What 8k will look like.

[Björn Benckert]

On the link I uploaded a 6k FF shot placed on a 8k canvas...

Just did a fair test. Shot the weapon 6k 3:1 (I believe that is highest bit rate for 8k) Then I put the result onto a 8k canvas and rendered out some prores 422 files and tifs at 8k, UD and 2k. Just to get an idea of what the 8k beast will be like.
So with a bit of imagination you can look at these clips on your 8k monitor… lol. Or play them in resolution 1:1 and see how it the 8k weapon will perform.

What is interesting to me is how clean and sharp things get when down sampled to 4k not to mention 2k, which looks like glass. not that the image does not hold up for 8k but the downsampling to UHD from 8k will be the bomb that blows the other camera manufactures out of the water.

Just to Imagine to have that Realestate of picture that is now black in those renders with the same picture quality as whats playing in the center is to me mind blowing… talk about being able to zoom in and pan around or imagine how much more epic such shot would be.

Do not look at color, contrast ratios etc. It´s just my playing with my Trump 58 and lowcon iris filter. I can not wait to see how that lens looks when it fill those black edges/corners on the vista frame

https://app.frame.io/d/2T0eqoPq

Download an look 1:1


here is one 8k frame as flikr link:

Still 8k 2 8k00000582 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

look 1:1

 

[Brad Grimm]

I could be wrong but I believe the highest compression for 8K will be 5:1.

 

[Ugo Del]

Why is clean and sharp a good thing? Sorry to be the devil's advocate, I'm really curious about 8k. Just wondering what it is all about. I think it's impressive when I focus on the technology side. But 5k is already so clean and sharp. People are pushing iso now to add some texture and grain, and add lowcon filters to soften the image. Does that also mean that we will go back to the big 5D period where everything was super blurry, with crazy shallow dof? Reframing too is nice to perfect a shot or stabilize it by doing it slightly. But framing is an art, the choice of the lens, the angle, etc. Either you know what you want at the end of the day and then you don't reframe and just shoot the area you have in mind, either you don't know and think that you will decide at the end by cropping a 4k area in the super big 8k image which sounds lazy and random when your 28mm shot will become a 50mm shot. Again, just being the devil's advocate, I'm impressed by the technology of a 8k Red, but seeing all the extra cost in data, processing etc., I'm still trying to understand how it will be used and how it will improve movies and videos.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I could be wrong but I believe the highest compression for 8K will be 5:1.

Yes you are probably right. did the math wrong. thinking it´s a third more data but it´s actually more. but again 5:1 and 3:1 the difference is difficult to spot. Especially on weapon. The interesting thing to me is to see the downsample to UHD.

Why is clean and sharp a good thing? Sorry to be the devil's advocate, I'm really curious about 8k. Just wondering what it is all about. I think it's impressive when I focus on the technology side. But 5k is already so clean and sharp. People are pushing iso now to add some texture and grain, and add lowcon filters to soften the image. Does that also mean that we will go back to the big 5D period where everything was super blurry, with crazy shallow dof? Reframing too is nice to perfect a shot or stabilize it by doing it slightly. But framing is an art, the choice of the lens, the angle, etc. Either you know what you want at the end of the day and then you don't reframe and just shoot the area you have in mind, either you don't know and think that you will decide at the end by cropping a 4k area in the super big 8k image which sounds lazy and random when your 28mm shot will become a 50mm shot. Again, just being the devil's advocate, I'm impressed by the technology of a 8k Red, but seeing all the extra cost in data, processing etc., I'm still trying to understand how it will be used and how it will improve movies and videos.

I think you and I look at these things far different but just to try to explain.

No, the Bit rate per second is identical to weapon 6k so data costs would not have to differ. Look at Phils numbers and understand that both cameras max at the same bit rate. Having 8k gives you simply more options, if wanted lower noise ,better lowlight, greater FOV on the same lens etc.

The lower noise give better DR which makes it possible to light with less, more un even, and ill balanced lights. Some see that as a huge cost and time saver or simply a way to improve your results or more possibilities that open up. Having more in the low end allow you to stop down more, that gives you better highlight protection some people things more highlight protection is better than clipping... This years oscar went to the guy shooting in practical light using large highres sensor with the additional DR that it comes with (they used Alexa also) but the difficult light shots was only possible with the huge downsampling and the extra DR the X provided, possibly he would win the oscar using a VHS camera but I have doubts about it.

And no matter if you like sharp or not, its easy to mess up an image, blur it in post , filter in camera, or both. But I have still not learned how to run an image so it goes sharp from not being sharp. So to me it´ quite clear that having the option to shot sharp and in better / higher quality is never a bad option to have. Simply Weapon 8k can shoot 4k, raven on the other hand can not shoot 8k. So one of the two has more options, to me having options is a plus

The framing arguments? Now, if no matter where you point the camera you could record full 360 with no quality loss all the time with no extra cost or struggle you would opt against it? As it would ruin the "artform".. to me having the option to go in and alter the aim of the cramera in post is not ruining the art form it´s improving it. So as you think like that, is prerecord also ruining the artform?

 

[Christopher*Seguine]

Seem like it would have to be 6:1 compression ratio at best for 24fps to stay under 300MB/sec limit

8192 x 4320 x 24fps x 16bits = 1,698.69 / 6:1 compression = 283.12 MB/sec

Yes you are probably right. did the math wrong. thinking it´s a third more data but it´s actually more. but again 5:1 and 3:1 the difference is difficult to spot. Especially on weapon. The interesting thing to me is to see the downsample to UHD.

No, the Bit rate per second is identical to weapon 6k so data costs would not have to differ. Look at Phils numbers and understand that both cameras max at the same bit rate.

 

[Brad Grimm]

Seem like it would have to be 6:1 compression ratio at best for 24fps to stay under 300MB/sec limit

8192 x 4320 x 24fps x 16bits = 1,698.69 / 6:1 compression = 283.12 MB/sec

Jarred posted a pic of 8K at 5:1 awhile ago.

 

[Les Hillis]

Why is clean and sharp a good thing? Sorry to be the devil's advocate, I'm really curious about 8k. Just wondering what it is all about. I think it's impressive when I focus on the technology side. But 5k is already so clean and sharp. People are pushing iso now to add some texture and grain, and add lowcon filters to soften the image. Does that also mean that we will go back to the big 5D period where everything was super blurry, with crazy shallow dof? Reframing too is nice to perfect a shot or stabilize it by doing it slightly. But framing is an art, the choice of the lens, the angle, etc. Either you know what you want at the end of the day and then you don't reframe and just shoot the area you have in mind, either you don't know and think that you will decide at the end by taking a 2k or 4k area in the super big 8k image which sounds lazy and random when your 28mm shot will become a 50mm shot. Again, just being the devil's advocate, I'm impressed by the technology of a 8k Red, but seeing all the extra cost in data, processing etc., I'm still trying to understand how it will be used and how it will improve movies and videos.

Part of the attraction of the clean and sharp image is simply due to how difficult it is to attain from a technological standpoint. 8K moving images, at 24+ fps, that don't look like crap, from a digital sensor, in a package smaller than a loaf of bread, recorded to biscuit-sized media...is, as you say, impressive.

From a more artistic point of view, the clarity of the 8K Dragon image simply provides a big clean canvas onto which all sorts of creative choices can be applied during shooting and in post. People will make use of that in all sorts of ways, including ways they wouldn't have been able to before.

Re-framing will be useful while most people are still viewing content at 2K or less, but as you say, it will be a double-edged sword, with potential for being used carelessly. Although, that could lead to a new visual aesthetic in itself, who knows. Got to remember too the RED 8k camera's will be financially out of reach for most people, and not available in great numbers, so that will shape somewhat the kind of content being created with them.

I think lenses will play a big part in how this new bigger resolution will be perceived. The quality of the lenses and how they're used will be more obvious than ever. Which ties in with the re-framing thing, because you won't be doing much of that if only a quarter of your massive 8K frame is in focus due to a massively shallow depth of field. And shooting at f8 for a deeper depth of field will influence your lighting and staging, and may require using lenses that won't introduce their own softness around the edges...

At the moment, I'm seeing the RED 8K (and other high-end, high resolution camera's) in two ways. Firstly, as simply a bigger 'more' version of the same thing a lot of people are already using and which, understandably, a lot of people aren't that interested in investing in. And secondly, as tools that can be used to create, for the first time, the digital/modern equivalent of the old VistaVision type images and movies, which used the larger film frame size for increased image-quality and for large-scale and more immersive framing.

Yes, you can re-frame with and zoom into the larger 8K image, and you can downscale it to clean it up, but you can also project it onto a massive screen without lossy up-scaling.

Not saying there wouldn't be other benefits to shooting 'normal' content at 8K, but there's stuff we haven't seen yet that won't even be possible to see until 8K Weapons are used to shoot it.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Part of the attraction of the clean and sharp image is simply due to how difficult it is to attain from a technological standpoint. 8K moving images, at 24+ fps, that don't look like crap, from a digital sensor, in a package smaller than a loaf of bread, recorded to biscuit-sized media...is, as you say, impressive.

From a more artistic point of view, the clarity of the 8K Dragon image simply provides a big clean canvas onto which all sorts of creative choices can be applied during shooting and in post. People will make use of that in all sorts of ways, including ways they wouldn't have been able to before.

Re-framing will be useful while most people are still viewing content at 2K or less, but as you say, it will be a double-edged sword, with potential for being used carelessly. Although, that could lead to a new visual aesthetic in itself, who knows. Got to remember too the RED 8k camera's will be financially out of reach for most people, and not available in great numbers, so that will shape somewhat the kind of content being created with them.

I think lenses will play a big part in how this new bigger resolution will be perceived. The quality of the lenses and how they're used will be more obvious than ever. Which ties in with the re-framing thing, because you won't be doing much of that if only a quarter of your massive 8K frame is in focus due to a massively shallow depth of field. And shooting at f8 for a deeper depth of field will influence your lighting and staging, and may require using lenses that won't introduce their own softness around the edges...

At the moment, I'm seeing the RED 8K (and other high-end, high resolution camera's) in two ways. Firstly, as simply a bigger 'more' version of the same thing a lot of people are already using and which, understandably, a lot of people aren't that interested in investing in. And secondly, as tools that can be used to create, for the first time, the digital/modern equivalent of the old VistaVision type images and movies, which used the larger film frame size for increased image-quality and for large-scale and more immersive framing.

Yes, you can re-frame with and zoom into the larger 8K image, and you can downscale it to clean it up, but you can also project it onto a massive screen without lossy up-scaling.

Not saying there wouldn't be other benefits to shooting 'normal' content at 8K, but there's stuff we haven't seen yet that won't even be possible to see until 8K Weapons are used to shoot it.

Agree for the most part. But what you say about lenses I think is not so critical. As it´s far more easy to make good vista covering lenses than to make good 16mm or 35mm covering lenses. Simply the precision is not as key when the image circle can be bigger. And if you think of it they are not that expansive. Alexas cost about the same and there is quite few of those in use.

this frame 8k 2 2k... Imagine picture not cropped but filled to the edge. It´s shot with a lens that you can buy for a couple of dollars and that is not known to be a sharp lens. Still it it hold sharpness qualities on par or better than most cine lenses due to the sensor since, no? image does not really have issues with noise or any such thing.

[/url]Still 8k 2 UHD00000582 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr[/IMG]

full 2k res link.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/108703124@N02/24547705971/sizes/o/

 

[Christopher*Seguine]

Jarred posted a pic of 8K at 5:1 awhile ago.

Then I guess at 8k to do 5:1 it drops down from 16bit to 12bit precision to stay under 300MB/sec.

 

[Phil Holland]

Nice Björn. I've been fortunate to see the 8K a couple of times and it's been on my mind a lot about what will be alluring to shooters and clients about the camera.

A couple of things I can think of, though obvious. 8K Resolution.



16X the resolution of 2K formats. 4X the times of 4K. That's a lot of image that can be used for horizon leveling, geometric correction, cropping in/re-framing, stabilization, small post camera moves, VFX tracking, and better keying, etc. Additionally the concept of shooting 8K and scaling down to 4K is pretty appealing from a numbers standpoint. Same for 8K to 2K for that matter.

I think additionally one of the allures of this VistaVision+ format is lens flexibility. There's a whole lot of glass that is possible here. Not only that, this format is rather "wide angle friendly". If you're used to a 14mm lens for instance on Super 35mm, the HFOV for 14mm is 9mm based on the relative crop factor at 8K FF. Insanely wide. And there's wider glass than that even.

Oddly, something else I've been thinking of regarding 4K and 8K is how people frame. Composition is always the first thing to consider, but there's resolution there to hold the viewers attention on wider shots with the actors not taking up as much frame. At CineGear last year seeing the EWS from the helicopter on the 8K display and seeing this one guy on top of a mountain. Seeing him and what he was wearing as well as the detail from the mountain top was pretty insane.

 

[Les Hillis]

Agree for the most part. But what you say about lenses I think is not so critical. As it´s far more easy to make good vista covering lenses than to make good 16mm or 35mm covering lenses. Simply the precision is not as key when the image circle can be bigger. And if you think of it they are not that expansive. Alexas cost about the same and there is quite few of those in use.

this frame 8k 2 2k... Imagine picture not cropped but filled to the edge. It´s shot with a lens that you can buy for a couple of dollars and that is not known to be a sharp lens. Still it it hold sharpness qualities on par or better than most cine lenses due to the sensor since, no? image does not really have issues with noise or any such thing...

I was actually thinking of examples of poorly performing S35 cine-lenses when referring to the importance of lens quality for shooting 8K. But as you say, there are good FF 35mm Still and Medium-Format lenses, along with newer Cine lenses designed for larger sensors that will give good edge to edge coverage of the RED 8K sensor.

Separate to the actual sharpness of the lens though, if that street shot frame of yours were extended into the black parts of the 8K frame, wouldn't it just be more out of focus imagery that we'd be seeing, making the narrow band that's in focus look even smaller by comparison? If so, does it show what Ugo was referring to as that crazy shallow Canon5D FF dof (also known as that 65mm, VV, almost Medium-Format, shallow depth of field)? And again, if so, would it be practical to stop down enough to avoid that effect? (What f-stop did you use in that street shot for example?) If not, and that that narrow dof is unavoidable, that'd be an example of what I meant about how the way the lenses are used will be more obvious (and requiring more attention) than ever, when shooting RED 8K.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I was actually thinking of examples of poorly performing S35 cine-lenses when referring to the importance of lens quality for shooting 8K. But as you say, there are good FF 35mm Still and Medium-Format lenses, along with newer Cine lenses designed for larger sensors that will give good edge to edge coverage of the RED 8K sensor.

Separate to the actual sharpness of the lens though, if that street shot frame of yours were extended into the black parts of the 8K frame, wouldn't it just be more out of focus imagery that we'd be seeing, making the narrow band that's in focus look even smaller by comparison? If so, does it show what Ugo was referring to as that crazy shallow Canon5D FF dof (also known as that 65mm, VV, almost Medium-Format, shallow depth of field)? And again, if so, would it be practical to stop down enough to avoid that effect? (What f-stop did you use in that street shot for example?) If not, and that that narrow dof is unavoidable, that'd be an example of what I meant about how the way the lenses are used will be more obvious (and requiring more attention) than ever, when shooting RED 8K.

aha yes miss understood your comment thought you where saying we need expansive lenses for 8k, but no we dont. About the sharpness I think again options is great. For 8k capture noise is less relevant so you can stop down more and get longer dof by doing so. But to me its just as relevant to be able to open up an even on wide lenses and be able to frame somerhing with selective focus. the "5d aproach" of shooting wide open and large sensor has to me very little relevance here. That trend was due to three things. 1. When you only have a 5d to film its also common that you are lacking lights. 2. If you where shooting 5d cloosed down you instantly had moare isues... 3. if you had to much detail the compression would be leathal... So wide open was the only way really. With weapon you have none of those isues and you most likley has some lamps in the budget aswell.

Im not saying a large sensor is optimal for any shot... but then again to me 8k weapon do all the smaller resolutions and sensor sizes just as well as any other current camera or better. But I think I will use it more in the 8k setting than anything else just as dragon was pretty much set to 6k as long as the frame rates and lenses used alowed us to do so.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

8K for storytelling

8K for storytelling

There's nothing inherently wrong with a close up shot in a narrative piece. That said, there are scenes where the tension/romance/relationships between characters can get lost when cutting to a close up. The orthodoxy is that without a close up you can't read all the complex nuances of a human's facial expression, and for some moments it may still be ideal. Other times, I feel like the editor is "forced" to cut to a close up or miss a story beat - which can disrupt the appreciation of larger body language cues, a character drawing back from another - or moving closer, etc.

If you can still read the facial expression in a medium shot because of the resolution and clarity, then you get both. Now the editor can cut when it fits the pacing or nails a story beat, rather than just to make sure the viewer can even see that subtle facial expression. Moreover, as a viewer, it's a more interactive experience if you can focus on what interests you in the wider shot instead of having it chosen for you. Are you more interested in the countenance of the character delivering the line - or the reaction of the character hearing it? Up to you.

Cheers - #19

 

[Nick Morrison]

Then I guess at 8k to do 5:1 it drops down from 16bit to 12bit precision to stay under 300MB/sec.

Or the boards aren't "exactly" 300MB/sec.

 

[Les Hillis]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a close up shot in a narrative piece. That said, there are scenes where the tension/romance/relationships between characters can get lost when cutting to a close up. The orthodoxy is that without a close up you can't read all the complex nuances of a human's facial expression, and for some moments it may still be ideal. Other times, I feel like the editor is "forced" to cut to a close up or miss a story beat - which can disrupt the appreciation of larger body language cues, a character drawing back from another - or moving closer, etc.

If you can still read the facial expression in a medium shot because of the resolution and clarity, then you get both. Now the editor can cut when it fits the pacing or nails a story beat, rather than just to make sure the viewer can even see that subtle facial expression. Moreover, as a viewer, it's a more interactive experience if you can focus on what interests you in the wider shot instead of having it chosen for you. Are you more interested in the countenance of the character delivering the line - or the reaction of the character hearing it? Up to you.

Cheers - #19

I'd like to see someone push the limits of the RED 8K frame to the point where they have to do two or three differently edited versions of the movie to suit large, medium and small viewing conditions, eg. Projection, T.V and Mobile. Or bring back pan and scan...if someone doesn't do it first for the nostalgic VHS release version of their recent...nevermind. :smile:

I imagine it'll all be mish-mashed into one-size-fits-all though, and if it's like some modern 3D and 65mm movies I can think of , I suspect the tendency will be to lead the viewers attention around by the nose rather than giving them something they can explore visually on their own.

But yeah, 8K for storytelling, it's a big multi-faceted subject and it'll be interesting to see where it goes.

 

[Les Hillis]

...But I think I will use it more in the 8k setting than anything else just as dragon was pretty much set to 6k as long as the frame rates and lenses used alowed us to do so.

I think you'll be love it and it'll be a perfect fit for the kind of stuff you do, look forward to seeing what you make of it.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Nice Björn,

8K...

Well,

I surely agree that the new realm of possibilities it brings are insane, in all aspects, take it for the Resolution, for the Sensor size and what it brings with in the look itself resolution aside, for the re-composing and post stabilizing reframing and son on...

For me really, is all about the final frontier I have been waiting for since the RED ONE and the 645 announcement...

I sold my MF systems way too early on... And have made a mistake...

But now finally I can go back in the fields and do the things I always wanted to do with MF that I didn't get to do, and do them in greatness...

To me it is in fact about Resolution... Sensor Size and it's particular depth that brings to the images when compared to S35... And now I can have it for both my Motion and Still work... Magic!

 

[Björn Benckert]

Nice Björn,

8K...

Well,

I surely agree that the new realm of possibilities it brings are insane, in all aspects, take it for the Resolution, for the Sensor size and what it brings with in the look itself resolution aside, for the re-composing and post stabilizing reframing and son on...

For me really, is all about the final frontier I have been waiting for since the RED ONE and the 645 announcement...

I sold my MF systems way too early on... And have made a mistake...

But now finally I can go back in the fields and do the things I always wanted to do with MF that I didn't get to do, and do them in greatness...

To me it is in fact about Resolution... Sensor Size and it's particular depth that brings to the images when compared to S35... And now I can have it for both my Motion and Still work... Magic!

Agree.
Another point for me is that 8k makes chroma key just that much better noise levels are reduced with the pixel count which means far easer to get out the fine detail. For most of the stuff we do I tend to like a lot of grain in the final product but it´ so much nicer to add that in the end of the process than getting it in camera as it really does not help the VFX work. Being able to scale and pan around in glass images, track stuff without gitter due to noise, pull perfec keys on fine detail etc and then when done give it all a choosen texture buy adding grain, evenly on the zoomed scaled blurred or what have you images. Well, can not wait to have it.

But yes above all the large sensor feel is what trumps it all for me. Just thinking that a 58mm would fill out whats blacks in these images makes me drool.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

On the link I uploaded a 6k FF shot placed on a 8k canvas...

That looks rather nice, given that it's an overcast day. The lens is obviously not very sharp, but it's not soft, either. It's definitely a bargain at only a few dollars. ;-)

Why is clean and sharp a good thing?

It is if you're shooting a true IMAX film. That's what the 8K sensor is for, I think. It's overkill for conventional features and TV, IMHO. The Raven gives you so much quality for the money - as long as you're not shooting for an IMAX screen.

EDIT: After seeing the trailer for Carol, I'm going to make a daring prediction: the Arri Alexa will soon go on the trash heap, but Super 16mm will live for many, many years. I love Downton Abbey, but can you imagine how it would look if it was shot in Super 16mm instead of 2K digital (Arri)?

Does that also mean that we will go back to the big 5D period where everything was super blurry, with crazy shallow dof?

I hope not. I don't want to be too offensive or arrogant, but only an imbecile would shoot like that. Nice bokeh does not depend on T1.4 and Vistavision. [EDIT: Fuck it, I do want to be offensive. Suck it up.]

The framing arguments? Now, if no matter where you point the camera you could record full 360 with no quality loss all the time with no extra cost or struggle you would opt against it?

Nothing comes at "no extra cost", Björn! You really want to spend the time in post-production?

I think additionally one of the allures of this VistaVision+ format is lens flexibility.

Well, I don't know. I'm not a lens expert but most SLR lenses - if that's what you're thinking of - are not good enough. However, the Zeiss Milvus lenses are quite amazing, from what I hear. And they are not as expensive as the Otus series.

I sold my MF systems way too early on... And have made a mistake...

Funny you mention that. I'm looking at MF digital backs (all CCDs) right now... ;-)

 

[Ketch Rossi]

...


Funny you mention that. I'm looking at MF digital backs (all CCDs) right now... ;-)

He he...

The new Leica S2 007 has a CMOS sensor... Was thinking on getting an other S2 006 with CCD sensor instead... As a Weapon 8k companion... Do to the close sensor size... 45x30 vs. 40x20 I could easily select a set 2:1 crop for both and finally build that gallery I had been after for the past years...