EPIC - ARRI, SIDE BY SIDE FACTS.

[Graeme Nattress]

With movie making there's a lot of necessary, but not sufficient parameters. Just because you can pick any one of these necessary parameters out as important, it doesn't diminish the importance of the other parameters. Just like script and audio clarity, resolution is a sliding scale that goes all the way from "not enough" through "sufficient" to "exemplary".

All we can do as a camera company is to make the best cameras with the best images we can. We don't write your script, we don't place your lights or microphones. We don't direct your actors. We do cameras, we do them well, and we're learning more and more about cameras and images every day. We think resolution (and all that it implies with respect to MTF and aliasing performance) is an important - a necessary but not sufficient parameter. It doesn't negate the importance of any of the other necessary but not sufficient parameters though, but it is one of them. Given it's ability to help with immersiveness (as I outline above), I think it's also an enabling parameter, just as high fps is an enabling parameter and HDRx is an enabling parameter.

Graeme

 

[Christopher Probst]

i had a subscription for 20+ years and let it go due to its unwarrented biased towards the past and what seemed to be ,willingness to ignore the future. Honestly, i wasnt learning anything by hearing how someone addressed vision 2, or 3 when i was switching gears to Digital aquisition. IMHO it doesnt need to be proved that the magazine has its agenda. It just needs to feel that way. David if you do have influence over there you may want to have that dialougue with the editors before the magazine gets any thinner. ICG actually seems to have more advertisers than AC theses days.

just thinking out load

Sergio as one of the editors at American Cinematographers for going on 13 years. I couldn't disagree more. There have been articles spanning the entire range of productions, from little indies shooting on consumer grade DV cameras to IMAX productions. Effects films to drama. Union to non-union. Foreign to domestic. Film jobs (Kodak, Fuji, and remember Agfa?) to digital cameras. I don't see any indication of the Editorial thrust clinging to the past, or having any provable agenda other than trying to share knowledge on the craft of filmmaking, slanted toward discussing cinematographic techniques. Now whether or not a DP interviewed expresses opinions that make you feel that way is another matter. But Stephen Pizzello does a tireless task of running that magazine with a staff of 2 other in-house editors and then me... a part-timer...

The scope and quality of a given article can be influenced greatly on the subjects interviewed (sometimes interviewees are about as exciting as a cow chewing cud), the knowledge and abilities to process information of the writer at hand... and a thousand other matters... I cannot speak to every article written. But AC tries to maintain a standard of quality month after month and I find it dismissive to throw a disparaging blanket statement at it that way.

But I'm biased...

:wink5:

 

[M Most]

It wouldn't surprise me to finally see the convergence of the computer and media center finally happen in the next few years. Download delivery is the future. How far into the future we'll see, but Apple is betting on it.

That's true, and I agree with you. But using Apple is probably a bad example, if only because the highest resolution they deliver is 720p. And they've repeatedly stated that they feel that's good enough.

 

[Robert Frank]

That's true, and I agree with you. But using Apple is probably a bad example, if only because the highest resolution they deliver is 720p. And they've repeatedly stated that they feel that's good enough.

I was referring to the idea of convergence and downloading content, but you're right if Apple thinks 720 is "good enough".

But I also see an incredible opportunity. Perhaps someone with a highly efficient delivery codec could take advantage of the infrastructure and coming cultural acceptance of purchasing content via download to deliver 4K.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Getting studios to agree to 4k digital downloads for personal use is going to be an uphill battle for sure. I would bet that the 720p argument is targeted to appeasing studios. Bandwidth and storage costs were likely second priority, with consumer preference coming in at a distant third at best.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

Regarding Jim's frustration, we have discussed it a few times. Sony resisted creating a 4K camera and yet created a great 4K projector. Arri created a fine 2K camera and yet created the Arri 4K scanner. Now Sony announces their 8K/4K camera. Arri improves on their 4K scanner. I told Jim to be patient and all the companies would come around to a 4K frame of mind.... Seems to be happening....

 

[Ravi Kiran]

How big of a screen is generally required to be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4K? Not every consumer is going to want (or be able to get) a 55" or 65" TV in their homes, and at the average viewing distances, I wonder if they'll be able to see an improvement with 4K.

 

[M Most]

Regarding Jim's frustration, we have discussed it a few times. Sony resisted creating a 4K camera and yet created a great 4K projector. Arri created a fine 2K camera and yet created the Arri 4K scanner. Now Sony announces their 8K/4K camera. Arri improves on their 4K scanner. I told Jim to be patient and all the companies would come around to a 4K frame of mind.... Seems to be happening....

Sony has been working on the F65 for over 4 years. Arri created the D21 camera with a 3K Bayer sensor over 6 years ago (and the D20 before that), and the first Arriscan machine used that same sensor, or at least a variation of it. None of these things are new or overnight designs, just as the Red One was neither of those things. There is absolutely no denying Red's influence, particularly on Sony's ultimate plans for the F65 (on board solid state recording, free transcoding application, hardware accelleration board for transcodes - any of those things sound familiar?), but saying Sony "resisted" doing a 4K camera, or that Arri held back technology for their camera line, is not quite the case, at least from their point of view.

 

[M Most]

I was referring to the idea of convergence and downloading content, but you're right if Apple thinks 720 is "good enough".

But I also see an incredible opportunity. Perhaps someone with a highly efficient delivery codec could take advantage of the infrastructure and coming cultural acceptance of purchasing content via download to deliver 4K.

Until there's a sudden influx of 4K capable displays for the home, I doubt there's going to be a big rush towards that. Theatrical projection, now that's another story...

 

[Graeme Nattress]

How big of a screen is generally required to be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4K? Not every consumer is going to want (or be able to get) a 55" or 65" TV in their homes, and at the average viewing distances, I wonder if they'll be able to see an improvement with 4K.

Even a small screen can show the benefit of 4k. It all depends on how close you sit - the field of view so to speak! And if you want TV or movies to be immersive, you've got to fill your field of vision.

Graeme

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Funny thing, I'm in the middle of a 2K D.I. for a movie shot in Super-35 and in the D.I. theater I have to sit pretty far back not to see the micromirrors in the 2K projected image -- and yet I just saw "Super-8" in 2K projection on a much larger screen and I couldn't see the micromirror pattern even though the image size in my field of vision was about the same as in the D.I. suite when I got close enough to see the pattern. Does this suggest that movie theaters throw their image slightly out of focus? Or perhaps there is some MTF / edge-sharpness fall-off when projecting from a much greater distance on a larger screen?

 

[George Butterfield]

So really it's a little over half of what an EPIC is capable of in RAW Mode, a 1/4 on an EPIC if you shoot in PRORES mode, and cost twice as much. and people still buy it?...

If you build it, they will come ....

 

[Jake Bastian]

Even a small screen can show the benefit of 4k. It all depends on how close you sit - the field of view so to speak! And if you want TV or movies to be immersive, you've got to fill your field of vision.

Graeme

This is exactly why I watch every movie I can on an IMAX screen, ESPECIALLY 3D, and I work very hard to convince all my friends that's the only way to watch movies. The additional price is always hard to sell, but as soon as they actually sit in the seat and see the picture it's hard for them to go back.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Funny thing, I'm in the middle of a 2K D.I. for a movie shot in Super-35 and in the D.I. theater I have to sit pretty far back not to see the micromirrors in the 2K projected image -- and yet I just saw "Super-8" in 2K projection on a much larger screen and I couldn't see the micromirror pattern even though the image size in my field of vision was about the same as in the D.I. suite when I got close enough to see the pattern. Does this suggest that movie theaters throw their image slightly out of focus? Or perhaps there is some MTF / edge-sharpness fall-off when projecting from a much greater distance on a larger screen?

I generally set my home DLP ever-so-slightly out of focus so that I can't see the micro-mirror pattern. Lens MTF could be an issue also.

Graeme

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Been thinking and there's another fork to my argument above that I'd forgotten to mention:

Ignoring specific cameras , if you want to achieve a full 1080p on screen with maximal resolution and minimal aliasing you need to start with a lot more than a 1080p image in camera. I'd say this is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a full 1080p image and there's a number of cameras out there that are oft or always used for 1080p that have higher resolution sensors, but even still fail to deliver a fully measured 1080p.

So, even if 1080p is "sufficient" for the screen (I think not, but...) that is telling us a 1080p camera is NOT sufficient unless it it's deriving that 1080p from a much higher resolution, and even then it doesn't always work out, and as for the cameras that do work that way, the badge on the side of them says "RED".

Graeme

I absolutely agree Graeme ... my question on this specific point is how much oversampling do you need for 1080p or 2K delivery.

So ... serious question ... can Scarlet deliver "a full 1080p on screen" at 3K RAW? How about Alexa RAW? I recall seeing that the R1MX could deliver 3.2k resolution .... is that enough for full 1080p as you define it?

Also, how exactly do you define "a full 1080p on screen" ?

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Sorry? Let me rephrase.....

The cost of the camera is minor compared to what it takes to make a compelling film.... the actors, story, set, locations all are much harder to acquire than the camera.

Maybe.

On low end films the cost of gear rentals can overwhelm the costs associated with everything else.

Actors work on passion projects for peanuts, just like cinematographers. So do grips, electrics, transpo, makeup, crafty, pyro and sets ... and everyone else.

But.... I scavenged everything I had laying around the studio that I did not immediately need, including any video cameras and specialty lighting and grip.... and sold them to raise the $26k I needed to buy my RED One. Within weeks I was getting projects I never would have landed if not for having a RED in my market. The marketing aspects of possessing a camera of it's caliber alone were worth the investment.

I have a different reality in the DC area market. Frankly most of the work here is P2 720p .... DSLR's and 1080p cameras like the EX1 are cutting a swathe in the market. People "rent up" to HPX3700 or shoulder mount XDCAM most commonly. There is very little that people want Red or Alexa for, and that's mostly low/no budget indie film.

I'm buying a camera to capture some of that rental ... but I won't capture it all as people will hire me, and ask me to shoot HPX3700 or something else other than Red.

So why buy? Well, because I'm not always running a business to pay the bills - I work in this industry because I love film making ... and Epic is the tool I want for my passion projects, when I get to them.

Its a little dicier proposition. If other DC area folks want to chime in, I'm dying to hear about it.

 

[Mark Toia]

Well.... I've had a sleep, woken up, brushed my teeth and the thread is still pumping away...
This could be a record,

Hey David, Have you been here this whole time.?

Actually, I'm on the other side of the world, so of course your all still awake. der....

I was thinking (dreaming) about this resolution argument and came up with a good analogy.

During my stills photography days I used to shoot 10x8 inche transparency film. At the time it was 22 dollars (film & processing) per shot. you got 10 sheets in a box. To lift a 10x8 inche trannie up to the light and look into it was almost spiritual. It was real life captured in time. but no grain, no anything... it was literally like looking through glass.

That 10x8 inch image was then scanned to 300DPI at some ridiculous size and could run to anything from a bill board, a poster, a A4 magazine print ad or a postage stamp.
But if you put that printed image side by side with a shot from a 6x6cm Hassleblad or a 35mm image.. it would completely shit on it, even though it was printed to the same sized piece of paper.
The other great thing is you could crop it, zoom it up, move it around, turn it into a vertical or a horizontal shot, you could do anything with it.

Image resolution was everything back then. There was no compromise, there was no saying that this was better than that, resolution just won each and every time irrespective of it's final print size, because the image on that peice of paper was amazing.
The difference between the formats was huge and the detail that was captured was captivating to say the least.

The same thing goes with what we are all talking about here.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Funny thing, I'm in the middle of a 2K D.I. for a movie shot in Super-35 and in the D.I. theater I have to sit pretty far back not to see the micromirrors in the 2K projected image -- and yet I just saw "Super-8" in 2K projection on a much larger screen and I couldn't see the micromirror pattern even though the image size in my field of vision was about the same as in the D.I. suite when I got close enough to see the pattern. Does this suggest that movie theaters throw their image slightly out of focus? Or perhaps there is some MTF / edge-sharpness fall-off when projecting from a much greater distance on a larger screen?

I know that some manufacturers, starting with Sony, deliver projection technology that eliminates the micromirror pattern. I think Sony calls it SXRD. That only works in certain parameters though. The projector has to be throwing an image smaller than so much FoV when viewed, certain lamp brightness ranges and so on.

I never set those things up so I can't remember all the details, but a couple of Sony engineers explained it to me at some length 2-3 years ago.

 

[Jannard]

That's EXACTLY my point. People don't see what's coming until it is there. 9 companies have home 4K displays finished and waiting to ship. This isn't a question of "if" it is going to happen. It has already happened and people still aren't seeing it. So Mike... when these displays begin shipping, what will you think about all those 1080P jobs you did? Just curious.

Jim

Until there's a sudden influx of 4K capable displays for the home, I doubt there's going to be a big rush towards that. Theatrical projection, now that's another story...

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I absolutely agree Graeme ... my question on this specific point is how much oversampling do you need for 1080p or 2K delivery.

Well, that, as we know, depends. There are some cameras with nearly 6k pixels across that still measure sub-1080p, whereas even "lowly" RED One still has superb MTF at 2k and negligible aliasing. Oversampling is a necessary condition, but it's not sufficient.

Now, if you want to see a full 1080p detail on a 1080p screen, that's very hard without inducing ringing from the downsampling filters. You're better off using a higher resolution display if you want to see 1080p detail without ringing or aliasing, and that takes us back to 4k+. When you shoot 4k+ you have the data you need to downsample properly, but downsampling can show ringing or aliasing. If you shoot 4k+ and deliver 4k you're using nice downsampling filters that won't ring or alias much and will preserve the integrity of the image in a way that downsampling to 1080p never can. In the end, if you accept the case for oversampling is necessary to capture a 1080p image, by the same branch of math, you get the conclusion that you also need an over-sampled display, and takes us to the logical conclusion of 4k+ capture and display!

Graeme