Is 1080p Enough?

The way I see it, is if you plan on making a historically profound film, you might as well plan for it to age well. So shoot it in the highest possible resolution. With that said, making a film is more important than worrying about resolution. So if it comes down to only being able to shoot 1080p, then don't sweat it.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most of Frozen Planet in fact is being shot on the tape-based varicam at 960x720 res. Workflow is preferred.
 
Internal Discovery Channel workflow stuff is not typically publicized, but most shows are still being originated on tape, as the entire post workflow is set up for it. This is beginning to change but at a glacial pace. RED is still not accepted for Discovery Studios at all, and we had a very tough time using the 3700 on the last show, though we were allowed to use for a greenscreen shoot.
 
Graemsay said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it varies from 50 to 70 for most people. Myself, I could definitely pick out 60fps over 48 or 50fps. Once I go beyond 60, that's my limit. 70 would be overkill for me in terms of getting the ultra smooth temperal motion look.
 
I haven't gone through the whole thread but here's my thoughts.

Right now, 1080p is quite nice at a normal distance and for most people's not-perfect vision, it's all that will be needed for some years to come. However, on a computer monitor and at the distance we view them, 1080p is clearly surpassed. Hell, my iMac is 2560x1440 and 720p in particular is rather tiny on the screen.

Around 2K seems to be quite a sweetspot right now and for a while to come. In comparison, how long did it take for us to get to consumer HDTVs being widespread and considered 'the norm' from standard def? A while.

I think for most people though, 4 and 8K are less about the result as they are about being able to capture as much raw data and resolution as possible to get the most control in post. It's the difference between using a DSLR to shoot and a raw high res camera like ARRI or RED's. Even though in most cases, you're aiming for 1080p (and lower for certain destinations), you're able to manipulate that source to create the *best* 1080p output, whether it's taking advantage of 4 or 5K to crop into a shot, taking advantage of raw footage to colour grade something drastically or recover details.

If anything, I crave having a 4K-5K raw camera to record with simply so I can get that same level of detail to produce any result I want instead of being stuck with a line-skipping 8-bit slightly soft 1080p image out of a DSLR. I'm barely started with video and already the bliss of being able to photograph in 14-bit raw is making me yearn for something more capable.
 
nickjbedford said:
I haven't gone through the whole thread but here's my thoughts.

Right now, 1080p is quite nice at a normal distance and for most people's not-perfect vision, it's all that will be needed for some years to come. However, on a computer monitor and at the distance we view them, 1080p is clearly surpassed. Hell, my iMac is 2560x1440 and 720p in particular is rather tiny on the screen.

Around 2K seems to be quite a sweetspot right now and for a while to come. In comparison, how long did it take for us to get to consumer HDTVs being widespread and considered 'the norm' from standard def? A while.

I think for most people though, 4 and 8K are less about the result as they are about being able to capture as much raw data and resolution as possible to get the most control in post. It's the difference between using a DSLR to shoot and a raw high res camera like ARRI or RED's. Even though in most cases, you're aiming for 1080p (and lower for certain destinations), you're able to manipulate that source to create the *best* 1080p output, whether it's taking advantage of 4 or 5K to crop into a shot, taking advantage of raw footage to colour grade something drastically or recover details.

If anything, I crave having a 4K-5K raw camera to record with simply so I can get that same level of detail to produce any result I want instead of being stuck with a line-skipping 8-bit slightly soft 1080p image out of a DSLR. I'm barely started with video and already the bliss of being able to photograph in 14-bit raw is making me yearn for something more capable.
Click to expand...
Too nice and lucid a quote to edit it.
Just one point. The higher res of computer screens is not ubiquitous. Sure, some of us are constantly grabbing the top but the majority of users are in the 'middle' and the rest of the world, still at bottom.
RE "how long did it take for us to get to consumer HDTVs being widespread and considered 'the norm' from standard def? A while."
Actually, globally, SD is still the norm and how many stations will still list as 'center crop' capable as a key requirement. Why? Because most users are still clinging to their 42" CRT's . I kid you not. Wanna see mine ?
Your point about 2K is right on. 4K is a divine forward looking size and of course, ideal for well funded projects that have a long lifespan.
I must confess that beyond the obvious attraction to higher and higher res visuals, It's amazing how greatly great audio impacts production value. Further, I am constantly amazed by how polished the productions, writing, story-boarding and editing are on some SD material on youtube!
I keep running to those for guidance, whereas the vast bulk of the latest HD material seems vacuous by comparison.
 
2K acquisition for standard stuff, 4K or more for VFX heavy stuff, and 2K/1080p delivery, is what makes the most sense to me in the next 5 years
 
Zephyrnoid said:
Too nice and lucid a quote to edit it.
Just one point. The higher res of computer screens is not ubiquitous. Sure, some of us are constantly grabbing the top but the majority of users are in the 'middle' and the rest of the world, still at bottom.
RE "how long did it take for us to get to consumer HDTVs being widespread and considered 'the norm' from standard def? A while."
Actually, globally, SD is still the norm and how many stations will still list as 'center crop' capable as a key requirement. Why? Because most users are still clinging to their 42" CRT's . I kid you not. Wanna see mine ?
Your point about 2K is right on. 4K is a divine forward looking size and of course, ideal for well funded projects that have a long lifespan.
I must confess that beyond the obvious attraction to higher and higher res visuals, It's amazing how greatly great audio impacts production value. Further, I am constantly amazed by how polished the productions, writing, story-boarding and editing are on some SD material on youtube!
I keep running to those for guidance, whereas the vast bulk of the latest HD material seems vacuous by comparison.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Sounds is such a vital portion of a film or TV programme that with poor sound, even the nicest visuals can suffer. And in the end, a lot of the time, we're viewing a hi-res video in 320 or 480p on YouTube or something similar without bothering to change to 1080p. I'd much rather fantastic sound production than insanely high resolution visuals. And now that you mention it, for me, the sound coupled with great performance and storytelling is actually more important than the resolution that I view the visual side of things on. HD is much preferred, surely, but I can suffer SD to any well produced piece of work.
 
all the excitement for the black magic camera tells me people are more interested in lots of DR, RAW, decent-size sensor, etc, than on 4k
 
Samuel H said:
all the excitement for the black magic camera tells me people are more interested in lots of DR, RAW, decent-size sensor, etc, than on 4k
Click to expand...

For a lot of us DSLR users, 4K is probably overkill, and indeed takes a lot of money (and time) to work with, due to size of data and workflow requirements. But while it's definitely possible to produce some great work from DSLR's, I find them limiting, especially knowing that raw footage capture is out there, and coming from a photographer's background where I have so much control over the image, it's not funny. I just wish I had the money even then to afford one of these BMD cameras (or some alternative if it comes out).
 
don't worry too much: the genie is out of the bottle, now I would expect a couple of years of very fast development, with new and better cameras appearing every few months at surprisingly low prices :)
 
Samuel H said:
don't worry too much: the genie is out of the bottle, now I would expect a couple of years of very fast development, with new and better cameras appearing every few months at surprisingly low prices :)
Click to expand...

Indeed. especially since the manufacturing costs are about 1/50th - 1/100th of retail.
But in deference to the primary rule of convergence, we must remember that the sweet spot takes time to reach technology wise. So here's a sweet spot to savor... till the next convergence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top