Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Camera Resolution

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Huntington, West Virginia USA
    Posts
    882

    Default Camera Resolution

    Camera makers are constantly striving to up the resolution on cinema cameras, creating desire in the consumer with the myth that higher resolution is always better. But this article by an experienced DP sheds light on the reality of resolution numbers. I watched these camera comparisons and test videos and I was stunned to find that, beyond a certain resolution threshold, increasing resolution has diminishing returns.

    Assume that more resolution equals better? DP Steve Yedlin argues that we are already at peak resolution.

  2. #2

    Default

    In that case you may find BBC's R&D findings on high frame rate playback also interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2013-06...-of-television
    Which suggest that aside from resolution, increasing frame rate will also increase the perceived quality.
    I watched them demo this at IBC a few years ago and it looked really impressive.
    The cats are watching us...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,771
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Thanks both. Interesting to have the detailed analysis which seems to back up what most of us would have predicted.
    So, the message seems to be HD (2K) is adequate, but we might want to boost our fps.
    This makes some sense in that after a s=certain reduction in pixel size, the eye cannot really see it and the brain certainly won't distinguish it. With movement, however, we don't see/comprehend the moving image as a series of static images like in a flick book.
    Tim

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Huntington, West Virginia USA
    Posts
    882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimStannard View Post
    Thanks both. Interesting to have the detailed analysis which seems to back up what most of us would have predicted.
    So, the message seems to be HD (2K) is adequate, but we might want to boost our fps. This makes some sense in that after a s=certain reduction in pixel size, the eye cannot really see it and the brain certainly won't distinguish it. With movement, however, we don't see/comprehend the moving image as a series of static images like in a flick book.
    Interesting. The Japanese and Asian people also seem to have a preference for higher frame rates. The U.S. film market still leans towards the legacy 24 fps "look" but that classic "film look" was the result of exposure and depth-of-field issues in the older film cameras. That is no longer a problem with today's cameras and lenses. On the contrary, it is a "look" that many modern filmmakers strive to recreate and is very desirable in cinematography. With that old 24 fps system, too-fast of movements, by either the camera operator or the actors, would create a visual artifact called "strobing" which is very undesirable. To compensate, the actors staging fight scenes actually had to slow down when throwing punches to make things look right. Of course, that too is no longer an issue with today's higher frame rates, so I do see the plus side on the BBC argument. As the 'Baby Boomer' generation passes away, there will be less reluctance to abandon the lower film rates. As one such dinosaur, I now find myself gravitating towards higher fps rates to adapt to changing tastes.


  5. #5

    Default

    Unless you're going for a stop-motion effect In that case a high shutter speed combined with a low frame rate like 12-15 FPS gives a wonderful look.
    From my experience in stock footage I do notice that although higher frame rates are getting more common most clips are still offered at 24pfs so it's far from dead yet.
    The cats are watching us...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Huntington, West Virginia USA
    Posts
    882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapes View Post
    Unless you're going for a stop-motion effect In that case a high shutter speed combined with a low frame rate like 12-15 FPS gives a wonderful look.
    From my experience in stock footage I do notice that although higher frame rates are getting more common most clips are still offered at 24pfs so it's far from dead yet.
    True, but just as the dinosaurs perished from the face of the Earth, 24 fps too shall pass, unfortunately.

Similar Threads

  1. Where is the best resolution?
    By Mo_money in forum General video editing software help and advice
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 11:27 PM
  2. Resolution on Samsung camera
    By LucyP in forum Technology advice and tips
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 12:12 PM
  3. Wheres the resolution?
    By Mo_money in forum Pinnacle Studio, Edition including Avid Xpress and Liquid
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-08-2007, 12:27 PM
  4. Help with resolution and pixelation....
    By wjnesbitt in forum Adobe Premiere, Premiere Elements, and After Effects
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-10-2007, 07:58 PM
  5. what is TV resolution?
    By SLUGFly in forum Adobe Premiere, Premiere Elements, and After Effects
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-29-2004, 04:41 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •