PDA

View Full Version : The Art of Resolution



razz16mm
06-19-2013, 05:02 PM
Hey guys, I just want to share a blog post by Joe Rubenstein that is a thoughtful response to the question of whether 2k and small format cameras will soon be obsolete in a large format 4k and future 8k world. It is an outgrowth of an ongoing forum discussion we have been engaged in on the Digital Bolex site, but it certainly applies to the BMC line as well.

http://www.digitalbolex.com/art-camera-resolution/#more-2425

Frank Glencairn
06-19-2013, 05:15 PM
That's the first reasonable thing I hear out of Joe Rubenstein's mouth.

And yeah razz, I know you are a big D-Bolex fan, so don't take it personal :)

razz16mm
06-19-2013, 05:47 PM
That's the first reasonable thing I hear out of Joe Rubenstein's mouth.

And yeah razz, I know you are a big D-Bolex fan, so don't take it personal :)

Ha ha, no offense taken. I did get some brief hands on time with a BMCC and a pocket cam at the Infocomm trade show last week. No recording, but they had them set up on a small diorama with external monitors. Pocket cam looks very sweet for the bucks, but noticeably softer than the BMCC. They had a 4k production cam showcased under glass, not operational. I still think the BMCC is the sweet spot of the line.

Tom
06-19-2013, 06:44 PM
The overall point is true and valid I think, but I strongly object to this:

"This is probably not necessary to say, but I’ll say it anyway: cinematographers are not camera operators. They are not technicians. They are artists."

I hate the crazy notion that one is either one or the other. I see it as : A good artist creates beauty or art in their mind - a good technician knows how to translate these thoughts into a format to share outside their mind. You can be an amazing artist but unless you have the know how, or know someone with the know how - you can never express that art. Cinematography is a perfect example of where one needs to be both and artist and technician.

Even famous painters needed to know the science and technique of their craft - how to mix colours, how to master perspective or shading, which brush to use, what type of paint etc.

It is this attitude of "I am an artist! and that is all i need" which is why film schools are crammed full of people who never make it or make badly shot pretentious crap because they are convinced that it is wrong to be concerned with such technical matters.

In my work, i often have to interpret a vague brief regarding the style of a sequence or the lighting - I have to be creative enough to quantify what a client means when they share 5 completely different example images with different colour grades and yet they all somehow represent what they want. Then comes the technical know-how as to how to actually produce the correct results.

To say a cinematographer is not a technician but is an artist, is just as false as if they are not artists but technicians - you need both in equal measure.


As for resolution - the resolution is only important up to the point where the viewer is kept within the experience and it is not distracting - whether from too low resolution or too high. Some films look better soft, others look better tack sharp - the right format for the right job.

rawCAM35
06-19-2013, 06:50 PM
Thanks Tom, I can't say it better

BM4EVER
06-19-2013, 10:40 PM
I strongly disagree with this article!

The only reason Aronofsky and Anderson shoot s16 is a BUDGET CHOICE more than an artistic one. After PI, Aronofsky shot REQUIEM on 35mm, it was low budget and made its money back. But THE FOUNTAIN - 35mm - was a financial disaster, and Aronofsky faced the very real fact that he might not get another film off the ground unless it was very low budget: hence THE WRESTLER and BLACK SWAN on s16. But he's now made NOAH on 35mm. Likewise, Anderson's films haven't made enough money to justify large budgets anymore.

s16 is an inferior format to 35mm, in every way. The only reason people choose to shoot on it is budgetary (or the smaller form factor, but NOT the look)

razz16mm
06-19-2013, 11:22 PM
Black Swan was an aesthetic choice due to the need to maintain focus and move with dancers onstage. Small light cameras and lenses plus the extra depth of field of S16 worked very well. There was no focus puller for the dance scenes where the camera is moving among the dancers. For some styles of shooting S16 is the superior format.
S16 is an ideal format for a moving solo shooter following action which characterized much of the aesthetic and practical shooting done on Black Swan. Personally given a choice of one camera format, S35 or S16, in a digital camera of similar cost and performance for the broadest range of solo or small crew field production assignments I will take S16 any day over 35. Size wise the BMCC format falls closer to S16 than to S35.

greymog
06-20-2013, 05:28 AM
The overall point is true and valid I think, but I strongly object to this:

"This is probably not necessary to say, but I’ll say it anyway: cinematographers are not camera operators. They are not technicians. They are artists."

I hate the crazy notion that one is either one or the other. I see it as : A good artist creates beauty or art in their mind - a good technician knows how to translate these thoughts into a format to share outside their mind. You can be an amazing artist but unless you have the know how, or know someone with the know how - you can never express that art. Cinematography is a perfect example of where one needs to be both and artist and technician.

Even famous painters needed to know the science and technique of their craft - how to mix colours, how to master perspective or shading, which brush to use, what type of paint etc.

It is this attitude of "I am an artist! and that is all i need" which is why film schools are crammed full of people who never make it or make badly shot pretentious crap because they are convinced that it is wrong to be concerned with such technical matters.

In my work, i often have to interpret a vague brief regarding the style of a sequence or the lighting - I have to be creative enough to quantify what a client means when they share 5 completely different example images with different colour grades and yet they all somehow represent what they want. Then comes the technical know-how as to how to actually produce the correct results.

To say a cinematographer is not a technician but is an artist, is just as false as if they are not artists but technicians - you need both in equal measure.


As for resolution - the resolution is only important up to the point where the viewer is kept within the experience and it is not distracting - whether from too low resolution or too high. Some films look better soft, others look better tack sharp - the right format for the right job.

Aye. A Thousand Times Aye. :)

The definition of art is a huge problem I have. I had this short I was filming and there was way too much noise, and the setting was really tense and still and quiet. The camera in the noisy shot had moved or something, and I was watching it over and over basically coming to terms that we had to redo that shot if I wanted it to be perfect. I showed it to someone I know here, who's an 'artist' by the bogus definition we read above. He said, don't reshoot, use it, tell no one you didn't mean it and use it. You can say handheld gives tension and the noise is an aesthetic choice. Put noise in your other shots and you don't have to do the extra work.

I swear he said that. This is a prevalent attitude here. Like a kid who messes with enough effects of photoshop and illustrator and becomes a graphic designer. It's the idea that counts.

I've been going through a lot recently. In life not only work. And I begin to feel angry at something I hear, concerning my potential. Potential, like ideas, mean nothing in practice until they cease to be ideas and become something else.

The thing is, it's not a vocation. Anyone can be an artist. A cook, A cinematographer, sadly even a killer in their twisted mind...

Art is a series of decisions aimed at provoking thought and emotion. Whether the thought and emotion are unified, and to what extent they can trump their aura or surrounding upon exposure to the viewer, is another talk.

The step that turns this thought provoking decision into an action, the idea into a production, depends solely on craft.

It is this definition of artist that risks the neglect of craft. The amount of validation one gets by proclaiming oneself an artist of all things is massive. It's self-exemption.

I fixed this by not signing my work. Getting another mundane job, just so I can eat and do whatever I like. I know, you have to make money and all of that, but I don't think I'm ready for the rigors of filmmaking if I'm still such a slave to my ego. I've done nothing for a while, hanging on old projects, I even cringe when I think that I made people stop what they were doing, and tried to convince them to work on my things for free coz the idea was so brilliant.

I took the other end of that stick many times after these realizations.

I never got a real opinion from anyone who knew it was me responsible. I keep quiet, and I hear the truth. It takes discipline, I'm still working on it. But I don't think I can get into this professionally again until I truly don't care what I get out of it other than getting to that perfect marriage of idea and seamless execution.

You can write a tune but there's no escaping practice. It's muscle recognition. You gotta do it over and over and over. Hell, we demand that of our actors and actresses.

This whole migration from art to craft in my head, from saying i'm an 'artist' and that's enough to going back to seeing how hard i suck as an opportunity to do it again is changing everything. Tom landed the sentiment in the post. It just goes really really far for me. Not only with the filming, but the whole deal. Discretion is such a hidden treasure.

I always used to hear that art is made to be seen, and it still feels like 'the sun revolves around the earth'.

Looking at craft with as much reverence as 'art' makes me think that art is not made to be seen, as much as art exists to be made. Much more fun ride. Much better work comes out, and you're still you at the end.

And yeah, the ego fix it brings is crazy. I mean it would be nice to be a ninja at work, but I still wanna get laid if i can on my day off, you know? Otherwise I was nobody before I got into this. I'd like to think someone in there decided to get into this.

Sorry for the ramble, but your post brought it out. Thanks Tom.

Brad Ferrell
06-20-2013, 05:43 AM
I'm an artist. It took almost 20 years of art practice for me to finally be able to say it and understand what it means.

It's a job.

morgan_moore
06-20-2013, 06:12 AM
The thing is no one can hold focus with a big chip and 4k - so really nothing is actually 4k anyway!

How many cameras actually resolve 1080 ?

For example AFAIK the 1dc in 4k mode resolves little more than 1080

So IMO most of this is totally hypothetical because really only the F65, or maybe low ISO film, on static shots or working with absolutely the best focus puller actually ever hits 4k

(and that is before delivery compression!)

I look forward to the ability to deliver clean 1080..

S

Frank Glencairn
06-20-2013, 06:14 AM
A
It is this definition of artist that risks the neglect of craft. The amount of validation one gets by proclaiming oneself an artist of all things is massive. It's self-exemption.

Well, a lot of - so called - artists usually suck at craft (maybe that's why they have to call it art, who knows).

While most artists are able to pump out something random, ask them to do something specific and they fail badly, cause they never mastered the craft.
That applies to all artists, from painters to cinematographers. I have a friend, who is making more money on a single painting (just two green stripes on a blue background - done in under 2 hrs), than I make in a whole month with blood, sweat and tears. But ask the same guy to paint an realistic elephant, and he fails, simply he just can't really paint anything beyond random color patterns.

Point is, I could make 3 of those same random pattern paintings every day, but nobody would pay me for them, cause I'm not an "artist".
If my "artist" friend would make the exactly same pattern, it suddenly becomes "art" with a 6000 bucks price tag. If I do it, it's just worthless patterns.

So here is my personal definition of art:

True, real art doesn't need an "artist". Folks will know true, real art, when they see it - even without the name of a fancy artist on it.

If people are still happy to pay 6000 bucks for something a guy, that flips burgers at McDonald's has made, than it is art.
If the "art" needs an "artist" to get that $6000 price tag - and otherwise it's just a random color pattern - it's not art, but just BS.

Back to film: A lot of folks doing artsy stuff these days (mostly handheld, shaky) and than slap a bunch of pre made filters on it and call it a day. But ask them to shoot a professional typical glossy commercial, they fail, cause they never mastered the craft.

I like it the other way - first master the craft, THAN you can get artsy-fartsy if you still want/need that.

Brad Ferrell
06-20-2013, 06:48 AM
I look at the term artist now differently than I used to. When I was in art school, I didn't call myself an artist. It was only until these last couple of years that I've started using the term to differentiate myself from the crowd and there is a difference. I went to art school. Just as if I had gone to technical school to become a mechanic, I too have been trained. I know about semiotics, color theory, Jungian and Freudian psychology. I know about F-stops, T-stops, shutter angles, DOF and FOV. What allows me today to be the artist I wasn't 20 years ago is familiarity with the tools, the language and lexicon of visual imagery. I hadn't lost data, corrupted data, or built and trusted a RAID. It's been a long life, 41 years, filled with performances, tests, preparation and rehearsal. If I'm not an artist now I never was.

Tom
06-20-2013, 07:02 AM
"The step that turns this thought provoking decision into an action, the idea into a production, depends solely on craft.

It is this definition of artist that risks the neglect of craft. The amount of validation one gets by proclaiming oneself an artist of all things is massive. It's self-exemption."

wow, this hits the nail on the head!

BM4EVER
06-20-2013, 07:52 AM
Black Swan was an aesthetic choice due to the need to maintain focus and move with dancers onstage. Small light cameras and lenses plus the extra depth of field of S16 worked very well. There was no focus puller for the dance scenes where the camera is moving among the dancers. For some styles of shooting S16 is the superior format.
S16 is an ideal format for a moving solo shooter following action which characterized much of the aesthetic and practical shooting done on Black Swan. Personally given a choice of one camera format, S35 or S16, in a digital camera of similar cost and performance for the broadest range of solo or small crew field production assignments I will take S16 any day over 35. Size wise the BMCC format falls closer to S16 than to S35.

I'd say it was much more of a PRACTICAL choice of the smaller form factor, as well as a budgetary factor. Your argument is no longer valid because while 35mm cameras are still huge, the BMD 4K cam is the same size as the BMCC.

The article says "If S16 is good enough for The Queen, itís good enough for me :)" Well, NOT A SINGLE SHOT OF HELEN MIRREN was shot on s16. She was shot in 35mm, while the scenes with Blair away from her were shot on s16 to a) make the scenes with the 2 of them feel like he has entered "a more elevated, majestic world" and b) to integrate better with the archival footage, which was mainly 16mm.

Would you shoot on super8? This is a very relevant question, because while the majority of cinemas still project at 2K digital/35mm, where s16 looks good (but not great), most major cities this year will move to 4k, so s16 will start to look like super8 on these new projectors.

The Digital Bolex is a dead duck

razz16mm
06-20-2013, 08:45 AM
I'd say it was much more of a PRACTICAL choice of the smaller form factor, as well as a budgetary factor. Your argument is no longer valid because while 35mm cameras are still huge, the BMD 4K cam is the same size as the BMCC.

The article says "If S16 is good enough for The Queen, it’s good enough for me :)" Well, NOT A SINGLE SHOT OF HELEN MIRREN was shot on s16. She was shot in 35mm, while the scenes with Blair away from her were shot on s16 to a) make the scenes with the 2 of them feel like he has entered "a more elevated, majestic world" and b) to integrate better with the archival footage, which was mainly 16mm.

Would you shoot on super8? This is a very relevant question, because while the majority of cinemas still project at 2K digital/35mm, where s16 looks good (but not great), most major cities this year will move to 4k, so s16 will start to look like super8 on these new projectors.

The Digital Bolex is a dead duck

Then the pocket cam and BMCC are dead ducks too. As is every DSLR shooting 1080p video, and most current video cameras of any price. I don't buy this at all.
All of the theaters in my area converted to 4k two years ago. But that is only one very insignificant market for indie film makers. Less than 1 in 100,000 indie films ever make it into a commercial theater.
With 35mm formats the camera size is only one issue. The optics are larger and heavier, and to shoot at the same depth of field requires stopping down by 2-1/2 stops which requires 4 times the light levels for equivalent DOF.

Fact is 16mm sized formats will thrive into the foreseeable future as will 2k cameras alongside the larger and higher resolution formats. Especially in a world where most content delivery will be online and bandwidth limited for some time to come and the vast majority of post even for theatrical release is still 2k due to budget limitations. 2k looks better on a 4k screen than it does as a film print or on a 2k projector.

rawCAM35
06-20-2013, 12:23 PM
The DB future camera is loosing audience, and assuming an article like this will help, the timing of this article would made sense when the DB camera was announced.

Christopher S. Thompson
06-20-2013, 02:05 PM
There's no doubt that the emerging formats will eventually crush the older ones, and that you can tweak 4K to get that 1080p aesthetic but not vice versa. Superior technology is superior. I can't wait to have it in my hands.

With that being said, isn't it a bit early to write off HD unless you're headed for the cineplexes? Not to step on any toes, but I have seen lots of product that is by no means taking advantage of what HD can deliver. I think we can all agree that when 4K is commonplace, most of what is produced will be badly-produced, boring, amateurish movies in 4K. The tools are evolving but the artistry has to be there--in fact, it has to evolve along with the technology. The flaws are getting harder to hide. Besides, I think that content almost always trumps format. I would rather watch an episode of "Game of Thrones" downrezzed to SD than an episode of "The Real Housewives of Orange County" in 16K 3D with Smell-O-Vision.

Joe Giambrone
06-20-2013, 07:10 PM
One three letter word comes up and the board needs a therapist.

Art is a category, not an accolade or a banner of distinction. It's creating artifacts that communicate. Get over it... or drink heavily. Whatever.

"... while the majority of cinemas still project at 2K digital/35mm, where s16 looks good (but not great), most major cities this year will move to 4k, so s16 will start to look like super8 on these new projectors."


Says you. I'll wait until I see it with my own eyes. Some people don't like grain. Others don't like smooth plastic images that look like a computer shot them. As the majority of shots in films have a blurry background, this insistence on hyper-resolution is a bit odd. It's people's faces you're going to be seeing in great detail, the wrinkles, the imperfections. Probably need more diffusion to knock that stuff down. I fail to see the advantage in seeing every little craggle in Helen Mirren's face (as a previous example suggested). Perhaps there was diffusion and soft lighting employed, as was the standard for a long, long time in H-wood when dealing iwth older actresses. They parodied it and took it to extremes, but the idea is sound. We don't want to scare the children.

BM4EVER
06-21-2013, 04:18 AM
Then the pocket cam and BMCC are dead ducks too. As is every DSLR shooting 1080p video, and most current video cameras of any price. I don't buy this at all.

There are 2 separate issues here: the first is that feature film projection is phasing out 2K for 4K. So the BMD4K cam, if it ships on time and has the 12 stops of DR as promised, is going to KILL IT. s35 and global shutter, focus peaking and Resolve for 4 grand? This will sell like hot cakes.

1080P is certainly not going to become obsolete when this happens, but the pocket cam is less than a third the price of the DB, with more DR, and only slightly less rez. Why would you bother with the DB? Of course, the pocket cam is getting pressure from the Magic Lantern guys...you can pick up a Canon 50D on ebay for $500, and shoot raw to CF cards, with a larger sensor, great ISO and nice stills.

It gives me no joy to say the DB is a dad duck, I like the camera and admire the history of it, but BMD have outfoxed them.

razz16mm
06-21-2013, 07:03 AM
There are 2 separate issues here: the first is that feature film projection is phasing out 2K for 4K. So the BMD4K cam, if it ships on time and has the 12 stops of DR as promised, is going to KILL IT. s35 and global shutter, focus peaking and Resolve for 4 grand? This will sell like hot cakes.

1080P is certainly not going to become obsolete when this happens, but the pocket cam is less than a third the price of the DB, with more DR, and only slightly less rez. Why would you bother with the DB? Of course, the pocket cam is getting pressure from the Magic Lantern guys...you can pick up a Canon 50D on ebay for $500, and shoot raw to CF cards, with a larger sensor, great ISO and nice stills.

It gives me no joy to say the DB is a dad duck, I like the camera and admire the history of it, but BMD have outfoxed them.

Not for me, since I am still looking specifically for a practical 16mm film replacement. I like the format and think it is the ideal size for the range and styles of shooting I typically will do. It needs to accept standard and S16 primes and zooms. Right now the only other choice in the market under $10k is the Ikonoskop. Plus I love the color reproduction of the Kodak/Truesense CCD's which are very similar to Kodak film stocks. I prefer the better IQ of CCD's in general to most of the CMOS cameras I have had any experience with.
The D16 was purposely designed as a niche alternative, not a mass market camera. I'm not seeing any practical difference in usable DR between the Ikonoskop and the BMCC, the pocket cam is not quite as good as the BMCC from what I've seen. Independent reviewers are finding the usable DR of the BMCC to be 10-11 stops, not 13. I consider them different cameras aimed at different markets.

sen9171nathan
06-21-2013, 10:13 AM
The overall point is true and valid I think, but I strongly object to this:

"This is probably not necessary to say, but I’ll say it anyway: cinematographers are not camera operators. They are not technicians. They are artists."

I hate the crazy notion that one is either one or the other. I see it as : A good artist creates beauty or art in their mind - a good technician knows how to translate these thoughts into a format to share outside their mind. You can be an amazing artist but unless you have the know how, or know someone with the know how - you can never express that art. Cinematography is a perfect example of where one needs to be both and artist and technician.

Even famous painters needed to know the science and technique of their craft - how to mix colours, how to master perspective or shading, which brush to use, what type of paint etc.

It is this attitude of "I am an artist! and that is all i need" which is why film schools are crammed full of people who never make it or make badly shot pretentious crap because they are convinced that it is wrong to be concerned with such technical matters.

In my work, i often have to interpret a vague brief regarding the style of a sequence or the lighting - I have to be creative enough to quantify what a client means when they share 5 completely different example images with different colour grades and yet they all somehow represent what they want. Then comes the technical know-how as to how to actually produce the correct results.

To say a cinematographer is not a technician but is an artist, is just as false as if they are not artists but technicians - you need both in equal measure.


As for resolution - the resolution is only important up to the point where the viewer is kept within the experience and it is not distracting - whether from too low resolution or too high. Some films look better soft, others look better tack sharp - the right format for the right job.
So beautiful..... I cried. Theatricality aside, it is true to the last word.

Justin Carrig
06-22-2013, 07:49 AM
I strongly disagree with this article!

The only reason Aronofsky and Anderson shoot s16 is a BUDGET CHOICE more than an artistic one. After PI, Aronofsky shot REQUIEM on 35mm, it was low budget and made its money back. But THE FOUNTAIN - 35mm - was a financial disaster, and Aronofsky faced the very real fact that he might not get another film off the ground unless it was very low budget: hence THE WRESTLER and BLACK SWAN on s16. But he's now made NOAH on 35mm. Likewise, Anderson's films haven't made enough money to justify large budgets anymore.

s16 is an inferior format to 35mm, in every way. The only reason people choose to shoot on it is budgetary (or the smaller form factor, but NOT the look)

It does save money, but I do believe 16mm was an artistic choice for Black Swan. Aronofsky is well known for his love for 16mm. Natalie Portman alone cost a lot more than shooting 35mm would have. 16mm has an aesthetic. There is a reason digital features are having subtle film grain applied to them.. immersion into cinema isn't all about clarity and resolution.

KyleMcConaghy
06-22-2013, 05:41 PM
I enjoyed the DB post too. But isn't it kind of mixing up resolution and sharpness? Most 35mm films have way more resolution that a 2K digital film... but often don't appear as 'sharp'.

razz16mm
06-22-2013, 06:43 PM
I enjoyed the DB post too. But isn't it kind of mixing up resolution and sharpness? Most 35mm films have way more resolution that a 2K digital film... but often don't appear as 'sharp'.

Actually a projected 35mm theatrical release print rarely exceeds 850 lines vertical resolution. HD/2k was originally engineered to match that, not original S35 negatives. Aliasing artifacts and overuse of edge enhancement in digital often gives the impression of hard edged sharpness when resolution is actually inferior, even for HD. A RED1 shooter a few years back did a test debayering 4k at half quality vs full quality before scaling for HD delivery and found it looked sharper even though there was less resolved detail. Similarly, HD originated footage without aliasing artifacts will look softer, but often actually better resolve details than footage with significant aliasing, which pollutes image resolution well below the aliasing frequency even though it may look superficially sharper. I prefer cameras that have a properly matched OLPF for this reason. It is the difference between smooth and crunchy textures, not real resolution.

Aronofsky works with large enough budgets that production costs for 35mm vs 16mm don't matter. He can shoot any format he wants to. For Black Swan and Wrestler S16 was an aesthetic choice. He likes the format for many reasons.

16mm sized format movies, whether shot on film or digital, continue to get nominated for and win major awards including Oscars for best cinematography. That is not the sign of an inferior format. Sometimes it is the superior choice.

Boon
06-22-2013, 11:33 PM
Any format can win an Oscar or Cannes, but unfortunately not any film can.
Any format includes VHS :)

Anyway I reckoned most of us don't make stuff for theatrical release.

EdanCo
06-24-2013, 11:15 AM
I enjoy the convenience of carrying my music collection in my phone, but nothing beats listening to my favorite record on vinyl through a nice system.

John Brawley
06-24-2013, 04:24 PM
Actually a projected 35mm theatrical release print rarely exceeds 850 lines vertical resolution.

Lets not forget you're comparing the distribution format to the acquisition format.

The captured image has a lot more than a print. A print has gone through several generations of image degradation. A work print or answer print still looks amazing. I think we've largely forgotten how good these can look because no one does them anymore.

Not only that, but digital projection, like camera aquisition, isn't only about resolution. Like cameras, there's colour gamut, DR...

I don't miss scratches and gate weave and shitty re-cycled prints in cheap multiplexs....

I do miss pristine prints and restored prints at a film festival...not to mention the number of films that have been *saved* because someone actually owned a print and stashed it away but that's another matter...

jb

razz16mm
06-24-2013, 10:54 PM
Lets not forget you're comparing the distribution format to the acquisition format.

The captured image has a lot more than a print. A print has gone through several generations of image degradation. A work print or answer print still looks amazing. I think we've largely forgotten how good these can look because no one does them anymore.

Not only that, but digital projection, like camera aquisition, isn't only about resolution. Like cameras, there's colour gamut, DR...

I don't miss scratches and gate weave and shitty re-cycled prints in cheap multiplexs....

I do miss pristine prints and restored prints at a film festival...not to mention the number of films that have been *saved* because someone actually owned a print and stashed it away but that's another matter...

jb

No doubt film originals are much higher resolution, but that was not the design target for HD video, the typical projected resolution of a release print was. Red broke the mold on that. The resolution target for the original 4k Red 1 was the optical resolution output of a 4k 35mm film scanner, 3.2k.

John Brawley
06-25-2013, 05:13 PM
No doubt film originals are much higher resolution, but that was not the design target for HD video, the typical projected resolution of a release print was.


Really ?

I though HD was a broadcast standard. Like for television in your home. I have never seen the spec linked to cinema distribution. Ever. And if it was, then the aspect ratio surely would have been 1.85 not the *tv* standard of 16x9.




Red broke the mold on that. The resolution target for the original 4k Red 1 was the optical resolution output of a 4k 35mm film scanner, 3.2k.

Like I said.....to me anyway, resolution is only a small part of this equation. I think the sub 3K alexa's popularity proves that. There's DR and colour gamut which to me are equally important.

It kind of doesn't matter anymore though. There isn't even a single film lab left in Australia that can process neg or make a print so it's not even a choice any more.

It's just *annoying* to me that some would have you believe that digital is the equal of film in terms of acquisition. You can't simply compare them. They are different tools. Even resolution is a difficult question. Nothing accounts for the fact that film has a randomised *photosite* pattern that to my thinking effectually increases the resolution when combined. with that you alos get grain, which depending on which decade you were born you either love or hate....

Anyways, I just don't think it's as simple as 800 lines on a screen, the quote that always gets dragged out to support a PRO digital argument. Just like the BBC banned super 16 argument which is also an untruth.

jb

razz16mm
06-25-2013, 06:22 PM
Really ?

I though HD was a broadcast standard. Like for television in your home. I have never seen the spec linked to cinema distribution. Ever. And if it was, then the aspect ratio surely would have been 1.85 not the *tv* standard of 16x9.

jb

It is, but it wasn't developed in a vacuum. The aspect ratio was a compromise between 1.85, 1.33 and what could realistically work for a flat surface CRT display at the time and maintain dot focus at the corners. The goal was to closely match the effective spatial resolution of a projected film print at a 3 x image height viewing distance. It began as an analog format in 1978.

I designed and installed the first commercial HD theater in South Carolina in 1994 for the BMW Zentrum at Greer. It used the Japanese HiVision laserdisc format with Sony CRT projectors double stacked shooting on a 22' wide screen.

I don't think digital video looks much like film at all, it is a unique medium with its own aesthetics and visual artifacts.

Useg Diaz-Granados
06-25-2013, 06:28 PM
Being a complete novice with no experience in this field whatsoever I am nevertheless curious to know if the emergence of the digital film capturing systems have any correlation and can in any way be compared to what has occurred in the Recorded Audio World.

My assumption is that “real” film like 24 track analog tape recorders because of capturing processes, regardless of what people might think looks beautiful or sounds great, could never (with the current state of technology) capture the incredible amount of information that the human eye or the human ear is capable of capturing.

I guess that regardless of how clever we think we are because of our unique ability to mold the environment around us in any way we want we still can’t compete with the 6 billion years or so of evolution that ultimately has shaped our ability to hear, think and see.

Lets presume that someone personally preferences 35 MM film over digital film because they think (or believe they know) it looks better then the digital capturing systems currently available on the market.

How much of this individuals preference is based on a socialization process that accustoms people to perceive things in a certain way; I mean if a movie today could engage an audience in a real life sort of way in the way we experience life with our eyes, ears and brains that experience might be as scary as a stone age person that has been socialized into liking cage paintings all of a sudden being exposed to a Michael Angelo painting.

I am pretty certain that the digital world as the technology platforms eventually reach a certain point of maturity will outperform whatever the analog world has to offer in terms of quality price and efficiency.

In the audio world emulations of extremely expensive analog audio hardware have been copied and modeled into the digital space.

The analog Audio toys are cool but incredibly expensive and the digital versions are improving at an incredible fast rate.

I would like to know what any of you think?



Sincerely,

Useg Diaz-Granados

rawCAM35
06-25-2013, 08:33 PM
A news story on TV Ch " France 24 " few days ago about this small camera store in France selling old Polaroid cameras and services, they make their own film, what was interesting to me is what users were saying, they said that they are really tired of the clean Hi Res digital pictures

Yes technically digital technology is more powerful than the analog technology, but does offer the same experience that the user gets from the analog technology?

John Brawley
06-26-2013, 06:26 AM
I don't think digital video looks much like film at all, it is a unique medium with its own aesthetics and visual artifacts.

Exactly.

And it's only a few that celebrate those differences. Someone like Mr Fincher comes to mind....

jb

Useg Diaz-Granados
06-26-2013, 07:22 AM
The question becomes when will (it is just a matter of time) the digital video capturing systems accurately and successfully emulate and supersede the film mediums aesthetics and visual artifact?

There is a reason why the Polaroid camera to a large extent has become extinct.

When I was young a friend of mine shot a 16 mm Music video on a wind up film camera.

In those days developing the film cost about as much as buying a Mac Pro; I was not able to color correct the film since that cost a fortune.


Sincerely,

Useg Diaz-Granados

stip
06-27-2013, 05:28 AM
Good read!
"The future of cinema and TV: It’s game over for the hi-res hype"
Digital video guru and author of The MPEG Handbook, John Watkinson, examines the next generation of TV and film and reveals it shouldn't be anything like what we're being sold today.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/


This will make anyone feel better who is worried about not shooting 4K :)

Brad Ferrell
06-27-2013, 08:43 AM
2K is King right now. Long live the King. 4K is his heir. We must all wait.

Emanuel
07-02-2013, 12:47 AM
It is an interesting article especially to someone coming from aesthetics field of business, as well, it is even funny to think lower is better than higher if in higher you can have lower, but not the opposite.

Nice try to save the Queen, though. The point is the King is dead. So, long live the new one. Queen mother will always have her place anyhow. No need to freak out :-)

razz16mm
07-02-2013, 07:15 AM
The question becomes when will (it is just a matter of time) the digital video capturing systems accurately and successfully emulate and supersede the film mediums aesthetics and visual artifact?

There is a reason why the Polaroid camera to a large extent has become extinct.

When I was young a friend of mine shot a 16 mm Music video on a wind up film camera.

In those days developing the film cost about as much as buying a Mac Pro; I was not able to color correct the film since that cost a fortune.


Sincerely,

Useg Diaz-Granados

I think we have already reached that point with the best of the current generation raw digital cinema cameras: Alexa, Sony, Red. Digital projection has far exceeded the practical limits of film projection in most respects. The limits now are imposed by our outdated display referenced video coded standards. But that is about to change significantly with ATSC 3 when it comes to color gamut and DR. Current gen XYCC deep color capable displays can show much more than the current standards support. But it still won't look like film aesthetically. You will have to impose those qualities in the post finishing process if you want them.

mister nice guy
07-04-2013, 12:34 PM
Being a complete novice with no experience in this field whatsoever I am nevertheless curious to know if the emergence of the digital film capturing systems have any correlation and can in any way be compared to what has occurred in the Recorded Audio World.

My assumption is that “real” film like 24 track analog tape recorders because of capturing processes, regardless of what people might think looks beautiful or sounds great, could never (with the current state of technology) capture the incredible amount of information that the human eye or the human ear is capable of capturing.

I guess that regardless of how clever we think we are because of our unique ability to mold the environment around us in any way we want we still can’t compete with the 6 billion years or so of evolution that ultimately has shaped our ability to hear, think and see.

Lets presume that someone personally preferences 35 MM film over digital film because they think (or believe they know) it looks better then the digital capturing systems currently available on the market.

How much of this individuals preference is based on a socialization process that accustoms people to perceive things in a certain way; I mean if a movie today could engage an audience in a real life sort of way in the way we experience life with our eyes, ears and brains that experience might be as scary as a stone age person that has been socialized into liking cage paintings all of a sudden being exposed to a Michael Angelo painting.

I am pretty certain that the digital world as the technology platforms eventually reach a certain point of maturity will outperform whatever the analog world has to offer in terms of quality price and efficiency.

In the audio world emulations of extremely expensive analog audio hardware have been copied and modeled into the digital space.

The analog Audio toys are cool but incredibly expensive and the digital versions are improving at an incredible fast rate.

I would like to know what any of you think?



Sincerely,

Useg Diaz-Granados

Questions about format resolution in both the visual and audio arts seem moot to me in the face of the potential pitfalls of distribution and control with digital creative content. What is happening in the music business already has its parallels in both photography and digital cinema, everyone will have access to marvelous tools to create stunning 'resolution' content and then you will get $300 for a million plays on a publicly-traded corporate digital venue. The 'classic hollywood studio system' may have been better than this.

As someone who spent a big part of their early career working in analog formats, I rarely long for the 'futziness' of the technology, but I have to admit that hard-earned skills back then meant something. I still think that, depending on your playback or projection chain, analog has a character that is difficult to duplicate even with the latest 'emulation' tools and plugins, but often to see those characteristics you need to watch/hear analog and digital content in an A/B situation for the differences to really stand out. Part of that is human physiology.

stip
07-04-2013, 03:15 PM
I like the audio/sound analogy. Some guys play their midi lines from a digital instrument, sending them through good speakers and re-recording that sound with a mic, just to get some 'life' into the otherwise cold digital signal. Some computer-made songs are nice and fine, but not until that old, analog sample comes in the whole song comes to life.

I don't see the future of digital cinema and/or distribution that dark though.
The magic term still is quality. If it's good music, they're willing to spend money. If it's a good movie, they'll pay for it. If it's crap...maybe you could have been making a living with it 20 years ago but noone really needs crap. They probably won't care if it's digital or analog or what resolution it is if it's good and they connect with it.

Useg Diaz-Granados
07-04-2013, 09:15 PM
From a Business perspective (in my opinion) what you see happening right now in the Music industry is the consolidation of the Major players.

Independents (be it Film or Music) have for the most part been the greater innovators while the Major Labels due to their distribution, radio connections etc., have been able to capitalize on efforts of the independents.

Just look at the catalog of any major Film Studio or Record Company; hard for the indies to compete with the intellectual right holders of the Bob Marley catalog or Jaws the Movie.

The metrics of quality are extremely subjective; but even if the independent sector, be it Music or Film could afford the same talent and deliver the same content the established players deliver to the matketplace; the money men due to their financial backing and vast amount of resources would run the indies out of the ballpark.

I totally agree with you that the skill-set of any one being able to generate a penny in any creative field are unique and should be respected.

My opinion is that there is allot of profitable crap out there (Films/Music etc.) might be well made crap but in my not always so humble opinion it is still crap.

I guesses that is the backside of Adam Smiths wonderful invisible hand theory; what the market (people make the purchasing decisions even if their taste might be questionable) wants it gets be it bottled water, fire arms or illegal drugs (just look at the current President of the United states).

My point is that change just like disruptive technology (like the cameras promoted in this blog) scares people who are used to work in a certain way and who because of that might be limited by their aesthetics, preferences and limited perspectives.

I remember when a digital Recording system called Pro Tools came out in the 1990’s.

A lot of the old school engineers laughed; bet a lot of them lost their jobs especially the ones who did not make the right kind of crap.

By the way; Most consumers don’t care if a Film or Song is made in a Digital or Analog environment, either they like "it" or they don’t.


Sincerely,

Useg Diaz-Granados
......