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 :)

Steve Yedlin, ASC on Resolution

Fabricio Morato said:
Steve's video made me want to try to do this for myself. I'm also using nuke and since he uses some group nodes, and never shows any config, I have no idea what are the scaling algorithms he is using. I've tried to replicate his upscaling methodology but so far it only points to the opposite of what he's showing (that the difference is minimal on 1:1 viewing).
Click to expand...

You have to add a random node between the transform nodes or else Nuke concatenates transforms. If you scale down by 50% then up by 200% it'll just do 1/2 * 2/1 = 1.0 and not actually transform the image. The only thing Steve did do right was add a 'breaking' node in between such as 'adjust bounding box' or 'black outside' which doesn't really do anything except force Nuke to do two separate transforms.
 
Thanks for pointing this out. In 3D animation HDR values do not anti-alias very well. Oversampling is often the only way to get something done, that doesn't look like a staircase on the end.

The whole discussion, so far I can tell, is based on still image comparison. But I think -- how content moves inside of the "K"s is important, which might be difficult to nail down for a "one size fits all" overview, as in "love story" vs "action story".



Graeme Nattress said:
Another aspect we've not talked about yet is HDR. I've been working on some HDR stuff this last week, so while I was testing that, I also took a look at resolution with respect to dynamic range. It's well known that contrast plays a big part in the perception of resolution in that low-contrast details are harder to see than high contrast details and that sharpening works by increasing edge contrast.

HDR allows for display of higher contrast imagery and thus can make high resolution easier to see. Conversely it can make it easier to determine soft images as soft, so resolution will play a bigger role as we move towards higher dynamic range displays.

Graeme
Click to expand...
 
I think Steve has some interesting points but to me hd is way to low to for the hotspot when higher resolution is not "needed". But it all comes down to the distans between the viewer and the screen at the end. Its hard to se the difference between 720p and 1080 on a 40" television at 6m for me. But I don't like to watch movies like that.

Also if you're in a forest with many high frequency details and start to move the camera slowly, or if the thin straws of grass is moving in the wind. Then hd will have a hard time to describe those bending thin lines of grass. And moire patterns are less likely to appear when shooting in higher resolution. With that said I wish you were not allowed to sharpen som much in uhd televions as it kills the point of uhd wich has a perfect opportunity to show everything more natural than hd.

And I know in this test he didn't care about the advantages in post with cropping in, reframing etc. I wonder what still camera Steve is using,
if its more than 2 megapixels? :)
Was an interesting watch, thanks Steve!
 
I agree a lot with Chris, and this link will be a great tool to go directly to the folks I deal with in post to help us all get the best results.
It seemed to me that post departments would gain a lot from this and by all means we are all more knowledgeable for watching and sharing all this info.
 
About Dunkirk

Christopher Nolan’s desire to make sure that Dunkirk proved to be “the highest resolution feature film ever made”

What a stupid ass, as we all know that resolution doesn't matter! :devil:


He even invented a new way to quantify a movie in : "trillion of pixels".

Echoing Nolan, Keighley agrees that the end result is “probably the highest-resolution Hollywood movie ever put on screen. You have about 216 megapixels in an Imax frame, so if you add up all the Imax footage in this movie — which is the majority of the movie — you get 24-trillion pixels on the screen in the Imax version, which is astounding. Because it’s from the original negative, you are getting amazing clarity and detail in the film prints. And the material that is not Imax in the movie is 5-perf 70mm; that estimate of 24-trillion pixels does not even include the 5-perf.”
 
Patrick Tresch said:
About Dunkirk

Christopher Nolan’s desire to make sure that Dunkirk proved to be “the highest resolution feature film ever made”

What a stupid ass, as we all know that resolution doesn't matter! :devil:


He even invented a new way to quantify a movie in : "trillion of pixels".

Echoing Nolan, Keighley agrees that the end result is “probably the highest-resolution Hollywood movie ever put on screen. You have about 216 megapixels in an Imax frame, so if you add up all the Imax footage in this movie — which is the majority of the movie — you get 24-trillion pixels on the screen in the Imax version, which is astounding. Because it’s from the original negative, you are getting amazing clarity and detail in the film prints. And the material that is not Imax in the movie is 5-perf 70mm; that estimate of 24-trillion pixels does not even include the 5-perf.”
Click to expand...

Well, he should have shot Alexa 65 then, since Steve's test show that an 11K scan of IMAX isn't presenting more details only a lot of more pixels than details, meaning the details are just blurry. All while Alexa 65 clearly wins on detail resolution. I personally think IMAX film looks best of anything, but going technical, Alexa 65 is the winner.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Well, he should have shot Alexa 65 then, since Steve's test show that an 11K scan of IMAX isn't presenting more details only a lot of more pixels than details, meaning the details are just blurry. All while Alexa 65 clearly wins on detail resolution. I personally think IMAX film looks best of anything, but going technical, Alexa 65 is the winner.
Click to expand...

Red Weapon 8k VV should be able to compete with Alexa 65 lossless RAW on image quality when using less compression.
(24fps 5:1 with HDRx it does 519 MB/s so it should be possible with the current hardware).
Going from 5:1 to 2.5:1 without HDRx should make a difference (lossless is between 2:1 and 3:1).

Current lenses are up to the task according to measurements of http://www.lenscore.org/

In conclusion, one can say that full frame sensors are still far from outresolving high grade lenses. Based on our measurements, the reasonable maximum resolution for full frame sensors is probably somewhere around 100MP. Above that, lenses would have to be significantly better than the 55mm Otus. Such lenses would most likely be even more expensive than this outstanding but pricey Zeiss prime, putting them out of reach of most photographers. Size and weight would probably be an issue too, as all current top performers in the LenScore™ database are on the large and heavy side.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Well, he should have shot Alexa 65 then, since Steve's test show that an 11K scan of IMAX isn't presenting more details only a lot of more pixels than details, meaning the details are just blurry. All while Alexa 65 clearly wins on detail resolution. I personally think IMAX film looks best of anything, but going technical, Alexa 65 is the winner.
Click to expand...

IMAX isn't really about resolution (that sounds like a great marketing line), but really about scale.

The massive square aspect ratio on a 3 story screen is...spellbinding.

I saw Dunkirk in both 70mm formats, and the IMAX 70mm BLEW AWAY the regular 70mm - which was a measly tight letterbox version of the massive, square IMAX experience.

The IMAX version literally had 30-40% more sky and sand, north and south, in every frame.

So...IMAX is so much more than resolution. And I'm sad the Nolan camp keeps pushing that.

Considering Dunkirk was the first narrative feature to make use of that IMAX (70%!!!), it's this SCALE that I thought really made it special. I didn't even notice the resolution, to be honest...
 
Last edited:
Nick Morrison said:
IMAX isn't really about resolution (that sounds like a great marketing line), but really about scale.

The massive square aspect ratio on a 3 story screen is...spellbinding.

I saw Dunkirk in both 70mm formats, and the IMAX 70mm BLEW AWAY the regular 70mm - which was a measly tight letterbox version of the massive, square IMAX experience.

The IMAX version literally had 30-40% more sky and sand, north and south, in every frame.

So...IMAX is so much more than resolution. And I'm sad the Nolan camp keeps pushing that.

Considering Dunkirk was the first narrative feature to make use of that IMAX (70%!!!), it's this SCALE that I thought really made it special. I didn't even notice the resolution, to be honest...
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what IMAX is about, I'm just referring to the Nolan quote about resolution. If he wanted the highest resolution possible then the Alexa 65 gives him sharper details compared to IMAX film as proved in Steve's test.

Personally I've never really understood why people like the "fuzzyness" of chemical film. I understand liking the colors and overall feel to the image, I like it as well, but whenever I'm seeing something truly sharp at high resolution without much noise on my big projector it still hits me as awesome. Whenever I see a movie shot on film it feels out of focus. A true 4K projected image from an Alexa 65 blows most other things away when it comes to clarity and you should be able to show those images in the same way as the IMAX 70 was shown.
 
Doing max and regular formats from the same capture is a tricky one. Check this IMAX frame guide and then think that you need to cut it out of a regular or even widescreen framing.

Sacred Master IMAX DOME by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

Horizon line should be about 1/3 from the bottom of the image, far below normal in other words. Corner and sides are way out of the eye scan and can't hardly be used for more than fill out.

So shooting for both regular and Imax is if not impossible, a huge compromise. Then also best possible parameters for camera movement and dof is far in between.


Regarding this test and the alexa 65 standing next to other cameras is not really valid for anything. Lenses need to be different, light is not optimised for the different cameras and a lot of other things where in play. Sure its a good camera but the looks of it from this test I would not read to much into.
 
interesting comment about scale - yes I can appreciate that - I saw gigapixel project museum show a few years back and to see the entire wall of a museum showing highly detailed texture was physically impacting.
BTW did the switch to regular 70mm scenes cause any visual annoyance? Is there a version of the IMAX chart that shows where a 70mm centercut would be pulled from?

When wizard of OZ was first remastered in 4K I saw it at NY theatre with full Academy framing - no way anyone has ever seen wizard of oz unless in the original format. Artistic choice.
 
For the benefit of C Burkhart's duplicate thread - I wrote a reply while eating a sandwich that I didn't want to waste...

Its nicely presented and there's much to agree with. Namely that we have many more things to talk about than resolution. I have always contended though that resolution is actually the underdog argument in the professional world. Its not fashionable to do anything but discount it, where no self respecting DoP would discount other more esoteric imaging aspects as 'good enough' or 'imperceptible'.

I do take issue with his initial comparison of 6k source : 4k master vs '2k source' : 4k master.

Firstly, he's not using an image captured at 2k, rather he's using a 2k image oversampled at 6k, re-upscaled to 4k.
The 2k source had all the benefits of the oversample, the oversample being largely the point of higher resolution capture.

Secondly, despite the 2k source being an oversampled intermediate image of atypical clarity, there was a visceral difference for me between the two - the lower resolution intermediate made for a crunchier less pleasant image, as borne out by his deeper dive into the pixels.

Resolution isn't everything, and it isn't what many people take it for... but choice of resolution is integral to many aspects that are much more respected variables for cinematic imagery. Compression, grain and hence exposure are intrinsically affected by resolution, and this is not well represented in most explorations of the concept.

What I truly take away from Yedlin's very well produced examples, is the phenomenal power and flexibility afforded us in modern postproduction, allied to a tremendous flexibility in capture methods.
Oh and one other thing - it reminded me that dirt on the negative has not been missed in recent years...
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
I just stuck a camera out the window. If the average viewer can't tell (from only 1080p downscales!) which was shot at 6k and which was shot at 3k I'll eat a comically large cowboy hat.
Click to expand...


Now try shooting in S35 framing with same lens on Alexa and Epic, put in same 4K motion sequence (not a still frame), inter cut their shots (not side by side), and show that on typical viewing distance and FOV (TV set and cinema screen, not computer or mobile screen) to the average viewer (someone not working with imagery for a living) and just tell them to watch the imagery (not preconditioning their attention to the resolution aspect).
 
You know it's interesting. I personally think most slightly older films shown on "high res" screens look like crap.
I don't want to see the makeup on the actors for the first time.
The illusion of cinema is just that, an illusion.
The almost comical pursuit of resolution has only underlined to me why Speed Panchro's and Vintage glass have returned.
Pure compensation for an image so death defyingly sharp that we are lost on the surface.
Thing don't look more real for me as the resolution goes up. They look more video-like.

An example:
Roy Andersson's modern work looks less enticing to me because of the added resolution (despite how much he might love his RED cameras) than his older work shot on film, which was certainly less resolute. Fog machines and painted backgrounds blended with the grain to become an illusion I could dive into. I feel this to be less the case with his work today.

The other thing I think is comical, is that if folks believe so much in 8K, why do they continue to shoot at shutter speeds which have so much motion blur ? The motion blur definitely effects the sharpness of the subject and it's seperation from the background. I mean why not shoot at much higher shutter speeds ? The answer - because it destroys the very same illusion I have been referring to.

My conclusion is that what is essentially a FullHD machine - the Alexa (even the XT is an internal upscale) has been successful because it has hit the sweetspot of illusion that we are already accustomed to, in a way that higher resolution cameras mostly do not. This is also I think why Arri has had so much difficulty in moving up to a higher K count - they realize it might actually take away from what they have already achieved.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top