Creative Cow Article: Panavision, FUD and...HDR?

[Cail Young]

Thinking that the image has a lot of "clarity" is not scientific proof that you can spot 4K from 2K from the middle of a theater.

Indeed, I saw Blade Runner out here on an enormous screen sitting in the balcony (old-style theatre) on the Sony 4K projector - and I was certain it was a 4K DCM until I was disabused of that idea - it was a 2K DI.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I have always been bothered by the pixelization or jaggedness of 2K theater projection.

It seems kind of crazy that he is claiming IMAX is "not quite 4K." That's the first I have heard regarding those low numbers.

 

[Häakon]

Good assessment, Scott. I don't agree with all of your points, but in general, I think this article has it way wrong in most of the ways you pointed out. Those who seem to be anti- the RED/Bayer approach seem to only want to pick it apart for the fact that it's not truly a 4K output, but they fail to offer up that it still nets you more total resolution than any other camera even close to its price point. Kind of a pretty big omission, me thinks.

Sure, higher framerates married with higher integration times are going to net sharper images, simply because the shutter speed has been increased. But that doesn't net you any physical resolution and it's only applicable to offspeed shooting. Suggesting that a 640x480 image from the Phantom shot at 2,000 fps is going to net you an image with resolution anywhere near what the RED is capable of is just silliness.

I personally find the approach to most HDR imagery appalling; sure, you're able to bring more detail out of highlights and shadows than you would be able to with a single image, but what you have now completely destroyed is the relationship between light and dark that exists in a scene. Look at that sample image of the building, for example; while it's great that the clouds are vividly defined in the sky, you now have a building wall that's brighter than the dark areas in the sky itself. This is completely unrealistic and unnatural and is not an acceptable approach to the need for more latitude in an image.

Lastly, I don't feel that 4K bayer is already "plenty" of resolution for theatrical presentation; true, it will resolve enough to make a nice 1:1 image on the screen, but you aren't gaining any benefits from oversampling this way. Noise and artifacts are rendered at 1:1, too. I think it won't be until we get into the 6K-8K range that we'll be able to start making some really superior prints for the theater. That's just one guy's opinion, but thankfully RED has 6K+ cameras in their minds and are taking that very route with their new offering of cameras.

I understand that this guy has his own IP to protect and it's easy to dismiss offerings from a company like RED as "marketing pixels" to promote his own interests, but really, the images speak for themselves. And I only see RED as getting a firmer foothold in the marketplace as the technology continues to improve and the cameras get better - at a much faster rate than the competition.

 

[BradWright]

BradWright wrote:
"From what I saw from the sample videos, there's still this very Sony like signature burned into the image. Very video like and less film like"
BradWright wrote:
"Because the camera does show color fringing on very fine grey patterns"

Hi Brad

I wasnt at the demo so cant speak to what you saw.
From my experience as a DP and owner of a rental company with 3 Reds ( more than anyone else in SF ) and a F35 I dont understand how you are reaching these conclusions. If these are all from one demo I suggest you may need to spend some time researching these conclusions

Firstly the F35 in all my tests shows less chromatic aberrations than any other camera I have ever looked at with like lenses. We have a particularly nasty backlight security grill that can conjure CA out of most everything we point at it. The F35 has the least CA of any camera I have seen including the Red. We have experienced some moire issues but nothing significant. Issues that can also be found when downrezzing Red footage

Secondly the F35 color is the least Sony looking camera ever. Sure you can make it look like a Sony, but you can also make it look somewhat like a Red. Its very flexible.

Hi John:

I didn't say it was a bad camera. It's a very good camera with a lot of dynamic range and very low noise. From what I saw at the meeting, there's still seems to be a very distinctive video like signature to its image. It's not to say that the Red doesn't have problems, as well. The Red is a significantly less expensive camera compared to the Sony. Doing lots of side by side compare shooting test charts and scenes is really the only way to figure out the differences.

The Sony has a lot of things going for it. However, it's much more critical to make all the adjustments on the set because you have less to work with after you've pressed the record button. The clear advantage of this can streamline the workflow. The disadvantage is that the recording format is less adjustable in post.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Yes, but again, you're assuming that a 2K projector is showing you 2K line resolution and a 4K projector is showing you 4K line resolution. The fact that you can see pixel edges from halfway back in the theater may just be proof that the image you are seeing is not quite 2K.

Saying that you can see the quality difference between a 4K projector and a 2K projector is not exactly the same thing as saying that you can see the difference between 4K and 2K.

You're of course absolutely right. I have no way of measuring what the real line resolution of the projector/projected material is in these cases. I only have the stated projector resolution to go off of, and in some cases some knowledge (which may or may not be relevant) about the acquisition and post workflow for the projected material.

(By the way, I didn't mean for my earlier post to sound as if I was disagreeing or arguing with you. It was meant as a reponse to Omen's post, and I was writing it when you posted your reply).

EDIT: Geez it takes me WAAAY too long to write a post.

 

[GlennChan]

I personally find the approach to most HDR imagery appalling;

I think you disagree with the tone mapping. (And I agree that tone mapping done wrong can be appalling.) HDR without tone mapping is the same idea as extremely low noise images.

I think it would be more useful if we didn't use HDR as an umbrella term that comes joined at the hip with tone mapping. The tone mapping is not necessary.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I was chatting with Dagny Taggert and...

I was chatting with Dagny Taggert and...

Multiplex screen sizes are likely to remain relatively constant over time. I am also assuming proper archival methodology for digital assets will evolve in the next decade due to demand. Those points accepted, I believe that nominal 6K acquisition (minus OLPF/MTF and other factors), 6K VFX, 4K DI pipelines and next generation 4K projection will satisfy the acuity limits of the human visual system.

Actual presentation of 10 genuine stops of DR at the screen should provide all the palette any cinematographer could ask for and is well beyond what I contend the 4K Sony SXRD projection tech can deliver (100 or 200 series) - or even the high end 2K Christies for that matter.

Expanded color gamut retention from acquisition to screen is of great interest and IMHO the RedOne is in the vanguard of what I think will be an onslaught of high bit depth RAW cameras and the DI tools to support them. Clever compression schemes like Graeme's RedCode iteration of wavelet tech are the harbinger of a paradigm that aims for the sweet spot of enough data to get great images without requiring a million dollars worth of hardware.

What's my point? Creating great moving images with a long shelf life. While higher frame rates and greater ease in image processing will be welcome, I contend that if the Epic with the Monstro sensor is roughly as advertised the work we create will stand the test of time. Ultimately, at some point, the law of diminishing returns cannot be ignored. Damn empiricism.

 

[tj williams]

Well there we have it our camera is sure better than theirs an cheaper too. I sure hope he is desperate as MarkLP suggests, I'd hate to think they were gonna bring out a camera with in excess of 20 stops of dynamic range like the article seems to suggest. That would probably set back the development of our upgrade to new brains until after the recovery of the economy....

 

[Michel Hafner]

Yes, but again, you're assuming that a 2K projector is showing you 2K line resolution and a 4K projector is showing you 4K line resolution. The fact that you can see pixel edges from halfway back in the theater may just be proof that the image you are seeing is not quite 2K.
Saying that you can see the quality difference between a 4K projector and a 2K projector is not exactly the same thing as saying that you can see the difference between 4K and 2K.

That 2K DLPs can show 2K resolution is easily verified with test patterns. One can argue that computer generated test patterns are not relevant for real life footage as we want the footage to look correct in all cases, not just when content aligns nicely with the grid (such as with horizontal and vertical single line patterns). We want no aliasing. So actual resolution will not be as good as with special test patterns and 2K is an upper limit. Watching sharp RED footage in 4K I have no problems seeing that it has resolution beyond 2K. The difference to all 2K examples, even purely CGI ones, is obvious. It does not mean it's full 4K. Even full 3K or 2.5K would look visibly different than 2K on a 4K projector when sitting close enough.

 

[Vico Martin]

ok, then I have two non-4k-bayered camera for 18k. $ each, and do about 40 commercials and two films in last 6 months... poor of me, ...poor of Red.
Maybe the world needs more ideas like "marketing pixels". I actually can compare Red vs Genesis vs Cinealta in a Barco 2k and I have to said: "About quality improvements Mr. Galt, I must miss something"
Vico.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I saw part of "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" digitally projected using the 2K DLP technology -- it was shot on the Genesis, which is 1080P HD... and I could see make-up powder on the actress' face even from the middle of the theater. So I don't necessarily think that seeing make-up powder is "proof" that you must be seeing 4K line resolution. Thinking that the image has a lot of "clarity" is not scientific proof that you can spot 4K from 2K from the middle of a theater.

David, I was not using a powder example as a proof of spotting 4K and definitely not stating it's a scientific proof. We often shoot models and other celebs for TV and in a CU I see make-up powder even on poor 1080i HDV at more than 2x the hight distances.
In this case I could see much more detailed structure of it. That was just a non-scientific subjective example.


When I'm looking at a photography in around A4 format magazine it should be 2480x3508 in a high quality 300 DPI print.
That's around 8.7 Mp downscaled from 12, 21 Mp, or even higher pixel count Hasselblads and Mamiyas. Watching at the picture, when comparing the ratios I'm farther than in the middle of the theatre.
I am not getting closer trying to notice the details and pixels or thinking whether it would be just as good if it was 150 DPI print, because it wouldn't.


At this point I'm pretty happy with RED's 4K downsampled to 2K, and perfectly aware that 4K master is not a necessity with all the factors it brings into production.

I just don't buy the "you don't need more resolution" statements from equipment manufacturers.
I like to be shown a choice and left to decide by myself.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Hokey de-bayering schemes and ancient projector resolutions are no match for a good story on your side, kid.

It appears as if the ability to measure and quantify the colorspace and the actual resolution on most of the imaging technologies emerging now have exceeded the human eye's ability to discern the differences visually. From a market perspective, with all the competing technologies delivering similar end-results from a perception standpoint, the system with the greatest number of units in use will prevail. Is Panavision planning to abandon it's rental business model? If they plan to build cameras and sell them, they not only violate their non-compete agreements with their strategic partners like Sony, they have an uphill battle if they want to take a piece out of Red's position.

Panavision is trying to innovate as a means of protecting what was once their territory. That means they have a graph somewhere with a red squiggly line that's headed south. They can spin sensors and boards all day long, they're still miles behind Red. Hopefully Jim won't get over-confident and take a nap three yards away from the finish line.

HDR is cool but it could take some time before it establishes itself as a mainstream aesthetic expression. Panavision may have found a technological in-road on the sensor front, but they can't predict that their competitors won't achieve breakthroughs orders-of-magnitude greater that the ones Panavision may be betting on.

Jim has strategically shifted the game away from betting the farm on the next sensor. Red's constant development posture will yield any benefit the user wants, over time. By choosing to focus on constant improvement in sensor tech, there really is no affordable way to get out ahead of him on the development curve. The game is about market penetration now and Jim has a huge headstart.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

First off, the price argument is only valid to you. Not the agency/company, not the producer. They don't want to own any of these cameras. They want it to look good, not break and come in on budget.

4k resolving power wins? Yes and no. 90% (random guess) of the projects shot are ending up in 2k (1920 x 1080) land. If the Genesis, F23, F35, D21, SI2k, Viper or so forth makes a good looking clean 2k (1920 x 1080) then who cares that you shot in 4k. They shot in 2k and they look good in 2k, and I want 2k.

Did anyone go see Benjamin Button or Slumdog and think, "if only this had been shot in 4k, then I would care about these people."

However, I am not saying that 4k is not a selling point, just that is has to be framed properly to "matter." Effects shots, image repositioning/blow up, smarter end result pixels, future 4k pipeline ready.

Now another big selling point is RAW versus REC. Most are trying to "compete" with their log modes. They work with varied effectiveness. But this RAW and metadata malleability are huge selling points for red. Make decisions, see the results, change your mind when ever you want at little to no cost.

This was "done" with the other system through a traditional DIT rig with the tent and Grade 1 monitors showing whatever flavor of LUT software you choose to run. Which brings me to my next point.

The red system has the form factor / footprint of a camera. The other Digital Cinematography cameras are, cumbersome. Either you attach alot of systems to the bulky body and end up operating an anvil, or it is tethered to a "mobile edit room." The Red camera is self contained. It all happens in and on the camera while the size and weight are still manageable.

The big selling points these other cameras have is, upgraded EXISTING WORKFOLWS. This is huge. Most people and companies have invested a lot of time and money into working a specific way. That is how they know how to solve problems. This is how the world makes sense. Even if the red way is better, it is still foreign and therefore scary. In fact often many people butcher the red footage by trying to shove it into their existing pipes. Again, this is the way they know how to solve problems.

The final reality is that you can throw everything I said out the window.

Personal preference, perception, availability are often the decision makers.

A DP's personal preference can often turn a project onto or away from a camera. This can be based in some cases on something as simple as an optical viewfinder. 4k or 2k, raw or rec never made it into the equation. Just how one guy likes to work.

Perception and propaganda often work into the equation. "Oh some dude at the Jack in the Box told me that post with that camera is a nightmare." Again, never an informed decision made.

Availability is a multi-headed beast. For indies, it is obvious. For majors it is more intricate. The first and most clear cut is the Sony rule. If Sony is involved in making the movie, then no digital camera other than a Sony will be used. Suddenly the f23/35 is all thats available. Past that, there are a few companies that do make big movies that have bought into which ever system and then rinse and repeat the Sony rule. Or they know a guy and they went to college together and he knows x-system well.

Market penetration, as was mentioned is a very strong weapon. It makes things a war of attrition. Hook 'em while their young and wait for them to become the decision makers. That is an angle that RED has covered in spades.

The point of my long winded post is:

A) Certain points are only valid in some arenas.
B) Just specs wont "win a war."

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip)
The big selling points these other cameras have is, upgraded EXISTING WORKFOLWS. This is huge. Most people and companies have invested a lot of time and money into working a specific way. That is how they know how to solve problems. This is how the world makes sense. Even if the red way is better, it is still foreign and therefore scary. In fact often many people butcher the red footage by trying to shove it into their existing pipes. Again, this is the way they know how to solve problems.

The final reality is that you can throw everything I said out the window.

Personal preference, perception, availability are often the decision makers.

A DP's personal preference can often turn a project onto or away from a camera. This can be based in some cases on something as simple as an optical viewfinder. 4k or 2k, raw or rec never made it into the equation. Just how one guy likes to work.

Perception and propaganda often work into the equation. "Oh some dude at the Jack in the Box told me that post with that camera is a nightmare." Again, never an informed decision made.
(snip)
."

Great post. From a technical perspective, the number of poorly informed decision makers is appalling. In addition to the points already presented its worth noting that the red way further threatens post production facility revenue models by reducing the number of billable steps required. God forbid the client ever realizes just how easy it really is to work with RedCode footage once you stop trying to stuff it into existing pipes/formats.

The next step is to create a high quality digital delivery standard that does not require tape or is tied to a proprietary codec.

 

[Darren Orange]

the next step is to create a high quality digital delivery standard that does not require tape or is tied to a proprietary codec.

red ray?

 

[Stephen Williams]

The first and most clear cut is the Sony rule. If Sony is involved in making the movie, then no digital camera other than a Sony will be used. Suddenly the f23/35 is all thats available. "

Hi,

The majority of Sony films & commercials for Sony products originate on 35mm film. Could you give any more information on the Sony rule, I thought 'The Dark Country' DP Geoff Boyle was a Sony Picture, he shot using Reds & SI's.

Stephen

 

[J. Eric Camp]

Maybe it's not as universal as I have heard, but many a friend has relayed a personal story of Sony mandating the use of their cameras on features and shows.

 

[tj williams]

Now I feel more reassured...

Now I feel more reassured...

After reading all these posts, about how much better the RED1 is and how much cheaper it is and how all the math that John G presents is either biased or untrue or does not matter. I feel a lot better. I've always felt that all these cameras mentioned make really nice looking images when you light, prop, costume, makeup in a good way.

It's just one little tiny thing! I'm gonna upgrade to an Epic for about 12 or 15K next year. I wanna get my money back on production uses. I'd really hate to have 12 or 13 stops of lattitude (only a bit less than film) while others have over 20 stops. (a whole new paradigm That would kinda kick my butt camera use wise!!!

Now maybe the six levels of pixel exposure that John G is claiming they are in development with, near the bottom of his article, are not somehow possible.... or maybe they are.

I would sure feel even better if someone from the RED Team would chime in to deal with this one possibility that I may be facing competition from cameras that have near twice the dynamic range of my Epic.

TJ

 

[GlennChan]

Now maybe the six levels of pixel exposure that John G is claiming they are in development with, near the bottom of his article, are not somehow possible.... or maybe they are.

They are just pictures illustrating HDR images, not actual images from their prototype.

2- Somehow I suspect that doing HDR on a sensor may run into some problems that are difficult to solve...

But it they do get it to work, then it would be pretty big.

3- Anybody know what happened to the Red users shooting 2 Reds to get HDR? (Side by side + rotoscoping I think.)

 

[Michael Bravin]

Alleged Sony Mandate on using Sony cameras

Alleged Sony Mandate on using Sony cameras

Maybe it's not as universal as I have heard, but many a friend has relayed a personal story of Sony mandating the use of their cameras on features and shows.

Eric

No disrespect meant, but as usual many a friend's story does not a fact make.

I have personally fought this battle on the side urging and encouraging Sony projects to use Sony cameras since the F900 and believe me it is not true.

There are of course people who work for Sony who try and build demand from the production side to prime sales opportunities and of course there are discussions and some encouragement but really no more than with any other major Hollywood studio.

Our company sells most of the F23s and all but 1 of the F35s in the US and as you might imagine we would be delighted, on the business side, if it were true.

My best information is that most of Sony projects are still 35mm film and that Sony cameras compete with MANY players in the middle.

While it was a promise that Sir Howard made when he took over Sony, to closely integrate the many business units and interests it has NOT materialized as of yet.

I personally and professionally believe that Producers, DPs and Directors want and should have freedom in choosing their tools. But imagine the potential business opportunity that would exist if Sony had ANY policy even strongly suggesting the use of their cameras would be tremendous.

Sorry, but when I read these claims I get a chuckle because the contention that there is any kind of mandate is factually incorrect and just silly, at least as it stands today.