|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Interesting 4k vs. 2k article I found.
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-09-2007 12:37 PM
This article seems to provide some evidence that 2k Digtial projection can look better than film projections (at least in resolution, I think it is accepted fact that current digital projectors do not have the contrast of film). An interesting comparison is where it has a 4K negative scan, 4K interpositive scan, 2K negative scan and a 2K interpositive scan of the same image. It appears that digital projection of a 2K negative scan will have higher resolution than a film interpositive.
I think the article is pretty fair in the way that it shows that 4K aquisition with 4K projection would be superior but due to economics, 4K aquisition with 2K projection can be better than film projection.
Granted, these comparisons don't take into account the loss of detail due to data compression. It'd be interesting to see something that takes that into account as well.
Click the link to see the article including the example images
quote: About Us | Contact Us | Subscribe | Newsletters | Advertisers | Editorial Calendar HD & HDV Desktop Post Pro AV Digital Signage Houses of Worship Digital Intermediate Millimeter Field Production Cameras Video Editing Systems Digital Content Creation Display/Presentation Storage Video Encoding/DVD Sound For Picture Blogs Podcasts Tradeshows Partners Events Related ArticlesShoot Tools: PAG Shoot Tools: Focus Enhancements Shoot Tools: Schneider Optics Products: Canon Shoot Tools: JVC Resources DCP Resource Guide Search by Category Search by Company Most Popular Articles The Top Ten Editors' Choice Topic Focus Pages: HDV Camcorders, Digital Asset Management, Digital Intermediate, HVX200 Camera
For Advertisers | Newsletters | Editorial Calendar eClassifieds | About Digital Content Producer National Systems Contractors Association (NSCA) National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) InfoComm | SIGGRAPH Digital Cinema's Special K Sep 1, 2003 12:00 PM, By Matthew Cowan
Is There an Economical Way to Bring 4K Processing Into the 2K Post World?
Figure 1: Standard scanning resolution for Academy, Scope, and Super 35mm aperture in 2K and 4K.
In the standardization discussions for digital cinema distribution, there is an ongoing debate over how much resolution is required for preparation, delivery, and display of theatrical images. How much resolution is necessary to deliver higher quality than film distribution currently offers? What is possible, what is practical, what is necessary, and what is affordable? Is 4K resolution required at all stages, from capture to display, to preserve adequate image quality?
The ultimate solution must satisfy a number of concerns. It must maintain the creative intent, provide better image quality than currently available, and it must present an economically compelling business plan.
To understand the debate, let's first examine the background of 2K, 4K, and resolution in general. For modern feature film production, with few exceptions, digital images are processed at 2K resolution (see Figure 1, next page).
A 2K workflow would normally mean that the original negative is scanned at 1828 pixels (for Academy or flat), is processed at that resolution for effects, and written to film at 1828 pixels. Similarly, a 4K workflow would operate at 3656 pixels. In each case, output may be for digital projection, which means it would be resized to suit the resolution of the digital projector — for example, 2048 pixels.
The 35mm film resolution debate This is a contentious issue. Due to the transfer process, a film-based workflow loses information at each step in the chain. This information loss starts in-camera, where lens and film movement reduce resolution of the images captured. The film itself has resolution limitations, and each stage of replication further loses information.
Figure 2: Note the aliasing on the fishing line and around the lamp that is present on the 2K scan, but not on the 4K. This indicates that 4K scans are preserving information from the original that is not available on the 2K scans. (Images courtesy of Cintel International Ltd.)
Laboratory tests using carefully written test patterns on the film don't tell the whole story. From a practical approach, we can test the lens, camera, and film system by scanning an image and looking for aliasing, or jagged diagonal lines. If there are no such artifacts, then the sampling structure is more than twice the information content on the film. If there are “jaggies,” then the information content is close to (or greater than) the sample structure.
Figure 2 shows highly magnified 4K and 2K scans from the center of a full-frame 35mm image. Note the diagonal lines — very fine information on the lamp, fishing pole, and line. The 2K version of the shot shows alias artifacts, while the 4K scan shows smooth lines. This is an indication that the 2K sample structure is inadequate for sampling the image content, while the 4K is adequate. It is also possible to see these differences in the visual clarity and detail present in 4K and 2K scans.
Figure 3 (above), for instance, shows another image, shot on Kodak 5245, low-speed, micro-fine grain, daylight negative film. Compare the 2K and 4K scans, and you can see the additional details in the eyelashes and the increased sharpness in the eye visible in the 4K version. The structure of the grain on the film starts to become apparent in the 4K scan, though it is almost invisible in 2K. A 4K scan definitely carries more information than a 2K scan.
Scanning resolution, generation loss, MTF We have seen that the original camera negative supports enough image information to (technically) justify a 4K scan. But what happens as this image travels through the processing chain?
Each time the image information is transferred to a different medium it suffers from generation loss. This occurs because film is not capable of fully capturing all the information from the scene at the highest resolution. In fact, through the generations from negative to I/P to I/N to print, the contrast of the finer details diminishes until those details finally disappear. Technically, this is described as modulation transfer function (MTF). Figure 4 (on page 38) shows a typical MTF curve for camera negative film.
Figure 3: Close-up of 2K and 4K scans. Note that the 4K scan carries more information and detail than the 2K scan, especially in the eyelashes and the overall sharpness of the eye. Also note the increased grain visible in the 4K scan. (Images courtesy of Cintel International Ltd.)
It is important to understand that MTF is multiplicative through process steps. When two processes are cascaded, the resulting MTF is the convolution (or multiplication) of the curves. Fundamentally, this means that each process will further degrade the modulation of fine detail, causing it to disappear sooner.
As an example of this, look at Figure 5. This is a comparison of 4K scans of original negative and an interpositive. The I/P has been contact-printed from the original negative. Note, in particular, that the scan of the I/P is noticeably softer. This is the result of generation loss. Additional loss is incurred at each step as the film is printed from I/P to I/N to release print.
A technical analysis can model the entire process from the scene to the screen and determine the actual amount of information that will reach the screen. The net effect of this cascading effect is that there is value in having one or more higher resolution steps in the processing chain.
Of particular interest in the MTF curve are the mid levels of detail between 10 and 20 lp/mm on film. This band carries the information that the human visual system is most sensitive to, and therefore, most interested in. If the contrast in this region is higher (as shown by the curve being higher), then the image will appear sharper, without actually having higher resolution (see Figure 4).
Generation loss and MTF degradation in the film postproduction chain result in projected film images with substantially lower performance than those same images captured on the original negative. There have been a number of studies done that support this conclusion, illustrating that the information contained on typical release prints is only some of what was contained on the original negative.
Diminishing Returns and Economics We have seen that there is definitely more information carried in a 4K resolution image than a 2K image although, for many images, the difference is subtle.
Figure 4: Typical MTF curve for Kodak 5218 film (brown curve), and the system MTF curve resulting from processing an image through a camera lens, then onward to intermediate stock, and eventually to release print. Note that the contrast of the mid-resolutions (20 lp/mm to 60 lp/mm) has significantly reduced from the system point of view from the original negative. (Chart created by Entertainment Technology Consultants.)
Thus, while working at higher resolutions clearly offers better visual performance, it does so with diminishing economic returns for the extended effort. Since a 4K image contains four times as many pixels as a 2K image, with a proportional increase in scanning, rendering, and film output times, as well as four times as much storage required for the raw and final data, a significant cost multiplier exists when embarking on a 4K post process. This increased cost results in higher postproduction budgets, and longer schedule time for managing and rendering 4K data, instead of 2K.
The economics of 4K postproduction processing are likely to improve as processing power increases and disk storage costs drop in the future. Still, in the current film environment, almost all digital film work is being done at 2K, mainly due to the time and economic constraints associated with 4K work. In other words, the improved performance is not generally considered to be worth the cost by the industry's financial gurus.
How does this affect the digital cinema debate? Obviously, in today's production environment, the cost/performance trade-off has settled on 2K as the standard resolution for production of feature films. The current argument suggests that digital projectors are capable of maintaining 2K resolution right to the screen, and therefore, this is a superior approach to current release print performance.
Figure 5: Scans of original negative and scans of corresponding I/P. Note the generation loss apparent in the print from negative to I/P. (Images courtesy of Cintel International Ltd.)
Thus, the debate is about enhancing image quality for the future, not about maintaining the status quo.
The economic hurdles largely revolve around the cost of 4K projectors and developing 4K theater infrastructures. Certainly, developing a 4K projector is difficult. R&D investments to scale up from 2K to 4K are currently huge. And right now, these investments are supported by a fairly small potential market of worldwide movie screens. This class of performance is not very interesting to the multimillion unit consumer markets, and so they hope to amortize the R&D over much smaller volumes. This, in turn, renders the 4K projector economically unattractive.
Similarly for the 4K in-theater infrastructure of servers and high bandwidth data links between servers and projectors, the hardware requirements to support 4K are large, and the cost of supporting realtime 4K image bandwidth to the projector is prohibitive.
It is useful to look to the film world for guidance on the issue of economic trade-offs. It is well known, for instance,that 70mm produces a superior on-screen image to 35mm, but the economics and practical aspects of producing and projecting in 70mm have kept the format out of the mainstream.
Thus, the question is whether 2K is good enough, and if so, how to maximize its performance through appropriate postproduction techniques. Is there a compromise that will satisfy both the drive for higher quality, and the economic realities?
2K, 4K, Digital Cinema This brings us back to the 2K vs. 4K argument. We have seen that there are visual merits in maintaining high resolution in one or more stages of the image-processing chain, even if the others are limiting.
Figure 6: Comparison of 2K and 4K origination as displayed on a 2K projector (simulated). The 2K scan represents a 2K image directly projected from 2K data. The image on the far right represents a 4K image downconverted and projected at 2K. (Images courtesy of Cintel International Ltd.)
It is instructive to compare the visual quality that would result from a 2K scan-process-display pipeline to a 4K pipeline. Generally, we would see some visual benefits from the 4K pipeline, as demonstrated in the images that accompany this article. Those benefits would be small, but apparent to the well-trained viewer in an optimal environment.
Economic issues therefore enter the argument. It is extremely unlikely that a 4K projector and server system will be economically available to the cinema market in the near term. 2K performance represents the best available for some time to come.
Does this mean that digital cinema cannot move forward? Not exactly.
Recent demonstrations of 2K resolution imagery from Texas Instruments and Kodak have shown resolution and image detail that is better than what 35mm film prints deliver to cinemas today. These 2K projectors, however, can be made to look even better.
These demos were done using postproduction workflows that scanned and processed at 1920 resolution with sub-sampled color. Is there a way to improve on this?
Because the image degradation is multiplicative step-by-step, if one or more steps can be performed at higher quality, visual benefits will result. Consider Figure 6: Both images are shown at 2K resolution, but one was scanned and processed at 4K, the other at 2K. Note the difference — while subtle, the 4K-scan-originated image clearly preserves more of the original information.
A Practical Solution The solution to the question of how to develop cost-effective 2K/4K postprocessing systems involves complex trade-offs between absolute image quality, practical economics, and the determination of an industry-standardized acceptable level of performance.
Clearly, a 4K end-to-end system would be preferable to a 2K system, much in the same way that 70mm would be preferable to 35mm in film, if it were practical.
Unfortunately, this would render digital cinema cost-prohibitive. The current 2K prototype projectors being tested around the country show that 2K digital pictures projected on a large screen are outstanding and already capable of offering a better picture to paying audiences.
The 2K vs. 4K debate thus requires a practical solution: Mixing 4K and 2K processes will yield higher quality results than a 2K workflow alone. Scanning and postproduction processes done at 4K and converted to 2K for distribution to theaters will provide outstanding results on a high-quality 2K projector.
A compromise solution of 4K capture and processing, distributed at 2K resolution and playing back on a 2K projector, will yield superior visual images to a 2K end-to-end system, with the financial effects occurring in the mastering stage, not at every theatrical installation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Cowan is a principal at Entertainment Technology Consultants, an organization specializing in the science and applications of digital cinema technology. He has more than 20 years experience in the development and application of new products in the media and display fields.
His background includes development of electronic projection systems, analysis of color reproduction issues in electronic displays, strategic technology sourcing, reviews of advanced electronic projection products, and detailed analysis of compression schemes for digital images. Cowan was instrumental in developing the current mastering processes used in digital cinema, which introduced the use of the digital mastering theater for color and dynamic range adjustment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author would like to thank Peter Swinson for discussions and insight into 4K scanning, and Cintel International Ltd. (www.cintel.co.uk) for kindly providing an excellent set of images for this article.
Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2007 Penton Media, Inc.
[ 04-10-2007, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Lyle Romer ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
![](/ubbmembers/840f.jpg)
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-09-2007 02:55 PM
Simply put, motion pictures are best originated on 35mm film. No electronic video camera systems can match the image quality of well produced 4/35 or even get into the ballpark of 70mm.
The methods of print making and projection used are more complicated matters.
A 35mm film print can offer a superior quality presentation, especially when the print is properly produced and used in conjunction with a high quality and well maintained projection system and operated by someone with the proper level of competence.
Some theaters have all of that, but not nearly enough. 2K digital projection is probably going to be a noticeable step up in quality for a lot of movie theaters that otherwise have run of the mill 35mm projection that isn't well maintained.
My complaint with so many of these "digital versus film" comparisons is that just about every time some compromise or another is made on the film end to put that medium at a disadvantage. There's lots of variables at work in the differing methods of creating a 35mm film print.
I did like how the article showed full well that 2K is certainly inadequate for capturing image detail from a 35mm film original and that 4K was far better suited for such purposes.
Still, I disagree with the article's statement that a full 4K digital work flow is currently impractical and prohibitively costly.
Hollywood studios have been rendering CGI effects in 2K for nearly 20 years. Digital intermediate work has been going on in 2K for the past several years (O Brother, Where Art Thou? was released in 2000).
During the past decade computer speed/performance has multiplied in power many times over. If 4K DI and CGI production is still thought to be too costly and impractical to use with today's equipment, then the folks making that statement need to answer this question: How in the world could Hollywood's studios manage at all in rendering 2K just a few years ago when the machines doing the work didn't have 1/10th or even 1/100th the computing power and storage capacity that we have today?
Spiderman 2 was largely produced in a 4K-based digital work flow three years ago. A top of the line desktop computer bought in 2004 hardly even has the number crunching potential and storage capacity of a new entry level computer bought today.
The limits on 4K digital projection are more pronounced, particularly with regard to the imaging chips used in the projectors. It would probably be a long time, if ever, before we see any 4K DLP chips.
At the very least, Hollywood should be using 4K for much more of its digital-based post production work. The resulting 35mm film prints are going to look better for it. As the article above stated, even the 2K digital projection stuff might see some marginal benefit as well. And the finished product will be in a more "future proofed" state against playback formats of the future. It's always better to originate something with more native pixels of detail if that can be managed.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|