Even 2K Rocks My World, or Why I Now Hate Film Grain

[Shawn Nelson]

I'm an early Red reserver and have been reading voraciously about Red and all things related for the last year. But until today, I had never seen a real digital projection in person. This morning I went to Cinetopia in Vancouver, Washington, an all-digital plush theater that has all Christie's 2k projectors. So I'm going into it thinking "2k, not as good as film, less than 1/4 the size of Red, let's see if this passes". I left with my jaw on the ground. I was sitting on the second row (first primary row of a stadium style seating, ignoring the first row on the ground) and this 2k projection was the clearest, cripest theater experience I've ever had. Damn! 2k is plenty! To my eyes, it looked even better than the film. Because the grain in the movie was distracting me! (Ghostrider). I was amazed that I was looking at a digital copy that was so clear the grain was noticeable. After today I realized that 2k is plenty for even full national theatric and that shows just how future proof Red is. It also makes me very willing to jump down to 2k in Red to get 60p straight to the RedRaid. Lastly, I realized today I don't like grain! Bring on the clean crisp image and leave this grain stuff to the dinos.

[Brook Willard]

I've found that 2K is a little low for my taste. At 2K, 35mm grain looks like gunk instead of like grain. It looks like pixels - noise, even. Case in point, there are two 1080p JPG crops from a 2K scan of some 5218. The second link's 5218 sat in a fridge for 6 months [compare the grain structure].

http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/2K5218.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/2K5218old.jpg

[Alexander Nikishin]

It's a bit tough to tell the difference in this example due to background and exposure differences I must say.

But in the 2k transfer I can see that the grain pattern is a bit splotchy for sure.

[Kristin Stewart]

It's a matter of tatse... For me, the grain of film is what makes it so unique and beautiful. When shooting HD, a lot of dops add some during the postproduction. Grain adds poetry and warmth. It's the same as musical instruments : a Gibson sound or a Steinway one will always be unique and if you listen to a 33 rpm record you'll find that the warmth is still great compared to cds.

[Jaime Vallés]

I'm with you, Shawn. Nothing against grain for aesthetic reasons, but I'd rather have a super-clean image to start with, and then add grain only if deemed necessary for the final look of the film. I'm going to enjoy the process of determining whether my next movie needs to be "degraded" or not in post. ;)

And I also fully agree that 2K projection from a good master is flawless. I can't even imagine 4K. But 2K is certainly good enough for me if it works for Hollywood.

[Obin Olson]

everything we post we ad a bit of grain, we even have a custom technique for grain in post that mimics 35mm structure, most of the plugins suck.

[Obin Olson]

also grain hides the really ugly compression artifacts of dvcproHD, one of the worst things about that format is the jpg like compression noise

[Thom Steinhoff]

Someone will eventually come out with an amazing, grainless, feature that will be projected digitally and blow everyone away and will set the new standard for movies. Think "Citizen Kane" for the 21st century.

No one thought talkies would catch on... or color... or digital animation... but the audience is drawn to quality and better recreations of reality and they turn back only for the occasional nostalgic look back.

Remember when Toy Story came out and you would just stare at the screen in amazement on how clear, how real and amazing it was? 4K->digital projection will eventually be this way.

Mark my words: Grainless 4K is the future and someone with balls will eventually take us there.

Jim has served up the pitch--who's going to hit it out of the park?

[MikeCurtis]

an interesting point of comparison - I got the HD-DVD for Corpse Bride, and MAN is it clean - because the movie (note I don't say film) was shot with a DSLR camera. Might this be more akin to what we'll get with the Red One?

I'm inclined to think so.

[chuck colburn]

Morning Shawn,

How large of a screen was it?

Chuck

[Jeff Kilgroe]

an interesting point of comparison - I got the HD-DVD for Corpse Bride, and MAN is it clean - because the movie (note I don't say film) was shot with a DSLR camera. Might this be more akin to what we'll get with the Red One?

I'm inclined to think so.

The Corpse Bride is a very clean HD-DVD transfer. There is some noise and artifacting in some areas, but it's all due to the compression. Overall, this is one of the most impressive HD discs (HD-DVD or BluRay) out there right now and has excellent black detail and color. If RED can produce images with such low noise - similar to DSLR cameras, then we're in for a real treat.

I agree with some of the other opinions here - it's time for grain to go bye-bye. Find other ways to make your "film" look more warm and wholesome. Better lighting, richer color, better contrast, etc.. I think some of the latest animated features look great even though they're clean and without grain. Dreamworks made Wallace and Grommit look like claymation and composited the CG with various live elements. They carried over some of that into Flushed Away. Both features looked great and the only grain is what's introduced by a transfer to film. Digital releases and showings of these are pristine and grain free just like Corpse Bride.

[Poi Boy]

That is exactly right Mike, that is what I expect.
-A

[Rogelio Salinas]

Just think, if Revenge of the Sith and Sin City can be shot in 1080P and receive such picture quality praise from a general audience (not experts), then 2K should do just fine. Some general moviegoers actually believe that the HD that these movies were shot in is higher resolution than 35mm. It's all about perception. The main reason for that is that they just pay their ticket to go see a 35mm film and think nothing of it, but when George Lucas or Robert Rodriguez shoot a film in HD, there is always emphasis on them shooting it digitally. You never hear about the hundreds of other films released being marketed as "Shot in 35mm". They usually only market the digitally shot pictures, because it is outside of the traditional 35mm arena.

[Craig Ryan]

Nice thread; it occured to me a while ago that alot of us (I'll be the first to admit!) are getting a bit out of hand when it comes to resolution; for starters I think 1080p should be good enough for most of the general public. Most have never even seen a 35mm film negative projected in all of its glory anyways; so most digital projection is going to look more crisp, which leads them to believe that HD is superior in resolution. As I learned from reading these forums, the resolution of a theatrical print is roughly a little better than 720p. So when you take all that into account, 2k is definitely enough for theatrical exhibition IMHO. 4k will see its day soon enough though, and like Thom said, its up to someone to really make something incredible to open everyones eyes up about 4 times as much.

For me personally, I prefer the organic film look for certain moods and looks; nothing beats the beauty of dawn or dusk shot on film. The warmth and dynamic range is incredible for alot of outdoor work really. The natural high dynamic range of film is one of its strong points for me. Nothing against Digital at all on my part, but there are still certain qualities of film which I would perfer for certain styles of filmmaking.

[Stephen Williams]

Nice thread; it occured to me a while ago that alot of us (I'll be the first to admit!) are getting a bit out of hand when it comes to resolution; for starters I think 1080p should be good enough for most of the general public. Most have never even seen a 35mm film negative projected in all of its glory anyways; so most digital projection is going to look more crisp, which leads them to believe that HD is superior in resolution. As I learned from reading these forums, the resolution of a theatrical print is roughly a little better than 720p. So when you take all that into account, 2k is definitely enough for theatrical exhibition IMHO. 4k will see its day soon enough though, and like Thom said, its up to someone to really make something incredible to open everyones eyes up about 4 times as much.

For me personally, I prefer the organic film look for certain moods and looks; nothing beats the beauty of dawn or dusk shot on film. The warmth and dynamic range is incredible for alot of outdoor work really. The natural high dynamic range of film is one of its strong points for me. Nothing against Digital at all on my part, but there are still certain qualities of film which I would perfer for certain styles of filmmaking.


Hi All,

Having recently tested Film contact printed V 3K down sized to 2K & 6 K downsized to 4k then Arri Laser back to film, I can tell you there is a big difference. The clear winner for sharpness & colour had no DI! The 4K had far more resoloution than the 2K.

Stephen

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

If only they made the same standard contact prints for theatrical release...

[Thom Steinhoff]

For me personally, I prefer the organic film look for certain moods and looks; nothing beats the beauty of dawn or dusk shot on film. The warmth and dynamic range is incredible for alot of outdoor work really.

One thing to keep in mind: Warmth and dynamic range have nothing to do with grain. I think most people adding grain to video now are doing it to hide compression artifacts, video edges, and other "video" problems. The audio equivalent of "Maybe if we add a noise floor the audience won't notice the humm or distortion as much?"

Once the dynamic range is there and then the video edges, artifacting and moire distortions are gone-- all we will be left with is a stunning recreation of reality and I believe we won't be so tempted to add grain.

Sunsets like we've never seen before. Depth and richness that we've only dreamed of. It all has to do with dynamic range--not grain.

Once this perfection is reached, I feel it will no longer look better with grain and we will see it for what it is--another form of expression and not for what it is being used for today: a way to fix problems by "throwing dirt on the canvas" in in the hopes that somehow it will make it look better.

Sure, some artists will use that technique as a form of expression (just another tool in the toolbox), but some won't--and the images they will achieve will be breathtaking.

[Craig Ryan]

Thom; thats actually what I was attempting to get at; thanks for clarifying it further. My feelings about film have very little to due with the grain; its mostly the dynamic range and richness of color that I appreciate the most. We are on the exact same line of thought, I just didn't word myself correctly.

[Shawn Nelson]

Morning Shawn,
How large of a screen was it?
Chuck

It was 32 ft, though I was fairly close. Cinetopia says they are getting the 4k projectors so I hope to see that.

Curious point someone made about grain looking worse in 2k, not sure why. Also someone mentioned a 35mm theatrical print having the resolution equivelent of 720p. Do you have anything to back that up? I find it very hard to believe.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Motion Picture aquisition surpassed the discernable ability of the viewing public more than a decade ago.

Nobody can tell or cares about the difference anymore. Grain/No Grain. Unless you're going crazy stylistic your audience isn't going to tell the difference between well lit HD and well lit 35mm. By the time a print makes it to your average theater I don't think anyone would be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 8k. Especially once your local projection monkey gets their hands on it.

Red just let's us get lazier than HD. Which is all I really want.

[Stephen Williams]

Curious point someone made about grain looking worse in 2k, not sure why. .

Hi,

An easy one, 2k can't resolve the grain, 4k can, 2k grain is a noisy mess.

The final resoloution on a screen depends on many things, from the projector lens to dupe negatives etc. There is no 1 answer to that question.

Stephen

[Mike Smith]

...Also someone mentioned a 35mm theatrical print having the resolution equivelent of 720p. Do you have anything to back that up? I find it very hard to believe.

Check this out:

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

875 lines is absolute best with 750 as an average. See the conclusion at the end.

[Jaime Vallés]

Nice report, VMax! Wow, 875 is absolute best. No wonder 2K digital projection looks so good!

[Thom Steinhoff]

I see a film scanned at 1080p on my 1080p TV and feel every bit of its stunning resolution--don't confuse theater resolution with actual resolution.

Because they took this all the way to projection, where now you have theater differences, projector differences and most importantly distance from the screen--there is a perceived resolution of 750 lines--this is not to say that this is the only resolution a film has--it is the only resolution an average theater goer may see.

This, for me, falls under the same category as the "first rows" theory that says that you can only tell the difference between 4K projected and 2K projected in the first few rows of the theater.

The real film "resolution" test would be to print a 4K test pattern on film and see the resolution it retains. Or, to test a film camera, shoot a Resolution test panel on a film camera, scan it at 8K and see where the resolution drops off. I assume it will be more like 2-4K.

[Thom Steinhoff]

Nice report, VMax! Wow, 875 is absolute best. No wonder 2K digital projection looks so good!

It would be interesting to see the "perceived" resolution of 2K projected and 4K projected using their same methodology to see if it is any better or the same (the lack of film flickering may help you resolve higher resolution--maybe--just a thought). My guess is that it may count a little higher but 2K and 4K would resolve about the same and they would be closer to the 875 than the 2K.

It's all about the eyes ability to resolve detail over distance. Now, when Sony ships an 80" 4K TV for the living room--it's a whole different story!

[Stephen Williams]

This, for me, falls under the same category as the "first rows" theory that says that you can only tell the difference between 4K projected and 2K projected in the first few rows of the theater.


Hi,

When I tested a DI at 2K & 4K you could see the better resoloution in the front, middle & back of the cinema. I was not expecting to see this.

Stephen

[chuck colburn]

I'm confused. Does all this have to do with the fact that film is a homogeneous medium and video has scan lines?

[david farland]

This white paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf) (Digital Cinema Resolution), tells the same story. Goes into a few more reasons why.

35mm film negative that starts off at 4.5K but through all the processing, display errors etc, the end result end is closer to 1.3K.

DF

[Stephen Williams]

This white paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf) (Digital Cinema Resolution), tells the same story. Goes into a few more reasons why.

35mm film negative that starts off at 4.5K but through all the processing, display errors etc, the end result end is closer to 1.3K.

DF

Hi David,

By doubling the scan to 4k or again to 8k there is an improvement that I can see, probably not worth the extra cost some would say. They then conclude the results are close enough to 1.3K.

Just my 2c

Stephen

[david farland]

Stephen…absolutely correct

Thou to look ‘real’ they mention 80K!

‘..Vernier Acuity: If the projection system is to fully satisfy the HVS (human visual system) capabilities for vernier
acutity, then the front row would need 80K pixels to fully resolve the images to eliminate any vernier acuity effects..’


Cheers,
DF

[Jaime Vallés]

Stephen…absolutely correct

Thou to look ‘real’ they mention 80K!

‘..Vernier Acuity: If the projection system is to fully satisfy the HVS (human visual system) capabilities for vernier
acutity, then the front row would need 80K pixels to fully resolve the images to eliminate any vernier acuity effects..’


Cheers,
DF

Yeah, that will be the sensor in RED-TWO. 80K baby!!!

[Shawn Nelson]

Hi,

When I tested a DI at 2K & 4K you could see the better resoloution in the front, middle & back of the cinema. I was not expecting to see this.

Stephen

Cool, that is good to know! I assume you were projecting on a 4k projector? Or was this on a 35mm print? If it was a print I wonder if your eyes were fooling you, since the research shows that prints only get up to like 1.3k. Hmmm, so much subjectiveness in this.
I'd love to see a 35mm projector next to a 4k projector then do a 35mm projection vs 2k projection vs 4k projection for the exact same clip. I have no idea who could possibly be motivated to do such a test, but it would be great.

[Chris Kenny]

Cool, that is good to know! I assume you were projecting on a 4k projector? Or was this on a 35mm print? If it was a print I wonder if your eyes were fooling you, since the research shows that prints only get up to like 1.3k.

Unless it was print directly out of a film recorder, rather than several generations removed (as release prints are).

[Poi Boy]

Another interesting factor in all this is how much the dynamic range of film drops off as you get generations away from the original neg. 11+ stops for Red One is looking pretty darn good.
Aloha
-A

[Sanjin Jukic]

4K to shoot, archive and scale to 2K or HD 1080p for post is quite enough for the beginning. Anyway the most affordable hardware for post is made for HD and 2K. 4K post is just beyond indie budget.

[Stephen Williams]

Unless it was print directly out of a film recorder, rather than several generations removed (as release prints are).

Hi Chris,

Usually an Arri Laser puts out a neg that is printed (not a print), that's what we did. We also output 32 different negatives for different markets.

On a high budget feature multiple original negatives are made, they don't have to be duped unless you wish to confirm the resoloution of a 35mm print is only 1.3K! Having worked in film optical's many years ago I can confirm there can be a big difference depending on who made the dupe.

FWIW an original 35mm 1:1.85 printed will far out resolve a 4K DI. If you are looking for quality then think of shooting anamorphic with a traditional finish. I hope to do such a test v 4.5K cropped (uncompressed of course) when I have the kit to hand.

Stephen