Jim (Cameron) says 4K is overkill...

[David Wyatt]

So 4K's unnecessary?!! Weird coming from the guy that wants to shoot everything in 3D from now on (maybe he's thinking about all that storage for 2 cameras :wink

 

[Häakon]

Wow. I love James Cameron's body of work, but I'm really surprised to be reading this.

4K is a concept "born in fear?" Basically the crutch of his argument is that 48fps is superior to 24fps because it greatly reduces motion judder in shots with camera movement. And apparently, that extra replacement rate compensates for the resolution hit when shooting 2K (which, remember is only 1/4th the resolution of 4K!), so in his mind, 2K/48p is vastly superior to 4K/24p because it is "as sharp" as the 4K image, without the "miserable" strobing artifacts.

"Replacement rate" aside (maybe there is some science to this, but I can tell you, my 2K-windowed RED shots are in nowhere near the same ballpark quality-wise as the 4K ones), how he can just shrug off higher resolutions entirely is mind-boggling. I still see a decent amount of noise in RED shots which have been downsampled to 1080 from the 4K frames in REDCine - although it looks clearly better than the original shots did before oversampling. And really, that's the key to this whole thing which people like Graeme have been trying to get across for years now: oversampling is king.

In my mind, RED is the best 1080p camera on the market, currently. I have never seen such wonderful images from a video camera before. They aren't perfect - and there are still many areas I'd love to see improved - but when you do a reality check and put this stuff next to Varicam or F900 footage, there's just no comparison. The RED image is sharper, cleaner, and has a beautiful aesthetic all its own. Even in side-by-side tests with 35mm film, I prefer the RED-originated material. I know those are fighting words on most cinematography-related discussion boards, but that's my opinion. I've shot both side-by-side and there's no question which I prefer. But just because it's arguably better in many aspects than the "gold standard" of 35mm film doesn't mean it is by any means perfect. And isn't James the kind of guy who seeks perfection? Why stop at 2K (48p or not), when the image quality characteristics of an oversampled frame seem so glaringly preferable in nearly every way? I don't mean to discount the guy because he obviously has more experience than I do, but I just don't get it.

I honestly can't wait for the 8K RED camera - and I'll still use it to make 1080p Blu-ray masters, but they'll just look that much better. You just need to look at the dSLR world for proof of this. Depending on your final output size, there's a point where more and more megapixels get you little to nothing on the return, but they're crucially valuable up until around the 4x oversample mark. If James thinks 2K is the "sweet spot," perhaps he's planning on having everyone watch his movie on good ol' DVD.

The 24p/48p discussion is another one entirely - and, sure, faster framerates will reduce motion judder. But that aesthetic of film which every digital cinema camera company on the planet is trying so hard to replicate these days - you know, the one we all know and love - is not a 48p aesthetic. There's a cadence and a quality about 24 frames-per-second that makes the cinematic experience what it is. No, it's not "real," but most movies don't aspire to be! They exist to take us away from reality! I have yet to find a single person who has watched a film on one of the new LCD TVs with 120hz refresh rates who actually like the resulting picture. Sure, the motion effect is more "realistic," but who wants Citizen Kane to look like an episode of "Big Brother?" Along with shallow depth-of-field, I believe 24p to be the other fundamental cornerstone of the "film look." Things like resolution and latitude are secondary as subconscious elements to these properties, and while they are vastly important for determining the quality of an image, they won't take you to Middle Earth the way that a 24p/shallow DOF image will. Of course, James Cameron is welcome to do whatever he wishes with his films (and he will!), but he shouldn't be so perplexed as to why the rest of the world has yet to jump on his 48p bandwagon. Whether the choice is film or digital acquisition, most people still want their movies to look like movies.

 

[DanWood]

Hey guys,
This is an odd first post for me, but I've been lurking here since the beginning of the beginning.

I thought there were some important ideas in this new article in Variety, so thought it worth posting.

In the article, Jim Cameron says that 4k is overkill and that 2k at 48fps is the sweet spot.

Ideas? Responses?

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

The trend is definitely going in the direction of 4K, instead of 2K.
But, Cameron may be right about the frame rate.
Look at Phantom 65 Camera?
Phantom 65 is a 4K camera with PL mount 35 mm lenses, just like RED.
But, unlike RED, Phantom 65 can record 4K/2K/HD in full frame at 1000 frames per second and has 256 GB CF cards.
The price of a minimum set up for Phantom 65 is about $50K.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Is Cameron refering to Phantom 65 Camera?
Phantom 65 is a 4K camera with PL mount 35 mm lenses, just like RED.
But, unlike RED, Phantom 65 can record 4K/2K/HD in full frame at 1000 frames per second and has 256 GB CF cards.
The price of a minimum set up for Phantom 65 is about $50K.
The trend is definitely going in the direction of 4K, instead of 2K.

Where did you find all this incorrect information about Phantom 65?

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

The trend is definitely going in the direction of 4K, instead of 2K.
But, Cameron may be right about the frame rate.
Look at Phantom 65 Camera?
Phantom 65 is a 4K camera with PL mount 35 mm lenses, just like RED.
But, unlike RED, Phantom 65 can record 4K/2K/HD in full frame at 1000 frames per second and has 256 GB CF cards.
The price of a minimum set up for Phantom 65 is about $50K.

The Phantom 65 has a 65mm lens mount (I'm assuming you can add-on a 35mm mount) that's why it's called a 65 and not a 35, and it starts at well over 125,000 dollars. But I think if anything the trend will be to go way above 4k sometime soon; UHD, ect.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

The Phantom 65 has a 65mm lens mount (I'm assuming you can add-on a 35mm mount) that's why it's called a 65 and not a 35, and it starts at well over 125,000 dollars.

It also does not record 1000fps at full frame and there is no such thing as 256GB CF Cards. Was there anything correct in his post? :clown2:

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I'd like to point out that there is an ingrained assumption that frame rate is constant. If you control acquisition, editorial and exhibition, with a completely digital toolset, the concept of fixed frame rates can be abandoned and can fluctuate within the available data bandwidth to provide the best imaging experience, much in the same way variable bit rate adjusts to improve playback performance. Variable Frame Rate or Dynamic Frame Rate could be achieved within a shot and the speed ramp could be recorded as metadata and repeated seamlessly within your NLE and at your Display or Projector.

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Has anyone here ever watched 60 fps material played at 60 fps? I have, and I think its about as far from "real" looking motion as you can get. To me it just looks completely fake. If I want "real" looking motion, I'd shoot around 30 fps.

In the end everything is just a fad. Right now everyone is crazy about shallow DOF, but way back in the day, deep focus cinematography was all the rage... Just something to think about.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

And apparently, that extra replacement rate compensates for the resolution hit when shooting 2K (which, remember is only 1/4th the resolution of 4K!), so in his mind, 2K/48p is vastly superior to 4K/24p because it is "as sharp" as the 4K image, without the "miserable" strobing artifacts.

Looks to me like he's speaking about different perception of sharpness.

The 24p/48p discussion is another one entirely - and, sure, faster framerates will reduce motion judder. But that aesthetic of film which every digital cinema camera company on the planet is trying so hard to replicate these days - you know, the one we all know and love - is not a 48p aesthetic.

The real question is why are they trying to replicate it.

Is it because 24 is the only right choice,
or to not look like TV ?

I have yet to find a single person who has watched a film on one of the new LCD TVs with 120hz refresh rates who actually like the resulting picture. Sure, the motion effect is more "realistic," but who wants Citizen Kane to look like an episode of "Big Brother?"

The problem with the new LCD screens is that they are using motion interpolation algorithms, this is not true higher fps. Plus the fact that lcd panels are still too slow to avoid ghosting, which also screws with more dynamic shots. Plus the fact that still no LCD still has blacks. I don't like watching movies on an LCD, period.

Plus the fact that we've all grew up perceiving "movies" with watching beautiful stories in cinemas in only 24p.

Also, you can't expect to like viewing an artwork in a way it was never meant to be viewed. That's where LCD panel makers screwed up.

One thing is to see 24p on motion interpolated 120Hz screen, and another to see true high fps footage, which was shot in that way for a purpose, following the authors vision. I don't think high fps should replace 24, I see them as just another creative choice. For some stories I want the "unreal" look, for some I want the viewers to feel as a part of it.

The point is not in "real' or "unreal", it's in telling stories, IMO.

I love this signature from this guy :

Science enables stories. Stories drive science

Whether the choice is film or digital acquisition, most people still want their movies to look like movies.

Absolutely. Following author's subjective perception and vision of "a movie".

A medium dictated 24. We loved it. Still do.
That medium will be gone. More creative choices.



I totally agree about 4K and advantages of oversampling, though.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

FWIW, I think Graeme's suggestion of an agnostic platform has a lot of merit, one where you could use multiple playback frame-rates as a creative tool.

Totally new creative dimension. Suggested on 06/04/2007 post #107.

From that same thread:

Artists will find ways to use non-24p frame rates to help them tell stories, and our science will enable them to do that.

Graeme

 

[Michel Hafner]

24 / 25 fps gives films a nice "distance". 48/50 and higher as playback systems make drama look like video (look at those 100hz televisions where your DVD suddenly looked like daytime soap ) - horrible

Not the same thing. Interpolated and repeated frames look different from real frames. There is nothing wrong with higher frame rates for all kinds of material. 24fps is a technical standard based on technical and economic restrictions of the time it was introduced. There is nothing special or magic about it. We have been conditioned to accept it and associate it with 100 years of film history. That's all. 24 fps is appropriate for some material, higher frame rates is for other material. We need a fps neutral system for the future.

 

[Russ Munson]

wow, some great ideas in here...gives me even more to ponder.

it seems to me that Red and other cameras will (if not already) give us the option to shoot at whatever fps. we choose--which is great from an artistic standpoint.

but it's the delivery end that we don't have any control over...

 

[Stuart English]

3D at 48Hz

3D at 48Hz

I think you also need to factor into this recent work in "reality" 3D - such as NBA basketball games. For these type of events 48 fps makes a lot of sense in that they can also extract a 24 fps copy directly out of a 48 fps master.


So 3K at 48 fps as a future RED recording option anyone ;-)

 

[donatello b]

30-60fps has been shopped around hollywood/world for past ?? 20 years ...
i think Imax & Showscan have been the only takers ??

heck, it be kind of nice if we could get some even numbers here in US instead of 23.98 , 29.97 !!! ....

 

[Bing Bailey]

I think 24 fps isn't just a limitation. it does have quite a dream like quality to it that you lose as soon as you hit 25fps or 30fps. it feels just slightly unreal. add to that the flicker of projection. there really is something to it. I don't want everything to look and feel like a video game at 300fps. its been good enough for a hundred years and it still is in IMHO

 

[Damien Molineaux]

Well, as far as I'm personally concerned, the 2k you get from our 4k when downsampled properly is the nicest looking 2k I've seen. But the 4k as 4k is just lovely!

Graeme

HEAR HEAR !!!

Now what 4k and 2k is Jim Cameron talking about, scans, bayer pattern sensors, or other types ? 2k downsampled from 4k bayer has very little to do with 2k bayer (Red 2k recording mode) for example.

This is what I preach for. I would say, a 2k downsampled from a 4k bayer is much closer to the 4k image you would output from that 4k bayer, than an image recorded in 2k bayer.

Shoot 4k, downsample to ultimate 2k, that's it !

Cheers,
Damien

 

[Bang WOW Bang]

It's not a bad idea that 4K at 72 fps.
by Founder of Snell & Wilcox @IBC in 2006.

Cheers,

Stewart
WOW Holdings
HKG / China / TW ? and Thailand

Hey guys,
This is an odd first post for me, but I've been lurking here since the beginning of the beginning.

I thought there were some important ideas in this new article in Variety, so thought it worth posting.

In the article, Jim Cameron says that 4k is overkill and that 2k at 48fps is the sweet spot.

Ideas? Responses?

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Shoot 4k, downsample to ultimate 2k, that's it !

Agreed, I am sure Cameron wasn't talking about 2k derived from cropping a 4k CMOS sensor. Perhaps more like 2k/HD from F23, which is quite respectable.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Doesn't this 48 fps playback speed kill some of the filmic... feel of... film .

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Doesn't this 48 fps playback speed kill some of the filmic feel of... film .

No, it fixes it! :biggrin: