F3: A top DP went 2K and not 4K

Shoots56

Carbonite Member
I found this interesting as he is one of my favorite working DP's today. This article was partially copied from the Nov. edition of Visual Imaging News about Rodrigo Prieto shooting a short The Human Voice. It isn't Sony related exactly but I thought it applies since it talks about resolution and HD vs 4K for a moment. This resolution subject is something that I'm tired of talking about with people honestly.

He is testing a C500

The tests included the standard bowls of fruit and colour charts, as well as elements from the set, like furniture,

wallpaper, a lamp, and the wardrobe, with textiles hung from C-stands. There was also a stand-in to gauge skin tones.

Prieto shot this setup with a range of over- and under- exposure, in varied lighting configurations, and in 4K 8-bit

and 2K 12-bit formats.


“It was clear to me that the subtlety of colour was best captured at the 2K with a 12-bit depth,” says Prieto. “I

could see more nuance in the skin tones, and in the apple, more of the different shades of red and yellow. I found that

intriguing because, for me, one of the drawbacks of digital in my experience is the colour depth compared to film negative.
Particularly in skin tones, I find that sometimes digital renders skin relatively flat in the sense that it doesn’t see or

doesn’t capture all the hundreds and thousands of nuances of colour of the skin.

“The resolution difference between the 2K and 4K was not apparent to me unless we zoomed in to something with fine

detail,” he says. “Then you could definitely see it. But the difference in colour was more apparent and more important,

as well as the latitude in the under-exposure, which was a little bit more detailed at 12-bit. For our purposes, the differ ences in resolution between 4K and 2K were negligible, but the proper rendering of the many colours in her face was essential. So for me, it became a no-brainer.”

Digital Imaging Technician Francesco Luigi Giardiello co-ordinated with EFilm and did some “basic, but very effective”

on-set colour grading for Prieto. The dailies were 10-bit, but they included the basic colour timing that was done on set, so

Ponti could edit with Prieto’s starting point in terms of colour. “Francesco was really a huge asset on this film,” says the

cinematographer. “He has a good eye, and he made everything very simple and helpful for us. We liked the way the colours were

reproduced on set using the lookup table provided by EFilm.
 
Yeah, FD Times has an in-depth article on the production in the current issue. The 4k recording from the C500 is 10-bit (not 8-bit), but they opted for 2K 12-bit for superior colour, tonality and a tiny bit more DR.

Which I totally get. Detail is one thing, but as soon as you have enough of it to project it on large screens comfortably... well, you have enough. Colour nuance and tonality are far more intricate (and to my mind important) aspects of an image (once you have a basic level of image quality and resolution at least).
 
It was interesting what he said about having to zoom in to see a difference which I can't seem to explain to people who think their $5000 project needs to be raw 4K. I can even explain how many 100's of big movies are shot and shown in 1080 or 2K in huge theaters, including IMAX, but that isn't goo enough either apparently. I may just have to make a reel with new F3 footage on it and call it 4K just so I can point to it after one of these conversations and say, "Ok I can use my cinema camera then.. its only $200 more a day than my normal one".
 
That's a whooooole other discussion! :tongue: But 4K aficionados don't tend to consider that the high-resolution film negatives they want to match so badly, had nothing like 4K resolution by the time they were turned into release prints. Which is why people have been remarking for years that 1080p/2K shot and projected films almost look too sharp (even though they started off with considerably less resolution than a film negative) - it's because you lose so much less detail in post-production with a purely digital acquisition pipeline.

And don't even get me started on circle of confusion and the physical inability of the human eye to resolve the added resolution of 4K if you're sitting in the back half of the movie theatre!

But boys will be boys, and higher numbers mean things must be better! ...right?
 
I am with you there! I have dipped into the whole fact that countless top DP's on huge movies often apply filters and nets to further degrade images. Some of the best work is netted subtlety and often. Even in the modern era, Kaminski... enough said.
 
He is testing a C500


Prieto shot this setup with a range of over- and under- exposure, in varied lighting configurations, and in 4K 8-bit

and 2K 12-bit formats.
By themselves, "4K 8-bit" and "2K 12-bit" only tell a part of the story. RAW or coded? What codec? S-log? Colour sub-sampling? Etc etc. And without giving the full details, it's a pretty meaningless quote.

In particular, 12 bit should be regarded as ESSENTIAL for RAW working, but for "ready to view" images I doubt you'll see much if any difference over 10 bit, even 8 bit. As the data comes off the sensor, it's effectively not directly viewable for many reasons - it needs processing. And that operation will inevitably mean that the least significant bit or two won't anymore carry useful data, hence why it's then normal to truncate for processed video. Why bother to waste memory on what is effectively noise?

But why only 8 bit 4K? I don't doubt 12 bit 2K may have looked better - but would it have been the same with 4k 10 bit?

The point about RAW is that it is what it implies. The raw data, pixel by pixel off the chip, with no processing. Hence, in terms of flexibility, it cannot be bettered for post work. And in terms of resolution, it should correspond to the chip dimensions. How else can you expect the pixel-pixel correlation?

And the point about a 3840x2160 sensor is that it will give top quality 1080 HD video, even with simple processing. And use more complicated processing (deBayering) and you take fuller advantage of the possible extra resolution. Shoot RAW and any decision can be deferred to a future time. In other words, RAW 4K is about a lot more than just resolution. For starters, really good REAL resolution can mean little need for detail enhancement, and that means a more natural "look". Using filters, nets, promists etc to "degrade" the image in that sense is not the same as just defoccussing or using standard definition, is it? Their success tends to rely on a certain high "native" resolution of the system, and the fact that there remains fine detail - just with softened contrast.

Yes, there is a downside to RAW 4K and that's high datarates and memory requirements (and hence costs!) - but presumably by "12 bit 2K" he must be referring to 4:4:4 coded video, which before any compression is going to be almost as big.
 
For refined image grading control, 12 bit color resolution is much larger space to play in than 8-bit anything. Doesn't the C-500 do 4k as 8-bit MJPEGs?
 
For refined image grading control, 12 bit color resolution is much larger space to play in than 8-bit anything. Doesn't the C-500 do 4k as 8-bit MJPEGs?

No that's the 1DC which records 4K internally. The C500 only outputs 4K to external recorders (so theoretically you could capture it in an 8-bit codec, but the signal itself is 10-bit).
 
For refined image grading control, 12 bit color resolution is much larger space to play in than 8-bit anything.
But only if the information is there in the first place! There's absolutely no point in taking a signal which only has an effective bitdepth of 8-10 bits and wrapping it up as 12 bit. It's exactly the same as taking 100ml of liquid and putting it in a 1 litre bottle - you've still only got the same amount of liquid, but now you've got a bigger bottle to store!

And that's why talking about 12bit/10bit etc is meaningless by itself. If we're talking RAW, at least 12 bit is essential. If we're talking "ready to view" video it's not likely to make any difference at all.
 
Is it really here or are we confusing this with marketing by the big guys? Even a year from now, 1% of the population might have 4K TV's and 1080 will look even better on them. Why are people going to update? 4K wont be transmitted or on discs in any number for a long time. I know this is all old talk but the points are pretty solid I think.
 
There is 4k for displaying, and then there is 4k for acquisition.

I don't see absolutely any benefit in 4k for display, but 4k for acquisition does have some merits.
 
Is it really here or are we confusing this with marketing by the big guys? Even a year from now, 1% of the population might have 4K TV's and 1080 will look even better on them. Why are people going to update? 4K wont be transmitted or on discs in any number for a long time. I know this is all old talk but the points are pretty solid I think.

Sounds like the exact same arguments people made against going HD a few years ago. For me, going fully HD in 2006 was the right move and I am confident that going nearly full-time 4K today will also prove to be the right choice when I look back on the decision a few years from now.
 
I'm with Doug.

I think 4k RAW is a mess, too big and too much data - I might only chose this for a feature film or select projects but in the meantime I am quite enjoying and happy with the 4k XAVC 10-bit 422 from the F55. It's proven to be very flexible and best of all if I need "more" I can always fall back on the R5 RAW recorder. I totally feel future-proofed with the F55. I don't care about 29 stops of dynamic range or 6k sensors at this point in time.
 
Is it really here or are we confusing this with marketing by the big guys? Even a year from now, 1% of the population might have 4K TV's and 1080 will look even better on them. Why are people going to update? 4K wont be transmitted or on discs in any number for a long time. I know this is all old talk but the points are pretty solid I think.

There are many specialty markets that already benefit from 4k production. High resolution media for large digital signage video walls made up of multiple 1080p displays for instance. Medical diagnostics and micro surgery are already using 4k systems. Live arts or sports events streamed via fiber to 4k theaters is becoming common. Live IMAG at concerts or other events. Entertainment or commercial TV is only one market and consumers are at the bottom of the chain.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top