Simple way to see if you have 4K ( no UHD TV needed )

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Here's a link to a UHD 4K "finished" image with what I refer to as "Print Sharp Fine Art Paper" derived from a 5K HD frame, I think 75mm T4 5:1.
http://www.artbyphil.com/temp/reduser/forLes_UHD4K_PaperGrain5K4KFin.jpg

That's a beautiful look. What ISO did you rate at? The noise is quite nice. If only all MX shots looked like this. Les's 5203 test showed the MX's horrible skin tones at certain light levels. Awful, but not there if you expose correctly. Amazing how well film holds up in areas other than resolving power. ;-) Also, I notice ugly noise in some MX shots which look like cheap poster prints you get at discount department stores.

 

[Phil Holland]

That's a beautiful look. What ISO did you rate at? The noise is quite nice. If only all MX shots looked like this. Les's 5203 test showed the MX's horrible skin tones at certain light levels. Awful, but not there if you expose correctly. Amazing how well film holds up in areas other than resolving power. ;-) Also, I notice ugly noise in some MX shots which look like cheap poster prints you get at discount department stores.

Thanks Karim. That was at ISO 800 and it was shot through an ND of some sort.

On the topic of a clean, somewhat noiseless image:

This was sharpened, but no grain was added and I think I shot exposed for ISO 320 here. T4. Focused on her eyes.
http://www.artbyphil.com/temp/reduser/forBjorn_4Kfrom5K_NoNoise.jpg

Perhaps too clean for my taste, but that's pretty clean.


Oddly my experience from scanning, recording, and as a colorist has led to some strange thoughts on handling material and what finishing the final look is all about. I've spent a good deal of my professional life capturing and making technically high quality images. That usually reliant on the camera, lenses, and technique employed. However, sitting down with a craftsmen like David Mullen quickly can reveal that there's much more to a captured and final image than what the best technical answer is. There's sometimes reasons to dirty up and degrade, even if ever so slightly to add that little cherry on top.

I feel that much like film, REDCODE RAW is all about what you want to do with it. There's a lot of flexibility in there when everything is shot nicely. With where the tools are these days you can pretty much carve out the final image you want. Grain, sharp, smooth, soft, organic, clinical, etc... The good news is you've got options.

 

[John Marchant]

Any more sharpness than the standard OLPF is going to land me in trouble with images like this: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8211/8443795065_5b4bc39f61_o.jpg - I'm already revealing the CA in an essentially good lens, and at risk of doing horrible things to his shirt...

And sometimes, where I relish the mega-resolution virtually no-olpf feel of the monochrome, like here: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8557/8708203364_b968054915_o.jpg
I'm actually glad of the focus and illumination fall-off the glass gave me - no doubt there's plenty of resolution at the centre, but it halves or worse at the corners, without which the image would be something very different.

Where I want to put it I can definitely create and use 4k - but the contrast between that potential sharpness and everything else is the most powerful tool IMHO. 4+K everywhere flattens the image for my taste.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

On the topic of a clean, somewhat noiseless image:

This was sharpened, but no grain was added and I think I shot exposed for ISO 320 here. T4. Focused on her eyes.
http://www.artbyphil.com/temp/reduser/forBjorn_4Kfrom5K_NoNoise.jpg

Perhaps too clean for my taste, but that's pretty clean.

Clean is good. Thanks for posting that. The JPEG compression has killed some of the tonal gradation but it's still nice. But at 320 you're going to blow highlights sooner than at 800 (right?). Still, 800 is very nice - I am not a fan of NR at all, from what I have seen. It 'works' but cannot fill in detail that is forever lost, making hair look very icky. It's like antibiotics: they are sophisticated; and they kill bacteria, so they 'work'. But are they making the patient healthier? Sorry for the tangent, I couldn't help myself. I love analogies...

I feel that much like film, REDCODE RAW is all about what you want to do with it. There's a lot of flexibility in there when everything is shot nicely. With where the tools are these days you can pretty much carve out the final image you want. Grain, sharp, smooth, soft, organic, clinical, etc... The good news is you've got options.

My philosophy: there are a million ways to fuck something up, but a limited number of ways to do something right.

John: the image of the man was pretty damned nice and very sharp. Only slight amounts of CA visible, if any. In fact the area around his right shoulder looks lovely - slightly underexposed, OOF, very delicate. I might agree with you that removing the AA filter would be a hindrance more than a help. But the Leica M9 sure benefits from it (though it's a CCD and a still camera...). The shot of the trees looks soft. Not as sharp as the portrait shot.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I don't agree, based on my experience. Downsampling preserves noise (or, more accurately, noise characteristics). Downsampling does produce an image which is sharper than native (duh!), while at the same time having smoother noise. Not less, just smoother.

Both outcomes are possible and very much dependent on type and amount of noise, type and amount of compression, amount of scaling and type of scaling algorithm.

 

[Les Dittert]

John,
That shirt is most definitely a worst case for my 'E' shooting. When there is motion it helps the image processing however.
One thing I know I should be doing more is to throw some grain over the images. It helps scatter any image weaknesses and to many seasoned viewers it adds a subliminal message of professionally grounded quality. Wreaks havoc with delivery compression is the negative.

Someone on RedUser had a fun analogy akin to: It's like trying to reproduce the Mona Lisa by painting her in great detail in watercolor and then throwing a bunch of cracked and flaked oil paint on it afterwards.

Any more sharpness than the standard OLPF is going to land me in trouble with images like this: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8211/8443795065_5b4bc39f61_o.jpg - I'm already revealing the CA in an essentially good lens, and at risk of doing horrible things to his shirt...

And sometimes, where I relish the mega-resolution virtually no-olpf feel of the monochrome, like here: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8557/8708203364_b968054915_o.jpg
I'm actually glad of the focus and illumination fall-off the glass gave me - no doubt there's plenty of resolution at the centre, but it halves or worse at the corners, without which the image would be something very different.

Where I want to put it I can definitely create and use 4k - but the contrast between that potential sharpness and everything else is the most powerful tool IMHO. 4+K everywhere flattens the image for my taste.