Canon C Series Cameras: the 4k race is on.

[Janke]

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

... was shot 35mm anamorphic, so after the intermediate printing stages (interpositive and -negative) used for effects in 1981, the resolution on the final negative is well below 3000x2000 pixels.

Thus, anything larger than 4K is a waste of bits, and I'd say that even 2K or just 1920x1080 HD will resolve virtually anything on this negative.

If you go back to the camera original, and redo the effects digitally, you could get about 6000x4000 max. But that wouldn't be the same film anymore, would it?

[wwjd]

FILM people would hate you! hahahahaha
I believe what you say about the resolution, but some won't.
They can digitally clean stuff better though, so they should do that for us GRAIN HATERS

Until we are SEEING 4K with our own eyes, I don't think we can fathom how much better it will really look. HD is great, BUT you CAN still see pixels and lines of resolution. What if you couldn't? It would be AWESOME, that's what. I bet after we see it ourselves, in person, live, our jaws will drop and we'll start selling off our kids....

[Janke]

FILM people would hate you!

I am film people - been that for almost 40 years, and I don't hate myself, quite the contrary...

Until we are SEEING 4K with our own eyes

I have, on the only 4K screen in Finland. The footage was originated on 65mm Eastmancolor negative, then scanned in 4K and digitally projected - WOW!

Simple 35mm didn't look as nearly as good, even if scanned 4K.

[wwjd]

You are cinema film people? The "real film will always beat anything digital, all digital is from Satan, grain is king, and 24fps is the fastest we should go even though 60 is the minimum we actually see" film people?

4k TV or 4k Cinema projection? 35 doesn't look as good on 4k scan as it does live? Or 35 doesnt look as good as 65? I got confused on what you mean?

[Erik Bien]

I love the movie RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. If I get the chance to see it in 4K, 8K, 120k, or 50MegaK 3D holographic smellovision, before I die out, I'm all over it.

Then I presume you saw the recent limited engagement IMAX re-release, as I did? Looked pretty wonderful, but (having seen it from a 70mm print on Denver's then-largest screen some 30 times upon first release), I wasn't left entirely speechless ...

Until we are SEEING 4K with our own eyes, I don't think we can fathom how much better it will really look.

I have seen a few 4K projections, and it seems to take a pretty darned big screen to even be NOTICEABLE with average eyesight. Even seeing it cut side-by-side with 2K on a ~18 foot diagonal screen five rows back, I wasn't always able to tell. Forty-foot-plus cinema screen or a 50-inch panel at computer monitor distance it's a bit more obvious, and it looks GREAT, but clean digital 2K and 1080p look pretty good under those circumstances as well. For me, the "wow" of HD on a 1080 panel as compared to standard-def CRT was much bigger than the viewing improvement from 2K to 4K.

That said, acquisition and distribution are not the same thing: I'm in no hurry to have a 4K display, but I'd love to have a 4K camera.

[wwjd]

We didn't get the IMAX Indy movie here. But our IMAX is big curved dome anyway, and I didn't enjoy Batman at all that way and will never go back. That said, I know flat IMAX can look great. I have Indy on BluRay sitting at home, just waiting for the right night... pop corn, Dr. Pepper good to go! I can't wait! 60" KURO Plasma dialed in well.

I feel cinema projection is very different from home TV especially in the contrast department. Anywho, since my current HD camera rezzes out to acutally LESS than full 1920x1080p (per axtual pixels compared to a REAL 1920x1080 photo) I can see where more pixels will show more detail. IE the difference tween my HD cam and BluRay REAL HD for example.

[Erik Bien]

Yep: more pixels means not only can your camera record more true detail, it can do so with sufficient optical low-pass filtering to avoid aliasing. Shooting 4K for 2K/1080 finish using a Bayer-pattern sensor also means four camera photosites make up each display pixel, so you have full chroma sampling and more accurate color. And there are additional advantages for re-framing, VFX and other post-production manipulations.

[Janke]

4k TV or 4k Cinema projection? 35 doesn't look as good on 4k scan as it does live? Or 35 doesnt look as good as 65? I got confused on what you mean?

It was 4K digitally projected on a 15 ft cinema screen. Original was 65mm film negative.

35 can look good both on film and 4K, but 4K won't show much more than 2K.

Of course 65 looks better than 35 - if it is originated on 65.

70 mm blowups from 35 aren't too hot...

[jet]

Will 4k get rid of the dreaded moire/aliasing that all current video seems to have ?.

[Janke]

Will 4k get rid of the dreaded moire/aliasing that all current video seems to have ?.

If the camera sensor is native 4K, if it's 4:4:4, if no Bayer interpolation is done, and if there is a good anti-aliasing filter built into the sensor, then, yes - maybe...

Many ifs there!

[Krane]

Will 4k get rid of the dreaded moire/aliasing that all current video seems to have ?.

All videos don't have that. The AF-100 doesn't have it. I think you're referring to the DSLRs, which are inherently prone to those artifacts.

[Krane]

All videos don't have that. The AF-100 doesn't have it. I think you're referring to the DSLRs, which are inherently prone to those artifacts.

Here she is:

[wwjd]

$10,000 camera against a $1000 DSLR? I should hope it is better!

[Janke]

2:37-3:37 : Fortunately, most human faces don't have such skin afflictions...

[Dr. Benway]

$10,000 camera against a $1000 DSLR? I should hope it is better!

Aye. This sort of video is crap. It's just promotional material from Panasonic. You could light/choose scenes like these and film it with almost anything and say, 'Look how marvellous our camera is'.

[jet]

All videos don't have that. The AF-100 doesn't have it. I think you're referring to the DSLRs, which are inherently prone to those artifacts.

On tv last all programns had the dreaded m/a to some extent,the adverts and top dramas were better but it could still be seen at times.On tv it shows more than PC monitors.

[jet]

Here she is:

That test means little,if broadcasters made a tv programn with one and broadcast there would be m & a.

[wwjd]

back to topic.... Canon C500 is it? that is 4K? With the Canon DSLRs outputing FILES that are the proper resolution size, but the actual image (video sensor) resolution is NOT REALLY 1920x1080, does anyone know if this 4K Canon with have ACTUAL resolution equal to the 4k, or just the final FILE output being 4k sized? I'm kinda not trusting Canon now, and may look to others for 4k camera

[Erik Bien]

Here she is:

Catchy tune.


Also, now I want a Cosmo ...

[Krane]

back to topic.... Canon C500 is it? that is 4K? With the Canon DSLRs outputting FILES that are the proper resolution size, but the actual image (video sensor) resolution is NOT REALLY 1920x1080, does anyone know if this 4K Canon with have ACTUAL resolution equal to the 4k, or just the final FILE output being 4k sized? I'm kinda not trusting Canon now, and may look to others for 4k camera

As far as i know there is no 4k standard at the moment. Therefore, my 4k is as good as your 4k. The good thing about Canon is you don't need a bundle of proprietary software to make use of it. What say RED and/or Arri?

[wwjd]

Doesn't Red and Arri have much better output though? Like the RAW 4:4:4 etc? If you need special stuff to access the highest quality, well, so be it. I can barely process HD video on my CURRENT system and 4K runs at like 1 frame every 10 seconds!!! hahahhaa

[Erik Bien]

As far as i know there is no 4k standard at the moment. Therefore, my 4k is as good as your 4k.

So far as theatrical exhibition is concerned, there's been a 4K DCP standard for a few years now. As for 4K TV, that's also set to change shortly.

Regarding the C500, there's at least one company making a 4K outboard recorder for it. AFAIK it remains to be seen whether the measured resolution coming out of the 3G-SDI spigots is worth the effort, though.

The good thing about Canon is you don't need a bundle of proprietary software to make use of it. What say RED and/or Arri?

At the moment I'd say the simplicity edge goes to RED, only because their .R3D 4K (and beyond) compressed raw file format has been in wide use long enough that it's now very well supported by NLE and other post software. You can cut the stuff on a laptop, using a lower-res preview if need be to keep things real-time, on just about every platform now. I tend to chuckle at the various "uncompressed 4K raw" recording solutions: sure, it's a somewhat impressive engineering feat just to achieve the necessary sustained write speed, but the sheer volume of data is a serious obstacle. IMHO that's why Sony's F65 never caught on: DPs loved the image and didn't mind the bloated form factor (that's what camera assistants are for), but producers were scared off by the data footprint.

[Erik Bien]

I have seen a few 4K projections, and it seems to take a pretty darned big screen to even be NOTICEABLE with average eyesight. Even seeing it cut side-by-side with 2K on a ~18 foot diagonal screen five rows back, I wasn't always able to tell. Forty-foot-plus cinema screen or a 50-inch panel at computer monitor distance it's a bit more obvious, and it looks GREAT, but clean digital 2K and 1080p look pretty good under those circumstances as well. For me, the "wow" of HD on a 1080 panel as compared to standard-def CRT was much bigger than the viewing improvement from 2K to 4K.

Reviving this thread as there's a new article on c|net which uses the known limits of human vision and a bit of math to demonstrate why 4K TVs are stupid. Stu at ProLost agrees.

Based on my own experience, I'd say 4K displays need to be both humungous and viewed at uncomfortably close range before most people can even distinguish the difference from 2K source material (I don't know about anyone else, but I don't normally watch TV at laptop distance). I don't deny 4K is great for true theatrical projection, but even home theater projectors are awaiting some new transformative technology like plasma or lasers to be able to fill a big enough screen with a bright enough image that the benefits can be appreciated at real world viewing distances.

I still want a 4K camera, though ...