Are we approaching the limit of what you can actually see on screen? What next?

[Eric Rodemann]

I watched an interview someone posted about Che behind the scenes.

http://vimeo.com/9031359

The director, Steven Soderbergh says he doesn't need anything beyond 2k, because after that the human eye can't really see it.

Also, the picture can start to get to sharp so it's no longer pleasing to the eye.

Are we there yet?

Is 4k/5k more than we need? What's next? Just tweaking the 4k and more innovation in price and availability from different manufacturers?

At some point there's just no need to go farther, because you won't be able to see it, or it will look worse, not better.

 

[CK Olsen]

That would depend upon your presentation format and your viewers relationship to the presentation screen. 2K on a 26" monitor will likely look vastly different then 2K projected on a 40' screen, and 4k on a 40' screen will likely look vastly different than 4K projected on a 200' screen... of course, depending upon how close your audience is to that screen. I do a lot of LARGE format screen/stage work, and I can never have too many pixels. 4K, or 4096 pixels, projected on a 90 foot wide screen, will only give me 45.5 pixels per foot... which looks crappy up close, but great from the audience seats. I'd love to double that to 8K so it looked even better up close, but 4K is better than 2K , and 2K is better than HD, so I'm pretty happy with the the progression so far!
-CK

 

[Graeme Nattress]

All about angle of view, and wider angles of view need higher resolutions (be they small or large screens), and larger angles of view are more immersive (think IMAX).

At the RED studios 40ft screen, you can clearly see the difference between 2k and 4k, for instance, although if you move far enough back on any screen, that projected resolution advantage will diminish and go.

But the other thing to remember is the improvement in MTF for higher capture resolutions regardless of output resolution.

Graeme

 

[Jake Bastian]

Then why did he shoot Ché on a 4K camera?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

MTF? WTF? Oh, bother... ;-)

MTF? WTF? Oh, bother... ;-)

(snip)
But the other thing to remember is the improvement in MTF for higher capture resolutions regardless of output resolution.
Graeme

I agree, and would add that in my experience with the Epic, that having more bit depth as well improves perceived MTF.

IMO if you really understand oversampling then you would never ask why acquire at hi rez, no matter how the images may end up being viewed. My philosophy is to make the best images I can and trust that sooner or later the viewing experience will improve.

Now, if you want to discuss why we need more than 4K resolution for presentation (outside of specialty venue) I might agree. Due to the characteristics of the human eye-brain system, plus the physical size of theaters and living rooms - it could be argued that 4K is enough. Now, how about contrast ratios, bit depth, proper compression, frame rates, motion blur, calibration, etc...

Cheers - #19

 

[Bruce Allen]

Then why did he shoot Ché on a 4K camera?

Well, for one thing, because if you shoot anamorphic on a 2K camera you're only recording to a 1K horizontal area.

I respectfully disagree with Soderbergh - I think 4K display looks lovely.

However, personally, what I'd love to see is an standardized expansion of the color gamut beyond the 709 standard, plus upping the frame rate to 48fps+ for 3D.

It is utter BS that we talk about upgrading all of our TVs to 4K... and at the same time we use just a fraction of the average TV's color range.

Sure - it sucks that TV manufacturers haven't standardized on a richer set of colors (and the reason for that is that TV manufacturers don't WANT their TVs to look the same - they want to do stupid tricks like having a white point bluer than normal and add a red push to compensate, which give the image more pop) But content creators also need to come to the party. If there were reference-quality content available targeted for P3 color space or xvYCC or even AdobeRGB, then the calibration and reviewing communities could actually have tools with which to evaluate wide gamut modnitor performance and push it towards a high-quality future standard.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Bill Anderson]

As beautiful as it currently is, I hope Jim keeps on spurring.

Very few of us are aware of what a fine tuned large sensor looks like on the big screen. The history of stills tells me that the difference between 2K and 4K is not going to prepare us for what is to come.

And then there are the creative benefits of having larger tracts of (manageable) info in post.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Better dynamic range on an image is vastly more useful and visible (when done right) than increased colour gamut, and indeed, can increase the visible colours more than an increased gamut would anyway.

I'm putting in a new screen and projector (was time to upgrade from my SD gear) and if I went with SMPTE or THX screen viewing angle guidelines my screen would be tiny. I want an image that is large and involving. And of course, that necessitates a high resolution or you'll be counting the pixels.

Graeme

 

[David Battistella]

I think the difference is this:

Few people had the pleasure of viewing 35mm print or a 65mm print in the comfort of their own home.

With digital technology this amount of resolution at home will be the norm. We still have to go to a theater to see a 65mm print, that will never change.

I also think that we do see more resolution than 2k and if we do not then future generations will evolve into humans that do.

More resolution is better because you can always degrade, making 4k out of HD? Not!

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

If it is too sharp, you ask your DP do do a better job (drop a filter, something...)
If it is too soft, you ask your DP why the heck he talk you out of shooting RED...

With EPIC there is no excuse. It is either gorgeous (or appropriately ghastly), or you don't know what you are doing.

 

[Bill Anderson]

If you are happy with 2K then that is grand, and some of the best movies will be made on these things, but please don't try and sell us the diminishing returns argument, because there is no precedent in the history of film for it.
And truncating progress on the basis of current viewing technology is a self defeating proposition.
Among other things, Cinema was born out of a lack of alternative viewing experiences: can we re-establish the difference between cinema and the home screen?
Can "we" make the difference more than just being able to pull the couch closer to the flat screen? I believe only good will come out of trying.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

It depends on viewing distance and screen size. From my preferred viewing conditions, I have decided that 4K is the threshold. Likewise, 2K might be good enough for some, while those who like to use huge screens and sit right up close might prefer 6K. In a theater if you are sitting in the front few rows, 8K does make a difference. But that is an uncommon scenario. Beyond 8K I look forward to bionic eyes.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

But the other thing to remember is the improvement in MTF for higher capture resolutions regardless of output resolution.

Graeme

Yes, remember this. That is actually one of the coolest things about higher resolutions done right. You see these benefits all the way down to SD! I was flipping through channels and I landed on a super long shot of the main town in "The Book of Eli"... bam! In SD. There was 'so much' on the screen, and I am not talking "resolution" (aliasing), but real detail.

So many who love Master Primes use softening filters on most shots. Then a shot comes that begs for all the detail you can pack into the negative... and THAT is (one of) the reasons why they rented MPs. Same for EPIC... chose to show up to work with what will give you the most musical instruments to compose with.

 

[Anthony Luca]

4K (or UD) is a prime ingredient for glasses free 3D

Therefore, 4K will mainstream 3D

 

[Peter Hodgins]

The director, Steven Soderbergh says he doesn't need anything beyond 2k, because after that the human eye can't really see it.

OK, he says we can't really see anything above 2K

Also, the picture can start to get to sharp so it's no longer pleasing to the eye.

Now, he implies we can distinguish above 2K


What gives? Which is it?

 

[David Battistella]

I'm not sure Steven needs to be picked apart.

I think the point he is trying to make is clear. The perceived sharpness on "some shots" is an affront to a particular aesthetic (his and some other people too).

IN the overall context he just seems to be wondering out loud where all the resolution will end. I'm not sure what purpose it serves to start breaking down every word.

David

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I was already repeating several times that a future of distribution is not the big theater any more because there are just about 9.000 Sony 4K screens worldwide.

That's nothing comparable with a TABLET (Apple iPad, Sony S Tablet, Samsung, etc,..) that with a piracy protected online content distribution (movies, TV serials, music spots, etc,...) can reach millions of viewers worldwide.

1080p is still a very desired resolution target for many tablets but probably 1080p should be the future resolution for each tablet anyway.

Of course that if you would acquire in 4K then is always better but still many of 1080p cameras can be usable just because those cameras (DSLRs or MFT mirror-less) are smaller and easy of use, handheld, affordable, etc,...we know all those stories very well...

 

[Bill Anderson]

Obviously it's not just about hair splitting "sharp", but the beauty of "sharp" is that it can be managed otherwise.
Besides, our aesthetics continue to change, just as they have through the entire history of art. Let's not impose limits on something we do not completely understand the breadth of.
Even though an 8X10 inch contact print does not make a 35mm enlargement "wrong" or "inadequate", let's check out this holy grail before we begin to worship the 2K chamber pot: Crusade on, James. ( :

 

[Bruce Allen]

Better dynamic range on an image is vastly more useful and visible (when done right) than increased colour gamut, and indeed, can increase the visible colours more than an increased gamut would anyway.

Well, by "color gamut", I meant "the overall 3-dimensional volume of possible hue / sat / lightness values".

So yes, 100% with you on the dynamic range thing to expand overall brightness. But also want saturated dim colors as well.

Also - if you have amazing dynamic range in luma, but have the color saturation restricted to the 709 primaries, things would seem a little odd, no?

Or are you also talking about having richer primary colors? But then that would not be 709 spec.

Ah man, this has me so frustrated - practically every HDTV / computer monitor / cellphone screen these days can go way beyond 709 in terms of dynamic range, saturation, etc. But we have to dial all of that stuff down because the content is mastered at 709, so if we have those settings turned up, it looks like a cartoon.

As a filmmaker, I want to be able to have my film not look like a cartoon but at the same time be able to get the TV to display a really vivid color or really bright shade at the right moment.

Sony's x.v. Color is a decent attempt at this but the fact that the only plug-and-play way to get an x.v. Color movie to your HDTV is to stream it via a PS3 or a PC makes it not really work in reality.

I'm putting in a new screen and projector (was time to upgrade from my SD gear) and if I went with SMPTE or THX screen viewing angle guidelines my screen would be tiny. I want an image that is large and involving. And of course, that necessitates a high resolution or you'll be counting the pixels.

Is that a RED projector, by any chance? Or one of those about-to-be-announced new JVC projectors with 4K wobulation?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Iannis Holwech]

I've seen several reports from people that saw the Sharp 85" 8Kx4K TV at IFA recently.
What they all said, was that if we had TV's and content with this resolution, the desire for 3D would rapidly diminish. Such was the depth of some of the scenes of the demo video. And this was just a prototype TV with video captured with a prototype 8K CMOS camera from NHK.
I doubt that even 4K will be seen as "good enough" in the future.

Video from IFA, even if you dont' see much of the TV.