Is 8K ok?

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

Que Thompson

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:19 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 6:19 pm

And how much better is 8k going to look than this?


Come on guys... $1295!!!!

I'm going to make a petition to force car manufacturers to make our windows roll down faster. How fast do you need your windows to roll down?
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2291
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 6:31 pm

Que Thompson wrote:Come on guys... $1295!!!!


Sometimes I think people forget that part.

I think they forget to look at the images, also...

Two my friends have Pocket4Ks now. I'm hoping to get some shooting time with them soon. And by the time I'm able to snap one up, the pre-order frenzy will be over :shock:
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: 227
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 6:38 pm

Rakesh Malik wrote: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


Well, it's not when you're working on a laptop (i7-8550u+GTX1060), you can't run 4.5k 3:1 FF R3D where you can run 4.6k 3:1 FF BRAW or 4.5k 3:1 CineformRAW at full quality settings in resolve in realtime at 24fps.

R3D has a good compression but the CPU resources you need to de-crypt/compress/code are just to much.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2291
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 6:48 pm

MishaEngel wrote:Well, it's not when you're working on a laptop (i7-8550u+GTX1060), you can't run 4.5k 3:1 FF R3D where you can run 4.6k 3:1 FF BRAW or 4.5k 3:1 CineformRAW at full quality settings in resolve in realtime at 24fps.

R3D has a good compression but the CPU resources you need to de-crypt/compress/code are just to much.


Still missing the point, I see...
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 7:26 pm

Que Thompson wrote:And how much better is 8k going to look than this?


Not much, until you decide that it would be nice to get in tighter on her face, and go to a close up. 8-)
>>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
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 9553
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 8:17 pm

Kays, if you want 8K to get closer to her face than what you see at 1:15 of that video, you must be... a dentist!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Que Thompson

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:19 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 9:04 pm

rick.lang wrote:Kays, if you want 8K to get closer to her face than what you see at 1:15 of that video, you must be... a dentist!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah. The author said he used "Face Refinement" and "Beauty" in Resolve also, so there was more detail there to begin with.
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostFri Dec 07, 2018 10:03 pm

Rakesh Malik wrote:
MishaEngel wrote:Well, it's not when you're working on a laptop (i7-8550u+GTX1060), you can't run 4.5k 3:1 FF R3D where you can run 4.6k 3:1 FF BRAW or 4.5k 3:1 CineformRAW at full quality settings in resolve in realtime at 24fps.

R3D has a good compression but the CPU resources you need to de-crypt/compress/code are just to much.


Still missing the point, I see...


I think so, first you had CineformRAW, then R3D and X-OCN and now ProResRAW and BRAW.

CineformRAW is completely opensource.
BRAW, X-CON and R3D give a SDK.
ProResRAW is completely closed.

All RAW codecs are compressed and low on CPU resources except R3D.
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 11:11 pm

Wayne Steven wrote:They have steadily increased image quality and dynamic range at the same time as pixel counts, in a high speed process (no Canoning around).
Red have yet to reach the dynamic range and color response in the shadows that Alexa has been delivering since 2010. There's a reason Alexa is the camera on which most Emmy and Oscar winning content is shot. Those cinematographers can shoot on any camera they like, and a majority of them consistently choose Alexa (when they're aren't shooting on film). Their choices are made for good reasons that go far beyond a simplistic K count and have a lot more weight than spec sheets and marketing hype.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSat Dec 08, 2018 11:43 am

Whoo, whoo, I would not say that, too far, Alexa isn't magic. Sure, it has an advantage, but I wouldn't say in dynamic range. Don't get carried away with A (rather than "K") hype and group think. I would question some of that supposed advantage, as much as boosting satuates makes great hype rather than quality. With the increased quality you see this in say, Mark Toia's promotional reel for the helium. Alexa was great for it's time, you can see me here advocating BM should do a Alexa like sensor as a minimum to compete, and they did! But, that's a minimum. That's why they like it, it was out there past the crap, looking like film, in a reliable camera serviced by a professional experienced cinema camera company. No niavity, that's how it works. You have a reliable product that meets some biased expectation of what film should look like, of course film buffs are going to go for it, and establishing itself as the normal, still keep going for it when outdated. It proves nothing, about what is best, or the future, it is the present past, and not a maximum, far from. It, and Red is moving closer these days.
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSat Dec 08, 2018 6:23 pm

Kays, if you want 8K to get closer to her face than what you see at 1:15 of that video, you must be... a dentist!


Was just commenting on the still image to make a point. At the moment the main reason to record higher than 4K would be for reframing in post which I'm definitely guilty of. It's not being unprofessional, it's just that a film's narrative evolves during the editing process, and sometimes no matter how well planned the shoot was, you discover that a different approach is needed with a particular scene.


On a related note, I firmly believe that within the next 10 years resolution as we understand it will be gone. There are some pretty impressive technologies in the works that I think will allow to shoot at an unspecified resolution, and then to decide the final output resolution in post with no discernible loss of quality. It's coming!
>>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

John Brawley

  • Posts: 1958
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: Chicago Illinois

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSat Dec 08, 2018 6:51 pm

Kays Alatrakchi wrote:
Que Thompson wrote:And how much better is 8k going to look than this?


Not much, until you decide that it would be nice to get in tighter on her face, and go to a close up. 8-)


The idea of reframing in post is nice in theory, but any more than a few percent and you start to see other problems.

I was on a show that shot RED and the editors went crazy with post zooms and re-frames. 200 and 400% blow ups, which you CAN do..but..

All of sudden they are zooming into parts of the frame from a wide to pick someone out and in the grade you realise...they're not in focus...(compared to the subject that was intended to be in focus)

Or they're on the edge of the frame and their head looks funny because they're on the smushy outer edge of the lens performance where the geometry gets' all bendy

This often touted advantage which is really arguably a "just in case" scenario means a GIGANTIC overhead and is frankly usually lazy and disrespectful to the careful composition of the DP and director on the day.

Maybe just get it right in the first place ?

It's a huge premium to pay for just in case (the workflow of carrying 8K files around) to be able to just in case do a re-frame ?

And you can pretty much do it in 4K now to the same degree...

Supersampling is great for other reasons, but re-framing is wayyyy down the list with an asterix that says, can't be bothered / lazy

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
Atlanta
Georgia
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSat Dec 08, 2018 7:22 pm

Mindhunter was shot this way (6k) https://filmmakermagazine.com/103768-dp-erik-messerschmidt-on-shooting-netflixs-mindhunter-with-a-custom-red-xenograph/

Image

With an under $10k workstation you can handle this in realtime in resolve.

With the new upcoming CPU's and GPU's from AMD (jan. 2019) you can handle these kinds of workloads in 8k with a workstation below $5k.
Offline
User avatar

Jack Fairley

  • Posts: 931
  • Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:58 pm
  • Location: Los Angeles

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSat Dec 08, 2018 7:30 pm

Kays Alatrakchi wrote:Not much, until you decide that it would be nice to get in tighter on her face, and go to a close up. 8-)

This happened recently on a project shot with 8K RED. They wanted an extreme close that wasn't in the boards, so we punched in 400% or so on another shot. It looked bad and didn't match the rest of the footage, even in an HD export.
Threadripper 1950X 3.7GHz
64GB DDR4-2666
2x GTX 1080 Ti
DeckLink 4K Extreme 12G
Resolve Studio 15.1.2
Windows 10 Pro 1803
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 9553
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSat Dec 08, 2018 10:42 pm

I call it reframing from an oversample 2K 16:9 capture when I change the X,Y origin on a HD timeline from Centred to some other value like 30,-20 which doesn’t rescale the image, just changes the framing. That’s a safe approach rather than upscaling in a blowup.
Rick Lang
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 3:20 am

It's a matter of doing it right. If you are going blow up a 2k portion of an 8k image, you should expect a little decrease in quality compared to a 8k downsized. If you pick out 1k instead you had better do good heavy upscaling, and then it may likely still look worse again. You need heavy processing to accommodate for artifacts, but in the history of movies on film, you see mismatches where they try to get something. That's not new, but you shouldn't expect too much, and stick to a quality extracted frame resolution.

Now, if it's out of focus (not the idea on how to use it) again, heavy processing, but with all these things you need software that supports good quality in these techniques. So, the focus can be accommodated in good computational photography. But in using multipoint computational photography, you want very little out of focus, and use the multi-aspects frames to calculate focus and bokeh desired. In this, the spacing of the samples plays a part. 65mm spacing gives a wider angle of focus data, for a bit more quality. Quality is often a bit more, so don't expect overwhelming differences going with 8k to 4k, 8k is just an option, like styles are.

Another thing here, is tracking frame during movement, again, computational photography can adjust the motion blur and detail. This is a future. As far as arbitrarily adjusting target resolution, that can be tricky for reasons stated above. But with responsible moderated use you can get good results. But use of Bayer and other such filtered sensors, can fight you.
People ask how you going keep things in focus on 8k, through the above multipoint computational photography techniques, you refocus, reframe, map in 3D and reorient the image a little, and post adjust aperture, dynamic range shutter and lighting. You quickly pull these things on set as a guide to the style you want, and nail them afterwards.

This is a future of filming resolve should heavily explore for quality. BM could male a micro now with a Sony 8k chip and 4x4k multipoint lens option. That should be popular with VR and drone people too, and maybe advertisers, to extract 3D and 3D depth data from, even in h265 (1-4 ambarella chips in parrallel maybe for extra datarate).. The pickup doesn't need much extra processing power, that comes in post). An 8k version of video assist with raw recording and a $100-$200 8k 1/2 inch Sony 8k camera head (can sell lots of those to mount around on set and action as product on its own) with mountable multipoint lens, could do this.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 4:14 am

Que Thompson wrote:And how much better is 8k going to look than this?


Come on guys... $1295!!!!

I'm going to make a petition to force car manufacturers to make our windows roll down faster. How fast do you need your windows to roll down?


Of course:

Old 8k camera footage. That's a generation or two old. Maybe the vimeo version is a little better to look at though.



Put's the Alexa to shame. I'm thinking what I am seeing on Alexa is a thick layer of style, sort of what fullhd small sensor prosumer and pro television cameras do for digital television, where as here, I'm seeing subtlety in the image, but I don't know, I have to examine it. Just thinking briefly about this yesterday or today. What do you guys think? Has the 4.6k a bit more subtlety then the Alexa?
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 4:26 am

Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 7:24 am

Sony seems to think 8k is OK. Releasing 8k laser projector, processing solution and camcorder at Ces. I was suspecting this late this year or Ces next year.

The latest noise, courtesy of Sony Alpha Rumors, indicates that Sony's lineup will comprise an 8K television, 8K laser projector, 8K processing platform and an 8K camcorder and or 8K camera – though it's unclear whether or not this will be an E-mount system (traditionally Sony doesn't announce E-mount kit at CES).


https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/amp/ ... in-january
Offline

Chris Huf

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 9:39 am

Wayne Steven wrote: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.


Had an argument on this on another forum, but I'll post my opinion on this here:

- A lot of people get their daily dose of entertainment in SD and does not care about it.
- A lot can't stream 4k video, and have hard time to stream 1080 either, so they don't use it anyway
- Monetary investment does not stop at filming/editing hardware, also sets, makeup etc have to be better.

I mean if I would shoot a serious low budget project (wich seems unlikely since I don't have the time) for streaming only, I would defintive target 720p as the output resolution format since I do think its still a good ratio between the effort needed and the viewers expectation. I might shoot higher, but if I really would go the full 4k resolution I have at hand is also in doubt, since moiree patterns and other artefacts from downsized material can be an a great issue. (And not visible during shooting or on set review)

Its far beyond me why indie filmakers shoot themself in the foot by trying to to actually outrun big projects on the resolution level.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 12:51 pm

There are many answers Chris. 4k bandwidth is not much. I guess you aren't in Australia. But a number could afford broadband enough for 4k Netflix. The problem with quality, is being sold the extra quality instead of just going along with what rubbish is being forced on you. So, yeah, people can benefit from FullHD today, and even 4k in appropriately seated position. Tomorrow TV's can be bigger, and 4k and 8k will be better by the time today's blockbuster production is finished. Get a headset and get it today for very little. I know a company which had 16k headset projection chips I wanted to use like 3+ years ago, probably higher now, in VR you might want 24k. If your footage is sold for or viewed for 10 years, like wedding footage, yes they can get benefit when they can afford it. Years age, I identified and investigated doing a design that stitched normal TV's together into a Samsung wall tv like product without the hassle and cost. So, 8k can be done now for $1000. $2000 professional pocket camera could be done. My own TV design proposal was aimed at hundreds of dollers, 4k and 8k (it's cheap, and hopefully post hdr QD rec2100 territory). So, yes 8k is a sellable more expensive option. But what should you use for an low cost indie, considering things are changing up, 2k-4k. Yes, the fifth element sets stuck out on a modern bright tv, but that hasn't stopped the industry from advancing from Charlie Chaplin black and white short films to better and better quality in order to satisfy audiences with something better. So, what will you do when people prefer to watch on a FullHD+ TV and the TV industry goes FullHD+ and stops forcing their crap more channels in SD is better rubbish down consumers throats. And that is it, it is the industry forcing low quality on people which people are defending, not so much forcing quality. Again, how many cinemas make a living forcing people to pay full price to watch the film on their mobiles? How many people pay that much to consume that way?

Now, how to film. Get a better camera and lighting, then you need less makeup to compensate. Use natural as is sets, or do them well, so they look normal to your eyes in different lighting, and normal to a good camera (I suggest the pockets). Use good post processing and onset focus tools to nail it. Deliver in 2k-4k and use 4k-8k downscaling and reframing. Use the latest hardware and software so you spend a lot less on hardware. We are moving to a point that a cheap midrange card could process 4k-8k. Save $5k-$15k on the system. Think new and what can be done cheaper, rather than old costly. When a good multipoint camera comes out (red is working on one for it's phone, Nokia has something maybe with the light company coming in a phone) and you have the right software, you can post focus, light, aperture, bokeh, zoom, reframe, track even and maybe not have to spend anymore time doing it on set than with a sd camera. So, it is coming. But now, get a pocket 2k or 4k and just do it rather than worry about 720p fur anything serious. Even that 8k phone or Sony 8k camcorder I posted about, if you aren't so serious about a production.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 9553
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 2:26 pm

It would seem the acquisition tools can make improvements in various areas and that’s quite necessary before the processing tools can begin to play catch up and that’s long before the consumption tools will move a generation or two ahead.

No problem with beating the drum and everything out there can undergo revolutionary change as it becomes feasible, but our eyes don’t change for the better (they only reduce their capabilities over time subject to evolutionary change).

Sincerely bring on your 8K vision (48 megapixel images) which may morph to 16K, but in a global scale the average screen viewing your content is likely still below 2K for several years to come whether that screen be an SD television or a smartphone, the average viewing experience today is clearly below 2K. It may be feasible to bump that higher for niche markets like Japan and South Korea, but their markets’ viewer experience barely shifts the dial. Delivery technologies such as 5G and fibre optics help, but don’t lose sight of the present day realities around the globe and the limitations of our final destination: our eyes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 6:41 pm

Wanted to post this about how uprezzing is likely the technology to watch in the future. Resolve 15.2 does bring this somewhat closer to reality with new scaling algorithms, but the one shown in this video is even better.

So perhaps manufacturers will find a good baseline resolution in the future for video capture, and that baseline will allow for visually lossless uprezzing to much higher resolutions:

(watch at 14:38 for the section which deals with this specifically)





Here's the link to the plugin, I don't know much about it, but it looks interesting:

https://topazlabs.com/ai-gigapixel/
>>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

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 9:56 pm

Rick. It's not about us so much, but about the wider viewing audience. It's also not about what we view now, or faulty stats on average veiwing off market from the content people pay a lot for, it's about how people choose to watch content they pay more for in the lifetime of our footage. Business. From when it releases till when it stops selling till even when it stops being watched. But, it is about options and quality options people pay for.

Let's say over 50% of the audience can see 4k, and over 24% can see 8k (even more if they all had the right glasses). A good portion are young people. Let's say even more perceive some better clarity to the scenes. That's a lot of audience to chuck to the side on dreams of poorer quality (not that 8k over 4k matters too much).
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 10:12 pm

Kay's, that guy was a lot of wow wee I'm impressed sort of thing. Another sprooker that is impressed but doesn't really understand what's past it, behind it. I did like the dog one though. In my own 3D motion capture technology proposal, I worked out that I could tell where the skeleton was in a body just from the video footage many years back (no silly inefficient complex AI involved). Seems they are onto.this too. But you notice the neck skeleton is straight through at an odd placement, treating the neck like a giant mane. Thanks for that. As dismaying as it is, it's kind of exciting to see others finally catching up.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostSun Dec 09, 2018 10:35 pm

Uprezing single frames (look up fractal uprezing too from the late 80's early 90's, which would add detail) is not generally sufficient. I actually use my own forms in my technology proposals for many years, predating probably all this stuff. Size I have an understanding of the limitations, and hiw better to do it. Put it this way, if I down scaled a complex unknown image to a single pixel, would you be able to uprez it (it's possible, but requires time travel or other source image, so we won't go there)? Of course not, normally. So, the further the bigger the difference between to resolutions the less data you have per pixel to restore things. So, you retain less detail that was there. So, 2k to 4k, especially with lossless video, you might not be too bad, and you can work out certain details on the pixel boundaries, and lines of detail moving across pixels, like the marveling effect, edge of the table, and smooth them out in higher resolution, and pretty much ramp from one pixel value to.the next. But going from SD to 4k, even to 2k, you are going to struggle. Now, fractal compression found the mathematical routines making estimations of the sub pixel details (even if wrong it looked cool) from liky the behaviour mapped in what could be seen and sub pixel behaviour which could produce the pixel effects. Which is another layer you could use, but you still should have dataloss on complex scenes. I've got a much better way to use, but that's confidential. However, you could store image data as mathematical functions, without resolution, and get interesting results. I thought that, and holographic, might have been what you meant, though I don't know if anybody who has ever proposed it, I just knew that would be a way it could be done well it mimics one of my own technology proposals, which wasn't aimed at detail preservation). So, a lot of this is not going get a among results as good as original resolution.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 9553
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 1:50 am

We have seen examples of uprezzing (if that a word) or upscaling that appears to produce acceptable results for some subjects including typical narrative scenes. But the danger of creating detail that never existed in complex scenes must be a concern.

When people talk about creating artificial actors (if that’s the right term), I wonder if the emotional connection an audience has with characters suffers. The upscaling may subliminally begin that slippery slope of unintended detachment of the audience from the characters. Nothing they may be able to put their finger on but a distant sense of artificiality of the protagonists. This doesn’t happen in a movie like Bambi because we accept each drawn character as there is no deception. But upscaling more than 1x might feel a bit unreal when we want everything to seem real.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 4:07 am

I've some theoretical AI design since primary school. My theories have proven to be correct. I think it can be done, but who's going do it. Without the right thoughts it could take decades. With the right team, years. There is a lot of eb and flow in such natural systems, but you land up with people unnaturally reusing the eb and flow and limited subsets to emulate it. If you look in a game you might see the character wave about a little standing, and they do it rigidly, and then keep repeating it over and over again, which is an animation meme, wobbling around. A lot of the stuff on this sphere that I propose has to do with emulation. You do enough precision to make it realistic then emulate the final bit to save most of the work on that last bit. The emulation of the last bit, or much of it, saves the cycles because that is where most of the work is and less visual result (like with visually lossless used in cinemas). It's sort of like the 2k, 4k of the 8k world, except its hard to emulate between 2k to 8k unnoticed, maybe.
Last edited by Wayne Steven on Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2291
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 3:54 pm

John Brawley wrote:This often touted advantage which is really arguably a "just in case" scenario means a GIGANTIC overhead and is frankly usually lazy and disrespectful to the careful composition of the DP and director on the day.

Maybe just get it right in the first place ?

<trim>

Supersampling is great for other reasons, but re-framing is wayyyy down the list with an asterix that says, can't be bothered / lazy


Exactly... why hire a talented cinematographer if you're just going to ruin half of his/her shots in post by reframing them?
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: 2291
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 4:01 pm

MishaEngel wrote:I think so, first you had CineformRAW, then R3D and X-OCN and now ProResRAW and BRAW.

CineformRAW is completely opensource.
BRAW, X-CON and R3D give a SDK.
ProResRAW is completely closed.

All RAW codecs are compressed and low on CPU resources except R3D.


Have you ever stopped to think about how any of what you're describing relates to "workflow" in filmmaking?

When you consider comparable resolutions, Redcode is actually not that much heavier than X-OCN and XAVC as long as you have a decent GPU. It's not really until you get to 6K or more that Redcode starts bogging machines down more than any of the other raw codecs out there -- braw in particular being the exception here, because BMD did some pretty impressive engineering there... but still followed Red's example when it comes to workflow.
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 1703
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 4:19 pm

Kays Alatrakchi wrote:So perhaps manufacturers will find a good baseline resolution in the future for video capture, and that baseline will allow for visually lossless uprezzing to much higher resolutions:


We already have a good baseline resolution: FHD, beyond which most people can't distinguish anyway, at typical viewing distances.

And what exactly is gained from uprezzing dramatic material, unless you sell TV sets for a living?
All this enormous investment in ever higher resolutions, without an ounce of evidence that increasing the number of lines is good or even desirable for storytelling, and without any consumer demand which precedes the marketing campaigns.

Funny to think the typical 35mm theater was lucky to project 800 lines. OTOH, Red would love to convince you that you simply must "future proof" your masterworks and nothing less than 8K will do. But for what audience, they don't say.
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 4:20 pm

The GPU is not the problem, the CPU power needed for REDCODE is the problem, hence the collaboration between RED and NVidia to handle the de-crypte/compress/code over to the GPU instead of the CPU.
For a start Adobe and NVidia only.

But who cares when you can get a CPU for around $500 in the very near future that can handle every REDCODE you throw at it.
Offline

Kays Alatrakchi

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:22 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 5:11 pm

Rakesh Malik wrote:Exactly... why hire a talented cinematographer if you're just going to ruin half of his/her shots in post by reframing them?


You'd be surprised. I've been around enough directors who get to post with a negative experience with a very high-end DP, and who feel like they now have an opportunity to "fix" the film. Not a good situation for sure, but it does happen.
>>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
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2291
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 5:20 pm

John Paines wrote:Funny to think the typical 35mm theater was lucky to project 800 lines. OTOH, Red would love to convince you that you simply must "future proof" your masterworks and nothing less than 8K will do. But for what audience, they don't say.


I agree with this... especially since theaters are still mostly 2K, and their digital IMAX screens are mostly showing 2K content uprezzed to 4K.

For me the main selling point for a 4K TV is that it will also be an HDR set that can show true black... but most of the content available will still be 2K. :)

Even though I'm USING 8K on an 8K Red, it's not the resolution that's the winner for me or the folks that I shoot for. The don't really care about that all that much, partly because the more talented of them are not fans of having the editor ruin shots with reframing.

What sells my clients is the color. They don't generally know what "dynamic range" even means, so I don't tend to worry about trying to explain that to them; I just show them the images.

The dynamic range and sensitivity makes things easier (I need less light to flood a space than with a less sensitive camera, for example) and it's rare enough for highlights to clip that I can just focus on keeping skin tones consistent and not worry about the highlights most of the time. It makes lighting easier.

But almost all of that applies pretty much equally to a BMD 4.6K camera, and to only a slightly lesser extent (not quite as much dynamic range) to the Pocket 4K. But the difference is pretty small from what I've seen of Pocket4K footage, though I haven't had a chance to try one out myself yet.

Having had a couple of editors ruin a bunch of shots by reframing though, I actually find that having enough resolution to reframe isn't nearly as much of an advantage as it might sound... in fact, it's often the opposite.
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: 2291
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 5:24 pm

Kays Alatrakchi wrote:
Rakesh Malik wrote:Exactly... why hire a talented cinematographer if you're just going to ruin half of his/her shots in post by reframing them?


You'd be surprised. I've been around enough directors who get to post with a negative experience with a very high-end DP, and who feel like they now have an opportunity to "fix" the film. Not a good situation for sure, but it does happen.


Not surprised, just disappointed.

But it's probably also another incentive for cinematographers to choose Alexas over higher resolution cameras of any kind, ironically.

I'm ok with an editor reframing to create a cutaway because they just can't find another way to address an issue with a scene because of a coverage gap or not having enough b-roll, but I had an editor insert a closeup by zooming in on a shot that contradicted the emotion of the shot, making something that was supposed to feel inconsequential feel important instead. And it was all to provide information that the audience didn't need, because that was "the formula" -- you don't need closeups of inconsequential actions...
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 1703
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 5:28 pm

Rakesh Malik wrote:Having had a couple of editors ruin a bunch of shots by reframing though, I actually find that having enough resolution to reframe isn't nearly as much of an advantage as it might sound... in fact, it's often the opposite.


David Fincher is said to be great proponent re-framing, and maybe it is with the right preparation, but trying to salvage a bad shot, or pick up a shot which isn't there, never seems to work. It's always jarring, you're introducing a new and unnatural focal length. General audiences probably wouldn't notice, but when you know, it's disturbing.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2291
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 6:08 pm

John Paines wrote:David Fincher is said to be great proponent re-framing, and maybe it is with the right preparation, but trying to salvage a bad shot, or pick up a shot which isn't there, never seems to work.


It does seem like his approach to reframing is planned, but as far as I can tell he's a rarity at his level.

It's always jarring, you're introducing a new and unnatural focal length. General audiences probably wouldn't notice, but when you know, it's disturbing.


And it usually also hoses the framing. A good cinematographer designs a frame to enhance the story + emotion + acting, not just to capture the action. Changing the frame ruins that more often than not.
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

Jamie LeJeune

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

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 9:04 pm

John Paines wrote:David Fincher is said to be great proponent re-framing, and maybe it is with the right preparation, but trying to salvage a bad shot, or pick up a shot which isn't there, never seems to work.
Yes, as you note, Fincher's reframing isn't for the reason most people might assume. Instead, it is a very specific and conscious use, not for a 200% crop to get a close up out of a wide shot. Based on the articles/videos that cover his use of it, he is taking a pre-planned extraction out of every shot (so 4K out of 5K, or 5K out of 6K, depending on the film as the Red sensors have increased K count over time) specifically to be able to precise control the framing of steadicam and dolly shots so that they move exactly with the actors in every single frame


From https://postperspective.com/gone-girl-l ... s-path-6k/:
"The Social Network was the beginning of the “shoot for more resolution than you need extraction technique.” The Social Network was shot in 4.5K (4480×1920), had a 2.3K DI and was released in 2K (2048×1080), so Fincher had 9% extra resolution: 200 extra pixels horizontally and vertically to do stabilization, repositioning, tracking and split screen."

Note here that his extraction method is pre-planned, exactly the same for every shot, and it is less than 10% of the frame. It's not done to salvage bad shots, or create new shots that the DP never intended on set.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

michaeldhead

  • Posts: 287
  • Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:41 pm

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 9:35 pm

Jamie LeJeune wrote:
John Paines wrote:David Fincher is said to be great proponent re-framing, and maybe it is with the right preparation, but trying to salvage a bad shot, or pick up a shot which isn't there, never seems to work.
Yes, as you note, Fincher's reframing isn't for the reason most people might assume. Instead, it is a very specific and conscious use, not for a 200% crop to get a close up out of a wide shot. Based on the articles/videos that cover his use of it, he is taking a pre-planned extraction out of every shot (so 4K out of 5K, or 5K out of 6K, depending on the film as the Red sensors have increased K count over time) specifically to be able to precise control the framing of steadicam and dolly shots so that they move exactly with the actors in every single frame


From https://postperspective.com/gone-girl-l ... s-path-6k/:
"The Social Network was the beginning of the “shoot for more resolution than you need extraction technique.” The Social Network was shot in 4.5K (4480×1920), had a 2.3K DI and was released in 2K (2048×1080), so Fincher had 9% extra resolution: 200 extra pixels horizontally and vertically to do stabilization, repositioning, tracking and split screen."

Note here that his extraction method is pre-planned, exactly the same for every shot, and it is less than 10% of the frame. It's not done to salvage bad shots, or create new shots that the DP never intended on set.


Exactly - and Fincher shoots in 6k (at least for Mindhunters). Even James Cameron is shooting the Avatar sequels in 6k using the Sony VENICE.
Michael D Head
www.michaeldhead.com
producer/writer/director/DP
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostMon Dec 10, 2018 10:51 pm

michaeldhead wrote:Exactly - and Fincher shoots in 6k (at least for Mindhunters). Even James Cameron is shooting the Avatar sequels in 6k using the Sony VENICE.


6k Venice bayer sensor.

And how many K's do you have when de-bayered (when the goal is perfect de-bayer)?
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Post adjustment levels to adjust for talent and economies.

PostTue Dec 11, 2018 1:48 am

Yep, I advocate everything as careful for same effect. But my reframing theory is different. I'm not going to share my framing technique, lost a beautiful award winning composition of my friends kids this weekend because the camera wouldn't start fast enough before they moved. I was just sitting there looked and realised that was a really great shoot. But this is the truth, getting the perfect framing is extremely fine and hard to get. So, say 10% adjustment would be very handy to home in on the money shoot.

Now, let's look at talent. You are not a great cinematographer. You come to edit, and with that extra 10%+ you realise you can make your shots better.

You are a good cinematographer, but some shots are hard to nail. Afterwards you bring all your prime stuff in and fine tune it a little to nail those shots.

You are a volume maker of production material. You get your crews to quickly work through filming footage, setting things up quickly indicating framing within the camera frame. Afterwards you get somebody with talent to fine adjust the framing or put new framing in, even using an auto framing on composition suggestion function, or to the style of chosen cinematographer/director. Your talent then eyeballs the two for the better choice and adjusts. I often find a few percent difference names the shot. Long after everybody else is off the clock and not standing around waiting at $100k an hour.

Framing in not just a frame around a composition, you can adjust depth of field bokeh and lighting in post to pickup the ow talent shot a bit. What the low talent person that shot it thought was good, and what a high talent thinks is good maybe two different things, and the high talent might often be right. So the high talent post adjustment might help lower talent volume work. As 90% are probably not as good as they would like, it makes economic sense to pickup the quality a little having a talent doing 10-30 films in the time it takes to shoot one film. A good retirement plan.

You are a volume maker, and try out ultra wide multiple camera setup. You get the talent to choose the guide shot from the surround multi-angle footage using computational photography to map the scene in surround 3D. Afterwards they hone the guide shot or find better angles shits and framing. Again, after everybody has gone home and are not waiting around consuming vast amounts of money.

You are big budget, you use all this stuff, but you verify everything is perfect on set,l using this stuff, letting everybody hang around. But you find, for the given result, it is a little faster to achieve. So, costs maybe similar. But the low budget volume makers, save heaps.

All done with careful composition choices, and corrections where needed.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 11, 2018 10:21 am

MishaEngel wrote:The GPU is not the problem, the CPU power needed for REDCODE is the problem, hence the collaboration between RED and NVidia to handle the de-crypte/compress/code over to the GPU instead of the CPU.
For a start Adobe and NVidia only.

But who cares when you can get a CPU for around $500 in the very near future that can handle every REDCODE you throw at it.



Finally, some sense. Yes, it's the encryption and outdated processing techniques which were the problem with processing. You should be more concerned about why they are hiding things behind encryption? What is there there? Some strange filter patterns, or like another company's filter or cell structure? Anybody done an examination of Red's sensors surfaces out there since 2010?
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Is 8K ok?

PostTue Dec 11, 2018 10:37 am

Three 8k sensor phones to be released. Two unveiled this month. The honor one doesn't do 8k recordings though (I suspect it's features are limited for its market segment).

https://m.gsmarena.com/xiaomis_48_mp_ph ... -34641.php

https://m.gsmarena.com/huawei_nova_4_ar ... -34635.php

8k sensor samples, sort of:
https://m.gsmarena.com/first_camera_sam ... -34638.php
Previous

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Pekka Hietanen, Reynold Dodson and 12 guests