Thread: Best article on resolution ever

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11  
    Senior Member shijan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Odesa, UA
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by stip View Post
    I'd wish for very good upscale algorithms in Resolve, something like the After Effects' detail-preserving upscale. Even as it is right now though, rendering HD/2K sources to 4k masters gives much better results when played back in HD. Not sure whether the moment of upscaling during workflow matters.
    Resolve uses Sharpen resize method by default. It preserves details better than common Bicubic method.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    632
    I've been using the After Effects new upscaling tool to get Pocket footage to 4K to see how it looks when I need to cut it into something being mastered at 4K. It looks pretty good to me.

    Resolution is just one of the qualifiers for whether an image meets the technical and aesthetic needs of a project. Sometimes people love to take shots at RED that they only care about marketing their resolution numbers. Although that has been part of their claim to fame, the bigger part in my opinion has been REDcode. We would all love uncompressed images but sometimes the tradeoff is too much in terms of data size. REDcode was a smart move by RED. They knew that uncompressed would be unwieldy for a lot of people and their early tests indicated that many couldn't spot the differences without pixel peeping. In 2017, I think their focus is on not only the "k" number but also refining their color science, improving the tools that interface with the cameras, and pushing into new territories (Hydrogen) that can impact a wider customer base.

    Arri will be hitting the market with a new higher resolution sensor in the near future and whatever the "k" number is most will judge it based on the image, not just the "k". To me, that's what matters most, does eveything add up to an image that fulfills your needs? Whether it's film, IMAX, Alexa, RED or a BMPCC does it deliver everything you need to make the movie, tv show, music video, corporate video, wedding video that you want.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member Timothy Cook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by Asyndeton View Post
    This thread is a good source of information about Resolve's input and output sizing: http://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/i...17/#post-46663

    Also want to note that if your source footage is 4K 16:9 and you set your timeline resolution to 1080 16:9, then render out your footage at 4K 16:9, you're essentially 'up-scaling' your footage. So you want to make sure your timeline resolution matches whatever your final deliverable should be. You usually won't notice the difference unless you A/B the images back-to-back, but it will be slightly softer if you're timeline resolution is down-scaling the footage and you up-scale it again while rendering out. My normal workflow is to make my timeline resolution the 1080 equivalent of the source footage's aspect ratio to be less taxing on the machine and change it to the final deliverable's specs when delivering. Any windows and tracking information will properly scale as long as it's the same aspect ratio.

    That said, I've been enjoying Yedlin's tests as they're super educational. His older Alexa vs 35mm test, the footage between the two is nearly indistinguishable.
    Thanks Darren, Ill definitely keep that in mind when I start working with more 4K footage that I change resolution scaling. As of right now I mostly deal in 1920 and scale it to 3840. I always adjust the time line resolution in project settings at the beginning of my project creation, and keep it at that resolution all the way through export.

    Thanks for the link too, I'll read up on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Timothy Cook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    871
    And just a concept to ponder/consider.

    I have a perception that I'm really starting to believe now as I get older and coming across more and more people that conflict with each other on what they are visually seeing, even more now that I've transitioned into the film world.

    A comment I posted on the BMD page. Read it or not, but the main jest of what I'm trying to convey is, 'The problem with all these resolution and color demos is that we are assuming that everyone on the planet resolve details and color at the exact same level. And we don't.' Read my post for more insight and my personal experience.

    https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/v...=61931#p352575
    Last edited by Timothy Cook; 07-26-2017 at 11:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy Cook View Post
    And just a concept to ponder/consider.

    I have a perception that I'm really starting to believe now as I get older and coming across more and more people that conflict with each other on what they are visually seeing, even more now that I've transitioned into the film world.

    A comment I posted on the BMD page. Read it or not, but the main jest of what I'm trying to convey is, 'The problem with all these resolution and color demos is that we are assuming that everyone on the planet resolve details and color at the exact same level. And we don't.' Read my post for more insight and my personal experience.

    https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/v...=61931#p352575
    I just read your post. I agree with it for sure, and I definitely think there are varying levels of ability when it comes to detecting audio and visual differences.

    My issue is with this statement "You never know what someone is really seeing, and have to take them for their word".

    I've been on forums long enough to see tons of people claiming all kinds of things. Inevitably when there's a blind test of sorts, the proof is the in the pudding and it turns out many of those people can't detect the differences they claim. So while you might actually be someone who is capable, it isn't the case with everyone, even if they *think* they are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member Frank Glencairn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,830
    Yeah, remember when they blind tested $1000 HiFi cables vs. coat hangers?

    All the "audiophiles" and "HiFi experts" totally failed, to tell them apart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    235
    Finally got a chance to watch the video. Really great. I love how the grain of film just destroyed its resolution. However I disagree with the assessment that Film halation causes lower perceived resolution. I think it's the opposite. The falloff of the film stock's halation gave the edges on the subject matter a softer gradual rolloff, which gives you better perceived resolution because that is how halation should look like, gradual, not sharp and jaggedy like the halation on the digital sensors.
    Last edited by TheInternet; 09-13-2017 at 07:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    162
    Sorry for the bump, but this was great. I think most of this was common knowledge for us low budget folks. Anyone who has compared 5D footage or RED footage to other cameras knows that actual resolution can differ drastically from the pixel count.

    I did love seeing all the cameras side by side, though. That was a treat. I wish he had included a 2K camera rather than down-sampling, just out of curiosity, but I realize Hollywood hasn't used those in ages (not counting Alexa's down-sampled ProRes).

    The biggest surprise was how crazy sharp the Arri 65 is. My jaw dropped. I'm admittedly not a huge fan of sharp imagery for the cinema. Modern cinema glass, even when coupled with film, is just so sharp and contrasty that I feel it harms my suspension of disbelief somehow. But that's a personal feeling and obviously tack sharp is the way things are headed. So if that's what you want, plus the ability to reframe, I'd pick the Arri 65 10 times out of 10.

    One thing Steve didn't address is that our perception of resolution becomes a lot less acute when the images are in motion. He made his point with still images, but it becomes 10 times stronger when you add motion. Assuming you stick to standard framerates (24-30) and standard shutter-angle (180), motion-blur and the motion itself will likely negate 80% of added resolution above 2K. We may end up seeing a second push for HFR because of this.

    Thanks for sharing Frank!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    729
    I hope frame rates stay right where they are — I already feel weird monitoring a 60p shot with my Micro camera (For slow motion, I swear)! I'm still very happy with my 1080p workflow and don't see the need to upgrade...at least anytime soon, anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Frank Glencairn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,830
    Quote Originally Posted by RyLo View Post
    One thing Steve didn't address is that our perception of resolution becomes a lot less acute when the images are in motion. He made his point with still images, but it becomes 10 times stronger when you add motion. Assuming you stick to standard framerates (24-30) and standard shutter-angle (180), motion-blur and the motion itself will likely negate 80% of added resolution above 2K. We may end up seeing a second push for HFR because of this.
    Not only that. Besides the fact a lot of folks judging black and white still shots of charts, which is totally meaningless for a ton of reasons, most of them completely forget the "post production" that takes place in the human brain, which has a way bigger impact on your experience than resolution or anything else.

    The "movie magic" like in emotional connection to the story/characters and real immersion, only works by keeping the information under a certain threshold, and engage your brain to fill in the blanks.
    24ish fps seems to be the sweet spot here.

    I think temporal resolution makes a bigger difference than pixel resolution, also because the ability to experience higher pixel resolution is limited by our eyes anyway.
    So even if they throw more pixels at you, you not gonna notice anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Great article about 4.6k UM
    By renegadewill in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-10-2016, 01:37 PM
  2. Fangoria did an article on my film.
    By cineman in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-20-2014, 10:38 AM
  3. American Cinematographer article
    By scorsesefan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-23-2014, 03:31 PM
  4. Article: Why You Can't Use S16 Lenses with BMCC
    By Charlie Doom in forum Lens Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-10-2013, 12:08 AM
  5. ARTICLE: BMC - First Impressions
    By Stephen Mick in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-27-2012, 09:24 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •