Is 1080p Enough?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
I directed my first feature back in 2003. All we could afford was a Canon XL1. Because of some messy editing on my part back then, not understanding codecs nearly as well as I do today, my final product probably resulted in about 240 lines of resolution upscaled to 480p. But surprisingly we premiered it in a local art theater and most people didn't seem any wiser about the lower resolution. After a point in time most people just get into the story and become accustomed to the look.

Today I feel bad about this project originating in standard definition. It means that today I can't do a re-release on blu-ray without a major up-res. It makes me almost feel like, because of my budget at the time, a bit of a guinea pig for early digital indie cinema.

So my question is, is 1080p enough to stick around for a good long while to the point where people originating at this resolution today aren't going to feel outdated ten years from now? The way I feel about my feature shot in 2003.

They say that most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p in most viewing situations. Because of size and distance to screen. There is a limitation to our vision as humans. There is also something to be said about a lot of feature films and high budget TV shows originating on 1080p right now and over the last several years. Movies and shows that would have never originated on 480p but instead gone the film route. Yet today is a different story, film is losing ground and 1080p seems to be perfectly acceptable.

I know we all want to originate on 4k and eventually 8k. But at what point is the image quality good enough that it no longer really makes a difference and we can feel confident going out and originating at that resolution without fear that our project will be outdated in 10 years? Are we already at that point with 1080p?
 
Yes, 1080p is plenty for virtually every distribution channel you may care to exploit.. as long as it's full raster or at least very near to.
 
roxics said:
So my question is, is 1080p enough to stick around for a good long while to the point where people originating at this resolution today aren't going to feel outdated ten years from now? The way I feel about my feature shot in 2003.
Click to expand...

I think 1080p will be a standard for quite some time to come. And if there's a problem, just ask the viewers to sit in the back of the theater... more fun back there anyway...

What is needed now is better 'bit depth', at lower prices...
 
Why not ask a dozen of the (mostly deceased) film directors that shot really soft looking film stock to fame and fortune?
SD video was NEVER spec'd for theater and sadly, theater is not likely to endure anyway so why worry?

"I know we all want to originate on 4k and eventually 8k."

Look. I know what most people think. The mantra is build towards near human vision and resolution. Hence HD, 3D HD and 4k+ .....
Truth is 2D art is still nothing like human vision. Not even 3D comes close. And as for resolution and data, our little 2" eyeballs see 4K at just 3º ! I can't even describe the experience when you consider scanning a landscape with your eyes!
Far more important is contend and production value.

I'd rather watch a brilliant 640X480 masterpiece on my ipod than a projected 4K piece of crud.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
...our little 2" eyeballs see 4K at just 3º ! ...
Click to expand...
Do you happen to have any references for that?

I had read somewhere (but can't find it now) that our eye turns a black and white pattern to grey before we get to 1920x1080 at 2.5 times the screen distance. I was looking for this very thing the other day and can't sort out which terms to use in a search.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I believe 2k and above have value as aquisition formats, but are not particularly useful for playback. I believe DR, color and frame rate have much more value than resolution. Once you watch 60p or higher on a regular basis, 24p just makes you want to gack, litterally :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
"Once you watch 60p or higher on a regular basis, 24p just makes you want to gack, litterally"

I hate it (60P) for anything but sports personally. It generally looks godawful.

Looking like "reality" is just the least important attribute a film could have.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Looking like "reality" is just the least important attribute a film could have.
Click to expand...
Is that line belongs to you 100%, I suggest that you brand it as such and drop it into your signature. It's the single most important observation in understanding the language and syntax of cinema and the delusions that manufacturers play off in paying hobbyists.
Besides, what I've been reading cause me to doubt the nature of reality anyway- though I know we all agree it's roughly the same thing in the visual paradigms
 
c3hammer said:
Do you happen to have any references for that?
Click to expand...

I still have to check my copy of Colin Ware's book but a quick goofgle search....
Vision span
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_span
Vision span or perceptual span is the angular span (vertically and horizontally), within which the human eye has sharp enough vision to read text. The visual field of the human eye spans approximately 120 degrees of arc. However, most of that arc is peripheral vision. The human eye has much greater resolution in the macula, where there is a higher density of cone cells. The field of view that is observed with sufficient resolution to read text typically spans about 6 degrees of arc, which is wide enough to allow a clear view of about five words in a row when printed text at ordinary size is held about 50 centimeters from the eyes. The brain creates the illusion of having a greater visual span by automatically and unconsciously moving the center of vision into any area of interest in the field of view.
Human eyes: 576 megapixels
I don't really understand how this figure is arrived at but it seems an interesting factoid to me!

"How many megapixels do our eyes have?"
Sound and Light Reflections: How many megapixels do our eyes have?
• comparing the number of sensing elements - the eye has 5 million cones (the color receptors) and 100 million rods (the monochrome contrast receptors) which give a human the equivalent of two 105MP (MegaPixel) video cameras (because we have two eyes).
• comparing spatial resolution over the eye's field of view - we have the equivalent of 576MP.
http://gadgetopia.com/post/5381

As I recall from school it was somewhere between 500-700LPI at reading distance with 20/20 vision or corrected vision. NOTE, a 'line' is not = to a pixel, but that is how optics resolutions are measured.
 
That sounds about right. 6deg would be about 2" on a 24" monitor at 1920x1080 or about 190 pixels wide. 96 dpi is about about as fine as you can see on a computer monitor at 50cm away. 4k would be double that and a waste, especially considering we sit further away than that when watching at normal viewing distances of 75cm or about 2.5 times the screen height for video.

Cheers,
Pete
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
"Once you watch 60p or higher on a regular basis, 24p just makes you want to gack, litterally"

I hate it (60P) for anything but sports personally. It generally looks godawful.

Looking like "reality" is just the least important attribute a film could have.
Click to expand...
To each his own, but I think you'll find that the majority of people when in a blind test will pick the higher frame rates as more appealing. Considering I rarely watch naratives or hollywood productions, but rather action sports and documentaries most often, the higher frames rates suit me much better :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
c3hammer said:
To each his own, but I think you'll find that the majority of people when in a blind test will pick the higher frame rates as more appealing. Considering I rarely watch naratives or hollywood productions, but rather action sports and documentaries most often, the higher frames rates suit me much better :)

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...

I think you said it right there, you mostly watch sports and documentaries. Two instances where higher frame rates work well. I personally hate these higher hertz rate tv's. I know someone who bought a new TV and was complaining about how it made all the movies look horrible. Until I told him to turn the Hz down to 60. So I don't agree that most people in a blind test would pick higher frame rates for narrative work. Higher frame rates for 3D narrative work may prove to be a different story. Even then I suspect that if it works it's because the 3D is already playing trickery with our eyes. The same content that works in 3D at higher fps may look like a soap opera when converted to 2D. Time will tell.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I think 1080p will be a standard for quite some time to come. And if there's a problem, just ask the viewers to sit in the back of the theater... more fun back there anyway...

What is needed now is better 'bit depth', at lower prices...
Click to expand...

Yup. I agree. The more I look at it the more I think 1080p is really the first universal digital distribution resolution.

There is a certain sense of peace knowing this. Sticking with a resoluton and just making the picture inside it better. It's like when a game system has been around for two or three years and game developers get in the groove of developing for it, figuring out how to get more out of it. I like this way of doing things, it's stable and ubiquitous. Like TV sets and film projection was for decades.

But not just as a distribution resolution, as a resolution to originate on it seems pretty stable. It's not like everyone was shooting 65mm to distribute on 35mm. Some were, but aside from the physics of a larger negative the higher resolution of 65mm was never fully realized outside of specialty cinamas. I think the same will be true of 4K for a couple decades. We all want it for the sake of security, but ultimately we'll end up distributing at 2K/1080p and eventually wonder why we've been saving these huge files.

So after thinking about it like this, a camera like the C300 makes a lot of sense. 4K sensor outputting to 1080p. No choice to output 4K. No reason to. Just a great 1080p image dispite its lack of bitdepth.

Plus lets face it, if you're sitting at the front of the theater peeping pixels, you've got a pretty bad seat to begin with, no matter what the resolution.
 
Talking about frame rate and the hz that modern HD displays operate at are two totally different things. The way different signals are processed by devices like blu-ray players and HD displays is a whole nother can of worms.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
Why not ask a dozen of the (mostly deceased) film directors that shot really soft looking film stock to fame and fortune?
SD video was NEVER spec'd for theater and sadly, theater is not likely to endure anyway so why worry?

"I know we all want to originate on 4k and eventually 8k."

Look. I know what most people think. The mantra is build towards near human vision and resolution. Hence HD, 3D HD and 4k+ .....
Truth is 2D art is still nothing like human vision. Not even 3D comes close. And as for resolution and data, our little 2" eyeballs see 4K at just 3º ! I can't even describe the experience when you consider scanning a landscape with your eyes!
Far more important is contend and production value.

I'd rather watch a brilliant 640X480 masterpiece on my ipod than a projected 4K piece of crud.
Click to expand...

More or less agree. We really don't have to choose either or, technology is(has) already bringing higher bit-rates, frames rates, and resolution simultaneously.

My own thoughts (adding to Zepher's)
Ipads have higher than HD resolution. That is one reason, I believe 1080p will begin to feel soft to some users. Despite theatrical productions not needing the extra resolution, there are many other uses that could benefit from it. And please tell me, that when you walk into costco, that those 60" 1080p televisions don't look soft.

2D is a convient type of interface, so it should be around for forever, and motion will be a part of that for forever too. Holograms, Eye scan, and 3D all may take over the entertainment world as they can be more immersive, but I don't see that really taking off for the next 20 years, and with the audience ADD and the amount of information we take in these days, that is way more time than any one will really care to think about your film, for the most part.

Frame rates are a matter of tastes and comfort. I really like 60p, but know that it is not always appropriate for the particular audience response desired. I'd like to shoot and playback at 100fps@8K with a display capable of 20+stops DR. That might freak an audience out, because they would be expecting a narrative to feature the smooth blurry dreaminess of 24p; that familiar hypnotic strobe, not a glowing window into reality.

Many a SD productions are still enjoyable to watch. There is nothing particularly wrong with them. I've even run into guys that shoot concerts with VHS camcorders shooting lower than SD. I think that is awesome. Nostalgia is powerful. I've heard of a friend rubbing vaseline (also stretching seran wrap) onto their DVX100 lens, to soften the digital video look. And besides, I still love watching 8mm projected.

Resolution is not the only thing used and abused. People often use the extra bit depth to manipulate the colors to not be accurate. It's all crazy, and a lot of weird stuff looks good. Look at the success of instagram. So, the same arguments about resolution not really mattering, can be applied to color, as well.

Personally, I don't think 1080p is good enough, but it is what is available to the masses. No amount of thinking is going to change that. Is HD going to end up looking soft to future viewers? I believe so, but not nearly to the same degree SD does. There is diminishing returns on resolution at this point, and it will just be exponential. But also, more will look outdated than just the resolution. Your whole film language, the style of clothing, etc may turn future viewers away more than resolution ever could.

When I shoot documentary, I would really love to be shooting the highest resolution, for posterity, but not every time. Occasionally, the story is more emotional, and then, I don't think about resolution at all.

Anyways, all these people talking about how we could care less about resolution though, are a bit, well, silly. We won't have to make that compromise of color and DR vs resolution in the near future. The argument is moot.

When I was a small child, I didn't know that the television image lacked in detail, or that it was made of RGB pixels, until my older brother pointed it out. The efficiency of the brain assumed the image on the TV was the same as all visual stimuli, and that the detail would increase as I got closer. But this was only because I never bothered to get close to the TV set. And just because I was not consciously aware of the pixels, didn't mean that I didn't easily see that it was radically different from reality. And just because I didn't know that the image was made up of RGB pixels, didn't mean I had no problem seeing them when they were pointed out...

...the same applies to the 2k projection at theaters. I can enjoy even a 480p production on the big screen, but that doesn't mean I don't see pixels on a 2k projection. Because I do. I wish I didn't, but I do, and it bothers me at times, but not usually. But do I notice? Yes, yes, yes.

(If you have read everything I have written to this point, you get a cookie.)

At least for the next year, you have to shell out serious money for anything better than 10.5DR, 4:2:0 color, 1080p 30fps, with minor compression artifacts. And even longer than that before display technology makes a big enough leap to make matter in the camera wars. If you already own a camera, not essential to upgrade. If you don't, than you(99% of you) don't need to go into debt for 4k. 401k for 4k, no way!!!

39639_509380287298_163700229_30332249_8189531_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
"a glowing window into reality"

If I want that I have several of them in my house. I can just look out those. Some of the greatest paintings, films, sculptures, etc... ever created are very poor representations of reality.

Again, for doc work, sports, reality TV, etc... Super crisp, super representational styles/cameras/frame rates have their place, but there will always be a place for something else as well.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
"a glowing window into reality"

If I want that I have several of them in my house. I can just look out those. Some of the greatest paintings, films, sculptures, etc... ever created are very poor representations of reality.
Click to expand...

Here's a great example: http://www.pablopicasso.org/guernica.jsp

I was once in the same room as this painting. It moved me in a way that no photograph of that event could ever have done.
 
arniepix said:
Here's a great example: http://www.pablopicasso.org/guernica.jsp

I was once in the same room as this painting. It moved me in a way that no photograph of that event could ever have done.
Click to expand...

Great example.
Again, not saying image quality doesn't matter at all, not saying super representational doesn't have a place, but not the be all end all.

I'm actually going a little "Suspiria" in my new web series and experimenting with non-diegetic lighting (fancy pants film term, it means the characters in the frame don't see the same lighting the audience does, term usually applied to sound).
 
Here is an interesting link with practical viewing distance vs resolution we can discern.
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter

It has a calculator to help determine the distance where higher resolutions become fully apparent. For a 60" display you'd need to be 4' or closer to see the benefit of 4k! Sorry but there's no way you're going to get me to sit that close :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
"a glowing window into reality"

If I want that I have several of them in my house. I can just look out those. Some of the greatest paintings, films, sculptures, etc... ever created are very poor representations of reality.

Again, for doc work, sports, reality TV, etc... Super crisp, super representational styles/cameras/frame rates have their place, but there will always be a place for something else as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Brad Pitt is always having a life threatening romantic adventure outside of my window too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top