Christopher Nolan

[andy lee]

more from John Galt - Everyone on this thread should read this ! It explains alot of the myth!

[b]John Galt:[/b] "Pixel" is an unfortunate term, because it has been hijacked.
Historically, 2K and 4K referred to the output of a line array scanner scanning film, so that for each frame scanned at 4K, you wind up with four thousand red pixels, four thousand green and four thousand blue.
For motion picture camera sensors, the word "pixel" is kind of complicated. In the old days, there was a one-to-one relationship between photosites and pixels. Any of the high-end high definition video cameras, they had 3 sensors: one 1 red, a green and a blue photosite to create 1 RGB pixel.
But what we have seen particularly with these Bayer pattern cameras is that they are basically sub-sampled chroma cameras. In other words they have half the number of color pixels as they do luminance And the luminance is what they call green typically. So what happens is you have two green photo sites for every red and blue.
So how do get RGB out of that? What do you have to do is, you have to interpolate the red and the blues to match the greens. So you are basically creating, interpolating, what wasn't there, you're imagining what it is, what its going to be. Thats essentially what it is. You can do this extremely well, particularly if the green response is very broad.
Well 4K in the world of the professionals who do this, and you say "4K," it means you have 4096 red, 4096 green and 4096 blue photo sites. In other words...
[b]Creative COW[/b]: 4000 of each. 4K.
[Laughter]
[b]John Galt:[/b] Right.
But if you use the arithmetic that people are using when they are taking all of the photosites on a row and saying they're 4K, they are adding the green and the blue together and saying, "Oh, there are 4K of those, so it's 4K sensor." Now actually, in order to get RGB out of a Bayer pattern you need two lines. Because you only have green plus one color (red) on one line, and green plus the other color (blue) on the other line. You then have to interpolate the colors that are missing from surrounding pixels.

[img]http://library.creativecow.net/articles/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/bayer_pattern_sensor.jpg[/img]
[i][b]Note that there are twice as many green pixels as red or blue on this representation of a Bayer pattern sensor. To create a single RGB pixel, there must be an equal number of each color, so the choice is whether to discard green pixels and lose luminance detail, or to use interpolated, aliased red and blue pixels.[/b][/i]

Let's go back to scanning a film frame. The aspect ratio of a full 35mm film frame is basically 4x3. So if you have 4096 photo sites across the width of the film, in red and green and blue, and 3K along the height, you would have 4K by 3K. You'll have 12 million green photo-sites, 12 million blue photo-sites, 12 million red photo-sites.
That's 36 million photo-sites. A 36 mega-pixel image is what you get from a 4K scan.
Now you know very well that you cannot take a 8.3 million pixel sensor and create 36 million out of that without interpolation. You are up-converting, and there's really no value to the up-conversion. There's no new information.
So 4K is not these 8 mega pixel or 9 mega pixel or 10 mega pixel CMOS images for the Bayer pattern where they add up all the pixels in a row and say hey, we got 4K. The great perpetrators of that mythology have been RED and Dalsa. That's why I call these "marketing pixels." It's intentional obfuscation. Because they really do nothing to improve image quality. They may improve sales volume. But they don't do anything to quality.
But somehow the world has accepted that that's 4K. It's purely semantic. It's like saying, "I don't like my weight in pounds so I converted to kilos. It sounds better!" You'd be amazed at how many non-technical people I meet, often producers and directors, but sometimes even cinematographers get fooled by that stuff.
There's a fundamental problem with the Bayer sensors. I mean in 1972 when Dr. Bryce Bayer at Kodak couldn't make sensors with lots of photo-sites, his was a brilliant idea, and it works very well in still cameras. But with any camera with a fixed sampling stucture, in other words any CCD or CMOS camera with discreet photo-sites, you have to use an optical low pass filter to make sure that you don't create a moire pattern in the final image.
If you design the optical low pass filter to satisfy the requirement of the frequency of the green samples to maintain the highest resolution, the red and blue photo-sites, which are half as frequent as the green will have aliases. However, if you design the optical low pass filter to make sure that you don't get a color alias from red and blue, then you are throwing away some of the resolution from the green.
So you can never get the resolution you might expect from a Bayer pattern. Someone can argue this until they are blue in the face but we are dealing with the limitations of the physics of optics and the mathematics of sampling theory, and you can't escape it. There'll always be aliases from a device with a fixed sampling structure, such as an array of photo-sites on a sensor, if you try to record frequency information that is greater than half the number of available samples. Of course, sometimes the limitations of the camera lens acts as the optical low pass filter!!!
Now if you use the same arithmetic that these people are claiming they're 4K cameras are using, then Genesis would be 6K. Because it has 5760 pixels on one line: 1920 red, 1920 green and 1920 blue. But isn't that a little bit nonsensical? But I think it's no more nonsensical than essentially compressing the heck out of an image, then interpolating that up to create a DPX file which is enormous and say wow, we got 4K. I think that people will start to understand this and realize that it creates a terrible problem with post, because you have so much more empty data to process.
The most important issue from our point of view, is that we want to have equal resolution, TRUE edge resolution in red, green and blue. The most important thing is not to have interpolated information. You want to know that the edge is REAL.
This is because our cameras are used for doing high-end image compositing. I'm not talking about 100 people sitting at work-stations rotoscoping images. I'm talking about being able to shoot a blue screen or a green screen and using software like Ultimatte Advantage and pull perfect linear mattes from smoke, fire, transparent objects. or liquids - things that can't be roto'd.

[b]PIXELS AND RESOLUTION[/b]
Another problem with a message built on "marketing pixels" is that it confuses pixels and resolution. They don't have anything to do with each other. What defines the resolution, quite frankly, is the optics more than the sensor.
My wife has a Ricoh GX 100. It's a beautiful little camera with a 10 million photo-site sensor. But it's not nearly as nice a picture as my old 6 mega-pixel Canon D60.
When we released the [Panavised version of the Sony] HDW-F900, dubbed "the Star Wars camera," it was a 2/3rd inch camcorder. People asked, "Why are you doing this?" Well, because it only weighs 12 pounds, it's got a battery, there's no need for an umbilical cord, and it's got a built-in recorder just like a film magazine.
[img]http://library.creativecow.net/articles/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/panavised_f900.JPG[/img]
Almost everyone in the industry laughed at it, but it has proved to be unbelievably successful. That camera is still renting every day with the Primo Digital lenses we designed for the 2/3" format, and really, you'd be hard pressed to get a better image. So you have to look at the whole system, not latch on to just one parameter and say "That's what we're gonna go for!" Everything has to work together as an imaging SYSTEM.
Unfortunately, one of the tragedies of digital imaging, is that now we've got these ridiculous numbers games, because so few people understand the fundamentals of the imaging technology, everybody wants a number to latch on to. The numbers don't mean anything in the context of 100 years of development of film and motion picture technology, optical technology and laboratory practice and cinematographers did wonderful work without understanding anything about the chemistry or photographic emulsion technology.
Whenever I do a presentation about digital imaging, my first question these days is, "Anybody know how many grains of silver are on a frame of film? Hands up, hands up!" Nobody ever puts their hand up. My second question is, "Hands up! Anybody ever thought about this before?" You can tell the nerds in the audience from the hands that go up!
[img]http://library.creativecow.net/articles/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/john_galt_presentation_444-RGB.jpg[/img]
[i][b]For videos of John Galt's presentation with Canon's Larry Thorpe, "Demystifying Digital Cameras," [url="http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Part1.html"]click here.[/url][/b][/i]


[b][size=4]Quoted from : The Truth About 2K, 4K and The Future of Pixels by John Galt[/size][/b]

[i]John Galt, Panavision Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging, led the team that created the Genesis camera, was responsible for the Sony F900 Star Wars camera, and continues to play a leading role in guiding future digital cinema technologies. [/i]

[sfrancis928]

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342866338' post='14226']
Tell me one digitally shot film that looks as good as Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, The Tree Of Life?.
[/quote]

Uh, film had been around for many many decades before those films were made. Good digital hasn't been around for long, and it's still getting better. I'm sure time (and not much of it) will give us digital films that (subjectively) match the beauty of those films.

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342866338' post='14226']
Too much resolution! The sets start to look like sets, made out of cardboard.
[/quote]

Time has a way of fixing these things. Sets and visuals like that will be made to look more realistic as they are needed to. Things like that just work themselves out.

[moebius22]

Like I think Andrew said. Look at the fim movies now and compare them to movies in the 1970s-1980s. The films now look very slick and not unlike digital.

[Axel]

@ andy lee
Thank you. I knew this before, but this lecture is a compact way of explaining it.


[quote name='sfrancis928' timestamp='1343091904' post='14384']
Uh, film had been around for many many decades before those films were made. Good digital hasn't been around for long, and it's still getting better. I'm sure time (and not much of it) will give us digital films that (subjectively) match the beauty of those films.[/quote]

Audiovisuals (to avoid saying [i]film[/i]) are not live. You can't experience them [i]unplugged[/i]. Right now what we are talking about is akin to the feel of a real life instrument causing the air to swing. All the imperfections of analog film - as well as it's desirable characteristics - will soon be mimicked digitally.

But how long will we go on comparing film to video, when film no longer exists? And it won't exist much longer, because the costs for providing the stock and keeping the laboratories running will rise exponentially.

Five years from now, we will add simulation of film stock, grain and lower frame rates as effects in the same way as we add rumble, tube amplifier sound asf. to completely digitally mixed pop music. These filters will then not be considered old school but cheap tricks.*

*EDIT: Cinema is itself a cheap trick, in the origins, when it was a fairground sensation, and now, when you put on the 3D glasses. Christopher Nolan made a film about cinema (as I understand it): [i]Prestige[/i]. Magic works by making the audience believe, and all the techniques that Nolans magicians invent need not be real. In fact, a real teletransportation device can be outsmarted by ... (won't spoil).

[jonjak2]

[quote name='sfrancis928' timestamp='1343091904' post='14384']
Uh, film had been around for many many decades before those films were made. Good digital hasn't been around for long, and it's still getting better. I'm sure time (and not much of it) will give us digital films that (subjectively) match the beauty of those films.



Time has a way of fixing these things. Sets and visuals like that will be made to look more realistic as they are needed to. Things like that just work themselves out.
[/quote]

In time, sure. I'm not against digital! But right now, no, there isn't anything i've seen that looks as good, and my point is about the present, not what digital could be in the future.

We'll see if digital mimics all the imperfections of film in the future. Honestly, i'm not convinced, the cameras haven't been going in that direction so far, but lets see.

Your point about sets becoming more realistic in the future, this is actually what the [i]problem[/i] is. Everything is becoming more realistic. But film has a dream like, distant, mysterious quality to it. It allows a set like bladerunner to be built from junk but we can believe it. As resolution is ramped up, we start to see imperfections, things look too realistic, and you lose the magic of film. Why is the future about seeing and having everything, everything being technically 'perfect'. I love the imperfect, the things with character, individuality, and so on. When film was originally projected in cinemas, by the time you got to release prints you'd be seeing on average 680 lines of resolution. This was kind to actors faces, sets and so on. And what was wrong with it that needed to be improved? I wish digital cameras would focus on actually looking like film rather than racing for resolution, wide color gamut and so on. The only camera that's made a serious attempt to do this is the Alexa.

[Axel]

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1343119715' post='14400']Your point about sets becoming more realistic in the future, this is actually what the [i]problem[/i] is. Everything is becoming more realistic. But film has a dream like, distant, mysterious quality to it.[/quote]

This has more to do with the attitude the artist has to his work than with the technique used. But you are right: If you fail to win over your audience, you fail.

[jonjak2]

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1343123235' post='14402']
This has more to do with the attitude the artist has to his work than with the technique used. But you are right: If you fail to win over your audience, you fail.
[/quote]

Sure, but digital immediately gives you a problem. Can you work around it? Yes, but shoot a set on 35mm vs RED EPIC and there is an immediate difference. Remember, i'm not suggesting there aren't workarounds, i'm just saying that in my view there is an immediate aesthetic problem with digital, and i don't like the way some digital technology and some manufacturers are going.

This draws an interesting question though, what specs make the perfect camera? What resolution is 'best'?

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1343119715' post='14400']We'll see if digital mimics all the imperfections of film in the future. Honestly, i'm not convinced, the cameras haven't been going in that direction so far, but lets see.[/quote]

You can mimic the imperfections of film in post. The problem is not that the cameras are too clinical, it is that the Hollywood people are taking all the imperfections out of their images, giving us stuff which is too glossy, to commercial, too clean.

This will get even worse after The Hobbit and 4K 48p. I remain to be convinced by the artistic merit of that as well.

We shall see...

[andy lee]

2002- 2007 I used to shoot on Digi Beta Cam before I got the Canons
and even this was too clean so we used to add 'film grain' and noise in post to make it look like film.
All the pop videos I shoot on Canons have 'film grain' added after the grade as the final step before it is output to make it look 'less clean'.
You can mimic Kodak film stocks that I used to shoot on in the 1990s like Vision 100T and Vision 200T 5274 wery well in post.
Plus you can try differnt types of 'grain' to get just the right look for your project so you are happy with it.

I agree with Andrew you can make digital look very much like film in post - I've been doing it for many years now.

[jonjak2]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1343133784' post='14414']
You can mimic the imperfections of film in post. The problem is not that the cameras are too clinical, it is that the Hollywood people are taking all the imperfections out of their images, giving us stuff which is too glossy, to commercial, too clean.

This will get even worse after The Hobbit and 4K 48p. I remain to be convinced by the artistic merit of that as well.

We shall see...
[/quote]

You can[i] try[/i] to mimic the imperfections of film in post, but again, i've yet to see the type of grain, grit, and feel to the image that was in There Will Be Blood done digitally. Or for example, a bleach bypass look like Seven.

I hope someone makes a digitally shot Western that is supposed to have grit and texture, then we'll see. Hopefully something will come along for Roger Deakins where he has to produce the Jesse James look again, but on the Alexa. 'Now', his first Alexa feature was very unconvincing.

Your point about Hollywood being glossy, i don't agree with per se and i think it's easy to just demonise Hollywood. The independent filmmaker needs something to be angry at, but i think Hollywood being a scapegoat is a bit lazy. The reality is there are many big and small Hollywood films being made that are not just glossy. Sure there are glossy pictures, but then there always have been. Every year there are huge productions that look amazing. For TV check out Boardwalk Empire, 35mm and Primo's, looks stunning, for feature films there's plenty as well.

The Hobbit and 48p, i shudder... But let's see if it helps the story and involvement overall.

[jonjak2]

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1343134276' post='14415']
2002- 2007 I used to shoot on Digi Beta Cam before I got the Canons
and even this was too clean so we used to add 'film grain' and noise in post to make it look like film.
All the pop videos I shoot on Canons have 'film grain' added after the grade as the final step before it is output to make it look 'less clean'.
You can mimic Kodak film stocks that I used to shoot on in the 1990s like Vision 100T and Vision 200T 5274 wery well in post.
Plus you can try differnt types of 'grain' to get just the right look for your project so you are happy with it.

I agree with Andrew you can make digital look very much like film in post - I've been doing it for many years now.
[/quote]

Can you point me to an example of something you've done that is digitally shot and looks like film? Very curious because this all comes down to what 'film' looks like to you.

[Axel]

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1343134939' post='14417']
Can you point me to an example of something you've done that is digitally shot and looks like film? Very curious because this all comes down to what 'film' looks like to you.
[/quote]

How would you compare it? Youtube?

Positive examples for digital in it's own right and dignity are the latest films of David Fincher.

The photography in Stanley Kubricks latest film, [i]Eyes Wide Shut[/i], is a good example of how the tissue of the canvas and the brushwork shine through. A good example, because Kubrick certainly tried to get the imagery as clean as possible, despite the extreme low light concept. Note, how the high speed graininess increases the depth of field! I am sure, if Kubrick lived, he would have been an early adopter of digital cameras.

I liked the look of Jesse James, but I am not sure how much of it is purely analog and how much digital post. I like the films of Christopher Nolan, but I think his insistence of analog recording is a luxury that's still affordable. This will change. Film is dying. Wave goodbye.

[andy lee]

[u][b][i]How would you compare it? Youtube?

Positive examples for digital in it's own right and dignity are the latest films of David Fincher.[/i][/b][/u]

Yes I agree with Axel the film grain details are lost on Youtube's brutal compression

David Fincher's 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' is one of my favourite films , the cinematography is simply stunning!
Jeff Cronenwerth is very very good ! 70% of it was shot on Red One camera the Rest on Epic when they got one.
Buy you dont watch it thinking this is digital - It looks like film!

The lighting of the scenes is second to none and the overall darkness and colours used of the whole film is great.
It has a Yellow/Black colour palate which is very good when everyone else is still doing Teal and Amber to death!

[jonjak2]

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1343206417' post='14474']
How would you compare it? Youtube?

Positive examples for digital in it's own right and dignity are the latest films of David Fincher.

The photography in Stanley Kubricks latest film, [i]Eyes Wide Shut[/i], is a good example of how the tissue of the canvas and the brushwork shine through. A good example, because Kubrick certainly tried to get the imagery as clean as possible, despite the extreme low light concept. Note, how the high speed graininess increases the depth of field! I am sure, if Kubrick lived, he would have been an early adopter of digital cameras.

I liked the look of Jesse James, but I am not sure how much of it is purely analog and how much digital post. I like the films of Christopher Nolan, but I think his insistence of analog recording is a luxury that's still affordable. This will change. Film is dying. Wave goodbye.
[/quote]

I can see the difference between the trailer for seven and Dragon tattoo on youtube. It isn't only grain, it's all the elements of the image.
Dragon Tattoo is nice, but with that type of film, digital excels. I'll wait to see a Western or There Will Be Blood type of film and we'll see. It isn't post that gave Jesse James it's looks, film was a big part of it.

Incidentally, Fincher preferred the red mx to the epic apparently. Commented that there was a graininess and texture to the MX that wasn't in the Epic so much.

[Andrew Reid]

I think you do have a point jonjak2. However it is very early in the digital format, whilst film had been around for decades before the classic westerns, or especially Blade Runner and Seven. You are comparing a mature medium to a very new one. I agree that technical progress should not get in the way of a superior 'feel' to the image, and I myself am not a big fan of this ultra clean and sparkly HD image.

But I still think that digital is much closer to film than people think.

A hazier look, an anamorphic lens, older style lighting, less gloss, a softer image, the way it is screened and processed, grading, people, the DP, the director, cinema culture of the time, it is all responsible for giving the fabled Film Look. Digital feature films in this decade do indeed mostly have a certain look which I don't find as appealing as the classics. It is cleaner, it is more 'live feeling' and more glitzy. I just think the digital format itself is probably well down the list of overall mitigating factors, and I'm very happy with the look of a GH2 or FS100 paired with an anamorphic lens in reproducing some of that classic golden age of cinema appeal.

The modern blockbusters are all almost universally turned up to 11 with less subtlety than before and less haze. Too often they look staged, and live. Certainly the Hobbit will be this way.

But also I agree partly with Jeff (Gibbs) who I interviewed a couple of months ago [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/8001/a-chat-with-filmmaker-jeff-gibbs-michael-moores-producer-on-bowling-for-columbine-fahrenheit-911"]http://www.eoshd.com...-fahrenheit-911[/url]

... That a clean digital look may evolve into something even more immersive than dated 35mm film, and that not all projects suit having grain and a rougher hazier look instilled in them.

[alexander]

yes as i said in my first post so do I! atl least close to 35mm. 65mm 70mm is different thing.

[galenb]

I've been reading this thread and I love how there is an aspect of this discussion that is about comparing the GH2 to film. Com'on people! :-D I really hope no one actually thinks film is going to be replaced by a $800 micro 4/3 camera? Okay so film kills GH2 but what about RED and Alexa? And really, we may not have the technology to make a movie that looks better then film right now but just wait. In a few years... maybe even next year, there will come a camera or even multiple cameras that will be able to do it. Red, Alexa, C300, these are just the prelude to what will come soon enough. I really feel like all it will take is just the right mix of 4K full-frame with a wider dynamic range. I mean, doesn't it seem like that's just around the corner? For me the proof is in the current crop of digital still cameras. We already have the sensors and resolution to make images that look as good as 35mm sill cameras. All we need now is the processor and memory technology to get fast enough that we can capture 24 of those frames per second and we are golden. ;-) I mean, seriously, something like a 4K Black Magic Cinema camera isn't totally ridiculous to expect is it? If BMCC fly off the shelves then someones going to want to one up them. Right?

Oh, and you guys should watch the [url="http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/sidebyside/"]SIDE BY SIDE trailer[/url].

[Axel]

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1343551432' post='14696'] Red, Alexa, C300, these are just the prelude to what will come soon enough. I really feel like all it will take is just the right mix of 4K full-frame with a wider dynamic range. I mean, doesn't it seem like that's just around the corner?[/quote]

You took the words right out of my mouth! An acceptable technique is always and forever [i]just around the corner[/i].

Do you know Franz Kafkas [i]Before The Law[/i]? Here is the summary, cited from Wiki:

[i]A man from the country seeks the law and wishes to gain entry to the law through a doorway. The doorkeeper tells the man that he cannot go through at the present time. The man asks if he can ever go through, and the doorkeeper says that it is possible. The man waits by the door for years, bribing the doorkeeper with everything he has. The doorkeeper accepts the bribes, but tells the man that he accepts them "so that you do not think you have failed to do anything." The man did not attempt to murder or hurt the doorkeeper to gain the law, but waits at the door until he is about to die. Right before his death, he asks the doorkeeper why even though everyone seeks the law, no one else has come in all the years. The doorkeeper answers "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.[/i]

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1343551432' post='14696']Oh, and you guys should watch the [url="http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/sidebyside/"]SIDE BY SIDE trailer[/url].
[/quote]

In which George Lucas says a damn stupid thing: [i]The digital process democratizes the whole thing. [/i]

No way! How films are to be made was written by God. We need to follow the old paths forever. But then: What could you expect from the producer of [i]Howard The Duck[/i]?

[galenb]

I hope you are not expecting me to defend George Lucas? Well anyway, mock if you will but I still think a proper digital film camera is just around the corner. And really, is it the camera that makes a movie look good? This reminds me of the arguments I used to hear about digital recording equipment back in the 90's.

I just wanted to add something else: I feel like a lot of the raging against digital films lately has more to do with the god awful machine that Hollywood has become then anything else. Some people have mentioned certain movies shot on film (like Bladerunner) and how there are no digital equivalents that exist today. But I can also point out movies that were shot on film that look just as god awful and soulless as the current crop of digital cinematography. As it's already been pointed out, digital film making is relatively new and were all still learning. I don't think being shot on film was what made Bladerunner look so good at all. I think it looks good because of how different it looked back then and how it challenged so much of what had come before it. Not to mention the amazing sets, props and actors that made the world feel so gritty and believable. And, It had so much more to do with relentless stylistic/artistic vision. I think Scott lost a lot of this artistic vision before he even made Prometheus. Whether or not he used digital tools, the movie was just badly made.

[Axel]

The images of video cameras affordable for the common people have always been improved. S-VHS was better than VHS, Hi8 and DV were better, HDV was better. Many said about the HVX 200 (below 1k resolution with pixel shift), now the era of indie filmmakers was just around the corner. And it was. Timeless principle.

The con- and prosumers are too stupid to realize that they can't win the race if they accept the industry's rules. 4k? Haven't you heard (read andy lees posting above), that these resolution tags are buzzwords to fool the consumers? If your display was 4k and you watched your own 4k stuff on it, you didn't move closer, because the video lacked the true resolution in the second place. And it looked terrible in the first place, because it neither had color resolution nor color depth suitable for a BIG image.

You think all this will change with the BM? It will, but in incremental steps (including the fact that you have to monitor the better quality, did you think about that?). At the time every hobby dad has 4k raw, the aestethic standards of cinema will be higher again.

All this without mentioning makeup, constumes, good acting, good sets, good lighting, good sound design, music ...