Dragon and Alexa – Looking at resolution – Part 4: Resolution, does it matter?

(6k low-compression .jpg pops up if you click the image)

A014_C004_0901B4.0000454F

To me, an image can technically be broken down to these aspects:

  • Dynamic range
  • Color cleanness
  • Color fidelity/Saturation
  • Resolution
  • Delivery formatAnd as a final parameter:
  • Is the camera available? (!)

All these aspects of an image/camera are part of the matrix that makes us choose one over another for a particular production.
After these (to me) these more emotional points come in:

  • Ease of use on set
  • If it works well for the shot I want to get
  • Price of use (Total, including on-set and post)
  • If I “like it”
  • If it works well with “other” technical parts of the production (like sound and post)
  • Workflow in post and confidence that I get the desired result
  • If it “feels” good
  • Confidence at customer-level

If you start to weigh the different aspects of a camerachoice for your particular production, you will probably end up with a gopro 8k with a T 1.3 zoom as the obvious answer…

Or: An other example from the CML test:
The SinaCam did not fare well on a few parameters. Dynamic Range and how it overexposed/started to distort when exposed to a lot of light, comes to mind.
Still: It’s advantage is its size. If you need to film from a breadbox, or in between the feet in a car, you just use it and light for what it can, and it will probably look perfectly good.

In this writeup, though, resolution is the only focus. So the question remains:

Does resolution matter?

Clipped highlights and unusable lowlights suck. And if you cannot control those, resolution probably takes a diminutive order.
Still, from what we have just seen, even at 1080 delivered and oversampled source-images from both cameras, the higher captured resolution, gives the higher resulting resolution.
So I guess we could conclude:

  • If you can control exposure, originating resolution matters quite  a bit.

Next… When does not in-camera resolution matter that much (soft images scale after all better than sharp images, as a reference to my “Frozen” experience)

  • Resolution does not matter a lot if most of your image is soft

Ouch… That sounds obvious, right?
BUT given the (past) trend of shooting S35mm at T1.3, that actually is a valid point.
When shooting at low aperture, whatever is sharp in the image will appear comparatively sharp, no matter which camera you shoot with.
And the out-of-focus part of the image will inevitably camouflage whatever lack of resolution there is.

I would to some extent argue that the “I shoot everything at T 1.3″ trend is somewhat related to what the cameras are capable of capturing. Lower resolution cameras simply “look better” when a lot of the image is out of focus. (And it is a cost-effective way to compose and clean up shots…)

Lack of resolution becomes distracting when you have a high level of detail in a shot and that is important, and if you get a high level of moire and softness as consequence of camera ability.
Now which shots are these?

To give a general idea, that would be wide shots with tons of important info at higher T-stops.

But that sounds so unfilmic, does it not?

Not really…

Imagine

  • The fighting sequence of RAN (Akira Kurosawa)
  • Anything but the T 0.9 shots by Stanley Kubrick
  • Whatever in “The Dark Knight”
  • The Godfather
  • Anything by Jaques Tati (Thanks Brice!)
  • Acopalypse now
  • Star Wars IV-VI
  • Kinda most of the “classics”

Low T-stops does not equal “filmic” IMHO.
And: With higher T-stops, you need the detail.

The most frequently quoted arguments for high resolution I see are these:

  • Re-framing and stabilisation
  • VFX/Compositing
  • Oversampling to lower formats (like I looked at in the previous chapters)
  • Reduced noise in delivery-image
  • If you need to pull print-size stills from the film-sourced material (Yup, people, including me actually do that…)

I would add to these:

  • The option to compose complex images with many levels of storytelling and high detail.

Back to the example I mentioned in the 1st part of this comparison, “Frozen”, by Disney.
Digitally animated films are a type of high detail imagery with tons of lines that even though they are Computer Generated, do NOT lend themselves particularly well to a 2k screening.
Yet I have seen lots of good 2k screenings. Thus:
If the images are shot anamorphic, handheld and at low T-stops, detail is not THAT MUCH of a significant factor. Resolution will add to smoothness and gradients, but not as significantly as with a high detail image.

So, let us use the above example to simulate a few scenarios.

For print, UHD and 1080 delivery.

The reference will be “print” 1:1 pixels.
I will look at the same part of the image, but treat it differently.

From 6k to UHD, 2880 and 1080 with the 1:1 6k crop as a reference, and scaled back to match FOV, all images scaled down and up with the “best for” option in Photoshop from 16-bit uncompressed TIFFS.
(Thus the results are better than you would normally get in an “average” image/film workflow)

 

You need to click the image to get a fullraster 1:1 example

A014_C004_0901B4.0000454F

A014_C004_0901B4.0000454F

A014_C004_0901B4.0000454F

 

I will only use the 6k delivered as references, as I guess these three examples pretty much show the tendencies.

I think the Alexa comparison show that captured resolution makes a difference, even for 1080 delivery.
This example looks at the flexibility of usage fields, but the examples are all sourced from the same frame.

And the conclusion… ? Does resolution matter?
I’ll leave that to you!

 

If you want to now why I didn’t bother going through ALL the cameras the same way, you can find the answer in my comparison with F55 here

You can download the original R3D for this example here.
I deliberately did not use ADD in the development of these examples.

Cheers!

G

 

 

 

 

If you like me to publish tests and have use of what I do, I do accept and appreciate contributions to the work through Paypal




______________________________________________________________________________________________
All imagery on gunleik.com is © Gunleik Groven, unless otherwise stated. For TFP shoots, the images belong to me and the model.
It is possible to buy most images for editorial, commercial or stock usage. I’ll even sell you large prints of them….
Contact: gunleikgroven@gmail.com

No comments yet.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.