Prairie Wind 16K HDR video was created using two Canon EOS 5DS cameras

Thank you!

Oct 15, 2020permalink

Marcelobtp

at 2 min i discovered the trick there are some image artifacts, anyway, i really liked the final result plenty of true detail.

Nov 22, 2018permalink

spatz

@MartinLisius,

Are you going to respond to every single comment, however trivial, thanking the user for their post and for their insight?

Nov 21, 2018permalink

fusoexplorer

I will answer for him. Yes! Thank you for your post and insight.

Nov 22, 2018permalink

Yes, Spatz. Whenever I can. :)

Oct 15, 2020permalink

brownie314

This is great. I grew up in the coastal region of south Texas and I remember being to excited by storms that would come through. My mom and I (she has passed now) would sit outside and watch these storms roll in and the great symphony playing out in the clouds over our heads. This video took me back to that time with my mom. Thanks Martin.

Nov 21, 2018permalink

wasTF

..but the shutters are dead now?

Nov 20, 2018*permalink

duartix

Could something similar (although at lower resolution) have been achieved by using just one camera that takes a long exposure immediately followed by a short exposure?
Since these frames are are going to be significantly sped up, ghosting can almost be a non issue.
I was thinking first about my Panasonic GX85 and an advanced intervalometer, but then again, if there is proper light, FL is adequate and resolution is not an issue (4K), shouldn't this be achievable on a smartphone with a proper intervalometer app assuming I can shoot manual (locked dual exposures)?
I was thinking about this one: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.sourceforge.opencamera&hl=en&rdid=net.sourceforge.opencamera
I'm not interested in dissecting IQ, I'm just interested in the setup for HDR...
Could it be done?

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

You can take hdr images like you say with an intervallometer. But there will be a bit of ghosting based on the movement in the sky.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

dr8

duartix: but, isn't the use of 2 cameras here in order to get the panavision/cinemascope look without the ultra high $$$$$$$$ cinema bodies?

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

duartix

@dr: it is. I had no idea. I though this setup was just an elaborate way to get HDR.
In the end, it's all about resolution. :|
So, answering my own question, yes it would be very well possible with a smartphone considering a resolution limitation like 4K.

Nov 20, 2018permalink

Hu duartix. It requires TWO cameras to get 16K resolution video. That's an 8K image (width) stitched together with the other image. When I say HDR, I mean HDR in the video sense. In this case, I produce the 16K video within the Rec 2020 HDR colorspace.

Oct 15, 2020permalink

Neowind712

Great job!!! Super creative. I own a 5DS and have been really wanting to do a weather time lapse.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Dan TH

America is quite a pretty place - some of the later scenes where really painfully beautiful!

Nov 19, 2018permalink

thomy

4 months for a nap time video, good job, it works ! :v

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

108

How about some good techno music for this kind of vid ? huh ? Great images , btw .

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Steve Balcombe

Not sure I really see the point of 16k wide, but more importantly he should have learned the basics of time lapse photography before embarking on a project like this. Those fast shutter speeds make parts of it painful to watch.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Hi Steve. I'm the director and photographer. I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post, and have an awesome day!

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Yes, but why? As long as an emmetropic human is seated in a distance that is necessary to relaxedly take in the whole picture at one glance, that human won't ever be able to resolve 16K, not even 8K, and I daresay not even 4K.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

The reference is not a distance allowing an emmetropic state of the eye, but the average distance between our sofa and TV set. However, at 3m, a normal eye resolves dots of about 1mm. It means that to see the finest details of a 4K screen, it should be about 4m wide... Not common, but in a near future it could be affordable. But I forget an 8m wide 8K TV screen, as my living-room is too small...

Nov 19, 2018permalink

I beg forgiveness, I find that I completely misused the word 'emmetropic'. What I really meant was 'a human with normal eyesight'...

But I guess you'll agree that you cannot really see and relaxedly follow the whole picture if you're sitting in just 3m distance from an 8m screen :-)

Nov 19, 2018permalink

"But I guess you'll agree that you cannot really see and relaxedly follow the whole picture if you're sitting in just 3m distance from an 8m screen :-)"
I agree, but we cannot see the "whole picture" in front of us in real life too, without moving our eyes or head... What could be interesting when looking at a 8K screen 3m away, is precisely that it will fills our field of view nearly completely, giving us a viewing experience closer to reality. I do no think it is always necessary to see the whole picture with a fixed position of the eyes. It depends on the contents, or the intent of the author of the pictures. For example, when looking at a still picture of a landscape, I would not mind having to move my eyes to explore the scene, as in front of a real landscape.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

A 8m screen viewed at a distance of 3m will fill our field of view nearly completely, which is closer to reality. In the real life, we do not see things through a "small window". And such a screen could provide settings to shrink the picture to a smaller size, narrower field of view, for a viewing better comfort when needed.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

I agree that in photography it makes sense to have more resolution than would be necessary to see the whole image at once glance.

In video, though, I really don't.

Oh, and then the eye has its maximum resolution only in the center. Even when a screen's resolution is not wasted in the view's center, because the distance is close enough, it is definitely wasted in a very large area sufficiently far off from the center. How far off the center again depends on how close to the screen someone is sitting.

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

"In video, though, I really don't."

It depends what kind of video you are watching. For a more immersive experience, it is interesting to have a screen that completely fills the field of view. I saw once a movie taken from a roller-coaster car on an ultra-wide screen. Impressive.

"Oh, and then the eye has its maximum resolution only in the center. Even when a screen's resolution is not wasted in the view's center, because the distance is close enough, it is definitely wasted in a very large area sufficiently far off from the center. "

For me, a very large screen in not made to be looked only at the center, but to be explored by moving my eyes, like I do in front of a real scene. And to keep the distant constant, the solution is simple : a curved screen. Some manufacturers already make such screens. But I admit that a curved, 8m-wide screen can only fit a very large living-room... Not for the masses, not for me.

Nov 20, 2018*permalink

PieterB

It is of course nice as an experiment but the highest resolution on a current is 5k.
Nobody can actually see 16k

Nov 19, 2018permalink

spatz

8k monitors are readily available.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

for normal house household maybe no. If you have a large imax theater or something big then you can see the difference between 16k vs 4k. They say you need a 55inch tv to notice the difference between 4k and 1080p at 6' away (closer you can see the detail the further it all looks the same). The smaller the screen the less megapixel you need as you can't tell the difference when they are that tiny.

But with that said my 27" 4k looks better then my older 24" 1080 both ips graphic monitor for 4k content.

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post. Innolux is releasing a 16K 100" display soon. See https://www.displaydaily.com/press-release/innolux-to-showcase-smartwatch-with-flexible-oled-display

Nov 19, 2018permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3967477458/this-12k-nyc-flyover-video-was-captured-with-three-8k-red-weapon-monstro-vv-cameras

I have a 4K monitor and even at 4K setting, this video is not imppressive. Is it down the video platform, as it is not hosted on YouTube?

This 12K video which was posted on dpreview a few months was so much better:

Nov 19, 2018permalink

yeah that looks more details, but it has more noticeable details from cityscape compare to the clouds of this Prairie Wind video.

This is just 4k, but my benchmark for what 4k should be for a music video, haha. if my photography can get those lighting effects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCoYcxNMBE&index=22&list=PL7-LHB07IzrTo4t6wMCNZy9r63QfI2R6m&t=0s

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

MikeStern

It’s partially the old tech Canon is lagging back with in their 5DSR sensor. Dynamic range is falling short.
They should’ve gone with Sonikon sensors.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

PieterB

I agree. That skyline video was much better.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

The 12k movie by Phil is indeed incredible. But just so we remember, his movie was made with 3 Red Monstro cameras which is both a larger sensor and a VERY expensive camera. Last I checked the brain is about $65000 each, a full setup would cost you probably $80.000.

We have a Red 8k Helium camera and also the 5DSR and use them frequently so I can give a bit of comparison for them both for timelapse.

The 5DSR has a bit higher resolution and is a bit sharper, mostly because of the lack of lowpass filter and also to some degree because the images are uncompressed while Red has compression. However the dynamic range on Helium is incredible. If you film or photograph towards the sky you will almost never blow out any details. Helium is measured 15.2 stop according to DXO, but 16.5 according to Red while Canon is measured 12.4 so that is about 3 stops more. Red also lets you take timelapses in higher fps such as 5fps.

Anyway, hopefully useful for someone.
/Andreas

Nov 19, 2018permalink

CeeDee

Wow!

Nov 18, 2018permalink

bwana4swahili

Love the video; great job!

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post and kind words.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

The image width here is roughly 16K, but the aspect ratio gives a pixel count that is less than 70% of what a standard 16:9 ratio would give for 16K video. In fact, the aspect ratio here is approximately 16:5.8. In sum, even ignoring that it's stitched stills, it's a bit of an overstatement to call this 16K video. It's really just stitches of side-by-side 50MP stills giving a 92.5MP video frame instead of the >132MP of 16K video.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

brn

When we moved from XXXp to XK, we knew this kind of exaggeration wouldn't be far behind.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

mosc

I agree, but it's still around 14K or so by resolution which is pretty impressive in it's own right.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

It'd be more impressive to me if I hadn't been shooting timelapse movies with camera arrays of significantly higher resolution for years. ;-)

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post. The 16K clips I used are 15,985 x 5792 pixels at 2.76. I released it as 2.39 8K.

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

What have you been making these timelapses for and with ProfHank?

Nov 19, 2018permalink

AndreasOberg: Mostly I've made them as part of our TDCI (Time Domain Continuous Imaging) research -- not art. Some worked well, others were a huge pain. The majority have been using arrays of Canon PowerShots reprogrammed and coordinated via CHDK. You might get a kick out of http://aggregate.org/DIT/ei2018MULTIslides.pdf -- it overviews many of the array cameras we've built in my group over the years. For example, KREighteen used 18 SX530HS (16MP each) for a theoretical max 288MP, but was programmed as double-rate roughly 128MP HDR using interleaved 9-camera sets.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

MartinLisius: Although the 16K claim bothers me, I think you did a nice job on the video overall, and made particularly good use of camera motion during the timelapse -- that's not something we can easily do with rigs having lots more cameras. BTW, the Canon PowerShots only get us either 16MP or 20MP per shot with about 10EV DR... but the SX530HS cost us $130 each and some of the 20MP ones we use cost us $70 each. Unfortunately, they are quite slow if we're capturing raws, but the price/IQ and ability to run user code in the camera are big wins. Pitty the 5DS doesn't run Magic Lantern. You could also do scripting in a Sony A7RII using OpenMemories, but Sony discontinued PlayMemory App support for the III models, so OpenMemories may be a bit of a dead end.

I do wish the shutter angle was larger in your video. Maybe an ND filter would allow a slow enough shutter to get some motion blur and blending?

Nov 20, 2018permalink

quiquae

Well, waiting for this video to load is teaching me jedi-like patience too....

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post. Yes, it can take some time to load, especially in 8K or 4K. Sorry for the delay.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

kminkov

Why does it matter what computer it was edited on?

Nov 18, 2018permalink

morinor

For marketing reasonings of course. It doesn't even tell us which exactly processor was used, how much ram and if GPU was used which one. These details could at least provide the minimum details for the "processing effort".

Nov 18, 2018permalink

FotografMagnus

It's always like this when something was done on a Apple product, they have to brag about it just to show it's actually useful for something. Pathetic is the only suitable word i can think of.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post. We would love to have an extra intern on staff to add additional specs to descriptions. If interested, please contact us via our company link in the video description. We don't own Apple or get anything in return for listing them, so no, it's not for marketing reasons. Thank you again for you post and have an awesome week.

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

KoolKool

i hate that crop ratio!

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Imager of

This looks incredible on my iPhone 8. (Wish I had the plus sized phone to really appreciate the details) Thanks for sharing.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

AE-1Burnham

Is this sarcasm? Because if it is: "Well done sir Imager!" :-D

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Fotoni

I thought that it was recorded at least with 24 fps, but this is timelapse and therefore timed still shooting. There is actually a HDR video somewhere in Youtube which reflect same light to the two cameras with a prism or something. Both cameras use different exposure settings. This might not be necessary today because latest Sony sensors have very nice DR even for true video and even more for stills, if doing timelapses.

Basically we are seeing right now that stills can offer nice DR, but camera hardware is not good enough to do that at least with 24 fps non-stop. Maybe in 5-10 years this is possible even at 60 fps in consumer price range.

I dont know about HDR. The sun is ugly overexposed with yellow posterization and some shadows had that washed out magenta tint. DR was pushed beyond what these cameras can handle. It was made with a Canon and no one has published similar footage with other brand cameras in Dpreview. Title is technical, so I ignored content itself now.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Shiranai

HDR is already possible with RAW recording or dual-ISO that magic lantern offers. Just not in that resolution.
The ol' EOS 5D3 can already record 3K RAW with ML. So it might be the highest resolution RAW full frame consumer camera up to now.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Entropy512

Timelapse HDR could be done by intentionally underexposing images, minimizing the dead time between images, and then averaging them, in a technique similar to Google's HDR+ algorithm minus the alignment step.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

I think the reason we are seeing blown highlights may just be an exposure "error". After all the exposure is often fixed when you shot timelapses.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

On my 4K screen I honestly can't see any difference between this and any other video I've ever seen. One wonders whether the extra storage and processing required is actually worth it?

Artistically it's fabulous though...

Nov 18, 2018permalink

morinor

Just following numbers from now on. With 4K I think we have caught more than the limit. 8K serves for really large screens indeed such as 80". This video has more serve as a personal achievement than its real usage. Unluckily companies continue to use numbers in order to sell products. Although 4K is barely used, 8K is near to start to be used. I hope it will remain for studio work as it can still be useful for Cinema.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

I got a laptop with a 4K screen thinking it would help with editing pics. They look great when opened in Lightroom but when uploaded to Flickr (for instance) they don't look as sharp. I don't get it. But some 4K videos on youtube look awesome. Go figure....

Nov 18, 2018permalink

morinor

@Hugo808
This is logical. It depends on the magnitude that you see them and the rendering. Usually photos are being processed by websites in order to provide smaller pictures. This can result in image quality degradation. Moreover the browser itself can be blamed as this is your rendering software and not the Lightroom.
4K videos is different story. Usually it is possible to match pixels 1:1. So it is not needed any kind of processing. If this is not happening then the image must be up or down sampled. Then you can see image deterioration or even artifacts.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Browser eh? very interesting. I shall look into this. Thanks.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

I am using a 4K monitor and I don't see special about it. I did set the video to 4K. I am not sure what is going on.

Try the video in this article:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3967477458/this-12k-nyc-flyover-video-was-captured-with-three-8k-red-weapon-monstro-vv-cameras

Nov 19, 2018permalink

I definitely see some different with 4k stream vs 1080p stream. I just got a 27" 4k hdr monitor output from my laptop vs my old graphic 24" 1080 monitor on another computer. They look both good at 4k, but my 27" 4k monitor is better so I see a tad more detail.....in the grass, that is about where i see the differences. Plus the 4k monitor is hdr so I see the darker shadow area has more details. So the 4k monitor for the win, but I got to say the 1080 downscaling looks quite good. People say you see 4k difference on a 55" or larger tv at 6 feat away. I tried my 4k tv, off a PS4, but it only stream 1080p or 1440 on youtube and vimeo via the ps4 browers, so I can't say anything about that.

As for flickr you can control the max viewing setting. I use 1600, the 2048 is too much, people can steals image by many means of a web browsers.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Hyper, that looks great in 4K on my screen. The trouble is you can't watch it without it stuttering and buffering all the way through. I suppose I could wait half an hour for it to load but my computer is a latest gen running on a fast broadband.

Makes me think that humanity's technological ambition is exceeding its capabilities!

Nov 19, 2018permalink

my 65mb download comcast speed get lag on the new york city one too, does fine on this Prairie wind one 4k. Sometimes it is the server on the other end.

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

Hugo808 "without it stuttering and buffering all the way through"

I am using on Fibre broadband. I use a wired internet connection. I had no problems. I don't use Wi-fi as it fighting for bandwith with neighbhoours.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Hyper. That sounds like the way forward. But by the time my area catches up it'll be 94K and I'll still have to wait...

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

tangbunna

3D 16k

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Monochrom

What screen are you supposed to watch it on to see 16K?

Nov 18, 2018permalink

A 16K one.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

vscd

or 4x4k...

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Or I guess 2x8K screens would in theory be possible.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post. Innolux just announced a 16K display.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

little al

Amazing video. Congratulations to Martin Lisius and his group for sharing such awesome beauty.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your kind words, little Al!

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Mr Bolton

That's incredible!!

Nov 18, 2018permalink

$DiffractionLtd$

DiffractionLtd

The format of the video appears to be about 1:2.1 or so, so not really two 3:2 images size by side but rather blended well.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

seloo

Because it's not shot with Sony gear suddenly even 4k is unnecessary. Dpreview forums are filled with funny bunch of people.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

CaPi

You need to get out more, sir

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

seloo

Nov 18, 2018*permalink

Robert Krawitz

Nice work.

This isn't a criticism of the video at all, but it rather annoys me that video dimensions are expressed in terms of the horizontal direction, not the vertical one. Videos are almost always wide compared to their height. So it is 16K by the canonical measurement, but it has the same height as a 10K 16:9 video would have.

Again, I want to emphasize that this is in no way a criticism of the work. Given the subject there were very good reasons to do it with a very wide aspect ratio (not to mention the technical reasons). My issue is simply with the standard way of measuring video dimensions.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

s1oth1ovechunk

This is because in cinema the width of the film was usually the same but the lens would compress the ok mage horizontally. When you scan the film the width may be half of the final aspect ratio but the resolution is in film space, not final image space.
HDTV decided to switch from the number of vertical lines 1080p to the number of horizontal ~4k because it sounds bigger.. Camera companies are following suit.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post. I think it's expressed that way because it's the thing that changes the most relative to aspect ratio. So, for 4K, both DCI and UHD are 2160 vertical, but the DCI is longer horizontally, so that's where the change is, at the horizontal.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Karafuru

The clouds were as epic as that rolling shutter.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

whumber

Where do you see significant rolling shutter?

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Karafuru

windmills. Don't take it serious it's suppose to be a joke since it doesn't detract from the video.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

whumber

That's what I suspected, that's not rolling shutter you're seeing but the actual blade design of the wind turbines. At the frequency wind turbines that size rotate and the shutter sync speed of a 5Ds you're not going to see any rolling shutter effect.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Karafuru

Holy moley you're right now that I think about it, he/she was doing single shots with mechanical shutter and not a rolling video.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Actually, focal plane shutters give similar temporal distortion to rolling electronic shutters... it's mostly a matter of what the shutter speed is relative to the frame rate and speed of scene movement.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post. Yes, they are single shots made with a DSLR, so rolling shutter doesn't come into play. The look of the wind turbines has to do with shutter speed. I like the look as this is a stylized, poetic art piece with no rules. I could have shot with a long shutter, like 3/4 sec. which would have given a cool blurred look. Either works for me.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

photogeek

Stunning beauty. Makes me want to drop everything and go on an extended road trip.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post. Be sure to check out https://www.tempesttours.com for a unique road trip. :)

Nov 19, 2018*permalink

AbrasiveReducer

A perfect subject for video. If you're not from there, the first time you see a line of black clouds in the distance on what seems to be a quiet sunny day is quite an experience.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I'm glad you can relate. Sometimes, folks just have to go and see it in person. :)

Nov 19, 2018permalink

OliverGlass

A friend was able to do 16k by taping together 16 Pentax Qs and stitching the various angular differences in post. She used it for an HDR selfie.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

mxx

Wow.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

MarcV

LOL :D

Nov 18, 2018permalink

SirSeth

It seems to me that the only reason in people's mind of having high resolution is to serve the output screen. Why is that? Isn't this a limiting perspective? Yes, it would be nice to see this video on an 8K 60" but is that really the only point? 4K enables every resolution below when you output. Color, sharpness, DR, low light, are all blessed by 4K. You can stabilize in post!--why isn't that the number one thing people are talking about rather than the lack of gigantic screens? You can get perfect pans and pulls without rigs. You can crop so as not disturb wildlife or get close in like we never could before. It's already revolutionizing nature filming for all formats. Slow motion and stop motion are unfettered. You can pull high resolution stills and in 10 years your footage will still be able to processed for any upcoming technology. Storage, heat, and power needs are the only downsides. So why all the lame comments about 8K TVs and monitors as if it's the only that that counts?

Nov 18, 2018*permalink

Howard

The most intelligent comment of them all!

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Aankhen

I mostly agree with you, except for two things: I don’t understand how slow motion and stop motion are ‘unfettered’ compared to 1080p (for example), and your footage will only be ready for true 16K screens 10 years from now as long as you give up the other benefits, like being able to crop closer than before or stabilize shaky footage.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Right, and even on gigantic screens your eyes won't ever be able to resolve 16K as long as you're seated in a distance that enables you to relaxedly take in the whole picture at one glance. Not even 8K. Actually, I think that even 4K is more than moving pictures will ever objectively profit from, except for its potential to increase the quality of edited, downscaled results.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. Thank you for your post.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

marc petzold

It does even look great in 1080p. I do own no 4K Monitor, or even better. ;-)

Good Light.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

$DiffractionLtd$

DiffractionLtd

If you want to even begin to appreciate this or anything like it, you need to ditch the dinky little 27" computer monitors and use a 55" or larger 4-8K TV.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Mr Bolton

I'll just go out and spend that five grand right now...

Nov 18, 2018permalink

$DiffractionLtd$

DiffractionLtd

4K's are cheap. 8K's however...

Nov 18, 2018permalink

You don't need to have a 55" monitor. Even on a 27" monitor, you will notice quality improvement if it was capable of running at 4K.

People are still using 1080p on their PC monitors, whilst people's (high end) smartphone have significantly more resolution.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." Thank you for your post. The film looks great just in 4K on a 24" 4K display vs. HD.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

raphaelmatto

Stick in there for the second half, it gets way better. Also, are there any screens that can display 16k? I'm really asking—what would be the ideal way to view this w/current tech?

Nov 17, 2018permalink

SirSeth

Large footage opens doors to amazing new technology and techniques even when viewed on smaller screens. For example, 8K video is going to explode what can be done in filming like HD never regardless of the viewing size. The ideal way to view this would be on your largest highest resolution screen of course, but not having 8k or 16k screens isn't completely the point when the creation of it is enabled by the technological advances.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Johnnew Archibald - SMGJohn

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." Thank you for your post. Yes, Innolux just announced a new 100" 16K display. Otherwise, watching it just in 4K on a 24" 4K monitor looks much nicer than HD in terms of resolution, of course.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

lacikuss

Just beautiful, I also live in the prairies and enjoy its magic.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Way better than anything Leica would do.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Larawanista

Thank you for the patience and timing that went into this project. Stunning!

Nov 17, 2018permalink

quokka

Awesome!

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Beshkno

Its nice to see the work of people who actually use their gear unlike the Forumites who argue over meaningless specifications but have no experience in photography.

Nov 17, 2018*permalink

Then why mention camera and what type of computer it was made on? Your poorly executed argument makes no sense as it contradicts itself.

When I go watch a movie, I do not see a long list of what was used to make it anywhere unless I go to some forum were some people dug up that specific list from God knows where.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Beshkno

@johnnew Arch... Just for you to ponder my friend.

Nov 18, 2018*permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. And, thank you Beshkno. Even though this was a technology exercise for me, in part, it is is first and foremost art. I mean, higher resolution will not make something look better unless it's something you want to see in the first place. If you get a chance, please check out another short film I made titled, "Wakinyan." https://vimeo.com/178199619

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Battersea

Brilliant film!

Nov 17, 2018permalink

CQui

Nice.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Alec

Somewhere between 4K and 8K I see a point where there's practically zero benefit in further spatial resolution increases (except forensic and scientific applications). Even ahead of advancing from 1080p to 4K, we would have been already far better served by 16 bit / channel, 4:4:4 color (no sub-sampling), and 240...500fps at full quality for at least a few seconds at a time for slow motion.

Nov 17, 2018*permalink

FasterQuieter

If you wanted VR that actually looked real this may not be large enough. I am not sure what exact resolution is needed for that. So capturing footage at this resolution now will be much appreciated by people in a decade or so.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

(unknown member)

Who needs VR when you can go outside though :)

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Stanchung

virtual games mostly I think.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

MyReality

You are describing one example of diminishing returns, but the technology monster must be fed. Other examples are, resolution and color gamut (what the eye can see is the limiting factor), fps(time usage to sort thru photos) and in-camera options(causes pictures to be missed).

Nov 18, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight. How 'bout those pretty clouds?

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Alec

Martin, the clouds are lovely! Congrats on your work.

Nov 20, 2018permalink

mfinley

Very powerful. The scenes without the camera pulls definitely are stronger, the allow you to look at watch the movement in the scene without the distraction of the camera dolly effect. Lot of time went into that.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Alec

Inspiring, to shoot a newspaper at a 20K resolution

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

mfinley

Frantastic video, in awe of the dedication you put into it!

Nov 19, 2018permalink

snapa

Does that mean I need to upgrade my computer monitor to tell any difference in IQ? My monitor is only 24” 16:9 2560 x 1440, how much of an overkill is this video for me? All this time, I thought video looked pretty good to me. What resolution monitor do I need to upgrade to in order to tell a difference from what I have now?
Are there any 16K 15,985 x 5792 monitors available for these kinds of videos? Would my current Internet connection (which is very fast, 150MP's per sec.) be able to display them? If yes, how much would they cost, and how large would they need to be? I know, that is a lot of questions, but I'm sure someone could answer them.

Although I think the answer would be NO, 16K is not realistic using todays current technology, or even for many, many years to come. There is such a thing as deminishing returns, and this seems to be one of them.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Technically, 24 of your monitors grouped together can display this at 100%. You can get near 100% with eight 4k monitors. However in terms of viewing distance, there would be 0 difference in terms of quality because you have to move much further back to be able to see the whole thing and you cannot discern individual pixels at proper viewing distance.

For example, your 24 monitors would be roughly 175". Based on our field of view, the closest you can sit is approximately 10ft to be able to see the whole screen. To be able to discern pixels, you would need to sit closer than 3ft... Basically, the resolution is beyond human vision. This resolution is only useful for pixel peeping and there is never a need for it other than forensic uses.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nthOpo5tQDk

a pc gamer linus built a 16k monitor with bunch of smaller screens.

Nov 17, 2018*permalink

Cool project for sure! Nice find :)

Nov 17, 2018permalink

marc petzold

Such a waste of money & ressources, just for a gaming rig. And this guy, uhum. Would spent that money into gear, or better vacation journeys to shoot, if i would have it. ;-)

Good Light.

Nov 18, 2018*permalink

Hi. I'm the director and photographer of this video, "Prairie Wind." I appreciate hearing your insight.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

marc petzold

Martin, i do find your video perfectly made. My comment above was about this Gaming Rig from this Linus Guy on YT. Hope that thing is being clear now for you. :-)

Good Light.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Martin, the video itself is fantastic and it was a nice job making the 16k footage. Being a tech forum, we were just debating the use of 16k in general and marc was definitely commenting on the computer gamer.

I would like to make one suggestion however. The windmill scene looks a little like cgi and breaks the immersive experience a bit. It is very minor, but in my opinion, the video would be improved if you add motion blur to this scene.

Nov 19, 2018permalink

Bassman2003

I watched the video in 1080p on my 1080p computer monitor. I think the video is nice but 16k? Meh. Looks the same as if it was shot in 4k/good 1080p.

In my view, 4k is all that is needed for quite some time. Lets focus on other image improvements outside of resolution.

Can't image the encoding times for 16k footage. 4k already gives current CPUs all they can handle.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Croninfilm

Same. I also can't fathom the bandwidth speeds needed to stream 16k. Cool? Yes. Practical? Hell no.

Its funny I'm a videographer and shoot with a GH5S. I haven't even started to shoot at the higher bitrate 4k yet, my computer would die.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Bassman2003

The GH5s in 4k would make images just as nice as the video shown and still be on the forefront of useable tech for a while. I have been shooting my GH5 in 4k long GOP for editing on a 1080p timeline. So the encoding is in 1080p still. Have yet to encode anything in 4k.

Nov 17, 2018permalink

I made another reply, but basically I said that 16k resolution has absolutely no practical use. 4k approaches practical limits of resolution. I believe the most resolution we can handle is 5k. That would be where we can sit as close as possible to just view an entire display and not be able to discern pixels. Lower resolution would possibly be able to discern pixels, but higher resolution, there is no advantage. But think about how you view stuff and then you can see that even 5k is a waste. Like we do not sit 3ft away from a 55" TV or 20" away from a 32" monitor. Even at 4k, we would have to be closer than 24" at 32" monitor size for 5k to have an advantage.

The ideal size for TV and such is probably QHD resolution, but it seems like practical flew out the window and we skipped 2.5k and jumped to 4k displays :P

Nov 17, 2018permalink

Robert Krawitz

I sit about 14" from my 4K laptop screen and maybe 18-24" from my 28" 4K monitor. The difference between 4K and WUXGA (1920x1200) is enormous.

I'm not sure how much it matters for video. It's really text where it makes a big difference, in that I can use a smaller font but actually have more pixels, making for better-formed glyphs while having more text on the screen. For text purposes (terminal emulator and text editor) I used a 6x10 font on a 1920x1200 display, which is about the smallest that's easy to read. On a 2160p display I find 9x15 pixel cell font works well. The 5:3 aspect ratio seems to work very well for text. It's possible that on a 4320p I'd be able to use 15x25, but I doubt I'd be able to go lower even on a higher resolution display.

For photos I find it makes it harder to discern pixel noise, but I'm not sure that that's a bad thing. It certainly discourages excessive pixel peeping.

Nov 18, 2018permalink

4K monitors are breathtaking. People were jumping on the 3D TV band wagon, even though it was n't great. But 4K is amazing.

Nov 19, 2018permalink