Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Good enough...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tim Nielsen said:
The truth of it as others have noted, is 1080p is only a very small part of the 'resolution' of the image. What about compression, what about color depth? I bought a little 1080p camera for and the image is unwatchable. I've also been present when a famous DP watched a 1080p BluRay of his movie over a 2K Christie projector where he said it was the 'best' his movie had ever looked, even compared to the film screenings. So go figure.

The fact is, good 1080p, deep color, and low or no compression IS good enough for most of us. It can look absolutely amazing. Is there still room for 2K and 4K? Of course. Also, even if film has four times the resolution, nowadays much of it is scanned to 2K for DI work anyway, and 2K isn't not 'that' much better than 1080.

I'm all for 4K, it's as close to digital 70mm as we'll get for a while. But the fact is, GOOD 1080p is very good indeed. And bad 1080p, just like bad 2K and bad 4K, will still, be, um, bad.

I have no doubt my 7th generation iPhone will be able to shoot 4K. In a 12mbbs compressed format and 4 bit color. But hey, it'll still be 4K!

I honestly could care very little about pixel resolution. Heck, good 720p is good enough for much of what I'm interested in doing. This 'resolution' war, similar to the megapixel war of compact cameras, really doesn't serve any of us I think. Sure you can get a tiny point and shoot camera that can shoot 14 megapixels. On a .10 sensor and it still looks like crap because each pixel is now so tiny that it gathers no light. It's why my little GF1, while only being 10 megapixels, looks so great, that little 1/2 sensor has an amazing pixel density. That's what I care about now, pixel density!

And I mean, look at the recent Zacuto shootout, the 1080p Canon 5D mk. II (probably get banned for even mentioning it here :) in certain ways far outperformed film, certainly in terms of sensitivity.

And let's not forget, 2K, 4K, 8K, can't save a crappy story, bad acting, and horrid direction anyway. The talented people will always make compelling art on whatever the technology available is. I've seen totally engrossing stuff shot on a pixel vision!

Just my .02, but of COURSE 1080p is the VHS of the future, just like 4K will absolutely be the 1080p of the future too. This is human nature. I'd suggest Red start working on their 16X sensor now, because at the rate these things go, 4K won't be king for long!

I care much more about sensor light and sensitivity than I do resolution to be honest. It's probably why for now I'll go the 5D route, until I can afford a FF Red. I'd prefer the low light capabilities of the 5D over the increased resolution of say Scarlet, I think.

Hard to say. Build a scarlet and make one for sale and then we'll talk :)
Click to expand...



I couldn't agree with you more.
In fact, I couldn't have said better myself!
 
Álex Montoya said:
Just for the record. It's pretty bold to say that the 5D is a 1080p camera.
Click to expand...

Well, it does record 1920x1080 video, as does the $200 Kodak Zi8 flipcam or the Arri Alexa. But yes, actual resolution is a completely different thing altogether. They can all be technically marketed as "High Definition cameras".
 
Here is a chance for people in LA area to check out and compare the "good enough" you know of, with a picture quality we once had and thought would be the picture quality standard for all big budget movies; :frown2:

American Cinematheque at the Aero Theatre Presents...
Movies on the Big Screen Since 1940!
1328 Montana Avenue at 14th Street in Santa Monica

Sunday, May 30 – 7:30 PM, *70mm!* LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, 1962
 
Originally Posted by Tim Nielsen

The truth of it as others have noted, is 1080p is only a very small part of the 'resolution' of the image. What about compression, what about color depth? I bought a little 1080p camera for and the image is unwatchable. I've also been present when a famous DP watched a 1080p BluRay of his movie over a 2K Christie projector where he said it was the 'best' his movie had ever looked, even compared to the film screenings. So go figure.

The fact is, good 1080p, deep color, and low or no compression IS good enough for most of us. It can look absolutely amazing. Is there still room for 2K and 4K? Of course. Also, even if film has four times the resolution, nowadays much of it is scanned to 2K for DI work anyway, and 2K isn't not 'that' much better than 1080.

I'm all for 4K, it's as close to digital 70mm as we'll get for a while. But the fact is, GOOD 1080p is very good indeed. And bad 1080p, just like bad 2K and bad 4K, will still, be, um, bad.

I have no doubt my 7th generation iPhone will be able to shoot 4K. In a 12mbbs compressed format and 4 bit color. But hey, it'll still be 4K!

I honestly could care very little about pixel resolution. Heck, good 720p is good enough for much of what I'm interested in doing. This 'resolution' war, similar to the megapixel war of compact cameras, really doesn't serve any of us I think. Sure you can get a tiny point and shoot camera that can shoot 14 megapixels. On a .10 sensor and it still looks like crap because each pixel is now so tiny that it gathers no light. It's why my little GF1, while only being 10 megapixels, looks so great, that little 1/2 sensor has an amazing pixel density. That's what I care about now, pixel density!

And I mean, look at the recent Zacuto shootout, the 1080p Canon 5D mk. II (probably get banned for even mentioning it here :) in certain ways far outperformed film, certainly in terms of sensitivity.

And let's not forget, 2K, 4K, 8K, can't save a crappy story, bad acting, and horrid direction anyway. The talented people will always make compelling art on whatever the technology available is. I've seen totally engrossing stuff shot on a pixel vision!

Just my .02, but of COURSE 1080p is the VHS of the future, just like 4K will absolutely be the 1080p of the future too. This is human nature. I'd suggest Red start working on their 16X sensor now, because at the rate these things go, 4K won't be king for long!

I care much more about sensor light and sensitivity than I do resolution to be honest. It's probably why for now I'll go the 5D route, until I can afford a FF Red. I'd prefer the low light capabilities of the 5D over the increased resolution of say Scarlet, I think.

Hard to say. Build a scarlet and make one for sale and then we'll talk :)
Click to expand...
That is what we call a thread killer.
Great post, I completely agree.
 
Álex Montoya said:
Just for the record. It's pretty bold to say that the 5D is a 1080p camera.
Click to expand...

Oh God! Stop! It's a 1080p camera the same way the R1 is a 4K camera.

Still photographers have two separate terms they use. Resolution is dimensions ['Red One is 4K resolution'] where as 'resolving power' means detail resolving ['Red One sensor's resolving power is about 3.2K' or 'Red One resolves about 3.2K']. The latter is used mostly in reference to lenses since unlike Red DSLR makers don't have the balls to publish that number, but still.

But on this forum we use 'resolution' for both and just argue on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about whether X camera is 4K or 3.2K, whether Y camera is 1080p or 1.2K...

Just pick two different terms. You can make them up if you want. Red One bligitiblorks 4K and shananananas 3.2K. Just so they're different.
 
Lee Saxon said:
Oh God! Stop! It's a 1080p camera the same way the R1 is a 4K camera.
Click to expand...

Not even that. The R1 has a proper OLPF for it's resolution, the 5D not!
It's OLPF is optimized for photography, and the true resolution when 'filming' is around 720p – the rest is aliasing.
 
Álex Montoya said:
Ok then, in effective resolution terms the 5D is a 720P aliased camera and the RED is a 1800P camera.
Click to expand...


justifies the $35,000 to $40,000 gap??

the constant comparison has to be embarrassing for RED
 
Lee Saxon said:
Oh God! Stop! It's a 1080p camera the same way the R1 is a 4K camera.
Click to expand...

Come on, if you measure the resolution of a 5D2 you'd have to be generous to give it more than 720p, and not good 720p at that. If you look at the point where the aliasing seriously intrudes producing fake detail rather than measured detail, you barely get above PAL SD resolution.

RED 4k measures a goodly proportion of that - 3.2k to 3.5k depending on Lens and REDCODE setting. It does not fall low enough to land in the next lower resolution setting (ie 3k, or 2k) and aliasing is utterly negligible.

Graeme
 
It must measure less. But because of the way the sensor rows are skipped, you should really be using a OLPF geared towards reducing the vertical aliasing more than the horizontal, and have it oriented correctly with the sensor. Even then, OLPFs are not ideal in such a situation as you have what amounts to a very low fill-factor vertically, meaning the OLPF has to be much stronger than if you just had big pixels at 1/3 the resolution vertically, which they don't.

Graeme
 
Álex Montoya said:
Ok then, in effective resolution terms the 5D is a 720P aliased camera and the RED is a 1800P camera.
Click to expand...

So if the Red One isnt 4K....then according to Jim it's not good enough, ? Am I understanding this right? :rolleyes5:

Graeme Nattress said:
you barely get above PAL SD resolution.

Graeme
Click to expand...
Why does everyone at Red have to get so defensive when the 5D mk2 is mentioned?
 
No 1080p camera we know of measures 1080p. Fact is no camera, ever, is good enough and all we can do is keep raising the bar. And that's better than just saying "HD" is good enough and let's stop there....

From what I can see 4k on a RED One out-resolves a 4k film scan, and hence is "good enough" (for the time being), but as I said above, we'll just keep on making the image better because the attitude of "good enough" isn't "good enough".

Graeme
 
"Good enough" has two implications, that makes this thread unresolveable...

Welcome to the world of circular arguments!

Good fun, though.

Meanwhile, I'll take 6k @ 16 stops in my pocket anyday...
It will hopefully be good enough for some applications...
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Fact is no camera, ever, is good enough and all we can do is keep raising the bar.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Actually, "most cameras" have been good enough to create films, good or not, forgettable or masterpieces.
The impulse, or motivation, for improvement is beyond doubt but to affirm that no camera EVER has been good enough is insane.
Should we ignore the history of film and start only when new Red cameras are available?

Ok, we are getting into a rhetorical discussion here. No point on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top