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.
The resolved image is a combination of lens optical quality, OLPF, sensor resolution, and processing applied to the final stored frame. At the 4k and up resolutions of a Red sensor, the lens is most often going to be the limiting factor on resolving power.
 
David Rasberry said:
The resolved image is a combination of lens optical quality, OLPF, sensor resolution, and processing applied to the final stored frame. At the 4k and up resolutions of a Red sensor, the lens is most often going to be the limiting factor on resolving power.
Click to expand...
Yep. This means sharp glass will be a must for getting a true 4K resolve and not some "almost" 4K images. Of course, shooting with sharp glass has, well, always been better than shooting at something not-quite so sharp. And I think there at least a few lenssets that can resolve to 4K?
Well, back to my corner of listening :emote_couch:
 
David Rasberry said:
The resolved image is a combination of lens optical quality, OLPF, sensor resolution, and processing applied to the final stored frame. At the 4k and up resolutions of a Red sensor, the lens is most often going to be the limiting factor on resolving power.
Click to expand...

Out in the world we know that a sensor is but a part of the imaging system, though we tend to forget.

Is there a method for measuring the sensor's resolution directly in the lab, independent of the rest of the system?
 
Erik Franzén said:
And I think there at least a few lenssets that can resolve to 4K?
Click to expand...

Considering DSLRS have been pushing resolution a lot harder than movie cameras I have to guess the best SLR lenses do 4K. Or will. Old school 35mm still film has been around a long time and captures about 4k of resolution, right? I'd be surprised if we're really limited very much by glass. But 5K crammed into a s35 sized chip may be a different animal.

Frankly, resolution has never been the issue for me once I got RED. The game is almost entirely dynamic range and on set usability.

I'll buy into the idea I want 4K or 5K for future proofing. Don't start selling me 8K. Most people can't tell 720P from 1080P at 10 feet on a 50" screen. When our entire wall becomes a screen... well - ok we'll all be pixel peeping. Maybe that's why Jim wants 4K home projectors?

I just saw Iron Man 2. So friggin' soft (due to the theater). My friends didn't notice.

You wanna sell cameras to technogeeks? Yeah, maybe you talk resolution. You wanna sell cameras to artists then you're probably talking dynamic range. You wanna sell cameras to operators? Make it fast, reliable and ergonomically amazing. I just shot a bunch of 7D and RED the past 3 weeks. Fell in love with the 7D for running and gunning. (Everyone in LA appears to own a 7D - it's been a huge hit) RED on set was such a drag by comparison. In post, still loving the RED. So I ordered EPIC and I'm going to make it as light and small as I possibly can.
 
Scott Crawley said:
Out in the world we know that a sensor is but a part of the imaging system, though we tend to forget.

Is there a method for measuring the sensor's resolution directly in the lab, independent of the rest of the system?
Click to expand...

Just take good 65 mm lens and around the center of the image you will have almost like no lens lab condition.

Resolving power there will be totally dependent of sensor plus software.
 
Joel Kaye said:
I just saw Iron Man 2. So friggin' soft (due to the theater). My friends didn't notice.

So I ordered EPIC and I'm going to make it as light and small as I possibly can.
Click to expand...

I saw Iron Man 2 on a pretty good Imax projection. A lot of the second unit footage still looked really soft. Some closeups could use a little softening. Anyways, I think the Epics form factor is one of the hottest things going for it. Especially with all the capabilities and quality you get crammed into it.
 
Michael McVicar said:
I saw Iron Man 2 on a pretty good Imax projection. A lot of the second unit footage still looked really soft. Some closeups could use a little softening. Anyways, I think the Epics form factor is one of the hottest things going for it. Especially with all the capabilities and quality you get crammed into it.
Click to expand...

I saw IMAX too, and lots of the footage looked soft. Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.
 
Abou being good enough, honestly my primary interest on Red cameras was not the resolution. Everybody talks about it and makes it a flagship.

More important than that, I was atracted by other atributes, starting by a great image and color rendering, incredible latitude, module philosophy and the possibility of constant upgrade of almost any component of the system.

Of course, price is always something to take into acount.

About resolution, does anyone remember Star Wars? Episodes II and III, were shot entirely in 1080p, in a modified Sony, with Panavision lenses. Episode one was an Hybrid.
George Lucas stated at the time how pleased he was eith the results concluding "I'll never shoot another film on film". Of course there were VFX shots, but there were live shots.

All in 1080p.

Arri's Cameras shoot about 3.5K and they said "we're more interested in having the best quality image at this resolution, then we will go further". They worked closely with codec in colospace, LUT's, and make an oversampling, before outputing at 3.5K.

My experience tells me, OK great resolution, great specs, but I want to see it work. How it looks, how it feels, regardless of the rest.
If that image is "good enough" for me, than I'll say this good enough, wether it's in 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K, compressed, uncompressed... what ever, even in SD.
I worked with SD cameras with an image far better than many HD cameras, and if I was given a choice, I would go to SD camera. Why? The outcome.

It's the final outcome that counts and for me that's what will make me say "that's good enough". But that's me just talking.

Ultimately more resolution is only better if it results in a better image and you have tons of other things to consider to have a good image, like sensors (size, type), image processing in-camera and the list goes on...
 
You make a good point..image quality is not all about resolution.

Often times we purposely reduce it with filters..smoke..etc. for
a certain look. Similarly image quality is not all about just getting
the maximum DR..as often times people crush the blacks down
and let the highlights burn out and glow at stops way..way over key.
But ideally you want to start out with as much resolution and DR
as possible so YOU can selectively decide how to use it.

Miguel Cunha said:
About resolution, does anyone remember Star Wars? Episodes II and III, were shot entirely in 1080p, in a modified Sony, with Panavision lenses.....All in 1080p.
Click to expand...

..Unfortunately yes..the episodes don't hold up to the original 3 films..
at times they appeared to have a certain video game quality to them.
 
Steve Das said:
You make a good point..image quality is not all about resolution.

Often times we purposely reduce it with filters..smoke..etc. for
a certain look. Similarly image quality is not all about just getting
the maximum DR..as often times people crush the blacks down
and let the highlights burn out and glow at stops way..way over key.
But ideally you want to start out with as much resolution and DR
as possible so YOU can selectively decide how to use it.



..Unfortunately yes..the episodes don't hold up to the original 3 films..
at times they appeared to have a certain video game quality to them.
Click to expand...

Pertaining to DR, this is THE number one thing I care about. I am tired of the pain of shooting outside with harsh differences between subjects where it takes a LONG time to deal with those issues. I'd rather have a little more range so as to not have to squash the DR of the image in front of me to just 'fit' it in to what the camera can do.

And as for the 3 new episodes, I think the fact they rendered SO MUCH of the film and didn't build real sets contributed to that, and not so much the quality of the video. After having watched the behind the scenes, I am not sure HOW the actors got into character for a world they were supposedly in. Which is probably why the acting was so horrible even from people who I've seen in other films that were GREAT!
 
You make a good point..image quality is not all about resolution
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "Image quality" There is the physical image (data) and then there is the created image. I think it's fair to say that Image quality stands for the quality of the data in these conversations by definition. It's what is present regardless of outside input. Created image is something entirely different and shouldn't be thrown in the mix here. This thread is so TL;DR.
 
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 $179, 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 :)
 
Comparisons

Comparisons

We all moved through various video qualities over the years, all compared to our own cinema experiences.
The cinema always looked larger than life.
When i shot my first VHS, it looked great to me.
Then Hi8 looked better, then digital...
A few years later, grading a film transfer to DigiBeta, in a high end suite, I was blown away. That SD frame looked so good... full of detail.
It had the wow factor.
So did the first time I saw an IMax feature. Jaw dropper.
So did the first time I saw Blu-ray on an HD monitor. Wow.
So did the first time I saw Red on an HD monitor. Damn.
Then i saw 4K Red projection at NAB09's Red Party. Holy Shit.

It boils down to what you have seen, how it looked and what you compare it with.

Yeah, 1080p looks amazing, compared to the best SD.
But how does it look, compared to IMax, or 4K?
I mean, it's so much better, there isn't really a comparison...
I am not saying HD is not "good enough" for now, but how does "good enough" sound to you? I mean, there's so much more...

So is it really that important? Of course. I can't imagine HD being top of the line...
I would always like to have the best image possible... It will look even better.
There have always been these various levels of quality. What are you comparing it with?
Fortunately, RED let's me have the highest quality, without the need to own a hollywood studio...
 
Shooting format shouldn't be confused with delivery format

Shooting format shouldn't be confused with delivery format

This is the same old argument I heard when RED announced it was shooting 4K. "I'll never show this stuff in 4K, why do I need it?". That's like saying, "I don't have a 35MM projector, why is Michael Bay shooting his movies with it?".

No matter your delivery format, DVD, Bluray, Broadcast, iPhone, VHS, you inherit a better picture at any downresed resolution if you shoot with the best format possible.

Why were all these tv shows shot in 35MM in the days of SD TV? They never went to theater. One reason: Higher image quality = higher production value.

I can guarantee you that they are happy today they can go back to the negs and transfer to HD. That's the added bonus to going the distance with your shooting format, future proof.

You may very well downres all your RED 4K footage to 2K or even 1080p today but you are still benefiting from a superior format than if you shot in 1080p.
 
I think Frederic is spot on.

Red is the first and only digital cinema camera I've thought was worth shooting on.

And I concur with the original post. For me, 2K is not enough (and never was).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top