My rant on resolution!

A

arrestthisman

Well-known member
I apologize in advance, since this is truly a rant with no other purpose than to solidify my own thoughts on this subject; although I figure, why not post it in case there's something of value in it for anyone else. Or maybe you guys agree. Maybe this will trigger a good discussion. Who knows? So here goes...

The notion that people, notably digital filmmakers, make too big-a-deal about REZ is nothing new. I personally echo that sentiment. And, with cameras like the Red One coming out, 4k is all the rage on the boards. I'm just as excited about Red as the next guy. It legitimizes digital to a new pedigree, and will bring the quality to price ratio to a level I don't think any of us would have thought possible in 2007. But it really got me thinking about movies in general.

Ten years ago I went to the theater at least every weekend. Years before that, my parents took me to the movies twice a week. (I had a lot of "sick" days in school.) Now, unfortunately I see maybe three movies a year in theaters. That doesn't mean I don't watch movies anymore. But I have a High-Def home theater (DLP projector; 5.1 surround) with leather couches, and a mini-bar 5 steps away from me. If I wasn't fortunate enough to have this, I have two close friends with similar setups. And this all comes without the guy in the audience who won't shut up. The teenage girl who thinks her cellphone ringing in the middle of the best scene is "cute." The 30 minute line to get tickets. The line to get INTO the movie. The 20 minutes of commercials for crap primetime TV, before I get to see the 20 minutes of commercials for OTHER movies. (Ok, I like the trailers too... but still!) Oh yeah, and when the movie's over I check my wallet to pay the parking attendant the 5$ for my spot so I didn't have to walk four blocks, and of course I can't help but notice the 9.50$ missing... No wait, it's 13.50. because I wanted a medium sized coke. No wait, it's 23$ because I had to pay for my friend's ticket, otherwise he wouldn't come with me, since this wasn't a film he really wanted to go to, and going to the movies is now pretty expensive. That's okay, he'll get me back next time for his pick.

I love going out to the movies, even with all of that. But since it does require an investment of time, which to me is more important than money, I have to pick carefully. Don't even get me started on when I wasted my night on V for Vendetta! I, like most people, just don't have the time to regularly devote to the event of "going out." But when I do go, I go to the smaller theater... the one that doesn't get very crowded, validates for parking, and keeps a good audience that knows to turn off their cell phones. The coke is still $4, but that's okay. And since they don't pull as much of a crowd, the theaters are a little smaller. But I like that, because generally, the big theaters skimp on lamps to save money. (You know, for the cocaine they dust the popcorn with.)

I've given this rant to nearly everyone I know, no one disagrees with me as of yet.

So.... resolution. If people like smaller theaters, or Home Theaters. Is 4k really that important?

I may be very wrong, but would depth of field, the quality of the actual film (acting, editing etc.), and other things I'm not thinking of, be much more important than 4k? The one thing thats on my mind is color. Hydra will hopefully hit soon, and that will be delivering 4:4:4 14-bit color.

With box office receipts down, and sales of 1080p home screens paling in comparison to 720p panels, isn't color among the most important issues for us camera nerds to consider?

Instead of waiting for 6k, 8k, 10k, I personally hope the next phase in Moore's Law for cameras is getting us to 16-bit color. (Or more?... nah, now I'm just getting greedy.) Hopefully we can preserve the lovely motion blur our HVXs give us in the process.

Anyway, my thumbs are tired, I can only write so much on my Treo. The line for Grindhouse just started moving. :)
 
People like to talk about resolution so much because it is the ONE thing they think is monetarily out of their reach. Now that it is within reach, there is an incorrect assumption that the gates of Hollywood will swing open.

Look at this and other forums, go look at the user submissions and now, imagine them in 4K...are they suddenly more marketable? No, most are still in the hobbyist realm or at best, niche market stuff.

The problem with your rant, is that you are not representing mainstream culture. You talk of lines, then say box office receipts are down. It is like the old Yogi Berra quote, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." Bottom line is that mainstream America lines up for Dukes of Hazzard, gets their $5 Redvines, $6 popcorn and $4 soda... for every decent home theater, there are a 1000 people in line at the local Megatheater....




ash =o)
 
One thing you also forgot to mention in your home theather scenerio is COMPRESSION. Even though there are 1080p sets and blu-ray or HD-DVD players, the fact is these still suffer from compression artifacts. Whether the acquisition was 35mm, 2 or 4k digital, you still have to squash it down to get it on a DVD. Having seen this first hand, althought the quality is very good and getting better, nothing beats watching a 35mm print on the big screen....well except maybe 70mm imax.
 
And color is affected by compression, too. Any DVD you watch has been compressed to 4:2:0 (equal to the lowliest of DV or HDV cameras). But do you really watch Tommy on DVD and think, "man, I wish I could see all the colors avaliable in a film print." No, you really don't.

I don't know what HD-DVD or BlueRay does with color, but hopefully it's an improvement. Although, as I mentioned, the 4:2:0 is "perceptually lossless."

Resolution is easily noticed and made a big difference. I was watching the last episode of 24 through a friend's TiVo. She had recorded it at SD and HD just in case (she's that kind of fan). When we switched halfway from SD to HD it made a huge difference.

That being said, for most casual viewers it's not going to be a big deal--but in my opinion resolution is more important on a small theater than on the big screen. I expect 35mm movies to be a little soft. It certainly didn't make me complain when I saw Lucky Number Slevin last year; the photography was beautiful enough that the softness of the fim-projector-screen combo didn't bother me. But then I also saw Sin City last year on the big screen--with resolution so good you can see Micky Rourke's pockmarks. Both were great, but served different purposes.

In summary, the only real thing I can say is that after editing HVX footage, I can't go back to SD. After watching HDTV, my regular broadcasts seem vintage. Resolution is important because it is something that is perceptable to even the casual viewer.

That being said, Ash makes a good point. Imagine the worst movie you've ever seen. Now imagine it in full, uncompressed, 4:4:4, 4K projection. Did it get any better? No. The emphasis always has to be on the various art forms involved in filmmaking. Higher resolution cameras are just handy tools in that art.
 
I agree that people do get hung up on numbers. It's like a drag race. Fortunately in this business and in many others, numbers, specs, all that jargon, doesn't mean a thing when you measure talent. Leonardi Da Vinci could paint a picture using his own blood just as well with a nice expensive set of brushes..
 
Well this kinda goes back to the CAnon Vs Panasonic debate. The canon ALWAYS were sharper. they were, and still are alot sharper. But the panasonics, took other thingsinto account. Dynamic range, gamma and color. other than us DVXusers, noone cares about resolution. but they do notice pretty colors. And pretty colors get me work. so i'd ratehr have the camera that has the pretty colors. :)

As for home theatre, my 60" XRD2 Sony HDTV is breath taking. it literally looks better than most movie theatres. if given the option of watching a film i nthe theatre or on HBO HD, id take HBO. Hands down. 1080p is PLENTY pretty and much sharper than most theatres i go to. ( the sony reverse pulls down 24p->60i 2:3 footage back into 1080 24P)
 
rapsucks said:
...........Ash makes a good point. Imagine the worst movie you've ever seen. Now imagine it in full, uncompressed, 4:4:4, 4K projection. Did it get any better? No.
Click to expand...
I won't disagree with that, but I can also remember arguably the best movie I've ever seen (on a really bad in flight aeroplane screen). Imagine that in full, uncompressed, 4:4:4, 4K projection - would that have been even better? Errr, well yes, very much so.

A well produced, but technically bad film may well be better than a badly produced but technically fantastic one. But a well produced, technically fantastic one, will be FAR, FAR better than a badly produced, technically bad one!!!

There is also a big difference between PRODUCTION and DISTRIBUTION standards. What is sensible for the latter, may be less so for the former. The human eye can't really cope with more than 8 bit depth anyway, so why code to more for final distribution? But for acquisition and processing 10 or more bits is highly desirable, to allow scope for post production. Similar factors apply to resolution and colour depth.
 
Well, I'm glad I posted my rant, you guys ALL have great points!

Ash, I love that Yogi quote. The only thing is that while paradoxical, it is true that the box office gross is down on the whole. I don't quite know the remedy would be, but I really do think it has to do with the theater experience. And let's not forget efficiency. If they have a showing at 7PM that has my 30 minute line, and four other showings that are empty... well. There you go. It happens.

Ozduc, compression IS a big issue. However, for me, with H.264 available, it's not much of an issue. It's an amazing delivery codec, in fact my DVD rips (legit) :) look better than the original. I know, I know, I'm a skeptic too, but I've shown them side by side and I get the same response. There is an explaination, though. Way out of my league in terms of math, but essentially the codec has so many provisions for motion and color that it makey better somehow haha. Wikipedia explains it a lot better than me.

Harddrive, I don't know if I totally agree that the human eye can't cope with moe than 8-bit. Harsh gradients suffer from bad banding in 8-bit if pushed too hard. I'm red-green deficient in my vision and I still can tell the difference between 8 and 10 bit. That said, I think it makes more of a difference in animation than live action.

Also, my favorite movie is Brazil, and I would NOT want to see it 4:4:4 4K. I love it exactly the way it is.

I think that's what it comes down to. When I hear a piece of classical music I've never heard before, usually, the first rendition I heard is my fave. When people see new content they fall in love with, they prefer it in the format they saw it in, unless it was notably crappy in terms of delivery.

The films of the future shown in 35mm... people will be like, "we want digital!" "This looks soft!" Transitional periods are always tough, right now it's divided. But my kids will wonder about the "film-age" and ask how we didn't get a headache.

Whoever mentioned Mickey Rourke in Sin City. I totally agree. But remember that was 1080p, no more, no less. I think that is about right. I think for most movies there comes to point where the sharpness is "just right" and 1080p seems to be it right now. maybe 2k.

But sharpness is not like speed (say on a computer) where more is ALWAYS better. In film, fidelity is an artistic choice. There is a standard, and sometimes that standard is deliberately broken. If more was always better, we'd be watching films @ 250FPS. But no. 24FPS looks "right."

I think the most beautifully shot movie of the 90s was Eyes Wide Shut. Grainy as hell, pushed up 2 stops to film in the dark! It looked perfect for what it was supposed to be. In technology, since we're always moving forwards, we need to stay sober and... yeah..

I'm the first to want the newest toy, and am amazed at what can be accomplished, but at a certian point it's time to set a standard... you know, so it can be broken!
 
Once every video camera produces footage with lots of colors no compression and no noise, filmmakers will be scrambling to add it back in post to get that retro feel.
When I started in video and cg animation video and film were both noisy media. The goal was always to smooth things and make them look as clean as possible. Once digital editing and motion graphics caught up and started producing slick clean imagery, everyone all of a sudden started adding grunge layers and noise to dirty their footage up.

Now I cant go a day without seeing someone on an AE forum asking how to make their clean DV footage or Motion Graphics look like "old tv".
 
Arson said:
Once every video camera produces footage with lots of colors no compression and no noise, filmmakers will be scrambling to add it back in post to get that retro feel.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, they're already doing it now. Have you seen the new double feature from Rodriguez and Tarantino?
 
I guess we'll always have a soft spot for things from our childhood. Or even if things from our parents' childhood. But even this illustrates that you can always go backward (even if you just revert to using older technology). But new tools with higher resolution, color space, frame rates, etc. expand the abilities of the filmmaker.

And yes, Sin City was in 1080p, but it was a much nicer 1080 than we can do with our HDVs or even the HVX. The pixel count is the same, but the perceptive resolution is much higher than we can get now. It's even higher than 35mm film. What I mean by this is that if you took an eye-test chart and shot it with both, you would be able to read more lines on the Sony 950 than on 35mm film.
 
arrestthisman said:
Harddrive, I don't know if I totally agree that the human eye can't cope with moe than 8-bit. Harsh gradients suffer from bad banding in 8-bit if pushed too hard. I'm red-green deficient in my vision and I still can tell the difference between 8 and 10 bit. That said, I think it makes more of a difference in animation than live action.
Click to expand...
By and large I tend to find gradient banding more likely to be due to overcompression of the chroma information than insufficient bit depth. Try forming a horizontal gradient in Photoshop and then saving it as JPEGs with varying (harsh) compression. At the extreme it ends up as a series of vertical bars - though it is still an 8 bit system.

It's why it is wrong to think that 4:2:2 is *always* a superior option to 4:2:0, certainly at the distribution level. In an uncompressed world it would be of course, but by and large various levels of compression are inevitable. In such a case having fewer colour samples, but compressing them less *may* be a better compromise.

It also depends what you mean by "pushed too hard". If you took a 8 bit recording and then tried to apply too much colour or gamma correction, say, it will obviously stand up far less well than a 10 bit system. But do all the processing at higher bit depths, then go to 8 bit, and I'd not expect too much trouble.
 
Very interesting article on NPR last week. They interviewed two film critics who watched a film (made on film for traditional theater projection) shown on a digital projector in a theater that had just made the switch. One said it looked horrible, one said it looked fantastic. What they both did agree on was the way in which films will be produced.

They agreed that this is the largest upgrade to movie theaters since sound was introduced to film. It's going to take time. BUT when enough movie theaters are digital, directors will start making films with that digital projector as their target. A movie shot on film by a director aiming for showings on traditional projectors will light, grade, etc, for that medium, to get the final showing on that projector to look the way he wants it to.

Soon, directors will be lighting, grading, etc, all differently, with the aim to get the look they want go show on those new digital projectors in theaters. When they do that, movies shot digitally or on traditional film, will both look great on digital projectors, as the directors are producing with that final medium in mind.

When that happens, digital projectors will look just like film projectors. It's not about the technology or the medium, it's about how you handle it and what you're target medium is.

Some digital theaters today can already download movies overnight. No more UPS fees for cans of film or a stack of hard drives. Digital can cut the cost of running a movie theater drastically. But will we see a drop in ticket prices? I doubt it, and if we do, it'll be very little, and only last a short while. Just like when gas prices drop, it's only by a few cents, and when we get used to it, it creeps back up.

Not point to make here, just a curious observation, that the final look of a movie depends much more on how the medium is handled, not totally by the medium itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top