The Argument for Faster Frame Rates

Dear Blackmagic,

Here is a great article regarding frame rates versus resolution. There are some interesting quotes, such as "the whole 2k 4k thing is a little bit of a red herring." According to this article, frame rates are where it matters: http://library.creativecow.net/galt_joh ... t_Pixels/1

Hoping to make the BMCC better,

Kipsie

I disagree with a lot of what is said in the article and agree with some of it too, but for me one thing to consider is that there is a big conflict of interest with the views of the interviewee - and there is a great deal of mixing fact with opinion.

An interesting read none the less, thanks for sharing

That's a fairly old article (by technology standards), and comes across to me as a really defensive piece from a guy whose own company's equipment was taking a beating (by resolution standards) next to then-emerging technology like RED. Of course it's been clarified since (even by RED themselves) that RED's original 4K camera was really only netting you about 3.2K (still more than most other options available), and their newer "5K" Epic really gets you about 4K. The true advantage to more Ks, however, is not about your perceived ability to distinguish every pixel on a screen (which in itself is, in my opinion, blown way out of proportion), but rather that oversampling affords you such a better image than acquiring an image at native resolution does - and that's why RED has now even moved on to a "6K" camera. Do any of us have 6K screens to view that stuff? No, of course not. But it oversamples to the most gorgeous 4K image available. It also provides some room to crop and recompose in post, should you ever be in a situation where that is beneficial (and my guess is that most of us have).

As for frame rates, it's a personal choice but one that doesn't have a "right" answer. (I'm talking about base playback framerate, not using more fps to acquire slow motion). Personally, I can't stand films shot at high framerate - the 48p presentation of "The Hobbit" was actually the first film I stood up and walked out on in a good ten years. But there's no "better" or "worse" here; it's all about perception. More information is not always better, though, and just because we have the ability to include more frames doesn't mean it elevates the experience. I'd actually much prefer greater resolution over more frames, which is essentially the complete opposite of what this article is stating (again, he's got a business model to protect). Probably my favorite fimmaking technology interview ever happens to deal with this exact subject, and provides a nice counter to the article you posted. It was made in 2010, but perhaps even more relevant today than ever:

http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/?articleId=3213230

I honestly don't think Resolution or Frame rate are nearly as important as sampling depth-- to get greater dynamic range and color fidelity. I don't care if you have a 30K image shot at 120fps and played back at 120fps-- it'll look like crap unless you have enough data depth to render subtle colors, and luminance. That is where film really does still shine-- not necessarily in resolution (though one could argue it still out-resolves digital) but in it's ability capture very subtle differences in color, light, ect-- though seeing this is pretty difficult since you're normally digitizing it anyway-- but if you ever look at the neg, it's all there (well ok, a good print from the neg )

To add one more opinion to the pot:

I believe there's no single one "most important feature" in a camera; they all have to fit together to make a good product. E.g. faster frame rates won't do much good without good low light performance, a great dynamic range stays somewhat crippled without high bit depth and/or raw recording, also a versatile form-factor, ergonomic buttons and clean user-interface are more important for that day-to-day work than some might think.

I don't care if you have a 30K image shot at 120fps and played back at 120fps-- it'll look like crap unless you have enough data depth to render subtle colors, and luminance.

Try the other extremes of the triangle:

• 18 stops of Dynamic Range, 120 FPS with a WGA resolution will also look like crap.
• 18 stops of Dynamic Range, 6K resolution, at 12 FPS is not even a movie, just a pretty slideshow.

I do agree with you, but the data stream needs to be balanced between the three. I think we may agree that resolution was already “maxed out” for all practical purposes at 1080p. It’s been proven time and again the average Joe can’t tell 1080p from 4K. Sure you can use the extra resolution to reframe a shot, but you know what, you can also zoom in during the actual shoot, or use two cameras etc.

If I could have my way I would have capped the resolution at 1080p for one decade and focused on DR and frame rate. The average Joe does notice good DR and especially notices when a video is playing smoothly at 1/500 speed. The focus on resolution most companies have makes no sense to me either. If in ten years from now all cameras capture the same colors as the human eye, and 1/500 fps is common, THEN I would say higher resolutions are worth exploring.