Resolution vs Pixel Count (by Steve Yedlin, ASC)

DLD said:
S VHS never really took off. There were too few films released on it and consumers were not willing to pay premium over VHS VCR's. The pro camcorder market went toward the Hi8 format. And so it met the fate of the Elcaset.

As to the screen size, it started small but it never stopped growing. I can easily imagine wall size OLED's a few years from now.
Click to expand...

I think you mean the consumer camera market. S-VHS was pretty big in the pro camera market and mainly what I used when I started out in the 90's. JVC and Panasonic ENG cameras were all S-VHS until DV came out and then we moved to the Sony DSR300 and DSR500 series of DVCAM cameras and replaced all the S-VHS cameras. The pro camera market didn't care about compactness which is why the consumer market moved towards Hi8. It needed smaller tapes for smaller cameras.
 
My front row is 8' from a 154" diagonal 2.35 aspect AT screen. 4K would be perfect at that size.

In my experience, none of the lenses I've used can resolve 4K at f/16. Images look noticably softer than at f/5.6. I'm referring to S35 format on my FS7. Interestingly, I have a little Sony RX10mkIII that I bought for my Japan travels and am amused at how sharp the fixed zoom lens on that camera is, even though it's only a 1" sensor. It's sharp, rectilinear and has barely any CA visible. How is it that a cheap point n shoot camera has a lens that competes for sharpness with the 18-110 Sony lens?

That Acer projector looks interesting, but only good for screens up to 120 inches. I'm currently using a projector intended for 300" on a 154" and getting 63 foot lamberts. Everyone who comes to see any of my productions on that screen always comments on it being 'too bright'. But I love high brightness because I like to shoot low key and preserve highlights.
 
basspig said:
My front row is 8' from a 154" diagonal 2.35 aspect AT screen. 4K would be perfect at that size.
Click to expand...
Here's a new set of triplets from Sony. Just for you.

https://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/472318,sony-releases-three-new-4k-projectors.aspx

Edit:

There are several Faux 4K projectors that use a pixel shifting technology to deliver an image "equal" to a true 4K set. Epson's aside, here's one from JVC.

http://www.audioholics.com/projector-reviews/jvc-dla-x570r-4k-e-shift4-projector-review
 
Last edited:
basspig said:
I'm currently using a projector intended for 300" on a 154" and getting 63 foot lamberts. Everyone who comes to see any of my productions on that screen always comments on it being 'too bright'.
Click to expand...

That's four times brighter than SMPTE's recommendation for movie theaters :D
 
Tom Roper said:
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.
Click to expand...


How can I totally miss a point which I‘m not trying to address? My reply was in reference to DLD‘s mention of the F35. I was not addressing Yedlin‘s article. My reply was intended to continue the discussion on the F35 itself.

For the record I totally agree with Yedlin‘s findings.
 
Run&Gun said:
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.
Click to expand...

My point was more along the lines of, if you have a wall sized screen you are not going to sit 3‘ from it.
 
And here's a sub-$10,000 8K TV from Sharp.

[video]https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/1/16239250/sharp-8k-tv-ifa-aquos?yptr=yahoo[/video]
 
Aaveum said:
My point was more along the lines of, if you have a wall sized screen you are not going to sit 3‘ from it.
Click to expand...

Why not? If it is sharp and oled it would be nice without burning your eyes... I wouldn't want to watch "content" like that, but have a waterfall as wall would be swell...

And as I said before and what imax viewing angles show is that people can sit with high viewing angles to screens if the content/technology allows it.
 
DLD said:
Here's a new set of triplets from Sony. Just for you.

https://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/472318,sony-releases-three-new-4k-projectors.aspx

Edit:

There are several Faux 4K projectors that use a pixel shifting technology to deliver an image "equal" to a true 4K set. Epson's aside, here's one from JVC.

http://www.audioholics.com/projector-reviews/jvc-dla-x570r-4k-e-shift4-projector-review
Click to expand...

Those are looking somewhat interesting, but alas, the pricing is unknown. And 2000 lumens isn't what I'd call HDR-ready. Probably need ten times that brightness to equal the 1500-nit HDR displays that are coming out now.
 
Crazy.. The US is barely eaking out 720P with a lot of compression artifacts. Japan is way ahead of the curve. When I was living in Kamata this summer, I had access to a full 1GB bi-directional internet connection. I uploaded a 5GB video to Youtube in under two minutes. Would have taken a week back in the US on my DSL connection.
In order for optics to resolve 8K, they're going to produce a larger image circle. I double a sensor size a bit larger an an inch is going to be enough, except with the finest optics at six figure prices. On a medium format sensor, no problem. But a challenge on a small sensor like that.
 
One of the problems with going with too big of a sensor on broadcast cameras intended for sports, etc., you're shooting at very long focal lengths, to begin with, so having super shallow dof is a negative(not to mention not necessary). Sony is probably implementing the best compromise/solution, right now.
 
Agreed. You need fast lenses, so DoF is going to be shallow anyway, so larger sensor would exacerbate the problem. But we're hitting a ceiling with resolving power of lenses for a given image circle size. 8K is a lot of information to digitize and transmit. To take advantage of that, it's going to take some top flight glass in the 1.25" sensor world.
 
I was watching highlights of a badly produced MLS match a few days ago, where the camera operator zoomed in too far onto the player with the ball and missed the shot as it rocketed some 25 yards into the net. In soccer, that's a rare occurrence. In hockey, it's par for the course due to puck's speed. In golf too. Due to puck's .. errgh, ball's size and the speed. The only solution to this is higher resolution, larger screen sizes and faster frame rate. The broadcasters goal, as stated before, is 8K @ 120p.

If these tests are accurate, then 8K is easily achievable with the H265 and VP9 type of compression.

https://www.tutorialguidacomefare.c...p-2160p-max-bitrate-which-compresses-youtube/

And the entry level 4K 70" sets are under $2,000 too.
 
These rates and resolutions are getting crazy, but that's how technology marches on. Japan's NHK is already rolling out 8K broadcasting.
 
Sadly, it's not LASER and the lumens output is a lot lower than the projector I'm using now. But it's a baby step in the right direction.
To properly do HDR will require the ability to get 1500 nits or better on the screen. Only the bigger LASER projectors can do that.
 
basspig said:
Sadly, it's not LASER and the lumens output is a lot lower than the projector I'm using now. But it's a baby step in the right direction. To properly do HDR will require the ability to get 1500 nits or better on the screen. Only the bigger LASER projectors can do that.
Click to expand...

Someone mentioned it in the comments - what, another lamp? - but it's Sony for $5,000, the image quality is, apparently, fantastic and there's nothing equal in flat screens for something that can easily go over 100".
 
It's a stepping stone, entry level 4K projector for small screens. But if you're looking for something that can drive 300" or larger, you have to spend a lot more dough. And yeah, another lamp.

I'm surprised that where LEDs are now in terms of luminous flux, that all projectors aren't based around Cree LEDs.

I just got a 10,000 lumen LED lamp for my searchlight conversion. It's 8.3 times brighter than halogen of the same 100 watt rating. I can see these being used for projector lamps now. The lamp in my projector is a short arc lamp rated at 9,000 lumens. LEDs are the way to go. Use less energy, last longer and less complex to drive.
 
Doesn't the light source in a proyector need to be very small? Powerful LEDs have a relatively large area. My DIY LED fresnel lights use 95W CREE LED lamps, but the light source is ~25mm wide (that's about one inch, if you're still using medieval units).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top