SD, 408p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p… 2k, 4k, UDTV… it seems like the big push is to get ever-higher resolution. It’s true that given two pictures, identical in every other way, that the higher-res image will look better—if you’re close enough to see the difference. But it turns out that resolution isn’t as important as you might think.
I recently had the opportunity to test “the resolution question” myself. My wife underwent surgery, resulting in two things: long periods of seated immobility, and multiple deliveries of flowers. We set up a workstation for her in the living room, about seven feet from the 40” LCD HDTV, but the workstation didn’t have room for the vases of flowers, and she couldn’t turn her head to see the flowers elsewhere.
I put the flowers outside on the patio and set up a camera. I could provide close-ups of the flowers (as in the image above), or go wide to shoot birds in the birdbath and in the garden. These pix were fed to the 40” LCD, so my wife could enjoy the view while ensconced in a comfy chair.
I used different cameras at different times: a Sony HVR-Z1 (960x1080 native resolution), a Panasonic AG-HVX200 (960x540), and a Sony PMW-EX1 (1920x1080). All cameras fed the monitor 16x9 1080i analog component, with detail and color levels roughly matched.
From seven feet back, all the cameras were essentially identical in apparent sharpness.
If I moved my chair much closer (or got up and ogled the screen from a few inches away), I could see the difference, but even there, if I looked at the content, not just the fine detail, all the cameras were just fine. I was able to notice the differences when I switched between cameras, but when I walked into the room or turned on the first camera of the day, all I saw was a nice, HD picture of flowers (or birds). My wife (a graphic artist and video editor, among other things) noticed color and highlight-handling differences, but never commented on sharpness. Without an A/B comparison, our eyes were quite happy to accept what they saw as “true HD”.
What counted more than resolution was smoothness: all the cameras put out a fairly creditable 1080i signal, so even if a camera didn’t have a lot of native detail, its signal was smoothly continuous, without telltale 480i interlacing artifacts. The absence of jaggies, stairstepping, and the like “sold” the image even when high-frequency detail was lacking.
Yes, there are times when “too much is never enough”: when you’re projecting on a cinema screen; holding a long shot and letting the action play out in depth; intercutting with other material shot at a higher resolution (thus making the difference noticeable). 2001: A Space Odyssey requires high resolution. Its 2.2:1 aspect ratio, letterboxed in standard def, is barely watchable, but with HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback (or 70mm theater projection) the detail-centric glory of Kubrick’s intricate vision becomes clear. “2001” is notable for its dependence on (a) a big screen, and (b) the extended long shot (consider also the iconic opening scene in “Star Wars - Episode IV”).
But sometimes, “too much is too much.” Few stories are played in long shots the way 2001 was; in human-centered dramas, the emphasis is on the close-up. Filmmakers have been putting nets on (or behind) their pin-sharp lenses for the better part of a century, or using any of a staggering variety of softening filters, to tone down and excess of nagging detail. The Saddest Music in the World was shot on Super16mm, 16mm (spring-wound Bolexes), and a raft of Bauer Super8mm cameras, most of them with Vaseline smeared on their lenses.
OK, “Saddest Music” is an extreme case, but even so: if it were all about resolution, then neither VHS nor YouTube would ever have succeeded.
The whole point of this rant (what, there’s a point?) is simply: don’t obsess about limiting resolution, it’s only one, small part of what makes pictures look good. Colorimetry, highlight handling, shadow detail, and motion rendering may not be as easy to measure, but they’re all more important to image quality.
Reminds me a bit of an argument I had way back when. One of my videos got nominated at a video festival and this TV producer friend of mine loved it as well so he suggested we should broadcast it. His partner started a whole rant about this being only U-matic (hey in 1989 U-matic was hot!) so no joy.
the video ended up making the rounds in art house cinemas being projected on large screens, it was a big hit with the audience. Not much later the whole “funniest home videos” craze happened and I think any argument about resolution and image quality over content pretty much died.
Not to say that high-def is not much better then SD. When I watch planet earth on my 50” Pioneer EX5000 (whoo hey bragging rights, this IS the best plasma they ever made, it makees the latest kuro screeen look like cheap LCD’s) at 5feet away from the screen you can’t help but being utterly overwhelmed by the colors, resolution and amazing detail. You also get to be annoyed at 16mm cut in between and see every tiny lens fault. But like you said, without a reference you will accept a lot more then most people think.
Still, you won’t see me buying anything less then BluRay’s, so I also think it depends on the quality of the screen. (this one even has a 444 input setting.. oh dear now I gotto buy a RED)
Posted by Maarten Toner on 07/09 at 05:13 AM
Maarten: The mention of Planet Earth (which I’m a big fan of, BTW) is quite apropos - it was shot primarily in 720P on Varicams (so, 960x720 recording). Nonetheless I’ve never had anyone complain that it was lacking in resolution.
Posted by Jesse Rosen on 07/09 at 10:39 AM
The biggest improvement for me, after buying a 52” LCD TV, was the increase in my field-of-view. Still it isn’t as much as in the cinema, but a big improvement over the 32” CRT it replaced at the same distance. Field-of-view is what makes Imax so compelling, I think.
Posted by Rob on 07/09 at 12:27 PM
I had to laugh at the premise here that HD screens are going to trend smaller, not bigger. And the reasons for that prediction are what? A slowing economy and because interlaced SD doesn’t look good on a big screen?
Come on Adam, you can’t be serious. People may become a little price sensitive for short periods of time, but overall, the trend is to buy as big a TV screen as will fit your space available. Plus, the prices for big screen TVs continue to spiral downward, making it much easier for people to afford.
We’ve had crappy economies before, and TV tube sizes kept getting bigger, until they were supplanted by even bigger HD sets. Expect more of the same, as well as more and more HD content broadcast.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/09 at 12:36 PM
Jesse:
Panasonic has claimed that Planet Earth was shot primarily on Varicam, but when you look more closely at the BBC’s own comments, you’ll see that Sony F900s and 35mm film also played a big role.
For instance, I believe all of the helicopter shots in the series, if shot on video, were shot with the F900 mounted in that anti-shake pod used so effectively. And that makes sense: the F900’s higher resolution was well suited to resolving detail in extreme wide shots, whereas the Varicam’s 720p resolution may not have captured things quite so sharp.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/09 at 12:41 PM
“I had to laugh at the premise here that HD screens are going to trend smaller, not bigger… Come on Adam, you can’t be serious.”
Ellis, thanks for arguing! [grin]
I was as surprised by that writeup as you are. I ain’t predicting, just reporting. And that report came out before the run-up in energy prices; I can only imagine the economically-driven downsizing trend is continuing.
But sure: the economy will turn around at some point. Once pressure is removed, people will buy larger… up to a point. Not everyone has the room for ever-bigger displays. And the “biggest display that fits” isn’t always the optimal choice.
In our house we started off with a 100-inch screen (LCD front projection), before moving to 40” (direct-view LCD). 100 inches is WAY COOL, but it turned out to be too big to comfortably view. Watching a 40-incher from 3 screen widths away may not be the “big screen” experience but at least we can enjoy stories without constantly swiveling our heads to scan a huge picture. A big screen can be immersive, but it’s also more fatiguing to watch; what works in a cinema for two hours at a time isn’t necessarily what works for daily viewing. I wasn’t expecting this outcome, but it turned out that smaller WAS better in our circumstances.
Your mileage may vary, of course!
Posted by Adam Wilt on 07/09 at 03:30 PM
You can see the difference in cameras in the planet earth series, just watched some of it with a friend. Some shots have a slight fuzziness to it and others are ultra sharp with a lot of detail. Then again I am sitting pretty close, you can also see atmospheric disturbance because some of the shots are from high up or far away.
One thing I would like to add to the mix is framerate:
I would love to see us moving to 48P in the future. getting rid of the silly idea 24P is the magic number because its not and anyone trying to make a nice quick pan on 24P with the wrong shutter speed knows this.
And no I never get tired from watching, then again I used to go to 3 movies before going to a 24hour film marathon and see 2 movies after so who knows?
I’m afraid none of us are the norm and what I see in the shops is definitely getting bigger, not smaller.
But to “arrgue” with Adam, here is the one thing I did find true: sure people will not see the difference in quality or resolution when your average consumer has to pick between SD or 720P but I do believe people feel the difference.
You might not logically understand or see the difference between resolutions but I definitely believe we experience the difference.
HellBoy in HD on Blu Ray is far more exciting then the SD DVD I got, dunno why, it just is.
Posted by Maarten Toner on 07/09 at 03:55 PM
Adam,
I just read in Philip Hodgetts ” The HD Survival Handbook 2008 on page 22 COUNTING RESOLUTION. that 720P is the sweet spot for production because it upconverts to 1080 very well and that at the end viewers location the 720P material will have better resolution then the 1080i. He also says that at the average viewing distance, about three paces its imperceptible .
Does he have a point and have we just been sold on the bigger is better theory??
Ray Paunovich
Posted by Ray Paunovich on 07/09 at 09:08 PM
Maarten: sure, if the screen is big enough, the difference is there… and “feel the difference” is a good way of putting it. When I watch real HD on my 40” set, instead of upconverted SD, it IS more detailed, and the difference on, say, a 35mm-originated program can be profound. Given the choice between an SD and an HD version of the same program, I’ll take the HD: it’s more fun!
And yes, if only we’d gone with Gary Demos’ proposal for scalable frame rates in HD (24, 48, and 72fps), the world would be a better place.
Ray: the effective vertical resolutions of 720p and 1080i are about equal, and 720p upconverts to 1080i very, very nicely. You then have the tradeoff: 1080i has more horizontal resolution, while 720p has better temporal resolution.
If you look at Carlton Bale’s plot of screen sizes and viewing distances (linked from the article), you’ll see that at the typical viewing distance of nine feet, you need a BIG screen to see the difference between 720p and 1080p; 1080i falls somewhere in between the two in perceived resolution.
Posted by Adam Wilt on 07/09 at 10:26 PM
Adam,
Technically its better but for all intense and purposes they will look the same, their will be less compression and to the human eye who is watching TV or a DVD it will be beautiful HD!! Am I right or wrong as most people don’t even know what purple fringeing or alaising is or care.
Ray Paunovich
Posted by Ray Paunovich on 07/10 at 12:06 PM
but what is meant by “contrast” in this context?
high dynamic range? (expensive)
or turn up the contrast/sharpness? (cheap)
there is an obvious sense in which resolution increases contrast and vice versa - viz. Thomas Knoll’s photoshop trick of “sharpening” a picture by enhancing local area contrast. Microcontrast>sharpness>(perceived)resolution.
one other thought - re brightness.
Low key (eg Se7en) works great in dark movie theaters, or even in well laid out living rooms. But on computer screens where there is often a lot of competition from bright objects outside the video frame, I suspect brightness commands a higher premium.
Posted by peter on 07/14 at 09:25 PM
Ah, “contrast”... I don’t have access to the quoted report so I can’t say what was intended. Sure, wide dynamic range (on the display end), boosting the contrast control (wide dynamic range for midtones, even if highlights & shadows get clipped), and/or “sharpening”/aperture correction/detail enhancement, can all add “snap” to the image and make it look “better”.
Brightness, a.k.a. the “surround” effect, is also important. One reason many movies are shot low-key, while many TV shows are awash in light, is for precisely that reason. TV display gamma also tends to boost midtones higher (compared to the same content seen in a theater) to better compete with the ambient light in a typical TV viewing environment.
When I watch a .mov in Safari on Mac, it displays on a dark gray page. My buddies watching using Firefox on Windows see the same .mov on a white background. The effect is rather different!
It’s frequently observed that a customer coming into a TV store will tend to gravitate to the brightest screen. And consumer sets are bluer than SMPTE-C or 601/709-calibrated sets, because blue phosphors are very bright, thus making the sale easier.
So, yes, all these things matter (these things, and many more). It’s just best not to fixate on one of them to the exclusion of the others.
Purple fringing and aliasing (or red fringing on so many of the HD zooms I see)? It’s arguable how much of an unconscious effect these have on the uninitiated. I would suggest that they DO have an effect, even if John Q. Viewer can’t articulate what it is about a picture that he likes or dislikes. However it is OUR grave and solemn responsibility—and eternal curse, as creators of the image—to see these things and know what causes them, so that we can make the best pictures we can with the tools available to us. [grin]
Posted by Adam Wilt on 07/14 at 11:43 PM
I said, “consumer sets are bluer than SMPTE-C or 601/709-calibrated sets, because blue phosphors are very bright.”
Of course non-phosphor-based displays (LCDs, OLEDs) aren’t burdened the same way. For a brief time (at least until SED / FED displays start to compete seriously) we can be free of the blue-phosphor tyranny.
Posted by Adam Wilt on 07/15 at 12:05 AM
Adam you say “It’s just best not to fixate on one of them to the exclusion of the others.”
Agreed - it’s not best - but it is cheapest. Producing high resolution is (relatively) cheap - extending dynamic range and improving low light performance are expensive.
I would put dynamic range ahead of resolution, and for web video brightness round about equal with resolution. But I don’t design video cameras.
Posted by peter on 07/15 at 07:47 AM
aside
it is disappointing (given the proliferation of web video) that FCP does not allow the background of the canvas or viewer windows to be changed from dark grey. So you can’t get an accurate preview of what the clip will look like on your blog/web site.
Posted by peter on 07/15 at 08:49 AM
One of the things that is sort of missing from the discussion is screen quality. In the end you can shoot as high def as you like but most screens are below the norm. And the main reason why HD doesn’t have such an impact is because the screens can’t really handle it.
And Full HD on anything smaller then 46 inch is considered overkill anyway. DPI and all that, and not to forget most screens have a dynamic range that is just terrible. Despite the claims of 1:8000 contrast ratio. On the Pioneer EX5000 I can see detail in dark areas where every other screen shows black.
SO I think the real question is: how important is resolution and contrast right now. This all depends on the quality of the screen you watch it on and how much of a “sell by date” you want to build in. Screens will catch up to the cameras sooner then you think.
The Scarlet 3K in price and resolution is around the corner (YAY now I can use my 4:4:4 option on the screen) so in a year or two we will see another quality jump up on the ladder to true home cinema.
And I will always believe that even though people might not be able to analyze why they think something “feels” better to watch they will experience the difference.
Posted by Maarten Toner on 07/15 at 10:27 AM
Oh and to add: People expect more quality or more practical use. Look at music, vinyl is becoming more popular. Cd sales are going down because a new generation prefers vinyl for quality and ipods for comfort.
Posted by Maarten Toner on 07/15 at 10:30 AM
Let’s not forget that the entire reason that HD was developed was so that people could watch larger screens from a closer distance than SD. In other words to give a cinema style field of view in the home.
Posted by Simon Wyndham on 04/27 at 09:45 AM
“For many people, upscaled SD (at least progressive 480p24, as on DVDs) looks just fine.”—well, yeah. This does not mean these people will not appreciate HD. For me, DVD-video is fine, and for many movies I can do without HD. But when you see the difference you know that HD is what you want. For example, Wall-E looks fine on DVD because of this fuzzy low-contrast low-detail feel, at least in the first half of the movie. It does not get MUCH better on Blu-ray. But Ratatouille is a whole different story, it looks so sharp, so detailed in HD that you cannot imagine watching it again on DVD. Top Gear—I am quite happy with old standard def series, but if you watched North Pole Special you can see how magnificent this show can look in HD. Things like nature shots (National Parks, Planet Earth) look so much better in HD. Films about art, showing paintings and sculptures, gain enormously from HD. I can watch YouTube videos and DVDs, but I do appreciate good HD. I sit about 10 feet from the TV and I can clearly see the difference between DVD-video and Blu-ray.
As to 720p vs. 1080p, I myself have a 768-line 50-inch panel and I am very happy with 720p HD. I watched 1080p stuff at stores, the stuff that was shot specifically to look good in 1080p TVs, the high quality demo stuff. I still appreciate my old-tech HD TV, I don’t really want more at this point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/17 at 12:28 PM
