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.
Andrew Thomas said:
Jim,

(since it seems like you're spending some time on here right now)

Can you explain your view of where the 2/3rds Scarlets fit into your "1080p isn't enough". I haven't seen you qualify that statement in a way that suggests you think there is room for any sub-4K acquisition and finish.

Are you saying that somebody shooting work on the 2/3rds chips are pulling a "Welcome back, Kotter"?

I guess I am just still confused by the 4K push from Red...and the creation of a camera that will basically be designed for 2K finish. I completely agree that 4K is the way, which is why the S35 scarlet has always been the lowest option I would be willing to consider.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

I already commented on this earlier today.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
I strongly believe in the highest resolution possible with the highest DR and frame rates in the smallest and lightest package with the most options for the customer at the cheapest price possible and the least chance of one's purchase going obsolete in a few months. So sue me... :-)

Jim
Click to expand...

amen
 
I think 1080p may be "good enough" for most purposes, but it's a bit like a 3 MP still camera being "good enough" for most purposes. As long as the disadvantages of a higher resolution (storage, bandwidth, processing time) are comparatively minor, people will upgrade, and 4K has every indication of heading in that direction in terms of capture and presentation. One can only assume that delivery format will keep pace when the time is right.

It's only when there are fundamental and more or less permanent differences in cost that people are likely to resist that change. 35 mm -> 65 mm in commercial film and 16 mm -> 35 mm for most student films. Those upgrades were never going to become the norm, as 16 mm is "good enough" for a lot of low budget filmmaking, and 35 mm is "good enough" for most high budget filmmaking, though in neither case are they good enough for everybody.


Tom Lowe said:
In terms of scanning old films at 8K.... maybe they are scanning them at 8K, but the will not see any gain in image quality by scanning TO anything above a 4K finish. I don't care what anyone tells you, 4K RGB is basically the upper limit of 35mm scanning. Now, maybe you could squeeze 6K RGB out of a recent anamorphic film, but that would be the exception, not the baseline standard for 100 years worth of filmed entertainment.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is that film degrades gracefully and detail/resolution is much more of a spectrum than a single point. Film has a relatively low resolving power at which detail begins to drop out, a much higher point at which hardly any detail is added, and then capturing the full texture of the films is at an even higher point (higher than 8K? possibly, but not much lower than 8K, I would imagine). If you compare that to a digital image, where we talk about a "measured resolution" and a full resolution for a given capture device, the range is much narrower. The digital image degrades much less gracefully: the point at which the image starts to lose detail and the point at which you sort of want to stop looking at it are not generally all that far apart.

If 16mm looks much better on Blu-ray than DVD (see some of the releases from Criterion and BFI), with room for improvement still, it seems like it would follow that 4K need not be the last stop for 35mm restorations. I definitely thought the 6K scan from Yojimbo that was posted here some time back looked like it hadn't really gone past the point of diminishing returns yet.
 
(Thanks for the link Jason)

Didn't really hit on what I'm confused by, but that's alright. Thanks for your time :)
 
Jun-Dai said:
I think 1080p may be "good enough" for most purposes, but it's a bit like a 3 MP still camera being "good enough" for most purposes. As long as the disadvantages of a higher resolution (storage, bandwidth, processing time) are comparatively minor, people will upgrade, and 4K has every indication of heading in that direction in terms of capture and presentation. One can only assume that delivery format will keep pace when the time is right.

It's only when there are fundamental and more or less permanent differences in cost that people are likely to resist that change. 35 mm -> 65 mm in commercial film and 16 mm -> 35 mm for most student films. Those upgrades were never going to become the norm, as 16 mm is "good enough" for a lot of low budget filmmaking, and 35 mm is "good enough" for most high budget filmmaking, though in neither case are they good enough for everybody.




I think the difference is that film degrades gracefully and detail/resolution is much more of a spectrum than a single point. Film has a relatively low resolving power at which detail begins to drop out, a much higher point at which hardly any detail is added, and then capturing the full texture of the films is at an even higher point (higher than 8K? possibly, but not much lower than 8K, I would imagine). If you compare that to a digital image, where we talk about a "measured resolution" and a full resolution for a given capture device, the range is much narrower. The digital image degrades much less gracefully: the point at which the image starts to lose detail and the point at which you sort of want to stop looking at it are not generally all that far apart.

If 16mm looks much better on Blu-ray than DVD (see some of the releases from Criterion and BFI), with room for improvement still, it seems like it would follow that 4K need not be the last stop for 35mm restorations. I definitely thought the 6K scan from Yojimbo that was posted here some time back looked like it hadn't really gone past the point of diminishing returns yet.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on the 6K scan of 35mm film. 35mm film resolves at best 3.2K (slow speed film) so putting it in a larger container (6K scan vs. 4K scan) is a waste of money and time. There is no difference.

Rule of thumb... put measured resolution in the next size up container.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Lee... I don't think you are stupid. I think you are 100% correct. But there needs to be room here for alternate viewpoints.
Click to expand...

It's just that don't understand those alternate viewpoints in this case. I definitely think the whole point of this forum is that everybody gets an equal voice (except for you guys with your names in red of course :) ).

Although in retrospect I see how my post didn't make that clear so apologies to you and Tim for taking this off topic, I should be more careful about HOW I say things.
 
Lee Saxon said:
It's just that don't understand those alternate viewpoints in this case. I definitely think the whole point of this forum is that everybody gets an equal voice (except for you guys with your names in red of course :) ).

Although in retrospect I see how my post didn't make that clear so apologies to you and Tim for taking this off topic, I should be more careful about HOW I say things.
Click to expand...

I wasn't dismissing your post... I was just acknowledging Tim's post.

Jim
 
Tim H. said:
It's going to be sometime before you ever get buy an Epic
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha yeah you got me there. I'm happy to wait though!

Tim H. said:
Lee, what will you be doing with your Epic?
Click to expand...

A Scarlet, I'm sure, and probably making really really bad zero budget shorts (at least at first!).

I've always wanted to make movies but no camera I've been able to afford has ever been capable of producing images that are "good enough" for me before Scarlet.

That's why I'm so excited.
 
To go back on topic, on thing I think about this "good enough" argument.

Certainly when it comes to projection on a 40' screen, even if 5K on Epic takes us past 35mm film and past "good enough," we're not going to be maxxed out. In other words, I think there will be a market for the 6K and 9K Epics, and whatever comes next.

But when it comes to home delivery formats : Isn't there a point at which squeezing any more pixels onto a 26" TV isn't going to accomplish much? I don't think we're there with 1080p, I'm anxious for a 4K TV. But how much further than that can you really go? And even if you can from a technical standpoint, is it worth it visually?

Jannard said:
I wasn't dismissing your post... I was just acknowledging Tim's post.

Jim
Click to expand...


I know, we're cool, still love ya Jim!
 
Lee Saxon said:
DSMC shoots RAW. Alexa shoots whatever everything-baked-in codec it shoots in (don't care if it's 300 MB/s 4:4:4 or something in the AVCHD quality range).
Click to expand...

Besides Apple ProRes 4:4:4 1080P, Alexa also shoots RAW -- uncompressed RAW in fact. You don't have to shoot Alexa in 1080P if you don't want to.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Besides Apple ProRes 4:4:4 1080P, Alexa also shoots RAW -- uncompressed RAW in fact. You don't have to shoot Alexa in 1080P if you don't want to.
Click to expand...


is that option available now i though that was the next model ... is that only when you record to the SXS ??

man, i hope i dont sound moronic right now

David, you are worth every penny congrats to you and all your good fortune and thanks for being here :sifone:


Also ARRIRAW is uncompressed??
 
Jannard said:
Lee... I don't think you are stupid. I think you are 100% correct. But there needs to be room here for alternate viewpoints.

Arri has chosen one path, we have chosen another. That is not new to this industry. I'm certainly biased which road is better but acknowledge that there is more than one option out there.

I strongly believe in the highest resolution possible with the highest DR and frame rates in the smallest and lightest package with the most options for the customer at the cheapest price possible and the least chance of one's purchase going obsolete in a few months. So sue me... :-)

Jim
Click to expand...


:lol: i lol at this... thanks for the laugh ,,, dry humor rocks!
 
I don't know the details regarding the first models -- I thought I heard that the only thing not yet implemented was the onboard SxS card recording option, but I don't know if the onboard cards are supposed to be able to record both 1080P ProRes 4:4:4 and also 3K ARRIRAW -- or just 1080P (seems like it would be an awfully short recording if we are talking about uncompressed 3K RAW on a card.)

So far, ARRI is committed to keeping the RAW output uncompressed, but there are compression options for some of the data recorders that it could go to.

Certainly none of this is going to be at the low price level of recording RedCode RAW from the Red, at least, not yet. ARRI is playing the game of figuring that recording technology is going to make compressed RAW more and more practical over time -- they are probably right, but it didn't come fast enough for Dalsa, and RedCode compression is probably the primary reason for Red's success in independent production, making RAW recording practical and affordable (and onboard.)

But trends are moving towards making uncompressed levels of data easier to record, it's just that the volume of data is always going to mean it is less affordable to record than compressed data will be. I'm sort of on the fence on this issue -- intellectually, uncompressed from ARRI sounds ideal just like the concept of 4K from Red sounds ideal, while ARRI compensates in data levels by limiting to 3K as being good enough, and Red compensates in data levels by compression which they feel is good enough.

Ultimately the proof is in the pudding (or the real idiom -- "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting", which makes more sense) -- probably 3K ARRIRAW won't be as lacking in resolution as Red implies it might be and Redcode compression isn't as big a compromise as ARRI might imply that it is... I just want to see some real world tests. I have a feeling that both cameras will be very competitive, quality-wise, it's not going to be a "this one sucks but that one is great" sort of reaction. Of course, for those on tight budgets, similar-enough results are going to naturally favor the more affordable camera.
 
Last edited:
David M said:
As has always been the case, small screen sizes still far outsell large screen sizes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is true anymore. I am having a hard time finding ANY figures for 2010 but what I saw for 2009 was that around 40" was the most common sold size.

Having been in Walmart recently and actually buying an HD LCD screen, the majority of screens in store were between 37" to 43". Outside of my projector, I also have 2 37" HD screens. I bought my parents a 37". My parents JUST bought my grandparents a 43". At least in my little world, I'd base my mid point at 40".
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Besides Apple ProRes 4:4:4 1080P, Alexa also shoots RAW -- uncompressed RAW in fact. You don't have to shoot Alexa in 1080P if you don't want to.
Click to expand...

I believe I read that the white balance is burned into the data on the Alexa RAW format, and there has been some debate about what "RAW" really is with regards to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top