2/3" and 1080--not good enough?

Brian Drysdale · January 24th, 2009, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Totally agree with you Brian. For a beautiful period costume drama a 35mm sensor may be the best choice, while for deadliest catch a compact video camera is best. Don't forget that super 16 film is not permitted by discovery because of excessive grain plus you would have the added issue of needing separate sound recording equipment.

It's a pity about Super 16, it seems to be the 500 ASA stocks that have the problems during the transmission chain compression. Personally, I only use only that speed if I really need it, fortunately for most work 200T or even 100T is fine and the 50 ASA daylight stocks are great.

However, HDV is in the same position as Super 16 with Discovery HD and the BBC HD.

On board sound recorders were made for the Aaton for those people wishing to shoot sound while working alone. The main problem with single person crews is that the sound is a bit of a compromise compared to having the sound recordist with the mic boom etc..

Simon Wyndham · January 25th, 2009, 07:33 AM

Quote:

I really couldn't tell the difference between most of the 4K, 2K and HD at the distance I was from the screen. The biggest difference was in the production values and quality of the camerawork

And it stands to reason. As you go to higher resolutions you need to have much larger screens or you need to sit closer. So in reality the push for 4k and now 6k and beyond is becoming as silly as the Megapixel ratings in digital cameras. 10 bit and above colour resolution is more desirable to me than outright resolution. As are higher progressive framerates.

Shawn McCalip · February 16th, 2009, 08:51 PM

To contribute, I've also noticed quite a lot of folks taken by the number of pixels as well. I don't think it helps to have the sales people at electronics stores to go on and on about how "you NEED to have FULL HD!". That's in reference to 1080p vs. 720p. Like John says in the interview, people for some reason need to have some sort of number to grab on to.

Sure, I like HD a lot more than I like SD, but I think I'd rather see High-Definition evolve to faster frame rates and better color like Simon said above.

Mark Donnell · February 16th, 2009, 11:15 PM

I agree that faster frame rates and better color are more important than higher resolution, but I would add greater light sensitivity also. Especially the smaller HD cameras are just barely adequate for indoor recording without lots of extra lighting.

Greg Boston · February 17th, 2009, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

The contemporary gripe, IMHO, is with CG, which I find cartoonish and unrealistic, even in such good examples as "Spiderman".

I have to agree with you 100 percent on that one, Bill. The CG shots in modern film making stand out like a sore thumb to me. I tend to shy away from action movies for that reason alone.

-gb-

Brian Drysdale · February 17th, 2009, 03:51 AM

I had to switch over from "Pearl Harbour", having just changed over to it in the middle of the attack. The thing just looked like a video game and now "Tora Tora Tora" just looks more impressive with time... Although some of the ships moored in the harbour do tend to look a bit "modelish" at times in some shots, but the "Pearl Harbour" ships often look like GCI anyway.

BTW The previous time I started watching "Pearl Harbour" I didn't even get to the attack before turning it over and that wasn't to do with the CGI.

Christopher Drews · February 20th, 2009, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ali Husain

Well said. The Thomson Viper captures 24Mp (3 1920x4320 chips without interpolation) to get 1920x1080 w/4:4:4 color. The output is very beautiful: http://www.rubbermonkey.co.nz/images_detail/candles.jpg

Benjamin Button was shot, edited, timed in 2K.
Just talked to VFX head on the show.
No DI was used.
-C

Charles Papert · February 20th, 2009, 10:07 PM

2K timing is for all intents and purposes a DI...? The term is a bit confusing in a pure digital workflow as it was coined to refer to projects that originated on film, but it is widely used now for all-digital projects, generally indicating a digital color correction process.

Christopher Drews · February 21st, 2009, 03:46 AM

Yeah. It is confusing. It's also confusing when you talk about Red 4k, but cut in a DI, then go back to Red 4K for timing. I agree that a new term should be used when talking 1's and 0's all the way through. I vote for DF = Digital Film.
-C

Brian Drysdale · February 21st, 2009, 06:55 AM

Each stage in a workflow will need to have a title or a term, so something as loose as Digital Film won't cover this. A DI is part of a process, just the RED's Bayer 4k data is another part. This is no different to say creating a film print from a film negative, there are different workflows and a number of stages in each: these can include creating a DI or interpositives and internegatives.

What is important is a common terminology that doesn't include things like a "telecine" for colour correction, which seem to develop because the colour correction system was attached to the telecine machine, rather than transferring film to video.

If these terms get picked up by the industry as a whole is another matter. The BBC for example, had (perhaps less now) different terms to the rest of the television industry. For example, CSO (Colour Separation Overlay) for Chromakey.

Brian Tori · February 23rd, 2009, 12:19 PM

I remember reading awhile back about the reasoning behind why Panavision decided to use a 1920x1080 35mm sensor in their Genesis system versus a higher resolution sensor. Apparently, they chose this resolution because it was the best compromise between picture quality and light sensitivity. I suppose this is why Sony chose this frame size for their new F35, considering Sony makes the chip for both companies.

Brian Drysdale · February 23rd, 2009, 02:35 PM

It's a 12.4 megapixel sensor converted to an 1920 x 1080 array, which since it's full RGB has advantages over a Bayer sensor.

Justin McAleece · April 12th, 2009, 12:58 AM

Unfortunately for me I've never been to a good projection showing for matching various resolutions against the other. That being said I can easily tell the difference on a 24" dell monitor between 720p and 1080p or 1.5k vs 2k in Apple Color. like within a few frames of watching it I just know. I can also usually see every pixel on the screen in a theatre if I'm not too far from the screen. I can honestly see all the little squares and although resolution doesn't make good stories it does mean something to those of us with 20-20 or better vision. In the case of the RED the 2k is OK at 1080P. 4K is massively better at 1080P and 3K is basically the same at 1080P. Most people don't notice, can't tell, or don't care but saying that there isn't much difference between rezzes on a big screen doesn't hold true for me. But my left eye is getting a little softer than my right so in 10 years maybe a cell phone camera will be fine for me.

Red One Camera Test and demos

Brian Drysdale · April 12th, 2009, 06:22 AM

The RED has a Bayer sensor as against the 3 x 2/3" chip and by it's nature the 2k Bayer would be expected to be less resolution than the traditional 1080p 3 chip cameras. That's why the 2/3" Scarlet will have a 3k chip.

I believe the debate is more about the aesthetics of 35mm DOF as a requirement in a cinematic film compared to the deeper DOF found on a 2/3" sensor rather than resolution.

Ethan Cooper · April 13th, 2009, 06:35 AM

Here's the bottom line on all this talk about 2K, DI, 4K, Bayer patterns, whatever. I saw Knowing last week (shot on Red) and although not a great movie, it looked and felt like a film to me. End of story.

I'm highly curious to see what Crank, High Voltage looks like on the big screen. A prosumer HDV big (relatively) budget Hollywood film. You kidding me? It'll be interesting to see how that holds up in the theater.

February 20th, 2009, 10:07 PM	#38
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	2K timing is for all intents and purposes a DI...? The term is a bit confusing in a pure digital workflow as it was coined to refer to projects that originated on film, but it is widely used now for all-digital projects, generally indicating a digital color correction process. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

April 12th, 2009, 12:58 AM	#43
Justin McAleece Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Fresno CA Posts: 32	resolution Unfortunately for me I've never been to a good projection showing for matching various resolutions against the other. That being said I can easily tell the difference on a 24" dell monitor between 720p and 1080p or 1.5k vs 2k in Apple Color. like within a few frames of watching it I just know. I can also usually see every pixel on the screen in a theatre if I'm not too far from the screen. I can honestly see all the little squares and although resolution doesn't make good stories it does mean something to those of us with 20-20 or better vision. In the case of the RED the 2k is OK at 1080P. 4K is massively better at 1080P and 3K is basically the same at 1080P. Most people don't notice, can't tell, or don't care but saying that there isn't much difference between rezzes on a big screen doesn't hold true for me. But my left eye is getting a little softer than my right so in 10 years maybe a cell phone camera will be fine for me. Red One Camera Test and demos

April 13th, 2009, 06:35 AM	#45
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	Here's the bottom line on all this talk about 2K, DI, 4K, Bayer patterns, whatever. I saw Knowing last week (shot on Red) and although not a great movie, it looked and felt like a film to me. End of story. I'm highly curious to see what Crank, High Voltage looks like on the big screen. A prosumer HDV big (relatively) budget Hollywood film. You kidding me? It'll be interesting to see how that holds up in the theater. __________________ ∅ -Ethan Cooper

February 16th, 2009, 08:51 PM	#33
Shawn McCalip Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 315	To contribute, I've also noticed quite a lot of folks taken by the number of pixels as well. I don't think it helps to have the sales people at electronics stores to go on and on about how "you NEED to have FULL HD!". That's in reference to 1080p vs. 720p. Like John says in the interview, people for some reason need to have some sort of number to grab on to. Sure, I like HD a lot more than I like SD, but I think I'd rather see High-Definition evolve to faster frame rates and better color like Simon said above.

February 16th, 2009, 11:15 PM	#34
Mark Donnell Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Silver City, NM Posts: 385	I agree that faster frame rates and better color are more important than higher resolution, but I would add greater light sensitivity also. Especially the smaller HD cameras are just barely adequate for indoor recording without lots of extra lighting.

February 17th, 2009, 03:51 AM	#36
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	I had to switch over from "Pearl Harbour", having just changed over to it in the middle of the attack. The thing just looked like a video game and now "Tora Tora Tora" just looks more impressive with time... Although some of the ships moored in the harbour do tend to look a bit "modelish" at times in some shots, but the "Pearl Harbour" ships often look like GCI anyway. BTW The previous time I started watching "Pearl Harbour" I didn't even get to the attack before turning it over and that wasn't to do with the CGI.

February 21st, 2009, 03:46 AM	#39
Christopher Drews Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 628	Yeah. It is confusing. It's also confusing when you talk about Red 4k, but cut in a DI, then go back to Red 4K for timing. I agree that a new term should be used when talking 1's and 0's all the way through. I vote for DF = Digital Film. -C

February 21st, 2009, 06:55 AM	#40
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	Each stage in a workflow will need to have a title or a term, so something as loose as Digital Film won't cover this. A DI is part of a process, just the RED's Bayer 4k data is another part. This is no different to say creating a film print from a film negative, there are different workflows and a number of stages in each: these can include creating a DI or interpositives and internegatives. What is important is a common terminology that doesn't include things like a "telecine" for colour correction, which seem to develop because the colour correction system was attached to the telecine machine, rather than transferring film to video. If these terms get picked up by the industry as a whole is another matter. The BBC for example, had (perhaps less now) different terms to the rest of the television industry. For example, CSO (Colour Separation Overlay) for Chromakey.

February 23rd, 2009, 12:19 PM	#41
Brian Tori Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 408	I remember reading awhile back about the reasoning behind why Panavision decided to use a 1920x1080 35mm sensor in their Genesis system versus a higher resolution sensor. Apparently, they chose this resolution because it was the best compromise between picture quality and light sensitivity. I suppose this is why Sony chose this frame size for their new F35, considering Sony makes the chip for both companies.

February 23rd, 2009, 02:35 PM	#42
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	It's a 12.4 megapixel sensor converted to an 1920 x 1080 array, which since it's full RGB has advantages over a Bayer sensor.

April 12th, 2009, 06:22 AM	#44
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,143	The RED has a Bayer sensor as against the 3 x 2/3" chip and by it's nature the 2k Bayer would be expected to be less resolution than the traditional 1080p 3 chip cameras. That's why the 2/3" Scarlet will have a 3k chip. I believe the debate is more about the aesthetics of 35mm DOF as a requirement in a cinematic film compared to the deeper DOF found on a 2/3" sensor rather than resolution.