Is 8K ok?

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 03, 2018 12:54 pm

The whole idea of exponential growth when it comes to pixel density is interesting.

Put colour and DR to side. As humans, we soon hit a perceptive visual limitation on any known screen size when it comes to pixel density. Going from SD to HD was clearly necessary. Going from HD to 4k, also necessary when we view our content on bigger screens. Even 8k seem reasonable, IMO, if we still talk about tv and traditional cinema.

I have no doubt that we will see 20k+ in a distant future. Perhaps, in that future, we don’t even own tv screens but rather hook ourselves up to a total immersive VR experience. Even when watching the news. I can see the benefit of higher pixel density in that kind of future. Thing is. I don’t believe 8k is twice as good as 4k in a future where 20k+ is mandatory. They will both be equal technical outdated. Regardless, top content shot on any of them will matter the most.

Anyways. We can’t stop the future. Probably best to stay on the train:
https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/01/8k-is-now-being-broadcast-in-japan/
Offline

Que Thompson

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:19 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 03, 2018 9:35 pm

UHD ProRes HQ files from the Pocket are not playing on my maxed out 2016 iMac. This is using Premiere, no effects or grading. They play fine in Davinci Resolve.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 5:31 am

Oyvind and Que, right. fullhd to 4k is less a leap than wide SD to FullHD (I think about 4x the resolution), but it is the last great (minor) leap I think. 4k to 8k will be less again. 8k to 20k not really seeable unless you are too close to the screen, filling up peripheral vision or more. But it is more an acquisition thing to properly shape debayered 8k or less pixels. Bayer is the issue. So ding a vertical color technique finale resolution acquisition can be closer to 8k, rendering Bayer datarate advantages useless, as with 8k vertical you can.get better quality than 16k Bayer at less data (16k Bayer used to produce 8k, is 4x 8k bayer, but 8k vertical colour filter 4:4:4 is only 3 times 8k Bayer). You could render over 9k vertical in the same datarate as 16k Bayer, which is over 1/8th increase in resolution in both directions. It's worth going further and more than 16k bayers datarate, just to get the extra quality from a good vertical system. You then have cleaner acquisition not requiring heavy debayering, and easier to handle for the target delivery resolution.

Que, yep, one software suite obviously is better using resources. It's best to not judge what is possible by those who don't do it well.
Offline
User avatar

Ulysses Paiva

  • Posts: 680
  • Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:32 pm
  • Location: Pernambuco, Brasil

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 10:37 am

I thought 4K was only noticeable close to the screen as per many tests done. Let alone 8k.

Geez. Guys you ever stop? Always worried about gear and not content... people dont care if it was shot in 4K. They watch things in smartphones, tablets and notebooks. Your 8k doesnt even matter.
While you are whining about your lack of pixels, Alexa is still king at 2.8k and making million$.
Ulysses Paiva
UPMD Filmes
http://www.upmdfilmes.com.br
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 12:51 pm

Yeah, sure. We are going pay $17 to go to a cinema and watch a movie on a smart phone. None of those arguments hold out. Just because people watch things like YouTube, news, television on a smart phone, doesn't mean they prefer to watch everything low quality. If there is no option but .... then what's the point. There is different quality levels for preference for a reason, and people do comment that 8k just looks a lot clearer than 4k. It's all bogus nonsense to complain about improvements people can see, as invalid options. Some people will benefit and like it. People say they still use low resolution Alexa, in the same way as people with crusty vision thought lower resolution was good enough, and stubborn stuck in the muds stuck to film. All were proven wrong, and held back the ART with their whining and complaining about what is better. They don't need, they need to retire.
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 3:13 pm

Ulysses Paiva wrote:I thought 4K was only noticeable close to the screen as per many tests done. Let alone 8k.

Geez. Guys you ever stop? Always worried about gear and not content... people dont care if it was shot in 4K. They watch things in smartphones, tablets and notebooks. Your 8k doesnt even matter.
While you are whining about your lack of pixels, Alexa is still king at 2.8k and making million$.




I agree.

All I’m saying is that, we can’t stop technology. I don’t mean we need to throw our “old” cameras. A good HD/2k+ camera is still a good camera for years to come. We need some sort of paradigm shift before those are obsolete IMO. Maybe that’s VR. Who knows? That’s the silliness in 8k+ realm right now. A consumer with a 50” screen will have no benefit of it.

I have read several test where consumers have taken (blind product test) on which display is 4k and which is HD. (No HDR). Often the HD tv win these tests because the viewer believe its sharper. A true 4k image may look soft compare to a downscaled 2k image on the same screen watched at the same distance, because we are not able to see the fine details in the 4k image. A rational solution to the “problem” would be to either increase the size of the screen, or putt the chair closer to the screen. Maybe than they realise the “mistake”. Those who have near perfect eyesight will of course spot it. However, most common viewer don’t care about resolution. Only good picture.

Another thing is that most HD video/movies out there don’t deliver true 1080lines (pixel by pixel) IQ. A true 2k image on a good 4k screen at about 40-70” looks VERY good. I bet nobody would complain. That’s why compressed 4k looks good. Its not true 4k, but its closer to what we always wanted from HD. That’s why I use 4k in vimeo. Not because people will watch it in 4k, but because it gives me a closer to true full HD signal rather than compressed HD.
Offline
User avatar

Ulysses Paiva

  • Posts: 680
  • Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:32 pm
  • Location: Pernambuco, Brasil

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 3:38 pm

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:
Ulysses Paiva wrote:I thought 4K was only noticeable close to the screen as per many tests done. Let alone 8k.

Geez. Guys you ever stop? Always worried about gear and not content... people dont care if it was shot in 4K. They watch things in smartphones, tablets and notebooks. Your 8k doesnt even matter.
While you are whining about your lack of pixels, Alexa is still king at 2.8k and making million$.




I agree.

All I’m saying is that, we can’t stop technology. I don’t mean we need to throw our “old” cameras. A good HD/2k+ camera is still a good camera for years to come. We need some sort of paradigm shift before those are obsolete IMO. Maybe that’s VR. Who knows? That’s the silliness in 8k+ realm right now. A consumer with a 50” screen will have no benefit of it.

I have read several test where consumers have taken (blind product test) on which display is 4k and which is HD. (No HDR). Often the HD tv win these tests because the viewer believe its sharper. A true 4k image may look soft compare to a downscaled 2k image on the same screen watched at the same distance, because we are not able to see the fine details in the 4k image. A rational solution to the “problem” would be to either increase the size of the screen, or putt the chair closer to the screen. Maybe than they realise the “mistake”. Those who have near perfect eyesight will of course spot it. However, most common viewer don’t care about resolution. Only good picture.

Another thing is that most HD video/movies out there don’t deliver true 1080lines (pixel by pixel) IQ. A true 2k image on a good 4k screen at about 40-70” looks VERY good. I bet nobody would complain. That’s why compressed 4k looks good. Its not true 4k, but its closer to what we always wanted from HD. That’s why I use 4k in vimeo. Not because people will watch it in 4k, but because it gives me a closer to true full HD signal rather than compressed HD.


Yes. When WE, that work in the area, go to the movies, even we, dont care much if its shot on 2k or 4k. I've seen movies in IMAX theater, projected both for 2k and 4k movies, I am assured the 2k movies gives me a same good experience although I can see a very, very small difference in resolution. That from the same IMAX 4k projector which I had the pleasure to meet the beast myself personally. The main difference I notice is between cinemas. The older and the newer, with the newer giving me the same experience of an IMAX room/theater. And we're talking about the highest experience, which is real cinema. When we get to consumer screens... thats even less demanding as I said.

And the same people who watch youtube content and netflix gladly on their phones (I cant for movies. Thats not for me. That has to be at least a good HD TV), also goes to the theaters and also watch high end movies there. And they are glad with both. And I assure you they really dont care if it was 2k or 4k as long as it is good and the image quality doesnt distract from the content.
Ulysses Paiva
UPMD Filmes
http://www.upmdfilmes.com.br
Offline

Que Thompson

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:19 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 4:21 pm

I do ok in my day job, I've set up a 75" Sony 940D (4k) with surround speakers and SVS SB16 Ultra subs in my home. I obviously care about quality. I just recently saw an 8K 85" TV released for $15,000! Sounds 3-5 years away for the typical consumer, myself included. I'm actually eyeing a short throw 4k laser projector to achieve 100+" screen. MOST people are just getting a 4k TV or don't have one yet. I haven't been to a movie theater in a few years. However, I know a lot of people who are fine, probably through necessity, with their HD 720p/1080p 50" television using internal sound.

That being said... I think we as creators just need to provide quality content no matter what the resolution, if it's good, the people will watch it. Whether on their smart phone, pc monitor, 720p 50" TV, home theater or in a proper theater.

We are the only ones concerned with resolution, pixel peeping, etc. I can't see myself needing anything more than my Pocket 4K for a while. Things like battery life, "gimbalability" (my new word), etc are things that I'm more concerned with at this point. Those may change as I grow in the craft.

I'm actually looking forward to the time when they play some 4k footage and it looks like 1970s footage does today, but this is too fast imo.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 9502
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 6:31 pm

The orig discussion was not about projecting or viewing 8K in the near future, but one day this will come. We were discussing 8K acquisition on cameras for post processing to a lower resolution for distribution, like 4K is currently used for 2K/HD distribution. Upgrading the consumer end is the slowest part of the shift to higher resolutions, and will be last in this chain.

While 8K acquisition is the future, 2K is the current standard and full DCS 4K is coming into more use for acquisition. We are a ways off from having to worry about 8K cameras. This day may come, but not tomorrow. We are still trying to get our hands on 4K Cameras likemthe new BM Pocket 4K! :roll:
Cheers
Last edited by Denny Smith on Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 766
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 6:35 pm

Ulysses Paiva wrote:Geez. Guys you ever stop? Always worried about gear and not content... people dont care if it was shot in 4K. They watch things in smartphones, tablets and notebooks. Your 8k doesnt even matter.
While you are whining about your lack of pixels, Alexa is still king at 2.8k and making million$.


I don't think anyone is whining, but I do have a couple of thoughts in regards to what you just said:

1. Quality of content and quality of capture/playback are not mutually exclusive. I am worried about gear AND content because I care about both.

2. The same argument could be said about SD, it worked for decades and everyone seemed happy about it, why change? I don't think there's anyone in here who would want to go back to SD format.

3. I think post production has become more critical in the filmmaking process than it ever was. Reframing shots, pulling close-ups where only wides and mediums were shot, rotoscoping and pulling keys with higher fidelity, those are all direct results of working with more data. Compare the quality of green screen work from 10 years ago to what we're seeing today if you don't believe me.

As I said in my original post, I think we're headed toward 8K whether we want it or not. Personally I think 8K is best suited as a capture medium while HD and 4K are very adequate delivery methods. In the audio side of things, it's not unusual for recordings to capture performances at 96khz or even 192khz rates (the audio equivalent of 4K and 8K), but the delivery format for most music is still at 48khz because it provides a very adequate quality for consumers.
>>Kays Alatrakchi
www.mbkproductions.com
Director, Colorist, Composer (not necessarily in that order).
Resolve 15.2, Mac OS X 10.13.5 (High Sierra), i7 8700k, 32Gb DDR4 RAM, Dual GTX 1080ti, Decklink Mini Monitor, USB 3.1 RAID
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 9:09 pm

Ulysses Paiva wrote:
Yes. When WE, that work in the area, go to the movies, even we, dont care much if its shot on 2k or 4k. I've seen movies in IMAX theater, projected both for 2k and 4k movies, I am assured the 2k movies gives me a same good experience although I can see a very, very small difference in resolution. That from the same IMAX 4k projector which I had the pleasure to meet the beast myself personally. The main difference I notice is between cinemas. The older and the newer, with the newer giving me the same experience of an IMAX room/theater.


Yup. I have never been much of a pixel geek either, but felt the jump from SD to HD was a big welcome. I don’t mind going to a local cinema that not show 4k, I couldn’t care less. I was actually happy with the analog film that barely gave us something close to 720p in the cinema, back in the days. That’s the beauty with motion picture, ones the film start we tend to forget about the technical stuff. Still, Im open minded and welcome to most new tech. Kays point about the ability to re-frame and crop is/will be 8k’s biggest selling point. Its one of the big reasons to buy a helium 8k today.
Offline

Domingo Olmo Martin

  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 10:57 pm

Hi
Recently I colorgraded a video for TF1 in France with Samsung as partner for their new 8K HDR TV flagship, the video files were shot with a RED Helium in 8k.
During the color session I used a Sony BVM X300, when I played the HDR 8k file on the samsung TV it was ... Woooo... I want that at home and at work.

So yes, 8K is ok, and it's amazing when 8K is in HDR
King of punk / Domingo Olmo Martin
Author - Director

Windows 10
Asus X99-pro mother board
i7-5930k Intel CPU
32Go Ram
Asus Titan X GPU
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 04, 2018 11:00 pm

Denny Smith wrote:The orig discussion was nit about projecting or viewing 8K in the near future, but one day this will come. We were discussing 8K acquisition on cameras for post processing to a lower resolution for distribution, like 4K is currently used for 2K/HD distribution. Upgrading the consumer end is the slowest part of the shift to higher resolutions, and will be last in this chain.

While 8K acquisition is the future, 2K is the current standard and full DCS 4K is coming into more use for acquisition. We are a ways off from having to worry about 8K cameras. This day may come, but not tomorrow. We are still trying to get our hands on 4K Cameras likemthe new BM Pocket 4K! :roll:
Cheers


The Weapon 8K VV was introduced in 2015 and in 2016, an 8K sensor called "Helium" was introduced.
Panavision DXL and DXL2 also use the 8k VV sensor. Sony, Ikegami and sharp have 8k UHD camera's and panasonic is going to introduce an 8k 20stops DR camera in 2019.

8K is happening now.

Do I need it at the moment?, no I rather have an UMP FF 6k bayersensor camera to shoot UHD and DCI 4K de-bayered output (like sony venice, canon C700 FF and Kinefinity MAVO FF).
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

How to test 8k performance against 4k and 2k.

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 2:28 am

You got to watch research, particularly if they say they are not finding something, because it is easy to muck up research. What we know is proven, is human vision sees 8k, if somebody doesn't that's their issue. There are books like "How to prove your eyesight without glasses". In it they mention, people might be looking concentrating on an area outside there maximum vision, which they can look for and find and retrain themselves. I did it to maximise vision apart from other visual issues.

Now, on mucking up research making a poor 4k resolution print and downscaling to a good 2k print, then comparing, would not be a good acquisition comparison. The 4k or 8k downscaled to 2k is expected to look better then a pure 2k window out of the same camera.

Now, comparing it on a 50 inch or so TV at conventional distances, on a small field of view, is just wrong science. Resolution has all to do with field of view, as that is how it works in human vision. Filling out the inner peripheral vision zone, so you don't have to look around, is a good field of view to use.


Years back people used to have such small TV's and sat at such great distances Standard Definition looked good, but the images looked small. I remember Fist, was it in the Australian decades ago, complaining his he was going fit an upcoming massive wide-screen into his living room (probably around 40-50 inch ha, ha compared to now days :) ). He was getting the placement information wrong in screen width rather than hight too, so I think he was concerned about how far back he had to sit and his small it looked etc. But, as you can see misunderstandings don't help debate. So, what happened with SD is they wanted bigger TV's where the closeup and now mid range shots look at least life like size (the more the merrier, which is cinema territory) going towards long shots. You sit close enough so you can still see this full screen without looking around st what's happening, but not closer then your short range vision. So just over 6 feet on something like a 70 inch to 80 inch screen (sorry, I've firgittennthe exact measurements, but around 60-70 degree arc of vision. That's where you should to 2k-8k comparisons.

Now, there are a few more important considerations in comparison. The lower the contrast difference between two pixels, the less you notice the resolution, and at the sane time, the brighter images of an emissive display may result in less visible resolution. Once you look up all the research on this, and setup, you are right for an actual optimal comparison to get better results.

As for acquisition, the same lens, camera, framing, lighting and set up on a good 8k camera. Using 8k, 4k and 2k sensor window modes, film the same resolution chart, carefully adjusting lighting evenly accross the chart to compensate for moving tjr camera and change of aperture as you move the camera further away, for the 4k and 3k framing, keeping the average angle of rays similar. For this Bayer sensor is probably best, as it is the common one. As you can see, this may take weeks to figure out properly, so that difference between esxh shot I'd mainly only the resolution, which takes put lens effects. Don't just use a scsmed chart file, as this will lead to rnhsnvent onntjr downscaling, or different resolution charts.

The tricky bit, use a top quality calibrated 70+ inch display that you can turn all image and scaling enhancements OFF. Now you might be ready to display the 8/4/2k image files on the thing at the precise calculated viewing distance. Remember also to optimise room lighting like a grading studio would, adjusted for your distance. Now you can test your eyesight. Some people won't notice much difference between 2k and 4k, increasing with age. Some people will notice the difference between 4k and 8k increasing with the decrease in age. So, the kids with good eyesight in their teens, maybe younger, should notice the difference and see further down the chart. You could try an eyesight test, but the best would probably be a checkerboard pattern of black and white squares, like I use, and move further or until you can tell the difference between them, and then clearly the difference. Another I try, is two lines one pixel thick, one pixel apart, in each direction, forming a cross. The different resolution patterns and crosses could fit on one screen. Of course, by 2k, 4k and 8k, I mean 1920, 3840 and 7680, as that's the displays we can readily get. 8k will still have the minor disadvantage of the pixel cell structure interfering with the test, where it's more averaged out at 2k. That's the simplified test. In the real world, the lower contrast scenes, movement, and the people not concentrating on areas of more visible resolution will make differences less apparent. However, the lens sculpting of the image should have more effect, and the image look clearer (putting aside noise).

BM could do such a display at NAB to should off 8k camera benefits, and how much better 8k downscaled to 4k and 2k looks, as a promotional gimmick for people to test hows good their eyesight is. Of course, it is best a corridor walk by and stand on this line to see sort of situation and you have to have it adjusted and pre tested to suite floor lighting and visual accommodation as people look around from other things to the test and their brightness adaption kicks in. Sine screens if actual images and footage done to the same standard might show a more positive difference for those who can't see 8k, and screens using good 8k downscales to 4k and 2k compared to 4k and 2k sensor windows from the sane camera. Then people get three shits of marketable benefits of 8k. One, yes I can see it, two even I can't it looks nicer and clearer, and three even if I can't it sure names nicer 2k (and if you can't you may need better glasses). People will be talking about it for days, and mentioning it for weeks and months. There was something you needed a loupe for in setting it up, but I forget.

A full audience is not just you, but everybody that comes to a screening with whatever visual capability.
Last edited by Wayne Steven on Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 2:33 am

BTW, delivering 4k is OK. Not a vast amount non young people are going to see 8k, and for those that do a good downscale to 4k should still be good enough.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 1963
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Chicago Illinois

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 2:43 am

I would guess more than 80% of the content you see on TV and in a cinema is shot 1920, today in 2018.

Even on Netflix, unless it's a "Netflix Original" it will be more likely to NOT be 4K originated, and most cinema is STILL shot with a camera that isn't a 4K camera that Netflix say isn't good enough.

4K acquisition is barely there and we're calling for 8K ?

No one that I've worked for is interested in PAYING for 4K workflow or delivery. It doesn't matter if it can be done or if it looks good. The economics aren't there yet even though 4K and 8K exist today.

If consumers REALLY cared then 4K acquisition would be rampant. It's just not. It doesn't matter if the camera costs 5K when the workflow can't support it, and even it can (like with RED) no one wants to PAY for it.

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
Atlanta
Georgia
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 9502
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 3:08 am

MishaEngel wrote:
Denny Smith wrote:The orig discussion was nit about projecting or viewing 8K in the near future, but one day this will come. We were discussing 8K acquisition on cameras for post processing to a lower resolution for distribution, like 4K is currently used for 2K/HD distribution. Upgrading the consumer end is the slowest part of the shift to higher resolutions, and will be last in this chain.

While 8K acquisition is the future, 2K is the current standard and full DCS 4K is coming into more use for acquisition. We are a ways off from having to worry about 8K cameras. This day may come, but not tomorrow. We are still trying to get our hands on 4K Cameras likemthe new BM Pocket 4K! :roll:
Cheers


The Weapon 8K VV was introduced in 2015 and in 2016, an 8K sensor called "Helium" was introduced.
Panavision DXL and DXL2 also use the 8k VV sensor. Sony, Ikegami and sharp have 8k UHD camera's and panasonic is going to introduce an 8k 20stops DR camera in 2019.

8K is happening now.

Do I need it at the moment?, no I rather have an UMP FF 6k bayersensor camera to shoot UHD and DCI 4K de-bayered output (like sony venice, canon C700 FF and Kinefinity MAVO FF).


I wan’t saying that there was not already some 8K filming being done. Major production seem to use the latest tech, but not in every case. Films were mostly shot on 35mm, and 70mm cine was also used a little, but not every movie used the larger format. Same today, some are using 8K or 23.5x35.x FF Vista Vision, but not everyone.

Today 8K is in limited use, but some time in the future we might all be shooting 8K, but not today. That was my point. I agree with John B, HD is the current acquisition standard, with more content using 4K for some applications, but again not everyone. TV is just barely getting UHD resolution going, in very limited markets. HD is still the major broadcasting standard.
Cheers
Last edited by Denny Smith on Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

timbutt2

  • Posts: 1032
  • Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:32 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 5:07 am

Do you know how many 4K HDR movies I own on iTunes, Vudu, and Amazon Prime shot in 4K (not counting 35mm film scanned 4K) or above? Not too many. Almost all were the Alexa. In fact I could quickly go through and only find 2 of the digitally shot movies that were primarily RED. All the other digitally captured movies are ARRI Alexa.

All 35mm film and 70mm film movies that are 4K HDR on iTunes, Vudu, and Amazon Prime could easily be scanned at 4-6K. I doubt any are scanned at 8K.

I remember 5-years ago a friend saying that they wanted a 4K camera so that they could have that in their pocket when selling to clients work with the camera. I said then it wasn't important, and that the Alexa wasn't 4K and it is used on all the big productions. Sad thing is that 5-years later and I find it's not a selling point at all even when I have it with the 4.6K sensor. Resolution isn't as important as many think. It's now getting a little more prevalent because people are now getting 4K TVs since they're cheaper. But, I don't have clients asking for it. And, the Alexa is still the most popular camera despite not being fully 4K. It upscales to 4K fine, and looks great.

So, I think 8K isn't that important as a selling point for a camera for me right now. I care more for dynamic range and color.
"Movies are not watched. They are an encounter with a life's experience not your own." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

Cameras: URSA Mini 4.6K EF & Cinema Camera 2.5K EF
Computers: iMac 5K (Late 2015) & MacBook Pro Retina 15.4in (Early 2013)
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:03 am

You got to realise there are two things happening here. Marketing to keep selling, even though decreasing benefit, where most may not notice anything, but still quality. On the other side are those who hold back the art for whatever reason, even penny pinching, and increased quality that can be perceived by a significant portion of the audience is part of the art. Judgements on tomorrow's budget small TV sizes are not valid. The move to larger sets, and viewing glasses, will make 2k look less to more people, but 4k should still be fine. At these levels, 8k may not look very defined, and it is below color vision, so even without fuzzy vision, the 8k shouldn't look over whelming. For delivery, it should he viewed as a special thing, for special projects and as a good source to downscale to lower deliver resolutions.

The panavision guy was talking about 16k and 32k acquisition. Panavision is using Red sensors, and I believe they would be heading to 16k for 8k and lower use, this gives them at least 4 years marketing. But I do believe there might have been a cross licensing agreement with Sony and Red's sensor supplier, and Sony was developing holographic sensors. A 32k holographic sensor should deliver over 2k real resolution, the lowest tolerable image. I wonder if Red or Panavision, are planning holographic sensors? Interesting thing is, this shouldn't be Bayer pattern. True holographic doesn't need color filtering so much, but the industry is loose with the term holographic to also mean something like angle subdivision 3D, which would suite a move to vertical colour filtering much better. I was looking at an artical on Sony's developing but still delayed colour filtering technology yesterday, and I wonder if that is suitable (it is just how they are going to handle ray angles to filter properly and in right place.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2300
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 3:42 pm

Que Thompson wrote:UHD ProRes HQ files from the Pocket are not playing on my maxed out 2016 iMac. This is using Premiere, no effects or grading. They play fine in Davinci Resolve.


Seems pretty obvious where the fault lies then.

And you pay how much for Premiere? Why? ;)
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2300
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 3:47 pm

Ulysses Paiva wrote:I thought 4K was only noticeable close to the screen as per many tests done. Let alone 8k.

Geez. Guys you ever stop? Always worried about gear and not content... people dont care if it was shot in 4K. They watch things in smartphones, tablets and notebooks. Your 8k doesnt even matter.
While you are whining about your lack of pixels, Alexa is still king at 2.8k and making million$.


There's a reason that the majority of the people who complain the most about not being able to afford an 8K camera aren't making any movies...
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2300
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 3:50 pm

Domingo Olmo Martin wrote:So yes, 8K is ok, and it's amazing when 8K is in HDR


That was my impression from NAB when I got a my first glimpse of 8K at the NHK pavilion in NAB Futures.

It was impressive... but as far as "holy <blert> that looks amazing..." Sony's professional HDR display blew away 8K.
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline

Gene Kochanowsky

  • Posts: 1003
  • Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:11 am
  • Location: Tallahassee, FL

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 4:01 pm

This is an interesting discussion. What I've learned is that there are benefits to higher resolution acquisition, but as a practical matter in terms of where things currently stand for most delivery platforms, 1920 may be good enough. Each production may have its own reasons for choosing one acquisition resolution over another.

Be that as it may, I think this discussion ignores the elephant in the room. That would be the techno-industrial complex. It's a beast that needs to be fed, and to do that it requires that most if not all of the last generation electronics becomes obsolete in a few years. As cool as it would be to create new ways of generating an image to be viewed by the human eye, the lowest hanging fruit for this beast appears to be resolution. So here we are.
Offline

Que Thompson

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:19 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 8:28 pm

Rakesh Malik wrote:Seems pretty obvious where the fault lies then.

And you pay how much for Premiere? Why? ;)


I learned to edit on Premiere and it is way better for editing music videos than Resolve imo. I'll add that the file was UHD 60fps, ProRes HQ, (about 3:30 of footage).... 50GB!! :o

I'm leaning towards using ProRes LT until BMRAW is available.
Last edited by Que Thompson on Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2300
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:03 pm

Que Thompson wrote:I learned to edit on Premiere


My condolences ;)
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:13 pm

I think I did actually, cover the industrial complex just before.

Who has ever complained about not being able to afford an 8k camera here? I'm sure I could afford an $1.5k Sony 8k camcorder this year, or something more professional, if I wish, or the Samsung 8k phone using their new chipset. But not an 6k or 8k Red phone, as they didn't do that.

I imagine a professional Sony 8k HDR monitor should look even more amazing at the correct size.

"To read, think and derive and conclude".
- A writer.
Offline

Que Thompson

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:19 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:15 pm

Rakesh Malik wrote:
Que Thompson wrote:I learned to edit on Premiere


My condolences ;)


Ok... I guess I may have this same problem when BRAW is available because premiere won't recognize it.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:21 pm

Que, we support your editor choice, but is it worth supporting a product that doesn't implement advanced processing technologies to speed things up like others have, in this day and age heading towards 8k/240fps/4:4:4/16 bit (+16k/32k) technology proposals.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2300
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:29 pm

Que Thompson wrote:Ok... I guess I may have this same problem when BRAW is available because premiere won't recognize it.


Still? Wow.

It's hard to resist making fun of Adobe these days. :)
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline

Que Thompson

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:19 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:31 pm

Wayne Steven wrote:Que, we support your editor choice, but is it worth supporting a product that doesn't implement advanced processing technologies to speed things up like others have, in this day and age heading towards 8k/240fps/4:4:4/16 bit (+16k/32k) technology proposals.


Davinci Resolve is free, reliable and packed with features. I understand that, but I just don't want to take the time to learn how to duplicate the things I've learned in Premiere if I don't have to. I spent hours and hours, late nights, years really... Learning Premiere. Using Premiere with After Effects.... It's a tough change to make.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:35 pm

Is there a resolve feedback form where you can describe in which way resolve makes editing music videos easier? I use such things on apps and have seen maybe over 100 or 200 hundred suggestions implemented in updates within 1-3 months usually. But it's a matter of striking the right technical balance in the suggestion, to correctly read the situation, and correctly think and derive and conclude. But, if they are any good they should get what you mean anyway, but then you wouldn't need to give many suggestions in the first place if people are. But, yes Que, you never know, within half a year you might see Resolve being better for music videos.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:38 pm

I see. So, it doesn't have a fundamental work flow advantage for music videos over premiere then? Well, maybe you could make suggestions to Resolve/BM to produce plugins for premier to better process and support their cameras then.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostWed Dec 05, 2018 9:47 pm

Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostThu Dec 06, 2018 11:58 am

Pertaining to 4k comments. 100 million out of 220 million TV sales this year will be 4k. This includes SD, 720p, fullhd, 8k of course and small TV's, where most 4k models would be large. Which raises the question, are there more 4k sets being sold then fullhd? Netflix is recording 20-30% of subscribers opting for premium 4k service. But of course the average user doesn't know what they are really doing, otherwise it could have been 50-80% (would likely depend on the demographics of the subscribers). Realising that 4k will give high enough quality for nearly 100% of the people in your room.

UHD bluray continues to grow and do very well.

It was the same with HD/fullhd and DVD bluray, slow take ups then demand as people upgraded and bought taylored content. Sure people held onto DVD, they understood it, and it was simple and cheap compared to bluray. But those who saw the improvements fullhd TV and bluray. UHD is another refinement, keeping a price premium. Options.

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?s ... 1544074043
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostThu Dec 06, 2018 3:29 pm

Gene Kochanowsky wrote:Be that as it may, I think this discussion ignores the elephant in the room. That would be the techno-industrial complex. It's a beast that needs to be fed, and to do that it requires that most if not all of the last generation electronics becomes obsolete in a few years. As cool as it would be to create new ways of generating an image to be viewed by the human eye, the lowest hanging fruit for this beast appears to be resolution. So here we are.


I believe you are quite right in your channel of thought. The whole idea that business needs economic growth to thrive, even though a large group of us don’t see the whole technical benefit of displaying 8k at the moment. It’s more of a necessity to keep the wheels turning. It doesn’t necessarily coop with art though.

I don’t buy the notion that most will buy bigger tv’s at home in a near future. Our wife will see to that. Kidding aside, we may eventually buy 8k tv’s at regular, or a bit bigger, size and get cinemas update to 8k. Problem is. Many own HD still, it takes time to get the crowd updated. It’s a fantasy believing that we will jump faster to 8k than what we have done from HD to 4k. Im not saying no to 8k, but for the average person it’s a bit ahead of its time IMO.

Displaying 8k at current screens/cinemas is almost like sipping great coffee from a bucket, realising that the coffee will be cold before you have consumed a quarter of it. Probably taste good, but leave you with two tired hands and a wanted solution to get rid of the waste. Nevertheless, there are benefits by recording 8k, that we have talked about, which make perfect sense today. But first it’s the necessity of economic growth, feeding the techno-industrial beast.
Online
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 9571
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostThu Dec 06, 2018 7:06 pm

I still expect my next television will be 4K UHD. Would have liked it to be DCI 4K capable without downscale but that might be hard to find when manufacturing of 8K takes off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Que Thompson

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:19 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostThu Dec 06, 2018 9:01 pm

I think I'm an early adopter. I would say opinion leader, but my friends think I'm crazy. So, I'll probably have an 8k TV before anybody I know, but I don't plan on it any time soon. I have my eye on a 4k short throw projector (100-150" TV). Even that's a couple years away, it's still too expensive. Although it's already come down $3000 since it was announced...

Innovators
Keep in mind that these adopter categories primarily relate to a mindset, as well as the consumer’s lifestyle and product interest level. Consumers who are classified as innovators are less reliant upon the word of mouth persuasion of others. They are generally more adventurous and more willing to take risks. Relative to the particular the product category, they would tend to have a higher level of knowledge, confidence and interest in the product.

Early adopters
Early adopters also have some of the similar characteristics to innovators. However, they are more reliant upon word-of-mouth and the reassurance of other people’s purchase – which helps reduce their purchase risk. This means that they would be somewhat influenced by the innovator (who has already made a purchase). They will also conduct their own research in addition to word-of-mouth discussion, and also like innovator, they will have a high level of interest in the product category.


Opinion leaders – those consumers viewed as experts by other consumers – are typically found among early adopters, as they tend to have better social networks and connections than innovators (as innovators tend to make their purchase decisions irrespective of others).

Early majority
Early adopters then substantially influence the early majority – which essentially moves the new product to the mainstream consumer. The early majority relies heavily upon positive word-of-mouth, as they tend to be more cautious purchasers and will look to rely upon social influence to help “justify” their decision – both for the product itself and for the particular brand selected.

Late majority
The late majority are those consumers that are generally reluctant to change their purchase behaviors, but tend to do so if they feel that they are out of step with what everybody else is doing (that is, outside social norms). It is not until they see the product widespread – in retailers and in people’s homes/possession – that they eventually decide to start buying the product.

Laggards
Final mindset is laggards – which are consumers that may not even adopt the product at all. They are very conservative in their actions (or are quite elderly people) who prefer not to change purchase behavior. For example, some of these consumers may still have a VCR/video player that they have maintained for many years.
Offline
User avatar

Frank Glencairn

  • Posts: 1628
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:07 am
  • Location: Germany

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostThu Dec 06, 2018 10:06 pm

Besides the question: do you even have the lenses, that are able to resolve 8K?

A look at the actually used screen resolutions is pretty sobering.

The number one screen Resolution worldwide is 360x640 pixels.
Yes that's right - 19% of all folks looking at your 8K content, will consume it at the size of a stamp.

Number 2 (11%) is at 1366x768, and less than 10% consume at HD.

http://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats
http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/

I told you so :-)
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostThu Dec 06, 2018 10:08 pm

You sound a lot like Michael "marketing" Cioni.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostThu Dec 06, 2018 11:29 pm

Que Thompson wrote:I think I'm an early adopter. I would say opinion leader, but my friends think I'm crazy. So, I'll probably have an 8k TV before anybody I know, but I don't plan on it any time soon. I have my eye on a 4k short throw projector (100-150" TV). Even that's a couple years away, it's still too expensive. Although it's already come down $3000 since it was announced...

Innovators
Keep in mind that these adopter categories primarily relate to a mindset, as well as the consumer’s lifestyle and product interest level. Consumers who are classified as innovators are less reliant upon the word of mouth persuasion of others. They are generally more adventurous and more willing to take risks. Relative to the particular the product category, they would tend to have a higher level of knowledge, confidence and interest in the product.

Early adopters
Early adopters also have some of the similar characteristics to innovators. However, they are more reliant upon word-of-mouth and the reassurance of other people’s purchase – which helps reduce their purchase risk. This means that they would be somewhat influenced by the innovator (who has already made a purchase). They will also conduct their own research in addition to word-of-mouth discussion, and also like innovator, they will have a high level of interest in the product category.


Opinion leaders – those consumers viewed as experts by other consumers – are typically found among early adopters, as they tend to have better social networks and connections than innovators (as innovators tend to make their purchase decisions irrespective of others).

Early majority
Early adopters then substantially influence the early majority – which essentially moves the new product to the mainstream consumer. The early majority relies heavily upon positive word-of-mouth, as they tend to be more cautious purchasers and will look to rely upon social influence to help “justify” their decision – both for the product itself and for the particular brand selected.

Late majority
The late majority are those consumers that are generally reluctant to change their purchase behaviors, but tend to do so if they feel that they are out of step with what everybody else is doing (that is, outside social norms). It is not until they see the product widespread – in retailers and in people’s homes/possession – that they eventually decide to start buying the product.

Laggards
Final mindset is laggards – which are consumers that may not even adopt the product at all. They are very conservative in their actions (or are quite elderly people) who prefer not to change purchase behavior. For example, some of these consumers may still have a VCR/video player that they have maintained for many years.


Or whingers and whiners that normally post fuzzy stuff to forums which they testify as totally solid stuff compared to more solid stuff, to match their visual abilities? :)

Thanks Laggard was the term I was trying to remember.

If you can really see it, its real, if you can't see it, your vision might be suffering.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostThu Dec 06, 2018 11:53 pm

I suggest you look at my second last post above, which gave the 4k TV statistics. Realise (their are not many postage stamp TV's are there??) 8k master deliverable will suit every sized and resolution TV of 8k or under, it doesn't reduce audience but increases it.

Unless the TV makers push it as an only main option, 8k is not likely to be more than 50% for a long time, and 10% in the nearer future, but 10% is a premium market. :) UHD bluray is keeping it's premium pricing, and apparently doing OK. There was a 600GB violet ray disc announced years back and cheap consumer technology for a new 8k bluray replacement now, but I suspect they might prefer to wait for h266 to fit it on existing bluray manufacturing processes. You could also fit entire TV series, or seasons on one disk at the old resolutions they were shot at. All this 2k limit stuff is nonsense. Even if 50% of people can't see more than 2k, that means 50% of people do and are being under serviced. It is just ultra conservatives making excuses with too convenient arguments. They are the, say, 10% that hold things to old targets, rather than what can work (8k, not really 16k for normal viewing but OK for presentation effects and advertising, and 200 inch or so wall TV's and headsets) and what can work really well (4k, and TV sizes up to 120 inches).
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 12:22 am

Frank Glencairn wrote:The number one screen Resolution worldwide is 360x640 pixels.
Yes that's right - 19% of all folks looking at your 8K content, will consume it at the size of a stamp.

Number 2 (11%) is at 1366x768, and less than 10% consume at HD.

http://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats


You do know that page doesn't include TV's in their stats? Postage stamp sized panels tend to be in VR, headsets and projectors. This does not tell you about how they consume content, what sort of content, and which screen sizes they prefer (the more preferable situation) for which content. It tells very little. Just because one uses a mobile for convenience out and about, does not tell if you like it better at cinema sizes, it just obfuscates what the marketable preference is.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 1963
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Chicago Illinois

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 12:46 am

It’s pointless to look at sales of 4K TV sets as an indicator of 4K uptake when it’s getting very hard to still buy a 1920 set.

The true question is, who’s actually watching 4K content in 4K (I bet it’s a lot lower than those watching 1920 on their 4K TVs) and what data rate are they getting at their viewing platform.

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
Atlanta
Georgia
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 1:27 am

John Brawley wrote:It’s pointless to look at sales of 4K TV sets as an indicator of 4K uptake when it’s getting very hard to still buy a 1920 set.

The true question is, who’s actually watching 4K content in 4K (I bet it’s a lot lower than those watching 1920 on their 4K TVs) and what data rate are they getting at their viewing platform.

JB


And who is actually shooting 4k RGB content (on a 6k+ camera), still a very small percentage...
Even on Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc... the 6k+ bayer-sensor camera's are hard to find.

For some kind of reason many arrived film makers don't want to use the next-level camera's.
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 956
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 3:46 am

Chad Capeland wrote: And don't forget that higher resolution CAN result in more DR or color gamut.
The truth is (as usual) more complicated. That statement is only possibly true if the size of the sensor also increases. If you take the same s35 sensor and just cram more pixels in, there are trade offs with noise that negatively affect dynamic range and color gamut (especially in the shadows). This is why, in order to build a "4K" sensor camera that would adhere to Netflix shortsighted rules, ARRI engineers increased the sensor size from the Alexa and created the LF. Increasing the sensor size was the only way to maintain the dynamic range, low noise, and lovely color for which the Alexa is known while also increasing the K count.

Red's strategy has been to put K count above all else and market heavily around those simple numbers, regardless of whether there is any useful correlation between those numbers and image quality.
ARRI's strategy has been to prioritize actual image quality and integration with the tools + workflows used for cinema production.
I sincerely hope that in its continued camera development, BMD follows ARRI's strategy more than they follow Red's.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Online
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 9571
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 5:21 am

Pssst! 6144 x 0.0055 = 33.792 mm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1265
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 3:54 pm

Come on. They have steadily increased image quality and dynamic range at the same time as pixel counts, in a high speed process (no Canoning around). The last 3 years have been good.

Now, the only question is, is 4k desirable to a significant portion of.the market (,which equals their own market, and the answer is yes). It doesn't matter what people want to give them, just as it didn't matter if stick in the mud film people wanted to stick to film before, or if they now want to huddle around Alexa's previous reputation, all that's irrelevant, and leaves the consumer base out of it. It matters appealing to more of the audience.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2300
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 4:03 pm

Jamie LeJeune wrote:Increasing the sensor size was the only way to maintain the dynamic range, low noise, and lovely color for which the Alexa is known while also increasing the K count.


That's not at all accurate. There are quite a few things that sensor designers have been doing to increase image quality that have nothing to do with changes in sensor size, like back-side illumination, re-designed photodiodes, re-designed microlenses, improve A/D converters, and... well, the list goes on.

Red's strategy has been to put K count above all else and market heavily around those simple numbers, regardless of whether there is any useful correlation between those numbers and image quality.


Given Red's heavy emphasis on the dynamic range of its sensors, that's clearly false, although once you get outside of the people who actually USE cameras and look only at the reviewers, they tend to ignore anything that isn't resolution because it's too hard for them to understand or quantify.


I sincerely hope that in its continued camera development, BMD follows ARRI's strategy more than they follow Red's.


Maybe you ought to look again... since BMD is actually COPYING Red on the workflow side of things...
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 4:49 pm

Rakesh Malik wrote:Maybe you ought to look again... since BMD is actually COPYING Red on the workflow side of things...


I don't see this as copying, it's more a proprietary CineformRAW. Compressed RAW and low on CPU resources. RED's R3D is compressed RAW and extremely high on CPU resources.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2300
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 5:37 pm

Look deeper. As in, at the workflow. The Braw workflow is nearly identical to the Redcode workflow.

This is a good thing. It's been a selling point for Red for quite a while.

Sent from my H1A1000 using Tapatalk
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
PreviousNext

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Nicholas Gill and 8 guests