Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

SONYs 4k argument for distribution

yes i think it was but from a diffrent website
 
I only really skimmed it but I essentially got most of what the piece was trying to say "4k matters in theaters because or the seating in most theaters."

Interesting read, makes me wonder what the progress of the Cinealta department of Sony is or if the Genesis will ever get an upgrade.
 
see 4k is definately the way to go in terms of projection,its just better than 2k, and even if delivery sticks with 2k our captures should be higher than 2k to get a better 2k. Many people have asked me like fools that if i am going to project at 2k then why should i even shoot at 4k, well the simple thing is if i shoot at 2k and project at 2k i get a normal 2k picture but if i shoot at 4k and project at 2k then that 2k would be just better than the native 2k. Shooting at 2k would never give you a measurable full 2k resolution.
 
This is funny.

I recall same tests being made by one camera company and their rep claiming that human eyes cannot tell the difference between 2K and 4K.

Same "line pairs" fallacy in attempt to quantize an organic sense, vastly superior to measuring tools used.


4K and consumer research
Focus group research confirms that real-world theater-goers can see the 4K difference. Movies were presented to a theater audience in both 2K and 4K, without identifying which was which—and without saying anything about the technical differences between the pictures. Audience members were not told to expect a resolution difference in these "unaided" tests. Even under these demanding circumstances, respondents consistently gave 4K higher marks for every aspect of picture quality. Respondents also gave 4K higher scores than 2K on every measure of expected consumer behavior including, "This is something I would tell my friends about," "This is worth paying more for," and "I would go out of my way to go to a theater that offered this type of picture quality."
Click to expand...

Using rather simple logic, this PR quote combined with the previous PR quote from another - yet related camera manufacturer, offers few conclusions:

a) Panavision and Sony used a test group from different planets
b) Human vision has evolved substantially within two years
c) Knight from Monty Python's Flying Circus has some errands to run with his rubber chicken, right after a trip to Cupertino

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTt-ewgKm5A
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
4k was a mistake... any way you cut it, slice it or package it. History will show 4k as the biggest mistake the industry ever knew.
8k is the future.
Click to expand...

8k was a mistake... any way you cut it, slice it or package it. History will show 8k as the biggest mistake the industry ever knew.
16k 4D is the future.
 
This new mascara makes your lashes stand out much more than previous mascara which was 300% thicker and premium but is crap now. Using the special Lash Perfection UltimateX technology, lashes volume has increased by 300% making in total 900% increase in both thickness and lashes size, enabling catching an albatross with a mere blink.

In addition, this new shampoo has New Bamboo Essence Ultra making your hairdo more resistant.
It was tested on group of Pandas, which had more trouble biting through thick bamboo compared to other vegetation. This exquisite formula ensures that scraping rust of boat anchors or class 5 hurricane won't have any effect on your hairstyle.
 
Ethan Cooper said:
8k was a mistake... any way you cut it, slice it or package it. History will show 8k as the biggest mistake the industry ever knew.
16k 4D is the future.
Click to expand...

16k was a mistake... any way you cut it, slice it or package it. History will show 16k as the biggest mistake the industry ever knew.
32k 5D is the future.
AAAAAAAnd so on and so forth.....................................
 
IMHO content is allways the key... but I must say that as a picture maker, resolution can contribue to the content as how you look at a picture.

I don't speak about hyperrealism but some shots in low resolution mode won't allow the viewer to enter the screen and have the ability to look around the details.

You could shoot a beautifull feature with a DSR-150 DVcam in the limits of what you where able to achieve with it.

The resolution you had and still have with 35mm print (not speaking of crappy intermediates) was for a century the medium who imbodied this resolution, that 1080p didn't replace.


Patrick
 
The real question remains: Will actresses wanna be exposed in 8K or even 4K?

I must admit sitting in the middle of one of the largest cinemas (in my country) it is not much that differs 35mm resolution from 2K resolution. (I have normal vision 20/20) When the images are moving the blur looks as sharp in 2K as it does in 35mm. I think most people won't notice the difference. But that of course doesn't mean it's not the future, I just don't think upscaled 1080p will look as terrible as people say.
 
I admit I'm biased against Sony right now, however from a practical perspective...

I didn't care so much for their means of argumentation. It was excessive in use of terminology and discussion. It's really a simple thing, all it needs is some simple graphic representations with about a paragraph of text. It's possible to oversell a thing, and I think they've done it by making it too lengthy and complicated.
 
I found the article “happy, friendly and simple”.

The thresholds they describe are very crude rules of thumb and are in essence a rather artificial cut off.

In reality and with different observers the acuity of the eye should be plotted much more like a Modulation Transfer Function curve (MTF curve). I.e. perceived contrast is an important factor for resolving detail. I.e. you don’t see fine detail in high contrast, and that acuity varies for different colors too, (for example it is much more difficult to perceive small blue features, as opposed to green). In what is called Psychophysics there are thousands of different “perverse” and clever tests to pin down the “spatial response” of the human visual system under different conditions.


Recently I went to a local theatre where they replaced the 2k projector with a 4k projector, and the difference was noticeable, but NOT as dramatic as I had hoped. I had to ask the theatre manager if it really was a SONY 4k projector? To my eye 2k theatre projection is pretty “sucky” and weak and was amazed that it was introduced or allowed “to be” in the first place. 4k is essential, however for me at least in my small sample it was the CONTAST that let it down not the resolution. The color gamut seems still pretty small I think.


I remember having the Empire Leicester Square Cinemascope theatre practically to myself (one of the largest in Europe at the time), and got to watch a re-release of 2001 a space Odyssey (70mm print), and that was f*cking impressive. I also got too see the “Toxic Avenger” at the same cinema, what a waste????


Sounding like a broken record, in the modern age “convenience” will always win over old school quality. People who remember what “old cinema” looked like will simply die out. 4k is here to stay as this is a workflow that “the industry” wants to use. If there is 15% loss in quality, and only one in 50 punters, can tell the difference then industry scores, and moves on to a new format.

Thanks for posting the article.

Cheers,

Eric
 
Resolution vs. Aliasing

Resolution vs. Aliasing

35mm film prints cannot be projected in a Multiplex in a way that shows all of the "resolution" on the print since there is no projectionist in the booth to touch up the focus every few minutes like in the past.

Also very few films are made without DI and only film-to-film printing so few people remember what aliasing free film resolution limited movies looked like on the screen.

You can see aliasing in 2K images (which can be only 1828x1556 on the film recorder). Aliasing is easer to see at higher resolutions than an actual gain in fine detail going 2K to 4K since the projection lens in even digital projectors cannot resolve 4K at high MTF and would always be a bit off prime focus. Also unless you are sitting very close to the screen, your eyes cannot resolve 4K at high MTF in normal theatres. You also have "keystone" issues with the projection lens where the top and bottom of the screen cannot be in focus at the same time because of the angle of the projection lens, and if you swing the lens you still may get uneven resolution in parts of the screen.

You can resolve small details at low contrast as soft blobs, so you SEE the small details, just not at the small size that they would be if everything was 4K at 100% MTF.

Aliasing can be seen even if smaller than the high MTF resolution because where the "steps" are on lines, edges, and moving patterns makes a feature that creates more contrast in the eye than a smooth soft boundry.

The high MTF resolution of average semi-out-of-focus 35mm projection is about 720 lines per image height, but at lower MTF some aliasing and small detail can be seen if it was high contrast to start with.

Going to 4K for a filmout will not change the high MTF resolution limits of bad projection of film prints, but it can reduce aliasing from the DI (if the scan and DI are 4K uncompressed).

In Digital Projection you would also get a decrease in aliasing by having an all 4K campture, DI and projection, but the high MTF resolution would still be limited by the projection lens and the viewers eyes and distance he views at.

The ideal is to have the projection twice as sharp as the viewers eyes, or more, so that he viewer limits the results, not the projection.

Make a light gray and dark gray checkerboard image of single pixels and project that in the 4K projector using whatever compression is applied to the DCP and see how far back from the screen you can make out the checkerboard. Next animate the checkerboard so that is rotates slowly and see what happens... See also how different the two grays need to be to be visable as checkerboard, both in dark shades and light shades as well as middle shades...
 
Dan Hudgins said:
35mm film prints cannot be projected in a Multiplex in a way that shows all of the "resolution" on the print since there is no projectionist in the booth to touch up the focus every few minutes like in the past.



...... Next animate the checkerboard so that is rotates slowly and see what happens... See also how different the two grays need to be to be visable as checkerboard, both in dark shades and light shades as well as middle shades...
Click to expand...

Some great stuff there Dan,

Are the MTF’s on projection lenses really that bad?

I think the rotated pattern (as you suggest) would be a superb test, all kinds of weird stuff would pop out at you at different angles as things phased in and out.

Is there something akin to OLPF (other than a not so high res lens) that helps reduce “aliasing” artifacts in the digital projection systems?

I guess that’s what I was seeing from the 4k in theatre projection was this slightly increased level of smoothing, just like an OLPF. I’m used to working more with VR type set ups where everything appears MUCH crisper and the occasional aliasing artifact is ignored somewhat.

Ta.

Eric
 
Well, there are 4K digital projection and 4K digital projection. One is Sony 4K SXRD (reflected LCD), the other is 4K DLP.
Different technologies, different level of quality. Worlds apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top