^30 1.073.741.824

32 2^32 4.294.967.296

97

9.5 BANDWIDTH

When talking about transfer speed, also called bandwidth, the most common representation for speed is

Mbit per second (Mbit/s). As an example; if a connection says 12 Mbit/s it means that is it capable of trans-

ferring 12.000.000 bit every second, or what corresponds to 1.500.000 bytes. Another element that also

has to do with transfer speed and more specifically the retrieval of image data is the read/write capabilities

of the hard disk on which the data is stored. This read/write capability determines the data transfer rate

possible from a disk and this is very much dependent on the rpm (rotations per minute) properties it car-

ries. A standard 7200rpm disk may deliver speeds at 300MB/s while a 15000rpm disk may deliver up to

3GB/s, but naturally this is very much up to the individual disk and how it is manufactured. In comparison

the SATA bus interface, which is the most commonly used connection for transferring data from the hard-

disk, is well ahead of the hard-disk itself with its revision 3.0 capable of 6GB/s.

Bandwidth is always influenced by different instances keeping it from optimal performance and so it is al-

ways good to have additional bandwidth available. Taking 4K DPX files as an example 8Gbit/s would be just

enough for real-time playback152

, but at least 10Gbit/s or higher would be recommendable to be sure of

the required transfer speed. There are cables, like InfiniBand, capable of transferring speeds at up to

96Gbit/s, which corresponds to 12GB/s, and they are aiming for 1000Gbit/s within the next couple of years

[64].

9.6 RAID

RAID is the setup used for organizing and maintaining an array of hard-disks. RAID is often used with NAS153

and SAN154

152 25 frames per second

units where a large amount of disks are assembled to provide an accumulate storage facility for

multiple workstations simultaneously. The idea behind RAID is to divide data between multitudes of disks

and thus attain benefits such as higher reliability, speed and security depending on the RAID configuration

applied. Without going into too much detail there are several different RAID settings optional, but the most

common are RAID 0, 1 and 5. RAID 0 enhances the read and write speed greatly as data is distributed across

all disks equally, but security is diminished as only one disk need to malfunction before all data is lost. RAID

1 mirror data in two identical quantities so that all data is backed up instantly while also improving the read

speed greatly. On the downside it also halves the available disk capacity and write speed remain un-

153 Network Attached Storage 154 Storage Area Network

98

changed. Lastly, RAID 5 seizes control of a single disk for parity storage but leave all other fully operational

and the benefit is that in case of a disk failure all data can be recreated from the distributed parity. Mean-

while the read speed is slightly diminished in comparison with RAID 0 and 1, while write speed depends on

how it is implemented.

The RAID configuration and hard-disks used have to carry at least the same speed as the bandwidth in-

stalled. Today’s hard disks are capable of transferring up to 3Gbit/s even at 7200rpm, and with the newly

introduced SAS bus interfaces replacing SATA some go as high as 6Gbit/s [65]. Multiply this with for in-

stance 20 disks in a RAID 5+0 and 1+0 configuration and the read/write speed should be more than capable

of handling 4K.

9.7 CPU

How well the CPU155 performance is can be estimated by looking at; clock speed, whether it is single- or

multi-core, the type of FSB156

As with other parts of putting together the optimal hardware it is hard to recommend one specific proces-

sor type without testing it in context. A favoured CPU for use in image processing is Intels Xeon Quad-core

CPU series aimed specifically at handling data-intensive applications in 3D and 2D image processing. The

newest workstation Xeon CPU is the 5600 series with support of up to twelve cores through two intercon-

nected six core units and its specific Hyper-threading architecture makes it capable of simulating a proces-

used and cache memory. The clock speed is measured in MHz or GHz, where 1

GHz equals 1.000 Mhz, and in principle the higher the Hertz the more operations the CPU is capable of exe-

cuting per second. Still, some CPU’s have been optimized to multiply the number of operations regardless

of GHz and so the link is not a prerequisite. Recent processor technology has introduced multi-core utiliza-

tion where the concept is to have multiple CPUs running both independently and in collaboration to aid the

overall performance, but the actual benefit depends very much on software. The FSB is the bus carrying

data from the CPU to other instances such as the GPU and RAM, and it is important that the FSB and CPU

do not limit each other in terms of speed. In fact a general rule is to have the speed of the FSB doubled in

comparison to the CPU and thus be sure to steer clear of bottlenecks. Last is the cache memory. This mem-

ory can be considered as a helping hand for the CPU in performing certain routine tasks thus increasing

performance. More cache memory means higher performance.

155 Central Processing Unit 156 Front side bus

99

sor performance equal to twenty-four cores. Furthermore with its so-called QuickPath Technology it prom-

ises high performance and a considerable FSB speed increase between CPU and other hardware [66].

9.8 RAM

The RAM157 is the computers short-term memory so to speak, it is where frequently used data is stored

temporarily for quicker access than if reading it from the hard disk or similar. It increases the speed of task

execution, but when the computer is turned off the memory stored here is lost. The fastest type of RAM

currently available is the so-called DDR3 SDRAM158

with peak transfer speeds ranging from 6400MB/s to

12800MB/s. How many GB of RAM utilized depends on software and looking at an application like Flame

Autodesk write 8GB as minimum, but recommend 12GB for optimal performance. The advantage of RAM is

that it is easy to add additional as long as there is slots available on the Motherboard and so the sufficient

amount should be determined through testing.

9.9 GPU

The GPU159

An example of such a high-end GPU is NVIDIA’s Quadro FX5800 with 4GB of dedicated GDDR3 RAM. This

graphics card is at the absolute top of NVIDIA’s Quadro FX performance chart and promises no less than 4K

real-time playback with the latest development in CUDA engine technology [68].

takes specific care of the 2D and 3D graphics processing and is most commonly known within

the framework of games, but an increasing number of software applications make use of powerful GPU

processing through CUDA [67]. CUDA is the computing engine developed by NVIDIA for their GPUs and it

allow developers to gain access to the GPU’s multi-core architecture and thus make benefit of the large

performance enhancement implied.

157 Random Accessed Memory 158 Double Data Rate Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory 159 Graphics Processing Unit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Data_Rate�

100

10 APPENDIX II – EXPERT INTERVIEWS

10.1 INTERVIEW – VFX SUPERVISOR MARTIN MADSEN 1

1. Når jeg siger 4K, hvad tænker du så? 2

Svar: 3

Jeg tænker mange ting. Jeg tænker digital produktion, jeg tænker IMAX og jeg tænker fremtiden, 4

måske. 5

6

2. Foretrækker du analog eller digital projektering i biograferne? 7

Svar: 8

Jeg foretrækker klart digitalt. Men det er svært for det er en hel anden snak omkring naturalisme 9

og supernaturalisme. Når man snakker film og grain, der er to lejre. Den ene lejr er meget digital 10

som går efter at alting skal se næsten perfekt ud, lidt ligsom vi ser det med øjnene, så der ikke er 11

nogen korn eller noget grovhed i det. Hvor der er den anden lejr som er meget, ikke film noir, men 12

det rå film look som netop består af alle de her korn. Specielt mørke scener som meget beskidt og 13

som korner meget, og de synes det ser... det ligner en fodboldskamp i fjernsynet når det kører for 14

hurtigt og der er for mange frames i billedet og det ligner noget som er taget med et stillbilled 15

kamera hvis det er grain frit... og det vil de ikke ha. Hvis det ska ligne film, så ska der være tekstur 16

og struktur i filmen. De folk vil altid være meget imod det digitale medie. Men man kan jo altid ligge 17

korn i det digitale billede inden man man fremviser det digitalt, så man kan lave det billede man 18

præcis vil ha. Så undgår man i hvert fald de her tillægskorn der kommer fra 35mm oveni. 19

20

Spørgsmål: Så du er støtter af det digitale format eller hvad? 21

Svar: 22

Ja det er jeg absolut. 23

24

3. 2K er nutidens standard opløsning i biografen, vil du mene at du kan se forskel på en analogt- og 25

digitalt projekteret 2K film? 26

Svar: 27

Altså 2K som 2048, og ikke 1920 som er det vi har her i huset, ja der vil jeg mene at jeg kan se 28

forskel, absolut. Det er jo meget afhængigt af hvilken projektor man fremviser det på. Du kan 29

sjældent finde nogle digitale projektorer i Danmark som er reelt 2048 og viser alle pixelsne perfekt, 30

der er nogle enkelte af dem men de er meget få. 31

101

32

Spørgsmål: Hvad med 4K, vil du mene at du kan se forskel på 2K og 4K, både digitalt og analogt? 33

Svar: 34

Ja, det bør man jo kunne. Altså man kan sige at digitalt og analog principielt er det samme, det ska 35

jo blive præcis det samme billede, så hvis projektoren er god nok så ska det jo blive præcis det 36

samme billede. Der burde ikke være nogen forskel. 37

38

Spørgsmål: På trods af grain og hvad der ellers ka være? 39

Svar: 40

Det klart at der kommer lidt ekstra grain i film. Men under optimale omstændigheder så er en pixel 41

jo en pixel uanset om det er på det ene eller det andet medie. 42

43

4. Hvad er dit indtryk af 4K udviklingen i Hollywood 44

I Hollywood! Jamen hvis man kigger over the seas, så er det jo London man kigger på og de bruger 45

4K rigtig rigtig meget, men det gør de primært til IMAX. Mig bekendt er der ingen amerikanske film 46

som bliver skudt ud i 4K på 35mm til visning i en normal biograf. De gør til gengæld det at de ofte 47

laver tingene i højere opløsning end 2K og så nedskalerer de til 2K, og det gør man af den grund at 48

man ligsom i Danmark når man ska lave reklamefilm til tv tit og ofte laver det i HD, for hvis det ser 49

godt ud i HD så ser det fantastisk ud i PAL. Derfor laver man tit tingene i overlængde, og det gir 50

også lidt større råderum, så når man har lavet tingene så kan man trashe og destort dem sådan så 51

det ser realistisk ud hvis det så flot ud til at starte med. 52

53

Spørgsmål: Så det er lidt den omvendte verden af hvad vi har herhjemme, hvor vi arbejder med det 54

i lav opløsning og så skyder det ud i opskaleret 4K? 55

Svar: 56

Det kan man sige, men det er jo langtfra alting som bliver lavet i 4K. Der er nogle ting som bliver 57

lavet i 4K og skaleret ned bagefter. Men ja, i Danmark, de få film som vi har haft skudt i 4K de har i 58

de færreste tilfælde været skannet i 4K, og de film hvor de er blevet skannet i 4K der har det været 59

elementer af filmen ikke den hele. 60

61

5. Hvad er dit indtryk af 4K forespørgslen og udviklingen i Skandinavien? 62

Den er meget meget lille. Der er nogle enkelte fotografer, nogle af de dygtige fotografer vi har, Dan 63

Laustsen er et af de bedte eksempler, han er meget meget kræsen og pissedygtig, og han har nogle 64

102

dygtige fokuspull’ere til at stille skarpt på hans film. Så han er en af de få mennesker som faktisk får 65

noget ud af at bruge 4K produktion. Både i forbindelse med skanning og udskydning. Markedet i 66

Danmark er ikke helt med på den bølge i den forstand at maskinerne ikke er helt gearet til det, og 67

det er det tekniske workflow selvfølgelig heller ikke. Men der er da klart nogle folk i Danmark som 68

ønsker det, og han har på enkelte af sine film fået lov til at skanne og skyde i 4K, og vi gør det bla. 69

på titelsekvenser, både for- og eftertekster, der gør vi det tit i 4K fordi folk som ham måske kan se 70

en forskel. Og det kan andre folk muligvis også, men forskellen er så minimal at de aldrig får et 71

produktionsselskab til at betale det. 72

73

Spørgsmål: Hvad så med 4K udviklingen i Hollywood, kan den ha indflydelse på hvordan markedet 74

udvikler sig her i Skandinavien? 75

Svar: 76

Det kan det godt, men det vil være i forbindelse med at vi opgraderer vores biografer. Jeg tror ikke 77

på at de biografer vi har idag, som jo er 35mm, nogensinde vil få noget ud af at vise et 4K billede. 78

Det er selvfølgelig kun aktuelt på filmprojektorer, dem som viser fra film, og de er da muligvis en 79

forskel, men forskellen er så minimal at aldrig vil kunne betale sig i Danmark. 80

81

Spørgsmål: I forhold til både film og digitalt? 82

Svar: 83

I forhold til hvis man skyder det ud på IMAX. IMAX er jo en bredere film, som de jo netop bruger. 84

Christopher Nolan er jo et af de bedste eksempler, som har lavet The Dark Knight og en masse 85

andre fantastiske film, og han får stådreng på når man snakker om opløsning. Jo højere opløsning jo 86

bedre blir det. Og han er jo meget anti-grain kan man sige, han vil gerne ha det til at være så 87

perfekt og smukt som overhovedet muligt. Der skal ikke være noget beskidt, han går imod det her 88

Harry Potter agtige look hvor man gemmer ting i effekterne, det ska se realistisk ud. Det ska se ud 89

som om man er der. Det klart at sådan en fyr gerne vil ha så høj opløsning som muligt, så det ligner 90

det vi ser med øjnene. Dvs. det er grain-frit, optaget digitalt og udskudt i IMAX, så godt som muligt i 91

hvert fald. 92

93

6. Hvad foretrækker du personligt at arbejde med; 2K eller 4K? 94

Svar: 95

Det kommer meget an på opgaven jeg ska lave. I opgaver hvor der skal keyes, hvis det er enkelte 96

skud som ska se rigtig rigtig flotte ud, der ku det være fantastisk at ha dem i høj opløsning. Hvis jeg 97

103

kunne vil jeg ha dem i 16K, men det kan man ikke, med mindre man skyder RED selvfølgelig. Det er 98

klart desto flere detajler man har jo mere data har man til at bearbejde sine masker og keyes ud 99

fra. Det er selvfølgelig tungere at arbejde med, så det er spørgsmålet om kvalitet og kvantitet. Ska 100

man lave 50 skud så vil jeg dø hvis jeg laver dem i 4K. Ska jeg lave 3 keyes i en film så vil det være 101

fantastisk at ha dem i 16K, hvis kunden vel og mærke har pengene til at betale for det. 102

103

Spørgmål: Og hvis man nu siger at 2K og 4K tog samme tid, at man simpelthen havde udstyret til 104

4K, ville det så ændre på noget? 105

Svar: 106

Ja det er klart. Hvis du kan få den bedre kvalitet på den samme tid som det tager for 2K så ville jeg 107

klart vælge det. Det er der ingen tvivl om. 108

109

7. Kan man sammenligne udviklingen fra 2K til 4K med 35 og 70mm film? 110

Svar: 111

Hmm, nu er jeg jo rimelig ny i den forstand at jeg er jo nærmest født i den digitale æra og kender 112

ikke så meget til den gamle film teknologi, selve film processen af det. Så om jeg vil sammenligne 113

dem, det tør jeg ikke. Man kan sige at ud fra et matematisk princip så er det jo det samme man er 114

ude i, ligsom fra PAL til HD er der også en firedobling. Det er klart at det betyder meget rent 115

processormæssigt og det betyder selvfølgelig meget rent lagermæssigt, i modsætning til at arbejde 116

på film. For hvis man skanner en film fra negativ til positiv og positiv til negativ så er det jo en ren 117

kemisk process som ikke bliver større eller længere af at det er et større negativ. 118

119

Spørgsmål: I så fald, tror du 4K vil lide samme skæbne som 70mm? 120

Svar: 121

Jeg tror ikke at det bliver sløjfet, men det gør at det bliver en lille elite som bruger det. Og den lille 122

elite de bruger det allerede idag, og de bruger det til IMAX. Stadig, selv om de bruger det til IMAX, 123

så har de ikke råd til at lave hele filmen i IMAX. Film som f.eks. The Dark Knight, som jeg nævnte 124

før, det er jo ikke engang 30 procent af filmen som er lavet i IMAX. Men alle de skud som han synes 125

er de fedeste, dem han ligsom gerne vil ha flest detaljer i vil han ha lavet i IMAX. Så selv for de 126

største drenge er det ikke realistisk at lave hele filmen i 4K. På sigt vil han ligsom prøve at få så 127

meget af filmen med, og det vil andre instruktører selvfølgelig også, men altså man skal se det 128

sidestillet med at han vil vise det i en IMAX biograf. Han vil vise det i en biograf hvor man rent 129

faktisk kan se den her forskel. Forskellen er selvfølgelig at en 70mm film har ligeså mange korn som 130

104

en 35mm film har, den er bare dobbelt så høj og dobbelt så bred, og det gør jo at du får fire gange 131

så meget opløsning på. Du kan ha dobbelt så meget information uden at det grainer. 132

133

Spørgsmål: Kornene bliver altså mindre når du ser det på samme lærredstørrelse? 134

Svar: 135

Det kan man sige. 136

137

8. Biografer har i længere tid kæmpet mod hjemmebiograferne, tror du 4K kan være med til at lokke 138

folk i biografen? 139

Svar: 140

Hmm, det er jo meget sjovt i øjeblikket med det her stereoskopi som vinder voldsomt meget 141

tilbage, det får pludselig folk ud af huset og ind i biografen for at se filmen og det er jo fantastisk for 142

mediet. Men om 4K kan gøre det samme, nej det tror jeg ikke. Jeg tror at den fornemmelse 143

stereoskopi gir folk, at de ser noget nyt fra hvad de kan se derhjemme, den forskel vil de slet ikke 144

fornemme med 2K og 4K. Forskellen er endnu mindre end den var fra normal tv til HD tv, altså PAL 145

til HD. Der kan man bare se hvor langsomt udviklingen den går og hvor lidt folk bemærker 146

forskellen. Folk som har valget mellem en HD kanal og PAL kanal de bemærker tit og ofte ikke om 147

de ser den i HD eller PAL. Så nej jeg tror ikke at det er noget som folk vil købe biografbilletter på, 148

hvis du har to sale og de ska betale en 10’er mere for at se den i 4K så tror jeg de tar den i 2K. 149

150

Spørgsmål: Heller ikke når man tænker på det store HD kapløb der har været indenfor de sidste par 151

år, tror du ikke folk er blevet lidt mere kvalitetsbevidste når det kommer til billedkvalitet? 152

Svar: 153

Jo det tror jeg. Jeg tror der er kommet sån lidt pop-kultur over det, altså at det er blevet sån at man 154

ska ha det største pæneste fladskærm i stuen meget mere end det principelt er for et flot billede. 155

Det kan man også se på de tv der bliver indkøbt. Der bliver købt tv hvor det ser forfærdeligt, rent 156

billedmæssigt, hæsligt ud. De kommer 10.000 effekter på som alle sammen ødelægger billedet, i 157

stedet for at at bare lave en skærm som viser billedet som det er lavet til at blive vist. Altså et 158

realistisk billede. Så gir man altså folk en masse effekter så man kan vise vennerne alle de her 159

50.000 effekter fjernsynet kan. Det er en lidt misforstået udvikling som fladskærmende har givet 160

danskerne, og nej, jeg tror ikke man kan lave den samme pop-trend for der er ikke så meget lir over 161

at sige at man har set det i 4K i stedet for 2K. Det er ikke noget du kan vise folk, det er ikke noget 162

som du har stående hjemme i stuen som et møbel. Det er en oplevelse som du ska ha og det er ikke 163

105

anderledes når jeg sidder og snakker til morgenmøde om mandagen at den ene har set den i 4K og 164

den anden har set den i 2K. Det er ikke to forskellige oplevelser som de har fået som f.eks. 165

stereoskopi hvor man kan snakke for og imod stereoskopien. 166

167

9. Megen diskussion i filmbranchen går på om investeringerne i nyt 4K udstyr er spildt pga folk 168

alligevel ikke kan se forskel når de sidder i biografen, hvor står du med hensyn til dette? 169

Svar: 170

Jeg tror at. Ja, vi kan godt sætte en streg under det; det er spild af penge. Det kan vi godt sige at det 171

er. Som det er lige nu med de biografer vi har i Danmark så er det kun for fotograferne at vi gør det. 172

Og det ska man ikke kimse ad, de ska ha lov til at få lavet deres film så flot som overhovedet muligt. 173

Så har man en fotograf og et produktionsselskab som er villige til at få lavet deres ting i 4K, så ska 174

de så sandelig ha lov til det. Fordi det er da teoretisk flottere, absolut, der er jo mere information i 175

billederne. Om de så kan se forskellen det er da fanstastisk hvis de kan det. Hr og Fru Danmark 176

kommer ikke til at betale for det. 177

178

10. Er 4K fremtiden? 179

Svar: 180

Det kan man jo sige, men så kan man jo også sige at 28K er fremtiden. Jamen selvfølgelig vil 181

opløsningen stige, absolut. Det er ligsom det jeg snakkede om før med de to lejre, du kan godt hele 182

tiden komme i højere og højere opløsning og vi ser også Japan har udviklet noget som hedder UHD 183

tv som kører 8 megapixels opløsning. Folk som går efter supernaturalismen det vil hele tiden 184

stoppe mere og mere opløsning i kameraerne. RED kameraet tar nu op til 28K i den nyeste version 185

som snart udkommer, hvis det ikke allerede er udkommet. Og det er fantastisk for os som ska lave 186

post-production for vi kan få mere data ind i kameraet, men hvis man ska se på det fra biografernes 187

synsvinkel så er det et spørgsmål om at vi ska lavet nogle helt nye biografer. Om vores standard 188

bliver IMAX, om vi nogensinde kommer til at hoppe med på IMAX bølgen inden det bliver erstattet 189

med noget nyt som er højere end IMAX det tør jeg ikke sige. Men ja, 4K er et skridt i fremtiden, 190

men det er et trinbrædt hvis man kan sige det sådan. Det er ikke der at vi havner om 50 år. 191

192

106

10.2 INTERVIEW – PROJECT COORDINATOR METTE H. HANSEN 193


Svar: 195

Jeg tror det handler om de nye muligheder der er for at lave bedre kvalitet på film der kommer på 196

lærredet og den udvikling som det ligsom gør både effektmæssigt og lookmæssigt. Jeg tænker mest 197

på hvoran det vil være i udlandet for jeg tror det er en ting som allerede foregår i udlandet, og jeg 198

tænker mest på hvordan det kommer til at blive implementeret i de danske spillefilm. 199

200


Godt spørgsmål. Jeg tror jeg vil foretrække det digitale. Jeg forstår godt 4K på det analoge og 202

princippet i at man ikke kommer til at gå over, at man ikke skal skanne og ligsom sidder og 203

billedarbejder den, at man altså får det lidt mere råt. Men jeg tror at alle de gode ting som er ved at 204

lave det digitalt, jeg synes grading kan gøre gøre noget ved billeder som gør det endnu smukkere, 205

noget som du ikke får det på det analog men digitale. 206

207



Svar: 210

Det tror jeg bestemt. Helt sikkert at man vil kunne. Der er selvfølgelig forskel på om du bearbejder 211

det 2K udskyder det 4K eller om du bearbejder det 4K og udskyder det 4K. 212

213

Spørgsmål: Hvori ligger forskellen? 214

Svar: 215

Forskellen ligger jo i om man har dataskannet, onlinet og gradet i 2K og så interpolerer det op så du 216

får det i 4K. Eller om man laver hele processen i 4K og i sidste ende udskyder 4K filer til 4K. Der tror 217

jeg der er en væsentlig forskel på looket i biografen. 218

219

Spørgsmål: Er det så et skarpere billede, eller hvor tror du præcis forskellen ligger? 220

Svar: 221

Bedre kvalitet, skarpere billeder. Der er ting som vil fremstår tydeligere. Et sted som er helt vildt 222

hurtigt og nemt at se det på er f.eks. på credits. Hvis du tar en rulletekst som har samme hastighed 223

over billedet, om den er renderet i 2K udskudt i 4K eller om den er renderet i 2K udskudt i 2K eller 224

om den er renderet i 4K udskudt i 4K. En kæmpe forskel. Og det er noget som ikke kun 225

107

filmmennesker kan se, det er jeg også overbevist om at Hr og Fru Danmark vil kunne se. 226

Spørgsmålet er om det har betydning for dem om det er det ene eller det andet, men hvis man 227

viste dem de tre versioner så vil de sikkert godt kunne se forskel. 228

229

Spørgsmål: Man vil altså kunne sige at kvalitetsmæssigt så har vi 2K i bunden, opskaleret 2K i 230

midten og ren 4K i toppen? 231

Svar: 232

Helt sikkert. 233

234


Svar: 236

Det ved jeg altså ikke. 237

238


Svar: 240

Det er hovedsageligt i 2K, og det tror jeg set på det danske marked og det man har kendskab til kva 241

Shortcut i Sverige og Norge. Så kan man sige at det er helt nyt at vi kan udskyde 4K så hurtigt her på 242

Shortcut og det betyder at vi har valgt at implementere det som en naturlig ting vi gør når vi 243

udskyder på Arri’en. Flere steder rundt om i Skandinavien har man en Arri recorder og alle kan 244

udskyde 4K, spørgsmålet er bare hvor lang tid det kommer til at tage. Tid er jo penge for mange 245

mennesker i det her, og derfor er der jo mange som ikke får lavet 4K udskydninger selvom de 246

arbejder et sted hvor de rent faktisk kan få det gjort. Man vælger økonomi fremfor kvalitet. 247

248

Spørgsmål: Er der eksempler på Skandinaviske produktioner som er blevet lavet i 4K hele vejen 249

igennem? 250

Svar: 251

Ikke i 4K mig bekendt. Jeg ved at Mænd der Hader Kvinder blev lavet i 3K, men kan ikke nævne 252

noget herfra vores hus som er blevet lavet i 4K hele vejen igennem. 253

254

Spørgsmål: Hvad med Headhunter, jeg har hørt at der var noget med den og 4K? 255

Svar: 256

108

Den blev udskudt i 4K. Men den er ikke bearbejdet i 4K. Mænd der Hader Kvinder blev bearbejdet 257

og udskudt i 3K, men der er ikke nogen som er blevet 4K skannet og bearbejdet hele vejen 258

igennem. 259

260


Jamen, hvis tid og økonomi er til det så er det 4K for man får et pænere produkt i sidste ende, og 262

det er jo også en hvis tilfredstillelse i at se at de projekt som man har arbejdet med i så lang tid tar 263

sig godt ud på lærredet. Det er klart at det tar noget mere tålmodighed for lige nu det er jo noget 264

maskinkraft som det også handler om. Men fordi at man går så meget op i look og udseende og 265

kvalitet og det færdige produkt, så 4K uden tvivl. 266

267


Nu fanger du mig på noget som jeg ikke ved nok om. Jeg har set nogle gamle 70mm film, og det er 269

jo ret sjovt og interessant og smukt at tænke på hvor gamle de film er og hvor flot de i det hele 270

taget står. Om man ligefrem kan drage en konklusion på den måde, det ved jeg ikke, men der er 271

ingen tvivl om at det er virkelig virkelig virkelig flot. 272

273


Svar: 275

På nuværende tidspunkt tror jeg at det bliver fravalgt af økonomiske ting. Man kan sige at lige nu er 276

der meget omkring optagelse på de digitale formater, f.eks. RED, som jo helt sikkert er en rigtig 277

rigtig stor modspiller til hvis man optager på film og dataskanner det til 4K bearbejdning. Vi har ikke 278

haft noget på RED som har lavet 4K hele vejen igennem. De RED produktioner vi har haft har vi også 279

lavet 2K, og der tror jeg at 4K handler om økonomi. Der er ingen tvivl om at det ikke bliver 280

prioriteret. Man kan sige at inden vi opgraderede vores Arri til at udskyde 4K i samme hastighed 281

som 2K, selvom den kunne 4K var der stadig ingen der valgte at gøre det pga den økonomi der er 282

omkring det. Jeg tror ikke det handler om at producenterne ikke kan se forskel, se hvilket produkt 283

det er de får, men fordi de penge er der bare ikke i danske film. 284

285



Svar: 288

109

Jeg tror ikke det får den store betydning for min mor og far for eksempel. Der tror jeg li nu at der 289

ska nogle helt andre ting til på samme måde som 3D film som jo er et nyt format og visuelt helt 290

anderledes. Om du kan se noget kvalitetsmæssigt....der tror jeg handlingen spiller mere ind hos den 291

helt almindelige familien Danmark, fremfor kvaliteten. 292

293



Svar: 296

Nej, for jeg tror faktisk at det kan ha en stor indflydelse på salget til udlandet. På festivaler hvordan 297

filmen tar sig ud. Det kommer selvfølgelig også an på hvilken genre, men jeg tror at hvis der er 298

nogen film som får en 4K bearbejdelse igennem hele systemet, så tar de sig så smukt ud som nogen 299

genre film har rigtig godt af. I forhold til en gyser behøver måske ikke være de smukkeste billeder 300

efter min mening, men der er nogle film som bare vil. Og der tror jeg at det måske kan gøre en 301

forskel på det salg som der vil være til internationalt brug. Ikke i Danmark, men internationalt kan 302

det have stor betydning. 303

304


Svar: 306

Ja, det tror jeg. For halvdelen af de danske film er det. Der er jo de der low budget hvor 307

udgangspunktet og principperne er opsat på en helt anden måde. Instruktører vil det gerne og 308

fotografer vil det rigtig rigtig gerne, og jeg tror at de har meget medbestemmelse. Jeg tror helt 309

bestemt at mange producenter vil det bedste for projektet. Det er ikke med deres gode vilje at de 310

nogen gange bliver nødt til at fravælge ting som kunne være med til at gøre filmene bedre. Jeg tror 311

at hvis de får muligheden for det inden for en økonomisk overkommelig ramme så tror jeg til hver 312

en tid at det vil bliver valgt på de projekter som ikke er low budget men på de lidt mere almindeligt 313

finansieret der tror bestemt at folk gerne vil. 314

315

Spørgsmål: Hvad er dit indtryk når du sidder og booker jobs, er der en stor efterspørgsel efter 4K? 316

Svar: 317

Der er ikke så stor efterspørgsel endnu fordi at det er noget nyt noget og jeg synes ikke at det er 318

blevet ordentligt implementeret på det danske marked endnu. Lige nu handler det i den grad om at 319

vi kan sige at når vi udskyder på Arri’en så får de det i 4K, og det starter ligsom ringe i vandet at 320

brede sig. Og nu hvor Parterapi (er blevet udskydt i 4K), det er klart at det vil vi selvfølgelig også 321

110

gøre på de næste Nordisk Film produktioner. Problemet tror jeg er at tendensen lige nu er at der er 322

problemer under medieforliget lige nu her i Danmark, og det betyder bare at mange af de projekter 323

som kommer igennem er meget low budget og så kan vi ikke tilbyde det fordi der er noget 324

økonomisk som skal hænge sammen. Vi føler at vi går på kompromis mange steder for ligesom at 325

gøre det, men det ska ligsom også hænge sammen. Og på low budget film kan det ikke lade sig 326

gøre. 327

328

Spørgsmål: Mht til digitaliseringen af de Skandinaviske biografer, hvordan forholder du dig til 329

finansieringen af biografernes indkøb af det digitale udstyr, hvor skal pengene komme fra? 330

Svar: 331

Nu læste jeg jo lige en artikel om at der er nogen i Hollywood der prøver at ligge nogle penge i de 332

danske biografer for at få dem med på det digitale. De små biografer havde lavet en eller anden 333

aftale om hvordan de kunne betale tilbage, og det er klart at for de små er det nødvendigt at de får 334

noget hjælp, men omvendt så kan jo godt li digital fremvisning når det er noget 3D ellers bryder jeg 335

mig absolut ikke om det. 336

337

Spørgsmål: Vil det sige at når det er uden 3D vil du foretrække normal film projektering? 338

Svar: 339

Ja, helt sikkert, fordi jeg synes det er pænere. Jeg kan godt li det der filmlook. Jeg er ikke den 340

største fan af det der noise-reduction som nogen er. Jeg synes at der er nogen genre film som jeg 341

godt kan se fordelen ved, og vi havde en længere diskussion på et projekt vi lavede i efteråret om 342

hvorvidt man skulle lave noise-reduction eller ej. Netop denne film havde sådan en karakter at jeg 343

godt kunne li at den var lidt grov i det. Den var kornet og havde et look og en historie som gjorde, 344

efter min mening, at den skulle være sån lidt mere trashet. Det kan du ikke få hvis det er optaget 345

digitalt og det hele kører igennem noget digitalt. 346

347

111

10.3 INTERVIEW – CINEMATOGRAPHER JAN WEINCKE 348


Svar: 350

Først kommer jeg til at tænke på den første film vi lavede i Danmark i 4K, det var Nils Malmros’ 351

Barbara, og der var der sådan set ikke nogen som rigtig vidste hvad 4K var. Vi havde læst om det 352

her computergrafik man kunne lave, og det var li kommet frem. Jeg læste en artikel i American 353

Cinematographer og her var der en amerikansk fotograf som sagde at hvis man sku lave de her 354

computer effekter så sku man lave det i 4K, der var ikke andet som ku bruges. Og det gik jeg så ud 355

og sagde på laboratoriet, og så sagde de; ”nå men så må vi jo lave det i 4K”. Så gik jeg ud på Nordisk 356

Film, der havde de li købt et computersystem som Kodak stod for dengang, jeg ka ikke huske hvad 357

det hed, men der kunne man altså køre i 4K og alle betegnelserne det var ligsom filmbetegnelser, 358

så det var nemt at finde ud af. Men det krævede så at man havde en operatør,... meningen var at 359

han sku ha været til England, det kom han så aldrig..., så da vi gik igang med at lave Barbara blev 360

computereffekter, bla. som når de Franske skibe kommer til Færøerne så havde vi fundet et skib 361

som hørte til i Boston. Det var et skoleskib og om sommeren tog det på en enkelt tur til europa, 362

men kun til Frankrig og England, længere turde de ikke sejle. Så da vi spurgte om de ville komme op 363

til Færøerne, så sagde de nej det turde de ikke men hvis vi kom over til de Vestindiske øer, så kunne 364

vi filme dem derovre. Det blev så til at istedet for de Vestindiske øer så tog vi til San Lugia og 365

filmede, der var kun et skib men det var til gengæld bygget som en tro kopi af et af de Franske skibe 366

fra den amerikanske krig derovre. Alt var lavet præcis som det var på de gamle tegninger og de 367

rigtige skib var blevet sænket ovre i Boston dengang de havde krigen for at spærre for at skibene 368

kunne sejle ind og ud af havnen. Det lå altså nede på havets bund. De tegninger havde de så fundet 369

over det skib, og vi tog så derover for at filme det her ene skib, og så lavde vi det fire gange med 370

forskellige sejl mm, så når vi satte dem sammen i computeren så kunne man så se at der komme 371

fire ligsom ens skibe. Men det gjorde jo ikke noget for de var jo ens dengang. Det sku vi så sætte ind 372

og det lavede vi så i 4K, men da vi startede på det der vidste ikke hvor meget 4K rent faktisk fyldte 373

og der fandtes ikke rigtig nogen harddiske der kunne ta så meget så li da vi startede der brød hele 374

systemet sammen. Vi havde slet ikke tænkt på hvor meget det fyldte, og så endte det med at jeg 375

havde nogle små harddiske som kunne to 120 frames på harddisk, dem havde jeg seks af, og så lå 376

jeg og kørte mellem Nordisk Film i Valby og laboratoriet frem og tilbage hver dag. Og vi brugte 377

faktisk på de her effekter i 4K næsten et helt år på at lave det. Altså der blev lavet langt flere 378

effekter and bare de her skibe, men altså pga den høje opløsning, og så var vores udvidenhed var så 379

stor at vi mente, som jeg jo havde læst, at alt sku være lavet i 4K. Så selv når vi skulle sætte en 380

112

lampe ind på et skib der sejler om natten, som fylder måske fire korn i det her store total billede, så 381

lavede vi en kæmpe lampe på bluescreen i 4K på 35mm, hvilket jo slet ikke var nødvendigt. Vi ku ha 382

lavet det på video og så havde det endda været mere end 4K fordi det vår lille et billede vi sku 383

bruge. Det vidste vi ikke, vi var jo slet ikke inde i det, men efterhånden som vi fik lavet tingene og 384

fandt ud hvad det var vi havde med at gøre så fik vi jo lært det. 385

386

Spørgsmål: Har du så efterfølgende lavet noget i 4K? 387

Svar: 388

Så har jeg så at efterfølgende, fandt vi ud af, at mange ting i virkeligheden godt kunne laves i 2K. 389

Fordi mindre effekter, og når det ikke fyldte hele billedet, så gjorde det ikke noget. Idag der gør vi 390

det at vi skanner vores negativ i 2K, skyder det ud på intermediate i 4K, og så printer vi 391

intermediatet. Det skyder vi så ud i 4K, og her kan man så sige; hvis det er skannet i 2K hvorfor 392

skyder man så ud i 4K, man kan jo ikke få mere med end der er? Men der sker det at når man går 393

fra 2K til 4K til sidst, så får man ligsom en bedre skarphed, farverne blir lidt klarere. 394

395

Spørgsmål: Altså når man opskalerer 2K? 396

Svar: 397

Ja, når man opskalerer 2K så får du altså lidt bedre skarphed end hvis du bare kører videre i 2K. Det 398

har vi eksperimenteret meget med for at se om det ligsom var rigtigt, og vi har lavet 2K som også 399

blev skudt ud i 2K, og 2K som blev skudt ud i 4K, og det viste sig hver gang at det var så tydeligt at 400

når vi sad ovre i biografen så ku alle se at det her er 4K og det her er 2K. 401

402

Spørgsmål: Og det var på film? 403

Svar: 404

Det var på film, og det viste sig at når man skød ud i 4K så blev skarpheden, specielt skarpheden, 405

meget bedre. Man kan sammenligne det med at vi kunne næsten ikke se nu at det var digitaliseret, 406

det blev ligsom mere rigtig film. 407

408


Svar: 410

Jeg er jo nok så gammeldags at jeg synes det analog billede er det pæneste billede. Jeg synes at der 411

er mere stoflighed i det, der er lidt mere i det der analog kopier. Der er noget substans i billederne 412

som jeg synes er bedre, men på den anden side så vil jeg sige at vi er kommet så langt idag at der 413

113

sker ikke så meget ved at man går digitalt. Sku jeg vælge så ville jeg nok gøre det (vælge film), men 414

man kan sige at nu er alle systemer lagt om til at vi skal til at køre alt digitalt hele vejen igennem og 415

det er yderst sjældent at der bliver lavet analog film mere. På spillefilm området er det i hvert fald 416

ved at glide helt ud. Her for ikke så længe siden var der faktisk en film, Se min Kjole, som blev lavet 417

analog men ellers bliver alt lavet digitalt. På den måde at du optager på film, så skanner du dit 418

negativ og bearbejder det digitalt, og så recorder du et intermediate negativ og laver kopier fra det. 419

Og så kan man så sige at så er der ikke så meget der ska rettes, der er altid lidt der ska rettes, der 420

burde ikke være noget men der er altid noget når man laver kopierne. 421

422

Spørgsmål: Er digitalt fremtiden i biograferne, eller vil der blive ved med at være 35mm? 423

Svar: 424

Der vil nok ikke blive ved med at være 35mm, men der vil være 35mm, tror jeg, i de næste 10 år, 425

fordi hele det nye system er så dyrt. Det er jo nærmest 2 millioner pr. biograf. Det er klart at de små 426

biografer vil ha svært ved det med mindre de får noget støtte, og det kunne være ligsom man har 427

gjort i Norge hvor staten går ind og støtter så det bliver digitalt alt sammen. Men sådan blir det 428

engang, det er der ingen tvivl om. Den analog del af filmverdenen den er væk, og forsvinder 429

efterhånden fuldstændigt, og jeg vil tro at om 10 år så kører vi digitalt alle sammen. Og vi ka jo 430

desværre, kan man sige, vi er også nødt til at gøre enten det ene eller det andet, for det viser sig, og 431

det er jo specielt nu hvor vi begynder at få 3D som spreder sig i øjeblikket og alle vil ha det og ovre i 432

Jylland der drøner de ud med 3D i mange biografer og de gør det i de store premierebiografer i 433

København. Det gør at de ska skifte lærredet ud, og det lærred er ikke godt for den analog kopi. 434

Enten må vi køre digitalt og så ka vi bruge de nye lærreder og så ska man lyssætte efter det, men 435

ska man køre analog film op på de nye lærreder så dur det ikke længere. Så ska man lave nogle 436

andre kopier i hvert fald. 437

438


Svar: 440

Jeg foretrækker 4K, det gør jeg. Jeg vil sige at jeg har set mange ting som er flotte i 2K, og 441

selvfølgelig kan man da sagtens lave film i 2K, men altså får jeg valget vil jeg altid vælge 4K, for så er 442

jeg sikker på at det er i orden. 443

444


Svar: 446

114

Jeg synes jo at 70mm, som man havde det i gamle dage, er noget af de flotteste jeg har set. Og jeg 447

har ikke set det overgået endnu i digitalt, det har jeg ikke. Men der er ingen tvivl, sådan er det jo 448

med alt, at i starten så kan man næsten ikke vænne sig til alt det nye der kommer og når der så er 449

gået en 10-12 år så har man fuldstændig glemt det gamle, og så er det nye jo også fantastisk. Sådan 450

tror jeg det blir, men hvis der kom nogen og tilbød mig at jeg kunne lave en film i 70mm så ville jeg 451

vælge det lige på stedet. Det er der ingen tvivl om at jeg ville. 452

453


Svar: 455

Nej, det tror jeg faktisk ikke, jeg tror at, det har jo vist sig li fra da vi startede med alt det her 456

digitale, at li så snart at der var kørt ind og li så snart at man har fundet ud af hvordan maskinerne 457

sku være, så faldt priserne også. Man kan gøre det hurtigere og hurtigere. Idag, nu kan jeg ikke 458

huske hvor mange billeder det er man kan lave i sekundet når de skanner og recorder, men ingen 459

tvivl om at om ganske få år så kører vi 100 procent på de her maskiner, altså 25 billeder i sekundet, 460

det tror jeg helt bestemt. Om 10 år kører vi måske dobbelt hastighed. Så jeg tror at det blir billigere 461

med tiden, og det vil sige at 4K ikke blir noget problem. Det man kan fundere over er om vi vil gå 462

højere op end 4K, for det har vi jo mulighederne for, men det er klart idag at det vil være alt for 463

dyrt. Men om 10 år er det måske ikke for dyrt, hvor det måske koster hvad 4K koster idag. 464

465

466



Svar: 469

Hmm, ja, jeg er jo af den overbevisning at det er det samme som når man snakker om at når man 470

laver en film så er der en eller anden som siger; arh, det er der ingen som ser i biografen, det er kun 471

jer som ser det. Men det tror jeg ikke på. Jeg tror at hvis en film er lavet på den bedst tænkelige 472

måde, så kan det godt være at publikum ikke går ud af biografen og siger ”Hold da op hvor var det 473

fantastisk, der var ikke en fejl på noget af teknikken.” Det tror jeg ikke at der er nogen der siger, 474

men jeg tror folk går ud og siger; ”Hvor var det en fantastisk film at jeg var inde og se”, og der har 475

det været med til at gøre det til en fantastisk film, det at man har lavet det perfekte arbedje. Så jeg 476

tror ikke at der er noget som kommer og siger at de virkelig ku se at det var 4K, men jeg tror at 477

nogen vil sige; ”jeg var inde og se en film og den var altså så flot”, men de siger jo ikke hvorfor at 478

den var flot, de siger bare at den var så flot og jeg synes at det var en fantastisk historie. Der tror 479

115

jeg at alt den teknik der er, hvis der er lavet rigtig, så tror jeg indirekte at folk tar det med i 480

historien. Det giver noget til helhedsoplevelsen, og det tror jeg er vigtigt. 481

482



Svar: 485

Jeg tror det vil være pengene værd fordi hvis vi i filmbranchen vil konkurrere med fjernsynet, som 486

er dem vi konkurrerer allermest med, og stadig vil lokke folk i biografen så er det en af tingene som 487

vi ska gøre. De ska vide at når de går ind i biografen så får de simelthen de flotteste og bedste som 488

kan fremskaffes på et lærred. Man ska vide at på biograflærredet der er det bare det bedste. Hvis vi 489

kan blive ved at bevare det så tror jeg folk vil synes det er spændende at gå i biografen. Man kan se 490

det også nu her, nu kommer der pludselig noget 3D og folk er blevet helt vilde. Nu ska alt jo være 491

3D. Det er nyt, det er spændende, det har også vist sig at det er rigtig flot. Avatar er jo et godt 492

eksempel, de invisterede flere milliarder i den film og efter et par uger var pengene tjent hjem. Nu 493

ska du så også til at lave de gode historier i 3D, ikke bare eventur, krig, fest og ballede, nu ska vi til 494

at finde de gode historier. Det holder ikke i længden bare at køre eventyrfilm, der skal lidt mere til, 495

men Alice in Wonderland er måske lidt mere i den rigtige retning. 496

497

Spørgsmål: Kan 3D så ende med at blive en gimmick som er overstået om et år? 498

Svar: 499

Det kommer an på hvilke nogle film der bliver lavet. Hvis der bliver lavet gode film, dvs at ikke bare 500

teknikken er go men også at historierne er gode, spændende og underholdende, så tror jeg at 3D 501

bliver ved. Og jeg tror på et eller andet tidspunkt så finder man en teknik så man kan se 3D uden 502

briller. Om 3D bliver på alle film, det ved jeg ikke, det tror jeg ikke at det gør. Det er kun specielle 503

film at man vil lave i 3D. Men om ik andet så ska det være 3D eller 4K, og om 10 år er det måske 8K, 504

hvor vi får et endnu flottere billede. Så vil vi jo på digital hvis kunne lave 70mm billeder, så har vi 505

noget som svarer til det. Det tror jeg helt bestemt vi får, for det er jo de store lærreder som ska vise 506

at det er meget mere spændende end de små tv-apparater derhjemme uanset hvor store skærme 507

vi får. Og det er klart, jo større skærme der kommer, jo større lærreder ska vi ha. Når vi ska til 508

premieren så ska det simpelthen, ...altså Imperial vil være det mindste lærred vi kan acceptere..., 509

for nu ska vi fandme ha en oplevelse. 510

511


116

Svar: 513

Ja det er det helt afgjort. Det er der ingen tvivl om. Den digitale vej det er fremtiden, og det går så 514

stærkt idag at negativer tror jeg også ryger ud. Jeg tror at om 40 år der er der kun digitalt tilbage, 515

men så længe at filmen kan komme med noget som er bedre end det digitale og det kan de endnu, 516

så holder vi jo lidt fast i det. Men vi er kommet langt med de nye digitale kameraer til at optage i 517

4K, og så begynder det pludseligt at bliver hårdt for filmen. 518

519

Spørgsmål: Film overlever jo også på baggrund af at mange biografer ikke har haft råd til digitalt 520

udstyr endnu, men det er vel også noget som ændrer sig? 521

Svar: 522

Ja, vi optager jo også digitalt mange gange og man kan sige at vi ska jo bare bruge en film kopi til 523

sidst. Vi ska jo bare recorde et intermediate til aller sidst, vi har bearbejdet filmen digitalt hele 524

vejen igennem, og der er ingen tvivl om at blir vi ved med det for det er billigere og hurtigere, i 525

hvert fald endnu. Det handler hele tiden om finde den bedste måde som heller ikke koster for 526

mange penge. Negativet er dyrt, meget dyrt, men både Kodak og Fuji, som jo er de toneangivende, 527

blir ved med at komme med et nyt produkt som er lidt bedre end det forrige og så længe de gør det 528

så forblir de lige et skridt foran det digitale. Hver gang det digitale er ved at komme op og sige nu er 529

vi næsten ved at kunne følge med, så kommer der en ny film som er blevet endnu mere finkornet 530

eller kan endnu mere med nogle farver osv. Jeg har li lavet test med filmskole-eleverne på en ny 531

Fuji-film og nu kan de pludselig noget med nogle farver som kommer til at stå helt forrygende flot, 532

som du aldrig har set på digitalt og heller ikke kan i øjeblikket. Men om 2 år så har de fundet ud af 533

man bare ska stille på en eller anden knap på kameraet og så kan man også lave den farve. Og så 534

ska Fuji eller Kodak komme med noget nyt igen hvis de vil blive ved. 535

536

117

10.4 INTERVIEW – HEAD OF FILMS RIKART KØBKE 537


Svar: 539

Så tænker jeg at det er den absolut bedste kvalitet vi kan gi vores gæster på nuværende tidspunkt 540

og selvfølgelig er det vores interesse at kvaliteten er i højsædet i forbindelse med 541

biografoplevelsen. Det er jo ikke kun det som det handler om når man skal i biografen, men for 542

mange, og for mig selv, er det en af de ting som betyder aller mest for mig når jeg skal i biografen, 543

at det er den bedste visuelle og lydmæssige oplevelse jeg kan få når jeg ser filmen. 544

545

Spørgsmål: Vil du sige at det er med til at give noget til helhedsoplevelsen? 546

Svar: 547

Ja. 548

549


Svar: 551

Det kommer lidt an på hvad det er for en film. Jeg synes stadig at der er nogle film som gør sig 552

bedst på 35mm film, sådan en film som Inglourious Basterds eller den seneste Indiana Jones film, så 553

synes jeg at det er mest rigtigt at se filmen på 35mm, men det er måske sån lidt feinschmeker og 554

højrøvet holdning at ha til tingene. Men man skal ikke gå længere end til at f.eks. Steven Spielberg 555

har insisteret på at den seneste Indiana Jones film kun skulle spilles på 35mm. Det var kun meget 556

meget få biografer i USA som fik lov til at vise filmen digitalt fordi de ikke kunne vise 35mm. George 557

Lucas og Spielberg som ellers er gode arbejdskollegaer og personlige venner, har virkelig 558

modstridende interesser og har lyster i forskellige retninger hvad det her angår. Hvor Lucas jo 559

virkelig er; alt skal være digitalt så er det godt, så er Spielberg meget imod digitalisering. Men jeg vil 560

sige at jeg har også været der hvor jeg synes at digitale billeder var grimme, hvor farverne ikke var 561

gode nok, dybden ikke var god nok, kontrasten ikke var som jeg synes den sku være. Jeg har selv 562

været filmoperatør i syv år og ved godt hvordan sådan noget her ska se ud, og jeg synes simpelthen 563

at digitale billeder var for flade. Men de sidste 4 år er der sket utroligt meget på den front, så når 564

jeg ser digitale film idag er det er en helt anden oplevelse. Jeg skal selvfølgelig ikke sige hvor meget 565

det er at jeg har vænnet mig til det, fordi det er klart at f.eks. da vi gik fra LP’er til CD’er, så var der 566

meget som ikke lød som det plejede, men der gik jo ikke lang tid før man ikke kunne holde ud at 567

høre på det der knas. Og der går jo heller ikke lang tid før at overkørselsmærker er man helst fri for 568

og forskellen på underteksterne om de på 35mm jo ikke ligger på samme niveau på tiahaltraten så 569

118

det gir jo også en uskarphed her hvor vi er nødt til at gå på kompromis og det slipper vi jo for ved at 570

køre digitalt. Nu skal det siges at jeg ikke har set ret mange film digitalt med undertekster men det 571

er bare et eksempel som er nemt at forstå at der er nogle meget synlige forskelle dér. Men ellers 572

så, når vi har test på at vise filmen, ikke bare her hos os men ude i verden, digitalt og på 35mm så 573

har almindelige mennesker ikke kunne se det. 574

575

Spørgsmål: Men det er jo også meget af debatten, om det er pengen værd i forhold til forskellen? 576

Svar: 577

Altså jeg vil sige det sån at hvis vi havde haft digitalt udstyr i forvejen, så havde vi ikke skilt os af 578

med det for at købe 4K. Vi skulle ud og købe nyt og for os gav det mest mening at købe det bedste 579

vi ku få. I stedet for at købe noget som var det næstbedste. Så det var ligsom ud fra der hvor vi stod 580

at vi traf den beslutning vi gjorde, men havde vi haft nogle DLP projektorer i forvejen så havde det 581

ikke været 4K fordi DLP på nuværende tidspunkt ikke kan 4K. Det er kun Sony som kan det og deres 582

SRXR teknik som formår at lave den her høje kvalitet både for D-Bio og for 3D. Og på 3D er der jo 583

fire gange så flot en opløsning på de her maskiner fordi hvert billede bliver vist i 2K og det er der 584

ikke nogen andre projektorer som kan. 585

586

Spørgsmål: Nu har I jo så købt 4K projektorer men de bliver på nuværende tidspunkt kun brugt i 587

forbindelse med 3D? 588

Svar: 589

Ja, for os handler det lige nu om at få så meget ud af 3D som muligt. Det ville være fuldstændig 590

åndssvagt at spille andet end 3D på de her maskiner nu. Det er det vi har købt dem til og det er det 591

de skal tjenes hjem på. Vi får jo leveret film på 35mm uden problemer og en kørsel på digitalt som 592

ikke er 3D vil betyde at skulle aflyse en 3D forestilling, og det vil ikke være rentabelt at gøre. På 593

nuværende tidspunkt er det hypotetisk i forhold til at køre digital film som ikke er 3D på de her 594

maskiner. 595

596

Spørgsmål: Udelukker du at man i fremtiden vil begynde at vise 4K film hvor der ikke er 3D 597

involveret? 598

Svar: 599

Nej overhovedet ikke, det kommer naturligvis. Men så længe vi har 3D og kun kan spille 3D i de sale 600

så gir det ikke nogen mening at aflyse 3D for at vise film digitalt, om det så er 2K, 4K eller 8K, det gir 601

ikke nogen mening. Det vil være dårlig forretningsmodel at aflyse 3D forestillinger på nuværende 602

119

tidspunkt, det er jo det der er in nu. Efter Avatar har åbnet så har alt hvad der hedder 3D ligget 1, 2 603

og 3. 604

605


Svar: 607

Mit indtryk er at det går meget langsomt, alle taler 3D nu. For studierne handler det om at selv få 608

nogle af de film som er indspillet konverteret til 3D og det er deres agenda, at få så meget ud af 3D 609

som overhovedet muligt. I December inden Avatar åbnede der var der 17 film som var greenlighted 610

og sat i produktion i 3D, og da vi var i midten af Januar var der 79. På en måned blev det fire gange 611

højere. Jeg ved ikke hvad det er nu, men formentligt er det langt over hundrede produktioner der 612

er sat til 3D. Det er jo ikke fordi folk har opfundet den, de har selvfølgelig været i systemet, men i 613

det at Avatar gik hen og blev så stor en blockbuster betød at det var nemt for bestyrelser og for 614

studierne at nu sætter vi altså de her film i produktion i 3D. Jeg tror ikke at 4K er vigtigt for dem, 615

det vigtigste er en generel digitalisering, og det er jo meget få biografer som har lærred af den 616

størrelse, som nogle af os har, hvor det for publikum vil være væsentligt bedre. Men det er klart at 617

for nogle betyder det noget, ligsom det for nogen også betyder noget at der er noget som hedder 618

IMAX. Det er ligsom blevet inbegrebet af store lærreder i USA, og det er fordi at de ligsom er de 619

eneste som har haft store lærreder. Det ændrer sig så også fordi IMAX har været ude og gi afkald 620

på deres brand. De sælger det nu, ligsom THX gjorde det for 20 år siden, de begyndte at gi 621

licenserne uden at komme ud og sikre at kvaliteten er i højde. Det svarer lidt til at man fra 622

Sundhedsstyrelsen havde givet en smiley uden at være ude og kigge på hvad man lavede i 623

køkkenet. 624

625

Spørgsmål: Tror du måske ikke at sådan en som Christopher Nolan, som arbejder i både 4K og 8K, 626

fortsat vil gå med den tese som hedder højere opløsning fremfor 3D? 627

Svar: 628

Jo, jo jo jo. Der er enkelte meget visionære instruktører som tænker længere frem. Der er jo også 629

nogle produktionsselskaber, inden finanskrisen kom, som gik ind og sagde at nu tar vi nogle af de 630

gamle klassikere og restaurerer dem og laver dem om til 4K. De gamle bånd film for eksempel da de 631

blev restaureret i forbindelse med 40 året, der har man lageret dem i 4K, men det kan faktisk ikke 632

lade sig gøre at få fat i dem i 4K. Det er lidt absurd. Nu har man lavet dem, men ikke råd til at lave 633

DCP’er af dem på nuværende tidspunkt i 4K. Det har man ikke valgt at gøre. 634

635

120

Spørgsmål: Det er altså ikke blevet printet i 4K? 636

Svar: 637

Nej det er de ikke. Nu er det jo også hypotetisk i forhold til at de her faktisk ikke er optaget i høj nok 638

kvalitet til at de er i 4K, der er 4K bedre opløsning end 35mm negativet er. 639

640

Spørgsmål: Vil du måske mene at 4K er højere kvalitet end hvad der kan lade sig gøre på 35mm? 641

Svar: 642

Nej, det mener jeg ikke. Jeg mener stadig at en flot 35mm kopi som er blevet trykt tidligt i 643

laboratorieprocessen er flottere. Altså jeg kan ikke fortælle dig hvor mange kopier man laver, men i 644

gamle dage lavede man f.eks. 250 kopier af et negativ, idag der laver man 2500 kopier af et negativ, 645

og det sidste 500 kopier er altså ikke ligeså flotte som de første 100. Hvor der spares kan bliver der 646

sparet. Man er jo gået fra at sende 300 kopier ud i USA til at sende ud i 3000 kopier, det er ligesom 647

kotymen, og det er klart at det er dyrt at gøre, men man gør det fordi at det kan betale sig. Man 648

sparer jo så hvor man kan og der er altså nogle af de her kopier som også efterfølgende ryger til 649

andre lande og bliver tekstet, altså kopier som ikke har været i brug i mere end 2 eller 3 uger, dem 650

vurderer man så at de kan sagtens blive brugt igen senere. Og det er klart at alt det her transport 651

og ind i laboratoriet igen for at blive tekstet, det slider på både på billede og lyd. Det forringer jo 652

kvaliteten på 35mm, så sammenligner du en af de her kopier med en digital fremvisning så vil selv 653

min gamle mor kunne se forskel. Men sammenligner du en af de første par hundrede kopier, som 654

var den standard man havde for 20 år siden, med en digital kopi så vil jeg heller ikke sidde og tænke 655

over at nu er det digitalt og nu er det 35mm vi ser. Hvis du også sammenligner med 70mm så kunne 656

jeg egentlig godt tænke mig at vide om opløsningen på 70mm er bedre end en 4K, altså, hvor ligger 657

vi og hvor ligger grænsen egentlig. For hvis du udnytter begge medier optimalt, så er det jo der at 658

du ska sammenligne. 659

660


Svar: 662

Det har jeg slet ikke hørt noget om overhovedet. Jeg har slet ikke hørt om der er nogen 663

produktioner i skandinavien som skulle laves i 4K. 664

665

5. Kan man sammenligne udviklingen fra 2K til 4K med 35 og 70mm film? I så fald, tror du 4K vil lide 666

samme skæbne som 70mm? 667

Svar: 668

121

Nej jeg tror ikke at det bliver på samme måde, fordi hele mekanikken i 70mm er jo meget dyrere 669

end 35mm, og det er 2K vs 4K ikke. Bare tænk på sådan noget som transport af en 70mm kopi og 670

hvor meget det fordyrer hele distribution af en film. Det har man ikke med digitale film. Desuden 671

mener jeg at DCP materialet det vil blive leveret i én version og så kan det læses af alle maskiner. 672

Selv 3D standarden er jo nu den samme, bare for et halvt år siden blev der leveret fire forskellige 673

typer DCP’ere, nu bliver der leveret én som alle maskiner så kan bruge. Og det bliver det samme 674

med 2K og 4K, der leverer man det samme materiale som så kan bruges på den type projektor man 675

nu har. Der er behov for standarder på de her områder. Men jeg ved ikke om 4K og 2K, om når vi 676

afspiller 4K om vi så får leveret noget andet end dem som er i 2K. Der må jeg være svar skyldig. Jeg 677

ved bare at det vi har fået leveret i 4K har kunne afvikles på alle vores maskiner. 678

679

Spørgsmål: Så selv jeres 2K maskiner har kunne nedskalere 4K til fremvisning? 680

Svar: 681

Ja. 682

683



Svar: 686

Nej, jeg tror ikke at det vil ha samme virkning som 3D har. Jeg tror at det er svært at kommunikere 687

ud. Man valgte jo også at kalde det for 3D, selvom den optimale løsning havde været at kalde det 688

noget andet end 3D. Der var så mange spøgelser i skabet forbundet med at kalde det 3D fordi man 689

sku forklare sig ud af at det var en ny slags 3D end det 3D man oplevede i 80’erne. Det er en ny 690

slags, men fordi at det også ska være nemt for folk at forstå et kommunikationssprog så er 3D 691

alligevel så nemt for alle at forstå. Og det er jo masser vi taler til når man taler om det at gå i 692

biografen, så det var nemt at kalde det det. Nu bliver det ikke lavet om, men da man startede ud 693

havde det måske været godt at gi det et andet navn. Og det at gå ud og snakke 4K, det...., vi gjorde 694

det faktisk selv i starten. I vores lancering der gik vi ud og sagde; det er 4K det her. Det holdt vi så 695

hurtigt op med fordi det var svært for almindelige biografgængere at forstå 3D 4K; hvad er nu det? 696

Så, keep it simple og sig at det handler om 3D det her. 697

698

Spørgsmål: Men tror du ikke at folk er blevet mere bevidste om opløsning efter at HD er blevet 699

hvermandseje hjemme i stuerne? 700

Svar: 701

122

Jo, det tror jeg helt sikkert, og alle folk som har været lidt mere end bare almindeligt interesseret i 702

teknik og HD de har skrevet vidt og bredt om det her. Vi får faktisk stadig dagligt henvendelser fra 703

gæster som skriver; hvor var det dejligt at se Avatar rigtig, vi har før set Avatar i en eller anden 704

biograf og nu har vi set den hos jer og det var sån at den sku ses. Sådan nogle mails har vi aldrig 705

fået før og det er jo fra almindelige mennesker som bare har lyst til at fortælle at de har haft en god 706

oplevelse. De har så spurgt ind til et eller andet, men man kan høre på den måde de spørger at de 707

egentlig ikke ved hvorfor. Nogle synes jo også bare at det har været nogle bedre briller, og det er jo 708

bare plastik. Det er der vi er, men nu har vi jo også snart haft en halv million mennesker inde og se 709

3D, så det er klart at vi har haft mange forskellige mennesker inde. 710

711

Spørgsmål: Personligt har jeg bemærket at Cinemaxx ikke ligger særlig meget vægt på at det er i sal 712

5 at alt det her dyre udstyr er blevet købt, og jeg har selv måtte rådgive venner om at de skulle 713

vælge sal 5 fremfor 1. 714

Svar: 715

Ja det er også rigtigt, og der har været nogle enkelte som har spurgt forinden og så har vi 716

selvfølgelig svaret dem hvor der er hvad. Uanset hvordan og hvorledes du vender og drejer det så 717

har folk en eller anden idé om at de vil i sal 1. Også selvom at det i nogle biografer ikke 718

nødvendigvis er sal 1 som er den største. Folk har jo også en ide om at Imperial har et større lærred 719

and vi har, vores lærred i sal 1 er jo 80 procent større end Imperials. Det er jo godt at det er 720

lykkedes dem at holde folk i den tro fordi man jo siger Nordens Største Biograf så har de nok også 721

det største lærred, men det bygger jo så sæder. Men det er jo alt sammen noget som bare bliver 722

hængende uanset hvor mange gange man går ud og fortæller det, og markedsfører det, så har folk 723

en egen opfattelse af hvordan tingene er. Men jeg vil sige at det øjeblik at vi kan få en 4K maskine 724

til sal 1 størrelse så har vi den, men den findes ikke endnu. 725

726

Spørgsmål: Tror du så at I vil begynde at profilere 4K i højere grad? 727

Svar: 728

Måske, måske ikke. Det ved jeg ikke. 729

730



Svar: 733

123

Ja, det vil det være. Det vil jeg mene. På et lærred som er meget mindre end 10 meter i bredden 734

der vil jeg ikke mene at du kan se nogen forskel. Og det er de fleste biografer jo. 735

736


Svar: 738

Det er et godt spørgsmål. Måske er fremtiden noget helt tredje, måske er det 8K, hvem ved. Det 739

kan være at fremtiden ikke er lærreder men skærme så man ikke engang behøver at have briller på 740

når man skal se 3D. Det er svært at vide. Det er mere futuristisk hvis jeg ska komme med et bud på 741

hvad fremtiden er. Her taler jeg også 40-50 år ud i fremtiden. Nu har vi jo snakket om at digital film 742

vil komme om 5 år, men det har man jo snakket om i 30 år. ”Om 5 år så er det hele digitalt”, og det 743

er det stadig ikke. Hvis jeg ville køre en dansk film idag digitalt, så ville jeg ikke kunne få den leveret. 744

745

Spørgsmål: Men Hollywood har jo li indgået en aftale med de små danske biografer om finansiering 746

af digitale projektorer, og tror du ikke at det bare er det skridt som ska tages før udviklingen 747

pludselig vil gå hurtigt? 748

Svar: 749

Jeg forstår at du spørger for hele branchen og ikke bare Cinemaxx, og for hele branchen der tror jeg 750

ikke at det er det som man vil sigte efter. For den lokale biograf handler det om at have varer på 751

hylderne, dvs. at kunne få de film som folk vil se nu og det er det primære. Om det så er 2K eller 4K 752

det er ikke så vigtigt for biografen, det er ikke vigtigt for biografens publikum. Så nej, det kommer 753

meget langt nede af listen. Det er ligesom med analog lyd og digital lyd, hvor meget betyder det for 754

den enkelte biograf. Man køber det hvis man skal ud og købe nyt, men der er ikke nogen længere 755

som går ud og konverterer. Nu er biograf standarden i Danmark jo altså ret høj i forhold til rundt 756

om i verden, og jeg tror ikke at der er nogen som ikke kører digitalt længere i Danmark. Men det 757

burde i virkeligheden være noget som var mere synligt i biografoplevelsen for lyden er jo noget alle 758

kan høre, og alle kan høre om der er noget galt. Men når der er et eller andet med billedet, en fejl, 759

et eller andet med en farvenuance, noget der går for stærkt, om de ser 24 eller 25 billeder i 760

sekundet, det ligger folk ikke mærke til. Nu siger vi folk.. Der er mange som ville ligge mærke til det, 761

men folk ville ikke lægge mærke til det. 762

763

124

10.5 INTERVIEW – TECHNICAL MANAGER IVAN SCHMIDT 764


Svar: 766

Der er slet ingen tvivl om at det som holder 4K tilbage er arbejdsmængden som er i det. Altså det 767

tar længere tid, det fylder mere, og det gør at man ikke gør det. Der er nogle helt klare fordele ved 768

at gøre det, alt compositing kan blive meget bedre, meget flottere, meget nemmere at lave det 769

rigtigt. Det er den ene ting, den anden ting er selvfølgelig også at der opstår en masse interference 770

når man laver det i 2K, og det forsvinder også når man laver det i 4K. Så det handler ikke bare om at 771

man laver arbejdet i 4K, men også at det man optager har den information som gør at det kan laves 772

i 4K. 773

774

Spørgsmål: Når du siger interference hvad tænker du så præcis på? 775

Svar: 776

Jeg tænker på at jo mindre opløsning der er jo mere interference kommer der i billedet. Man 777

kender det fra sit egen tv når man ser en studievært som sidder i en meget fint ternet jakke, eller 778

lignende, flimrer det hele jo rundt. Og det er fuldstændig det samme som sker når man laver noget 779

i lavere opløsning. Jo lavere opløsningen er jo mere kommer der af sådan noget. Vi har lavet masser 780

af ting hvor vi har lavet det i 2K og så har vi haft interference i billederne og så laver vi det i 4K og så 781

forsvinder det. 782

783

Spørgsmål: Kan du nævne nogle eksempler på det? 784

Svar: 785

Ja, vi havde en film hvor der kom nogle gutter ind og satte sig i en restaurant og bag dem i 786

restauranten var der nogle træpaneler og de træpaneler var så fine i opløsningen at det begyndte 787

at interferere i baggrunden. Det var så tog den samme scene og lavede den i 4K så forsvandt det. 788

Det hænger også sammen med at, nu det altså i film verdenen, men når man kopierer så opstår der 789

uro imellem det negativ man kopierer fra og over på det printmateriale man laver. Man kan ikke 790

lave det uden at det bevæger sig og det gør jo at så at hvis opløsningen ikke er så høj så opstår der 791

interference der. 792

793

Spørgsmål: Dvs at der sker en forringelse når man kopierer fra negative til intermediate? 794

Svar: 795

125

Nej, det sker når man kopierer det rent fysisk i en kopimaskine fra intermediatet over til 796

printfilmen, der ligger det og gnider op mod hinanden. Altså det flytter sig simpelhen fra det ene 797

billede til det andet. Det er klart at hvis informationerne på det ene tidspunkt er sådan et sted og 798

det så flytter sig en lille smule sån så at selve den fine opløsning i princippet forsvinder i det næste 799

billede så vil du se det som interference. 800

801


Svar: 803

Åh, det var et heftigt spørgsmål. Altså der er jo ingen tvivl om at det digitale bliver bedre og bedre 804

og bedre, og det er jo helt klart at.. man kan jo bare ta ind og se nogle reklamefilm i en biograf som 805

har en dårlig projektor og så gå ind og se de samme reklamefilm inde i en biograf som har en god 806

projektor, og så er det pludselig ok at se det digitalt. Det er selvfølgelig ikke ok at vise noget når det 807

er så dårlig kvalitet. Det der har været en fordel ved filmen det er at der er meget lidt udsving på 808

projektorerne og selvfølgelig kan pæren på en analog projektor blive dårligere og dårligere, dvs 809

billedet bliver for mørkt osv, men der er endnu flere justeringsmuligheder på en digital projektor så 810

det kræver lidt mere af biograferne at de holder dem up-to-date. Så vedligeholdelsen af dem og det 811

at købe en ordentlig projektor fra starten er alpha omega for om det bliver godt eller ej. Så jeg vil 812

sige at hvis det er en dårlig digital projektor så er det noget lort, men ellers virker det jo fint. Der er 813

heller ingen tvivl om at det kommer, og det kommer hurtigere nu jo end det ellers har gjort. 814

815



Svar: 818

Altså, nogle gange når jeg går ind i biografen, så vender jeg mig om og så kan jeg li hvad det er for 819

en projektor der kører og selvfølgelig kan man se det på, hvad der er ret typisk for en analog 820

visning, nemlig uroen på billedet. Det er sådan noget som snavs der kommer, så det er sgu rimelig 821

nemt at se om det er digitalt eller analogt. Men det er svært ud fra kvalitet, vil jeg sige. 822

823

Spørgsmål: Hvad med 4K, vil du mene at du kan se forskel på 2K og 4K, både digitalt og analogt? 824

Svar: 825

Analogt: Nej, der ska du ha det som sammenligning så du kører det ved siden af hinanden. Du kan 826

ikke sidde og sige, ah det der er lavet i 2K og det der er skide godt det er lavet i 4K. Du aner ikke 827

hvordan det er optaget eller noget som helst, så hvis du ik li har noget at sidde og sammenligne det 828

126

med så er du ikke i stand til at se det. Et ganske typisk eksempel er jo også tv versioner som beder 829

om en HD master, så tar folk og blæser en SD master op til HD og så afleverer de en HD master, og 830

der er ikke en kæft som kan se om det er rigtigt eller ej for de ved jo hvordan grundmaterialet er. 831

Det ka jo være et dårligt videokamera, det ka være mange ting som gør at det får en dårligere 832

kvalitet en noget ægte HD. Så man kan lade sig snyde på mange måder. 833

Digitalt: Det kan jeg ikke sige dig for der er ikke nogen som kan vise 4K endnu. Jo det er der jo, men 834

vi har ikke nogen steder her i skandinavien som kan vise 4K, så det er så enkelt. Så det kan man ikke 835

sige. 836

837

4. Hvad er dit indtryk af 4K udviklingen i Hollywood? 838

Svar: 839

De fleste film bliver jo lavet i 4K derovre. E-film, som er en af de store spillere på det amerikanske 840

marked, de laver alt i 4K. Altså hvis det er optaget på film, og de laver slet ikke 16mm længere. De 841

laver dem 35mm. Så ligeså snart det er optaget på film så foregår skanningen i 4K, al 842

efterbearbejdning i 4K og de smider det ud i 4K. 843

844

Spørgsmål: Hvad med RED? 845

Svar: 846

Det er jo sån at det er meget nærliggende at lave det samme stunt når man laver alt fra et RED 847

kamera i 4K. Jo højere opløsning jo bedre er det. Så der er ingen tvivl om at der er the next step, 848

folk vil lave det i 4K. 849

850


Svar: 852

Der er ingen. Det nærmeste vi kommer er at vi opskalerer 2K filer til 4K og ligger dem ud på 853

intermediate. Det er det nærmeste vi kommer det, men der er ingen tvivl om at det er et spørgsmål 854

om hvornår man kan håndtere det. Den første spillefilm hvor vi skulle lave inserts til det var i 855

1996/97, og der skulle laves 14 minutters inserts og det lavede vi alt sammen i 4K. Så det er 856

praktiseret. 857

858

Spørgsmål: Vil du mene at der er en forespøgsel efter 4K og det simplethen ikke er udstyret som er 859

til det? 860

Svar: 861

127

Jamen, det er to ting. For det første, da vi lavede den spillefilm i 96/97 i 4K da kunne computerne 862

slet ikke håndtere det. Det var så voldsomme dataer at det var ved at knække alle. Selv deadlinen 863

kunne man ikke overholde for at lave de der 14 minutters inserts fordi det blev lavet i 4K. Dengang 864

var computerne slet ikke så kraftige som de er nu, og de samme gør sig gældende med discs og alt 865

sådan noget. Det har jo ændret sig totalt nu, og man kan sagtens gøre det nu, det der er 866

problematisk er tiden i det, og så selvfølgelig at få kunden til at betale. 867

868


Svar: 870

Det ved jeg ikke. Det er jo det bedste, og det bedste er 4K. Der er slet ingen tvivl om at det kommer 871

til at ske ligeså snart at computerne bliver tilstrækkelige og li så snart vi får et workflow som kan 872

håndtere det bedre end vi kan nu. Så kommer det, og så er der ikke nogen som sidder og tænker på 873

om det er 2K eller 4K de gør det bare. Dengang vi startede den digitale del op og man gik fra 8 bit til 874

10 bit, der sagde man også; ”la vær med det, det kan jo ikke betale sig at lave det i 10 bit, der er jo 875

ingen som kan se det. Der er ingen der opdager det eller noget som helst.” Og nu er der ingen som 876

kunne drømme om ikke at lave det i 10 bit. Den eneste årsag til at man sagde sådan var jo at det 877

var tungt at arbejde med, og det tog en fandens tid at lave det der. Nu gør man det jo uden at 878

tænke over det. Det samme kommer til at ske med 2K kontra 4K. 879

880


Svar: 882

Nej, det er noget helt andet. Der er kæmpe økonomiske konsekvenser ved at optage det på større 883

format end 35mm. Der er ikke rigtig nogen kameraer, der er ikke mange der kan håndtere 884

negativet som kommer fra det. Så man kan slet ikke sammenligne de to ting. På et eller andet 885

tidspunkt så kan alle håndtere 4K og så skifter man bare over til 4K. Vores maskiner og skannere 886

kan køre 4K uden problemer så vi kan få informationerne fra negativet over i arbejdsstationerne. 887

Og RED kan lave det, så det er kun et spørgsmål om tid så kører man 4K. 888

889


Svar: 891

Nej, 70mm var simpelthen bare alt for dyrt. 892

893

128



Svar: 896

Nej, det tror jeg ikke. Det som lokker folk i biografen vil være 3D, altså stereoskopiske film. Der er 897

ikke nogen som kan se om det er 2K eller 4K. Der er ikke nogen som kan komme og side at den der 898

var lavet i 2K og den der i 4K, så jeg går ind og ser den i 4K. Det er der ikke. 899

900



Svar: 903

Nej, for man skal jo også.. et er her og nu, men for fremtiden også. Det man ligger ned, det man 904

lagrer, det man bibeholder at det har en kvalitet som lever op til det som kommer i fremtiden. Om 905

nogle år er der ingen som sprøger om noget de kører alle sammen i 4K. Det er lidt sjovt med den 906

udvikling som hele tiden foregår, fordi at da man lavede Festen så sagde man at den bliver optaget 907

på video og den har et specielt look så derfor kan den sagtens leve også i fremtiden. Gu kan den ej, 908

det er ikke en kæft som gider at se på den. Det er så dårligt lavet dengang. Så selvom det er en 909

hamrende god film kan du ikke bruge den til noget for kvaliteten af den er så dårlig. 910

911

Spørgsmål: Vil du så mene at kravet for 4K kommer mere indefra branchen selv, fremfor 912

biografpublikummet? 913

Svar: 914

Ja, det er jo branchen selv der driver det, det er det. Jeg kan jo gå over og pille en gammel Far til 915

Fire film frem fra halvtredserne så kan jeg få en bedre kvalitet end den man sidder og laver nu med 916

et 2K kamera. Langt langt bedre billedekvalitet. Så det fortæller jo bare om at man skal passe på 917

når man starter op at man har den rigtige billedekvalitet til også at kunne bruge det i fremtiden. Da 918

vi lavede Olsen Banden sagde man; ”uh vi må ha det over på video”, og så skannede man det over 919

på noget som hedder IVC 1 tomme format, da der så kom et nyt format så kom det over på det 920

format, og da der så kom.. det første det var noget som hed ”1 tom B” format så kom ”1 tom C” 921

format, så lagde man det over. Og så pludselig sku man bruge et VHS af det og så var det så dårligt 922

at man ikke kunne bruge det til noget fordi skanneren som skannede det stykke film var så dårlig 923

dengang. Nu havde man fået ny skanner og så troede alle at nu er det sgu klart. Så dengang ville tv 924

stationerne kun vise 4:3 format der derfor skannede man det i 4:3 format og ned på SD. Så kom tv 925

stationerne og sagde; ”det kan vi ikke sende mere, vi ha det i letterbox”, altså det rigtige format. Så 926

129

skannede man det en gang til men stadig i 4:3 og stadig på en ældrere skanner. Så kom der digital 927

og så skannede man det en gang til for at skanne det endnu bedre for nu var skannerne jo blevet 928

bedre og tv stationernes krav var blevet bedre. Det er det samme stykke negativ vi skanner hver 929

gang. Og så lagde man det ned og sagde; ”nu er det klart, nu ligger det der”, og nu er vi igang med 930

at skanne det en gang til, den samme Olsen Banden en gang til. Nu skanner vi den til HD og 931

kvaliteten bliver bare bedre og bedre. Det er fordi at det er lavet på film og vi ligger og har en høj 932

opløsning, højere end 2K, og det vil sige at vi kan blive ved med at få informationer ud af det og få 933

det bedre og bedre. 934

935

Spørgsmål: Så filmskaberne vil gerne have det bedste ud af det man har udfra nutidens standarder? 936

Svar: 937

Det er jo problematisk hvis man har optaget på noget som ikke indeholder den information, den 938

opløsning, den kvalitet som nutidens tv stationer, eller hvem der nu skal vise det, kræver. 939

940

Spørgsmål: Så det er ikke publikum som kræver den kvalitet, det kommer efterhånden som 941

biograferne og tv stationerne er i stand til at levere det? 942

Svar: 943

Hmm, jeg tror det er svært for publikum ligesom at sige hvad fanden er godt. Selvfølgelig kan en 944

god historie altid bære noget, men jeg tror det er svært efter historien ligesom at definere om var 945

det fordi det var skide flotte billeder, fordi lyden var god, var det fordi at det var flot filmet osv. 946

947

Spørgsmål: Tror du så at 4K vil være i stand til at levere noget til den her oplevelse i biografen? 948

Svar: 949

Ja, jeg tror bare ikke folk ved hvad det er. Hvis man går ind og ser Avatar nu digitalt, så kan man 950

bare se hvor stor spredning der er på forskellige sale kvalitetsmæssigt. Det er klart at hvis der ikke 951

er ordentlig kontrast på de der digitale fremvisere, hvis der ikke er ordentlige kontrast i billederne 952

som kommer, jamen så bliver det sådan noget fladt noget at se på og så får man en dårlig oplevelse 953

af det der 3D materiale. Men man oplever det først når man går ind og ser det i en anden 954

biografsal. Man tror ligsom at det bare ska se sådan her ud. 955

956


Svar: 958

130

Det er det, det er klart. Det er helt klart. Spørgsmålet er om det stopper ved 4K. Som det er nu så 959

begynder biograferne at gøre klar til at de kan vise 4K, folk der laver de der fremvisere og servere 960

gør klar til at lave 4K. Så det kommer. 961

962

Spørgsmål: Er der nogle planer om at købe 4K til Nordisk Film Biografer? 963

Svar: 964

Jeg tror at der ska være noget marked for det før man gør det, og det kan man ikke sige nu. Avatar 965

er et glimrende eksempel på hvor hurtigt det pludselig kan gå med at få digitale biografer, hvor 966

man før i tiden har sagt; ”nu må vi se, og det jo nok. Vi viser jo filmen og tjener nogle penge”, og så 967

kommer der pludselig sådan en Avatar film som virkelig sparker røv mht at komme og se noget i 968

biografen. Det er det sammen der gør sig gældende når digitale projektorer er nået ned i noget som 969

de fleste biografer kan investere i. Når der kommer noget basis grundlag, som Avatar, for ligesom 970

at ha digitale biografer så hopper man på med det samme. Det samme kommer til at ske hvis det 971

virkelig er 4K som lokker folk i biografen så skal de nok finde pengene til at købe en ny projektor, 972

men det er efterspørgelsen som kommer til at drive det der. Der er ingen som bare gør det for sjov, 973

bare for at kunne noget som de andre biografer ikke kan. 974

975

Spørgsmål: Tror du måske at publikum vil komme til at fravælge de biografer som ikke har høj nok 976

standard? 977

Svar: 978

Jeg tror at de bliver mere og mere kritiske. I øjblikket ved folk ikke rigtig så meget om det. Det er jo 979

utroligt hvad biograferne slipper af med at vise, og så længe folk ikke har et 980

sammenligningsgrundlag for hvor godt det kan være og nogen erfaring med det, så tror de at det er 981

niveauet nu og lader sig befippe af at der er 3D på, stereoskopisk. 982

132

11 APPENDIX III – QUESTIONNAIRES

11.1 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS – AGE 20-60

135


138


141


144


148

12 APPENDIX IV – TEST COURSE

12.1 TEST COURSE – TEST PAIR VOTES

Test pair 1 Votes:

7

Votes:

1. sequence 2. sequence 10

Test pair 2

5 1. sequence 2. sequence 12

Test pair 3


Test pair 4


Test pair 5


Test pair 6


Test pair 7


Test pair 8


149

12.2 TEST QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS – AGE 20-60

4KIN THE SCANDINAVIAN CINEMAS

Documents

Transcript of 4KIN THE SCANDINAVIAN CINEMAS