Why 4K?

[Martin Stevens]

Oh please don't reference from Ken Rockwell.... he is the Chance the Gardener of the photographic web community.

More is always going to be more no matter what math tries to prove it wrong.

Ahhhhh..he is not a "Village Idiot", nor a "Fool on the Hill". His info might be off in places...
well perhaps quite a bit off in places, but he is no Chance Gardener to be fair. Be respectful.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm shows resolution and perception of sharpness quite clearly. Ideally you want both resolution and sharpness as that looks best.

Graeme

 

[Jannard]

This is going to be a major topic for discussion in the next few months... I love hearing the views. What we have heard after showing the reels on the new Sony 4K projector is something like "I have never seen anything that looked that clean at that high of resolution and still look filmic". One of the things that HD cameras do is to sharpen so much to give apparent resolution at high magnification that it stops looking filmic.

Jim

 

[christopher witzke]

Thanks Graeme.... some actual clarity. A proper yet brief analysis.

Martin, Your right, I should not have said that. But, I just can't take anything Rockwell says without a getting ruffled.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm all for a raising of general standards and higher-quality options... as long as there isn't going to be some "resolution police" out there telling me I can't use diffusion filters or old lenses, etc.

Back when Technicolor used to insist on being co-producers of any Technicolor movie back in the 1930's and 40's, DP Jack Cardiff got a note that he had "ruined" a day of shooting on "Black Narcissus" because he used a fog filter for the climatic pre-dawn sequence - the Technicolor folks said that the footage was unusably soft and blurry. So they projected the footage and it looked quite lovely & spectacular, after which director Michael Powell tore into the Technicolor people for being artistic dolts in their quest to show-off their process. Later on, after "Black Narcissus" won the Cinematography Oscar, Natalie Kalmus of Technicolor often said that it was the best-photographed Technicolor movie in their history.

Yet years later, they did the same thing to Ozzie Morris on "Moulin Rouge", said he was ruining the movie with his use of fog filters and smoke, threatened to take the names off of the movie and absolve themselves of all blame for the softness of the image. After the high praise that the finished movie's cinematography got for recreating the look of Toulouse-Latrec's paintings, they apologized.

My point is that we make movies, not shoot resolution charts. Not every movie requires that every pore on an actor's face come into razor-sharp focus. We have a future ahead of us where we will -- and should -- see all types of photography, crisp & hard, soft & delicate, etc. And some of it won't measure-out to 4K.

I'd also point out that Red makes cameras that shoot 2K RAW for slow-motion shots, which would not meet the criteria for resolution that they are saying will necessary to future-proof their movies. They are also making a 3K RAW camera that will only measure 2-point-something-K in resolution.

 

[Steve Gal]

I'm all for a raising of general standards and higher-quality options... as long as there isn't going to be some "resolution police" out there telling me I can't use diffusion filters or old lenses, etc.

Back when Technicolor used to insist on being co-producers of any Technicolor movie back in the 1930's and 40's, DP Jack Cardiff got a note that he had "ruined" a day of shooting on "Black Narcissus" because he used a fog filter for the climatic pre-dawn sequence - the Technicolor folks said that the footage was unusably soft and blurry. So they projected the footage and it looked quite lovely & spectacular, after which director Michael Powell tore into the Technicolor people for being artistic dolts in their quest to show-off their process. Later on, after "Black Narcissus" won the Cinematography Oscar, Natalie Kalmus of Technicolor often said that it was the best-photographed Technicolor movie in their history.

Yet years later, they did the same thing to Ozzie Morris on "Moulin Rouge", said he was ruining the movie with his use of fog filters and smoke, threatened to take the names off of the movie and absolve themselves of all blame for the softness of the image. After the high praise that the finished movie's cinematography got for recreating the look of Toulouse-Latrec's paintings, they apologized.

My point is that we make movies, not shoot resolution charts. Not every movie requires that every pore on an actor's face come into razor-sharp focus. We have a future ahead of us where we will -- and should -- see all types of photography, crisp & hard, soft & delicate, etc. And some of it won't measure-out to 4K.

I'd also point out that Red makes cameras that shoot 2K RAW for slow-motion shots, which would not meet the criteria for resolution that they are saying will necessary to future-proof their movies. They are also making a 3K RAW camera that will only measure 2-point-something-K in resolution.

David,

This is a great post. Everyone is so concerned with sharpness and then they all want the old exotic glass and mess with the image most of the time. Just shoot the best quality you can and choose your look that you love.

 

[Matt W.]

I'm all for a raising of general standards and higher-quality options... as long as there isn't going to be some "resolution police" out there telling me I can't use diffusion filters or old lenses, etc.

Back when Technicolor used to insist on being co-producers of any Technicolor movie back in the 1930's and 40's, DP Jack Cardiff got a note that he had "ruined" a day of shooting on "Black Narcissus" because he used a fog filter for the climatic pre-dawn sequence - the Technicolor folks said that the footage was unusably soft and blurry. So they projected the footage and it looked quite lovely & spectacular, after which director Michael Powell tore into the Technicolor people for being artistic dolts in their quest to show-off their process. Later on, after "Black Narcissus" won the Cinematography Oscar, Natalie Kalmus of Technicolor often said that it was the best-photographed Technicolor movie in their history.

Yet years later, they did the same thing to Ozzie Morris on "Moulin Rouge", said he was ruining the movie with his use of fog filters and smoke, threatened to take the names off of the movie and absolve themselves of all blame for the softness of the image. After the high praise that the finished movie's cinematography got for recreating the look of Toulouse-Latrec's paintings, they apologized.

My point is that we make movies, not shoot resolution charts. Not every movie requires that every pore on an actor's face come into razor-sharp focus. We have a future ahead of us where we will -- and should -- see all types of photography, crisp & hard, soft & delicate, etc. And some of it won't measure-out to 4K.

I'd also point out that Red makes cameras that shoot 2K RAW for slow-motion shots, which would not meet the criteria for resolution that they are saying will necessary to future-proof their movies. They are also making a 3K RAW camera that will only measure 2-point-something-K in resolution.

Great example with Black Narcissus; that is such an awesome movie.

We've had a "4k" projection medium for quite a while in 35mm film, and even if we haven't really because the average print is shown out of focus and only resolves the oft-quoted 700 lines of resolution, 70mm has been around since the 1950s and resolves more than any modern digital camera or projector. But since the advent of saturation booking, larger-than-35mm format photography has been on its way out and the only strong argument for the reemergence of the "large-format roadshow" model can be found in Avatar on IMAX--which was shot in 1080p and about which no one is bemoaning a lack of resolution.

For 90% of theater-goes (those not in the front row at very large screens), 2k and 4k material projected at 4k looks essentially identical. Issues with pixellation found in HD digital projectors are in fact mitigated by bicubic scaling, so a 1080p source projected at 4k won't exhibit them so badly. And for the majority of shots, resolution barely matters anyway; CUs are generally soft and diffuse, motion blur is quite severe at 1/48th second shutter; only deep focus landscapes really benefit from that extra sharpness one bit. "Extreme" sharpness doesn't matter one bit for areas in motion or out of focus, though it does for Lawrence of Arabia or something. For me, black levels are way more important and increase perceived sharpness, anyway (so too does temporal resolution, as James Cameron rightly notes).

Besides, plenty of directors have chosen to use diffusion filters throughout the ages and it's been acceptable to all audiences thus far (beyond the examples you mention, the entire American Renaissance can more-or-less be cited). Hurt Locker looked great in 16mm. Bill Pope preferred the scaled-down 2k scans on Spider-Man 2 to 4k originals due to the biproduct of grain reduction.

Resolution is great, but this whole argument is ridiculous and the fervent response to it cult-like. Even w/r/t economic imperative, extra money from projecting in 4k is far secondary to mitigating additional production costs incurred from storage space, render time, etc. Kodacolor beat out Technicolor despite substantially worse image quality; likewise Panavision beat out Vistavision and the other expensive large-formats because it was "good enough" and cheap (and once Super35 became acceptably sharp, even anamorphic lenses decreased in big-budget use).

If history repeats itself, the next "big thing" will be an easy-to-use 48fps 3d camera--and whoever makes that first is going to see the real money.

 

[Jannard]

I'm all for a raising of general standards and higher-quality options... as long as there isn't going to be some "resolution police" out there telling me I can't use diffusion filters or old lenses, etc.

Back when Technicolor used to insist on being co-producers of any Technicolor movie back in the 1930's and 40's, DP Jack Cardiff got a note that he had "ruined" a day of shooting on "Black Narcissus" because he used a fog filter for the climatic pre-dawn sequence - the Technicolor folks said that the footage was unusably soft and blurry. So they projected the footage and it looked quite lovely & spectacular, after which director Michael Powell tore into the Technicolor people for being artistic dolts in their quest to show-off their process. Later on, after "Black Narcissus" won the Cinematography Oscar, Natalie Kalmus of Technicolor often said that it was the best-photographed Technicolor movie in their history.

Yet years later, they did the same thing to Ozzie Morris on "Moulin Rouge", said he was ruining the movie with his use of fog filters and smoke, threatened to take the names off of the movie and absolve themselves of all blame for the softness of the image. After the high praise that the finished movie's cinematography got for recreating the look of Toulouse-Latrec's paintings, they apologized.

My point is that we make movies, not shoot resolution charts. Not every movie requires that every pore on an actor's face come into razor-sharp focus. We have a future ahead of us where we will -- and should -- see all types of photography, crisp & hard, soft & delicate, etc. And some of it won't measure-out to 4K.

I'd also point out that Red makes cameras that shoot 2K RAW for slow-motion shots, which would not meet the criteria for resolution that they are saying will necessary to future-proof their movies. They are also making a 3K RAW camera that will only measure 2-point-something-K in resolution.

Take everything you just said and how that works with 1080P. The same framework should apply to 4K. I guess common sense has to play into this at some point.

If you include Super 8 footage in your 35mm film... does that exclude it from being released on BluRay? Hope not.

I agree that there should not be 4K Police. I have stated pretty clearly... "IMHO" and "not that I know anything". I "believe" that there are reasonable guidelines (not rules) that will help to shape what happens with 4K. It seems rather obvious that you don't pick an SD camera to shoot HD. By definition, HD is higher definition than SD. And you wouldn't pick an HD camera to shoot 4K. Exceptions? ... I guess. But SD, HD and 4K are separated enough that it shouldn't be too difficult to have them be what they are.

Jim

 

[Jannard]

For 90% of theater-goes (those not in the front row at very large screens), 2k and 4k material projected at 4k looks essentially identical.

Sorry to disagree on this one. What exactly did you see that looked essentially identical?

Stop by RED and we would be happy to show you 4K footage that doesn't look like 2K anything.

Jim

 

[Jonathon Laing]

One last point... IMHO, the easy rule should be "if it doesn't look any better at 4K than it does at 1080P... it shouldn't be released in 4K".

Pretty easy stuff.

Jim

Yet everybody knows it does look better at 4K and here we are... Debating about it...

 

[Matt W.]

Sorry to disagree on this one. What exactly did you see that looked essentially identical?

Stop by RED and we would be happy to show you 4K footage that doesn't look like 2K anything.

Jim

If I ever get some money together for a flight I will. Your products are extremely impressive and seem to be headed in a great and innovative direction.

That said, and with all due respect... A $200,000 digital 3d system with good monitoring and a clean workflow will make a bigger splash in Hollywood than a 5k camera at any price. There's a huge new market opening up rapidly and nothing except the out-moded and overpriced Pace system to fill it. Big resolution is nice, but there's no substantial preexisting demand and if there were, IMAX would be the first choice to fill it. But I won't say how to run a company...I'm very lucky to make $100 a day and can't even pay rent...

 

[Jannard]

If I ever get some money together for a flight I will. Your products are extremely impressive and seem to be headed in a great and innovative direction.

That said, and with all due respect... A $200,000 digital 3d system with good monitoring and a clean workflow will make a bigger splash in Hollywood than a 5k camera at any price. There's a huge new market opening up rapidly and nothing except the out-moded and overpriced Pace system to fill it. Big resolution is nice, but there's no substantial preexisting demand and if there were IMAX would be the first choice to fill it.

Matt... here is where I agree with you. Although it really is a separate issue.

RED 4K (RED Ray) is a 4K and 3D delivery system. We believe that these are the future formats that will matter.

Jim

 

[Andrew M.]

For 90% of theater-goes (those not in the front row at very large screens), 2k and 4k material projected at 4k looks essentially identical.
Resolution is great, but this whole argument is ridiculous and the fervent response to it cult-like. Even w/r/t economic imperative, extra money from projecting in 4k is far secondary to mitigating additional production costs incurred from storage space, render time, etc.

I don’t think the resolution is not important for the average viewer.
I just observed phenomenon with Avatar screening here in DC.
For last one month or so the small screen theatres offering digital low res projection of Avatar 3D are empty.
To see Avatar in IMAX format you have to book tickets two days ahead of time or you can’t get any sits.
First I thought that only 2D projections have empty sits, but after checking this a bit closer, people prefer to wait and see it on the IMAX. I guess IMAX is giving more immerse experience

4K gives you window like experience. You are just not aware of screen anymore.
It looks like you are just there, totally immerse in the movie.
Ask yourself, what is the difference looking out of the window and looking on exactly the same thing on a good 4K screen.


Andrew

 

[Matt W.]

Matt... here is where I agree with you. Although it really is a separate issue.

RED 4K (RED Ray) is a 4K and 3D delivery system. We believe that these are the future formats that will matter.

Jim

Awesome, looking forward to watching it and hopefully shooting for it! Don't forget to give us the ability to pull focus on both lenses and toe-in simultaneously (in one motion) and to record interocular distance, etc. as metadata in whatever 3d systems your company develops.

I guess IMAX is giving more immerse experience:

Avatar is 1080p 16:9 as projected in IMAX.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

RED 4K (RED Ray) ... and 3D delivery system.

First I have heard of that little spec. That's interesting...

 

[David Rasberry]

I am all for higher resolution acquisition and display in theatrical venues, even if it goes through a 2k DI it will look better if shot or scanned a 4k and displayed at 4k. Oversampling works at both ends of the chain.
I saw AVATAR 3D both in a 2k digital theater and in IMAX, though the 2k theater screen was bigger than the IMAX venue screen. That IMAX print definitely had a smoother more organic quality to it even though both originated with the same 2k DI process. The extra resolution definitely helps.

 

[Andrew M.]

Avatar is 1080p 16:9 as projected in IMAX.

I thought that Avatar on IMAX is projected at 96 fps and 2K times two, for two different eyes so if you include the ability of brain to combine two images it gives you perceived double resolution.

Am I wrong?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Resolution is necessary, but not sufficient to lead to image quality. Obviously, we can't live with zero resolution or else there'd just be a single large pixel on the screen and that's not fun to watch. But similarly, NHK have shown that massive amounts of resolution do not automatically lead to an aesthetically pleasing image.

However, one thing resolution does allow you to is to properly optically filter the image hitting the sensor to eliminate nasty aliases, yet still have more than enough detail left to make a pleasingly sharp image.

Although there's no aesthetic problem with having intentionally soft or degraded images, there's nothing worse than images or a poor projection leading to an soft image that leaves you perpetually cleaning your glasses in an attempt to make the image appear sharp.

Resolution is an important tool and it would be silly to say "I don't need any more" just as fps, DR, colour are all important tools. But resolution is what ties all those properties together. A single pixel has a colour and a dynamic range, and an fps, but until it has resolution, it's not an image.

Graeme

 

[Chris Clogg]

They are also making a 3K RAW camera that will only measure 2-point-something-K in resolution.

Either way, the Scarlet-fixed is my next step up from an HDV-level Canon HV-20. Having shot a lot of self-projects and small films, I really desire something that looks better (slow-motion is also a key seller for me). I'm not sure how many others are in the same boat as me.... as most people here seem to be a few $$ steps up from me.

Red has sold me over the last few years and so I've made my choice. I've actually become a bit biased towards Red now lol... but without them, I would have likely gone for a [insert competitor brand] camera, and enjoyed it nonetheless.

Of course this is if everything goes to plan... the $1000 price increase on it was the only hiccup for me so far, but I can't complain for what I was going to get, plus new features = excellent.

-cc

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I thought that Avatar on IMAX is projected at 96 fps and 2K times two, for two different eyes so if you include the ability of brain to combine two images it gives you perceived double resolution.

Am I wrong?

24fps per eye, but each frame is flashed to each eye twice. So each eye is presented with 48 frames per second, even though every two frames for each eye are identical. Trying to stretch this into a claim of "96 fps" is just that, a stretch. It does not really increase the perception of resolution, or at least not by much in a noticeable way. Our eyes can only be fooled into seeing so much resolution that isn't there... However, our eyes are very good at recognizing increased resolution that really is there and being able to quantify the extra detail, even if we can not technically resolve a difference in resolution at a given distance. Or to be more blunt about it, anyone viewing a 2K projection and comparing it to a 4K projection, at a typical theater screen distance, who claims they can't see the difference is either not really paying attention, has some form of mental block or bias, the projector isn't in sharp focus, or they probably need to get their eyes checked.

Back to the duplicate frame projection, sometimes called a butterfly shutter, this is no different than typical movie projectors that run their shutters at 48fps, even though they are displaying 24fps imagery. It's just that there's a separate system for each eye now.