Jump to content

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


M Joel W

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, M Joel W said:

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.

The grain is the image, so you want that resolved as well as you can afford. If you can afford 8K scans for your 16mm footage, do it. 

2 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

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

I don't want gate weave in film footage, and I don't want it in digital footage either. And if your camera is always moving, like how Spielberg directs, it's not noticeable either way.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree in principle but not in practice; if I had unlimited resources I'd prefer the 4K scan – but the extra cost at the lab combined with the extra cost in post offers diminishing returns that imo could be afforded to better things. I think streaming benefits from 4K far more than IMAX projection – and yet I'm not sure it was worth it for Netflix to ask for 4K vfx so easy on, the quality of work suffered because of additional render time. The graininess isn't also inherently better looking at 4K, even that is subjective; Bill Pope, for instance, preferred the look for 2K scans to 4K scans because it had a slight "noise reduction" effect, even in S35.

In the abstract, though, I like the idea of a 4K S16 scan.

I do wish I'd bought a set of B speeds back when it was under $20k. ? 

There's a separate discussion I think about taking the "edge" off digital footage. Greig Fraser seems to be all about this – the detuned lenses for Mandalorian, the film out for Dune. And that's despite the Alexa LF having a soft look per-pixel compared with Venice or Red. I don't like how Men or Army of the Dead look and I think the tendency to shoot high res with wide open mushy lenses just makes things look like detailed mush. I prefer the look of Suspiria or Her balancing a softer acquisition format with slightly sharper lenses (still Cookes and K35s, so not ultra-sharp) to any of the above.

Zeiss lenses and film are both known for (whether accurately or not) lower high frequency detail with more acutance. So, as I wrote before, sort of the opposite MTF curve from what you'd expect the system on Men to have.

What I'm shooting with is a bit ridiculous to discuss when I'm just making expensive home movies – although the feedback here has been helpful and I'll probably go with ArriRAW.

The more interesting discussion is what people are doing at the high end to take the "edge" off increasingly sharp digital formats and whether they should have to. I remember I was blown away by the Alexa Classic but underwhelmed by the LF. When I go back and look at the Classic footage, it still feels more "organic" to me. I like Greig Fraser's approach to softening the LF but feel like it's a crutch. And he's softening the image despite the LF having a softer image than Venice or current Red cameras. (Consumer cameras are even sharper.) Dune, Mandalorian, Batman, Men, Army of the Dead, etc. all rely on something very expensive (film out or bespoke detuned/unaffordable lenses) just to take the edge off of something that's also very expensive (a Venice or high end Red or Alexa LF). I can't afford any of this but it begs the question: does it even look better? Or is someone paying a lot of money to hit a spec and then someone else paying a lot more money to tame the aesthetic faults of that spec? 

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

21 hours ago, M Joel W said:

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.

I use Ultra 16s typically and am neurotic about maintaining maximum sharpness on my cameras. I also almost always overexpose a little bit to get the smaller grains to expose, which helps some. Do I think there is a full 4k worth of line pair resolution with that mix? no, but Im convinced its beyond 3k. I've also done test where I've run the same film through a 2k scan and then a separate 4k scan and there is a quality difference. As such I advocate for a 4k scan even if you're looking at a 2k finish.

That all being said what you get out of the scans depends on the film stock, lenses, exposure choice, stability of the scanner, stability of the camera etc. Change any variable and the pipeline choices might change. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, M Joel W said:

The more interesting discussion is what people are doing at the high end to take the "edge" off increasingly sharp digital formats and whether they should have to. I remember I was blown away by the Alexa Classic but underwhelmed by the LF. When I go back and look at the Classic footage, it still feels more "organic" to me. I like Greig Fraser's approach to softening the LF but feel like it's a crutch. And he's softening the image despite the LF having a softer image than Venice or current Red cameras. (Consumer cameras are even sharper.) Dune, Mandalorian, Batman, Men, Army of the Dead, etc. all rely on something very expensive (film out or bespoke detuned/unaffordable lenses) just to take the edge off of something that's also very expensive (a Venice or high end Red or Alexa LF). I can't afford any of this but it begs the question: does it even look better? Or is someone paying a lot of money to hit a spec and then someone else paying a lot more money to tame the aesthetic faults of that spec? 

You know, how much have you played with filtration? I think you might find a 1/8 black pro mist might be a good starting point if you've got time to experiment with the alexa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

I use Ultra 16s typically and am neurotic about maintaining maximum sharpness on my cameras. I also almost always overexpose a little bit to get the smaller grains to expose, which helps some. Do I think there is a full 4k worth of line pair resolution with that mix? no, but Im convinced its beyond 3k. I've also done test where I've run the same film through a 2k scan and then a separate 4k scan and there is a quality difference. As such I advocate for a 4k scan even if you're looking at a 2k finish.

That all being said what you get out of the scans depends on the film stock, lenses, exposure choice, stability of the scanner, stability of the camera etc. Change any variable and the pipeline choices might change. 

That makes sense. I was looking at handheld 500T footage and all I could see was more grain texture, but even that is a difference. That's a great kit. I don't have access to quite as nice a set up so I'm content with 2K scans unless someone else wants to pay for it.

The reason I posted was figuring out what format to shoot in. But removing my own choices from this (which are based on time and budget) I have noticed that I have a preference for a certain level of sharpness from the entire system. These ultra-sharp large format digital cameras with wide open vintage lenses on them look wrong to me. Too much fine detail, and a mushy image otherwise. Meanwhile Good Time or Suspiria or Her or the Lighthouse I think look great by matching older (but not too soft) lenses to a moderately soft imager. U16s look great with S16 film. I think Greig Fraser has found great techniques to take the edge off of large format high res digital, but they're also expensive and convoluted for the average person to employ. Doesn't really matter, just something I noticed while researching what format to shoot in.

As for diffusion, I have some Classic Soft filters. I'm thinking 2.8K ArriRAW, Mk1 standard speeds, 800 ISO but underexposed and pushed a half stop, no post halation or grain, and Classic Soft filters. Wide open for night, t5.6 outside. I feel like the diffusion filters and underexposure will add some grain and halation without having to do a "film look" pass in post.

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

21 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I don't want gate weave in film footage, and I don't want it in digital footage either. And if your camera is always moving, like how Spielberg directs, it's not noticeable either way.

That's good that you have these preferences.

I started out not liking the imperfections of Super 8. I still get frustrated by the look of it but will gladly shoot it if someone wants me to. What I like is 16mm 'and above'. When shooting digital I'm trying for a look closest to 35mm film or thereabouts. It's just a look I really like. There's room for all sorts of different looks in filmmaking. The main thing is do what inspires you. If that means very high resolution and absolute steadiness of frame then go for it.

I do like the odd static shot where the camera doesn't move at all. I also appreciate Spielberg's moving camera. There's a shot in Jaws I remember, on a pier, where Spielberg got the camera to move the whole way during a walking conversation. It really stood out that he obviously wanted such a long, flowing, mobile shot. Or the camera operator asked to do the shot that way.

  • Like 1
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...