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 :)

1080 enough?

Zach Gray

Zach Gray

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Not according to this article:

Captain America vfx

The shots were filmed on the Panavision Genesis which only outputs 1920×1080 – but as the film was 2.35:1 not even all the vertical height was used. Williams is not a huge fan of the Genesis, preferring moving forward to explore using cameras such as the RED with its 5K resolution, since the Genesis files are not very high resolution. “The Genesis is not a good effects camera,” Williams comments in declarative style.
Click to expand...
 
I thought cell phones were 1080p? heh heh heh :)
 
It amazes me that big budget films like this actually CHOOSE to shoot 1080p...(and then extract 2.35:1)

And doesn't the Genesis cost a ton and needs to be tethered to a RAID tower or something?
 
On the other hand, the biggest-selling movie last weekend was shot on a six-year-old 1080P digital camera, which says a lot about how well-designed it was designed to still be viable after all that time.

No, the Genesis is not particularly expensive to rent -- TV series use it all the time -- and it records to an attached SRW1 HDCAM-SR tape deck, or that deck can be replaced with a solid-state recorder. It doesn't need to be tethered to a data recorder.
 
Sorry... 1080P is not enough. Someone has to stand up and state the truth. It is like saying Super 16mm is good enough because "Black Swan" was shot on it.

Jim
 
we're just talking about the visceral and visual qualities of moving images, right?

i think most people are going to realize they agree, as soon as we realize we're not worried about any other factors as to what makes for good storytelling or not. we're just talking about a professional level of quality and creative control over a motion picture.

and when you think of it that way, it's almost just a truism... there's not much to argue about.

better quality images are innately better at delivering visual experiences than lower-resolution or artifacted images... there's nothing pleasing about looking at little blocks of colors make jagged edges, even if its slightly subconscious. that's all there is to it... whether people can articulate that is not relevant to the fact that higher quality images look better visually and affect us more powerfully.

but don't listen to me... i'm just a kid who doesn't really know it all yet. though you might listen to the people who bleed this stuff and direct the futures of it.
 
I have seen the best 1080P footage projected on a 40' screen. The smartest and most respected people in the industry were asking to "focus the projector".

It didn't help.

Jim
 
...yeah. i guess you do have to defocus the projector, or soften the video somewhere along the pipe to avoid some of the artifacts. the lesser of two evils, i suppose. very sad, but there's just not any more there... detail, that is.
 
Not sure why we're still hearing echoes of this question.
We're going to see 4K digital projectors in many premium theatres within a few years.
Sony, the maker of many "good enough" 1080P cameras used on hollywood pics, has released their 4K F65.

For people on a budget, the less expensive 1080P cameras may be good enough, but you'll have to do up-rez and sharpening.
Stories acting and lighting will play a greater part in how a movie is received, but on a technical level, 1080P will within a year or two be the least desired of the various options (2K, 3K, 4K).
 
This article implies Captain America is not even 1080! WTF? $140 million and my iPhone has more resolution* than their "negative"? Somebody is sure putting a boatload of faith in the glass.

*EDIT: Joseph Hutson pointed out that my iPhone isn't full HD... Just as the Captain America negative isn't full HD apparently.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Coatney said:
This article implies Captain America is not even 1080! WTF? $140 million and my iPhone has more resolution than their "negative"? Somebody is sure putting a boatload of faith in the glass.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, your iPhone is 720p instead of 1080p. Also, not all codecs are created equal. :) That's not to say that the Genesis was "good enough" to make me excited about the picture.

The whole time I watched Captain America (without knowing it was shot on an HD camera) I was thinking to myself "I almost regret the time I've spent in Stage4, watching 4K content.". My theatrical experience has since had a huge damper...due to the reality of how soft the images are. Kinda a bittersweet feeling.

I'd rather pay the premium to see 4K over 3D... (and I even love 3D)
 
by the way... i'd just like to recommend that article. it's really good, and it's hardly about resolutions and such.
 
Joseph Hutson said:
In all fairness, your iPhone is 720p instead of 1080p.
Click to expand...

You're right, Joseph. My phone is 720 x 1280 and the Captain America negative is approximately 820 x 1920. But my point is Captain America cost $140 million and my iPhone is $300. Now... how wise is it to invest $140 million dollars in a movie that has less resolution than my TV? Only time will tell.
 
Some more facts about 1080p and 2K:

Avatar (2009) biggest box office movie ever>>>All Time Box Office Worlwide: $2,782,275,172 (Close Date: August 12, 2010)

LINK>>>

Avatar was shot:

Camera: PACE Fusion 3-D / Sony CineAlta F23, Canon and Fujinon Lenses / Sony CineAlta HDC-1500, Canon and Fujinon Lenses / Sony CineAlta HDC-F950, Canon and Fujinon Lenses

Negative format: Digital / HDCAM

Process: Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format) / Fusion Camera (dual-strip 3-D) (source format) / HDCAM SR (1080p/24) (source format)

Printed format: 35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383) / 70 mm (horizontal) (IMAX DMR blow-up) (dual-strip 3-D) (Kodak Vision 2383) / D-Cinema (3-D version)

Aspect ratio: 1.78 : 1 (IMAX 3-D version) (2K 3-D version: constant image width venues) / 2.35 : 1 (2-D version) (2K 3-D version: constant image height venues)

LINK>>>
 
Jannard said:
Sorry... 1080P is not enough. Someone has to stand up and state the truth. It is like saying Super 16mm is good enough because "Black Swan" was shot on it.

Jim
Click to expand...

!080p is NOT good enough if you actually needed another camera with far more resolution. That is also something Williams expressed in the article as something he wanted - yet they chose the Genesis for some unknown reason, as it doesn't say if he wanted to shoot RED before principal photography or found out after. They actually NEEDED the higher resolution.

As to the matter of standing up and stating the "truth", I'm still confused... Is there a movement trying to go against any of this (yeah, other camera manufacturers, duh, haha, but...)? Are there in fact any DP/Director/Producer who still argue that a lower resolution camera is the right choice - when in fact they need higher resolution? If you NEED the resolution, then the choice is pretty obvious, right?

Sometimes I suspect that some base their choice on comfort, tradition and loyalty to a brand - rather than on rational thinking and in context to the project at hand and what they really could rely on. That is were the facts and possibilities of the tools available to you are important for you to be aware of and to have as much knowledge about as possible - as a DP, as a director and as a producer...well, as any filmmaker!

I really mean the following with great respect, Jim!!!: Hopefully you're still saying or respect that the choice to shoot S16mm on BLACK SWAN was the right choice for them, but not the right choice for ANYTHING - just because it worked on that particular film...

I'm saying this because I really believe that your words have great - if not ENORMOUS influence (perhaps far bigger than you imagine) on aspiring filmmakers and just filmmakers in general, and that also comes with a great deal of responsibility I'd imagine. YES, I completely agree! Every filmmaker should be aware of RED and what they can offer them. But the "right" choice - in relation to artistic expression - is ultimately up to the filmmakers to decide. And I'm aware that you're not saying anything specific like that, but someone could possibly misunderstand - like I perhaps could have misunderstood you just now! :)

...But in the end, I can't imagine any DP NOT wanting to shoot or own an EPIC :)
 
Jeff Coatney said:
You're right, Joseph. My phone is 720 x 1280 and the Captain America negative is approximately 820 x 1920. But my point is Captain America cost $140 million and my iPhone is $300. Now... how wise is it to invest $140 million dollars in a movie that has less resolution than my TV? Only time will tell.
Click to expand...
Because your iphone's video has a bunch of other problems with it, and the two would certainly look far different if you tried to compare. The Genesis has been a bit of a workhorse. I would think it's time will be coming to an end as a choice for cinema applications because there are just too many better options right now. You might see it still used in television though.

The movie is getting decent reviews from critics and audiences, so 1080 didn't keep people from seeing it and enjoying it. However, I do believe that Jim is right when he says it's time to move on to higher resolution cameras, and I would add that increased dynamic range also makes cameras like Epic and Alexa even more appealing to DPs moving forward. Time will tell how long it takes for distribution, especially into the home, to reach the 4K mark, but certainly acquisition should be done at higher resolution.
 
That's why we need 3K for 2K projection and 5K for 4K projection. And in the future even more.
 
The majority of TV in the USA, until relatively recently, was shot on 35mm film, a format with vastly superior resolution to that of the broadcast NTSC deliverable. Take Star Trek - where the original series master exists as 35mm, and see how the image compares to STTNG where they edited on 1" for the benefit of the visual effects and thus the master is 1" video. Or look at the short-sightedness of the BBC shooting the newly revived Dr Who on DigiBeta (with a post de-interlace process) before only recently moving to HD cameras. The first few series, when watched now, have actually "aged" in visual terms dramatically in just a couple of years. They look low rez compared to the newer episodes even on SD broadcast or DVD, never mind HD releases. Actually, some of the visuals are so bad - excessive pro-mist filtering, clippy highlights and obvious de-interlace that the visuals actually detract from the plot and acting. All of the new series could have been shot on HD - and should have been. Most could have been shot in 4k.

I go back and watch old black and white episodes of the Outer Limits and just love the visuals - beautiful cinematography, and no doubt could be re-scanned from the 35mm and look even more superb than the DVD I have. It's a series that stands up very well visually because it was shot and mastered in a format that is vastly superior to what could be broadcast to the home at the time.

Avatar is obviously not a good example to promote 1080p - most of it was rendered at vastly higher resolutions and downsampled.

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