28 replies to this topic

[Paddy]

Got to see a fabulous, nearly pristine copy of Marker's Le joli mai in 35 the other day — stunning!

Even more so since it was shot in 16mm...
One of the most beautiful documentaries ever made.

[Axel]

Again if we take the view that it is JUST content that is important, there's no motivation for filmmakers to put any artistry into their camera work and cinematography. A disaster.

If we take the view that it is JUST image quality that matters and that the camera is the most important thing, you lose the motivation to work on the content and just churn out pretty timelapses.

Is this balance so difficult for people to grasp?

Because we tend to forget Platos wisdom: The idea creates the form. It shouldn't read content or style/quality. The need to express something lets you seek for the appropriate means. But the content must be there first.

[galenb]

"I remember reading another article about 2 years ago by a more independent source, and they concluded that in a regular sized theater, you would have to be sitting in the first 6 rows to really notice the difference in 4K."


Check this page: http://magazine.crea...uture-of-pixels

Written by a much more trustworthy source than a Sony marketer...

Well even thought I agree that that article is very enlightening especially as it pertains to sensor technology, I really don't see how you can say this is a more "trustworthy" source? John Galt is from Panavision who as it so happens, stands to loose a lot of camera rentals if everyone suddenly starts thinking they need to use 4K. At the time of this writing they only had digital cameras cameras made by Sony. Also, I'd like to see what he says about 4K now a days. Panavisoin was the king of Hollywood up until the last 5 or so years before digital started making any kind of dent in their business (however tiny is may be). It's in their best interest to keep everyone thinking that they still make the best cameras. I'm not saying they don't, I'm just saying this is every bit marketing material as the Sony research is. It's an industry trying to justify their choices in technology.

Just saying.

[edit] The more I think about this, the more I feel like I'm probably being a little to harsh. Sorry folks.

[Ben McBride]

Again if we take the view that it is JUST content that is important, there's no motivation for filmmakers to put any artistry into their camera work and cinematography. A disaster.

If we take the view that it is JUST image quality that matters and that the camera is the most important thing, you lose the motivation to work on the content and just churn out pretty timelapses.

Is this balance so difficult for people to grasp?

Why is every argument in 2012 polarised, be it about cameras, politics, music, anything...

why you limit the "artistry" to Resolution? and why not make balance in resolution? I think a 48 fps real 2k image is more balanced than a 24 fps (maybe fake) 4k. why not interprete "more is better" as bigger pixel area, which leads to more dynamic range and S/N ratio?
I dont have any problem with 4k or 6k or 8k. good for hollywood, they have no issue buying hundreds terrabyte of storage for their RAW multimilion dollar projects. but for me, if %99 of my content is going to be viewd on phablets and tablets, 1080p is enough. I prefer whinning about deficencies like DR and color noise

[Will Turner]

Again if we take the view that it is JUST content that is important, there's no motivation for filmmakers to put any artistry into their camera work and cinematography. A disaster.

If we take the view that it is JUST image quality that matters and that the camera is the most important thing, you lose the motivation to work on the content and just churn out pretty timelapses.

Is this balance so difficult for people to grasp?

Why is every argument in 2012 polarised, be it about cameras, politics, music, anything...

Because western culture is based upon binary oppositions. Middle grounds do not exist within our thinking.

I know this is not that relevant to the article but when I saw the shot on the article it just struck me. Male gaze!

Haha excellent!

[Xiong]

Real world wise, it doesnt really matter. Because every theater is different, there is no "one way" to have the proper experience at a theater. Heck it even differs room to room in a theater. I think we shouldnt be pushing 2k or 4k, we need to push theaters to calibrate their theaters correctly, its no point having 4K if you cant see anything...

Seriously, awhile back I watched The Raid and the projection was absolutely garbage. Just to be curious I snuck in to another showing, and it was significantly better. It turned into a luck of the draw to me now when ever I go see a flick, crossing my fingers and hoping I get a good room with good calibration....

Someone needs to make it the standard, similar to what Lucas did with THX.

[kirk]

Calibrating projectors is not a new issue either... When we bought our old cinema/house where we live, I had a talk with the aging projectionist who used to run the theater (now unfortunately deceased)... he told me that for moody, romantic movies he used to change to older, less sharp projector lenses and defocus the mirror behind the arc light to get a little vignetting, just to set the mood... For crispness he would dig out the Möller lenses, get the light as bright and focused as possible ... but as he said "if we get a badly copied movie, nothing helps"... The quality was best in summer, when his wife would wash and bleach the cotton screen...

[Axel]

Because back then, cinema was all emotion and sensations, not about 'technical specs' ...

[zephyrnoid]

As the inventor of HTPO and a human factors professional by trade, it's really encouraging for me to see the work of our industry finally being recognised for its value in the real world.
Indeed, the article is really only part of the story. Intresting aspects that were only touched on or were not cited...

• Note that 4K appears to have a greater impact on 4K ready TV than in theaters. There's an excellent reason for that. As we learned from the article, the wider the scan field of the visual system, the more 'work' it has to do to compile a mosaic of the whole scree,. The smaller (yet closer) the screen, the less work in building a mosaic and this tends to promote the perception of higher resolution
• Now that the 'cat is out of the bag' with reference to viewing distances and how that impacts the perception of resolution, will we see differentiation in ticket prices depending on distances from the screen? We should !
• Andrew astutely notes that he still appreciates classic film, even with all it's technical on-screen degradation. This is a key point as it underscores the importance of everything else related to film making– besides the fundamental resolution. However, not all movies are epic narratives. Some movies are technical or commercial– and those movies benefit hugely from higher perceived resolutions.