You are straight up making incorrect assumptions about something I participated in first hand. I don’t know why, but you’re simply wrong. Some people do care about pixel filtering, some people truly do not want a Gaussian, and some people can tell the difference, even if you can’t.
4K and 8k are horizontal resolutions by convention. Historically and before 4K existed, resolutions were referred to vertically, from 240i to 480p to 720p to 1080p. I haven’t heard 2k much and it’s confusing next to 1080p, but maybe some people prefer that. Either way your blanket claim that resolution is referred to by the horizontal size is false.
You haven’t corrected anything other than my dusty film processing terminology, which is extremely pedantic given you understood what I said, and you’re saying things that simply aren’t true.
Being in the room doesn't mean understanding every aspect of rendering and that is fine. Even people finishing shots don't need to worry about this stuff, it's not usually a big sticking point.
but you’re simply wrong
I'm not. Downvotes, name dropping and getting upset don't change math.
some people truly do not want a Gaussian
I'm sure that's true, but I'm saying that most people don't realize that by the time they widen a sharp filter with negative lobes to compensate, blur the image slightly somewhere or just have an image go through the whole pipeline, it just isn't gaining anything and it possibly introduces some aliasing. It doesn't mean people aren't out there doing it anyway.
You said yourself that people were fighting aliasing on shrek, although you haven't distinguished between edge aliasing, texture aliasing and shadow aliasing, which is a big red flag.
Historically and before 4K existed, resolutions were referred to vertically, from 240i to 480p to 720p to 1080p.
And before HD broadcast resolutions, 2k for film was something talked about all day every day.
I haven’t heard 2k much and it’s confusing next to 1080p
It wasn't confusing before 1080p (and 1080i), it was the standard and that was long before HD video. Where do you think the terms 4k and 8k come from?
Either way your blanket claim that resolution is referred to by the horizontal size is false.
This is just how it was and is in film. You're mixing in HD video resolutions which went in the other directions.
In any event, the whole point I was making was that even lower than 2k resolutions were still too sharp for film, so an extremely slight softening from the pixel filter doesn't matter. Exposure to 35mm film is WAY more softening.
I think you aren't absorbing this fact. 35mm film is soft, and whatever edge comes out of the renderer is essentially blurred again by going out to film. Because of this there is no way to just look at CG printed to film and just know what pixel filter was used, that information is long gone and pretending otherwise is a hallucination.
You haven’t corrected anything other than my dusty film processing terminology,
I corrected more than that and you keep getting caught up on resolution without acknowledging that there are different types of aliasing from different sources and that 35mm film means lots of detail is lost.
If someone was talking about running a marathon said "I like these sneakers, this shirt, these tires, these shorts.." you would start to think you aren't talking about the same thing and that they don't have perfect knowledge of a niche subject, which is fine.
FYI, I can’t downvote your replies. If you’re getting downvotes, then maybe you’re earning them? More incorrect assumptions?
It doesn’t really matter if film is soft. If there’s aliasing or ringing or sizzling in the digital source, it can be visible on film even if it’s blurred more by the film. Once aliasing is introduced during sampling, blurring doesn’t necessarily make it go away, and in some cases extra blurring can make aliasing worse and more visible. This is why the pixel filter matters, and it seems like you would know that if your background matched your certainty.
That said, I think your claim that 2k by 1k is too sharp for 35mm film is also just plain wrong. 2 megapixels is quite a bit lower than the estimated spatial resolutions of most films at 35mm, and some have a resolving power much higher than that.
People can and did tell the difference between pixel filters on film, and it’s amusing you have jumped to a made up conclusion that it was otherwise and decided to presume to tell me you think it was something else, when it wasn’t. I worked on the renderer, it was indeed a pixel filter test, and people actually did similar tests at multiple film studios during the same time period. You’re wrong about this, making weird bad assumptions, and there is no math that backs you up on that.
I know, I never said you did, that's how the site works.
If you’re getting downvotes, then maybe you’re earning them?
People see a random blog link and think it's an authority, that's pretty much all there is to it.
More incorrect assumptions?
I think you mean you misunderstood something I wrote again even though it was clear the first time.
It doesn’t really matter if film is soft.
It does for what I was talking about.
If there’s aliasing or ringing or sizzling in the digital source, it can be visible on film even if it’s blurred more by the film.
No one has ever claimed this was wasn't true.
Once aliasing is introduced during sampling, blurring doesn’t necessarily make it go away,
No one claimed this an neither of these have to do with anything I've said.
and in some cases extra blurring can make aliasing worse and more visible.
Technically it would lower the frequency of the noise.
You still aren't distinguishing between different types of aliasing. Sampling for visibility and coverage from the camera is different from sampling for coverage of shadows.
You keep writing as if all aliasing is the same when pixel filters are going to be doing a weighted average of the samples from camera, which themselves could be aliasing from other sources.
That said, I think your claim that 2k by 1k is too sharp for 35mm film is also just plain wrong.
It's not. I've run wedges of pixel filters, different sizes and seen them laser printed to film.
Have you done this?
People can and did tell the difference between pixel filters on film,
Again you keep misunderstanding what I've said. Someone going in cold with no other information is not going to be able to look at a film print and know what pixel filter an image was rendered with, the information isn't there any more.
You’re wrong about this, making weird bad assumptions,
Nope. Your posts are full of giant red flags like not distinguishing between multiple types of aliasing and never hearing "2k resolution".
I'm not even sure what your point is other than replying to say I'm wrong about something I never said.
Show me some evidence. Show me laser printed and laser scanned 35mm film at 2k resolution and let's look at the edges.
Remember, all I originally said was that the vast majority of time someone will just want to use a gauss filter, because it looks good, has no negative lobes and the image will be softened more by the process anyway.
Why are you talking about “going in cold”? Who said anything about going in cold with no information? It is you who’s misunderstanding.
I don’t know why you decided to challenge my story, my experience, and every single point here to death. My first reply to you was mostly agreeing with your original take on Gaussians as I prefer them too, based on how good they are at getting rid of aliasing. But I wanted to give that a little industry color and history that isn’t visible to outsiders. Gaussians are visibly softer than other filters, the antialiasing properties come at the expense of sharpness, the softness is visible on film, and while the majority of the time any given random person might be best off with a Gaussian if they haven’t studied pixel filters, professionals sometimes prefer slightly sharper filters even if they might trade it for slight amounts of ringing or aliasing.
challenge my story, my experience, and every single point here to death.
If you say things that aren't consistent or don't make sense someone may say that it doesn't make sense.
People can prefer whatever they want, it doesn't mean a half pixel blur is going to be visible on 35mm film where edges are multiple pixel gradients.
Again, show me some evidence. I see people make claims about the resolution of 35mm film all the time, but when it comes time to show edges anywhere close to a render it never happens.
4K and 8k are horizontal resolutions by convention. Historically and before 4K existed, resolutions were referred to vertically, from 240i to 480p to 720p to 1080p. I haven’t heard 2k much and it’s confusing next to 1080p, but maybe some people prefer that. Either way your blanket claim that resolution is referred to by the horizontal size is false.
You haven’t corrected anything other than my dusty film processing terminology, which is extremely pedantic given you understood what I said, and you’re saying things that simply aren’t true.