6K RAW is over-rated. Here's why...

[kye]

7 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

No your test wasn't right.  You show two video clips and say one was cropped in.  Redo the test the right way and maybe you have point.  Math is also not on your side.  Use RAW footage and see what happens.  The footage you used is not very detailed and very little areas are in focus. That was not a real world test and the footage looked the same.

I give up.  Do the tests yourself and prove me wrong.

[User]

In the meantime...

I'm reminded of how some folks are making the most of a camera.

Onward!

 

[kye]

48 minutes ago, User said:

In the meantime...

I'm reminded of how some folks are making the most of a camera.

Onward!

I used to think that was a great film, but now I realise that it's unwatchable because it wasn't shot in 6K...  ???

It's absolute magic and filmed like a love letter from a madman.

[User]

8 hours ago, kye said:

I used to think that was a great film, but now I realise that it's unwatchable because it wasn't shot in 6K...  ???

It's absolute magic and filmed like a love letter from a madman.

Ha. Exactly

I certainly love the camera tech side.... but at the end of the century, it is these well crafted 'love letters' that will be remembered not the sensor size etc. But we know this.

Lets just be sure to spend some time in the field... and amongst the waves. I say this for me as much as anyone else here.

Now... let the pixel debate rage on!

[Skip77]

You are 100% correct in suggesting that people get caught up in the tech side instead of creating art.

 Two reasons why this happens. 

1) Most major cities don't have camera stores that we can physically see and talk about what we're buying.  We used to rely on very knowledge camera professional that worked in camera stores for years and years. It used to be a great place to explore and find out about gear.  

2) Most photographers and videographers (this includes DP's) do not look at the gear they have or want, in a way to create anything at all. Not art. Not content like the "dark Side of The Lens".  This is understandable. I am guilty of this my self. I use my gear to make money and support my family. I do take photo's of the family and always try and capture who they are in the photographs. But I rarely create art like I did when I was an art student.  The art of creating art is lost in the confusion of You Tube and gear talk and debates. Creating art is a secret club and it not talked about. 

My daughter is a true artist and naturally wants to explore and create.  Phillip Bloom comes off as an artist. Why? Because he's not just pointing the camera and hitting record. Wherever he's shooting at he's capturing the moment but it's intentional and thought out. You can tell he's inspired by the masters of film. 

I went into a real art supply store last week and it had been 20 years since I had been in one. It was great to see they were still around.

Everyone can learn and create art. You just have to be honest enough to admit what you don't know and honest enough to learn. 

[thebrothersthre3]

I wouldn't say overrated as I don't think anyone is over hyped about 6k. 

[kye]

Did this test to see how visible resolution differences are.

The method was I started with an 8K RAW clip from a RED Helium and exported it to Prores HQ at 4K, 3.2K, 2.5K, 2K, and 720p, then added the original and the exports back into a 4K timeline for comparison.

Here's the export on YT:

Here is the h.264 export download link: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_6462598

and here is the Prores LT export download link: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_6462579

I'm not convinced there is much difference until you're approaching 2K or 2.5K.

[EthanAlexander]

On 8/11/2019 at 1:51 AM, Skip77 said:

the footage looked the same.

You just proved his whole point ?

[thebrothersthre3]

21 hours ago, kye said:

Did this test to see how visible resolution differences are.

The method was I started with an 8K RAW clip from a RED Helium and exported it to Prores HQ at 4K, 3.2K, 2.5K, 2K, and 720p, then added the original and the exports back into a 4K timeline for comparison.

Here's the export on YT:

Here is the h.264 export download link: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_6462598

and here is the Prores LT export download link: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_6462579

I'm not convinced there is much difference until you're approaching 2K or 2.5K.

You definitely see the difference. 

[kye]

7 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

You just proved his whole point ?

Whose whole point?

2 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

You definitely see the difference. 

Between what and what?

I'm curious what setups you guys are looking at this footage on?  and which file were you looking at?

I'm simply testing the theory that sub-4K resolution is a desirable factor that the people who like the 'filmic / cinematic / classic' look of the Alexa or 1080 BM cameras.  If you guys are fans of the highest resolution image possible and are looking at these videos on huge displays then that makes sense.  If I zoom in to 100% of the original in Resolve I don't see any significant difference, or a difference that I really care about.  This is probably taste though.

[EthanAlexander]

10 minutes ago, kye said:

Whose whole point?

Yours

[kye]

5 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said:

Yours

Ah!  Sorry - my brain just caught up  

[barefoot_dp]

On 9/24/2019 at 9:56 AM, kye said:

Did this test to see how visible resolution differences are.

The method was I started with an 8K RAW clip from a RED Helium and exported it to Prores HQ at 4K, 3.2K, 2.5K, 2K, and 720p, then added the original and the exports back into a 4K timeline for comparison.

Here's the export on YT:

Here is the h.264 export download link: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_6462598

and here is the Prores LT export download link: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_6462579

I'm not convinced there is much difference until you're approaching 2K or 2.5K.

I haven't downloaded the video to watch it at full res but, based on your comments, I think this video actually goes against your initial argument. All this video does is show that a higher quality source (eg 8K or 6K raw) can have benefits even when delivering at much smaller resolutions. That is why you're not seeing much difference - the source files allow down-scaling which creates better 4K or 2K than what we are used to seeing from 4K or 2K/1080p cameras.
 

[KnightsFan]

I just downloaded the H264 version. I haven't had time put it on my 4k TV, but what I find amazing is that the fine grain is noticeably softer on the 2k intermediate version compared to the 4k and 8k, even visible on my 1080p monitor. In your final side by side comparison, the fine grain on the table in the foreground is GONE by 2.5k!

A minor point though is that 70 mbps isn't really enough to show extremely fine detail. If the bitrate isn't high enough to contain all the data, the high frequency detail gets smudged first. That's not even as high a data rate as Sony's famously weak 4k codecs! And ProRes LT will almost certainly have worse spatial resolution at these rates.

None of that is to disagree with your overall point. Past 1080p I really see diminishing returns on the story impact, though I do see technical differences even on a normal viewing such as this.

[thebrothersthre3]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Whose whole point?

Between what and what?

I'm curious what setups you guys are looking at this footage on?  and which file were you looking at?

I'm simply testing the theory that sub-4K resolution is a desirable factor that the people who like the 'filmic / cinematic / classic' look of the Alexa or 1080 BM cameras.  If you guys are fans of the highest resolution image possible and are looking at these videos on huge displays then that makes sense.  If I zoom in to 100% of the original in Resolve I don't see any significant difference, or a difference that I really care about.  This is probably taste though.

I want to see I definitely see a difference in sharpness at 2.5k compared to 8k and the difference is pretty prominent by the time you get to 1k. Without seeing side by side it would be hard indeed though.

[kye]

5 hours ago, barefoot_dp said:

I haven't downloaded the video to watch it at full res but, based on your comments, I think this video actually goes against your initial argument. All this video does is show that a higher quality source (eg 8K or 6K raw) can have benefits even when delivering at much smaller resolutions. That is why you're not seeing much difference - the source files allow down-scaling which creates better 4K or 2K than what we are used to seeing from 4K or 2K/1080p cameras.

I agree that oversampling creates an IQ benefit, no doubt, and of course downscaling to 2K gives 4:4:4 colour whereas a 1080p sensor does not, so it's not a perfect simulation.

However, my original point was that you can take a lower resolution and sharpen it a little and it's indistinguishable from a higher resolution with no sharpening.  This test is a little different in that there's no processing to try and match them visually - this is just a "here's what they all look like" test, and we see what we see and make our own conclusions.  

I draw the conclusions that between 4K and 2K there is very little difference, and if we're comparing 8K with 2K there absolutely isn't a 16x difference!!

2 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I want to see I definitely see a difference in sharpness at 2.5k compared to 8k and the difference is pretty prominent by the time you get to 1k. Without seeing side by side it would be hard indeed though.

That's my impression - without seeing them side-by-side you wouldn't really look at good quality (or RAW) 2K and be completely disappointed by it.

[thebrothersthre3]

11 hours ago, kye said:

I agree that oversampling creates an IQ benefit, no doubt, and of course downscaling to 2K gives 4:4:4 colour whereas a 1080p sensor does not, so it's not a perfect simulation.

However, my original point was that you can take a lower resolution and sharpen it a little and it's indistinguishable from a higher resolution with no sharpening.  This test is a little different in that there's no processing to try and match them visually - this is just a "here's what they all look like" test, and we see what we see and make our own conclusions.  

I draw the conclusions that between 4K and 2K there is very little difference, and if we're comparing 8K with 2K there absolutely isn't a 16x difference!!

That's my impression - without seeing them side-by-side you wouldn't really look at good quality (or RAW) 2K and be completely disappointed by it.

Thats on my 24in monitor, it may be more visible on a 55in 4K TV. 

I'll say at 24in there is really no difference between a 4k and HD monitor. 

[Mokara]

On 9/24/2019 at 11:41 PM, kye said:

I agree that oversampling creates an IQ benefit, no doubt, and of course downscaling to 2K gives 4:4:4 colour whereas a 1080p sensor does not, so it's not a perfect simulation.

However, my original point was that you can take a lower resolution and sharpen it a little and it's indistinguishable from a higher resolution with no sharpening.  This test is a little different in that there's no processing to try and match them visually - this is just a "here's what they all look like" test, and we see what we see and make our own conclusions.  

I draw the conclusions that between 4K and 2K there is very little difference, and if we're comparing 8K with 2K there absolutely isn't a 16x difference!!

That's my impression - without seeing them side-by-side you wouldn't really look at good quality (or RAW) 2K and be completely disappointed by it.

Well, no, because 8k is 4x 2k, not 16x. You see differences in dimensions, not areas. And in any case, if you are watching both on a small 2K screen the differences will be minor because it will all be 2K. More precisely, the 8k will be 2k, while the 2k will be ~1.4k after debeyering. On a larger 2K panel you will see a difference.

Moving over to a 4K screen the 8k will be 4k, and the 2k still ~1.4k. Try watching something shot on a camera like the HF-G30, which has a 2K sensor but is effectively about 700 lines of resolution after debeyering, then compare that with 2k from an oversampled sensor. The differences are obvious, even on fairly TV panels.

Moving on further to a modern 8k screen there will be an even bigger difference, especially since those screens tend to be very large and the differences will be obvious.

I have a NX1, which shoots a 6k image oversampled down to 4k. I also have a G30, and the IQ difference between those two cameras is massive when viewed on a 4K panel. No amount of sharpening on the G30 can compensate (and that is ignoring all the purple blooming you get from light scattering on the beyer filter of small sensors).

[kye]

41 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Well, no, because 8k is 4x 2k, not 16x. You see differences in dimensions, not areas. And in any case, if you are watching both on a small 2K screen the differences will be minor because it will all be 2K. More precisely, the 8k will be 2k, while the 2k will be ~1.4k after debeyering. On a larger 2K panel you will see a difference.

Moving over to a 4K screen the 8k will be 4k, and the 2k still ~1.4k. Try watching something shot on a camera like the HF-G30, which has a 2K sensor but is effectively about 700 lines of resolution after debeyering, then compare that with 2k from an oversampled sensor. The differences are obvious, even on fairly TV panels.

Moving on further to a modern 8k screen there will be an even bigger difference, especially since those screens tend to be very large and the differences will be obvious.

I have a NX1, which shoots a 6k image oversampled down to 4k. I also have a G30, and the IQ difference between those two cameras is massive when viewed on a 4K panel. No amount of sharpening on the G30 can compensate (and that is ignoring all the purple blooming you get from light scattering on the beyer filter of small sensors).

I think it's personal.  You're talking like I haven't tried it, and I have, and you seem to be convinced even though you haven't said that you've tried compensating with sharpening, so all I can say is to actually try it and let us know what you think after that.

I've tested it when shooting my own footage with the GH5 at 4K, watching it on my 32 inch 4K computer display.  I've tried it by downloading 8K RAW footage from a RED, downscaling it to a range of resolutions from 4K to 1.2K and then putting them all on a 4K timeline and playing with them in Resolve.

It's going to depend on how you see, what you pay attention to, what lenses you shoot with (most lenses are worse than people think), what codecs (RAW vs compressed), what post-production software you have, and how good you are at post-processing.

I'm not going to convince you by just talking at you - what I was hoping to do is to convince you to try it yourself by actually taking lower resolution footage and applying sharpening and seeing if you can match it.

[greenscreen]

You see the differences only when resolution is needed. Period.