Does "4K" really matter?

[Marco]

It is important, that the image is well lit and proper exposed. I have worked on a big budget-Alexa-commercial shoot, which was really low light and very challenging for the Alexa. I was the Data Reader (was asked two days before the shoot, normally I am working as a DIT) and the DIT was completely new in digital shooting (what a shame). After lunch I talked to the DIT and DP and told them, that this kind of underexposing does not work and they have to use some bigger lights and use a lower ASA to get the picture they want. The guys were really thankful, the images were cleaner and had an overall better look.
A good image is about knowledge of the camera/stock you are shooting on. Every image out of every camera can be great, it does not matter if it is 2k, 4k or whatever, you only have to know how to use it in the best way for your project.

With the Alexa, DPs can mostly work like they are working with film, but under- or overexposing and "correct" it later is not highly recommended and the picture loses some or much information in the under- or overexposed areas. With the Red it is completely imposdible. Maybe it will be possible with tgeir little HDR-function, but I do not believe in this.

Resolution is a factor, but a 4k-picture enlarged from a 2k-Alexa-"negative" will look much better than the most 4k-Red-picture, because the Alexa reacts better in color, exposure, contrast... it is more about these factors. And bit-depth is a factor. We should all look forward to the new Panavision Genesis next year and the IMAX-digital-4k-camera. They are designed to look like film with all the digital advantages... like the Alexa. This is more important than a 4k/5k-camera, which looks like a digital photo (which also can work for some projects).

Disclaimer: I am normally working as a director and love shooting on film, but working as a DIT guarantees much money, because there are only a few in Germany.

[koltron]

have you all seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBaXUKESZqc

this guy claims to have hacked the T2i to basically enable raw sensor data to be wrapped in a video protocol, thus enabling 4K footage.

I think this video better describes what's really going on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkTN7Ayosq0

[Francesco]

if 4K does matter for big screens, or even in the not too far off future of home viewing, then why is the Alexa "2K"

That's a question that I've heard a lot when people are discussing "Red vs. Alexa vs. Any other digital camera". The "official" response from Arri, as heard at Alexa presentations and elsewhere, is that most feature films are still shot on 35mm film and most of them are scanned at 2K, and the 2K workflow is in place, from acquisition to distribution. So, if you think about it that way, Alexa makes a lot of sense today (and it makes even more sense because of the quality of the images it's able to capture). Arri itself says in one of its technical papers that 4K is better than 2K (Subhadip posted the link to it earlier in this thread). The real question, and unfortunately is the one nobody can answer, is WHEN the 4K "future" will become the "present": some say it's already happening, some say it'll take a while. Red obviously believes 2K is a mistake, and they may be right. Arri thinks 2K for the time being is a good choice, and they may be right just as well.

Resolution is a factor, but a 4k-picture enlarged from a 2k-Alexa-"negative" will look much better than the most 4k-Red-picture, because the Alexa reacts better in color, exposure, contrast...

Marco, have you seen/used the new REDcolor2 and REDlogFilm in RedCineX?

(Disclaimer: I don't work for Arri, I don't work for Red, I'm just a camera assistant, so the more I know about every camera system, the better I can do my job. I haven't seen anything projected at 4K yet, and the only Alexa footage I've seen was projected digitally at 2K and blown-up from 2K to 35mm, and in my very humble opinion it was really impressive).

[Marco]

Marco, have you seen/used the new REDcolor2 and REDlogFilm in RedCineX?

I have only seen what they posted in their Reduser-forum and it is not a big deal. Still looks like Red and they had not shown difficult situations for any camera. So I want to test it on my own to finally judge it. Till now, the new Redgamma, Redcolor etc. makes the bad looking Red-picture a bit more beareble for me.

If somebody likes the Red-look, fine. If you did not like it till now, you will not like it in the near future.

[Francesco]

If somebody likes the Red-look, fine. If you did not like it till now, you will not like it in the near future.

When all is said and done, I guess it all comes down to personal taste, pretty much like when people choose one film stock over another
I saw The Social Network (film projection) and then the trailer for the new Pirates movie (2k digital projection), both shot on Red, and frankly the images looked really, really good.

[Roger]

As you say, it's all about personal taste!
I want to make one point again! A release print (from an IP/IN) of a film shot spherical 1:85 on a medium speed stock does not have the full resolution of the original negative. If you say the camera negative has a resolution of 4/5K, which is probably on the generous side for a 5217 or 5219 negative, I doubt the audience would ever see an image with a higher resolution than 2K. On top of which you need to take account of the unsteady nature of a film projector, which will decrease the apparent sharpness of an image. Yes, I would like a 4K digital camera but I would also have liked a high speed emulsion which could have given me the results that I can now get from the Alexa. Should we stop shooting because the images we produce will have less resolution than those in our future? Have you seen 'Citizen Kane' on a screen recently? I have no doubt that there will be 6K cameras and 6K projectors in the future, just as there will be affordable electric cars for everyone.

[Francesco]

A release print (from an IP/IN) of a film shot spherical 1:85 on a medium speed stock does not have the full resolution of the original negative. If you say the camera negative has a resolution of 4/5K, which is probably on the generous side for a 5217 or 5219 negative, I doubt the audience would ever see an image with a higher resolution than 2K.

I don't know where I heard it first, years ago, but someone once told me that the highest quality of any film stock is only visible on dailies/rushes

I have no doubt that there will be 6K cameras and 6K projectors in the future, just as there will be affordable electric cars for everyone.

Not to belittle filmmaking or technology, but I so hope electric cars become affordable before we have 6k cameras and projectors everywhere!

p.s. have a great 2011, Roger!!!

[Roger]

Yes, your film dailies and the answer print (or show prints if they are made) are the only times you see the full resolution of a negative. When a negative is scanned at 4k I believe you are actually seeing more of what is actually on that negative. If prints are then made from a 4K output negative you are gaining resolution over the standard answer print of the photochemical process.
I too think the electric car is a little more important!

[Andrew Rieger]

4K is being implemented for projection much faster than I thought it would. I went away to college for a year and when I came back for Christmas, the four theaters that are closest to my house had all upgraded to 4K digital projectors. Two upgraded from 2k projectors and the others went from film to 4K digital. As Blu ray becomes more prevalent in homes, theaters need to offer something better and 4K digital is the answer.

Does this mean that the Alexa is behind the times? No but I don't think they anticipated 4K moving as quickly as it did when they started designing. The Alexa will still look stunning in 4K so it is not a problem. I saw Black Swan in 4K and it looked great and that was 16mm.

In the next couple of months, I expect the Red vs. Alexa debate to heat up even more now that Epics are stating to make it onto sets. It is true though that Red does have a "look" and many are not fans. Still, I have seen some Alexa footage and to me at least, it looks Red-like. Take for example the trailer for the Disney film Prom, the first major release shot on Alexa, which to my eyes, could have easily been shot on Red, it has the "Red Look"- very sharp, very digital. I think digital has a look no matter the system, sure the color rendition is different and the dynamic range is different camera to camera but the two systems are more similar then they are different. I think that if you placed the cameras side by side and shot the same scene you could make them identical to each other with a little post tweaking.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGCtgUNgZKs

[Subhadip]

Does this mean that the Alexa is behind the times? No but I don't think they anticipated 4K moving as quickly as it did when they started designing. The Alexa will still look stunning in 4K so it is not a problem. I saw Black Swan in 4K and it looked great and that was 16mm.

I think this is dictated by where in the theater hall you are sitting, i.e. viewing distance. Whilst I have not seen a 4K projection, a 2K projection of a 35mm source looks noticeably soft in the first 3 rows. (I would much rather prefer watching the same on Bluray at home). According to the Arri whitepaper, the first 3 rows can resolve 8K. 2K origination is a mere 6% of that resolution. I can't vouch for the whitepaper's accuracy, but 94% unused potential sounds like a lot to me.

However, if you prefer to sit in the back rows, 3K is "good enough", and in my experience even 2K appears detailed enough. Overall, I would have to agree, 4K is the standard, and we are moving closer to 4K than anyone anticipated. I anticipate 4K being the standard till bionic eyes are invented.

Ultimately, a well shot film will evoke a tangible mood whether it is shot on 2K or 8K.

[V.Sweeney]

It is true though that Red does have a "look" and many are not fans. Still, I have seen some Alexa footage and to me at least, it looks Red-like. Take for example the trailer for the Disney film Prom, the first major release shot on Alexa, which to my eyes, could have easily been shot on Red, it has the "Red Look"- very sharp, very digital.

And this is what bothers me so much. I truly do want to like them and I want to see something great done with them but this odd plastic look behind all the good lighting and color grading, etc. is something that worries me to no end. I'm curious if Aaton's camera will have a different feel to it since it is a 6K CCD instead of CMOS. Hopefully more options in the future will give us something less like moving DSLR pictures but until then, nothing to my eye comes close enough to film, esp. for dramatic storytelling.

[Andrew Rieger]

And this is what bothers me so much. I truly do want to like them and I want to see something great done with them but this odd plastic look behind all the good lighting and color grading, etc. is something that worries me to no end. I'm curious if Aaton's camera will have a different feel to it since it is a 6K CCD instead of CMOS. Hopefully more options in the future will give us something less like moving DSLR pictures but until then, nothing to my eye comes close enough to film, esp. for dramatic storytelling.[/quote]

The whole Red vs Alexa argument annoys me a little because when I see the footage that both cameras produce, they really do look very similar, I do think that it is the CMOS technology, like you said like a DSLR moving at 24fps. Many say that the Alexa looks more film like then the Red but I do not see it. I saw the Prom trailer in 4K and it had all the digital characteristics that many have criticized Red for having. Again, I think these characteristics are inherent to the CMOS sensor.

Is CCD better? What cameras use CCD sensors currently? I believe that the Genesis and the F35 are CCD correct? I like the images that both those systems produce but the resolution is not cutting it for 4K projection.

[MarcVanOsdale]

I know this is a technical forum...but I don't see why people keep freaking out about this 4K Red/Alexa mania. The differences between these cameras and 35mm is honestly a waste of breath. Your camera and format is a significant decision, but in the entire production process...is deciding between Alexa and Film really the most important decision that you will be making as a DP?

If you have a serious problem with looking at Red/Alexa footage, you might want to start getting used to it because I don't see this digital revolution just coming to a hault. Even if you as the cinematographer can notice this slight difference between 35mm and Alexa....the small difference will go unnoticed by any serious producer aware of their budget. I thought the live action on the Transformers trailer looked just fine to my eye. If it's good enough for Roger Deakins, I think it's good enough for everyone else.

[octopoli]

interesting. I did test with 4k and photochemical on the same neg and felt there was more in the photochemical print.. but maybe its just chance this time.

[Roger]

I would never say that the Alexa is 'good enough'. I am shooting with that camera because it is the best, and I do mean the best, camera for my present project.
The digital 'look' basically comes down to a lack of grain. I can totally understand this as I too love the 'look' of film. However, on balance I do believe the Alexa and certainly other digital cameras that are in development will produce 'better' images than can be achieved with film and that they will become the standard for image capture. What I mean by better does not necessarily mean that the image has more resolution than any other system. One has to take into account all the other aspects of image capture. Camera speed/sensitivity and bit depth are also important as is the ability to 'know what you have' at the time of shooting.

As I said elsewhere, I have recorded images from the Alexa with added grain and I would defy anyone outside of the cinematographer's circle to pick the difference between that image and one made on film. There are digital artifact for sure! But there are also film artifacts such as watermarks and scratches.

If you compare a print from a camera negative with a print from a 4K output negative of the same camera original, I would have to agree that you may see more detail in the photochemical print. Bear in mind, though, that few people will ever see a print from the original camera negative of a commercial film. If you compare the image from a photochemically produced release print (Inter positive to Inter negative) with that same print off the 4K scanned negative, I suggest there will then be no comparison. That's why I don't understand the argument for film as opposed to a digital post. Especially shooting Super 35mm and going through an optical blow up to get an anamorphic release print when the digital alternative is so superior.