Resolution vs Pixel Count (by Steve Yedlin, ASC)

[Sttratos]

Honestly there is little to no reason not to shoot 4k anymore. If somebody wants to cling to their precious camera like a crutch that's their problem. Cinema has never been about a specific camera and the rest of us are moving on. Besides in the Alexa world you are going to see a rather rapid shift to the Alexa 65 in Hollywood. Cameras are not a big deal in Hollywood and the Alexa XT will become the low budget camera for romantic comedies.

You say this based on what? I wouldn't think it's based on facts.

The Alexa XT is still the main camera in 2017 for movies shooting now to be released in the next couple of years. The Alexa 65 is great. But it comes with its own set of demands. Not every production wants to go 65mm just to gain some resolution. Red has had cameras with way more resolution than the Alexa XT for years now and hasn't swayed the market.

I think you are grossly over estimating the Alexa 65. 35mm will continue to be the standard and not only for romantic comedies. 65mm digital will be appealing for ultra mega popcorn blockbusters and the like. For selected few movies. The majority will stay 35mm.

 

[DLD]

What makes Yedlin's arguments fall apart for me is that he keeps stating, "Don't fall for the hype" or "4K is just a marketing talk". We've been through this in the Netflix related discussion. As been mentioned, Netflix isn't selecting cameras on "hype". They actually have a technical department that tests every eligible candidate and then decides whether it's acceptable or not. Likewise, the European Broadcast Union issued guidelines and ratings for the tested cameras, with only Alexa65 and F65 (each having a 17.6 MPX sensor for 4:2:2 4K) making their Tier One category. So, while Steve's arguments have some merit, especially about the human eye ability to resolve an image, he is being obtusely one sided in his presentation. He wants to have control over his camera choice instead of the studio that is underwriting a project. This has also been brought up in the Netflix thread. Scorsese can shoot on whatever he wants. Yedlin needs more rep to do likewise.

 

[Guest]

I thought that was avery good argument he made when he said we need 4K monitors more than 4K cameras. The general consensus usually goes the opposite way. But he made a good point that video is always a gradient but graphics are not.

I totally agree. I have been enjoying the drop in HD prices, but ultimately looking forward to at least 4K displays. Content online or television, is more often 720p, and that is fine, not worried about watching everything in UHD. I am not always happy with the way HD is upscaled on my 4K screen, and 4K does not take away compression artifacts from apple tv videos or HBO. Will have to find a better way to upress certain content. However, having the ability to play UHD BR is great. not seeing the display's pixels is great.

Not sure why, with 4K tv prices so low, computing power being good enough, why anyone feels we need to stay in HD displays. Especially since there is not any real need for most videos to be viewed at the highest resolutions.

I am glad we are moving into 4k/8k, because the conversation can stop being about sharpness finally. During the SD days, sharpness was a constant topic. Digital was sharper than analogue. Then HD came out, "sharpness" dominated everything. Because HD and SD inherently lack resolution, sharpness is a constant topic. The difference between 4K and 8K would be more aesthetics, since 4K can look seamless in most scenarios. But HD was just a physical drawback of current technology. With 4K, we can move on to improving compression, dynamic range, bit rates, and color.

 

[Grug]

...and again, we completely ignore the single most important factors in this discussion - circle of confusion and viewing angles.

The only agenda Yedlin is pushing is common sense. If there's no perceptual difference in increasing the resolution from 2k/HD for the viewing distances we watch things at, then there is, LITERALLY, no advantage to lifting resolution higher (except for, as is stated, particularly extreme viewing angle experiences like IMAX).

That's all there is to it. That's the only point that's being made.

Likewise the so-called 'obsolescence' of 2k/HD presentation is a nonsense concept, unless the viewing angles at which we consume visual content change dramatically.

 

[DLD]

..If there's no perceptual difference in increasing the resolution from 2k/HD for the viewing distances we watch things at, then there is, LITERALLY, no advantage to lifting resolution higher ...

I just posted a link for the Forbes article about new Chinese short throw projectors that can deliver a 120" image with 4,000 lumens from less than a foot away. They are currently pricey at about U$12,000 but that will come down in no time.

And that would make the "IF" very iffy.

 

[Guest]

...If there's no perceptual difference in increasing the resolution from 2k/HD for the viewing distances we watch things at, then there is, LITERALLY, no advantage to lifting resolution higher

I see a perceptible difference, and I appreciate the move to 4K very much.

I would argue with you further, except that it really doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Sttratos]

...and again, we completely ignore the single most important factors in this discussion - circle of confusion and viewing angles.

The only agenda Yedlin is pushing is common sense. If there's no perceptual difference in increasing the resolution from 2k/HD for the viewing distances we watch things at, then there is, LITERALLY, no advantage to lifting resolution higher (except for, as is stated, particularly extreme viewing angle experiences like IMAX).

That's all there is to it. That's the only point that's being made.

Likewise the so-called 'obsolescence' of 2k/HD presentation is a nonsense concept, unless the viewing angles at which we consume visual content change dramatically.

Yes I agree. But getting people who have bought 4K equipment to agree is a hard task. This discussion can go on for ages. I myself went with the 4K trend, then saw what it really was, turned around and have no regrets. But I have to say it took a certain type of objectivity to admit and finally see it after having invested quite a bit of money in it. It was a long drawn out process, till I finally pressed the F button and went with my heart instead of sticking to specs. Couldn't be happier. But it wasn't an easy decision and for some it will never be an option. So it's an endless discussion like the digital vs film one.

 

[Guest]

...finally pressed the F button and went with my heart instead of sticking to specs. Couldn't be happier.

This is what this topic should inspire. being able to have the confidence to do what you want aesthetically, knowing the pros and cons to each medium, format, and technology, and not on a sales pitch or gimmick, but by your own instincts and objectives.

I want to quote again the last words in the camera comparison:
"If we want to be authors and not shoppers..." - Steve Yedlin

 

[Run&Gun]

This is what this topic should inspire. being able to have the confidence to do what you want aesthetically, knowing the pros and cons to each medium, format, and technology, and not on a sales pitch or gimmick, but by your own instincts and objectives.

I want to quote again the last words in the camera comparison:
"If we want to be authors and not shoppers..." - Steve Yedlin

But you need to be able to author on what your client wants...

I have a client who does a lot on the C300. I'm on day four of five for them shooting interviews for a large project. Normally their camera of choice is the C300, but they are doing the project in "4K", partly for re-framing options in post and probably for archive purposes. They asked if I was cool shooting with their C300mkII, because it was a 4K project. I told them I have an F55, if that helps. So it went from shooting with one of their cameras for five days to shooting with mine for five days. That's a big 'ole difference in money.

If I had said I'm not ever gonna buy "4K", because you can't tell the difference, I'm sticking with HD, I would have missed out on a lot of work in the last few years.

The "anti-4K" attitude is just as bad as the "it HAS to be 4K" attitude.

 

[Kindredmachine]

Internally we refer to this entire debate as optimizing "resolvable resolution" and the bottom line is that footage shot at native 2K doesn't look nearly as clean as a 2K deliverable captured at 4K. In fact, we say that 4K becomes "true HD" at 2K/1080 when you look at gained resolvable detail. I figured this was widely understood but maybe not. The reason for shooting on 5K, 6K and 8K cameras is not really for higher resolvable resolution at a 2K or even 4K deliverable, because it's true that you hit a wall where detail is just deleted when you downscale, but rather for added flexibility in post, i.e. reframing, FX work, and cleaner deliverables after heavy grades as well as getting a more organic deliverable from finer grain and texture.

The differences might be subtle but when you're spending $20K a day shooting on a backlot, then why the heck would you not want that added flexibility if needed later on?!

And once again because it seems that most people are missing the point. Take it from an award winning film company that has had several #1 hits in the US. Shooting 4K-8K is 100% about flexibility in post.... period. We still have our DCI in 2K for theater and don't see that changing with our 2018 releases, and yet, I wouldn't trade our RED's for the world because I've seen first hand the befenefits it has in post.

Obviously it goes without saying that you can forego those benefits and still have a smash hit on your hands, but even reducing micro shake from gimbal shots requires a certain level of flexible resolution... plus consider reframing, FX work etc. shooting higher res isn't needed, just ads a crutch that if you ever need it, you have it. It's the old expression - ide rather have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it.

 

[DLD]

And once again because it seems that most people are missing the point. Take it from an award winning film company that has had several #1 hits in the US. Shooting 4K-8K is 100% about flexibility in post.... period. We still have our DCI in 2K for theater and don't see that changing with our 2018 releases, and yet, I wouldn't trade our RED's for the world because I've seen first hand the befenefits it has in post...

This is an almost year old article but I'll quote from it nonetheless -

http://www.techradar.com/news/why-its-hard-to-find-hdr-at-the-cinema

"About 23% of the market is 4K and the rest is 2K from the early digital cinema installations from 2005-2008 ... but there's an upgrade path for 2K cinemas."

So, clearly, 3/4th of theater screens in the US are not 4K capable and Hollywood's preference for 2K has mainly a financial motive behind it.

 

[DLD]

4K TV's are expected to be in ~ 34 million US homes by the end of 2017, which is also around a quarter of all US homes. UHD Blu-Rays are doing pretty well with the expected sales of 8.4 million discs.

 

[Kindredmachine]

This is an almost year old article but I'll quote from it nonetheless -

http://www.techradar.com/news/why-its-hard-to-find-hdr-at-the-cinema



So, clearly, 3/4th of theater screens in the US are not 4K capable and Hollywood's preference for 2K has mainly a financial motive behind it.

Thanks for the post. This is mainly on line with what I've been stating. Even our own releases through 2018 will remain 1080p/2K with only 2K DCI deliverables for limited theaters even though we shoot far above 4K. It's purely for flexibility in post and effects work.

On a personal note though, yes there is a noticeable difference between 1080p Bluray and UHD "4K Bluray" but that has far more to do with color space and compression. And since our industry choices for film releases are either 8-bit 1080p H.264 or 10-bit UHD H.265... then when the time comes, we'll happily jump on the UHD bandwagon. I'll take 10-bit masters any day

And yes, we recently have a new global digital distribution deal so we have releases heading to all of the SVOD platforms (NetFlix, Prime, Hulu, Vudu etc) about 3 months after our initial release windows so it's only a matter of time until we HAVE to begin providing 4K masters. Maybe 2019 or 2020 - otherwise we'll be left behind.

The botttom line is that we will eventually be FORCED into proving 4K masters and if we (or anyone else) wants that extra crutch/flexibility in post for framing, stabilizing footage, FX work etc, then get use to capturing at 6K or higher. The change is inetivable.

 

[DLD]

Thanks for the post. This is mainly on line with what I've been stating. Even our own releases through 2018 will remain 1080p/2K with only 2K DCI deliverables for limited theaters even though we shoot far above 4K. It's purely for flexibility in post and effects work. ...

But the Raw footage - whether graded or completely unedited - is stored in the original Red format (or converted/compressed into another codec) on LTO?

 

[Kindredmachine]

Ourselves nor any of the partners we work with use tape storage anymore since there's so many cloud based digital storage services tailored to the film industry now. If you go to NAB these days, you'll see how big the competition is for that... But to get to your question, yes, we store the original "raw" R3D files along with prores proxies for future use. Space is far more affordable now.

 

[Aaveum]

I don‘t think it is about the pixel. It is about the quality of the pixel. An definitely not how many of them.

Back in SD days pixel count was more important because SD was really starved of resolution and sharpness.

But HD or 2K will not put a limitation on you the same way. At that point it‘s really up to the general picture.

Sure there are extreme circumstances such as with heavy VFX where extra resolution helps and if the debate was all centered around this I would agree. But the same debate goes on whether you are talking VFX or just talking heads for an interview.

As for overhead, sure it‘s nice to have it. Not for reframing and other fix in post matters, because I‘m a huge believer on getting it right on set. But overhead is still nice to have. As long as it is not at the cost of more important things.

If I could have the pixel density of an Alexa with its multi-ISO reading, plus the color, skin rendition, texture and motion of the F35 with the resolution of the F65 all in ARRI raw, I would be crazy if I would say I wouldn‘t want that. But this is not going to happen. Because to achieve one you have to compromise the other.

So overhead to me is not on top of the list. I can always strive to get it right on set. I‘m not shooting news or documentaries. For features and most commercial work you plan ahead and execute it. And for news, documentaries, corporate, weddings and the like, ultimate image quality is secondary to capturing the image or the moment. So this discussion applies really only to features/theatrical/commercials/high-end work.

I think when people put HD down in comparison to 4K they are mainly thinking of HD cameras such as the F3, FS700, AF100, C100, C300 and the like. They are not thinking of HD cameras such as the Genesis, F35, D21 and even a Viper. Because these cameras will make a better image than pretty much anything south of a F55. And even compared to a F55 or F65 I would choose some of them based on the aesthetics of the image alone.

Obviously judging image quality will depend on which aspects of the image you hold important. But in a general sense, the above HD and 2K cameras should make higher quality images than 4K DSLRs and cheaper 4K camcorders. Despite the resolution differences. Because the images from them despite not being 4K feel high-end. While the images from cheap 4K cameras don‘t.

Great HD from high-end cameras will be better than mediocre 4K from a DSLR or lower to mid-tier camera. To me, 12-bit 444 uncompressed HD or 2K from a great HD or 2K sensor, especially a RGB one, is a clear choice over 8-bit 420 compressed 4K. It would technically look better than even 10-bit or 12-bit 4K raw, specially if it‘s liner raw. I‘m speaking of overall image. Not pixels.

The main point is HD/2K doesn‘t limit you like SD did. Because HD/2K was when we hit the point of diminishing returns in resolution and sharpness.

I also don‘t believe that when screens get larger 4k will become more important. Because the larger the screen the farther you will sit from it.

 

[Aaveum]

If you look at the most recent specs issued by the "governing bodies", the aim is 8K @120p.

As to 1080p, there's the Bayer 1080 (2.1 MPX) and then there's an RGB 1080 (6.3 MPX). Your basic consumer camera is 2.1 (and the DSLR's will skip//bin lines to get there). The ultra high end (of the yesteryear) F35 had a 12 MPX RGB "stripe" sensor that gave a 1080p ( http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?318627-F35-Beginners-What-is-the-sensor). Likewise, there are 4K sensor with 8.8 MPX (as in the GH4, ASI/II, G7, etc.) and there are 4.5K/5.7K (11-17 MPX) cameras that deliver 4K.

Now, I am no Yedlin but I surmise that an F35 with its extra photo sites will deliver roughly the same quality image as a GH4 that is downsampled into 1080P RGB but it won't match the resolution of the 17.6 MPX sensor of F65. Hypothetically, Raw footage from any camera can go through multiple passes during an upscaling process to render resolution of something with many more pixels. Olympic OMD EM1 shift their pixels in a stills mode to produce 3-4 the stated sensor resolution. The problem is that the inexpensive processors aren't yet powerful enough even for portraiture in real time. At some point, they will be. And soon after that, you'd be able to get 4K video out of a 2K sensor and no one will be wiser for it.

The F35 is an unique exception in HD. All the complains about HD cameras don‘t really apply to the F35. The F35, specially based on today‘s perceptions, is better thought of as a 6K camera that downsamples to HD in camera when it comes to resolution and detail. It resolves beyond 2K, even if the container is a HD one. And its unique RGB 35mm sensor gives it an edge over CMOS based cameras, even if they are 4K.

It all depends on how you judge image quality. For some, clean and sharp images mean good quality. To me, I see so much extra clean and high resolution footage that looks unappealing. I always look for something else beyond just sharpness and low noise or grain. Color, skins, light management and motion are all more important to me than how sharp or how clean the image is.

 

[Tom Roper]

The F35 is an unique exception in HD. All the complains about HD cameras don‘t really apply to the F35. The F35, specially based on today‘s perceptions, is better thought of as a 6K camera that downsamples to HD in camera when it comes to resolution and detail. It resolves beyond 2K, even if the container is a HD one. And its unique RGB 35mm sensor gives it an edge over CMOS based cameras, even if they are 4K.

It all depends on how you judge image quality. For some, clean and sharp images mean good quality. To me, I see so much extra clean and high resolution footage that looks unappealing. I always look for something else beyond just sharpness and low noise or grain. Color, skins, light management and motion are all more important to me than how sharp or how clean the image is.

Totally misses the point. Steve's conclusion is simple and has nothing to do with how people should think of the F35. His conclusion is fundamental. Once you reach a certain pixel count further additions don't add more quality to the picture, and that we have already reached that point.

 

[Run&Gun]

I also don‘t believe that when screens get larger 4k will become more important. Because the larger the screen the farther you will sit from it.

Not really. One of the reasons to have a high resolution display is to be able to not see individual pixels and allowing us to sit closer to larger displays(more immersive experience), not farther away. I'd also argue that most display-to-seat-distance is fixed. In my bedroom, the bed has been in the exact same location since day one, as well as the location of the TV and the same with my tv and seat locations in my den. I've gone from a 25" SD CRT to several HD LCD's that each increased in size and resolution to currently having a 55" "4K" OLED in there, now. And in my den I started out with a 27" SD CRT and currently have a 92" 1080P rear projection set. I've gone from 27" to 60" to 73" to 92" and each time my seat position stayed the same. It didn't get farther away. As a matter of fact, even with a 92" 1080P set, I'm still sitting beyond the THX recommended and recommended maximum viewing distance. I would actually need to have at least a 100" display to be within the recommended maximum viewing distance or move ~5 feet closer to the screen.

So, you could say you're partially right, but that's just because most viewers are sitting too far away from their screens to begin with, not because they need to sit farther from a bigger screen. I'd argue most people could probably get bigger screens than they currently have AND move closer to them.

 

[DLD]

Back in the day when I was selling big screen, the "go-to" question for many salespeople was, "so, how far do you sit from your TV"?

Of course, the answer almost always was, "Oh, then a 50" would be perfect for you". That 50", obviously, had to be in stock or the answer changed to 45". Or 47". Or whatever was in stock.

The early 80's were about the two-piece front projectors. I recall our sitting in college bar area and watching "General Hospital" on one of those. VCR's were rare at that time, so we often flocked to the only big screen on campus. The big jump in quality was when the one box rear projections came on the market a few years later. Another jump was in 1989, when the 45" ($2,700) and 50" ($3,000) Mitsubishi RPTV's came out. 700" "lines of resolution". We couldn't keep them in stock for a full year.