KOMODO....

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I'll bite.

I'll bite.

With a Bayer pattern CMOS sensor, 100 megapixels sounds pretty good

I suppose 25 stops at capture would have some value, but 20 clean stops would be enough to create high fidelity imagery sufficient for the wetware.

I loves me some bit depth. Assuming the resulting data set can be manipulated in real time with available hardware, bring it on.

I would point out that narrative cinema has a beloved tradition of creating an "altered state of reality" that is not always best served by looking "too real".

For a variety of applications like sports, nature, etc its a different conversation. There are plenty of resources to dig into the operation of the human visual system, the standard observer reference, etc.

My "back of the envelope" estimate is that a 16K, 2:1 aspect ratio 2D screen with precise color rendition and 14 stops of DR is enough for the wetware. Beyond that, I believe you'd be well into diminishing returns. Screen size/viewing distance controlled by limits of peripheral vision acuity and discernible samples per arc degree of the human visual system.

Cheers - #19

 

[Ugo Del]

I would point out that narrative cinema has a beloved tradition of creating an "altered state of reality" that is not always best served by looking "too real".

Exactly. I still don’t understand why people want their images to look more and more clinical. The movies and tv shows never looked as artificial and visually boring as they do now. It’s sometimes difficult to see anything else than makeup, obvious sets, harsh lights, poor CGIs and theater acting performances. I’m sure that the 2.8/3.4k Alexa will still be there for years for this reason.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

With a Bayer pattern CMOS sensor, 100 megapixels sounds pretty good

I suppose 25 stops at capture would have some value, but 20 clean stops would be enough to create high fidelity imagery sufficient for the wetware.

I loves me some bit depth. Assuming the resulting data set can be manipulated in real time with available hardware, bring it on.

I would point out that narrative cinema has a beloved tradition of creating an "altered state of reality" that is not always best served by looking "too real".

For a variety of applications like sports, nature, etc its a different conversation. There are plenty of resources to dig into the operation of the human visual system, the standard observer reference, etc.

My "back of the envelope" estimate is that a 16K, 2:1 aspect ratio 2D screen with precise color rendition and 14 stops of DR is enough for the wetware. Beyond that, I believe you'd be well into diminishing returns. Screen size/viewing distance controlled by limits of peripheral vision acuity and discernible samples per arc degree of the human visual system.

Cheers - #19

I think you are forgetting that there's still a question of HFR or not. To be safe, you could record everything at 240 fps with 360 degree shutter. That would allow you to construct, in post, anything from 120fps at 180 degrees to 24fp at anywhere from 36 degree to 360 degree shutter.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I think you are forgetting that there's still a question of HFR or not. To be safe, you could record everything at 240 fps with 360 degree shutter. That would allow you to construct, in post, anything from 120fps at 180 degrees to 24fp at anywhere from 36 degree to 360 degree shutter.

With a ~2 stop light loss and no motion blur for 24p.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

What would be the purpose of 100MP 25 stop 18 bit motion imaging btw and what do you think you would gain over what is possible today ?

Nothing. Or rather, yeah, we would have more possibilities in post, but we would probably have enough over our current specs with just 20 stops, 50-60MP and 16 bit. It's just that the end result of something shot now in 8K, 16bit, 16,5 stops for a 4K delivery compared to something with those specs for an 8K delivery wouldn't give you much in perceivable delivery quality. Couple that with streaming bandwidth and services that need to provide a clean and perceivably lossless 8K stream compared to the same in 4K.

On a 4K, 75 inch screen, which is among the most common large screens for the small number of people who get large screens, we don't gain much of anything going higher than we are today. If we were to do cameras for idiots who can't expose properly, then something way beyond now is appropriate in order to give them the option to fix everything in post, but I assume that idiots aren't getting the gigs that require gear like the Monstro 8K, so for normally competent cinematographers there's not much you can do beyond the specs of today's most high-end cameras.

I would say that the very end of reasonable specs, in order to give plenty of options in post, would be around 50-60MP, 20 stops and 16-18 bit. Beyond that I fail to see, or rather, I've yet to be convinced by anyone that there's any point going higher. Especially when we take into account how to handle that data, how to manage large scale productions, post-production, streaming and delivery.

I guess that for special applications, such as wall-OLEDs, we would have 100MP cameras with special lenses that can cover that resolution. But these would be special cameras for very specific applications and material. No one rational would ever use that for cinema or TV shoots.

For 99,99% of all worlds productions, I would say we've started to enter diminishing returns. And if you have any experience as a photographer or cinematographer, an 8K, 16bit, 16,5 stops camera gives you everything you need. Beyond it, there have to be some truly rational arguments to convince anyone that more MP's are needed.

It becomes truly irrational when we start comparing spec-sheets for features that our human eyes would never see any differences between and which doesn't give us much more options in post anyway. It's like telling someone that the air you breathe in a room has 1% more air than the other room and will, therefore, give you a sense of a cleaner breathing atmosphere. All while you stand there and can't tell the difference between the two rooms, but the guy pushing the argument keep saying you're a moron for not sensing the difference.

 

[DJ Meyer]

Ahhh...the debate that is as old as time itself.

How much faster of a horse does anyone really need?

640K is enough for everyone!

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Ahhh...the debate that is as old as time itself.

How much faster of a horse does anyone really need?

640K is enough for everyone!

It has been a valid argument for a few years of improving cameras and delivery formats. The limit is the human perception of the final result, therefore, we've started to hit ceilings already.

 

[DJ Meyer]

It has been a valid argument for a few years of improving cameras and delivery formats. The limit is the human perception of the final result, therefore, we've started to hit ceilings already.

You've made it quite clear that you perceive no discernible benefit in continuing to improve camera acquisition technology for the work that you do. I imagine that must be quite liberating as you'll never need to upgrade your camera again.

Believe it or not, though, there are segments of the market that do require, or desire, improvements in resolution, DR, noise, etc, for any number of reasons.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

we would have 100MP cameras with special lenses that can cover that resolution. But these would be special cameras for very specific applications and material. No one rational would ever use that for cinema or TV shoots.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I wonder why some of the most sough after photographers in the world use HD-100C and XF IQ3 cameras - EVEN when the deliverable is ONLY the internet (no print)??? (they must not be .... rational)

This thread has turned into an exercise in chewing glass.

Anyway .... I'm pretty excited to see what KOMODO is .... and is NOT.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

You've made it quite clear that you perceive no discernible benefit in continuing to improve camera acquisition technology for the work that you do. I imagine that must be quite liberating as you'll never need to upgrade your camera again.

Believe it or not, though, there are segments of the market that do require, or desire, improvements in resolution, DR, noise, etc, for any number of reasons.

THIS x 1000.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I wonder why some of the most sough after photographers in the world use HD-100C and XF IQ3 cameras - EVEN when the deliverable is ONLY the internet (no print)??? (they must not be .... rational)

This thread has turned into an exercise in chewing glass.

Anyway .... I'm pretty excited to see what KOMODO is .... and is NOT.

Still photography is not the same as motion cinematography. Still images are used in different sizes, sometimes exceeding the frame in which they are used on the screen you are viewing. I don't really understand the idea that still photography and cinematography share the same workflow or final use what-so-ever, they are two very different mediums in this regard. Still photography benifit from higher MP counts and we're already there at 100MP with cameras like Hasselblad, but cinematography focus on screens of different sizes and distances from the viewer while having motion blur and movements that blend the result in a totally different way than how still images are used and percieved.

Explain how 100MP motion imagery in cinematography will benefit cinema and television over the coming 10-20 years in a way that today's resolution can't handle for final viewing experience. I'm still waiting for more of a rational argument than you just laughing at all of this.

 

[Phil Holland]

Explain how 100MP motion imagery in cinematography will benefit cinema and television over the coming 10-20 years in a way that today's resolution can't handle for final viewing experience. I'm still waiting for more of a rational argument than you just laughing at all of this.

Why are you asking about 10-20 years down the line and referencing today's available technology?

I see a great deal of potential of capturing at above 8K resolution for 8K and 4K finishes, I'll say 2K as well. I've been producing content at higher resolutions both to downsample to 8K screens as well as be used on higher resolution display experiences.

I'll just say as it stand towards the immediate future most companies that make display tech ideal for entertainment are focused the mass adoption of 4K and the easing in point of 8K, which has now hit the sweet spot of enthusiast pricing this year.

I've publicly shown over the years now what you can do with merely downsampling, but also tapping into this extra resolution for all sorts of reframing, stabilization, cropping, integrated camera movement, etc. is also powerful. It's of particular interest to me as I am now working mainly on 8K productions for a while now and have the desire for more paint in the tube to throw at the canvas, right now if I squeeze the tube tight and just right I get enough to fill it up edge to edge, corner to corner.

The final viewing experience general audiences as of now is:
- QHD
- HD
- 2K
- UHD 4K
- 4K
- UHD 8K
- DCI 8K (only a couple things do this currently)

There's lot of other resolutions not mentioned there, but that's the general shape of things. Some of those areas are much more common, some are newer, some have gotten to that tipping point of adoption. But at the moment our industry as a whole is generally a DCI or UHD 4K or 8K world with HD still being the mass delivery platform for many.

I think every camera manufacturer has now gotten the memo about the advantages of oversampling for any final output resolution.

 

[David Collard]

I'm still waiting for more of a rational argument than you just laughing at all of this.

No matter who might be laughing at you Christoffer, thank you for your contributions to this forum. Cheers!

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Explain how 100MP motion imagery in cinematography will benefit cinema and television over the coming 10-20 years in a way that today's resolution can't handle for final viewing experience.

I don't really know what "can't handle" even means in your context. Obviously .... even 2K originated content "can be handled for a final viewing experience" - but that does not mean that higher resolution doesn't benefit the artistic intent of some motion content.

But the very short answer is - image fidelity, image quality and image flexibility.

If you think that "today's resolutions" are so great that there is "no benefit" of more resolution for motion content ... well ... I'm not gonna spend the time to try to convince you.

Time will certainly prove you wrong.

100MP (12K/13K) motion content will be the next "bar" for the high-end of digital cinematography. With good reason.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I think every camera manufacturer has now gotten the memo about the advantages of oversampling for any final output resolution.

Yes. They all got the memo a while ago - it just takes time a long time to make cameras.

 

[Nicholas Karfoot]

Komodo NEWS post IBC

Komodo NEWS post IBC

Hi FIRE CHEF

Good Day to you Jim.

As there has been no reveal at IBC. Please could you post another photo of the camera?

All I want to know if anything. Will it record 16bit redcode RAW to the internal CFast?



Thank you for reading. 


NiC

 

[Bob Gundu]

Hi FIRE CHEF

Good Day to you Jim.

As there has been no reveal at IBC. Please could you post another photo of the camera?

All I want to know if anything. Will it record 16bit redcode RAW to the internal CFast?



Thank you for reading. 


NiC

Jarred already mentioned it would record Redcode internally.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Why are you asking about 10-20 years down the line and referencing today's available technology?

Because with today's technology we are beginning to hit a ceiling for what can be done to improve cinematography. When the perceivable final image is close to impossible to judge between different acquisition methods, we've start to hit diminishing returns. There are numerous real-world examples from people all over the industry who mixed and matched lots of systems without people, even skilled professionals, actually noticing a difference in the final view.

I see a great deal of potential of capturing at above 8K resolution for 8K and 4K finishes, I'll say 2K as well. I've been producing content at higher resolutions both to downsample to 8K screens as well as be used on higher resolution display experiences.

Me too, I'm just noticing that 99% of all productions around the globe will not benefit an 8K distribution. We have bandwidth limits, which will not become less since more people around the globe go online as their quality of life in society increases. We have production costs of processing power for VFX, where nearly all of the biggest productions still do VFX in 2K. I agree that for the photographic process, more resolutions equal a better subsampling, but there's a limit to the final quality in which the perceptive differences between 4K and 8K become almost unnoticed and the subsampling benefits becomes negligible. Over 10-11K becomes irrelevant for any distribution format to actually benefit, even including the post-production improvements it gives for an 8K final image. Steve Yedlin has a point with this, even if I think his resolution limit is far lower than mine.

I'll just say as it stand towards the immediate future most companies that make display tech ideal for entertainment are focused the mass adoption of 4K and the easing in point of 8K, which has now hit the sweet spot of enthusiast pricing this year.

We also have A.I upscaling which will be far more adopted as standard practice as we move into doing VFX in native 4K. If Avengers Endgame doesn't render out their final VFX in over 2K, then imagine doing 8K distribution. So we will see far more 4K workflows with VFX in 4K, than anything in 8K for quite some time.

I've publicly shown over the years now what you can do with merely downsampling, but also tapping into this extra resolution for all sorts of reframing, stabilization, cropping, integrated camera movement, etc. is also powerful. It's of particular interest to me as I am now working mainly on 8K productions for a while now and have the desire for more paint in the tube to throw at the canvas, right now if I squeeze the tube tight and just right I get enough to fill it up edge to edge, corner to corner.

I've also advocated for higher resolutions for this purpose and I'm not saying that "8K is enough", I'm saying that there's a ceiling where the benefits start to become perceivably impossible to notice any differences in the final product. And we are entering that time for the camera market, because while the high-end systems are all scrambling for higher than 8K resolution workflows, the less expensive cameras catch up faster as they haven't hit the the slow-down in terms of actual beneficial needs within the industry folks.

I think every camera manufacturer has now gotten the memo about the advantages of oversampling for any final output resolution.

The problem though is that there's a difference between the technical math behind a process and the perceivable and noticeable final result. The benefits are, as of now, all focused on benefits for the post-production process, in which higher resolution, more stops and lower noise all create a better ground for manipulation into the desired final output. But anyone who's a professional cinematographer today won't have any problem creating an image that even exceeds what the human eye can perceive. Just think about 10000 nits of HDR, we can do it today, but most people who watch long segments of it report that it hurt their eyes because it's almost like looking into a real sun when a sun is present in the footage. What is the benefit of blinding the audience other than for showing off? That's not cinematography as I see it. I'm not against a clear, noise-free image, but we can achieve that today together with a final output that is so high in a resolution that no eye can perceive anything higher.

So balancing the technology, the math, the specs against what people say when viewing final outputs speak volumes of where we're at in the history of digital cinema, and we won't see the same improvements over the coming 10-20 years that we've seen the past 10-20 years, we're now speculating future specs that benefit very little in post over what we can do today, while audiences and even professionals can't spot the difference between a Red and a Sony A7 on the final output in cinemas (real world example). We are not at the end, there won't really be an end, but marketing and capitalism can't win over the fact that people will question "why" to use new systems if all they do is pushing the limits of the sensor to the camera processor breaking point. This is what I mean about Komodo, it's a more rational thing to exist, a camera that is smaller and simpler to use (presumably), but seems to have specs close to what is needed for pretty high end deliveries. This improvements in camera bodies and functions will probably be far more the future than anything about sensors and what the acquisition format can do.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I don't really know what "can't handle" even means in your context. Obviously .... even 2K originated content "can be handled for a final viewing experience" - but that does not mean that higher resolution doesn't benefit the artistic intent of some motion content.

What perceivable differences does more resolution do on the final delivery? I want to know what benefits we're talking about here?

But the very short answer is - image fidelity, image quality and image flexibility.

True, but where's the limit in which the audience can't see any differences? I'm talking about the limit, where handling all that data and resolution becomes unjustified costs for any kind of actual improvements to the final output. This is also Steve Yedlin's argument and he makes a clear case for it, even though I would agree that higher resolution than he proposes is needed.

Time will certainly prove you wrong.

We'll see, Avengers Endgame is still mastered in 2K and A.I upscaling makes headlines. So, are you sure I'm dead wrong?

100MP (12K/13K) motion content will be the next "bar" for the high-end of digital cinematography. With good reason.

I don't hear any viable reason for real-world productions. I've never heard any production speak of any such benefits and I'm talking about people promoting 8K for 4K.
Special cases, true, wall-OLEDS or future special screens, but I'm talking about digital cinema and television. I need to hear audiences in the future saying they can't be without 8K because the A.I upscaled 4K blockbuster looks so bad.
I doubt they will do this and therefore I doubt filmmakers will really care for anything above 10K on their sensors. I'd like a clear cut rational argument for this, but all I hear is that "it will happen". Ok.

 

[Phil Holland]

I'll speak within bounds of not braking an conflicts of interesting and specifically NDAs of stuff I'm currently filming.

I am very much aware of much of the stigma, denial, and bias the concept of resolution alone has had in our industry in the face rather experienced people scratching their heads at naysayers, doubters, critics, goblins, and trolls.

Throughout this time over the years I've been trying to promote an understanding of these concepts from an educational and creative standpoint fueled greatly by a great deal of studies done with companies you all are familiar with over the years.

The concept of perception over desire and intent is an interesting concept and leading to a conversation of "that's probably good enough". I am not cut from that cloth and do desire a bit more from the content I personally create. Perception in practicalities is one thing, but as the world has pretty much discovered at this point you can indeed see the differences between 2K, 4K, and 8K. It's been easier to have these discussions in recent years as critical eyes have now been able to digest content side by side often by the same display manufacturers offerings in the market. I'll reference Sony, Samsung, LG, ans Sharp with unique opportunities to see the same content on different screens. For some, it's very appealing and noticeable. In actual study, the results are also there. But for others well good enough is good enough.

I'm personally in my happiest spot right now because all of which I have been hopefully presenting in a good light is coming to be in our industry and I'm not exactly having many conversations these days about if "4K will ever catch on", "the human eye can only see 4K", "nobody can ever work in 4K, "nobody needs 4K", so on and so forth. What was obvious to many in the 2000s was less obvious to others, now it's a bit of different story with 4K becoming the default premium viewing experience in cinema and at home, 8K edging on very premium, and 2K being the old faithful standard. And meanwhile I still see a few corners of Earth where sub-1080p delivery occurs.

Camera and display technology doesn't stop at 8K. I think personally many will have to decide if a beyond 8K display television fits in their home when that's possible, but it is very much the best we have that is reasonably attainable in both theater and cinema form as of 2019. And there are extended and expandable display technologies, often used for exposition and events, that are significantly higher resolution than that. Of course that isn't typically ending up in the theater or home.

The "viable reason for real-world productions" require perhaps an open mind as everybody will decide on their own reasons. I produce high quality content and the extra resolution is a benefit to narrative, commercial, and exhibition content I produce. It's also a benefit to the VFX work I find myself filming now and again. It's a benefit as it's a flexible way of working within the medium for frame extraction when desired.

For discerning filmmakers it's an interesting balancing act to be happy to shoot on anything, which is more common than not as well as being rather concerned with what they are reaching for on personal, professional, creative, and technical levels with what they create.

I've mentioned before here that many people will base their opinions mostly on localized experience, which is standard fair. If you're not hearing people asking for 8K and very much talking to people who are primarily delivering 8K those are clearly discussions occuring in different rooms and realms of this industry. Very similar to not hearing people wanting 4K not long ago.

I'm very fortunate to cross many avenues of motion picture filmmaking as well as being close to studios, rental houses, and even productions occasionally on a consultation basis. My perspective is from some corners more is desired because there is noise coming from them stating so. Meanwhile in other fascilities those corners are quiet while they have tuned into what is very much right in front of them.

We've strayed fairly off course of Komodo discussion here, but too loop it back what is good is Komodo will be really ideal for compact camera needs for 4K and 2K delivery, which represents the highest volume of paid work currently making it a very useful tool. 8K is still pretty early on, but at the same time I've working on stuff in 2017 that doesn't get released until 2020. The stagnated and staging process of all of this is part of the whole tamale. I'll also say I'm likely not the first person to see Komodo and get inspired about compact high quality stitched array work. But my main interest is solo compact workflow that can be taken anywhere in the world without much fuss.