Film Analogy

[danbrazda]

When shooting 35mm film for television, I was constantly asked by those in and out of the industry- Why bother? Their logic said that it ends up as 640 x 480 interlaced anyway so isn't it just a lot of overkill? Of course I repeated my same old "garbage in, garbage out" explanations in hundreds of forms over the years never entirely convincing the doubters but, it brings to mind a question in this new era in which we find ourselves:

In the digital world there are even more flavors of formats then the simpler days of analog (can't believe I'm saying that because I used to complain about too many analog video formats). So does the film for television analogy still hold up in the following scenario:

-end broadcast is in 1080i (hopefully 1080p in the near future)
-shoot RED 4K and downconvert to 1080
OR
-shoot RED at 1080 in cam

I realize there will still be some transcoding going from RED codec to broadcast but will the final product take less of a hit by shooting 1080 and delivering in 1080 vs shooting 4K and delivering 1080? Not to taint the reply pool but I'm really hoping the consensus is to shoot 4K so I don't have to come up with a whole new series of analogies for the nay sayers .

[Visceral_IvaN]

The fact that you did manage to convince them to shoot on film is a credit to you.

And look at the wide variety of quality TV shows shooting on film these days. I think the big wigs have finally gotten the picture (pun intended) and the transition to 4k will not needs as much convincing.

If for no other reason than the simplified workflow, quality image, and the reduced cost of shooting 4k.

[Michael Stanmore]

Just tell them to go and knock two sticks together and stop wasting your time.

[danbrazda]

I'm really not trying to decide between 35mm and RED for broadcast as much as I'm curious about RED acquisition and end quality when broadcast in 1080 and being shot in 4K vs 1080. Logic tells me that the 4K downconvert to 1080 will look better but I haven't tried it so.....anyone?

[Remy Carter]

I am glad that a lot of projects were shot on film in the past due to the fact that we can now go back and re-scan the film prints and get nice HD images off of each. Shooting 4K now provides the ability to view present day projects in future on a standard format, when 4K becomes the standard somewhere north of 15 - 20 years from now. And the "garbage in, garbage out" still holds up.

[chuckt]

by shooting in film, you get the film look. When you convert to 480 lines, you retain the film look. Film look comes from the lens, not the lines of resolution. If you already have the movie lens, then, shooting 4k is not better than shooting 1080. That is why sony F35 uses movie lenses but record at 1080.
post work flow is easier with 1080 than with 4k. That is my humble opinion.

[Jon Corcuera]

I will say it will depend on what is needed, If you are going to make a lot of post work or not and the deadline, AND I will introduce the 2K with 35 mm optics as another chance, since it will be less volume to manage.
Jon Corcuera

[James Brundige]

One of the main reasons I am purchasing a Red one is to climb above the format dilemma for broadcast. I can down-convert 4K to whatever the future broadcasters want, 720, 1080 progressive or interlaced, so my footage will have legs. I am throwing away a whole library of hard to get SD nature footage, and I don't want to do that again.

That being said, I wonder about shooting 3K - that might be enough over-sampling for future broadcast needs, since I'm not shooting for theatrical release.

[danbrazda]

So let me simplify my question- If you shot the same scenes under the same lighting conditions with the same lenses on the RED in 4K and at 1080P and then finished to 1080P and watched them on side by side 1080P displays....would one look better than the other?

[Stuart English]

So let me simplify my question- If you shot the same scenes under the same lighting conditions with the same lenses on the RED in 4K and at 1080P and then finished to 1080P and watched them on side by side 1080P displays....would one look better than the other?

As you asked relative to RED-ONE, 4K. Even though the camera can do an excellent job of converting 4K to 1080p, the record resolution and dynamic range of 4K RAW is greater and offers more potential for post production than 1080p.

RED-ONE 1080p v's other camera's 1080p though is a different story, as for starters most other cameras won't be using 35 mm optics.

[danbrazda]

As you asked relative to RED-ONE, 4K. Even though the camera can do an excellent job of converting 4K to 1080p, the record resolution and dynamic range of 4K RAW is greater and offers more potential for post production than 1080p.

RED-ONE 1080p v's other camera's 1080p though is a different story, as for starters most other cameras won't be using 35 mm optics.

4K allows me to capture a greater dynamic range than 1080 even when downconverted later...Now you're working with me- sweet. Keep it coming....

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

hi all,

i have a question here, is shooting in 1080p mode uses less sensor area of the mysterium sensor? or it downconverts the picture from 4k in camera to 1080p before storing it? if it is just using smaller sensor area then you'll not get the film look you dreamed of!! coz lenses will act differently on smaller sensor area .. you got me? ((depth-of-field)) ..
i don't think that it downconverts the footage and it is just smaller area aquisition... someone corrects me if wrong!!

thanks,

best regards,

[danbrazda]

hi all,

i have a question here, is shooting in 1080p mode uses less sensor area of the mysterium sensor? or it downconverts the picture from 4k in camera to 1080p before storing it? if it is just using smaller sensor area then you'll not get the film look you dreamed of!! coz lenses will act differently on smaller sensor area .. you got me? ((depth-of-field)) ..
i don't think that it downconverts the footage and it is just smaller area aquisition... someone corrects me if wrong!!

thanks,

best regards,

Interesting. I assumed it was using the same 4520 x 2540 sensor area but downconverting in cam to 1080 when recording in that mode. If it is in fact using a smaller portion of the sensor then you really wouldn't gain the full dynamic range of the Mysterium. Hmmmm.... which is it?

[Alexander Christ]

You can't shoot 1080p. You can shoot 4K, 3K and 2K. When shooting in 3K and 2K a smaller area of the Mysterium is used, the RED ONE doesn't scale 4K to 2K (or 1080p).

[danbrazda]

You can't shoot 1080p. You can shoot 4K, 3K and 2K. When shooting in 3K and 2K a smaller area of the Mysterium is used, the RED ONE doesn't scale 4K to 2K (or 1080p).

If that's the bottom line I'm shooting nothing but 4K.

[Dj Joofa]

4K allows me to capture a greater dynamic range than 1080 even when downconverted later...Now you're working with me- sweet. Keep it coming....

Nope, dynamic range is determined by the bit depth of your sensor and its associated ADC and not by output resolution. I think you are mixing up detail with dynamic range. Higher detail should be present in 4k vs. 1080.

[danbrazda]

Nope, dynamic range is determined by the bit depth of your sensor and its associated ADC and not by output resolution. I think you are mixing up detail with dynamic range. Higher detail should be present in 4k vs. 1080.

So Joofa, are you saying that shooting 4K and downconverting in post to 1080 will not look better than shooting RED in 2K and doing the same?

[Dj Joofa]

So Joofa, are you saying that shooting 4K and downconverting in post to 1080 will not look better than shooting RED in 2K and doing the same?

No, I am not saying that. I was just elucidating the technical difference between dynamic range and resolution. Now coming back to your question of what will look better -- I think that question should not be decided by just looking at the raw 4K data vs. 2K data (where admittedly in theory 4k should have more detail, but not necessarily more dynamic range) and coming to the conclusion that 4k will necessarily *project* better.

Because, ultimately what is going to look better is going to be decided by the mechanism of the projection display system. Whether, you use an optical projector by doing a film out of both 4k and 2K, or by just projecting both using a digital projector, the light after bouncing off the white screen and coming back to the user may have quite less resolution. Also, that response is going to vary depending upon the distance from screen, flare compensation during projection, etc. Hence, there are many subjective interpretations involved here.

In theory 4k might project better, but after incorporating all these subjective measures, how many users will be able to discern the difference between a *projected* 4k and 2K is an open question -- we need side by side projection in a well-conditioned theater to come to a conclusion.

[dylancarter]

Nope, dynamic range is determined by the bit depth of your sensor and its associated ADC and not by output resolution. I think you are mixing up detail with dynamic range. Higher detail should be present in 4k vs. 1080.

There is a long thread about DOF vs FOV. If you shoot in 2k, you only use 2k's worth of sensor (width). I'll spare you all the details of the thread, but if you are interested you can find it here 3k_Thread (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8561&highlight=depth+of+field)

[William Robinette]

Dan, found this in another post in reduser. Does well to illustrate how RED gets 2k out of Mysterium. 3k Isn't on there as I don't think it was implemented when this was made but you can extrapolate from the 4k/2k image difference. Like it was stated before, RED does 2k/3k/4k but the former through a windowed sensor, only allowing you 35mm FoV with 4k. Since, I know you want that, and no matter what you shoot you will have to dowrez to 1080p in post anyway why not shoot 4k? I do believe either Jim or Graeme has said something along the lines of "the best 2k comes from 4k."

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b70/BennisHahn/redsizechart.jpg

[Dj Joofa]

I do believe either Jim or Graeme has said something along the lines of "the best 2k comes from 4k."




That is when we are just talking about the spatial detail of an image; and may not have a direct relation with the dynamic range of each pixel, if the dynamic range is high enough. Remember, dynamic range is a "per-pixel" quantity and detail is a "pixel-neighborhood" quantity -- they are two different measures. Detail resolution and dynamic range are often independently quoted, without proper understanding of the relation between the two.

The best response is the *joint optimization* of dynamic range and detail (resolution). I wrote a response on what is the best approach to simultaneously optimize both for the best visual experience, and is available at the following link:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=156192#post156192

[William Robinette]

Of course, because no matter what format you are shooting on RED, the pixels are always the same size and therefore have the same photosensitive properties. Just in 2k/3k you are using less of them when compared to 4k.

Basically your image would be exactly the same except for spatial detail when comparing a native 2k image to a 4k down sampled to 2k image right? I am ignoring the different compression ratios RED has implemented along with the discrepancies in FoV.

[Dj Joofa]

Basically your image would be exactly the same except for spatial detail when comparing a native 2k image to a 4k down sampled to 2k image right? I am ignoring the different compression ratios RED has implemented along with the discrepancies in FoV.

Yes, you are right, given a particular camera/sensor, say Red, in theory you should get better 2k images from 4k. My sole point was that today you have Red 4k, and you may not think that its image is always going to be better than a 2k camera from a different manufacturer, if in the joint space of dynamic range and detail, the visual response of the other manufacturer's 2k image is better.

[Andrew M.]

Of course, because no matter what format you are shooting on RED, the pixels are always the same size and therefore have the same photosensitive properties. Just in 2k/3k you are using less of them when compared to 4k.

Basically your image would be exactly the same except for spatial detail when comparing a native 2k image to a 4k down sampled to 2k image right? I am ignoring the different compression ratios RED has implemented along with the discrepancies in FoV.

Not quite right, the dynamic range depends from the surface of the pixels and pixels when downscaling are combined so the surface of the 4 pixels forming 2K output from RED is bigger then 1 pixel forming one pixel at 4K format.

Now, if downresing will be done directly on the sensor then we can combain 4 pixels current and feed it in to A/D converter having 4 times bigger current to sample. 80% equivalent to replacing the 4K sensor with 2K sensor for particular shot. (imagine it would be possible to insert and lock Misterium sensor as a user changeable module)

Now, playing with 4K RED RAW converted to 2K footage I discovered that grading colors and manipulating noise and sharpness yields much better results then I could have using windowed 2K RAW. Here the results are highly dependent from the algorithm I was using. Whole industry is optimized for processing 1:1 RAW versus final output. Looks like times are changing and we will be downresing a lot in the near future.

I see the need for grading tools that will take advantage of oversampling.

Just to start with, using standard grading tools I see that noise reduction and sharpening works way better while working on oversampled RAW data. (experiment with all algorithms, big difference of results here)

Still waiting for the grading tools that will reduce CA.
BTW does SRATCH has CA correction tool?

[William Robinette]

I understand that if you scaled 2k from RED's 4k Mysterium right off the chip you could have 4 pixels acting as one and gain said benefits.

But in it's current implementation RED does not do that. My entire post is based on the capabilities of the camera right now. It windows 2k/3k, so the area per pixel is the same regardless of what resolution you are shooting in.

All I'm saying is right now the benefits of 2k/3k are over cranking, storage, less processing required, etc... Items along those lines. It's not like shooting in 2k/3k gets you more latitude or sensitivity in it's current implementation. And 4k downsampled to 2k should be sharper then native 2k with the added benefits of 35mm DoF/FoV.

Correct?

[danbrazda]

Mr. Robinette... my gut tells me you and I are on the same page. However... there is always a danger (and I have fallen into this trap MANY times in the past when comparing film to video) of losing sight of the BOTTOM LINE, which is- storytelling. In the past, when electronic cinematography's bar was set by units like the Ikegami EC-35, I have fought to the death over film and its' aesthetic advantage. However...

I think RED is the first time we have seen a crossover from simplistic resolution/film-look debates to aesthetic debates (God, I wish I had a better word than "aesthetic" to describe what I really mean) and the first realistic possibility of something new, different and (dare I say) better than what we have known as the standard.

PS-

So as not to disappoint my fellow techno-nerds that were attracted to this thread in the first place- I'm still shootin' nothin' but 4k, MoFo's! :wink:

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

my idea there wasn't about resolution, getting better 2K is obviously from downconverted 4K, but, here when shoot 2K instead you are going to loose the beautiful shallow depth of field provided by the 35 mm lenses,,, also using larger sensor area will give you more chances to process the footage in post and adding graininess or any picture effects without destructing the final image.. so, go go 4K with RED .. if you want more film look or any look control..

all the best,

[William Robinette]

the BOTTOM LINE, which is- storytelling.


Something too often and too easily forgotten.

[Andrew M.]

I understand that if you scaled 2k from RED's 4k Mysterium right off the chip you could have 4 pixels acting as one and gain said benefits.

But in it's current implementation RED does not do that. My entire post is based on the capabilities of the camera right now. It windows 2k/3k, so the area per pixel is the same regardless of what resolution you are shooting in.

All I'm saying is right now the benefits of 2k/3k are over cranking, storage, less processing required, etc... Items along those lines. It's not like shooting in 2k/3k gets you more latitude or sensitivity in it's current implementation. And 4k downsampled to 2k should be sharper then native 2k with the added benefits of 35mm DoF/FoV.

Correct?

Misterium sensor has ability to address single photocell like we can address RAM in our computer.

So I will disagree that we can’t do downresing directly on the sensor.

The question is the firmware that controls the Misterium and this will be updated again and again in the future. The limitation is 12 bit A/D converter that can’t handle more than 12 stops if used in liner mode.

However if you read my post carefully I mentioned that I had good result with noise reduction when processing oversampled data. It means that we can reduce noise, thus increase dynamic range.

You will tell me that getting more then 12 stops out of 12 bit A/D based sensor is impossible.

Well, wait a bit.

I just got such comment from the ARRI guy “you will never get as good picture from $2K lenses as from $25K Master Prime. Well he is up to big surprise, using Premiere Pro and CS3 I got perfectly CA clean clip shot on $2K lenses.

As to the story telling factor mentioned by Dan, well in Hollywood movies, yes the story is important, but in the nature, National Geographic, Science, underwater, etc. material, the storytelling is secondary item, the quality of presented material, and the craftsmanship of the DP is the most important factor.

[Stuart English]

Nope, dynamic range is determined by the bit depth of your sensor and its associated ADC and not by output resolution. I think you are mixing up detail with dynamic range. Higher detail should be present in 4k vs. 1080.

Well O.K, yes you are correct. Maybe its better to say that if you shoot RAW the mapping of the dynamic range available from the sensor can be delayed to post production, so that you have more control over how that dynamic range is shoe-horned into 1080p video, rather than letting the camera make that decision for you.

The sensor area captured when we enable 1080p will be 3840 x 2160. That compares to 4K RAW at 4096 x 2304 - so another advantage of 4K is the ability to pan / scan within the 4K area to find the best 3840 x 2160 section to performa a 2:1 scale from to generate a 1080p signal when in post.

Bottom line is - yes there are image quality & production flexibility reasons to shoot RED 4K v's any other 1080p camera and also RED 1080p when available.

[Dj Joofa]

Well O.K, yes you are correct. Maybe its better to say that if you shoot RAW the mapping of the dynamic range available from the sensor can be delayed to post production, so that you have more control over how that dynamic range is shoe-horned into 1080p video, rather than letting the camera make that decision for you.
The sensor area captured when we enable 1080p will be 3840 x 2160. That compares to 4K RAW at 4096 x 2304


Agreed. You are right. However, my basic point is that is I am considering optimizing the joint product of dynamic range and resolution and it is not always clear that what should be the trade-off of dynamic range vis-a-vis resolution.



... so another advantage of 4K is the ability to pan / scan within the 4K area to find the best 3840 x 2160 section to performa a 2:1 scale from to generate a 1080p signal when in post.


I agree with you. Pan/scan is a powerful option. However, I am not sure how users will be able to take advantage of this feature, and may not be more confused by it. Will there be framing issues to consider when shooting, as in post they will be extracting a certain smaller frame from the one originally shot?