When is 4k really 4k. On Bayer Sensors and resolution (Alister Chapman)

Good article. 1500TVL/ph is still about twice the vertical resolution of most 1080p cameras though, and more than 1.5 times the very best of them.
 
reminds me of a great article from panavision about the same topic.

i still call foolhardy most productions which opt for over 1080 that aren't effects heavy and could be spending budget elsewhere

i always revert back to the point of: since when does more resolution make your story better? :)
 
Cinematographers are supposed to help tell the story by focusing attention and making active, beautiful pictures. In my mind that makes DOF control, color and framing more important than resolution above a certain level. To each his own as to what that level is though.

Interesting article.
 
Last edited:
On our short shooting 4K Red Raw was a godsend. We had great latitude during the edit to recompose some of the shots that we couldn't have done if we'd shot in 1080P. Also, I'd say the quality of the final 1080p image is ALWAYS better when it's reduced from 4K down to HD than it would be if natively acquired at that resolution. I'm convinved (based on first hand experience) that people who say 4K isn't "all that" have simply not experienced the benefits in a tangible way yet.
 
Snazzy Flapper said:
On our short shooting 4K Red Raw was a godsend. We had great latitude during the edit to recompose some of the shots that we couldn't have done if we'd shot in 1080P. Also, I'd say the quality of the final 1080p image is ALWAYS better when it's reduced from 4K down to HD than it would be if natively acquired at that resolution. I'm convinved (based on first hand experience) that people who say 4K isn't "all that" have simply not experienced the benefits in a tangible way yet.
Click to expand...

it's still in my mind another 'leave it to post' mentality.

granted, i do love the flexibility, i use it for web videos all the time by shooting 1080 and mastering 720, but obviously thats web, not cinematic. i'm not against progression at all, if you have the budget for it and are well versed on the post requirements, then sure, 4k baby! but for a lot of filmmakers who have limited budgets, aren't well versed, aren't shooting special effects, etc... 4k really doesn't make cost effective sense.

and my other point i always revert to: the original varicam: 720, as well as most of the original digital aquasition cinema cameras, and numerous more 1080 cameras, yes 4k is moving in, but the point is that you've watched numerous movies made by hollywood shot in 720 and 1080 and you DIDN'T stand up in the theater and say f**k this i aint watching this low res POS.
 
I agree that as the technology improves and comes down in price that many more productions will move to 4k acquisition even if the intended distribution is lower resolution.

Right now I could probably buy a used Red One instead of the PMW-F3 I have on preorder. Or wait indefinitely for the Epic-S. But I have work lined up for the next six months with clients who can't afford the (current) hassle of a 4k RED workflow and it's added expense in post. It becomes a case of "good enough."

I see great things on the horizon, but not everyone can afford to be on the cutting edge. It might turn out to be the bleeding edge...
 
imdjay said:
and my other point i always revert to: the original varicam: 720, as well as most of the original digital aquasition cinema cameras, and numerous more 1080 cameras, yes 4k is moving in, but the point is that you've watched numerous movies made by hollywood shot in 720 and 1080 and you DIDN'T stand up in the theater and say f**k this i aint watching this low res POS.
Click to expand...

Felt like doing that when I saw Avatar in "Digital IMAX". ;)

Some filmmakers do feel that resolution is an important aspect of the movie...like Christopher Nolan. It's one of those things that depends on the filmmaker/project/ect. Just as valid as those who shoot on 16mm...different approaches to different films, and you can't say that a format is objectively unneeded.

Though I can appreciate the sentiment as far as people simply shooting a certain format because they think it'll somehow make the rest of their movie better....ignoring the whole garbage in garbage out thing and all.
 
I am not an expert in this but I will share my first impressions on the resolution issue and my very limited experiences. I have watched every single video made with the F3 and downloaded them. All I can say is I have been blown away - there is some magic at the pixel level going on that is not there in the RED one or EPIC footage I have seen. granted the RED footage can be massaged any which way you wish but it still lacks something the Sony brings at 1080p. Resolution is great whan you wish to reframe, greenscreen add VFX etc but there are other qualities that are not as tangible. Colour integrity, lack of noise, perceived sharpness and depth.

I don't know how to describe it but it is the same impression I get when I compare photos taken by a high megapixel bayer DSLR vs a lower megapixel Foveon sensor based camera. I have a 5D Mark II and when it comes to resolution in photo mode it is stunning. My SD14 is technically just under half the resolution and some would even say a quarter. But the pictures tell a different story. How is that the Foveon sensor produces such stunning prints that can compare in printed images - up to a point and yet have half the res? It's all in the pixels I guess and the values - whether true or interpolated. The Sony striped RGB sensor is intriguing and I suppose can get one close to a Foveon look with each pixel having a true value. I know Sony also have a new patent on a three layer Foveon-like sensor. I wonder if that sensor has taught them something - anyway - put it this way - Sony knows how to treat light well and make colours just sing. Weak analogy but here ya g o - as an artist I would say F3 = acrylic paint. Cheaper cost, easier to work with, quicker to dry, punchy colours and mixes well in water or turpentine and cleaning brushes is easy in post. RED = oil paint. More expensive to run, harder to use out the box, slower to dry, can have less punch and can only be mixed with solvents - cleaning dryed brushes is a real pain the butt. Oh and it stinks the whole place up while drying. The masters use oil paint though to be fair. Horses for courses.

I have decided that 1080p is good enough if it is the right kind of 1080p so I am jumping off the bandwagon of resolution. It is the same as the 192 khz vs 96 khz argument in audio. Yes 192 khz has it's advantages but you double all the numbers. Twice as much CPU needed to process plugins, twice as much storage space, twice as much bandwith from the HDDs while paying back. Only to go down to a stereo mp3/ aac file to be sold on itunes. Is it a better master? Yes - is it worth it? Perhaps. Will the average user tell through their crappy ipod headphones? In double bilnd tests few people can tell the difference between 192 khz vs 96 khz. It is in the realm of diminishing returns. If I had the budget to record at the highest possible DSD multi- track system - would I do it? Of course. But can I handle the extra hassle?

The Sony has a sharpness and clean image that is hard to quantify - even at 1080p. For a while I was fixed on an Epic - S. I downloaded the Epic R3Ds from the forum the other day and they had resolution and latitude in post that I loved but the file sizes were HUGE at 5K. I also noticed right away that the files were not as clean as the Sony. Sure - these are early samples but even the Scarlet samples had a little bit of noise and chroma contamination that is absent on the Sony. Then again - my workstation - 3 ghz 8 core could not move at more than one frame a second at 5 K full res. Guess I would need a RED rocket or two to just get these files playing at a decent rate. My comp flies through 1080p. The extra care and attention to post at 5K, plus the pain of archiving makes the 5K route just impossible for me I have realised plus the added cost of post production - especially colour grading.

4K is great - if you sit in the front row. I reckon it is a few years away from home theatre use for the average user. It's great for Cinema release though. Until then I will ride it out at 1080p until I have made enough money to buy into a very expensive post production workflow.

Enjoy shooting everyone.
 
I've been paying attention pretty closely to the 1080p mages vie been seeing on the home set, and the 2K images I've been seeing in the theatre.

Its my opinion, and one I don't really care to defend too much, but I don't think these days we are really seeing 1080p worth of resolution on the tv or movie screen. Too many shortcuts taken at the broadcast level, and bad care taken in the projection booth. I know when we went to see Harry Potter on a digital screen the other weekend, something was up. I'm not even sure I was looking at 720p, it was so bad.

So others can talk all they want about 1080 not being enough, but from what I can see, the 1080 consumers see is so compromised by compression and other carelessness, it doesn't really matter.
 
Actually, it does because of "garbage in, garbage out." If you start being lackadaisical on this issue because of broadcast compression, then it will only make things worse, not the same.
 
If resolution is all that matters then why are Red users so worried about this little camera?

After all you can tell stories with resolution, right? And Star Wars (II onward), Benjamin Button, Slum Dog Millionaire, Public Enemies (and a zillion others) aren't professional movies because they aren't 4k, right?

Could it be that with the dynamic range, tonal qualities and quality of pictures from the F3 will provide the true democratization of film making, as Red used to aspire to do?

PS. Pretty hard to post zone plates when no production models are released yet and you're not the owner of the company. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top