Captain America: Civil War

[Christoffer Glans]

So you loose detail from a 3K original ?

Why would you want to do that ?



Interesting.

Arri is being arrogant here ?

By what exactly ? Not bowing down to status quo ? You love the look but you'd prefer higher resolution ? You do realize the part of the "look" is in that acquisition resolution ? Guess around which resolution 35mm film acuity happens to be.

Netflix should somehow decide on the creative tool properties and image aesthetic for the storytellers ? How does that make sense ?
That does not seem arrogant to you, but Arri's image acquisition routes for their cameras, based on their philosophy, their R&D and their engineering experience does ?

I don't understand this line of arguments? Arri is being arrogant and have been hypocritical about resolution for years. Their main fuel against Red has been that resolution doesn't matter, which are statements that they've changed and then said something else, like that their upscaling is so superior that you don't need true 4K acquisition, which is just bull.

Downscaling resolution on a bayer sensor is always superior for resolution. Why downscale 3K? Because 3K doesn't exist as a delivery format and a downscale from 3K to 2K is superior than just a native 3K image even if you had a 3K monitor. Upscaled 3K to 4K looks crap, if you haven't seen upscaled 4K on a 4K screen do it. Compared to proper 4K+ acquisition with downscale to 4K output, it's night and day. And 35mm is considered to have around 5K of resolution if you speak to lab engineers and cinematographers who's been doing tests on it.

Netflix decided to have acquisition over 4K in order to deliver true 4K to their viewers. They took a standpoint that upscaling isn't correct for true 4K imagery, which is true. It's just as true as 720p not being 1080p if you upscale it. If anyone today did an upscale from 720p to 1080p in post, people would be raging. If anyone bought a BluRay and it was upscaled from 720p they would return it. Because many people haven't seen true 4K they might not know what to expect and it's dangerous to propose upscaling as delivery formats. It will make people think less of 4K then if they saw the true resolution from cameras able to deliver correct values.
Netflix can definitely decide to do this and have this philosophy because they pay the filmmakers bills to do series and movies for them. A studio demanding a certain level of quality they feel is right for their brand is making a lot of sense, how does it not?

I prefer the color science on the Alexa, not the resolution. I've seen the 3.2K upscale and details look spotty with fake-sharpness, it doesn't even come close to a 6K to 4K downscale. You can't lump together resolution and color science like you do in that argument. Red, especially with the 8K have a vastly superior resolution to Arri 3.2K, it's not even debatable. But I still think colors ends up better with Alexa, you can definitely divide those two areas.

Arri have been advocating not giving a shit about resolution for some time now while the rest of the industry moves into 4K standards rapidly. There's no arrogance in demanding 4K to be handled correctly and not in the, yes, arrogant way that Arri handles it by saying "it doesn't matter" or that "our upscale is better than other cameras that do it natively".

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I have recently been looking at different versions of films projected in 2K and 4K on a cinema screen..... and in all honesty... I proffered the 2K projection (the image was just more cinematic). I did the same on the Sony 4K HDR TV 2016 model (75 inches) using the new Panasonic 4K player..... I played native HDR 4K blu rays and 1080p blu rays (the 4K player did upscaling).

There was almost no noticeable difference between the 4K and the 2K.

I know higher resolution has advantages in post - reframing saved me on a recent commercial - but in my VERY humble opinion we need to stop fixating on resolution.

I am saying this with due respect to others who do not agree with this opinion.

Was the 4K BluRay from films with 4K acquisition or with upscaling? There are a lot of 2K masters being upscaled for 4K which is just as shitty as 720p to 1080p upscales. Just because the file format states 4K doesn't mean it actually is 4K. I could take my 6K files and upscale them to 8K but they aren't 8K and will not look like something shot with say Helium.

I've been in stores showing off 4K screens playing upscaled material or movies on them.

I have a strong opinion that if a BluRay is being released in 4K, that movie needs to have been mastered in 4K from 4K+ acquisition material. Otherwise it shouldn't be allowed to be released with a 4K label. It's fooling customers and audiences based on 4K label hype instead of the actual benefits of the resolution. There are numerous movies shot in 2K and mastered in 2K that are now being released in 4K. It's bullshit really.

 

[Mike Nagel]

if u start bringing RED 8K into the conversation, u need to compare it to Alexa65... and as much as I love and own RED, RED will lose that battle when it comes to ultimate IQ. Not workflow and options, but ultimate IQ.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

if u start bringing RED 8K into the conversation, u need to compare it to Alexa65... and as much as I love and own RED, RED will lose that battle when it comes to ultimate IQ. Not workflow and options, but ultimate IQ.

Of course, but are we talking Alexa65 and 8KVV downscale to 4K or as 8K? Resolutionwise, Dragon 6K to 4K beats the crap out of 3.2K upscaled to 4K. I've been there, done it and seen it. Then there's the factor that there are plenty of people who doesn't use lenses that can handle higher resolutions. If you have a really sharp lens that resolves 6K perfectly and you shoot both Alexa 3.2K and Dragon 6K you will definitely see the difference.

 

[Mike Nagel]

and btw, u could play devil's advocate and pick apart what every other manufacturer has said over the years - incl RED - and say "it's BS"...

Arri is playing the game like everybody else... meaning: they say one thing to distract and down weigh one strong argument from a competitor... Everybody does that.

it takes them years and years to deliver a new sensor, not like RED who puts out a new cam every 2 years... yet none can beat IQ of Alev III sensor from 2010...

Arri brought out Alexa65 to deliver an option for those asking for higher res acquisition, again using Alev III sensor, because they are still working on the new one - which in Arri QA/QC takes forever - but then is good for ages w/o needing extra upgrades, OLPFs, new CS every so often to fix something else etc etc etc....

u know exactly what I'm talking about as u are in the same boat as all of us here.... 2 great options, but different approaches...

 

[Mike Nagel]

Of course, but are we talking Alexa65 and 8KVV downscale to 4K or as 8K? Resolutionwise, Dragon 6K to 4K beats the crap out of 3.2K upscaled to 4K. I've been there, done it and seen it. Then there's the factor that there are plenty of people who doesn't use lenses that can handle higher resolutions. If you have a really sharp lens that resolves 6K perfectly and you shoot both Alexa 3.2K and Dragon 6K you will definitely see the difference.

I agree with you, but the movie audience WHO PAYS FOR THE TICKET does not care whether the viewing has a specific resolution... besides the obvious things (story, character dev etc etc) they do prefer IQ and sound quality...

and resolution is only one aspect of IQ.... if there is a VAST difference ins resolution, it will play a larger factor, but like I said Arri's 3.2K is better then RED's 3.2K so the difference in IQ from 6K to 3.2K is not a pure 2.8K, for sure not perceived anyways...

movie audiences like a softer image anyways as it reminds them of film....

Clearly, 5K+ res capture for 4K delivery is optimal, but RED is the very best example of how many movies come out with a high res capture and they look like crap because the peeps cannot control the color in post properly and get sub par results (not that there is not more potential, it's just more labor intense and "complicated" to get there - and that is 10x as hard for peeps being used working with Arri footage in post)...

and the movie looks horrible and that extra res does not help a single bit....

and btw: color accuracy improves perceived sharpness and perceived contrast, which in turn leads to more perceived detail... on a lower res capture... (all within limits of course)

there are many variables in this equation...

 

[Christoffer Glans]

and btw, u could play devil's advocate and pick apart what every other manufacturer has said over the years - incl RED - and say "it's BS"...

Arri is playing the game like everybody else... meaning: they say one thing to distract and down weigh one strong argument from a competitor... Everybody does that.

it takes them years and years to deliver a new sensor, not like RED who puts out a new cam every 2 years... yet none can beat IQ of Alev III sensor from 2010...

Arri brought out Alexa65 to deliver an option for those asking for higher res acquisition, again using Alev III sensor, because they are still working on the new one - which in Arri QA/QC takes forever - but then is good for ages w/o needing extra upgrades, OLPFs, new CS every so often to fix something else etc etc etc....

u know exactly what I'm talking about as u are in the same boat as all of us here.... 2 great options, but different approaches...

Of course, the Arri sensor is a remarkable piece of engineering that still holds it's grounds to this day. I don't think Helium is that much of an improvement over Dragon, at least not from what I've seen. Of course the resolution and it's ability to reduce the noise in shadows play an important part, but the colors are the same. I'm not sure why Helium didn't go further with colors, right now it feels like it's pushing everything for resolution while even loosing a stop in highlight clipping. So yes, of course everyone is doing some kind of BS, but not so obvious as Arris has been doing. They were wrong about resolution and had to revise their statements.

But when it comes to their Alexa65, it's a rentable costly camera for anyone who want 6K Alexa material. Only the most high end productions will be able to use it, while I own a 6K camera I can use for independent movies. So the Alexa65 might be able to last for many years, but for whom? While the rest of the industry is charging ahead it's just a matter of time before there's a low cost camera surpassing the 65 and it will still only be available for renting at a cost higher than most cameras cost to buy.

I mean, NASA has a HDR camera that is remarkable in it's DR, but just because it exists doesn't mean we can apply industry standards on it. The 8K VV will be available to rent at a normal rate compared to other cameras. So it's like comparing the 8K VV to a camera that almost doesn't exist as an option on the market. For a higher price than Red you can shoot 3.2K ArriRaw and still not being able to deliver true 4K content, especially not to Netflix.

If I were Arri I would come up with a new 8K sensor at s35mm for use in regular Alexa cameras at normal rental prices. That would change everything and probably nail their presence as the top player with no competition. But they doesn't seem to be aiming for it. While most people talk about 8K being the final resolution for home screens (due to diminishing visible improvements over it), it would be very smart to go all in and focus on that resolution with superb color science.

Because movies are made to last. Why shoot 2K for a future that's 4K and 8K only?

 

[Mike Nagel]

well, we're comparing technologies and acquisition formats. Joe Schmoe will not use Arri65. That's his problem. He could also never afford that. RED is cheaper, but not by much if u factor everything else in. Including post, as u need to push more pixels. Peeps who downsample in first steps are idiots who have zero clue.

But then again, Joe Schmoe ordered Raven / Scarlet-W and still waiting so it's all relative... peeps ordered VV8K - still waiting 1+ years....

u do high end projects u will get access to Alexa65 or VV8K... u do low end crap and/or short films that will end up online or at best streamed on Netflix (with the exact same problem):

it will be 1080p and/or 4K heavily compressed, downsampled and washed out... most users stream in lower than 1080p...


here is a true story, happened literally yday night:

I was out and met these 2 girls. Both filmmakers/directors (working together as team). They made 3 short films in last 12 months. The first one won an award at Clermont (earlier this year) and they got distribution, which financed the other 2 projects.

We talked about all kinds of stuff and then post. I asked about problems they had. They said: color on the first project. The last 2 went peachy. Last 2 shot on Alexa.

Guess what the the first film was shot on ?.................... RED.

I watched their first 2 movies, and yup Alexa gave them great color consistently. The RED could have looked way better, but they said they tried 3 colorists and were frustrated with the results.

This is not a problem I'm personally facing, I can tweak RED as I like, but this is what you hear over and over in this town - I know a gazillion filmmakers here and I explain to them every time: when u shoot RED u need to know what u're doing but they don't care or don't have the time and/or brains to deal with that... and as u know there's a reason 99% of all shows shoot Arri...

I would love for Helium to step up the color, from what I've seen it looks equal - maybe new Helium CS will improve. The bigger issue for me personally is: I don't need 8K acquisition. I'm fine with 6K. I need better color out of the box, meaning: after the debayer.

trying to push 8K around in post is insane (as of today) and will cost quite a lot of money to upgrade all my workstations for possibly zero color improvement - and I don't need more res for 4K delivery, which still today large studios barely do.

 

[Mike Nagel]

If I were Arri I would come up with a new 8K sensor at s35mm for use in regular Alexa cameras at normal rental prices. That would change everything and probably nail their presence as the top player with no competition. But they doesn't seem to be aiming for it. While most people talk about 8K being the final resolution for home screens (due to diminishing visible improvements over it), it would be very smart to go all in and focus on that resolution with superb color science.

if it was that easy they'd done it years ago... if u have Arri standards when it comes to IQ, things get insanely complicated and or impossible... everything comes with a price (smaller pixel pitch etc) although new technology is constantly emerging...

when it comes to moves and timeless: I watch movies from the 1920s/1930s all the time, shot on "horrible" film stocks 100 year ago and believe me, the res and or image quality does not matter... the movies are fantastic examples of superb filmmaking: Frankenstein (1931), Dracula (1931), Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939), The Ghoul (1933), The Kid (1921)... etc etc etc

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Arri is being arrogant and have been hypocritical about resolution for years.

No, the arrogant part is completely your projection. Professional tool makers have reached adulthood and choose things based on research and a set of priorities with some basis.

The hypocricy accusation should be argumented with some links.

Downscaling resolution on a bayer sensor is always superior for resolution. Why downscale 3K? Because 3K doesn't exist as a delivery format and a downscale from 3K to 2K is superior than just a native 3K image even if you had a 3K monitor.

It is superior having downscaled 2K resolution than 3K native resolution ?

How do you figure that one ?

Upscaled 3K to 4K looks crap, if you haven't seen upscaled 4K on a 4K screen do it.

Not sure what you saw but based on my tests Arri in-camera upscaled to 4K looks like the native resolution stretched across the 4K canvas.

Compared to proper 4K+ acquisition with downscale to 4K output, it's night and day.

So ?

And 35mm is considered to have around 5K of resolution if you speak to lab engineers and cinematographers who's been doing tests on it.

It has 100K resolution if you want to obsess over a tree and quantize medium structure and grain, if you care about the forest and actual image information in a frame that is around 3K resolution. Based on what I saw with material I had and can estimate seeing on the big screen. I don't care who says what. If I start to question my eyesight by that margin I'll consider changing professions.

You can find similar experiences to what I wrote and there should be some 35mm scans to R1 4K comparisons around the web if you missed them in the early days of Red, and if you have any interest in comparisons.

Netflix decided to have acquisition over 4K in order to deliver true 4K to their viewers.

To sell stuff over marketing number babble.

They took a standpoint that upscaling isn't correct for true 4K imagery, which is true.

Because they really care about imagery, which, if not "true 4K" sucks horribly. Time to throw away all 35mm and 16mm films, and every movie ever shot on digital up until 6K cameras appeared. They do not mathematically qualify hence not good enough for Netflix content judges and image quality experts, wanting nothing but the best for their viewers.

"True 4K imagery" is a phrase completely irrelevant to aesthetic, and just serves the analitical part of the mind to find something to hang on to while analysing. Aesthetics are valorised by a different part, where numbers game doesn't matter whatsoever. The intuitive image impression does.

Netflix can definitely decide to do this and have this philosophy because they pay the filmmakers bills to do series and movies for them.

They can decide whatever they want as long as they can, and are not dealing with many other media platforms, where some won't bully storytellers with acuity factor and will allow the storyteller to shoot on toilet paper if he chooses to. Because content matters more than the canvas or brush and canvas/brush defines the impression of the content.

A studio demanding a certain level of quality they feel is right for their brand is making a lot of sense, how does it not?

That is not "quality" although in a number obsessed world often perceived as such. And it dictates the visual aesthetic.

I prefer the color science on the Alexa, not the resolution. I've seen the 3.2K upscale and details look spotty with fake-sharpness, it doesn't even come close to a 6K to 4K downscale.

I don't have a clue what you saw, I shot at native resolution and compared to in-camera upscaled and it looked the same.

It doesn't have to mimic 6K or 4K.
Options.

You can't lump together resolution and color science like you do in that argument.

You wrote you liked the "look", not just color science.
"The look" is not just the color science.

Red, especially with the 8K have a vastly superior resolution to Arri 3.2K, it's not even debatable.

So what ?

Does that mean that you have to shoot in 8K and have ultra high detailed images for everything ?
Does that mean that 3.2K sucks ?

There's no arrogance in demanding 4K to be handled correctly

a) Where is the "correct handling of 4K" set of image making standards ?

b) What is the problem with 3K acquisition resolution if it precisely meets the desired visual aesthetic of the storyteller ?

and not in the, yes, arrogant way that Arri handles it by saying "it doesn't matter" or that "our upscale is better than other cameras that do it natively".

Perhaps you can show and convince arrogant Arri engineers how to do it better then, so Alexa has more award winning films on the list, currently shot by cinematographers with lower quality criteria than yours or Netflix decision makers. Perhaps Netflix can inform Arri what is "image quality" for cinematography, Arri lacks experience there and they seem like they got it figured out.

...

"Resolution" is a quantizing factor for electronics. The image in your mind has no resolution. Acuity is one of the factors which defines the image aesthetic.

"Jack starts writing a letter with a question which has been bothering him for long time".

Past the point of the viewer seeing what is Jack writing, clearly and with no strain, no additional detail of the paper or the pen isn't "improving" the image nor its purpose for that story. It may actually work against the story if the viewer gets the opportunity to focus on skin tissue or wardrobe material or room ultra detail instead of the actor performance and scene emotion, context and meaning.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The reasoning behind upscaling is that "well, the colors are really good and it's 2020"? Sub-4K should always be a 2K master, all the upscaling that's being done is muddying what 4K is supposed to be. It's like shooting something in 720p and doing an upscale to 1080p and actually call it a 1080p release. No, 4K needs 4K and above to deliver 4K. This is why Netflix went hard on the specs for acquisition.

Bear in mind that Netflix and Amazon both use highly-compressed 4K files for delivery. No one gets to see the images as good as they could be, certainly not on the order of theatrical delivery. Lack of available bandwidth is a huge killer in the real world. Eventually, this problem will be solved but I expect it'll be a problem this year, next year, and the year after that.

that is not true. 4K or higher output takes the exact same time as HD VFX. The question is whether ur workstations are fast enough to handle the larger files (--> RAID speed) and if the CPU/GPU speed is fast enough to handle/calculate VFX comps... the problem is that the workstations in the VFX shops are way out-of-date... and a lot of stuff is outsourced to India and these dudes sit on old ass machines that can barely deal with HD footage...

Regardless of the reasons why, there are still massive numbers of effects-driven action films that have mostly 2K VFX sequences. Part of the factors involve the pipeline, but I know of projects finished entirely in LA that are still doing 2K only, because it's just not a factor. I don't think Netflix would say, "oh, we refuse to run this show because most of it is shot in 4K but part of it has 2K VFX shots uprezzed to 4K."

I have stood next to VFX artists while they were working on effects, and trust me: they have to budget far more time for 4K work than 2K work. If you have the name and number of a VFX house in America that will do 4K VFX work in the same time and at the same budget as 2K VFX work, please give it to me. I would love to send them lots of work.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Bear in mind that Netflix and Amazon both use highly-compressed 4K files for delivery. No one gets to see the images as good as they could be, certainly not on the order of theatrical delivery. Lack of available bandwidth is a huge killer in the real world. Eventually, this problem will be solved but I expect it'll be a problem this year, next year, and the year after that.

that in itself is the problem and the joke of it all. Their 1080p content can't even stream in Blu-ray quality because of bandwidth issues, so u get washed out HD, which in some cases they even cropped (IIRC)...

so how in the world are they gonna provide 4K when they can't even provide HD in a good enough quality ?!? I'm talking movies only here, for TV shows I'd accept a slightly lower quality delivery...

This is why I watch movies only in theaters or Blu-ray. Use Netflix for what it was: send discs.

 

[NOSA OBAYIUWANA]

The whole argument on here buttresses the following points

1. In most cases delivering true 4K is difficult for all sorts of reasons
2. Good 2K at 12bit with a decent codec works well.
3. In some cases sharpness / resolution is not required and is even detrimental to the story (case in point Carol)
4. Higher resolutions are helpful in post if you can handle the workflow
5. Arri produces better images than Red even with lower resolutions if you do not know how to "tune" it
6. The Arri upscale to 4K shows no distinguishable difference from true 4K (the images coming from the SXT show this clearly)

 

[Christoffer Glans]

well, we're comparing technologies and acquisition formats. Joe Schmoe will not use Arri65. That's his problem. He could also never afford that. RED is cheaper, but not by much if u factor everything else in. Including post, as u need to push more pixels. Peeps who downsample in first steps are idiots who have zero clue.

But then again, Joe Schmoe ordered Raven / Scarlet-W and still waiting so it's all relative... peeps ordered VV8K - still waiting 1+ years....

u do high end projects u will get access to Alexa65 or VV8K... u do low end crap and/or short films that will end up online or at best streamed on Netflix (with the exact same problem):

it will be 1080p and/or 4K heavily compressed, downsampled and washed out... most users stream in lower than 1080p...


here is a true story, happened literally yday night:

I was out and met these 2 girls. Both filmmakers/directors (working together as team). They made 3 short films in last 12 months. The first one won an award at Clermont (earlier this year) and they got distribution, which financed the other 2 projects.

We talked about all kinds of stuff and then post. I asked about problems they had. They said: color on the first project. The last 2 went peachy. Last 2 shot on Alexa.

Guess what the the first film was shot on ?.................... RED.

I watched their first 2 movies, and yup Alexa gave them great color consistently. The RED could have looked way better, but they said they tried 3 colorists and were frustrated with the results.

This is not a problem I'm personally facing, I can tweak RED as I like, but this is what you hear over and over in this town - I know a gazillion filmmakers here and I explain to them every time: when u shoot RED u need to know what u're doing but they don't care or don't have the time and/or brains to deal with that... and as u know there's a reason 99% of all shows shoot Arri...

I would love for Helium to step up the color, from what I've seen it looks equal - maybe new Helium CS will improve. The bigger issue for me personally is: I don't need 8K acquisition. I'm fine with 6K. I need better color out of the box, meaning: after the debayer.

trying to push 8K around in post is insane (as of today) and will cost quite a lot of money to upgrade all my workstations for possibly zero color improvement - and I don't need more res for 4K delivery, which still today large studios barely do.

Point taken on the highly compressed distribution but as I mentioned, if you make movies, be it short films or feature you, or at least me as a director want them to last. Of course, their story needs to be good as a first priority, but I want my movies to have a long lasting technical quality, making them look better as distribution technologies gets better. Netflix codecs look damn good on a good connection, probably the best there is of all streaming networks. Youtube also has a very good 4K quality and the same goes for Vimeo which is probably the go to place for short films.

And you're right about the two girls, they probably were better off with Alexa, even though I don't think they cared much for the technical quality and future-proofness of their short films. They care about color, which is the number one thing I hear non-technical filmmakers speak about when speaking about the technical side of their films. So yes, you need to know what you're doing when shooting Red, just as my tag says owning Red is like owning a dark room. But we can't mix in the technical knowledge of the filmmakers into the facts of each systems, we have to presume everyone knows what they're doing and what that means for each system. If you are trying to make short films with a very tight budget and you want the best most future proof quality you can get there's no other choice than Red at this time. They are the only ones who offer cinema-grade 6-8K for perfect 4K mastering. I actually don't know what people find troubling about the colors on Red, I think it has to do with inexperienced colorists who's gotten too comfy with grading only one camera format for a long time and now has to deal with Red. I personally prefer the Alexa colors, how they blend together, yes, but does my Weapon footage look bad? Hell no, the differences are very minor and not a factor I would like to loose resolution over.

8K for 4K still makes sense. If you have the means to shoot it for a perfect 4K downscale, do it. The step from shooting 6K isn't extreme. The improvements that downscale process has on the final 4K image is remarkable. And even when 8K comes out, the 8K, even though it won't look as good as downscaled to 4K will still be native 8K, which is better than what Arri is doing with it's 3.2K (that they call 4K). Anyone who's been reviewing 3.2K material on a 4K screen could easily, just as I, get that feeling that the material looks kinda "blurred".

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

that in itself is the problem and the joke of it all. Their 1080p content can't even stream in Blu-ray quality because of bandwidth issues, so u get washed out HD, which in some cases they even cropped (IIRC)...

Looks like pure expertise and authority on image quality.

 

[Mike Nagel]

If you are trying to make short films with a very tight budget and you want the best most future proof quality you can get there's no other choice than Red at this time.

I think the two of us have a very different interpretation of "future-proofing" your film... resolution does not future-proof your film.... if your movie is crap, nobody wants to see it no matter what resolution you master in ;-)

movie classics shot on S16 are way below the standards that you call future proof and/or a proper release for "today's standards".

The only way to future proof your movie is to make a great movie.

Obviously, you can do that with a RED cam !

Arri gives a very neutral debayer, which is a great base for a grade. RED often has a contamination leftover after debayer... the yellow green haze... u can see that amateur crap on each of Soderbergs movies... apparently he finishes directly in RCX ;-)))

Once you deal with contamination and/or non-uniform contamination due to the sensor's response in specific lighting conditions (--> that is: non-optimal lighting conditions) u know how screwed u are as u won't get that out... the devil is in the details and they add up fast...

there are 1000s of movies shot on MX that (unfortunately) looked sub-par when they came out, and then there was FLIGHT (shot on MX) which looked amazing...

anybody can spot (non-properly treated) RED footage a mile away...

if u get a chance watch CIVIL WAR on Blu-ray and check out the Alexa65 footage... it looks phenomenal. And the Russo brothers did a great job, and I'm really not a fan of the Avenger's crap that's been flooding the theaters the last years - other than Ang Lee's HULK (2003).

 

[Christoffer Glans]

No, the arrogant part is completely your projection. Professional tool makers have reached adulthood and choose things based on research and a set of priorities with some basis.

The hypocricy accusation should be argumented with some links.



It is superior having downscaled 2K resolution than 3K native resolution ?

How do you figure that one ?

(I've condensed your post in order to make room for the answers)

For future reference, please don't write answers to each sentence, it's much easier to debate with a coherent written text in front of you.

The arrogance I'm talking about is the arrogance of speaking a truth about filmmaking technology and resolution as if it was the decided upon rules of the entire industry. I just found their statements to be totally lacking humility, revising and changing when the pressure from the industry becomes higher. They've been trash talking resolution for years but when 4K is actually around the corner as most other predicted 10 years ago, they come out with a sub-4K format and say they know how to do it like no others. It's arrogance and I've actually heard that arrogance in person from someone who didn't know my technical competence in the area. You are not talking about corporate arrogance, you are talking about filmmaker choice, it has nothing to do with Arri's statements and lack of humility.

3K to 2K is preferable because as I said, A) There's no distribution format for 3K and B) Supersampling, reducing noise, etc. A debayer sensor in it's RAW resolution is filled with the artifacts of how a debayer sensor works. Downscaling will cram it all together pixels and will also improve on color information since in it's RAW state the luminance values are greater than the color values, which in return yields better fidelity when grading. If you upscale 3K to 4K you will enhance the artifacts or if the artifacts, like moiré is reduced by OLPFs you will have a slightly blurred 3K image that you are enhancing with post-sharpness to fit the pixels of a 4K resolution.

You don't have to go further then here on Reduser and Red.com to get the idea behind why Red has more resolution than the intended delivery format. Arri might have a great upscaling algorithm, but as long as they use a debayer sensor they can't deny simple facts about the tech.

--

There are plenty of people who can't see resolution differences. Also, how was the material shot? What lenses? Do they resolve 4K or are they softer, more in line with character lenses as I call them? Night and day for me.

And the "So?", well, yes, if you want true 4K it's night and day, but if you have the opinion that 4K doesn't matter you will not care anyway. But then it becomes a personal opinion not a comment on what actually is.

I've talked to lab owners who's been doing tests around the world trying to find out the true usable resolution. Yes, you can say that it's 100K if you want 50 pixels per chemical grain in each frame, but that's not what usable resolution is about. They've been testing different stocks and found that with the best and most clean 35mm stocks a 35mm resolves at around 5K as a usable resolution.

--

Netflix want to have true 4K, they could have easily gone with Alexa 3.2K and their upscale and still used 4K as a marketing babble, how come they didn't? Your comment on this doesn't make sense because of that fact. Netflix dared to take a stand in this matter and you mock it as marketing babble. Arri claiming 3.2K is actually 4K is really the marketing babble here.

--

I prefer companies that favors progression over delusions of grandeur.

Your point on what's important, that resolution is not important and just numbers, that's just your personal opinion, but you just have to go back to when 720p and 1080p were around. People couldn't see the difference, many spoke in favor of 720p with the same arguments that it's just "numbers" and today if someone delivers 720p saying "numbers doesn't matter" you probably won't hire them again. The debate is the same as back then, no exceptions and I probably already know which side is going to win in this matter.

But I wonder why you polarize between resolution and color, you can both have good colors and good resolution. As I've been saying, I don't know why Arri aren't releasing a sensor with higher than 4K resolution for their Alexa s35mm cameras. It would make them have both of these two areas of imagery. Dragon sensor colors are good, not as good as Alexa, but if you want resolution and color you have to go with Red because Arri doesn't deliver a normal camera with 4K+ resolution. And for work with stabilization and VFX, higher than 4K resolution is a must have.

Why would Netflix have to deal with other media platforms? They are streaming to consoles, TV sets directly and webb. They don't have to deal with other media platforms because there isn't a need for any other. That's the thing about webb streaming, it's not restricted as with TV broadcast and TV broadcast is on a downfall.

And they don't bully storytellers. If you are a producer or director who goes to Netflix to fund your movie you will make a deal with them. They give you the means to bring your story to life and you define it as them bullying you as a storyteller? You do know that if you already made a movie and send it to Netflix for distribution they will distribute it even if it's sub-4K? I'm talking Netflix productions and them as content providers. If they are going to produce your content they will as any other production company, have guidelines and restrictions. I don't see the point your trying to make here really.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Processing 3.2K footage into a 4K deliverable, even if it's in camera and comparing it to a processed 6K downscale to the same format gives a clear picture of what I'm speaking of. As I said, there are plenty of people who are unable to see the difference between resolutions, just as there were plenty who couldn't see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Progression always wins and your opinion is a mirror image of negative voices during past technological shifts. Either you repeat history or get progressive.

The look of Alexa is great in terms of colors, not with resolution. When I see a movie shot on Alexa it's usually on a 1080p screen so of course it looks good on that. But on a 4K screen the lack of resolution becomes apparent. You are trying to undermine my arguments based on me liking the "look" by lumping together everything saying "You said you liked the look, that means the resolution, so that menas you're wrong because you also like the lack of resolution", come on man, stop grasping straws here.


No I don't have to shoot 8K but it generates a much smoother image that reduces the digital and makes it more organic. Read up on the "smooth vs sharp" that's been discussed here at reduser. And yes, 3.2K sucks, it doesn't make sense. Why Arri restrict their tech to such a resolution when the rest of the world goes into 4K and will be doing 4K as a regular standard pretty soon does indeed suck. Once again I would suggest reading up on how debayer downscale processes works and read up on why 8K is so powerful for a downscale to 4K. You don't need links, it's all here on reduser.


I consider "correct" handling of 4K resolution to first and foremost actually having acquired those pixels in the first place and not simulating them with fake ones through interpolation, which is what Arri is doing. This is not a question of opinion, it's a fact. Acquired 4K is native resolution if it's natively acquired, there's no opinion that changes the reality of the math.

We are not talking about storyteller desires here, we are talking about the technology and the future of it. Fake resolution will always be fake, even if it's interpolated. Some can't see the difference, some can, but this discussion doesn't care about the storytellers desires because they are irrelevant when speaking facts about the tech. You mixing them together just feels desperate to prove a point when the facts are staring back at you.

The reason Arri is used on most award winning films has been because Arri made a great deal of marketing to filmmakers who went over from always shooting film to shooting digital. Most of these cinematographers have been working for years and are the best in the industry. Arri made sure their camera works just as 35mm cameras does so that the transition was seamless over to digital. Because of this, they made friends with most of the best cinematographers in the industry. Red however only focused on delivering the best camera they could make and there are many great filmmakers who liked that more because they knew more about tech than many 35mm filmmakers. Like Fincher and Soderbergh who have been praised for their works. Another thing to consider is how many episodic shows that are shot on Red. Probably more praised shows shot on Red than Alexa.

But maybe you could inform Fincher and Soderbergh why their opinions aren't as well thought through as your own, since you clearly try to mock the decision-makers at Netflix and in line with that surely would argue against the minds of Fincher which would be pretty amusing to see. Sorry, but you are grasping at straws. Arri knows about their resolution problem, otherwise they wouldn't have marketed their 3.2K so hard to be "real 4K". They do not have their second generation sensor ready so they try to keep up with the game until it is.

6. The Arri upscale to 4K shows no distinguishable difference from true 4K (the images coming from the SXT show this clearly)

Not from what I've seen.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think the two of us have a very different interpretation of "future-proofing" your film... resolution does not future-proof your film.... if your movie is crap, nobody wants to see it no matter what resolution you master in ;-)

Nope, priority one is to make a good movie, probably the only things that's going to make it future-proof. However, as a filmmaker caring for my own work I would like the possibility for future remasters and improvements, to have my films ready for viewing formats of tomorrow. It's very pleasing to know that my 6K images are also ready for HDR. That kind of technical future proofness is a comfort. I've done some smaller short films in the past on DVX100 and it feels very sad to see the technical quality of them today. The drama was good, but it's a pain to watch. Technical quality shouldn't be dismissed just because it doesn't matter compared to a good story, it should be embraced to keep the good stories from becoming a technical relic instead of up to date with future times.

 

[Mike Nagel]

Nope, priority one is to make a good movie, probably the only things that's going to make it future-proof. However, as a filmmaker caring for my own work I would like the possibility for future remasters and improvements, to have my films ready for viewing formats of tomorrow. It's very pleasing to know that my 6K images are also ready for HDR. That kind of technical future proofness is a comfort. I've done some smaller short films in the past on DVX100 and it feels very sad to see the technical quality of them today. The drama was good, but it's a pain to watch. Technical quality shouldn't be dismissed just because it doesn't matter compared to a good story, it should be embraced to keep the good stories from becoming a technical relic instead of up to date with future times.

Resolution is one of the many, many great features of RED. Color (alone) is why the large, large majority of the top-of-the-foodchain professionals in this industry shoot Arri.

I for one would welcome if RED approaches the final frontier with all available resources. But I can only assume they are already doing that for a long time (and Dragon has great color) and it just further demonstrates the achievements of Arri in that particular field - 6 years ago - or 3 RED sensors ago.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Resolution is one of the many, many great features of RED. Color (alone) is why the large, large majority of the top-of-the-foodchain professionals in this industry shoot Arri.

I for one would welcome if RED approaches the final frontier with all available resources. But I can only assume they are already doing that for a long time (and Dragon has great color) and it just further demonstrates the achievements of Arri in that particular field - 6 years ago - or 3 RED sensors ago.

The irony of it all is that Arri is behind on resolution and Red is behind on color, no one masters both.

But we will see how the new color science with RedWideGammutRGB will be improving the Dragon sensor. If the workflow gets standardized it might get Dragon closer to Arri quality colors, at least that's what the initial word has been for those trying.