Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 106
  1. Collapse Details
    #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,926
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Imamacuser View Post
    Are you semi-quoting the Marx Brothers movie Duck Soup?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPHjJnFqs-s

    Which misses the best scene from "Horse Feathers"



    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #32
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,527
    Default
    Part of the conversation that often gets missed is all in the words:

    Resolved detail vs pixel count.

    "Resolution" is often too connected to pixels.

    The other thing, is not everyone has shyte eyesight. When I sit in the living room or a movie theater, I can tell the difference between a 2K screen and a 4K screen. But here is the thing, I have a harder time telling the difference between 2K content and 4K content.

    "What?!" you say.

    Yes, that is because TV's and Projects have jagged little pixels, whereas content can have a smoother gradient from pixel to pixel. So, while I don't miss detail that is not there, I do see the jagged pixel edges when it is there. 2K content is fine, but 4k displays are important to enjoying media.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #33
    U-matic Member groveChuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    2,512
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DLD View Post
    Who are you going to believe - me or your own lying eyes?


    "There ain't no way to hide your lyin' eyes…"


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #34
    Senior Member Kindredmachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    754
    Default
    Internally we refer to this entire debate as optimizing "resolvable resolution" and the bottom line is that footage shot at native 2K doesn't look nearly as clean as a 2K deliverable captured at 4K. In fact, we say that 4K becomes "true HD" at 2K/1080 when you look at gained resolvable detail. I figured this was widely understood but maybe not. The reason for shooting on 5K, 6K and 8K cameras is not really for higher resolvable resolution at a 2K or even 4K deliverable, because it's true that you hit a wall where detail is just deleted when you downscale, but rather for added flexibility in post, i.e. reframing, FX work, and cleaner deliverables after heavy grades as well as getting a more organic deliverable from finer grain and texture.

    The differences might be subtle but when you're spending $20K a day shooting on a backlot, then why the heck would you not want that added flexibility if needed later on?!
    Last edited by Kindredmachine; 08-12-2017 at 03:07 AM.
    Brent Miller Jr.
    Executive Director, Ingenuity Films LLC
    www.IngenuityFilms.com




    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #35
    Senior Member roxics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,505
    Default
    Here is what I don't understand. 2K looks great in my opinion. I haven't upgraded my TV and continue to collect blu-rays rather than anything higher because I think it looks great. I can see the difference between 2K and 4K but it's not drastic enough for me to care that much. But aside from 3D and dynamic range, reality looks a lot better. So I assume there is still room to grow somewhere to get to the point where something is indistinguishable from reality. It seems like resolution would be part of that equation and it doesn't seem like 2K or even 4K would be enough. So why is it enough for a flat screen? Am I missing something here?


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    4,926
    Default
    If you look at the most recent specs issued by the "governing bodies", the aim is 8K @120p.

    As to 1080p, there's the Bayer 1080 (2.1 MPX) and then there's an RGB 1080 (6.3 MPX). Your basic consumer camera is 2.1 (and the DSLR's will skip//bin lines to get there). The ultra high end (of the yesteryear) F35 had a 12 MPX RGB "stripe" sensor that gave a 1080p ( http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...-is-the-sensor). Likewise, there are 4K sensor with 8.8 MPX (as in the GH4, ASI/II, G7, etc.) and there are 4.5K/5.7K (11-17 MPX) cameras that deliver 4K.

    Now, I am no Yedlin but I surmise that an F35 with its extra photo sites will deliver roughly the same quality image as a GH4 that is downsampled into 1080P RGB but it won't match the resolution of the 17.6 MPX sensor of F65. Hypothetically, Raw footage from any camera can go through multiple passes during an upscaling process to render resolution of something with many more pixels. Olympic OMD EM1 shift their pixels in a stills mode to produce 3-4 the stated sensor resolution. The problem is that the inexpensive processors aren't yet powerful enough even for portraiture in real time. At some point, they will be. And soon after that, you'd be able to get 4K video out of a 2K sensor and no one will be wiser for it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    1,742
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DLD View Post
    If you look at the most recent specs issued by the "governing bodies", the aim is 8K @120p.

    As to 1080p, there's the Bayer 1080 (2.1 MPX) and then there's an RGB 1080 (6.3 MPX). Your basic consumer camera is 2.1 (and the DSLR's will skip//bin lines to get there). The ultra high end (of the yesteryear) F35 had a 12 MPX RGB "stripe" sensor that gave a 1080p ( http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...-is-the-sensor). Likewise, there are 4K sensor with 8.8 MPX (as in the GH4, ASI/II, G7, etc.) and there are 4.5K/5.7K (11-17 MPX) cameras that deliver 4K.

    Now, I am no Yedlin but I surmise that an F35 with its extra photo sites will deliver roughly the same quality image as a GH4 that is downsampled into 1080P RGB but it won't match the resolution of the 17.6 MPX sensor of F65. Hypothetically, Raw footage from any camera can go through multiple passes during an upscaling process to render resolution of something with many more pixels. Olympic OMD EM1 shift their pixels in a stills mode to produce 3-4 the stated sensor resolution. The problem is that the inexpensive processors aren't yet powerful enough even for portraiture in real time. At some point, they will be. And soon after that, you'd be able to get 4K video out of a 2K sensor and no one will be wiser for it.

    Which is one of the reason's "our" 2/3" 3x CCD broadcast ENG cameras STILL look so good, even native 720P cameras like my tape & P2 VariCam's.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #38
    Senior Member Grug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,210
    Default
    Ultimately, the debate itself is a little bit useless because a seeming majority of people simply refuse to acknowledge or pay any heed to the concept of circle of confusion (which renders the majority of the discussion null and void).

    Steve puts it all about as clearly as can be said, in his presentation. But it just doesn't register in most people's brains for some reason.


    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #39
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,527
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Grug View Post
    Ultimately, the debate itself is a little bit useless because a seeming majority of people simply refuse to acknowledge or pay any heed to the concept of circle of confusion (which renders the majority of the discussion null and void).

    Steve puts it all about as clearly as can be said, in his presentation. But it just doesn't register in most people's brains for some reason.
    Steve is primarily talking about cameras. That is because in motion photographed images, resolution becomes less of an issue in resolving reality. There are no perfect edges in reality. Most edges are actually gradients when you zoom in.

    Increasing pixel count has benefits in smoothing fine detail, not increasing perceived sharpness. HD/2K has a terrible look when sharp. 4K doesn't need to be sharpened, it can have a smoother and more aesthetically pleasing look while still being naturally sharp.

    In Steve's comparisons, the 4K/6K resolutions had much smoother detail than 2K. The 2K had a hard edge to it, that looked less flattering. It is particularly important in rendering pore structure on actors' faces. That said, 2K doesn't have to be so over sharpened, and it can look wonderful.

    The argument for me, is less about resolution, and more about not seeing pixels. I see the actual pixel stair step edge on 2K projection and HD TV's.

    Most of us can agree that a GUI benefits jumping from HD to 4K, in how it resolves text. But the benefits in resolution on video is much less pronounced. But guess what is the first thing we see when a movie starts? yep, graphical text in the title and credits. On HD TV's and 2K projectors, our first impression of these films is this jagged edge text, and makes the thing feel low quality at the very start. This never happens with a 4K screen, even if the source content is 2K.


    I do not believe that Steve Yedlin is advocating HD/2K is superior, but that pixel counting is not improving viewing satisfaction on its own; that we don't need to compare and choose cameras based on one specification or salesmanship.

    "If we want to be authors and not shoppers..." - Steve Yedlin
    Last edited by James0b57; 08-12-2017 at 10:14 PM.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #40
    Senior Member roxics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,505
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by James0b57 View Post

    Most of us can agree that a GUI benefits jumping from HD to 4K, in how it resolves text. But the benefits in resolution on video is much less pronounced.
    I thought that was avery good argument he made when he said we need 4K monitors more than 4K cameras. The general consensus usually goes the opposite way. But he made a good point that video is always a gradient but graphics are not.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •