I would say that the interest in 4K for cinema screens is due to two things: the physical size of the screen and thus the relative size of each pixel in order to achieve "pixel invisibility" and give the appearance of a coherent, single image, and the ability to retain all of the significant information in a 35mm film frame when scanned and processed through a DI pipeline. The fact is that all HD formats can and have impacted production in every department from set design and set dressing to hair and makeup. The nature of electronic imaging in general is that these things become more critical when compared to film, due in part to resolution issues, but also due to lack of grain, linear response as opposed to logarithmic, and many other issues I won't get into. That's not good or bad, it's just a fact.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Sony's BIG Announcement
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
I would say that the interest in 4K for cinema screens is due to two things: the physical size of the screen and thus the relative size of each pixel in order to achieve "pixel invisibility" and give the appearance of a coherent, single image, and the ability to retain all of the significant information in a 35mm film frame when scanned and processed through a DI pipeline. The fact is that all HD formats can and have impacted production in every department from set design and set dressing to hair and makeup. The nature of electronic imaging in general is that these things become more critical when compared to film, due in part to resolution issues, but also due to lack of grain, linear response as opposed to logarithmic, and many other issues I won't get into. That's not good or bad, it's just a fact.
Steve G
Well-known member
In relation to tv work, this statement is rubbish, and frankly, insulting to a lot of DoP's. If you watch output from UK and a lot of other European tv, you will see that we here in Europe actually produce very good looking work with a variety of tools, as do DoP's in the States.
It's not only about the format. If it was, then all Red footage that is shown or linked too on this website would be great. Some is so far away from being that.
Tim H.
Well-known member
4K means so many different things that we probably shouldn't throw it around like we do without some context.
For instance, more and more films shot on 35mm (if not all) are doing DI's now. However a lot of them are 2K scans (which some argue are really 1K scans depending on the 35mm format and area of the negative they are scanning) and is not ideal at all. When possible (budget) they should be scanning to 4K (again which some argue is 2.4K) and finishing at that resolution then recording out as many as many negatives as possible for doing prints rather than going to IP's and IN's for the release prints. In fact if you take a 4K Red image and then record out to an IP or IN for making prints you have just killed a lot of your resolution.
For instance, more and more films shot on 35mm (if not all) are doing DI's now. However a lot of them are 2K scans (which some argue are really 1K scans depending on the 35mm format and area of the negative they are scanning) and is not ideal at all. When possible (budget) they should be scanning to 4K (again which some argue is 2.4K) and finishing at that resolution then recording out as many as many negatives as possible for doing prints rather than going to IP's and IN's for the release prints. In fact if you take a 4K Red image and then record out to an IP or IN for making prints you have just killed a lot of your resolution.
Blair S. Paulsen
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,503
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 48
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Website
- www.alacritymedia.com
Riddle me this...
Riddle me this...
Shoot a short piece with two cameras side by side for every shot using identical lenses, plenty of well designed lighting, etc.
One is an Arri 435 shooting 5219, 35mm Kodak negative
One is a RedOne or Epic with the M-X sensor shooting max resolution @24/fps.
The film version path: Spirit TK, 2K DI using dpx, IP, IN, print to 35mm and project on a 40' screen.
Data path: r3ds, 4K DI, Sony SXRD 4K projection onto 40' screen.
Do an A/B comparison by alternately blocking the light path of the two projectors in the booth.
Anyone seen this test? Anyone care to speculate on the results?
With the integration of the RED Rocket™™ into high end post tools the only significant jump in cost that comes to mind for 4K vs 2K would be greater storage needs. Of course the cost of TK (telecine), IP, IN, release prints, etc is saved...
My contention is that if you remove the requirement that the RED originated files have to be shot out to film for distribution then its a whole new ballgame and the resolution advantage will knock the viewer over. Yes, I know that part of the allure of film is its ability to take you out of "normal" reality and that part of that "feel" is in its imperfections, but this is a technical excercise.
Anyone care to tell me just how wrong I am?
Cheers - #19
Riddle me this...
Shoot a short piece with two cameras side by side for every shot using identical lenses, plenty of well designed lighting, etc.
One is an Arri 435 shooting 5219, 35mm Kodak negative
One is a RedOne or Epic with the M-X sensor shooting max resolution @24/fps.
The film version path: Spirit TK, 2K DI using dpx, IP, IN, print to 35mm and project on a 40' screen.
Data path: r3ds, 4K DI, Sony SXRD 4K projection onto 40' screen.
Do an A/B comparison by alternately blocking the light path of the two projectors in the booth.
Anyone seen this test? Anyone care to speculate on the results?
With the integration of the RED Rocket™™ into high end post tools the only significant jump in cost that comes to mind for 4K vs 2K would be greater storage needs. Of course the cost of TK (telecine), IP, IN, release prints, etc is saved...
My contention is that if you remove the requirement that the RED originated files have to be shot out to film for distribution then its a whole new ballgame and the resolution advantage will knock the viewer over. Yes, I know that part of the allure of film is its ability to take you out of "normal" reality and that part of that "feel" is in its imperfections, but this is a technical excercise.
Anyone care to tell me just how wrong I am?
Cheers - #19
Tim H.
Well-known member
Blair, I would like to see that test 
In your scenario you are comparing a complete digital pipeline with an analog, digital, analog pipeline and stipulating the film is scanned at half the resolution than the red is acquired at.
What if we make it a mix of 5212 (100 asa, very fine grain) and 5219 (rated at 500, which the red really can't do cleanly) and scan at 4K, then either project at 4K along with the Red or drop the IN or IP and just make a negative off of the 4K DI directly then project on 35mm.
Once any format is taken to the DI there is no reason to have to take them back to film and project them. So I agree with you.
In your scenario you are comparing a complete digital pipeline with an analog, digital, analog pipeline and stipulating the film is scanned at half the resolution than the red is acquired at.
What if we make it a mix of 5212 (100 asa, very fine grain) and 5219 (rated at 500, which the red really can't do cleanly) and scan at 4K, then either project at 4K along with the Red or drop the IN or IP and just make a negative off of the 4K DI directly then project on 35mm.
Once any format is taken to the DI there is no reason to have to take them back to film and project them. So I agree with you.
I would contend that the more sensible test would be to make DCP's from both DI's and project that. And my contention would be that the film would look like film, the Red wouldn't, the resolution would be essentially identical (the film might be a bit better technically in that regard, but the characteristics of film would likely mask that to most observers), and depending on the photography and the specific photographic issues, the Red version would likely display a bit of highlight clipping in more extreme conditions that some in the audience would notice and some wouldn't.
Your test would be akin to sitting someone down, having them drink a cup of coffee and a cup of tea, and asking them which was better. Film is still dominant as a capture medium for most studio features because it's got amazing latitude and some other characteristics that many cameramen and directors like, as well as proven value as an archive element. But film origination doesn't mean film projection any more than digital origination means digital projection. If you're going to compare film projection, put both on film. If you're going to compare digital projection, project them both digitally.
Blair S. Paulsen
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,503
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 48
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Website
- www.alacritymedia.com
Coffee vs tea
Coffee vs tea
I get the point about the inherent disparity between projection technologies yielding differences between my two scenarios that could largely overwhelm the viewers appreciation of, for instance, resolution.
My core contention is that if you stipulate film as the projection media, that even though both paths include a trip to DI, you have handicapped the end to end digital pipeline.
Insert caveat: Perceived image quality is based on a number of factors (insert several books worth of info here) that include color accuracy, color gamut, clarity, resolution, conditioned response, ad infinitum.
I am contending that with a reasonable color rendition similarity (much, though not all of which can be achieved in DI) that genuine 4K resolution from end to end would put an image on a large screen that would be considered superior by most viewers to the nominal 1.2K image some studies show is typical of projected film prints in commercial theatres.
There is a completely valid argument that part of the emotional impact of many narrative films is enhanced by the "more perfect than life" representation of the characters and locations that film as a capture medium lends itself to, regardless of display technology. There is also a cogent argument that the artistry of image makers and storytellers when working with film is so sophisticated at this point that getting the same level of finesse with a digital rig will require more than a year or three of evolution.
Cheers - #19
Coffee vs tea
I get the point about the inherent disparity between projection technologies yielding differences between my two scenarios that could largely overwhelm the viewers appreciation of, for instance, resolution.
My core contention is that if you stipulate film as the projection media, that even though both paths include a trip to DI, you have handicapped the end to end digital pipeline.
Insert caveat: Perceived image quality is based on a number of factors (insert several books worth of info here) that include color accuracy, color gamut, clarity, resolution, conditioned response, ad infinitum.
I am contending that with a reasonable color rendition similarity (much, though not all of which can be achieved in DI) that genuine 4K resolution from end to end would put an image on a large screen that would be considered superior by most viewers to the nominal 1.2K image some studies show is typical of projected film prints in commercial theatres.
There is a completely valid argument that part of the emotional impact of many narrative films is enhanced by the "more perfect than life" representation of the characters and locations that film as a capture medium lends itself to, regardless of display technology. There is also a cogent argument that the artistry of image makers and storytellers when working with film is so sophisticated at this point that getting the same level of finesse with a digital rig will require more than a year or three of evolution.
Cheers - #19
Stuart English
Red Team
Broadcast
Broadcast
Getting back to the original point, which was broadcast use and higher resolution:
resolution doesn't make makeup more difficult - interlace and edge sharpening do.
Broadcast
Getting back to the original point, which was broadcast use and higher resolution:
resolution doesn't make makeup more difficult - interlace and edge sharpening do.
If one accepts that, it's equally as interesting to consider that when film that has gone through a DI process is projected digitally, it is not really handicapped at all. In some ways, it's actually enhanced because the entire IP/IN duplication step is bypassed.
I would agree with that in terms of technical merit. I wouldn't necessarily agree on aesthetic merit, particularly if the film print is a contact print made photochemically from the original negative. As you rightly pointed out, digital origination is enhanced by digital presentation, and handicapped by film presentation. I would add that film origination, in many ways, is enhanced by photochemical finishing - at least in terms of pure information retention - and handicapped by DI, once again, in terms of pure technical merit. However, in the real world, such an approach is rare, so your statement would more often than not be true.
Edge sharpening, yes. Interlace, I don't agree. The same problem is just as apparent on 720/60p broadcast, which if sourced from 24p (almost always the case for entertainment material) or sourced directly as 60p (for live broadcast) has never been interlaced.
Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
And just to clarify my point earlier about Scarlet competing with broadcast cameras, I did say there would be some gotchas for ENG. I don't believe Scarlet will replace ENG cameras, nor will it necessarily replace cameras on TV shows overnight. But I do think documentary filmmakers, perhaps some reality shows, certain network shows, etc. will have a close look at Scarlet, especially if the 1080P RGB mode is very good, and the workflow is strong right out of the box. Also, it's important to note that lenses will be a major factor in some people's adoption to a camera like Scarlet. So, it will be interesting to see the final technical specs, lens information, etc. when it becomes available.