Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 4K vs. 2K - Do you see better image quality?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 4K vs. 2K - Do you see better image quality? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: 4K vs. 2K - Do you see better image quality?

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-22-2004 10:11 AM

In another thread, Aaron Haney wrote:

quote:
Oh yeah, and I have to say this movie ("Spiderman 2") looks really good. And no wonder, it employed a 4K digital intermediate. Here is an article discussing how the process was done at EFILM, although it is a little light on the technical details:

http://colorfront.com/index.php3?n=10&m=20

The article mentions how SFX shots were still done at 2K, even though the final digital master for the film was 4K. I think this shows in some places, especially the end credits, which exhibit a lot of aliasing. But overall, the image quality is really quite good.

Another recent movie that used 4K scanning and recording was "Stuart Little 2".

Does the increased resolution improve image quality on your screen?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-22-2004 10:38 AM

The end credits of Spider-Man 2 were HORRIBLE...to the point of embarassing. When the sound system credits hit...they actually pulsate just like a CRT monitor running an interlaced image of a white horizontal line.

Steve

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-22-2004 10:56 AM

I have a gut feeling the closing credits were not 4K, and maybe not even close to 2K.

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 07-22-2004 12:29 PM

When I saw SPIDERMAN 2 yesterday, I found the image quite fine-grained, and many close ups and medium shots looked really good. But I missed sharpness and detail in almost any long shot, as it is with most Super 35 productions (so size does matter...).

Ill see the film again next weekend in a theatre where I can check the focus myself, because where I saw Part 2 they often have focus problems.
Certainly the movie looked much better to me than SPIDERMAN 1 which arrived over here in Germany grainy and unsharp, possible due to hastily produced internegs and/or prints, but the overall cinematography in Part 2 seems much better to me. In close up shots there is, however, what others have described as a "plastic look", but they did not spend much time making the actors look attractive, Kirsten Dunst looks good in the still image during the credits, from there on she is treated badly in terms of photography.

Just my $0.02...

| IP: Logged

Ken Russell
Film Handler

Posts: 23
From: Smyrna, GA USA
Registered: Jun 2004

posted 07-22-2004 01:13 PM

I agree with the take on the plastic image. Much of the special effects looked like a video game rendering. I have seen twice now, the first time having my hands on the equipment for the first time in 23 years but that's a another story.

My first viewing was at a small drive-in. The print was technically worse than poor. It looked like the platen (or what ever it is called that holds the negative against the film stock for exposure) was loose. The top of the image periodically drifted out of focus. My second viewing was in a hard top. That print was m-u-c-h better.

I read the article mentioned with interest as the last 30 years of my working life has been founded in computers (I do so miss the theaters and hope to be back in them soon). I did a little quick calculation. A 4K feature taking 35 TB is a chunk. The largest hard drive of the shelf for your PC is about 250 GB. There are 1000 GB in a TB (ok, 1024 for the other computer geeks). add it up and that is over 140 drives to hold one movie... WOW. I know, that's all of the shots that were sifted through in the editing process. Just the same, it is sobering to try to fathom the amount of "data" that we will have to transfer and store in order to make DCinema work. I can't wait [Wink]

Just another $.02 for the pot.

| IP: Logged

Steve Scott
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1300
From: Minneapolis, MN
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 07-22-2004 01:17 PM

Shrek 2 also suffered from the same flicker during the end credits, I had a few people ask me if we had a xenon flicker.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-22-2004 01:33 PM

There is a small bit in the new Boxoffice where somebody from TI says that "resolution {in digital cinema) is not as important as color depth to the audience." ....when I have the magazine in front of me I'll put in the exact words but that's the gist of it.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-22-2004 03:06 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
There is a small bit in the new Boxoffice where somebody from TI says that "resolution {in digital cinema) is not as important as color depth to the audience."

I agree.

As long as you are sitting far enough away from the screen. [Roll Eyes]

Even an XGA projector looks okay from the back row. [thumbsdown]

The Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) member studios certainly sees a need for 4K:

http://millimeter.com/pressroom/video_dci_members_approve/

http://www.theasc.com/studio/index.htm?news/news_111403_dci.html~main

quote:
By a unanimous vote, all seven DCI Member Studios approved pursuit of a hierarchical architecture approach for digital cinema, which defines a 4K (4096 by 2160) delivery system that will be compatible with both 4K projectors expected to be available in the near future and with 2K projectors available today. DCI is continuing to encourage manufacturers to develop 4K projectors and related technology for DCI testing and evaluation.

http://www.cameraguild.com/news/techno/d-cinema.htm

quote:
ASC cinematographers artistically designed and filmed "Mini-Movie" during a two-day shoot in August on the back lot at Universal. More than two hours of film were captured in both 35mm and 65mm formats...

During the postproduction process, thousands of feet of film were edited down to the 12-minute "Mini-Movie," DCI said, which was processed and scanned at 6K horizontal resolution to retain the richness of the details in the film images. The film was then "down-resolved" to both 4K and 2K digital formats, which DCI will use in its own testing. An HD version is available as well as a 35mm answer print version.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-22-2004 04:24 PM

Be wary when a manufacturer tells you what is important in the specifications.

TI has to pay huge financial costs to step up their DLP program. They were hoping 720 was going to be the home HDTV but all looks are 1080 is where it is going to settle. The true grail is really the home market. Being able to service cinemas is nice but it is kinda like auto racing...there are not enough cinemas out there to justify the cost of pushing the technology. Even if TI were to get 100% of all cinemas, it would not recoupe their investment in the DLP technology.

Now the home market...that is another thing...there are billions of consumers out there and TI would love to have all of them buying something with the TI DLP technology.

I'm surprised TI is boasting about color depth or if they will mention anything about their grayscale. The numbers they use are kinda like the contrast ratios video projector manufacturers use...that is...bogus. With the dither TI must use on their DLPs their achievable grayscale is much worse than the theoretical.

I am quite pleased to see that 4K seems to be where DCinema is heading. 2K is really the first DCinema type projector. The 1K systems are SXGA projectors with anamorphic lenses. They are not really High-Def though they do a decent job.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-22-2004 05:41 PM

"They were hoping 720 was going to be the home HDTV but all looks are 1080 is where it is going to settle."
________________________________________________________________

According to a friend that has worked with the HDTV consortium from the beginning 1080i is just a temporary stopping point and the ultimate stopping point for broadcast HDTV is actually 1080p. Its just that there is no available camera technology that is really fesable to do true 1080p at this point in time. They are looking at around 2025 for this upgrade which is a good thing as opposed to the no upgradability issue with the NTSC system. By 2025 HDTV technology will be much more mature and in use all over the world and the conversion to 1080p can be agradual thing that will blend in with the rest of the HD technology.
So far Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico have all signed to align with the new ATSC HD broadcast standard.

Mark @ CLACO
(Live from Winnemucca, NV.)

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 07-22-2004 05:44 PM

Has anyone here had a chance to see the new Sony 4K cinema projectors? One is 10,000 lumen (model SRX-R110) and the other is 5,000 lumen (SRX-R105) output--both feature 4096x2160 SXRD imagers. Sony says they're working on higher lumen output versions.

Sony 6/4/04 press release

Mark, first Elko and now Winnemucca. You're sure hitting all the northern hot spots. [Smile]

You going to be in 'Vegas this trip?

| IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 07-22-2004 06:41 PM

I saw the two prototype units in operation at Infocomm in Atlanta a few weeks ago. Viewing the image at 10 feet ( 3.04 meter ) the image was impressive. They where doing a split 2k / 4k image to show the difference and 90% of the time the 2k image was more than adequate for cinema applications; the difference was apparant on static chart / map type images. Overall the image projected was about 35 - 40 feet ( 10.66 - 12.19 meters ) wide.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-22-2004 07:38 PM

No, won't make it to Vegas this trip, still have to take care of Fallon and then back to Elko to install some needed parts. Might be down in Vegas in October though.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-22-2004 07:52 PM

The i (interlaced) versus p (progressive) on digital displays is not that different. A digital display updates appropriate pixels as opposed to a CRT which scans actual lines. Progressive versus interlaced on a CRT is quite apparent. I don't know of any digital projectors made anymore that dont convert the interlaced display to progressive immediately. Heck, any scaler will also output its display as a progressive output unless 1080i is specifically chosen.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 07-22-2004 08:49 PM

I tried our Barco DP50 with 720p and i input signals, and there was indeed no visible difference.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.