Jump to content

Does anyone else prefer the look of 2K to 4K?


M Joel W

Recommended Posts

There have been a lot of "failed" experiments pushing HFR: Showscan, Gemini Man, "motion smoothing" on TVs, the Hobbit, etc. And it's all interesting but inevitably the look feels more like "video." There's a place for this with sports and video games and especially VR (and of course for shooting slow motion to conform to 24fps) but HFR has never caught on with narrative.

Meanwhile, 4K has caught on with TVs and streaming services (and as of this year, Marvel has moved from 2K to 4K masters). It's more inoffensive, and I get why Fincher wants 6K for cropping and stabilization – but I'm not sure I prefer how it looks, either.

"More" doesn't always look "better."

I was watching Steve Yedlin's resolution demo and the clean digital 4K images from Red and Sony looked worse to me than the grainy film scans and 2.8K Alexa footage. 

I remember early Alexa shows looked really nice shot at 1080p with S4s and Master Primes – but once 3.4k raw and 3.2k ProRes took off there was this sudden push for "vintage" lenses and K35s and S2/S3s took off instead. Even Mandalorian has detuned lenses to keep the chrome helmets from looking too harsh in 4K. This despite the Alexa having a very aggressive OLPF with a "soft" look inherent to it. Now the Alexa35 (which looks incredible) has a "textures" pack to add more grain on top of that. The first generation of 4K cameras I think had growing pains that accounted for the earlier generation of 1080p/2K cameras looking better – but today the dynamic range and color is all there on top of the extra resolution. And yet immediately the aesthetic pushback to the technical improvements are to add more grain and a softer image with vintage lenses.

Still images and especially large prints have long benefitted from more resolution (4x5 and 6x7 etc.) – but 3 perf S35 remained the standard for projection despite better formats being available. 

Aesthetically, "soft" cinematography was all the rage in the 70s and 90s. Today, S16 and 2 perf S35 are seeing a renaissance and have a distinctive look to their texture and halation. (Meanwhile I can't tell the difference between Alexa65 and IMAX.) 

I've been in situations where extra resolution was great for cropping. And granted, I think it depends on the DP (I never liked Kaminski's digital work as much as his work on film, but I think Deakins has made the transition really well because his look is so clean and polished to start with). But does anyone else prefer the look of softer images and find this extends even into digital? Does anyone else feel that sharpness isn't "the more the better" but that, like with frame rate, there's a happy medium?

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer high resolution digital to low resolution digital. What I don't like, and what I never do, is sharpen images. That's an NPC move. I recommend against it.

Of course, 16mm looks great, as does 65mm. Both are close to extremes, but I like them both for different reasons. But for digital, there is a threashold below which I will not go, either for stills or motion.

The Leica M8, released in 2006, has a 10Mpx sensor. It's naturally sharp due to the lack of a low pass filter. So for me that is the absolute lowest I would go. I now shoot with Olympus cameras which have 16Mpx and 20Mpx sensors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2022 at 5:53 AM, M Joel W said:

... today the dynamic range and color is all there on top of the extra resolution. And yet immediately the aesthetic pushback to the technical improvements are to add more grain and a softer image with vintage lenses.

... does anyone else prefer the look of softer images and find this extends even into digital? Does anyone else feel that sharpness isn't "the more the better" but that, like with frame rate, there's a happy medium?

I think I would really need to see the images in a cinema, checking out how it looked on the big screen. For the average online viewing of video I wonder if it really matters whether it's 2K or 4K or whatever. There are colour advantages (so they say) of starting with 4K or higher.

On a small screen if subtle grain has been added to the image digitally it tends to improve the look to me.

I find it interesting that Arri decided to stick with S35 for their newest camera, rather than full frame. I find the full frame for video an unusual choice as it was traditionally a stills camera, or vistavision (which was never very common) 'sensor' size (film frame size). I understand the appeals of full frame, since it provides shallow dof and higher resolution. But with it come some difficulties. Lenses choices are significantly fewer and lenses are bigger and heavier in many cases for instance.

I think full frame cameras tend to draw more power too. Certainly the Canon 500 ii uses a lot more power than the S35 C300 iii.

On the whole my view is that a slightly softer look suits narrative drama productions better than a crisp, stark ultra high definition look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to see the Hobbit with two of my nephews. I couldn't pin down the reason as I wasn't at that time aware of the technical details of how it was shot but I do know I was sitting there in the theatre profoundly unimpressed with the look of the whole thing. Yes, that was a memorable occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This is why people like very mild diffusion, very slightly mushy lenses, and so on. It's all just habituation, but narrative cinema is about presenting reality behind a subtle but impenetrable layer of... Something.

What that means varies but we've spent the last few years gently wrestling with the constant push for technical improvement against the need to maintain that layer of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't prove a word I say but as I see it 'art' (and I include a lot of entertainment in that category) tends to do better with an element of imperfection in its presentation. Perfect is often boring in art. I have no idea why but it is just so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Having worked on 2, 8k shows now, as well as of course shot tuns of 4k material, I have to say I vastly prefer 8k acquisition and 4k finish. It's a night and day difference because being able to fix things in post, really opens up a new tool. We reframe quite a bit because when you're rushed during production, shit happens. The Red 8k codec is very good, being able to re-adjust all of your camera settings in post, is also incredible. 

I sadly produce my YouTube stuff in 1080p for the most part, but it's horrible when I'm working on it. So unhappy and I totally disagree with Yedlin. I'm sorry, but on our 65" Sony TV, 2k vs 4k is night and day. I think he's thinking theatrically where you can't really tell and I agree with that. But with very bright modern TV's in sometimes a not very dark setting, you can tell right away. The darker the screen/image, the less you can really tell and that's why Yedlin believes what he believes. 

I also hate aliasing. Give me 12 bit, 444, 4k masters any day of the week. 

8k finishing is not necessary/important. Once ya get above 3k or so, you can't tell. Since our TV's are 4k, that's what we gotta work with. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might come down to how many of us have absolutely perfect eyesight.

To some of us, a 4K view on a 4K screen situated in the zone of best eyesight might be yielding an overall sharper image to our senses than our real-world view gives us when our gaze darts about focusing close and far. 

Subjectively to me, the Alexa image in the cinema began to fall over in highly textured environments. For head and shoulder views of actors, being able to see the adhesions on individual nose hairs might be a step too far. 

What pleases in a given circumstance is what matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play devil's advocate, I will add the point of Steve Yedlin's demo (for the most part) was that one shouldn't apply a look or visual preference to an acquisition format...
"More doesn't always look better" is true, but it's also essential to keep in mind larger photosites, and lower-pixel count sensors are more susceptible to moiré. (The Nyquist sampling limit in Bayer CFAs ain't great due to the space of colour samples). 
Also, more pixels, more information...

Now don't get me wrong! I'm not an advocate of high-density arrays. A 12K S35 sensor is dumb (and I'll say that until I'm blue in the face, and I'll explain my lengthy reasoning for it). 
But, the balancing act between larger photosites being inherently more sensitive, higher fill factor etc. and smaller photosites mitigating moire and having a higher spatial frequency is something to keep in mind from the acquisition side of things.

One could blur/soften the image in post.
Or with cool filtration/lenses.

On a side note though, I read an article on - Subwavelength Bayer RGB colour routers with "perfect optical efficiency". This simultaneously makes pixels more sensitive and increases the sampling limit of a Bayer CFA.
So who knows whats to come...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that 4K TVs and LCD panels look sharper than IMAX projection. 

I also agree that the Alexa is susceptible to aliasing, but it’s never been a deal-breaker for me personally.

I think there’s a happy medium for sharpness for each of us that’s subjective. I think for me it’s a bit softer than for most people. My favorite DP growing up was Kaminski and his style is full of diffusion and grain. 

If I had all the resources in the world I think I’d get that softer look with high res acquisition, vintage lenses, grain added in post, maybe selected blurring in post, etc.

Yet to me the Lighthouse has a more compelling look than Mank (yes, I know both are 4K finishes) so the extreme of doing it all in camera looks better to me than the extreme of doing it all in post.

Regardless, I don't think I prefer the look of 2K to 4K after all.... I just prefer a softer look than most do. And a lower acquisition resolution is one path to getting that look. (One I prefer to shooting 6K Venice or whatever with wide open vintage lenses, or emulating that look in posts they did on Mank – but not one I prefer to whatever they did on Suspiria (2018) or the Lighthouse, both 4K finishes. Again, these are subjective aesthetic choices and preferences so I'm not saying one is "better.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, M Joel W said:

I agree that 4K TVs and LCD panels look sharper than IMAX projection. 

15p IMAX is damn sharp for being so far away from the screen. 

Digital IMAX is the same resolution as your TV, so it should be softer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it was digital IMAX vs a 4K tv. 

I'm mostly trying to justify shooting 2K ProRes rather than 2.8K ArriRAW (I have access to both for the same cost – the only issue is getting the camera up and running and the extra work in post). 

But I noticed along the way I kind of prefer the look of softer images. And it makes me wonder if I'd rather shoot 2K regardless. 

The Alexa is also kind of strange. There must be some internal sharpening with 2K ProRes.

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

... narrative cinema is about presenting reality behind a subtle but impenetrable layer of... Something.

Very true. A painting is a secondary representation or impression and a photographically-exact painting is kind of pointless to a lot of people. Impressions, not clinical exactness of detail, often tell a story better. A slight softening effect can bring a more painterly look which sort of works like a theatrical fourth wall as well. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, M Joel W said:

I'm mostly trying to justify shooting 2K ProRes rather than 2.8K ArriRAW

From my understanding the internal ProRes is not 2k, it's 1080p.

2.8k ArriRaw is a nightmare to deal with, huge files and a Codex is required.

I would never waste my time on any serious projects in 1080p these days. It just doesn't make sense when our future is 4k. It's not like film, you can get a good 4k scan out of 50D S16mm. The 1080p is baked into the files, you can't ever get more res out of it. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's 2K and 1080p. If you wouldn't recommend 2.8K ArriRAW or 2K ProRes what would you recommend? Some of my lenses don't cover 3.2K so it's one or the other. (Or renting another camera.) The file sizes for ArriRAW are not that large.

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
21 minutes ago, M Joel W said:

There's 2K and 1080p. If you wouldn't recommend 2.8K ArriRAW or 2K ProRes what would you recommend? Some of my lenses don't cover 3.2K so it's one or the other. (Or renting another camera.) The file sizes for ArriRAW are not that large.

Interesting, I musta gotten confused with the SDI output, as many people want to record externally and were complaining about the SXS cards and such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the early generation Alexas output 1080p via SDI. I don't know if the Classic started with the ability to shoot 2K internally, but it was added pretty early on if not. 2K ProRes is downscaled from slightly fewer pixels than 2880X1620, which is what 1080p ProRes is downsampled from. I'm not sure why.

This isn't a very serious project so it doesn't really matter. But I was researching it and kept finding I actually liked the look of 2K acquisition better in many cases. I think I like a balance of soft and sharp that you naturally get from 2K or 1080p ProRes. You can get that with higher res formats but it seems like a balancing act.

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, M Joel W said:

I think the early generation Alexas output 1080p via SDI. I don't know if the Classic started with the ability to shoot 2K internally, but it was added pretty early on if not. 2K ProRes is downscaled from slightly fewer pixels than 2880X1620, which is what 1080p ProRes is downsampled from. I'm not sure why.

This isn't a very serious project so it doesn't really matter. But I was researching it and kept finding I actually liked the look of 2K acquisition better in many cases. I think I like a balance of soft and sharp that you naturally get from 2K or 1080p ProRes. You can get that with higher res formats but it seems like a balancing act.

IIRC if you just go 1080p out from the alexa, the alexa will be doing its bayer demozaic calculations on board the camera. the reason for it being a "2.8k" camera was to overcome the loss of color information a 1080p native bayer sensor would suffer. So when it downsamples to 1080 out to prores, you're getting an image that was intended to be the output option for HDTV. 

Doing 2.8k arriraw and demozaicing into a 2.8k image means you're rolling with color interpolation to achieve a 444 2.8k image, vs basically super sampling for a true 444 1080p image.

That being said I think the vast majority of everyone has long since abandoned using these cameras as just 2k or 1080p, so I dont think you can go wrong shooting arriraw 2.8k -> 2.8k proress 4444. just providing some context about the camera and why of all numbers its a 2.8k camera. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

IIRC if you just go 1080p out from the alexa, the alexa will be doing its bayer demozaic calculations on board the camera. the reason for it being a "2.8k" camera was to overcome the loss of color information a 1080p native bayer sensor would suffer. So when it downsamples to 1080 out to prores, you're getting an image that was intended to be the output option for HDTV. 

Doing 2.8k arriraw and demozaicing into a 2.8k image means you're rolling with color interpolation to achieve a 444 2.8k image, vs basically super sampling for a true 444 1080p image.

That being said I think the vast majority of everyone has long since abandoned using these cameras as just 2k or 1080p, so I dont think you can go wrong shooting arriraw 2.8k -> 2.8k proress 4444. just providing some context about the camera and why of all numbers its a 2.8k camera. 

That makes sense. 

I never understood Arri's "pixel math" justifications for what seemed like arbitrary resolutions, but they're actually pretty simple. 

2880 is 1920*1.5 so I'm guessing the sensor is designed foremost for 1080p.

2868 is 2048*1.4 so that's why they crop slightly for 2K.

3.2k is 3840/1.2 so that's why they chose 3.2K for the XT.

3.4k is presumably just the whole sensor (but very close to 4096/1.2)

I still don't like the "over-sharp" digital look and it's a mix of contrast and resolution I think. Why is it that something like the new Doctor Strange (Red), Men (Venice), Tusk (ArriRAW), Army of the Dead (Red), etc. all have a "harsh" look to me whereas something like Her (ArriRAW) or Knives Out or even something like It Follows (shot on 2K ProRes) has a more organic look? I feel like with Army of the Dead or Men the DPs are shooting vintage glass wide open to compensate for an overly sharp sensor but you lack micro contrast and still have a lot of high frequency detail. Whereas 2K early Alexa projects (In Time, etc.) with Master Primes had some built in low frequency sharpening I think (which Alexa 2k ProRes pretty clearly has) but not too much fine detail. But also a lower contrast in general. I feel like if you drew an MTF curve for the entirety of the system it would look very different for these different projects. 

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect some of what bugs you is is post processing during the color grade. Its also still a thing that some big shows will do a 2k VFX pipeline and upscale at the end to get 4k (this has been changing though). That being said, throw some MK1 ziess super speeds on any digital body and you'll get a nice, less "harsh" picture. 

It also might be a good idea to learn to play with some film emulation plugins, or plugins that can de-tune the image in post without much consequence. Im personally a big fan of dehancer, but Resolve has some built in tools that can help with this as well. Adding film grain, halation, and a tiiiiiny bit of gate weave can all help.

OR, and just hear me out, you join those among us who are still shooting film. Just throwing it out there. Mind you Im also one of the people who advocates for 4k scans of s16 so make of that what you will. The benefit if you can shoot on film though, if digital harshness bugs you, is that typically with film you're putting the effort in to make it more sharp not less, and with higher end scanners you can get a true RGB scan with no need to debayer anything. Mind you the downside is the cost, which kinda sucks. But maybe its something to consider if the opportunity arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks – right now it's between 2.8k raw with Mk1 standard speeds and S16.

Why scan S16 at 4K? The only time I worked with a 4K S16 scan it was 500T and it didn't have much more detail than a 1080p scan, however it seemed to have more accutance from the sharper grain structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

... Adding film grain, halation, and a tiiiiiny bit of gate weave can all help.

OR, and just hear me out, you join those among us who are still shooting film. Just throwing it out there. Mind you Im also one of the people who advocates for 4k scans of s16 so make of that what you will. The benefit if you can shoot on film though, if digital harshness bugs you, is that typically with film you're putting the effort in to make it more sharp not less, and with higher end scanners you can get a true RGB scan with no need to debayer anything. Mind you the downside is the cost, which kinda sucks. But maybe its something to consider if the opportunity arises.

Gate weave added to digital footage. Great idea! It looks good to me. As you say, just the tiniest amount.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...