Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: Steve Yedlin, ASC on Resolution

Reply to Thread
Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 12181920212223 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 228
  1. #211  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    It looked so magnificent, so much more subtle and beautiful than other film prints I was seeing at the same time during the festival and I asked him about his process. He smiled and told me I'd just watched an answer print and he had bypassed scanning and DI for exactly this reason knowing his film would be a "limited release"

    JB
    I had the same emotional reaction to the image when I saw an answer print of Dunkirk projected at the BFI IMAX; it was like being hit hard in the face...with subtlety. Doused in beautiful, deep subtlety. I personally didn't feel there was much of an emotional difference, if any, between the 15 perf and the 5 perf stuff, tbh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #212  
    Senior Member Aaron Lochert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,016
    Reviving this thread because Steve Yedlin's done another brilliant demo. This one is a followup to his Display Prep demo. Inspirational, to say the least.

    http://yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/Di...oFollowup.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #213  
    Senior Member andrewhake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Lochert View Post
    Reviving this thread because Steve Yedlin's done another brilliant demo. This one is a followup to his Display Prep demo. Inspirational, to say the least.

    http://yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/Di...oFollowup.html
    Very good video. So many people in this industry swear by one camera or the other for so many reasons that make no sense. If anything it just shows a lack of understanding of how all of this stuff works. I love the thought of "is this camera capable of capturing enough information to achieve the look I am after?". Because that is all that's really important in the end. So much of the discussion just becomes subjective and down to personal workflow preferences, and usually the preference just comes from someone having more experience with one tool or another.

    I can't say I agree completely with a lot of his initial resolution discussion in the earlier videos though, although there are some very good points. I own and use a DSMC2 Gemini that only shoots 5k that can create an extremely nice well resolved 4k image, for most of my use cases this is more than adequate for what I am shooting, but having seen content shot on an 8k camera and displayed at 8k, I am fully convinced that additional resolution is useful depending on what is shot. I definitely think there is a limit to how much resolution is useful. But saying it is 2k or 3k is misleading given the content that is being shown and especially how it is being shown. Resolution is a tool just like any other camera attributes. When given examples where resolution isn't as important (such as humans in poorly lit rooms with limited focus) yes it won't be apparently as important. If his examples were different, the entire perception would change. I think the more interesting discussion is around screen size versus resolution, and how much this effects perception. When zoomed and cropped in on a particular portion of an image, resolution isn't as important as when viewing an entire image full on at scale in front of you, on a screen size that makes it the "same" FOV as the zoomed and cropped 1:1 size on a smaller screen. On a small screen your field of vision can't get fully engulfed like it can on a larger screen while also maintaining perceived sharpness, because you can't put your face up to a small display and maintain the same level of focus. So again if the presentation was different, the perception of sharpness would change. Whether or not that perception changes due to resolution or FOV I'm not sure, but I think is the more interesting discussion. Especially with the types of extremely high resolution low pixel pitch LED walls that are slowing becoming more mainstream. If the example images he shot were of a vast panoramic landscape with endless amounts of high frequency detail, and you were viewing on a massive high resolution display, your perception of sharpness would almost certainly change when comparing to lower resolution counterparts.

    The argument that as resolution increases compression will have to as well is also extremely misleading and just plain untrue in most cases in terms of capture and delivery to viewers. Bandwidth and compression algorithms are only improving, as are most people's viewing capabilities. If anything as resolution increases compression just gets more efficient at maintaining image quality while using less space. There probably is a point where people don't consider themselves bandwidth or viewing limited, and where filmmakers don't consider themselves resolution limited any longer, but we have probably just recently arrived at that point with Alexa 65 6k and Red 8k Monstro. And are getting close to arriving there with viewing with modern OLED (and future microLED) displays, as well as high quality LED theater walls.

    I do agree that creative choices like color correction, dynamic range, noise, focus, and most importantly subject matter can have a larger effect on perceived image quality and perceived resolution. Personally after getting accustomed the the contrast ratio and black levels a modern OLED consumer TV, going to any pubic movie theater besides one of Dolby's with much better contrast and black levels is kind of painful. And having seen what is possible with high resolution (far beyond 8k) low pixel pitch LED walls, which basically feel like looking at a gigantic OLED TV with blacks that are actually black, that disdain for protectors and silver screens just increases further. My "perceived resolution" is drastically increased when looking at higher dynamic range. Even if the content being shown isn't as "high quality" in terms of bit depth and resolution, the perceived quality can be much higher just because of the viewing situation. Sound plays a huge roll in that as well, but again that is very content dependent and very subjective. Personally I don't really care that much about delivery at higher than 4k resolution for most viewing theatrical viewing cases. Especially when it comes to images of humans captured by a camera and lens. I think we are getting to the point where lenses are the more limiting factor in terms of sharpness and resolution, and not camera sensors. And also how much resolution I want to see of other humans haha. I think resolution is more useful as a tool when the content doesn't involve other humans. It becomes much more dramatic when looking at things we aren't using to seeing every day, like exotic animals or parts of nature we aren't used to seeing. I do VFX/animation for a living and I have created and viewed that content at much higher resolutions than 4k, or even 8k, and at 60fps, for very particular use cases. And comparing that to a lower resolution version on the same large screen size can be quite dramatic depending on the content. So maybe if I could see content shot by a 16k camera, on a 16k LED wall, with lenses that can resolve 16k in a meaningful way my perception would shift again. But probably not if all people do with it is point that camera at humans in a poorly lit set to do camera tests and talk about pointless things that can easily be handled in post like rendition of skin tones..
    Last edited by andrewhake; 06-16-2019 at 04:32 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #214  
    Senior Member Patrick Tresch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Switzerland, Lausanne
    Posts
    4,997
    I love the idea of the camera being a data collection machine. The look is backed in only when you reach the limit of the machine.
    The more infos you can capture the better you can create a look. In todays highend cameras there are no limits that differentiate camera looks. It's what you acchieve in post and pipeline used wich makes the look not the camera.


    I would love to hear from Graeme about the RAW part of the video in @ 26'00''. It looks like if debayer process would be something very simple... and color decisions like color temp and tint don't change the quality of the signal if it's done before or after the RGB conversion. "Color beeing geometry and not color subtility" 32'15''

    Pat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #215  
    Senior Member Joel Arvidsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,872
    What does Steve like to view his content on? An 1080, uhd or 8k display? One problem with full hd was viewing "high frequency" scenes like a forest with alot of tiny leaves and thin straws of grass moving in the wind, and a slow moving camera (to much movement and the motionblur could eat the problem away). Things starts to "flicker" (flicker is not the correct word for this artifact, but you know what I mean). The same scene in uhd on a uhd television will not have this issue. Having to much post sharpening on the television will exaggerate this effect to.

    I just think uhd make high frequency images more natural and more pleasant. For low frequency image I cant argue. But why not shoot at high resolution when you can and save you master file. And if you have a slow computer/dont think you need more than 1080. Then you just downsample down to 1080 and gain all the bennefits downsampling. Even if you would uppress this at a later point you still be better of than if you original was shot at 1080.

    Also for keying thin straws of grass when the blue screen is far away from the camera. Then you will be glad if the straw is more than 2 pixels wide.

    Will be interesting to view this new video and its an interesting discussion. Thanks Steve.
    Epic #06696
    Epic-W #004069
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #216  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,062
    Won't speak for Steve here on any level, but I was at this event and what was more enriching was being able to pick Steve's noggin on a variety of topics afterwards at Cat and the Fiddle for likely way too long. Very appreciative of that.

    There's a lot to digest with his work on the Prep Demo and at it's core the word Authorship is key. That will likely mean a lot of different things to different people, but Steve's deconstructive approach to crafting a final image is admirable in the sense that he is basically normalizing whatever he's working with and building from there. Though the focus here isn't exactly a resolution focus, in conversation the clear point of motion picture film as medium in many ways has ran it's course, which is echoed industry wide. In fact, as Steve mentioned it was indeed the lowest resolving medium in a realm of higher resolution modern digital cinema cameras whose technical merit also extends to cleaner images, more light sensitive capture tools, more dynamic range, and even more color. Steve's demo really shows that aiming for a print film essentially emulation you can craft a nearly identical image, which is something that is common in higher end VFX, especially on projects mixing digital and motion picture film. But the note about the appropriate medium in there is one to take home with you, especially on image cleanliness. And one thing that really needs to be discussed further now is the advancement of consumer display technology in relationship to the images we are creating for them.

    Steve is a fan of having more information as starting point for sure, because with that you can direct it to wherever you want to go. Which is pretty much seen here.

    In the theater at EFilm btw it was a 4K projector.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    Won't speak for Steve here on any level, but I was at this event and what was more enriching was being able to pick Steve's noggin on a variety of topics afterwards at Cat and the Fiddle for likely way too long. Very appreciative of that.

    There's a lot to digest with his work on the Prep Demo and at it's core the word Authorship is key. That will likely mean a lot of different things to different people, but Steve's deconstructive approach to crafting a final image is admirable in the sense that he is basically normalizing whatever he's working with and building from there. Though the focus here isn't exactly a resolution focus, in conversation the clear point of motion picture film as medium in many ways has ran it's course, which is echoed industry wide. In fact, as Steve mentioned it was indeed the lowest resolving medium in a realm of higher resolution modern digital cinema cameras whose technical merit also extends to cleaner images, more light sensitive capture tools, more dynamic range, and even more color. Steve's demo really shows that aiming for a print film essentially emulation you can craft a nearly identical image, which is something that is common in higher end VFX, especially on projects mixing digital and motion picture film. But the note about the appropriate medium in there is one to take home with you, especially on image cleanliness. And one thing that really needs to be discussed further now is the advancement of consumer display technology in relationship to the images we are creating for them.

    Steve is a fan of having more information as starting point for sure, because with that you can direct it to wherever you want to go. Which is pretty much seen here.

    In the theater at EFilm btw it was a 4K projector.
    Here's my attempt to unpack the above: when the cinematic "author" has a clear vision of what they want to achieve, digital cinema cameras like Monstro provide the widest range of options for achieving those results, whether the aim is to emulate film or to create entirely new aesthetics due to higher resolution, wider dynamic range, greater sensitivity, wider color gamut, etc. Display technologies also play a role in the end-user's experience; UHD projection with well-mastered UHD source really shines. Not said, but equally obvious: if the author's vision is precisely living within the medium of film, then of course film is no worse than digital as an intermediate format. But why would an author want to constrain their vision to the limits of a medium, when there are much more versatile media now available?
    Michael Tiemann, Chapel Hill NC

    "Dream so big you can share!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #218  
    Senior Member Mark Spraker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Lochert View Post
    Reviving this thread because Steve Yedlin's done another brilliant demo. This one is a followup to his Display Prep demo. Inspirational, to say the least.

    http://yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/Di...oFollowup.html
    Thanks for reviving this thread; I really enjoyed the demo so getting to see a deeper explanation and deconstruction of it was enlightening.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #219  
    Senior Member Karim D. Ghantous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    1,709
    I found that quite useful, so thanks for sharing it, Aaron. Now I know what a 3D LUT is and how it's represented. Here's a question I would have asked him: why not take an average of about 6 or so frames of 5219 before taking colour samples to create a LUT?

    I'm sympathetic to the notion that digital can look as nice as film, although there are one or two things that digital fails at miserably. But only one or two things. Anyway, that was not the point of the presentation.

    Although, if digital can look exactly like film, why haven't I seen it? Perhaps this is on me to figure out why, as I may not have looked at enough material.

    What's also interesting to me is that Nuke can be used to create LUTs. I thought it was merely a compositing tool, and I thought that Resolve was what you used to make LUTs.
    Good production values may not be noticed. Bad production values will be.
    Pinterest
    | Flickr | Instagram | Martini Ultra (blog)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post
    What's also interesting to me is that Nuke can be used to create LUTs. I thought it was merely a compositing tool, and I thought that Resolve was what you used to make LUTs.
    Any system that's powerful enough to have a scripting language can make a call out to Python or R, which have packages that can create and manipulate LUTs. It's amazing what software can do when it works like software, rather than just a canvas that responds to mouse clicks.
    Michael Tiemann, Chapel Hill NC

    "Dream so big you can share!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts