Is 1080p Enough?

Maybe it's a generational thing. I just still find it kind of incomprehensible that you guys would actually want that (hyper-representational) in narrative stuff. I'd consider it a huge step backwards not forwards.
 
roxics said:
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.
Click to expand...

There were only on a few times that I ever sat in the front row... When Coppola's "Dracula"(1992) came out, it was a sell out crowd...

The other memorable occasion, speaking of 65/70mm film presentations... was for "Grand Prix"(1966). A couple of items about that film, and 'viewing from the front row'... 1) too close... 2) the film was one of the first of the 60's mainstream 'camera in the action'. So a number of the racing shots were from a POV of a camera mounted on the race car. I got motion sick... and developed a life long hate for 'shaky cam'... I've seen the film since on TV sized screens... no problem with motion sickness...

Otherwise, I'm usually in the back row, underneath the projector...
 
James0b57 said:
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...
Click to expand...


NTSC and I believe PAL as well, were 'designed' to have the minimum viewing distance at 7x the vertical height. So for a 21" SD TV, the minimum viewing distance was 7 ft. At this point 'most people' due to their visual acuity would 'integrate' (that is average...) out the individual lines, to have an approximate 'continuous' image that the viewer perceives...

For Stills the 'rule of thumb' is 2x the diagonal of a print. So, for a 16x20 print, a viewing distance of about 3' is 'appropriate'...

For theaters, the screen vertical height is used, and a distance of 2-3x is the 'minimum recommended' distance. So for a 15' high screen, 30-45 feet is the 'nearest' to the screen, that one should sit, if one wants the 'integration' factor to smooth out an image...

I tend to sit in the back of the theater, so, I'm often at about 4-6x the vertical height... and as a note... I often set my HD TV display at 1/2 zoom factor... and sit about 7-10 feet from the display...
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Maybe it's a generational thing. I just still find it kind of incomprehensible that you guys would actually want that (hyper-representational) in narrative stuff. I'd consider it a huge step backwards not forwards.
Click to expand...

Daguerreotype vs 8mm. Resolution does not dictate enjoyability. Rembrandt vs Picasso. Realism does not dictate the power of the art work. Ansel Adams' work is probably best appreciated looking at the original ultra high resolution images, but I can enjoy them on the web too.

You took one comment from my epic long post, and quoted it out of context to talk about how resolution is not king. You also come off as narrow minded not being able to accept anything beyond 24/1080, but I know that you are not. I love and appreciate 24fps. But it is definitely a stylistic choice, and has its own pluses and minuses. I have never worried about resolution when it comes to getting a project done. But I will welcome true resolution enhancements, and continue to enjoy all resolutions.

You remind me of those children that only want brittany spears, but can't appreciate traditional Japanese song and dance.

The sound at an IMAX theater probably is a bit higher resolution than mp3. It isn't about resolution, it is about skill in creating an experience or reflection of human truth.


 
We weren't talking just about resolution we were also talking about frame rate and in broader terms the super sharp, high frame rate, high resolution footage that looks like "reality". I certainly enjoy it for sports and for other things as well, but for the "art" of narrative film making, yuck, just not appealing to me at all, almost to the point of "why bother". Art is about as subjective as you can get, not saying anything is gospel, only my taste, as I pointed out several times.
 
This evening I went with my brother to the theater. We sat about 3/4 the way to the back. I generally like to sit 2/3 to 3/4 the way back. Anything in front of the half way is too close, and the very back is too far for my viewing preference. Sitting at the back makes me feel like I am watching tv, depending on the theater.

The digital projector still showed signs of pixelation from that distance. I turned to my brother, who does not pay attention to details like that, and I asked him if he could discern pixels, and without hesitation he said "yes." Then the movie started and was projected on film, and the resolution was immediately/noticeably better. I could still discern fine grain throughout the image, and so could my brother. I felt my eyes would be able to appreciate even more detail than the 35mm projection was showing, if it were presented.
 
The limit of human visual acuity for 20/20 vision is about 1 minute, or 1/60 of a degree. Given we can see in an arc of about 120 degrees, the maximum resolution we could perceive is around 7,200 pixels horizontally.

If you run the numbers for a TV set at the recommended THX distances, you have a viewing angle of 36 or 37 degrees, so the maximum discernible resolution is about 2,200 pixels, or a little better than 1080P.

I'd guess that movie theatres would be somewhere between the two.

The reality is a bit more complicated. You only get maximum resolution in the fovea, which is a relatively small area on the retina. This is actually about 3 degrees, the rest of it gives much less detail.

I'm not sure about what frame rate is the limit that can be observed, but 60 Hz is the number that I've heard. Douglas Trumbull has been pushing 72 Hz for Showscan, and also fits into the 144 Hz that cine projectors run at. The Hobbit's being shot at 48 Hz, and I believe Cameron will be using it for the Avatar sequels.

Michael Cioni reckoned that we're in a world with multiple resolutions and aspect ratios. I suspect 1080P or 2K will be around for a while, but it'll be joined by 720P for smartphones and 4K, maybe 8K, for theatrical releases.

I should also point out that going from 2K to 4K is a fourfold increase in the amount of data. 48 Hz and 3D will each double it again. If Moore's Law continues to hold, and computational power doubles every 18 to 24 months, then this will all be as standard as 1080P is now by 2020.
 
Yes, it's good enough, 1080p can be upscaled to 4k without much of a problem. The step between 1080p's sharpness and 4k isn't as big as going from SD to HD. Also, anything beyond 4k won't make much of a difference.
Good movies aren't made by good cameras, but by talented people.
 
Everyone gets the angle of absolute focus of the human eye all wrong and comparing human vision and it's ability to perceive resolution also wrong and human 3D vision is again completely different from simulated 3D.

The fundamental error is in pursuing parity in human acuitity at 20/20 which is measured in Lines Per Inch with the total number of pixels in single frame of video or even the resolution in LPI of the camera etc.

For the longest time I've battled, almost alone against this peculiar propensity, which I reckon is marketing driven.
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the brain processes visual information in order to imprint an 'impression' of a scene or a story.

I don't wish to muck up this thread, so suffice it to say that we are OVERLOADING the visual system with projected 2K as it is. Projected/Displayed 4K reaches beyond overload to pure waste.

Persistence of vision is critical in the value of an image or scene. Without the benefit of comparison footage, most humans are perfectly content looking at a decent Trinitron display of 640X480 SD. It has been proven that the visual system DUMPS resolution data over that and that it's only value is to give you a headache.
don't get me wrong. I like HD 4K as much as the next guy, but i will NOT remember fine details in the scene more than a second or two after seeing them.
That's because my brain only wants to store HIGHLY COMPRESSED impressions of what I've seen.
 
I think it's comparable to graphics in games. At first you're like WOAH when seeing new shiney graphics. but once you're playing the game it's the gameplay, story and atmosphere that matter.
I still play 10 year old games simply because they're fun to play, and find myself ditching all the games that use fancy graphics as a selling point. 4K is overrated.
 
4k.....95% of people can't see the difference between 1080 and 720 on a normal sized set, try telling the average consumer to see the difference between 4k and a true 1080p. It's also interesting to note, that for 6 years here, every now and then a post would be made about the ole DVX100b...is it dead yet? Still isn't....lol. People are still shooting it (yes, much fewer) and uprezzing to HD, and I've seen some great stuff from people here who have done that. Resolution, bits, codecs..and all that jazz seemed to get focused on way too much....there is wayyyyyyy more to the "picture" than that.
 
yes and no

the way we are consuming media is the deciding factor. As resolutions are pushed consumers will start to notice other "shortcomings" (like my cellphone having 720p screen but terrible colors) etc.

Also another factor is at play -- the softness of film. Whatever happens, all the movies shot on film will not suddenly appear to be obsolete. 4k scan or not...
 
Graemsay said:
The limit of human visual acuity for 20/20 vision is about 1 minute, or 1/60 of a degree. Given we can see in an arc of about 120 degrees, the maximum resolution we could perceive is around 7,200 pixels horizontally.

If you run the numbers for a TV set at the recommended THX distances, you have a viewing angle of 36 or 37 degrees, so the maximum discernible resolution is about 2,200 pixels, or a little better than 1080P.

I'd guess that movie theatres would be somewhere between the two.

The reality is a bit more complicated. You only get maximum resolution in the fovea, which is a relatively small area on the retina. This is actually about 3 degrees, the rest of it gives much less detail.

I'm not sure about what frame rate is the limit that can be observed, but 60 Hz is the number that I've heard. Douglas Trumbull has been pushing 72 Hz for Showscan, and also fits into the 144 Hz that cine projectors run at. The Hobbit's being shot at 48 Hz, and I believe Cameron will be using it for the Avatar sequels.

Michael Cioni reckoned that we're in a world with multiple resolutions and aspect ratios. I suspect 1080P or 2K will be around for a while, but it'll be joined by 720P for smartphones and 4K, maybe 8K, for theatrical releases.

I should also point out that going from 2K to 4K is a fourfold increase in the amount of data. 48 Hz and 3D will each double it again. If Moore's Law continues to hold, and computational power doubles every 18 to 24 months, then this will all be as standard as 1080P is now by 2020.
Click to expand...


Note too that '20/20' vision is not very good ... in fact, it is the lowest end of what might be called typical vision. Many, maybe even most, have better than that -- my own tired old eyes have more than half a century under their belt, yet measure to 20/14 ... my vision was definitely even better when I was younger. Conversations with my opthamologist suggest 20/10 is most likely the highest achievable -- and that is 'twice as good' as 20/20. When my own vision is 'reduced' to 20/20 during testing, I'm decidedly unhappy.

My local cinemas is a 4k screen -- they couldn't project a 'film' if it was delivered to them. The typical pre-show offerings include produced for HDTV commercials, which are visibly less 'sharp' than the feature presentation ... and to my eye, the feature falls short of the best IMAX projections I still see at the museum screen near by. Whether that 'better' is entirely resolution, or whether elements including brightness & screen surface have an influence I can only speculate.

Will I 'upgrade' to a 4k screen at home? Surely, soon as the 60" 1080p screen I use today shows signs of age. Why wouldn't I? My speakers exceed both the capabilities of my ears and my stereo system -- it seems an entirely reasonable 'waste' to have a screen that pushes the envelope of my home theatre too. Some posters here sit at the back of the theatre or watch TV at 1/2 zoom -- well, it's a free country! But I won't be joining your viewing habits anytime soon!

Cheers,
GB
 
I'll agree that there will be corner cases where 2K isn't enough. I saw the new Aardman Pirates film today, and some of the background detail included posters that were hard to read. Whether that's down to poor focus on the projector, or the limits of resolution is a different matter.

Incidentally, I was in the front row, and whilst my vision (corrected) isn't better than 20/20, I reckon that I could have taken advantage of a 4K image. :smile:

Zephyrnoid, I can't remember much about the psychology of vision, except that what actually goes on is distinctly different to how we imagine it. (Hint: It uses edge detection, rather than operating analogously to a camera.)
 
I just spent yet another 1/2 day sorting out a relative's entertainment center mess! So after dealing with all that mess (videodisc anyone?) We sat to watch some TV.
1080p over a 52" screen Panasonic I believe. So I'm explaining Surround Sound and then I switch over to Discovery and start to study the images in this doc on Afghanistan.
Nice. Colors really spot on. I guess it was a good panel. But it was the sharpness that really got me. So OK, I've been ranting about how resolution doesn't matter and we do forget the details right away, but I am struck by how impressed I was by the SHARPNESS of the pashtoon's beard bristles and yes, his teeth really could have used a good flossing.
So what was i watching? 1080p recorded by a 4k camera or a 1080P GH2?
The shots were of course, perfectly composed and the editing was professional in every way.
So is 1080p source material enough or is 4K really the starting point to superior 1080p deliverables?
 
Depends on what you mean by "1080p source material". 1080p from an Alexa is leagues and universes better than 1080p from a T2i.

Three-chip 1080p from something like a VariCam 3700 is going to be about as good as 1080 origination can get; I think that's what they're using to shoot "Frozen Planet" with. But you'll never get that kind of performance from a 1080p single-chip system, you'd need serious oversampling on a bayer chip to deliver that kind of sharpness in a final 1080p render.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top