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 :)

Is resolution THAT important?

  • Thread starter Thread starter leebrandt33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

leebrandt33

Guest
I just saw the movie DRIVE with Ryan Gosling. It was shot with the Alexa and let me tell you, the images were stunning. STUNNING.
Even though the camera only outputs 2k, at no point that I go "hey, I wish I had more resolution". In fact, the resolution was pretty amazing folks. Very, very detailed. Even more so, the color science was spectacular.
So I ask, is having ultra high resolution that important? (for feature film that is. I'm not interested in corporate or wedding videos). Don't get me wrong, I'm a Red supporter and I like their cameras. However, I get the feeling that certain manufacturers really push ONE aspect of shooting, when in my opinion, it's the camera that does several things well. It's not just about resolution, it's about resolution plus DR plus compression (or lack of).
The images I see coming out of the Sony F3 s-log are impressive. And think of this: if you're recording 444 s-log, you're getting 2k out of every single channel. The resolution with that type of recording ought to be fantastic.
I know Red is great with resolution, but it seems that when it comes to DR it's a bit behind on the Alexa and Sony F3 s-log. I'm starting to believe that although resolution is important, dynamic range could be even more. I mean, a Scarlett at 3k resolution ought to be more than enough, considering that I just viewed a 2k film and it looked sufficiently detailed for a 50 foot screen.
 
But I'm sure that the new Monstro sensor upgrade will be fantastic in all these areas.
 
I haven't seen "Drive" but the trailer looks fantastic! I would have to say though, that it really comes down to preference and using the right tool for the job. If you like the options that the Alexa gives you, more than the options the Red can provide, then go with the Alexa. For me, I come from a stills and motion background so the added resolution is a huge factor for me. I also shoot a lot of action which means the higher frame rates on the Epic are essential. (I'm speaking as though I had an epic, which I don't, but someday I will.) I really think Jim wanted a camera that would do it all and give you the most options; resolution, RAW imaging, frame rates and modularity are some of the biggest areas where I think Epic is ahead of the game.
 
Both the Sony F3 and the Alexa use single chip Bayer pattern sensors that are higher than HD/2k pixel resolution and scale their output down. You are already seeing the benefits of over sampled resolution in their HD/2k outputs.
There are not massive differences in native sensitivity and DR between RED Epic MX sensor and these cameras, they are very close to each other.
4:4:4 S-log is just a file format. Color resolution is limited by the original Bayer pattern raw sample resolution before processing, but as you can see from finished imagery from any of these cameras, Red, Alexa, or F3, color resolution at HD/2k is not a problem. Red 4k/5k Bayer raw has superior Bayer color sample resolution due to its significantly higher pixel density since Alexa and F3 are both sub 3k Bayer resolution for recorded HD format output.
 
HDRx.
 
I dunno man, I'm not willing to concede that Red One has a better color sample than the Alexa. Not after what I saw last night, and after watching The Great Camera Shootout 2011:
http://vimeo.com/24334733

It sounds like I'm rooting against Red, which I'm not. Far from it. They are imcredible cameras. But it is a known fact that Alexa and upgraded Sony F3 have slightly better dynamic range than Red MX. Really, I'm just speculating about needing super high 5k sensors if a 2k sensor looks fantastic, and that more DR gives sunning images. Maybe it's a matter of preference.
 
....or maybe the fact that there was a very good cinematographer like Newton Thomas Sigel (amongst other trivial things like directing, story, performances, etc) matters more than the tools they used?
 
Oh, yeah he IS great. No doubt that had a lot to do with it.
 
Another thing I couldn't figure out, how did they get all those slow motion shots in DRIVE if the Alexa doesn't do slow motion? Those shots looked at about 120fps to me.
 
leebrandt33 said:
I dunno man, I'm not willing to concede that Red One has a better color sample than the Alexa. Not after what I saw last night, and after watching The Great Camera Shootout 2011:
http://vimeo.com/24334733

It sounds like I'm rooting against Red, which I'm not. Far from it. They are imcredible cameras. But it is a known fact that Alexa and upgraded Sony F3 have slightly better dynamic range than Red MX. Really, I'm just speculating about needing super high 5k sensors if a 2k sensor looks fantastic, and that more DR gives sunning images. Maybe it's a matter of preference.
Click to expand...

Alexa has a 3.5k sensor though (2.9K sample for HD output) not 2k. Looking at HD shows on TV shot on RED and on ALEXA, RED gives up nothing in color richness or purity. I think you mistake the grading choices for what the camera can do. Slightly better native DR for the Alexa? Yes, maybe 1/2 to 1 stop. I don't place much stock in the shootout results as accurately representative of any of the cameras. Epic is significantly better than RED 1 MX too.

Who knows? Maybe RED will make a low cost 3k S35 camera to compete in the 2k/HDTV markets.
 
The color science was fantastic, or you liked the grade?
Just because a film was shot well and finished well doesn't mean it wouldn't look much better at higher resolution. Out of curiosity, have you seen a movie shot and mastered in 4K and projected in 4K or are you just coming to this conclusion based on how you imagine 4K might look projected? Maybe you didn't want any better because you've never experienced any better.

If people like Jim waited for people like us to tell them what we want then no progress would ever be made.
 
David Rasberry said:
...Red, Alexa, or F3, color resolution at HD/2k is not a problem. Red 4k/5k Bayer raw has superior Bayer color sample resolution due to its significantly higher pixel density since Alexa and F3 are both sub 3k Bayer resolution for recorded HD format output.
Click to expand...

While that is true, by recording ArriRaw on the Alexa - which many, if not most, of the features being shot with it are doing - you get, as you say, a RAW Bayer representation that is very close to 3K. How you debayer it is up to you, but you can get HD, 2K, or even 3K depending on what you want. if you choose 2K, it is an oversampled 2K just as Red is. It is only if you choose to record as HD video, be it with an external recorder or the onboard cards using ProRes 444 compression, that you are limited to that format.
 
Jake Bastian said:
The color science was fantastic, or you liked the grade?
Just because a film was shot well and finished well doesn't mean it wouldn't look much better at higher resolution. Out of curiosity, have you seen a movie shot and mastered in 4K and projected in 4K or are you just coming to this conclusion based on how you imagine 4K might look projected? Maybe you didn't want any better because you've never experienced any better.
Click to expand...

I would turn that around and ask the question: have you seen the movie that the post is referring to? Because the comment was based on the fact that the original poster thought it looked great. That's not a discussion about the merits of 4K on any random picture, it's a discussion about this particular picture and how he felt it looked, regardless of its origination.
 
Go see Samsara in 4k and tell me that resolution is not that important.... Or dig out anything shot or mastered or delivered in SD and tell me it wouldn't have looked better in HD or higher. Detail and resolution are tools for creative image makers just as light and shade and colour and every other aspect that make up an image is. As a creative, you shouldn't be asking if "resolution is high necessary?", but more asking yourself "what can I do with higher resolutions?" "What creative options does high resolutions open for me?"

Graeme
 
Jake Bastian said:
The color science was fantastic, or you liked the grade?
Just because a film was shot well and finished well doesn't mean it wouldn't look much better at higher resolution. Out of curiosity, have you seen a movie shot and mastered in 4K and projected in 4K or are you just coming to this conclusion based on how you imagine 4K might look projected? Maybe you didn't want any better because you've never experienced any better.

If people like Jim waited for people like us to tell them what we want then no progress would ever be made.
Click to expand...

At some point it's aesthetic, subjective, not "better" as in 35mm film is better than 8mm film. For the vast majority of the movie going audience, Drive doesn't need to be "better". It looks good. It's pleasing to the eye. More IQ doesn't necessarily make it "better", it just makes it more IQ, if that makes sense. At some point you're just pixel peeping, not really adding to the aesthetic. It's like saying we can make Cindy Crawford better by removing her mole.

I love what I've seen from Red cameras, and the Epic footage I've seen is stunning. But I agree that it's not important to get hung up on image resolution to the point you're just pixel peeping.

I don't think you can say, this film (or any film) would be better if it had more IQ. Another film might create it's aesthetic with more IQ, which is fine. It's ok to let films be what they are without cutting off their moles so to speak. Black Swan is shot on Super 16. Would it be better if shot on an Epic? Well, it would be a different movie, not necessarily better.

Does EVERYTHING need to be 5k? No, I don't think it does. Maybe that's not what Drive needs. Maybe it IS what Samsara needs.
 
Seeing 4k projected at Red Studios ruined me for anything lesser. The shit is just beautiful. Aside from that, even if you're not finishing at 4k (or 5k) the flexibility of being able to push into shots considerably allows for a crapload or re-position flexibility. Also, the ability to pull decent Rez stills... DSMC... damn cool.

I dig me some 5k.
 
M Most said:
I would turn that around and ask the question: have you seen the movie that the post is referring to? Because the comment was based on the fact that the original poster thought it looked great. That's not a discussion about the merits of 4K on any random picture, it's a discussion about this particular picture and how he felt it looked, regardless of its origination.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen Drive yet. I don't doubt that the Alexa can produce stunning results. Game of Thrones in HD looks really great too. Seems like a lot of RED shot features have been graded with less saturated more monochromatic looks though, so people tend to associate that more with RED. Saw Contagion last weekend. It had a very natural looking color saturation to it, but with a cool slightly greenish cast to the grading, kind of like some older Kodak negative stocks. Burn Notice is a show that has bright saturated color grading that is shot on RED and one could not tell from the grade that it is a RED if one expects different results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top