Article pushing 8K hard

[ahalpert]

https://nofilmschool.com/stop-debating-8k-start-embracing-it

This article is probably just fishing for hate-reads, but it's pushing 8K hard.

What do people think? Personally, I'm fine with HD resolution for everything except nature/sports or for VFX and the dreaded reframing in post. 4K for me is more about deliverables and content value. But there's a difference between what's the right aesthetic choice and where the market forces will take us.

Are people here interested in 8K?

I read an interview with Frank Ockenfels III about shooting promo photos for Breaking Bad in which he said they had started shooting with the latest-generation Phase One back but returned it and switched to the earlier version because it was just more resolution than they wanted and they were forced to retouch extensively to soften detail. So, clearly there is an ideal for every application, although he's talking about 80MP+.

"We had to step back a little on the Phase One backs because the higher resolution ones are so high-resolution that they almost have to retouch the sharpness out of them. I couldn’t tell you which one we’re using, but we’re not using the highest-end ones because people complained that they were too clear.

Film was never this sharp. It’s sharper than real life. You shouldn’t be able to read a hair inside the tear duct of someone’s eye. On one of those high-end backs, though, you can almost read what someone is thinking. It’s kind of terrifying."

https://www.popphoto.com/photos/201...-frank-w-ockenfels-iii-shooting-breaking-bad/

 

[NorBro]

8K acquisition isn't really new. It may be uncommon for most, but it's been offered for a few years now for regular people who have the money (meaning non-government/medical/etc facilities).

Even cameras like ARRI's 65 @6560 x 3102 in its highest recording mode was getting up there 6 years ago.

As far as stills, they will always have more resolution and sharpness - especially a frame with extremely high shutter speeds - than motion pictures so that's a different conversation.

___

They don't make SD cameras anymore - and they barely make any new HD cameras anymore - and in 10 years they won't be making 4K cameras anymore.

Just a natural progression of technology whether we like it or want it, or not.

 

[John Brawley]

The advantage of extra resolution is for super sampling on the delivery side.

8K makes very nice 4K.

4K makes nice HD....

JB

 

[ahalpert]

They don't make SD cameras anymore - and they barely make any new HD cameras anymore - and in 10 years they won't be making 4K cameras anymore.

Just a natural progression of technology whether we like it or want it, or not.

I don't believe we will ever see 32K cameras, except for specialty use. In other words, where does it all end?

 

[NorBro]

I don't believe we will ever see 32K cameras, except for specialty use. In other words, where does it all end?

The way I like to think about it is to ask myself what people in the early 1900s thought about the future.

 

[ahalpert]

The way I like to think about it is to ask myself what people in the early 1900s thought about the future.

The comparison is a little inaccurate because we're talking about an incremental quantitative evolution, not a qualitative change or technological leap (which I'm sure will happen and surprise us).

I still have plenty of clients shooting in HD. There are still lots of movies shooting in HD. RED has lost the battle for high-end filmmaking against Arri despite offering higher resolutions. The first job I had was assisting at a doc company that shot Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work and won awards at Sundance even though they shot it in 720p to save disk space.

The point is - higher resolutions are available now and it's easy for people to evaluate the difference. There is a diminishing return from moving to higher resolutions, and in some cases the extra detail is actually unwanted.

 

[DLD]

8K TV set sales projections are pretty low.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/950951/worldwide-unit-sales-ultra-hdtv-8k/

Sony just announced two new 8K sets, a 75" for $7,000 and an 85" for $10,000. Both will upscale from 4K as well.

But one can already shoot 8K on a smartphone (Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra) and it ought to be more common with the next generation of sensors and processors.

Edit : 8K TV - going off Best Buy's prices - start at $2,500 for a 55" Samsung and go up to $60,000 for a 98" Sony.

 

[NorBro]

The comparison is a little inaccurate because we're talking about an incremental quantitative evolution, not a qualitative change or technological leap (which I'm sure will happen and surprise us).

I still have plenty of clients shooting in HD. There are still lots of movies shooting in HD. RED has lost the battle for high-end filmmaking against Arri despite offering higher resolutions. The first job I had was assisting at a doc company that shot Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work and won awards at Sundance even though they shot it in 720p to save disk space.

The point is - higher resolutions are available now and it's easy for people to evaluate the difference. There is a diminishing return from moving to higher resolutions, and in some cases the extra detail is actually unwanted.

Ah, I see...you're actually asking about Hollywood and not the technical advancement of humanity.

 

[ahalpert]

Ah, I see...you're actually asking about Hollywood and not the technical advancement of humanity.

Huh? I'm talking about what cameras will be used for narrative films, doc, ENG, etc...

I think there's no upper limit for the useful resolution of scientific imaging devices that are designed to examine the nature of a subject of study. But for art and entertainment?

 

[NorBro]

Abe...the best way I can explain it to you is that what you're thinking about now is not going to be questioned in 3020.

We all know and agree a million times over that so many 4K motion pictures (even ARRI's 2K!) look absolutely amazing and are way more than what 99% of people out there need. Right now, most people just need good 4K sensors for all narrative films, docs, ENG, etc. (Maybe ENG is still HD!)

But most people have been shooting 4K for barely 5-6 years.

We see the differences in 4K cameras. From 2014-2020.

There is no notion of diminishing returns in 100 years of technological change and brain development.

___

So, yes - in our lifetime, there is probably a very slim chance we or any of us here really, truly need 8K.

But with that said, if Blackmagic released an 8K Pocket for $2000, everyone would 'embrace' it immediately.

 

[combatentropy]

To argue against the highest resolution, it might make you sound like a Luddite.

But to me it has always been about trade-offs. Resolution doesn't come free (and I'm not talking about money).

 

[AndreeOnline]

Nowadays I think it's all about the size of the intended display/screen when watching.

If I go back far enough in my collection of personal videos I've got some Sony HDR (interestingly enough) HC-1 footage. Launched in 2005 it was the first consumer camcorder shooting lovely HDV 1080i. I got it at launch and the rest is history.

We've seen two parallel development tracks: one is resolution and the other is image/codec fidelity. These two things have typically gone hand-in-hand, but we've had camera models, typically prosumer, where resolution was high but codec weak.

For personal use, looking at mobile devices, computer screens and TVs up to 65" (perhaps 80"?), I've see noticable improvement up to an including 4K/UHD. But I'm pretty sure some of that improvement has been resolution carrying the weight of lesser codecs—that is, it wasn't the resolution per se, but since the codec wasn't perfect, higher resolution footage minimised visible artefacts.

Today, if I start with 6K (b)raw footage and export to high quality HD, I see that HD in itself isn't really a "problem" even on 65" (and I like to sit close).

I used to have a projector many years ago (and I'll probably get one again), and that might be a case where higher res material benefit again. But we're back to square one: there are UHD projectors on the market, but they are either incredibly expensive, or they're up to trickery like pixel switching. And then we have absence of true black and, and, and....

High resolution in mobile devices can be an effective way to compensate for weaker compression. High resolution, high fidelity captpture (like the big boys) can be reserved for large screen projection.

For quality acquisition I'm at 6K now and I don't need more. I'd like to move to full frame to fit my lenses and align my photography focal lengths with my filming ones. Next I'm looking at usability features and build quality.

It's good to remember that most of the imagery is shot at around 1/48 of a second. Add some artistic OOF blur and well...

 

[NorBro]

Also, just to put the atmosphere in perspective...

The most inexpensive and only publicly known 8K cinema camera in the world you can currently purchase is from a Chinese company for $5,995.

The next one starts at $24,500. [Let me know if there is anything in between that's available for purchase, not pre-order like a Kinefinity.]

Right now, it's kind of like asking people about 4K in 1995. (Not that different, lol.)

___

As far as RED & ARRI: Jim is a businessman billionaire who did what any other businessman billionaire would do. I imagine he was most likely surrounded by technical and financial and investment advisors, and someone from his inner circle - if he didn't think of it himself - informed him about cinema equipment needing American representation and the rest was history.

But at that point, ARRI had been making cameras for 90 years just when he started brainstorming. How can you compete? (He sure did though and they still do.)

Trust that if ARRI released an 8K Mini LF it would instantly, overnight be the new standard for Hollywood.

IMO, once 8K hardware is available for the rest of us at very low prices producing very good results, many will not look back no matter what they think now.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Jim is a businessman billionaire who did what any other businessman billionaire would do. I imagine he was most likely surrounded by technical and financial and investment advisors, and someone from his inner circle - if he didn't think of it himself - informed him about cinema equipment needing American representation and the rest was history.

It's not my intention to start a huge off-topic here, but I believe Jim was a genuine camera guy. He's unique in that he had means (and willingness to take a risk) to do something about what he felt was lacking.

Old RED was built on the huge tidal wave that should have been easy enough to predict: photography went from film to digital, why wouldn't film? By targeting early adopters in a market where money spent on a camera wasn't a huge deal in the larger scheme of things, he found enough air under his wings to achieve success.

But RED has always been pushing the 'next' resolution, one higher than what anyone has (wanted)/needed at that given moment. It has given them room to act on the bleeding edge and there has been next to zero competition for a long time.

But the transition from one era to another is sort of like a wave: it comes, forces everything in its way to change its position, and then things come to rest again. As soon as Jim realised the 'resolution game' was coming to an end, he left.

In my opinion RED should have used their time while peaking more wisely, by developing their corporate structure, maturing their brand, refining their processes... I'm seeing none of that. In fact, my observation is that they are going the wrong way – pretty quickly.

Sorry, this is hugely off topic. If someone wants to break it out—feel free.

 

[Guest]

You can use 8K to show scale and texture really well.

You can use editing of close ups and wide shots to show scale and texture really well.

One of them is film making, the other could be.

These resolution discussions come down to business decisions and budget typically. Because regardless of what people say, there is something really nice about high resolution sometimes. Does 8K help the project make more money? Yes? Then do it. No? Maybe don’t then.

I really like big screens and a lot of resolution. I dislike spending money on hard drives. So, i’ll stick withe 4K for most of what i do, since i like shot variation and don’t intend to rely on a static wide to tell the whole story. Some film makers think that is the ultimate testiment of being a great film maker, if you never have to cut. Perhaps 8K will usher in a new film making style with less cutting and more allowing the viewers to discover within the frame?

 

[NorBro]

It's not my intention to start a huge off-topic here, but I believe Jim was a genuine camera guy. He's unique in that he had means (and willingness to take a risk) to do something about what he felt was lacking.

Old RED was built on the huge tidal wave that should have been easy enough to predict: photography went from film to digital, why wouldn't film? By targeting early adopters in a market where money spent on a camera wasn't a huge deal in the larger scheme of things, he found enough air under his wings to achieve success.

But RED has always been pushing the 'next' resolution, one higher than what anyone has (wanted)/needed at that given moment. It has given them room to act on the bleeding edge and there has been next to zero competition for a long time.

But the transition from one era to another is sort of like a wave: it comes, forces everything in its way to change its position, and then things come to rest again. As soon as Jim realised the 'resolution game' was coming to an end, he left.

In my opinion RED should have used their time while peaking more wisely, by developing their corporate structure, maturing their brand, refining their processes... I'm seeing none of that. In fact, my observation is that they are going the wrong way – pretty quickly.

Sorry, this is hugely off topic. If someone wants to break it out—feel free.

That's a cool write-up.

I think most people on that level try to make as much money as quick as possible in whatever they are involved in.

And resolution was indeed the business for RED, especially high-resolutions with high-framerates. This is their #1 achievement, IMO, that they don't get a lot of credit for.

Their marketing itself was a business. It was a strategy and so unique in a world where camera firmware updates and fundraising campaigns and social media didn't exist (in the beginning).

I love thinking about how excited they probably were because all of their competition was across oceans.

It's really fascinating to think about because anyone could have jumped on this opportunity. Apple could have easily created a cinema camera just a few years later after iPhones changed the world.

 

[ahalpert]

Abe...the best way I can explain it to you is that what you're thinking about now is not going to be questioned in 3020.

We all know and agree a million times over that so many 4K motion pictures (even ARRI's 2K!) look absolutely amazing and are way more than what 99% of people out there need. Right now, most people just need good 4K sensors for all narrative films, docs, ENG, etc. (Maybe ENG is still HD!)

But most people have been shooting 4K for barely 5-6 years.

We see the differences in 4K cameras. From 2014-2020.

There is no notion of diminishing returns in 100 years of technological change and brain development.

___

So, yes - in our lifetime, there is probably a very slim chance we or any of us here really, truly need 8K.

But with that said, if Blackmagic released an 8K Pocket for $2000, everyone would 'embrace' it immediately.

I'm not sure that there will be "brain development" over the next 100 years. Evolution proceeds more slowly than that, especially in the absence of significant mortality/reproduction pressures. But I agree that people's individual tastes develop based on the culture/imagery they are exposed to during their cognitive development.

That being said, anyone in the '90s could have told you that standard-definition video looked much less detailed than film.

The point I was making about Ockenfels the photographer was that he was shooting high-end promotional stills that were going to be blown up and viewed at close distances. (I remember seeing his shots for Breaking Bad and Mad Men all over NYC, in the subways, etc.) And for him, the latest and greatest Phase One back's higher resolution was a drawback, not an advantage. It gave him details he did not WANT and slowed down his process by creating more work in photoshop.

Someone elsewhere mentioned that the New Pope show looked bad. I feel like I see a lot of shows shot on RED that just look unnecessarily sharp in a harsh sort of way. It doesn't have to be that way, but I think the camera capabilities encourage bad behavior. I don't WANT that level of detail in a drama unless it's like a film noir or a war film where I want to see all the dirt and all the facial creases, etc. Maybe others feel differently.

Or look at impressionist painting - nobody in 3020 is going to say, "this is garbage - why didn't they give it more photorealistic detail - everything we see nowadays is so clear and crisp". If anything, that work may be even more impactful. The effect is what counts.

It offends my OCD to think that there isn't an IDEAL resolution for narrative cinema (or at least on a per-project basis) and that more pixels are always better...

Trust that if ARRI released an 8K Mini LF it would instantly, overnight be the new standard for Hollywood.

I don't think this is true if that 8K camera performed worse in other parameters than the 4K camera. 4K delivery is a demand of streamers/content providers. AFAIK, that was why the Alexa LF shot to prominence, and even then the OG Alexa remains quite popular.

It's not my intention to start a huge off-topic here, but I believe Jim was a genuine camera guy. He's unique in that he had means (and willingness to take a risk) to do something about what he felt was lacking.

Off-topics are welcome, especially since talking about RED in the context of "how much resolution is too much?" doesn't seem off-topic to me. I think I appreciate RED more for what they did with CMOS sensors and internal RAW recording than what they did pushing the resolution envelope. Brawley said elsewhere that high-resolution capture is most useful for VFX work, and I think that's true. If you're not going to be painting and compositing, I don't see why you need more resolution than your delivery format (plus a margin to account for the lower true resolution of a Bayer sensor).

 

[NorBro]

I'm not sure that there will be "brain development" over the next 100 years.

If you don't think there will be brain development over the next 100 years after seeing/learning about the last 100 years then our conversation ends here, haha.

 

[ahalpert]

Perhaps 8K will usher in a new film making style with less cutting and more allowing the viewers to discover within the frame?

I think that's a pretty compelling argument, especially since you can selectively lower the resolution of other shots (eg beauty close-ups) within your film by using filtration or post processes.

That being said, I'm not sure it will work in practical terms because so much is viewed on a smartphone...and then all your details are lost. Makes it difficult to shoot a film for both large screens and tiny screens.

But yeah I remember someone describing the feeling of seeing Lawrence of Arabia in a theater and picking out the tiny character amidst a huge wide shot and being struck by the grandeur. (That film was shot in 65mm which IMAX claims is equivalent to about 12K resolution, so maybe there's something to it...)

Might have been this shot who knows:

 

[ahalpert]

If you don't think there will be brain development over the next 100 years after seeing/learning about the last 100 years then our conversation ends here, haha.

I think there is scientific development that builds on past discoveries...I don't think people are one whit smarter these days, if that's what you mean?