Camera support & stabilisation for 8K...

[Peter Majtan]

I wanted to kick off this rather interesting topic and see what others think...
Here in Japan Sharp has just released the first "consumer" "8K" TV:

Note I've put both the "consumer" and "8K" in brackets...
The $14K price-tag can hardly be called consumer and the "Split 4K for virtual 8K" also rises some questions...
But all that is irrelevant...

The no.1 thing I hear from people when they see the "8K" demo is "how shaky" the footage is.
What really strikes you is that even tripod locked-off shots are shaky. The smallest wind can cause the camera to shake.
The obvious culprit is the high resolution.
Most of us have already noticed this with 4K when we watch it on anything larger then our 27" iMac displays... ;o)
Even the tiniest movement of the camera results in image shift in order of double-digit pixels.
The new generation 4K smartphones (and GoPro's. etc) make this even worse.
I have had a client who wanted me to use 4K handheld footage from his phone for 4K mastered project and he could not understand why I could not use that footage. It was 4K - right...?!?

8K takes this to a whole another level. 8K-finished content is really meant for theatrical distribution on large screens, as very few can justify the logistics involved.
We are currently in preproduction for an 8K feature documentary for NHK and the biggest headache I am going through is making sure that we have an adequate camera support systems.
Every single dolly I have tested so far can't keep the camera pixel-steady even on "just" 6K. Sliders are even worse.
We are now designing our own custom slider that "should be able to achieve" pixel-perfect stabilisation. "Should be able to" are the key words...
And many of you know my early involvements with the Ronin and aerials in general - camera gimbals are facing the same problem.
Even when your tripod is rock-solid - the ground we stand on usually isn't.
Never mind the hundreds of mini-quakes we have here daily in Japan (and the little less frequent larger ones). Even ordinary car passing within 10 meters will shake the ground enough to notice on 6K footage.
8K is really going to shake up the support and stabilisation gear market...

What are your thoughts?

:sifone: Peter

 

[Michael J Brennan]

As a long time user of cineflex and other stabilised gimbals I was very pleasantly surprised when testing the Canon 50-1000 with the Sony A7RII on a boring old tripod at how stable the images were at 1000mm due to the A7 sensor stabilisation.
It is particularly good at reducing wind buffeting.
Ive also used it on my 2000mm mirror lens with same results.
If this tech can be introduced into 8k cameras the issue of wind buffeting on tripods is solved.
There is a degree of tuning that needs to be done, focal kength of lens can be selected. It would be nice to have more control.
It wont get rid of operater induced lumpy inputs.


Mike Brennan

 

[Eric Z]

A few weeks ago, someone told me "So now that we have enough resolution, we have nothing to complain about" (referring to 4K being widely available to consumers).
I replied - "Yep, resolution is fantastic nowadays, but without proper stabilization, it isn't worth much. The next big thing is going to be rock-steady stabilization camera gear".

So, Peter, I completely agree to what you say. Pixel-perfect stabilization gear is what we need next.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I wanted to kick off this rather interesting topic and see what others think...
Here in Japan Sharp has just released the first "consumer" "8K" TV:

snip:

Note I've put both the "consumer" and "8K" in brackets...
The $14K price-tag can hardly be called consumer and the "Split 4K for virtual 8K" also rises some questions...
But all that is irrelevant...

To see how far we have come - in 1969 RCA offered the "2000" a 23" color tv with twice the brightness of other TVs for $2000 - about $13,000 in today's dollars:


"In one giant step RCA harnessed the speed and accuracy of the computer to help unveil a new century in color television. It's a limited edition (2,000 sets) with unlimited advancement.

First and most obvious, is its 21st century design, its sculptured whiteness curves to a rosewood veneer top. The black translucent doors slide back and disappear into the set, revealing the 23-inch diagonal screen.
And what a picture you'll see on that screen.

It's the new RCA Hi-Lite 70 tube - computer designed and engineered for 100% more brightness than any previous big screen RCA color tube. The Hi-Lite 70 tube gives such a vivid, detailed picture, you can even watch it in a brightly-lit room.

The remote controls of color, tint and volume are computer-designed too. They operate electronically so there are no motors, no noise, and no moving parts to wear out or break down.

Inside The Two Thousand, though, is the biggest news.
RCA eliminated the conventional VHF tuner. In its place are new computer-like "memory" circuits - electronic circuits with memories like tiny computers.
When you press the remote control button, the circuits automatically remember which channels you have programmed. So there's no wandering through empty channels for the station you want. You simply go silently and instantly from one live station to the next.

Press the UHF lever and the signal seeking circuitry takes over. A silent motor sweeps up and down the UHF band, seeking an active channel. When it finds one it stops. There's never any need to fine-tune the pictures. It's done for you electronically.

The Two Thousand represents the pinnacle of achievement in Color TV engineering and performance. Open its doors and embark on a totally new viewing adventure."

 

[PatrickFaith]

another problem i have on locked off shots that are micro shacky is compositing multiple cuts on the same shot (ie mix the takes of a two people talking). Also its very hard on a slider to do this, i really need the frame sync to be locked with motion control.

 

[jake blackstone]

Actually, longer lens will affect image shakiness due to the instability much more than the high image resolution. Using wider lenses can help in reducing or entirely eliminating this problem, regardless of resolution.

 

[Samir Patel]

RCA... haha.. I remember in college I just had to save up all my cash to buy my first HDTV. It was a 38 inch RCA tube television. The only way to get HD content at the time was the internal DirecTV tuner.

http://www.amazon.com/RCA-F38310-38-16-Receivers/dp/B00005BIB8/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

That television was fucking heavy. 250 lbs. I am glad I had the best buy people come pick it up and haul it away when I bought my first flat screen television (they weren't even supposed to haul away that heavy stuff). Needless to say I had to move that thing up stairs with a friend multiple times on multiple moves and to this day he will never let me forget about that one.

For now. 8K bring it on!

 

[Peter Majtan]

Jake, in principle you are right that longer lenses are more vulnerable to camera shake the wides. However for this exact reason it is the long lenses that have built-in optical image stabilization (and yes - we are talking about still glass, which is the only one so far to cover the 8K sensors from RED and Canon), while the wides are mostly left out. It is only recently and ironically due to the use of gimbals (etc) that manufacturers are beginning to introduce OIS into wide lenses. In any case - most of the shots in the demo video were on wides...

:sifone: Peter

 

[Christoffer Glans]

which is the only one so far to cover the 8K sensors from RED and Canon),

Doesn't all FF still glass cover Reds 8K since it's essentially the same sensor size as usual FF still photography like the 5D?
So that means lenses like the Canon CN-E covers the Red 8K.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Doesn't all FF still glass cover Reds 8K since it's essentially the same sensor size as usual FF still photography like the 5D?
So that means lenses like the Canon CN-E covers the Red 8K.

The math is very, very close. 8K FF is a little shorter and a little wider than FF35, and the image circle is just the tiniest bit bigger. If a FF35 lens is designed to cover *exactly* the FF35 circle and not one pixel more, it will porthole at 8KFF. Most of us have no idea how tightly or loosely FF35 lenses fill their image circles. I strongly suspect that most FF35 lenses will cover 8K FF, but wouldn't be surprised if the Canon 11-24 F4L ultra-wide stops right at the FF35 edge when zoomed out to 11mm.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Yeah, I think the 14mm CN-E might get some vignette, but the 24mm to 135mm prime set I'm sure will cover fine and a 24mm on a Vista Vision is very very wide.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Chris - that is what I was saying, that as of now only the glass with "still" pedigree is known to cover 8K. This was in relationship to the optical image stabilisers commonly found on these type of lenses (particularly on the longer focal lengths) - which brings me back to the actual topic - the image stabilisation.
It seems that any "pro" lenses designed for 8K might need to feature some very sophisticated optical image stabilisation, regardless of the focal length...

:sifone: Peter

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Chris - that is what I was saying, that as of now only the glass with "still" pedigree is known to cover 8K. This was in relationship to the optical image stabilisers commonly found on these type of lenses (particularly on the longer focal lengths) - which brings me back to the actual topic - the image stabilisation.
It seems that any "pro" lenses designed for 8K might need to feature some very sophisticated optical image stabilisation, regardless of the focal length...

:sifone: Peter

Though the CN-Es don't have the IS function, would be nice if they did, just like the stills counterparts, but I think the next versions of cine lenses based on still lenses will be 100% focused on good internal motors for cine-work and if that happens they might have IS as well. Though these would probably cost a lot... I mean a lot, a lot...