Thread: Another do we really need 8K discussion

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Zack Birlew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California and Las Vegas
    Posts
    995
    Some dork was laughing at me when I talked about Arri having to make an 8K camera soon to keep up with all the new competition and really they will have to at some point in the near future if they don't want to look like the 16mm option in the market. It's just like people laughing when RED came out with 4K during HDV times, it makes you wonder when the other side will learn that technology is going to advance no matter what so you might as well take interest in the new options when they come out versus sounding like a dinosaur. I can say that I would have loved all that extra resolution of 8K and 12K for my first feature as we filmed many tricky shots and certain wide moments that could have been cropped in better with just a bit more resolution than what our 4K RED One MX could give. The biggest thing is that people forget that 4K UHD is roughly 8 megapixels equivalent, we've got mainstream cameras pushing 60 to 100 megapixels now, imagine what you could do with that full resolution but in video terms, if that's not an exciting prospect then I don't know what else to say!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Karim D. Ghantous View Post
    "Strange ways." Are these people retarded?
    They should ask Fincher, maybe they'll learn something outside of being clickbait journalists.
    "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 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    it bothers me more that you put 24fps content into 30fps timeline, which is one of the reasons the motion cadence doesn't match.
    I have argued before that 30fps as a base for filmmaking could be a new standard. Getting lots of shit from people saying it will look like cheap TV, but my point is that we need to look past this and see what people are used to. A high-end cinematic image at 30fps in 4K HDR has so much else going for it that 30fps isn't really enough to negate the cinematic qualities. This argument has been made for 48-60fps video as well, but in my opinion, there's a middle way where the ugliness of 48fps and the choppiness of 24fps gets reduced and you get the best of both worlds. Add to that how people get used to games having 30fps cut scenes that looks and feels exactly like movies, but runs in 30fps and there's a point being made about the audience getting used to that framerate as a reference point instead of "cheap TV".

    I've done some live-action stuff that intercuts with gameplay at 30fps and while there's a noticeable difference it's no way near how 48fps looks. So I think there's a point to be made that 30fps as a new standard framerate for cinema has a place, especially with how much digital can stutter with pans and motion. I'm not a fan of 48fps, it has its place in 3D stereoscopic movies, but not in regular 2D. But I'm a gamer and playing through games like Uncharted 4 and Last of Us, you get that cinematic quality even though the framerate is 30fps. It's all in the lighting, composition, movement, acting etc. that makes the cinematic parts work, and the framerate at 30fps doesn't get noticed as well as 48-60fps.

    Including everything said about the 24 vs 48fps debate, I think that all the negatives about 48fps gets reduced at 30. It's still cinematic in motion, it doesn't generate huge loads of extra VFX burdens like rendering times and rotoscoping (especially with newer tools), but it really helps smooth out motion and giving resolution that pop that 24fps doesn't. I really think 30fps can work as a future fps base, but I think I'm alone in that idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zack Birlew View Post
    Some dork was laughing at me when I talked about Arri having to make an 8K camera soon to keep up with all the new competition and really they will have to at some point in the near future if they don't want to look like the 16mm option in the market. It's just like people laughing when RED came out with 4K during HDV times, it makes you wonder when the other side will learn that technology is going to advance no matter what so you might as well take interest in the new options when they come out versus sounding like a dinosaur. I can say that I would have loved all that extra resolution of 8K and 12K for my first feature as we filmed many tricky shots and certain wide moments that could have been cropped in better with just a bit more resolution than what our 4K RED One MX could give. The biggest thing is that people forget that 4K UHD is roughly 8 megapixels equivalent, we've got mainstream cameras pushing 60 to 100 megapixels now, imagine what you could do with that full resolution but in video terms, if that's not an exciting prospect then I don't know what else to say!
    I think resolution needs to strike a certain balance. Too much resolution means too large files, too small photosites etc. I still think 8K TVs is unnecessary. 8K as acquisition has its place and 8K screens have their place in edge cases like billboards, IMAX etc. but when balancing the workload of VFX, processing, storage etc. against viewing resolution, 4K is where its at. At 8K and up we get serious diminishing returns of usability. 12K might be the highest usable resolution before any type of reframing just shows the imperfections in the glass rather than any digital ones.

    For home screens, 8K is fine, but it's pretty unnecessary. 4K will probably be the standard for very long because it hits the diminishing return line, not because "it can be more". Even though we will have 8K TVs as the standard going forward, there won't be any content. Games will max out at 4K, films will be mastered in 4K, VFX rarely do 4K so whenever they do it they will not really leave that standard for a long time.

    The keypoint is that when I hear about industry people laughing about 4K for being unnecessary, or people just getting excited about more and more and more pixels, they're just two sides of the same coin. The reluctant resolution conservative who doesn't understand the science behind it and the overly excited resolution fan... who also doesn't understand the science behind it. Resolution needs to strike a balance, it needs to be at a certain point for acquisition and for delivery that makes sense for the audience and workflow. Most people don't start at that point in the discussion and instead picks a side. As with Hegel, the thesis and antithesis is neither true, but the synthesis. The mid way, the balance between the two. Shoot 8K for 4K is by far the closest to that balance that we have and I've yet to hear a valid argument from any extreme side that can counter that conclusion.
    "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 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    but I think I'm alone in that idea.
    Straight 30p should be more of a thing, but 29.97 has been a standard for many, many years.

    Generally I would say 24 through about 60fps is really nice for content and can be deployed to create cinematic content. But the core misfire is how higher frame rate project based material is shot which leads to poor results.

    Temporally we are a bit farther away from some of the earlier work that has established a lot of emotion surrounding frame rate. And if you take a look you'll find some pretty decent 24-60p stuff out there. Most of my shoots are 24, 29.97, and 60 fps. 48 hasn't really caught on, but no real reasons it's not being used more.

    Display tech is also a limiting factor as well as data rates when comes to higher fps content. Smooth playback of say 4K 60p material is achievable fairly easily, but not necessarily on the lowest tiers of newer tech. Interestingly we are seeing the beginnings of a couple companies reaching for a higher tier for the first time in a long while. First with transmitted bitrates, next with resolution, and then we're in new codec land once again.

    I don't feel much urge to discuss resolution much these days, especially after the last 2 decades and how things have gone. I think the general concept is understood, but it seems to cause a lot of debate still.

    To that point I'll say safely more and more that the future is all about 4K and 8K in theaters and in the home. We were filming out 4K material in the 90s. It's 2021. Continued studies and research on the topic as well as market response have influenced much of the direction for 4K and in that last few years 8K.

    Eventually what will happen is if you are an enthusiast you'll likely find yourself owning a low to migh four figure 8K screen and have 2K, 4K, and 8K content shown on it. Some are working hard on making that happen this decade.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies, 1X RED Komodo, and a lot of things to use with them.

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

  5. #15  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    Straight 30p should be more of a thing, but 29.97 has been a standard for many, many years.

    Generally I would say 24 through about 60fps is really nice for content and can be deployed to create cinematic content. But the core misfire is how higher frame rate project based material is shot which leads to poor results.

    Temporally we are a bit farther away from some of the earlier work that has established a lot of emotion surrounding frame rate. And if you take a look you'll find some pretty decent 24-60p stuff out there. Most of my shoots are 24, 29.97, and 60 fps. 48 hasn't really caught on, but no real reasons it's not being used more.
    Don't like when it goes over 30 fps though, then it starts to get wonky as with the Hobbit movies and Gemini man.

    Here's a shoot with 30fps. Not a lot of movement to show it off, but point being that when it's lit nicely and everything isn't a bad looking cheap TV-look, the 30fps doesn't really look like cheap TV. I think many just have a bad reaction to the idea of 30fps that they dismiss it and get into biased hate for it before even viewing the material. I would love to see how a 30fps film would look on an IMAX screen. Action scenes in that scale at that framerate might be improved by 30fps, especially when there's lots of hand held movement and close ups.

    "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 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    Don't like when it goes over 30 fps though
    That's fine and relevant for you, which is locally the most important thing. But I'm discussing this from an industry as a whole perspective where studios, committees, companies, and hordes of creatives are concerned. Particularly where I've seen tremendous success of true 60p content is in the realm of action sports, which doesn't always land in the cinematic realm, but can.

    I agree on the motion smoothness of 30p proper, 7 of my technology forward clients all require 29.97fps including the shoot I'm on now. It actually straddles a nice line.

    If you're curious on my local perspective, I like 24, 30, and 60 and their fractional counterparts. 120+ has been interesting, but I have yet to see a need or reason for it, but when properly displayed it can be impressive. I'm not in PAL land, but I'd say 25p and 50p are in bounds too, but I would prefer the world as a whole to navigate to 24, 30, and 60 timebases to help harmonize some veering technology trajectories.

    Nice spot!
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies, 1X RED Komodo, and a lot of things to use with them.

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

  7. #17  
    Yes, we used to shoot 30fps back in the day, but only kinda-sorta-not-really. We were shooting 30 fps Interlaced, so we had two fields per frame, which gave us the motion cadence of 60 frames per second. It amazed me in the early days of HD, the people that didn’t understand that and wanted to shoot 30P(29.97), because we had always shot 30 fps in the SD interlaced days. I still dislike the look of 30P. It just doesn’t look quite right most of the time.

    Fortunately, it’s a rarity when I have to shoot 30P(but there are still shows on TV that you have to watch in it). Excluding slow-mo, 99.9% of what I shoot is 24P(23.98) or 60P(59.94). I wish 30P would go away. I also wish they would have taken the opportunity with the UHD/4K standards and higher to do away with the fractional frame rates of NTSC/ATSC. They managed to finally kill interlace, and not taking the non-integer rates to the grave, too, was a mistake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    But I'm discussing this from an industry as a whole perspective where studios, committees, companies, and hordes of creatives are concerned.

    Nice spot!
    Thanks :)

    But yes, I'm thinking of the industry wide aspect as well, where I believe that films and streaming could make use of 30fps as the actual framerate. 60fps is good and well for sports and nature, I mean, those 60fps HDR clips that show off new TV set capabilities are really mindblowing. But just as Hobbit and Gemini man proved among the audience that HFR isn't really ready or might never be for narrative works, I believe that 30fps is a valid option. If people can't stand pure HFR in narrative films, where's the line? At which fps do people (regular people, not industry people biased towards 24/25fps) start feeling weird?

    I think that 30fps is that place, at least there have not been any real high-end narrative productions with good top-tier cinematography that tried this framerate. Imagine a crisp action-packed Netflix show in UHD HDR 30fps. I think it would be really nice if anyone dared to try it so we could get some true numbers and reactions from viewers in order to get some idea of the validity of it as a narrative standard.
    "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 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    470
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Bell View Post
    Yes, we used to shoot 30fps back in the day, but only kinda-sorta-not-really. We were shooting 30 fps Interlaced, so we had two fields per frame, which gave us the motion cadence of 60 frames per second. It amazed me in the early days of HD, the people that didn’t understand that and wanted to shoot 30P(29.97), because we had always shot 30 fps in the SD interlaced days. I still dislike the look of 30P. It just doesn’t look quite right most of the time.

    Fortunately, it’s a rarity when I have to shoot 30P(but there are still shows on TV that you have to watch in it). Excluding slow-mo, 99.9% of what I shoot is 24P(23.98) or 60P(59.94). I wish 30P would go away. I also wish they would have taken the opportunity with the UHD/4K standards and higher to do away with the fractional frame rates of NTSC/ATSC. They managed to finally kill interlace, and not taking the non-integer rates to the grave, too, was a mistake.
    This is what I'm talking about. The bias us older people have against 30fps because of that reference point. I'm with you on what you refer to, but I think that because we haven't seen any true high-end productions using 30fps, where everything else is top tier quality in terms of cinematography and acting, we don't have any reference points like that. Case point being how games use 30fps for their cutscenes and that graphics nowadays start looking like regular movies, meaning it works in that space without looking like cheap TV.

    I would love to see some really high-end productions dare to do this with some top-tier cinematographer at the helm. New generations won't have the cheap TV reference point as we have.
    "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 Red Komodo #002397
    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