ARRI CEO: "We want to have the worlds best digital camera this year".

[Paris Remillard]

I guess I should have said that I can't imagine needing more than 4K resolution, Bayer or not. But I would be happy with more exposure latitude. I don't need more pixels, but more highlights would be okay.

 

[Tom Lowe]

4k from RED has always held up well on the big screen whenever I've seen it. It's always nice to think that downsampling is the "solution", but there's no perfect downsampling filter, which sorta puts a spanner in that idea.

Graeme

Maybe projected you don't notice the noise so much, but pixel for pixel on a 4K LCD monitor, even the best DLSR with 4K sensors do not hold up at full res, pixel for pixel, especially low-light shots.

 

[M Most]

This is true. Because the condition of theater screens does not justify going for more than 2k scans. So why spend money when its not needed.

That is not the reason for the predominance of 2K in DI work.

DI work, like anything else in this country, is a business. Business needs to be profitable, which in this business means finding a sweet spot for the confluence of quality, speed, and price. There is a good deal of infrastructure support for 2K finishing, distribution, and exhibition. The performance required of centralized storage is usually sufficient for real time use of 2K, and the speed at which 2K files can be recorded to film is sufficiently fast that reels can be recorded in an acceptable time frame, sometimes allowing for multiple printing negatives to be produced, yielding significantly better release print quality. On the digital cinema side, the vast, vast majority of available digital cinema projectors are based on 2K DLP Cinema technology, making them a cost competitive choice. And underlying all of this is the basic topic of cost. Very few DI projects - in fact, really only the largest studio pictures - can really afford a 4K finish. And for many large pictures that make heavy use of visual effects, a 4K finish is a bit of a waste anyway because most of those VFX shots will be created at 2K - once again, because of turnaround time and creative flexibility.

I know people here seem to think this can all change simply because one company says it can. But that's not the case. Very few people here have real experience doing high end finishing, and most don't have a good sense of the complications involved, the time factors involved, the real costs involved, or the level of perfection required to pass studio QC's, among other things. Those are realities that DI companies deal with every day.

 

[Dj Joofa]

That is not the reason for the predominance of 2K in DI work.

DI work, like anything else in this country, is a business. Business needs to be profitable, which in this business means finding a sweet spot for the confluence of quality, speed, and price. There is a good deal of infrastructure support for 2K finishing, distribution, and exhibition. The performance required of centralized storage is usually sufficient for real time use of 2K, and the speed at which 2K files can be recorded to film is sufficiently fast that reels can be recorded in an acceptable time frame, sometimes allowing for multiple printing negatives to be produced, yielding significantly better release print quality. On the digital cinema side, the vast, vast majority of available digital cinema projectors are based on 2K DLP Cinema technology, making them a cost competitive choice. And underlying all of this is the basic topic of cost. Very few DI projects - in fact, really only the largest studio pictures - can really afford a 4K finish. And for many large pictures that make heavy use of visual effects, a 4K finish is a bit of a waste anyway because most of those VFX shots will be created at 2K - once again, because of turnaround time and creative flexibility.

Fully agree with you. You are right. You just nailed it. I was a little simplistic.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

... there must exist a pixel size that strikes a compromise between high dynamic range and signal to noise ratio on the one hand and spatial resolution and MTF on the other hand.

I propose that the industry form a study group to create a process that can accurately and impartially measure these parameters and arrive at a standardized Joofa number for any imaging system.

"How many Joofas is that new camera?"

 

[Dj Joofa]

I propose that the industry form a study group to create a process that can accurately and impartially measure these parameters and arrive at a standardized Joofa number for any imaging system.

"How many Joofas is that new camera?"

That was very funny ;-))))) but, you don't have to do that. If you want I can point you to several research publications that try to determine the "optimal" pixel size / count for a given technology.

 

[reality]

There is no standard that can be derived that are meaningful. No matter how much you try to quantify picture quality, it's all qualitative and fruitless. it's the picture that counts, not the numbers and every has different means of subjectively judging quality.

 

[Dj Joofa]

There is no standard that can be derived that are meaningful. No matter how much you try to quantify picture quality, it's all qualitative and fruitless. it's the picture that counts, not the numbers and every has different means of subjectively judging quality.

There are several studies that have been done that incorporate the human visual eye response, the dynamic range and SNR, and the pixel count and MTF, and under some constraints derive the "optimal" picture quality.

I give you an outline of the process. Imagine you have put a camera to image a scene and you get an image that has a relation with the dynamic range and the pixel count of the internal sensor. Now imagine if our human eye was imaging the exact same system. Now making the response of the human eye the base line (you can't rewire photoreceptors in a human eye), you put a different imaging system and sensor with either different dynamic range and / or different pixel count, now you can rank the two sensors subjectively using the human response as the base line.

The above is a simplistic way of describing the efforts that I have mentioned people have adopted to measure such numbers.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

That was very funny ;-))))) but, you don't have to do that. If you want I can point you to several research publications that try to determine the "optimal" pixel size / count for a given technology.

Sorry. I know I might have a reputation for being sarcastic on here, but I totally agree with what you are saying. Image quality is not just about resolution and many factors need to be taken into consideration.

You said it better than I ever could, so I nominated you for your own unit of measurement. Only the 'joofas' part was meant humorously, I agree with your ideas.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Everybody hurry up and try to catch up with the "vaporware" ....

all very PREDICTABLE.

on another note - here's a letter I just started -

Dear Mr. Dejan Ilic. -

I'd like to discuss the pricing of your matte boxes ...

Ouch....:bleh:

 

[reality]

There are several studies that have been done that incorporate the human visual eye response, the dynamic range and SNR, and the pixel count and MTF, and under some constraints derive the "optimal" picture quality.

I give you an outline of the process. Imagine you have put a camera to image a scene and you get an image that has a relation with the dynamic range and the pixel count of the internal sensor. Now imagine if our human eye was imaging the exact same system. Now making the response of the human eye the base line (you can't rewire photoreceptors in a human eye), you put a different imaging system and sensor with either different dynamic range and / or different pixel count, now you can rank the two sensors subjectively using the human response as the base line.

The above is a simplistic way of describing the efforts that I have mentioned people have adopted to measure such numbers.

At the end of the day though, no matter what numbers you get people will disagree with the numbers which ends up making the numbers meaningless.

No metric can take into account personal history, cultural differences, aesthetic training, etc. For example, look at the differences between image aestheics between Japan and America.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I second it - "joofas" it is

I second it - "joofas" it is

Sorry. I know I might have a reputation for being sarcastic on here, but I totally agree with what you are saying. Image quality is not just about resolution and many factors need to be taken into consideration.

You said it better than I ever could, so I nominated you for your own unit of measurement. Only the 'joofas' part was meant humorously, I agree with your ideas.

I second it - "joofas" it is.

 

[Bruce Allen]

At the end of the day though, no matter what numbers you get people will disagree with the numbers which ends up making the numbers meaningless.

No metric can take into account personal history, cultural differences, aesthetic training, etc. For example, look at the differences between image aestheics between Japan and America.

True. And sometimes they fuse into something magical
http://www.boacinema.com/misc/lucas2.mov

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[mradeck]

Yes, film is a future.

How?

You shoot 4K digital, make DI and VFX, also confirm in 4K and then print 4K to film for a distribution.

Digital 4K and print to film a real future.

your way will provide max 2k or lower in cinema!

shoot in 35mm scan with 8k or 12 k (the next scanner generation!) finish in 4k and project in 4k would be much better and is the Vision of DCI!

 

[Dj Joofa]

Sorry. I know I might have a reputation for being sarcastic on here, but I totally agree with what you are saying. Image quality is not just about resolution and many factors need to be taken into consideration.

You said it better than I ever could, so I nominated you for your own unit of measurement. Only the 'joofas' part was meant humorously, I agree with your ideas.

Thanks for your appreciation. You don't have to be sorry. I actually thought that the "Joofas" thing was very funny ;-)))))))

 

[Justin Anderson]

My big concern with 8K are super tiny photosites and noise, less range, etc..

If Arri can somehow master a 3 chip (35mm size chips) that can take PL lenses already in use... That would be quite the achievement.

I'm pretty sure that at the 35mm size it's physically impossible to fit three chips close enough to a beam splitter.

 

[I Bloom]

http://www.boacinema.com/misc/lucas2.mov

What the heck is that???

 

[Ace]

What the heck is that???

Its where self dignity goes to die.

What happens in japan stays in japan.

 

[Justin Anderson]

your way will provide max 2k or lower in cinema!

shoot in 35mm scan with 8k or 12 k (the next scanner generation!) finish in 4k and project in 4k would be much better and is the Vision of DCI!

8K, maybe, and definitely 12K are beyond the maximum resolution for 35mm. What's the point of oversampling?

 

[laguun]

I have googled all of the quotes in the original post and searched every way I could. Can you provide a link to this Arri interview?

its not online. i translated it from german, one of the sources is a pretty underinformed pr-type magazine called "professional production", issue 11/07.