The Hobbit - Page 19

kind of like the networks and tv content providers not giving us the full pq that hdtvs are capable of displaying.

Yes because we all know how important megapixels are to PQ. First of all single chip cmos cameras doesnt have 5K resolution if they have a 5K sensor. Because it can only use 50% of its cells to reproduce green, 25% red and 25% blue. The data is then interpolated to achive 5K.

Also image quality is more then just resolution. Several cameras have been using CCD instead CMOS. How do you judge PQ between different technologys? Color reproduction, signal to noise ratio, highlights etc.

Actual shooting conditions, go out and buy a DSLR and take some pictures with it. Resolution will be very different from picture to picture, because resolution is very dependet on your lens settings. So while you in theory can achive 4K resolution, real world shooting conditions can prevent you from taking advatange of 4K.

So in the end you have several cameras to choose between. They all have their pros and cons. The one you should use for your project is the one best create the look you want, it doesnt matter if the camera is 2K, 4K or even 16K. If it cant produce the look in 2K, it wont produce it in 4K either.

Some people does understand how important megapixels are for better image quality, but some people clueless people obviously don't.
The "2K is good enough" argument is like saying; "that 70mm film 50 years ago was a useless mistake and so has IMAX been".
I don't think anybody would agree with that.

Is that some kind of argument against 5K cameras compared to 2K cameras?. The 2K cameras by the same argument end up with closer to 1K resolution in the end.
All the 5K+ cameras end up with more than 4K measurable resolution subsampled to true 4K.
If more than four times the resolution on the screen compared to what comes from a 2K camera doesn't make a difference in all parts of image quality (remember we talk large screen projection), then real life would look as pixelated as movie screen image.


No camera manufacturer uses CCD any more for cameras where image quality is important. Even Sony, long time "CMOS basher" ditched CCD for their latest cinema camera. NHK's newest 8K broadcast camera is also CMOS.
CCD is dead in the world of high quality cameras. The reason is obvious.


Having owned 2 megapixel camera in the -90's and now own 18 megapixel camera, and between those both film cameras and other digital megapixel cameras. Scanned a lot of photo film. Can access my 2 megapixel photos from the -90's.
Even if higher megapixel photos only can be seen downsampled to 2MP (PC/TV monitor) I promise you that higher megapixel win in all parameters. Both in Color reproduction, detail reproduction and sharpness, and in flexibility when one want to do adjustments on the image.
The 2MP camera image fall apart as soon as some adjustments are applied.

The only people still using 2MP cameras today are the people that make images for big screen display, like movie makers and broadcast.
Everybody else, people that usually only see their images in small sizes, from high fashion and advertising photography to people with "point'n shoot" and camera phones have higher megapixels than the "big screen display shooters".
This show that something is very wrong in the world of movie making.


Of course, if you think 2K is the "end of the road", then why use 2K?
0.5K should be as good if that kind of argument had any basis in reality.
If you think that 2K can produce the same look as 4K then it must be that you "dumb down" the 4K look to look like 2K.
The versatility and flexibility to create something in 4K that you can't produce in 2K is a fact. The 2K image will fall apart long before the 4K look is achieved.

iPhone4 screen is 329 PPI
50" HDTV is 44 PPI
50" 4K TV is 88 PPI
a 15 meter wide cinema screen in 2K is 3.15 PPI
a 15 meter wide cinema screen in 4K is 6.29 PPI
If that difference in Pixel per Inch does not demonstrate the easy understandable logic of the impact resolution (MP/PPI) has on image quality, nothing will.
Ten years from now the discussion will be all about "is 8K good enough", and 2K will be seen as the big historical mistake it was to use it for movie making.

But let's not derail this thread further, this argument (2K vs. 4K) is discussed many other places on the forum.

Some part of this "Hobbit" thread argues HFR vs. 24fps.

Watch the first part of this video and the small glimpse of a split screen demo between a IMAX 70mm film projection and a 11K scan of the film downsampled to 4K and projected digitally side by side. They are still both 24fps, but it clearly demonstrate what your brain has to "hide" in a film projection compared to the digital version at higher refresh-rate, and how this will be further improved by higher framerate.

(at 0:44)

Isn't that only in luminance - not necessarily >=4K for every colour (since don't bayer sensors only have half the red/blue as they do green photosites)?

Actually resolution comes in as number 4 on the list on what makes good PQ. And more pixels comes with a downside, Noise.


Is resolution the only advantage 70mm and Imax has?


That depends on how they build the 2K camera, and what format it records to.



Only in luma, not in chroma.


Real life is not projected true a lens on a silverscreen.


There are several reason to go with cmos technology. But the technology hasnt been without problem, like the lack of global shutters, or the terrible color reproduction that red one had.



So your modern 18mp camera beats your 2mp camera from the 90s. That was suprising, even more that you compare them on a 2K monitor.


No it shows that consumers have no clue what they buy. Its easier to compare megapixels on smartphones, then it is to compare the lens on camera.


Star trek looked fine on the big screen with its 2K master. Can you show me any digital camera that can produce the same PQ?


You forgot one factor, screen distance. If you sit as close to the silverscreen in a theater, as you sit to your iphone some dude will smack you down.


In ten years the discussion will be why they arnt making any good movies anymore, wait a sec...


That was a long post to say that.

That as you know, becomes a long and technical discussion which is discussed in detail on many forums.
It is not really an argument that can be used comparing 2K to 4K as the same resolution loss will happen whether it is a 2K sensor or a 4K sensor, and the resolution loss is even larger with CCD because of the misalignment of the sensors.

If you really want to dig into and read detailed discussions on this you can start here, and read about resolution and measurements. Becomes interesting at the linked page 7; http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdc...-vs-red-7.html
Also some here from the Red forum about Demosaicing; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...cing-Questions
Here's even a discussion of Red vs Genesis vs Alexa if it is of interest; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...nesis-vs-Alexa


You continue posting this old interview from 2009 every time there is a resolution discussion like as if the title is a fact.
The opinions in this piece is so full of misrepresentations and dubious claims that nobody regard is as having much value.
The guy is trying to defend his involvement in development of the single CCD camera, the Panavision Genesis/Sony F35, by bashing CMOS and has been on this "quest" since 2004. He even supposedly talked Sony from making it a 4K camera, which they wanted.
Sony defended CCD for a long time and used him as a "technical alibi" but later saw their error, developed and now sells the Sony F65 "20MP" CMOS camera.

Let him stand today in a 2K vs. 4K split-screen projection and defend his standpoints.

It is very strange for me to see the amount of resistance to 4K and higher resolution both here and on the forums film makers frequent.
When we where promised High Definition everybody seemed to be excited, but now when we are promised even better quality, the reactions seems almost proportionally opposite.
It is surreal!

PS; 15th of April NHK did a 8K terrestrial (UHF) broadcast of 4.2 kilometre distance successfully at 183.6Mbps. via google translate; http://translate.google.com/translat...ml%3Fref%3Drss

Everybody that want to stick to HD TV and 2K film in the future, you are very welcome to it.
Nobody will take your HD TV's away from you. Just remember to stack up on them, they might be impossible to buy at some point.

The problem with 4K in theaters - not all patrons will see the increase in resolution versus 2K - it depends on where you sit in the theater. It has already been proven there is a "sweet spot" and sitting outside of that shows very little if any increase in resolution.

And BTW - 4K does NOT have 4X the resolution of 2K. It has 4X the pixels. Movies are made up of moving images, not a single static image like one taken with a SLR camera. HD - 2MP has 6X the pixel count per image of DVD, but it's resolution is only 2X; 900 lines versus 450 lines. The difference between 2K and 4K is even less.

Digital Cinema's Special K

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/node/44657


4K for the home:

This is what native 4K home cinema looks like on Sony's VPL-VW1000ES projector


http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/17/s...tor-native-4k/

How are you going to get people to invest big bucks in 4K for the home if all they see is a "subtle" difference?

I have nothing against 4K, 8K etc as long as other aspects of the image doesnt get hurt for the quest for more pixels.

You must look at the big picture. PQ is not just about pixels. Filmmaking is not just about PQ.

Lets say some director wants to shoot a movie, were he is going to use over and undercrank for some shoots. How many frames does the different cameras give him?

How do they handle highlights?

How do they handle colors?

How easy are them to use?

Low light?

Its not just a descision of 2K and 4K, its about the whole package.

On the subject of frame rate, video and the "soap opera look," my son and I have been going through the Twilight Zone original series on Blu-Ray. Anyone who owns this series knows how amazing it looks. On our big projection screen the series, shot originally on film, is razor sharp with incredible detail.

Then suddenly as we chose the next episode (part way through season 2) it looked decidedly different...just awful...and I realised we were watching video. Then I remembered "Aw damn! That's right, at some point they switched to shooting on video in this series."

It was just about unwatchable to me. What was interesting was that the video source had substantially less image detail and clarity, yet nonetheless looked "more real" in just the type of way that subverted it's believability. It was no longer a convincing other world. It was unvarnished, not artistic looking, actors on a set. Motion was now smoother, in that video-vs-film fashion. So despite the fact the film-source material was MUCH more detailed and sharp, it was actually the higher frame rate video source that felt "too real" and thus not convincing and cheap.

Weird stuff. It was quite hard to sit through and the next episode we watched was back to film. Aaaahhhh...

You traded visual resolution for temporal resolution (one second of time sliced into 60 samples instead of 24 samples). Now imagine if the visual resolution had stayed the same as the film-based episodes of Twilight Zone, but you also got the increased temporal resolution. If the image quality didn't decrease, would the smoother motion still bother you?

Yes, that was the point of my post.


My suspicion is that the "too real" effect would have gotten even worse - as it does with Blu-Ray movies using frame interpolation.

Editorial: Despite shaky 48 fps Hobbit preview, high frame rates will take off


http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/28/e...h-frame-rates/

BOLD: I am not aware of any HFR IMAX 3D films. IMAX HD (48 FPS) was a 2D presentation (1992's MOMENTUM - 20 minutes) . IMO, the "theme-park ride" he is referring to is T2: Battle Across Time which was shot and shown in 3D 70mm @ 30 FPS - not really "HFR."

THE HOBBIT, Production Video #7

Just the scale of pre-planning and logistics on this movie is mind blowing in itself. Then you are going to make a functional and good movie(s) out of it. Impressive feat!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey release date is on December 13, but World premiere will be November 28 in Wellington, NZ.

http://youtu.be/YCpxMOvMgns


Edited by coolscan - 6/6/12 at 9:30am

Principal Photography Finished!


http://screenrant.com/hobbit-movies-production-comic-con-sandy-185023/

GREAT!

Now release the damn thing!

Sure - tomorrow . . . no post production work. No editing . . . you'll love it!

December 14, 2012.

PJ doesn't need no stinkin' post...and he surely doesn't need to edit.

If he doesn't want to be laughed off the face of the planet . . . he does.

If that were the case, why did he make King Kong?

Seems to have done well at the BO:

Domestic: $218,080,025 39.6%
+ Foreign: $332,437,332 60.4%

= Worldwide: $550,517,357

New poster.

(click-able thumbnail - for full size)

That looks real nice coolscan!

I watched the superior version yesterday morning. I hope this remake is good. Rankin/Bass are masters.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey; 'The Scroll' (8871 x 1195 pixel)

(right click - open in new tab for full size - click on image)


Another link; http://www.ew.com/ew/special/0,,20399642_20610399,00.html
Edited by coolscan - 7/10/12 at 3:43am

i can see the soe already


lol

He didnt had that opinion the first time, since he went a head and showed the clips in 48fps despite that it wasnt the best way of experience 48fps. I guess they wernt prepared for the backlash it would generate.

PJ has a habit of doing stuff like that....

Your quote doesn't include this