EPIC - ARRI, SIDE BY SIDE FACTS.

[michael zaletel]

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

Different Mike/Michael but I'm just glad you're still posting.

-michael zaletel

 

[Jan Reiff]

Someone shot this months ago, http://vimeo.com/13940259

This comparison is nonsense for me, because the grading here of the red footage is not the best you can get out of the red.
you have so many great possibilities to grade the red raw (especially the skin tones) in RCX and you can easily achieve the same look of the arri alexa look if you use the newest colorspaces or the setup that jim gave us in recon.

 

[Erich Ocean]

My $0.02 on the resolution argument: at 4K/5K we're nowhere near the point where resolution stops making a difference.

I do a little work in the medium format world, and the latest "revelation" is what an 80MP camera can do. And it really does look better, in fact, much better than the jump from 65MP to 80MP would suggest. Very much like what Mark is talking about with 8x10 transparencies.

Jim, if you're reading, please don't ever give up on the resolution front or on making bigger sensors! There is so much more to be done, and I'm loving that you're out there doing it. You will be vindicated by history on this one.

 

[Poi Boy]

It amazes me how many smart accomplished people are arguing about this.. with all the unprecedented benefits that epic brings to the party, why would you ever shoot with anything else ? regardless of final output. Maybe an occasional phone video but 1080, why ?
Aloha
-A

 

[Bastiaan Maat]

I find this real strange that some are stating that 4K will never hit homes.

Take a look at Wikipedia on Ultra High Definition Television. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television
"On May 19, 2011, SHARP demonstrated a direct-view 85" LCD display capable of 7680 x 4320 pixels at 10 bpp"
"The final goal is for UHDTV to be available in domestic homes, though the timeframe for this happening varies between 2016 to 2020 (mainly based on technical reasons concerning storage and broadcast distribution of content)."

It will come and Red is the first in line to help us get there.

Edit: 7680 x 4320 is not Red's 4K but a lot more. I'm just stating we are going towards larger numbers on resolution and 4K vs ~2K is a nice next step for the year 2011.

 

[Clint Lealos]

Let us also not forget Red Ray. Who knows what else Jim and the gang have up their sleeve

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I've now read all 14 pages of this thread (and boy, are my eyes tired....) and I find it interesting and perhaps significant that the images themselves - what they look like and why one might prefer one camera over another - has not been mentioned even once. Technical specs are important, and they do matter. But the fact that there are different manufacturers, with different sensors, different processing, different color science, different debayer routines, and, yes, different post requirements - allow for choices that are not always determined by which one has the bigger image. It is often determined by an opinion based on liking the images from one more than the other. And that opinion is not always the same, it depends on the project and the story being told. At some point in the next year or so, there will be at least two major manufacturers - perhaps more - that have cameras that are recording 4K or larger images. At that point, the choices will be more about image charactistics and camera form factors than it will numbers. I think that just as Jim finds it difficult to see why anyone would choose a lower resolution capture device right now, it's equally as difficult for a number of cinematographers to see why they should choose a camera based on anything other than the image it produces. We've long had choices between film stocks, and only in specific cases - visual effects plates, for instance - has anyone I know made their choices on anything other than image characteristics, not resolution. I certainly see Jim's point - I always do, I find him very inspiring - but there are things other than numbers that are involved in creative choices. Everyone will get there as far as resolution goes, some within the next year. And for theatrical motion pictures, Jim's points are very significant and very compelling. But in television, there are considerations that are seemingly being overlooked here. At least thats my opinion....

Mike, I do so love reading your posts. But its looking increasingly lonely out there on that branch. There's folks that just won't accept that the water will spill over the levee until they're drowning. Why don't we all just admit that Arri made a great camera but delivered it a little too late in the game? I'm sure they won't make that same mistake next time. Producers that don't consider resolution are going to be woefully-- and I mean WOEFULLY disappointed in just a couple of years. I think its a mistake to advise the Studios to invest their very hard-won production dollars in any <2K authoring at this point-- its just damned short-sighted.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Unless your looking at a side by side on a 4k monitor or projector... It's hopeless posting comparison tests on Vimeo or You tube. Just a complete waste of time. Why bother.
The big boys do 4k side by side tests and thats why they are choosing EPIC over the Arri for large productions. brand names mean nothing to the logical choices.

Little Tv shows or ad's... does it really matter what camera you use.

Well yes, it still matters, on many levels. I only work on "little TV shows" and ads, and we still aim for optimal quality and budget optimization. We don't just throw darts at the wall to pick cameras because our work is not "big boy work" as you call it. 1080p, which lost of people have at home, is a lot, and many cameras don't really resolve it.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I've now read all 14 pages of this thread (and boy, are my eyes tired....) and I find it interesting and perhaps significant that the images themselves - what they look like and why one might prefer one camera over another - has not been mentioned even once. Technical specs are important, and they do matter. But the fact that there are different manufacturers, with different sensors, different processing, different color science, different debayer routines, and, yes, different post requirements - allow for choices that are not always determined by which one has the bigger image. It is often determined by an opinion based on liking the images from one more than the other. And that opinion is not always the same, it depends on the project and the story being told. At some point in the next year or so, there will be at least two major manufacturers - perhaps more - that have cameras that are recording 4K or larger images. At that point, the choices will be more about image charactistics and camera form factors than it will numbers. I think that just as Jim finds it difficult to see why anyone would choose a lower resolution capture device right now, it's equally as difficult for a number of cinematographers to see why they should choose a camera based on anything other than the image it produces. We've long had choices between film stocks, and only in specific cases - visual effects plates, for instance - has anyone I know made their choices on anything other than image characteristics, not resolution. I certainly see Jim's point - I always do, I find him very inspiring - but there are things other than numbers that are involved in creative choices. Everyone will get there as far as resolution goes, some within the next year. And for theatrical motion pictures, Jim's points are very significant and very compelling. But in television, there are considerations that are seemingly being overlooked here. At least thats my opinion....

I don't mean to make little of your point because you are right, but I can quickly think of three reasons that characteristics have not been mentioned: The OP was about stats... Maybe we're just staying on topic. It is a point that has been made many multiple times, and most of us understand that. The vast majority of us have yet to really get our hands on footage, so for us it is still academic conjecture.

To reiterate, I like to think that most of us understand your point as a given.

 

[Adam Eden]

I have contacted people at AVID about 4k over the last few weeks as I am looking to finish some low budget features at 4k and I have multiple media composers/ Symphony etc.

There response was, we have Avid DS and that is our 4k workflow....

I think when people like AVID make an editing solution that is 4k native and they have a 4k DNX HD, the world would be a better place and there will be 4k for television. But at this stage
the workflow is so expensive and out of reach of most people. There needs to be a Media composer 4k version for there normal price, and this means a new Nitris DX box etc

I am sure 4k will come but again, (and i am surprised that no one on this forum has piped up yet), there needs to be a television standard machine that 4k can be played and recorded from like a HDCAM / disc etc and the media needs to be under $100. Until this day 1080 will be the king of television or I should say currently in australia Digital Betacam.

It was only 5 years ago that I decommissioned my 1 inch machine!

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

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

I didn't realize 4K displays were quite so imminent. So, what I'm getting from this thread, and giving great weight to your statement, is that we may have 4K displays commercially available for home theater "early adopters" as early as Holiday 2011, if only there is content to display on it.

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

I follow the math ... and it tells me exactly what you say, if you want to actually see 2K of detail you need at least a 2.5k display. I can also see that the next display standard will be 4K, based on Jim's post and others.

4K displays seem like they'll deliver about the same resolution as a Red One can ... 3.2-3.5K depending on some implementation details.

That's pretty exciting to me.

My central issue remains ... will audiences be able to see it and appreciate it? It will be there in front of them ... but will ordinary people be able to see the difference, and will it matter to them ... or would they rather have $800 1080p displays?

Now ... I want to be clear ... I don't need to be sold personally. I see it, I value it and I'll buy it ASAP. I'll shoot my pictures in 4K+ on Red cameras every time its practical - for my own satisfaction if nothing else!

Let me put it another way - I want to be able to point and say concretely that it provably makes a difference to the viewer. I want to know that regular audiences will perceive value in the finish.

Anecdotally, I think most people have trouble seeing resolution over 720p, at least that's what they are telling me. That is what brought up the question.

I don't trust my own judgment, because I know that with some materials I can see even the incredibly slight difference between 2K and 1080p! 720p grates my nerves even on small 720p displays and on iPads (which are less than 720p themselves). I'm not a good test subject or evaluator for what I want to know. I assume almost everyone on this board falls into that category.

So, I want to move this whole question out of the pointless rigamarole of anecdotes and theoretical number crunching and into one of audience tests/studies.

I'm not one to place faith in even someone with Jim Jannard's track record ... I don't operate that way.

So, what are the facts? I specifically want to know how "ordinary" audiences (i.e. not imaging professionals and AV enthusiasts) will react. Has anyone done any studies to understand this? NHK? Red? Sony? Anyone?

Are we sure that the difference that is obvious to US won't seem like a pointless boondoggle to our audiences ... you know, the folks who ultimately pay our rent/mortgage?

If no one has studied this, does anyone here have any insight into why it hasn't been studied? What has to happen to make such a study happen?

 

[M Most]

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.

I think they'll look pretty much the same as they do now, just as David said.

The fact is that with rare exceptions, essentially all current television work exists only on 1080p media. As you pointed out there is at least one studio that is taking advantage of the ability to do 4K archival media, and I know them well because we make those 4K archives for them. But even that studio has a number of shows being shot on Alexa and other HD cameras this coming season. Besides, it's not really for me to decide. I don't shoot the shows and I don't own them. If I did, I might feel the same way you do. All I do is help make them look as good as they can, and help get them on the air. What happens to them in the future is not something I control, and not a decision I have to make.

I think that the only area that we really see anything differently is the "4K in the home" area. I know you feel this is likely in a relatively short time frame, I'm a bit, shall we say, more pragmatic. I think that the difficulty in force feeding 3D sets to the general public, as well as the fact that a reasonably high percentage of HD owners don't even know when they're looking at HD images (they look at stretched standard def and STILL don't know) says that 4K screens are going to be something of a tough sell in the short term, especially if they're about the same size as current HD screens, but more expensive. With society going where it seems to be going, I don't see a growing number of people living in large houses with big walls to cover with media screens. I see a lot more living in apartments and condos where such things are just not going to happen, and where even a 50 inch screen is bigger than is needed. I'm a lot more optimistic about theatrical projection, because I feel that theaters will always need to differentiate themselves from home delivery in order to maintain the premium experience they claim to be. And where the rooms are always large enough for those huge screens on which higher resolution really makes a difference.

But as I said, I think that's really the only thing we see a bit differently. Really.

 

[Patrick OMara]

High DPI screens, Online Streaming/Content Delivery. Everyone loves quality and having the best which leaves not much else to this equation.

If they get sold on "Retina Display", they'll get sold on 4K.

 

[Steve Dent]

If 4K+ TV screens are coming soon then you can bet that theatrical projectors will want to be ahead of that curve. If I had a 7680 x 4320 TV screen (assuming I could get 4K "Blue-Rays"), why would I ever go to the movies? Either way, which producer would be crazy enough not to want to shoot their film in at least 4K, not knowing where the technology's going to be by the premiere and after for DVD sales?

Anyway I believe the discussion is moot, because I think if Red had 10,000 Epic-X's right now, they could sell them all in a month. They've already won the race by a furlong, now we're just debating style points.

 

[Florian Stadler]

Ok I'm jumping into the sharky waters....
There are Zeiss Master primes (maybe soon to be replaced by the Leica's) that are clearly the most resolving, least distorting/breathing/etc.; optically most excellent lenses out there. Are they the right choice of glass for every job I do creatively? As someone much smarter than me said about them: "I'm not in the business of frying ants, but in the business of making people look good on screen."
I like to have a sharp high resolution image in my toolset, I have owned a Red and will hopefully own a Epic X sometimes soon. Do I like to have a very pleasing, very color accurate, high dynamic range camera in my toolset as well? You betcha. I just added an Alexa to my quiver. In creativity it's like in surfing. One board won't meet all conditions... (or as some british chap likes to say: horses for courses)

 

[sergio arguello]

M Most
" I think that just as Jim finds it difficult to see why anyone would choose a lower resolution capture device right now, it's equally as difficult for a number of cinematographers to see why they should choose a camera based on anything other than the image it produces. We've long had choices between film stocks, and only in specific cases - visual effects plates, for instance - has anyone I know made their choices on anything other than image characteristics, not resolution."

I beg to differ as I was along the side of alot of very well known DP's as an AC so i often knew what was going on in at least the equipment request thought process. It happen
too many times to count where a Dp would give His/her rate up to go to 35 from a production that felt the budget deserved 16mm shoot. If it was impossible they would at least beg borrow and steal to make it super 16.As a Dp ive always done the same thing. image characteristics and resolution are certainly not synonymous but at very least not independent of each other either. So i'm not sure why you say this, but I sure you have your reasons.

 

[M Most]

I beg to differ as I was along the side of alot of very well known DP's as an AC so i often knew what was going on in at least the equipment request thought process. It happen too many times to count where a Dp would give His/her rate up to go to 35 from a production that felt the budget deserved 16mm shoot. If it was impossible they would at least beg borrow and steal to make it super 16.As a Dp ive always done the same thing. image characteristics and resolution are certainly not synonymous but at very least not independent of each other either. So i'm not sure why you say this, but I sure you have your reasons.

I was talking about television. The differences between 35 and 16 are not necessarily those of resolution, unless one counts grain as part of the resolution issue. At any rate, I was really referring to television series work, and the fact that most of the cameramen who are opting for Alexa are doing that primarily because they like things about it other than resolution. If resolution were the overriding issue, they would all be opting for Red. However, that is not the case. So there are other factors involved, some of which I touched on.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There's no reason to make this personal, most of us are just quibbling over timelines for 4K implementation and the (apparently) controversial notion of tiered resolution levels being used for television production. Jim has a vision, and it's a good one, and all of us support it whether or not we all agree on when it's going to happen.

I think the thread is just an example of what happens when people get into a hot-topic discussion at 2AM in the morning when they should be getting some sleep.

 

[sergio arguello]

I was talking about television. The differences between 35 and 16 are not necessarily those of resolution, unless one counts grain as part of the resolution issue. At any rate, I was really referring to television series work, and the fact that most of the cameramen who are opting for Alexa are doing that primarily because they like things about it other than resolution. If resolution were the overriding issue, they would all be opting for Red. However, that is not the case. So there are other factors involved, some of which I touched on.

I hope you didn't take it personal mike. I actually find that you are quite clearly the opposite of the fanboy found on here at times and your input stirs debate, and thats what is needed. That said do you not agree to some extent that alexa is being chosen by producers and in many cases Dp's may suggest but a bottom line is a player? I personally don't know any show that is shooting Arri raw and therefore that tells me the straight to prores is a big factor in the decision to shoot with Alexa, not to mention, it does make a pretty picture.

 

[Jarred Land]

Time to close this one down.. everybody kiss and hug via PM if needed and lets pretend most of this thread never happened.