Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Even 2K Rocks My World, or Why I Now Hate Film Grain

Shawn Nelson said:
Curious point someone made about grain looking worse in 2k, not sure why. .
Click to expand...

Hi,

An easy one, 2k can't resolve the grain, 4k can, 2k grain is a noisy mess.

The final resoloution on a screen depends on many things, from the projector lens to dupe negatives etc. There is no 1 answer to that question.

Stephen
 
I see a film scanned at 1080p on my 1080p TV and feel every bit of its stunning resolution--don't confuse theater resolution with actual resolution.

Because they took this all the way to projection, where now you have theater differences, projector differences and most importantly distance from the screen--there is a perceived resolution of 750 lines--this is not to say that this is the only resolution a film has--it is the only resolution an average theater goer may see.

This, for me, falls under the same category as the "first rows" theory that says that you can only tell the difference between 4K projected and 2K projected in the first few rows of the theater.

The real film "resolution" test would be to print a 4K test pattern on film and see the resolution it retains. Or, to test a film camera, shoot a Resolution test panel on a film camera, scan it at 8K and see where the resolution drops off. I assume it will be more like 2-4K.
 
Jaime Vallés said:
Nice report, VMax! Wow, 875 is absolute best. No wonder 2K digital projection looks so good!
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see the "perceived" resolution of 2K projected and 4K projected using their same methodology to see if it is any better or the same (the lack of film flickering may help you resolve higher resolution--maybe--just a thought). My guess is that it may count a little higher but 2K and 4K would resolve about the same and they would be closer to the 875 than the 2K.

It's all about the eyes ability to resolve detail over distance. Now, when Sony ships an 80" 4K TV for the living room--it's a whole different story!
 
Thom said:
This, for me, falls under the same category as the "first rows" theory that says that you can only tell the difference between 4K projected and 2K projected in the first few rows of the theater.
Click to expand...

Hi,

When I tested a DI at 2K & 4K you could see the better resoloution in the front, middle & back of the cinema. I was not expecting to see this.

Stephen
 
I'm confused. Does all this have to do with the fact that film is a homogeneous medium and video has scan lines?
 
This white paper (Digital Cinema Resolution), tells the same story. Goes into a few more reasons why.

35mm film negative that starts off at 4.5K but through all the processing, display errors etc, the end result end is closer to 1.3K.

DF
 
david farland said:
This white paper (Digital Cinema Resolution), tells the same story. Goes into a few more reasons why.

35mm film negative that starts off at 4.5K but through all the processing, display errors etc, the end result end is closer to 1.3K.

DF
Click to expand...

Hi David,

By doubling the scan to 4k or again to 8k there is an improvement that I can see, probably not worth the extra cost some would say. They then conclude the results are close enough to 1.3K.

Just my 2c

Stephen
 
Stephen…absolutely correct

Thou to look ‘real’ they mention 80K!

‘..Vernier Acuity: If the projection system is to fully satisfy the HVS (human visual system) capabilities for vernier
acutity, then the front row would need 80K pixels to fully resolve the images to eliminate any vernier acuity effects..’


Cheers,
DF
 
david farland said:
Stephen…absolutely correct

Thou to look ‘real’ they mention 80K!

‘..Vernier Acuity: If the projection system is to fully satisfy the HVS (human visual system) capabilities for vernier
acutity, then the front row would need 80K pixels to fully resolve the images to eliminate any vernier acuity effects..’


Cheers,
DF
Click to expand...

Yeah, that will be the sensor in RED-TWO. 80K baby!!!
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

When I tested a DI at 2K & 4K you could see the better resoloution in the front, middle & back of the cinema. I was not expecting to see this.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Cool, that is good to know! I assume you were projecting on a 4k projector? Or was this on a 35mm print? If it was a print I wonder if your eyes were fooling you, since the research shows that prints only get up to like 1.3k. Hmmm, so much subjectiveness in this.
I'd love to see a 35mm projector next to a 4k projector then do a 35mm projection vs 2k projection vs 4k projection for the exact same clip. I have no idea who could possibly be motivated to do such a test, but it would be great.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Cool, that is good to know! I assume you were projecting on a 4k projector? Or was this on a 35mm print? If it was a print I wonder if your eyes were fooling you, since the research shows that prints only get up to like 1.3k.
Click to expand...

Unless it was print directly out of a film recorder, rather than several generations removed (as release prints are).
 
Another interesting factor in all this is how much the dynamic range of film drops off as you get generations away from the original neg. 11+ stops for Red One is looking pretty darn good.
Aloha
-A
 
4K to shoot, archive and scale to 2K or HD 1080p for post is quite enough for the beginning. Anyway the most affordable hardware for post is made for HD and 2K. 4K post is just beyond indie budget.
 
Chris Kenny said:
Unless it was print directly out of a film recorder, rather than several generations removed (as release prints are).
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

Usually an Arri Laser puts out a neg that is printed (not a print), that's what we did. We also output 32 different negatives for different markets.

On a high budget feature multiple original negatives are made, they don't have to be duped unless you wish to confirm the resoloution of a 35mm print is only 1.3K! Having worked in film optical's many years ago I can confirm there can be a big difference depending on who made the dupe.

FWIW an original 35mm 1:1.85 printed will far out resolve a 4K DI. If you are looking for quality then think of shooting anamorphic with a traditional finish. I hope to do such a test v 4.5K cropped (uncompressed of course) when I have the kit to hand.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top