RED 8k camera, a sign of things to come from apple?

[Tom Sefton]

This – 100 times this. Video walls for trade shows and multi projection screens have been bread and butter for us and high resolution footage looks incredible when you can maintain quality all the way from concept to delivery.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk

[Greg Janza]

And that’s what makes the Yedlin experiment so fascinating. Unless I’m misunderstanding his results, Yedlin proves without any doubt that there’s no way for the human eye to detect a difference in resolution quality at a certain point and that other factors that are non-resolution dependent have a much greater affect on the viewing experience. And that theory would hold true even if you scale up the screen from a television monitor to full on theatrical projection.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
– Orson Welles

[Walter Soyka]

[greg janza] “And that’s what makes the Yedlin experiment so fascinating. Unless I’m misunderstanding his results, Yedlin proves without any doubt that there’s no way for the human eye to detect a difference in resolution quality at a certain point and that other factors that are non-resolution dependent have a much greater affect on the viewing experience. And that theory would hold true even if you scale up the screen from a television monitor to full on theatrical projection.”

There’s an ideal viewing distance that goes along with the size of the screen. Think about resolution in terms of pixels per degrees of FOV, not just pixels or pixels per foot. If you’re closer than the ideal viewing distance, the human eye can resolve more detail than the screen can show, and the image is noticeably softened.

Unfortunately, the people who sign the checks usually sit in the front row, while the best seats in the house are sometimes as far as halfway back.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Greg Janza]

[Walter Soyka] “Unfortunately, the people who sign the checks usually sit in the front row, while the best seats in the house are sometimes as far as halfway back.
“

That might be true but Yedlin also does a good job of showing that imagery isn’t necessarily getting any bigger on our retinas as we scale up in screen projection size.

so again the notion that there’s an actual need for higher resolution material is simply a marketing ploy.

I Hate Television. I Hate It As Much As Peanuts. But I Can’t Stop Eating Peanuts.
– Orson Welles

[Bill Davis]

[Walter Soyka] “Unfortunately, the people who sign the checks usually sit in the front row, while the best seats in the house are sometimes as far as halfway back.”

My original posted shot was taken with a 360 degree camera held over my head at the show.

Here’s a better look at the show from a panorama shot I took. (This is for artistic critique featuring a tiny shot out if a long presentation with no financial motive, so I feel Titie 17 “fair use” is defensible – but if WB calls, by all means, take it down.)

(Note the camera op for scale)

Those 5 screens basically covered an almost 180 field of view. (The blown out center screen is the stage area where Kansas was playing.)

Walter is totally correct in that anyone in the first 50 rows only got a fraction of the experience unless they turned themself into a human swivel/bobble head during the show.

And unlike most “super-super wise screen” presentations – all the screens had unique (although completely coordinated) content being displayed. They could virtually drive “Baby” – the car character around the walls at will – or show unique composites of characters in different quadrants.

This 10 minute “intro video” (introducing the show stars before their on-stage interviews for all the fans) – clearly took $$$$$$ to produce and show.

As befits a major media corporate cash cow of 10+ years duration.

Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.

[Tom Sefton]

The chase for more resolution and scale isn’t a new thing – 35mm equates to around 6K, and any director wanting to make a picture that looks good when projected wants that resolution. Anything shot on 65mm looks awesome, that is close to 12k.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk

[Walter Soyka]

[greg janza] “so again the notion that there’s an actual need for higher resolution material is simply a marketing ploy with no real world need.”

Look at the “ratio of screen width to distance.” We have audience sitting 30′ from a 200′ screen. Very different from normal viewing conditions.

Walter Soyka
Designer & Mad Scientist at Keen Live [link]
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
@keenlive   |   RenderBreak [blog]   |   Profile [LinkedIn]

[Oliver Peters]

[Tom Sefton] “35mm equates to around 6K”

Actually that estimate is highly debatable. Furthermore, when we discuss release prints (film) in theaters, the consensus of actual resolution is around 1K to 2K. Remember that 6K is not resolution, it’s a horizontal pixel dimension. Actual resolution is something completely different.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Andrew Kimery]

1. Supernatural isn’t just for girls, Bill. ???? All previous seasons are on Netflix so if you are needing a show to check out I strongly recommend it. First couple of seasons are monster-of-the-week/episodic, but later seasons are more serialized (though still with stand alone episodes mixed in).

2. Somewhere (either here, on FB or on my blog) I wrote a post a while back about this being the gilded age of corporate video because barriers to entry in terms of production cost and distribution options have simply evaporated over the last 10-15yrs. You can certainly get ‘broadcast quality’ on non-broadcast productions. For example, on two of the YouTube live streaming shows I’ve worked on in the past year (one was a talk show format and the other was live coverage of E3) we used the same crews, cameras, control rooms/trucks that you’d use on a broadcast production even though we were destined for YouTube. Of course now that I think about it we did similar things when I worked at GameTrailers 2009 (2010?).

3. I think calling this live, choreographed event a ‘corporate video’ and comparing it to watching a movie or TV show is a bit apples to oranges. Comparing it to other live, choreographed events (concerts, award shows, Super Bowl halftime show, theme park shows, Grease: Live on FOX, etc.,) seems more appropriate.

[Walter Soyka] “Resolution matters a lot to us. 4K or 8K may not matter on a 70″ display in your living room…”

For final distribution I agree, though for production and post shooting in an higher res than the final distribution format can of course have multiple benefits. On a related note, the new movie “6 Below” which was shot, cut, and finished in 6k for the Barco Escape format (basically three movie screens in a wrap-around format w/11.1 sound) is coming out on Friday. A look at the workflow can be found here, https://vashivisuals.com/6-below-editing-in-6k/

[Tom Sefton]

You are missing my point. Of course the 6K figure relates to horizontal resolution but if a 35mm print is scanned the resulting image at a similar density would be around 6K in horizontal resolution.

My point is that if the 1 or 2k digital print has always been good enough then why would anyone ever film at higher than that if the human eye can’t see a difference in quality in the projected print.

In film terms, projectors could and still can, project a 35mm print. Many directors still want to use this format and even higher (Nolan with Dunkirk, Tarantino with hateful eight). The quest for bigger and more in terms of film, went from 8mm to 65mm and is doing the same in digital.

Co-owner at Pollen Studio
http://www.pollenstudio.co.uk