What is 6K?

[Phil Holland]

Today I was asked what exactly 6K was. Which led to a conversation about visual quality and the potential 6K could hold during capture and in post.

Dragon is coming. And like a few of you out there I'm also fond of high resolution imaging.

But what is 6K?

• 6K is the maximum resolution of Epic Dragon. 6144x3160 or 19.4 megapixels at a 1.94:1 aspect ratio.
• 6K is 9.36x more pixels than 1080p.
• 6K is 8.78x more pixels than 2K.
• 6K is 2.2x more pixels than 4K.
• 6K is 1.4x more pixels than 5K.
• At 300 DPI you can make a 20.48x10.53 inch print from a full 6K Dragon image.
• At 150 DPI you can make a 40.96x21.067 inch print from a full 6K Dragon image.
• 6K is 14% more resolution than 5K for a pristine full debayer down to 4K. Meaning it's a 66.7% down sample/debayer to 4K.

If we're thinking about a 4K finish, having more resolution effects color and luminance in a good way. It also gives a bit more freedom for creative re-framing, cropping, or leveling. Fine and high frequency details will actually down sample into 4K and benefit from that extra resolution. There are many ways to work with and finish REDCODE for screen and print use. Over sampling and the use of a debayer pattern help eliminate aliasing artifacts. If you want crisp and detailed images there's options. If you want a smoother feel there's options. Just depends on what you're after and the workflow you choose.

6K holds relevance in the film scanning arena in both S35 and VistaVision scanning. However, per pixel resolution in relation to format size Dragon out resolves and has more captured dynamic range than motion picture stock.

So on several fronts, we're in some new exciting territory.

Just some food for thought this evening.

 

[Domenic Barbero]

I like you Phil. Thanks.

 

[Kwan Khan]

Nice

 

[Sean Cruser]

and we all watch the clock tick down and wait like its christmas eve

 

[Mark Toia]

Informative as always

 

[Matt Ryan]

Nice Phil, how about a chart of the available 6K format frame sizes in relation to one another?

 

[Michael J Brennan]

To be pedantic, 3 chip HD cameras have 3 x 2.1 million pixel sensors for a total of 6.3m pixels of camera output. When output is 4:4:4 it is a 6.3 mp image of non bayered or "guessed" info.

3chip tech ain't dead yet, three chip 4k and 8k output TV cameras are a feasible option as an effective way to enable use of high zoom ratio 2/3 inch TV zoom lenses, just saying no one is saying 6k isn't sharp as tacks.



Mike Brennan

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Sweet. I like what David Mullen wrote about Dragon ASC test footage - detailed, yet smooth and not over-sharpened. I remember one guy explaining to me the differences between 65mil images and digital 4K some year and a half ago. High-res digital is too harsh - he said - I love film more, because it's smooth, even the super high-res scans off 65mm negative.

There's a lot of ways to smoothen the image - optical filtration, nets, resampling settings, post diffusion, etc... It's easier to get rid of fine detail and "too much" resolution then gain it back.

 

[SUNILPREM]

Great info Phil..............thanks


Sunil Prem

 

[Phil Holland]

Nice Phil, how about a chart of the available 6K format frame sizes in relation to one another

Coming once the official info has been hammered into the floorboards (firmware).

 

[Antonio Forjaz]

nicely done, thanks Phil

 

[Sergio Perez]

If there was a vote to promote someone to moderator status at reduser, I would promote you Phil. Your posts are invaluable and always on the point. Always sharing and doing it in an informative, objective and thought out manner. You are one of the most valuable members here, thanks for sharing.

 

[Phil Holland]

If there was a vote to promote someone to moderator status at reduser, I would promote you Phil. Your posts are invaluable and always on the point. Always sharing and doing it in an informative, objective and thought out manner. You are one of the most valuable members here, thanks for sharing.

Cheers Sergio. I have this feeling if I had such a blade I'd be drunk with power

 

[Tim Bradley]

Thanks Phil. Nice clear simple explanation - even some producers could understand it

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks Phil. Nice clear simple explanation - even some producers could understand it

That's exactly who I was talking to today. Friendly talk and more of an explanation really.

Such interesting conversations now that 4K is populating the ballpark more and more. Lot's of talk about exactly when 4K will be readily available in homes. Lots of talk about market penetration. I'm at a point where I really don't want to deliver anything less than 4K. Beyond the technical merit there's a very personal thing regarding image quality that's going on there.

That might be due to my still photography or film scanning background.

But, here's an interesting thought that came up on the phone today.

If you were shooting a portrait of somebody destined for print would you shoot with a 2 megapixel camera or say a 8.8-19.4 megapixel one? What if you needed to print that image on a 20-60 foot wall and have people view it not from the street, but in the same room? How about a 4 foot wall? 2 feet? There's certainly some relevance to print DPI and standard print sizes the way I look at it too.

 

[John Marchant]

Getting to people to think about acquisition in the same way we take for granted in digital stills is key. Oversample - go big, reap the benefit. 6k is a brave new world

I like to run off large format prints of stills from our work to decorate the office. The next round of these is going to take up a big chunk more wall-space!

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Nicely done Phil... Again.


However I find that for non knowledgeable Producers Shooters, I make them best understand the HUGE difference in going Dragon 6K vs. 4K by telling them that it offers almost double the image area with both axis calculated.

And of course telling them that Dragon is about 10 times full HD also gets them.


Even if not truly accurate mathematically is the fastest and simplest way to make them understand, then come the question about the rest, and why the need for more, so you go, Image Reframing for Stabilization, or Zooming in to a certain point in either direction for any reason, Downsampling been always 100% best then upscaling and so on...


I even made an example with Pizza slices to make it more clear...


But having a nice comparison as you did always helps...

 

[Michael J Brennan]

When comparing formats, we need to make distinctions between the concepts of output pixels, sensor pixels and resolution.

For instance, if there are 19.4mp on the dragon sensor then it does not have 9.4x the sensor pixels of a 3 chip HD camera.

A 6k pixel screen or print has 9x the pixels of a 2k image.

All things being equal, 6k camera has 9x the resolution (resolving ability) of a 2k image??

Just askin'


Michael J Brennan

 

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Thanks, Phil! However, to add something here: my old R1 produced a photo print that was over 6ft long and 3ft high. It was the M sensor and you couldn't see ANY pixies. With 6K I'm sure we could make it larger and have the same results.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

All things being equal, 6k camera has 9x the resolution (resolving ability) of a 2k image??

No: 3x. 9x the pixels, 3x the resolution.

Thanks, Phil! However, to add something here: my old R1 produced a photo print that was over 6ft long and 3ft high. It was the M sensor and you couldn't see ANY pixies. With 6K I'm sure we could make it larger and have the same results.

I am not an expert on printing, but you certainly don't need to print to 300dpi all the time. A good source file can produce a large print, even at lower dpi.