Is 4K too much?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
I just started thinking about it and one of the interesting things about films is also what you don't see as much as what you do see.

Shallow depth of field is a good example of that. It's highlight is that if focuses the audiences attention on a given subject in the frame. But what it also does is blur out what you don't want them to see in the background or foreground, which could be an unfinished set or something that could otherwise be distracting. That lack of detail helps.

4k resolution is a lot. But will we see filmmakers trying to tone done the resolution because it's picking up too much detail? I could see this being a problem if for say you are working with models like model airplanes. I know most of that stuff is done with CG these days but not all of it.
Another scenario might be a closeup of an actors face and some sort of blemish or skin condition.
I think it's different with film because it has a sort of softness to it.

Just a thought. I'm not at all against the idea of the higher resolution. Just something else to consider.
 
Last edited:
I'm personally not going to go to 4K for a couple of years. For now it'll be mostly 1080p, or maybe 2K cropped down to cinemascope. 4K is REALLY BIG.

That said, I don't think the detail level will be a problem. It's easy to put filters on in post that can soften the image. Losing detail is easy, but recording it in the fist place is the hard part.
 
roxics said:
I just started thinking about it and one of the interesting things about films is also what you don't see as much as what you do see.

Shallow depth of field is a good example of that. It's highlight is that if focuses the audiences attention on a given subject in the frame. But what it also does is blur out what you don't want them to see in the background or foreground, which could be an unfinished set or something that could otherwise be distracting. That lack of detail helps.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that the imager will have a 35mm depth of field will help out a lot. I do know, though, that these problems already appear in HD -- though I don't know what kind of cameras they are using. In Sci-Fi's Battlestar Galactica, they shoot on HD, and the production designers had to go through and scuff up the set because of how crisp the video was.

I imagine this will involve some level of adjustment, as is the case with all new technologies.
 
well the great thing about red is options. If i had RED i wouldnt be shooting 4k, probably wouldnt even be shooting 2k, but it does 1080 great as well. If then you needed 4k, wow, you've already got it!
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
well the great thing about red is options. If i had RED i wouldnt be shooting 4k, probably wouldnt even be shooting 2k, but it does 1080 great as well. If then you needed 4k, wow, you've already got it!
Click to expand...

Now acquire it and distribute it
 
All this clean resolution does present some challenges.

DOF control should be vastly improved in 2k and 4k imagers, but your foreground subject is being rendered in unforgiving splendor. Improved latitude helps art-direction, deco, electrics and grip departments in their work by masking fakery within the greater range.

Bad news for talent though. We're already airbrushing our actors (the jury is out on this one) for work at 1080 and 720 resolutions.

It'll be interesting to see how the crafts develop in response to this rapidly advancing digital technology! It's like having the power of IMAX in a palmcorder - we might find ourselves degrading image in post to make the improved image tolerable in everything but travelogue work.

e
 
overlandfilms said:
It's like having the power of IMAX in a palmcorder - we might find ourselves degrading image in post to make the improved image tolerable in everything but travelogue work.

e
Click to expand...

Mmm... IMAX Handicam. I think you're on to something! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Well, I guess you could argue that Imax is ultimate, what is that 70mm?
But then how much bigger do you need it?

I think 4k is enough I will ever use it for in this life time.
But...you can go holographic, and a holographic theater.
That would be cool...

virtual video games where the camera shoots 360 around one point and you are immersed in the action...this is the next step.

Jim caught us up digitally finally where we need to be, now we need the next revolutionary to hook us up into the matrix for real life movie/gaming...wait we are in one now...:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

peace

dalen
 
theoretically a 4k cmos chip should give you more pleasing images with greater latitude. the luminace curve if timed right should surpass 35mm (truth is 35mm scanned to 4k is scanned with several passes at a slow frame rate).

in response to the above posts the lower the resolution the less the grey scale, the more confused the conversion process from chip to recorder. DOF is just an optical style. the longer the lense the more shallow the focus. (not true with the panavision 18mm-28mm lenses, these are highly sought after for music video and comercials).

Codec issues aside, I am impressed by the theory of red and d-20 at 4k, because to get richer images you would need slower shutter speeds at slower frame rates. you can have a sensor the size of a 35mm frame but every filmmaker knows that glass is king. if you dont have good glass you will be recording little information and a higher signal to noise ratio at 4k. in film there is a love hate relationship for fast film stocks (even the vision2 stocks) yes you need less light but you also need more expensive and fast lenses roughly about 70-100k. we are fortunate oakley deals in glass. that was the downfall of the first sony cinealta, needed huge pana-lenses. the genesis solved this problem. raw images from the genesis are very pleasing at hd 1080 resolution. my $.02

4k itself is used for Vfx heavy work to color match luminace. radiosity and chromance to CG elements. it works both ways its smart to match live hd def images to cg "spy kids") or cg elements to film originated material "kong".

please if there is a post house guy on this forum please elaborate on this as this is not my specialty. i only this is what they do with the footage we send them.
 
Last edited:
4k is alot.. but the goal of RED is to make a camera that will last you a long time... instead of needing to buy a camera every 3 or 4 years you can just upgrade the camera. Remember, even that 4k sensor is replaceable.

I figure most of us will turn on the 4k mode when we get it, shoot 10 seconds and then realize what we have gotten ourselves into. We then will proceed to shoot at 2k for a couple years till the entire 4k workflow becomes a little less elite, or until we get hired onto a studio shoot that has the facility to handle the data.
 
thanks Jarred you summed it up.

Well, I guess you could argue that Imax is ultimate, what is that 70mm.

65MM is the aquisition format shot horizontally, 70mm is the print format with sound track. even that is currently scanned at 4k, or blown from 4k 35mm origination to 70mm, with terranexing your dv footage can be blown to 70mm. it will actually take on an edgier form of its own.

so yes RED is an imax palm-corder
 
Last edited:
IMAX is 70mm Vista Vision, meaning it runs sideways throught the projector and I think it pulls something like 14-15 perfs a frame. Its flying through the projector.

I've seen just 2 test in 4K on a 4K projector and I wasn't really that blown away. The resolution on stuff that was captured digitally on 4K signal like "Corpse Bride" looked crazy. You could see the finger prints and stuff on the characters. I think that 2K will be a big hit for a while. But I can see people shooting in 4K for VFX.

Looks like its going to be a kickass camera.
 
in terms of being worried that 4k will give 2 much detail i dont think it will be an issue. Of course you can always soften the image (and i am sure filters for this sort of downresing are just going to be getting better) but also think about digital photography. These cameras already exists for still photography and while there is debate about digital matching film it is something that can certainly be delt with. Also if you are intending to do a film out (which is probably what most epople that are going to buy this camera are hoping on doing) That will be the equivelant of making a still photo c-print. Another way of looking at it is that becasue of all this new, powerful and still cheap equipment, almost anyone will be able to have extrmeley nice equipment capable of high production value but its the people who will really embrace the new technology and take the time to soften the image or pay closer attention to there talents makeup that will stand out from the crowd.
 
As a contribution to this discussion of whether 4K pixel resolution is too "sharp" - and if so, why doesn't film have this "sharpness" problem; there is an excellent web site

www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

that explains the independent characteristics of "resolution" and "acutance"

Having recently worked in the security video industry, I'm all too familiar with just how ugly faces can become when low resolution cameras have lots of edge detail enhancement dialed in.....

I think that it has already been suggested as a resolution (no pun intended) to this dilemma, that HD cameras have too much actutance (edge detail) dialed in to treat actor's complexions favorably. So it may not actually be a resolution issue per se. And the old standby of silk stockings (over the lens, not the talent) is still available .... :-)
 
Stuart English said:
So it may not actually be a resolution issue per se. And the old standby of silk stockings (over the lens, not the talent) is still available .... :-)
Click to expand...

ha ha ha ha.. im sure alot of us cameramen wish they could pull stockings over the heads of some of the talent we have worked with.

Great link Stuart.. very good read.
 
Plus, this is a single-chip camera; you can't just translate the chip's photosite count into actual resolution. There's already some interpolation going on.

Maybe someone from Red would like to help us estimate the real, full-color resolution from the chip. I guess it depends somewhat on the algorithm used to reconstitute the image from the chip data.
 
Gorgeous link, Mr. English! You're very welcome Stuart! To have the dvx father here it's a honour to this board!

EDIT -- (and I'm not a dvx owner -- unfortunately!...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top