8K vs 4K TVs: Double-blind study by Warner Bros. et al reveals.....

[Graeme Nattress]

Problem is that judder is perceptual.... it's what we call how our brains perceive un-smooth motion. If we didn't perceive it, we wouldn't be talking about it.....

Graeme

 

[Misha Engel]

It's the answer which comes at a different cost.

Higher resolution = smaller pixel pitch.
Smaller pixel pitch negatively affects saturation performance, stability over exposure range and falloff to extremes.

Work in progress https://news.panasonic.com/global/press/data/2018/02/en180214-2/en180214-2.html

Higher resolution also brings file size/compression limitations. Higher compression reduces image detail/consistency...and there is the processing requirement part.

Work in progress https://www.anandtech.com/show/15537/kioxia-releases-first-pcie-40-ssds-cm6-cd6

Somehow, most times they find a solution for a given problem often by going in a different direction.

 

[Phil Holland]

Let me clear something to publish. I've avoided it for years mostly as a professional courtesy. But perhaps it's time.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Problem is that judder is perceptual.... it's what we call how our brains perceive un-smooth motion. If we didn't perceive it, we wouldn't be talking about it.....

Graeme

Yes, but judder itself is less of a problem.
Its particular look is the consequence, not the cause. Motion blur faloff is the acquisition related cause.

If we put display variables affecting motion perception on the side (where plasma was the king), motion blur on digital is unnatural. It just doesn't have the smoothness of celluloid. Sensor readout speed is improving which should ultimately remove or reduce to negligible levels rolling shutter artefacts but that doesn't deal with motion blur. If motion blur gets improved, with more gradual faloff, interpretation of judder should as well. Motion Mount came close.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Judder is unfortunately an issue on HDR displays. The more the HDR, the more the judder. Plasma has perhaps more of a temporal response, and of course the CRT had a lovely smooth temporal and spatial response with the gaussian spot profile. But neither are how we watch HDR.

Graeme

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Panasonic has improved black frame insertion in last gen OLEDs so that *should* help in motion rendition.

Work in progress https://news.panasonic.com/global/press/data/2018/02/en180214-2/en180214-2.html

Yup, that has been announced a while back. Looks promising.

That's new sensor tech, my statement refers to the same tech with smaller pixel size.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Shut up

Shut up

IMHO, the best way to reduce judder and other motion related issues is a true sine wave shutter characteristic. I've worked a bit with the Tessive Time Filter, which uses dual polarized filters in the matte box and a managed shutter sync system to offer different shutter profiles. The concept is great, but it adds complexity to rigging and adds weight, cables, etc to your camera build. More crucially, all that glass out front attenuates resolution too much for my taste. The motion mount is another way to manage the shutter characteristic, though most see it as a variable ND solution rather than a shutter modifier.

(Sidebar: one reason judder tends to manifest more easily with electronic shutters vs mechanical shutters is that electronic shutters are essentially perfect square waves, whereas mechanical shutters round off the corners a bit since physical movement has to overcome physics like inertia, etc.)

The other key part of the equation is capture frame rate and display refresh rates. As most of you know, film projectors evolved to use triple flash (segmented shutter at output) to control flicker. This created a rough equivalent of 72fps perceptually that reduced eyestrain and perception of judder. Now that DCP files exhibited by digital projectors have displaced film in most theatres, as LCDs have displaced CRTs, some of the analog "slop" that used to attenuate judder has been removed from the equation.

Teledyne Dalsa and others are now creating electronic global "shutter" CMOS sensors that can read out the whole image simultaneously and don't need a mechanical shutter at all. I do not have any firsthand knowledge, but it seems very likely that some version of this tech is in the Komodo sensor. I'm all for leaving rolling shutter artifacts behind, but on some material it has the potential to make judder more noticeable since there is less blur to hide high contrast vertical transitions. I am hopeful that we are at the beginning of a new era of electronically managed "shutters" right on the silicon itself.

FWIW, Tony Davis, inventor of the Tessive Time Filter, has developed a software based solution designed to allow control over the shutter characteristic in post. In theory you could shoot with a 360° shutter and remap as desired. Great concept! I have not had the opportunity to test it, so I'll reserve further comment for now.

Cheers - #19

 

[Ron Steinberg]

The Venice is popular, but it's pretty much ARRI -> RED -> Sony at the larger rental houses across America. Interestingly RED is more popular in some markets, but that depends on lots of factors I imagine. It's minutiae. I have not seen any instance of the Venice being more popular than RED nor Arri in any market. In fact many major markets don't even have Venice bodies. They are out here for sure though and of course in the biggest regions. And it's a decent camera.

Not in Toronto it's not. Arri -> Venice -> RED is the order any day of the week. I borrow cameras for events/trade shows/demo's and I can get a Monstro any day of the week as it's sitting on the shelf unused. Getting an LF/MiniLF or Venice is near impossible, they are all working, all the time. This is the reality in my part of the world.