Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: KOMODO....

Reply to Thread
Page 119 of 358 FirstFirst ... 1969109115116117118119120121122123129169219 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,190 of 3579
  1. #1181  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    Why are you asking about 10-20 years down the line and referencing today's available technology?
    Because with today's technology we are beginning to hit a ceiling for what can be done to improve cinematography. When the perceivable final image is close to impossible to judge between different acquisition methods, we've start to hit diminishing returns. There are numerous real-world examples from people all over the industry who mixed and matched lots of systems without people, even skilled professionals, actually noticing a difference in the final view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    I see a great deal of potential of capturing at above 8K resolution for 8K and 4K finishes, I'll say 2K as well. I've been producing content at higher resolutions both to downsample to 8K screens as well as be used on higher resolution display experiences.
    Me too, I'm just noticing that 99% of all productions around the globe will not benefit an 8K distribution. We have bandwidth limits, which will not become less since more people around the globe go online as their quality of life in society increases. We have production costs of processing power for VFX, where nearly all of the biggest productions still do VFX in 2K. I agree that for the photographic process, more resolutions equal a better subsampling, but there's a limit to the final quality in which the perceptive differences between 4K and 8K become almost unnoticed and the subsampling benefits becomes negligible. Over 10-11K becomes irrelevant for any distribution format to actually benefit, even including the post-production improvements it gives for an 8K final image. Steve Yedlin has a point with this, even if I think his resolution limit is far lower than mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    I'll just say as it stand towards the immediate future most companies that make display tech ideal for entertainment are focused the mass adoption of 4K and the easing in point of 8K, which has now hit the sweet spot of enthusiast pricing this year.
    We also have A.I upscaling which will be far more adopted as standard practice as we move into doing VFX in native 4K. If Avengers Endgame doesn't render out their final VFX in over 2K, then imagine doing 8K distribution. So we will see far more 4K workflows with VFX in 4K, than anything in 8K for quite some time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    I've publicly shown over the years now what you can do with merely downsampling, but also tapping into this extra resolution for all sorts of reframing, stabilization, cropping, integrated camera movement, etc. is also powerful. It's of particular interest to me as I am now working mainly on 8K productions for a while now and have the desire for more paint in the tube to throw at the canvas, right now if I squeeze the tube tight and just right I get enough to fill it up edge to edge, corner to corner.
    I've also advocated for higher resolutions for this purpose and I'm not saying that "8K is enough", I'm saying that there's a ceiling where the benefits start to become perceivably impossible to notice any differences in the final product. And we are entering that time for the camera market, because while the high-end systems are all scrambling for higher than 8K resolution workflows, the less expensive cameras catch up faster as they haven't hit the the slow-down in terms of actual beneficial needs within the industry folks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    I think every camera manufacturer has now gotten the memo about the advantages of oversampling for any final output resolution.
    The problem though is that there's a difference between the technical math behind a process and the perceivable and noticeable final result. The benefits are, as of now, all focused on benefits for the post-production process, in which higher resolution, more stops and lower noise all create a better ground for manipulation into the desired final output. But anyone who's a professional cinematographer today won't have any problem creating an image that even exceeds what the human eye can perceive. Just think about 10000 nits of HDR, we can do it today, but most people who watch long segments of it report that it hurt their eyes because it's almost like looking into a real sun when a sun is present in the footage. What is the benefit of blinding the audience other than for showing off? That's not cinematography as I see it. I'm not against a clear, noise-free image, but we can achieve that today together with a final output that is so high in a resolution that no eye can perceive anything higher.

    So balancing the technology, the math, the specs against what people say when viewing final outputs speak volumes of where we're at in the history of digital cinema, and we won't see the same improvements over the coming 10-20 years that we've seen the past 10-20 years, we're now speculating future specs that benefit very little in post over what we can do today, while audiences and even professionals can't spot the difference between a Red and a Sony A7 on the final output in cinemas (real world example). We are not at the end, there won't really be an end, but marketing and capitalism can't win over the fact that people will question "why" to use new systems if all they do is pushing the limits of the sensor to the camera processor breaking point. This is what I mean about Komodo, it's a more rational thing to exist, a camera that is smaller and simpler to use (presumably), but seems to have specs close to what is needed for pretty high end deliveries. This improvements in camera bodies and functions will probably be far more the future than anything about sensors and what the acquisition format can do.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #1182  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    3,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. Pederson View Post
    I don't really know what "can't handle" even means in your context. Obviously .... even 2K originated content "can be handled for a final viewing experience" - but that does not mean that higher resolution doesn't benefit the artistic intent of some motion content.
    What perceivable differences does more resolution do on the final delivery? I want to know what benefits we're talking about here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. Pederson View Post
    But the very short answer is - image fidelity, image quality and image flexibility.
    True, but where's the limit in which the audience can't see any differences? I'm talking about the limit, where handling all that data and resolution becomes unjustified costs for any kind of actual improvements to the final output. This is also Steve Yedlin's argument and he makes a clear case for it, even though I would agree that higher resolution than he proposes is needed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. Pederson View Post
    Time will certainly prove you wrong.
    We'll see, Avengers Endgame is still mastered in 2K and A.I upscaling makes headlines. So, are you sure I'm dead wrong?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. Pederson View Post
    100MP (12K/13K) motion content will be the next "bar" for the high-end of digital cinematography. With good reason.
    I don't hear any viable reason for real-world productions. I've never heard any production speak of any such benefits and I'm talking about people promoting 8K for 4K.
    Special cases, true, wall-OLEDS or future special screens, but I'm talking about digital cinema and television. I need to hear audiences in the future saying they can't be without 8K because the A.I upscaled 4K blockbuster looks so bad.
    I doubt they will do this and therefore I doubt filmmakers will really care for anything above 10K on their sensors. I'd like a clear cut rational argument for this, but all I hear is that "it will happen". Ok.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #1183  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,144
    I'll speak within bounds of not braking an conflicts of interesting and specifically NDAs of stuff I'm currently filming.

    I am very much aware of much of the stigma, denial, and bias the concept of resolution alone has had in our industry in the face rather experienced people scratching their heads at naysayers, doubters, critics, goblins, and trolls.

    Throughout this time over the years I've been trying to promote an understanding of these concepts from an educational and creative standpoint fueled greatly by a great deal of studies done with companies you all are familiar with over the years.

    The concept of perception over desire and intent is an interesting concept and leading to a conversation of "that's probably good enough". I am not cut from that cloth and do desire a bit more from the content I personally create. Perception in practicalities is one thing, but as the world has pretty much discovered at this point you can indeed see the differences between 2K, 4K, and 8K. It's been easier to have these discussions in recent years as critical eyes have now been able to digest content side by side often by the same display manufacturers offerings in the market. I'll reference Sony, Samsung, LG, ans Sharp with unique opportunities to see the same content on different screens. For some, it's very appealing and noticeable. In actual study, the results are also there. But for others well good enough is good enough.

    I'm personally in my happiest spot right now because all of which I have been hopefully presenting in a good light is coming to be in our industry and I'm not exactly having many conversations these days about if "4K will ever catch on", "the human eye can only see 4K", "nobody can ever work in 4K, "nobody needs 4K", so on and so forth. What was obvious to many in the 2000s was less obvious to others, now it's a bit of different story with 4K becoming the default premium viewing experience in cinema and at home, 8K edging on very premium, and 2K being the old faithful standard. And meanwhile I still see a few corners of Earth where sub-1080p delivery occurs.

    Camera and display technology doesn't stop at 8K. I think personally many will have to decide if a beyond 8K display television fits in their home when that's possible, but it is very much the best we have that is reasonably attainable in both theater and cinema form as of 2019. And there are extended and expandable display technologies, often used for exposition and events, that are significantly higher resolution than that. Of course that isn't typically ending up in the theater or home.

    The "viable reason for real-world productions" require perhaps an open mind as everybody will decide on their own reasons. I produce high quality content and the extra resolution is a benefit to narrative, commercial, and exhibition content I produce. It's also a benefit to the VFX work I find myself filming now and again. It's a benefit as it's a flexible way of working within the medium for frame extraction when desired.

    For discerning filmmakers it's an interesting balancing act to be happy to shoot on anything, which is more common than not as well as being rather concerned with what they are reaching for on personal, professional, creative, and technical levels with what they create.

    I've mentioned before here that many people will base their opinions mostly on localized experience, which is standard fair. If you're not hearing people asking for 8K and very much talking to people who are primarily delivering 8K those are clearly discussions occuring in different rooms and realms of this industry. Very similar to not hearing people wanting 4K not long ago.

    I'm very fortunate to cross many avenues of motion picture filmmaking as well as being close to studios, rental houses, and even productions occasionally on a consultation basis. My perspective is from some corners more is desired because there is noise coming from them stating so. Meanwhile in other fascilities those corners are quiet while they have tuned into what is very much right in front of them.

    We've strayed fairly off course of Komodo discussion here, but too loop it back what is good is Komodo will be really ideal for compact camera needs for 4K and 2K delivery, which represents the highest volume of paid work currently making it a very useful tool. 8K is still pretty early on, but at the same time I've working on stuff in 2017 that doesn't get released until 2020. The stagnated and staging process of all of this is part of the whole tamale. I'll also say I'm likely not the first person to see Komodo and get inspired about compact high quality stitched array work. But my main interest is solo compact workflow that can be taken anywhere in the world without much fuss.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #1184  
    Senior Member andrewhake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tiemann View Post
    I think you are forgetting that there's still a question of HFR or not. To be safe, you could record everything at 240 fps with 360 degree shutter. That would allow you to construct, in post, anything from 120fps at 180 degrees to 24fp at anywhere from 36 degree to 360 degree shutter.
    No you couldn't?

    You can't capture the same amount of light in 1/480th of a second as you can in 1/48th of a second? And of course you won't have the same amount of motion blur either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #1185  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,053
    Display options these days range from phone screens to IMAX. What stays the same is us - the wetware. Assuming you want to keep the whole image in your visual field, there's limit to how close you can get to any screen. Because of this, I postulate that 128MP (16K 2:1 AR) is sufficient to reach the point of rapidly diminishing returns.

    As noted by other posters, HDR with 10,000nit peaks is uncomfortable for viewers. (Note that there are other things, like HFR, that may also be "uncomfortable" but it's arguable how much of that reaction is due to conditioning.) Because of this, I would consider 14 stops of DR at mastering to be plenty.

    BTW, neither resolution or contrast ratios are as keenly discriminated by (98% of) humans as color tonality or sound. (Likely due to evolutionary physiology, but that's another forum ;-).) Creating and displaying color values digitally gains precision with greater bit depth. How much bit depth is required to adequately mimic human vision? Depends more than you might expect on the specific human in question. 16bit log would seem like enough to reach diminishing returns. If anyone has links to studies please share.

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #1186  
    Senior Member Nathaniel Haban's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wisconisn, U.S.A.
    Posts
    282
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. Pederson View Post
    AMEN. And this comment totally contradicts several comments you have posted in this thread. I actually do know somebody working with KOMODO material and they are blown away. #justsayin'
    With all the back-and-forth the last week or so, this comment really seemed to fly under the radar. Mark - did they elaborate more on their thoughts, and was there anything big/noteworthy that stood out to them?
    "If it can be written or thought, it can be filmed" -- Stanley Kubrick

    8K Weapon VV Monstro #1882 --Sus Volantes
    6K RED Epic-M
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #1187  
    Quote Originally Posted by Blair S. Paulsen View Post
    Display options these days range from phone screens to IMAX. What stays the same is us - the wetware. Assuming you want to keep the whole image in your visual field, there's limit to how close you can get to any screen. Because of this, I postulate that 128MP (16K 2:1 AR) is sufficient to reach the point of rapidly diminishing returns.

    As noted by other posters, HDR with 10,000nit peaks is uncomfortable for viewers. (Note that there are other things, like HFR, that may also be "uncomfortable" but it's arguable how much of that reaction is due to conditioning.) Because of this, I would consider 14 stops of DR at mastering to be plenty.

    BTW, neither resolution or contrast ratios are as keenly discriminated by (98% of) humans as color tonality or sound. (Likely due to evolutionary physiology, but that's another forum ;-).) Creating and displaying color values digitally gains precision with greater bit depth. How much bit depth is required to adequately mimic human vision? Depends more than you might expect on the specific human in question. 16bit log would seem like enough to reach diminishing returns. If anyone has links to studies please share.

    Cheers - #19
    The human eye has approx. 20 stops of dynamic range. Also, dynamic range and bit depth are not the same thing sensor land. You can think of dynamic range as the height of a staircase and bit depth as the number of steps in the staircase.

    With respect to resolution and visual acuity - that is a deeper rabbit hole of arc minutes and because of the way the brain works and field of view, hyperacuity, etc - but it is CERTAINLY more than 100MP. There is plenty of papers you can read (Blackwell, etc.)
    Mark L. Pederson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #1188  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. Pederson View Post
    (snip) With respect to resolution and visual acuity - that is a deeper rabbit hole of arc minutes and because of the way the brain works and field of view, hyperacuity, etc - but it is CERTAINLY more than 100MP. There is plenty of papers you can read (Blackwell, etc.)
    I agree, many people can resolve more than 100MP. What I question is whether or not one could actually discern a difference between a 128MP and 256MP display in any real world viewing environment.

    Rabbit hole indeed. Back to the topic - ever more frenzied speculation about Komodo! ;-)

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #1189  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,225
    and then i still have friends shooting 30 million dollar studio films going to box office on 2k...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #1190  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L. Pederson View Post
    The human eye has approx. 20 stops of dynamic range. Also, dynamic range and bit depth are not the same thing sensor land. You can think of dynamic range as the height of a staircase and bit depth as the number of steps in the staircase.

    With respect to resolution and visual acuity - that is a deeper rabbit hole of arc minutes and because of the way the brain works and field of view, hyperacuity, etc - but it is CERTAINLY more than 100MP. There is plenty of papers you can read (Blackwell, etc.)
    The eye may sense a range of 20 stops, but it is the brain that provides us with an image derived from that data. What the brain presents us with is more typically seven to ten stop DR range at any given moment biased toward values that are the most critical for pattern recognition, reaction time and survival.

    Suzy and I shot an interview with Dr. Semir Zecki, a neurological researcher specializing in the visual cortex. What he discovered while presenting images of art, people, and nature to research subjects wired with neural sensors embedded in the visual cortex is quite amazing. He found that visual response to beauty, ugliness, and the sublime as defined by Kant are universal to all humans regardless of culture, class status, or education. They each are hardwired by evolution into specific regions of the visual cortex. The emotional responses appropriate to each concept follow from stimulation of the associated region of the visual cortex. So there is a strong universal biological response associated with specific philosophical aesthetic concepts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts