Good enough...

[Alex D. da Silva]

I don't believe the 5D or 7D footage is equivalent to that of a Red, Alexa or any other fully 1080 capable camera, but yesterday watching the season finale of "House" on a 1080 set I can tell you it was not fuzzy or 1/10 of the qualities! The episode was shot entirely with 5D and Canon lenses.

I've been fascinated by this thread and surprised, some times, by the reasonable discussions from both sides of the issue.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm shock that this discussion hasn't been locked..The Reduser forum usually doesn't allow a free open debate about other ---->(NON RED CAMERAS) <----

The ban has always been on discussions not related to RED. Since the topic at hand is "good enough" you always have to compare it to something else, Alexa, Canon, Sony etc. Are they good enough? Is any camera available good enough? What do other cameras have that RED could do better? What does RED do that other cameras don't offer. The topic has remained RED-Centric even when branching into other cameras.

 

[Michael Brennan]

From everyone I know who has 1080p HD and a set of good HD channels.... 1080p IS good enough.

SD was good enough for 50 years.
For those whose standards remain the same then SD is still good enough today.

Lets look qualitatively at TV formats
SD is good enough to tell a story, to give a sense or impression.

HD does the same and is far more immersive as larger screens can be used without the texture of the format getting in the way of the content.

4K large screens then ultraHD larger screens (8k) take us steps further in creating a windowless experience between content and viewer. Easiest (8k) example to give is to be almost like sitting in the box seat at a sporting event. Camera doesn't pan as you just sit and look left and right and see the same detail as if you were at the game.

History shows us that the public have an appetite for clear and clean images. They have taken 7 years to find a place for 52 inch screens in the home. The next step is to find space in the home for double this screen size, be it projector, glasses or flat screen or implant


The successful rollout of 4k or 8k is tied to audience setting aside real estate in the home and manufacturers gearing up for large screen manufacture.
I suggest that if the entire chain were to take 7 years for 4K and another 5 years for 8k then digital cameras and post would follow suite.


8K is 4x the pixels of 4k so screen can be twice as wide or you can sit closer
I personally think that 4k and 150 inches would do the job in most homes, with a viewing distance of around six feet.

Is mass production of 150 inch screens far fetched?
Sharp/Sony G10 LCD panel factory came on stream in October. It can handle glass substrates of 2850 x 3050mm. The factory cost around $3.5 Billion, took 2 1/2 years to build and in theory can make a 160 inch (approx) screen.
Panasonic acquired 50% of Sanyo, whose $4 Billion Plasma plant and can handle 3300 x 1900mm substrate capable of forming a 152 inch screen.

Here is a clip of 4k 152 inch Panasonic screen from ces 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMgVgxRCfHs

As I understand it, they achive 4K by not cutting the substrate into four 1920 x1080 size pixel panels, leaving it as a single panel, capable of 4k,



Mike Brennan

 

[joshua csehak]

I don't believe the 5D or 7D footage is equivalent to that of a Red, Alexa or any other fully 1080 capable camera, but yesterday watching the season finale of "House" on a 1080 set I can tell you it was not fuzzy or 1/10 of the qualities! The episode was shot entirely with 5D and Canon lenses.

Interesting. I'm kicking myself for not having DVR'd it. Now I have to wait 8 days for Hulu.

All I can say is I have a 7D, and shooting on it with an L lens at 1080p, it's just not anywhere near as sharp as the Red One scaled down to the same size. Now, I have sharpness turned down all the way to minimize the line-skipping problems (aliasing, moire, etc), and I know the guys who shot House had all the settings at 0, so maybe that has something to do with it. Maybe they set up the set and costumes to avoid line-skipping issues in the first place, I dunno. Maybe I'll run some tests with sharpness set to 0 and see what happens. But that's what I meant by 1/10th the quality. Besides having little to no wiggle room with exposure and color, there's a lot of give-and-take with things like sharpness, aliasing, etc. That said, it's a great little camera, and the only thing under $15k that produces an acceptable image, to my mind (except maybe the EX-1). But once the Scarlet comes, no working professional is gonna be using any DSLR.

 

[chrislancaster]

Interesting. I'm kicking myself for not having DVR'd it. Now I have to wait 8 days for Hulu.

All I can say is I have a 7D, and shooting on it with an L lens at 1080p, it's just not anywhere near as sharp as the Red One scaled down to the same size. Now, I have sharpness turned down all the way to minimize the line-skipping problems (aliasing, moire, etc), and I know the guys who shot House had all the settings at 0, so maybe that has something to do with it. Maybe they set up the set and costumes to avoid line-skipping issues in the first place, I dunno. Maybe I'll run some tests with sharpness set to 0 and see what happens. But that's what I meant by 1/10th the quality. Besides having little to no wiggle room with exposure and color, there's a lot of give-and-take with things like sharpness, aliasing, etc. That said, it's a great little camera, and the only thing under $15k that produces an acceptable image, to my mind (except maybe the EX-1). But once the Scarlet comes, no working professional is gonna be using any DSLR.

i believe you can buy it on itunes today ... i did not check but thats what phillip bloom said back in the interview

 

[joshua csehak]

It kills me that I can't just watch it on demand with commercials. Hell, make it so I can't fast-forward the commercials! I don't want to watch it on my computer. TV shows are meant to be watched on a TV. Of course, before too long I'll have a broadcast monitor, but I bet the iTunes downloads are optimized for viewing on your computer.

Anyways, I refuse to support the iTunes model when I'm perfectly happy watching commercials.

Grumble grumble...

 

[Alex D. da Silva]

Keep in mind that on iTunes you'll at least watch the episode on 720p. On Hulu the highest resolution will be 480.

And Joshua, I never intent to put the RED One and a 7D or 5D on the same level, I work with both cameras and they are very distinct. But since this thread is about perceived quality and resolution I thought that the episode last night was a good real life comparison of that conundrum.
For my money, watching it on a decent 1080 TV (Sharp Aquos) the "House" episode looked very good and it was enough for my money today. The future is a whole different story and yet to be written.

 

[Sami S]

Recently I had a choice to make, I could either spend 2000 euros off our budget to rent a RED ONE or I could use that money for better props, high quality make-up, experienced actors, proper catering and top of the line light gear. I chose the latter and shot with my 1080p DSLR.

What would you have done?

Sami

 

[Erik Franzén]

Good enough is never good enough. Never will be. Forget it. Human psychology at work.
Even if all of us (even RED) laid down our hands and said: "Nope, here but no further. We're done. This is good enough", do you really expect everyone of, oh, let's say six billion humans to agree with that sentiment?
I am shooting my first short. There is no way in hell we can get a RED One even if I would kill to have the ONE, there just is no plausible way without breaking the law and/or doing a host of things which I won't (delaying the film, pitching it for a higher budget etc.).
So does that mean the story I am telling is degraded? Hell no. Does that mean that it would have been "better" with a RED? No. But it does mean that the perceived production value would have gone up tremendously.

What is this crap about story trumping all? Do you really believe that? Sure, the story is the first piece of brick you lay to build your house and everything on top of that will only be as strong as that foundation. But without any production value, good crew, smart casting etc. there will be no perceived value even if the script is fantastic -- the movie will come out craptastic. Look around, this has happened before.

So no, RED does not make your movie for you - sorry, but I thought we were intellectuals here, of course NOTHING will make that story glow for you! That's your job, remember? Your job, as screenwriter, to lay that foundation. Then the director's job to turn that script into reality with a high production value. And the cinematographer's job to show up and do the best he can with the budget and the camera he got -- and that, obviously, yields different results based on how experienced the DP is and what camera he is working with. Hell, why am I even saying this? All of this is obvious to a degree that someone who barely watches movies could figure it out!
Even I know that much, and I am just a low-end up-start. Why are we having this discussion now again? :rant:

Oh well, peace out and don't be naughty Jimmy now -- ya hear? :hand:

 

[chrislancaster]

Recently I had a choice to make, I could either spend 2000 euros off our budget to rent a RED ONE or I could use that money for better props, high quality make-up, experienced actors, proper catering and top of the line light gear. I chose the latter and shot with my 1080p DSLR.

What would you have done?

Sami

you got lights, props, quality actors and catering for 2000 euros?

I would have done both. whats the point of high quality production if you capture it with a low quality camera.

 

[Rick Burnett]

you got lights, props, quality actors and catering for 2000 euros?

I would have done both. whats the point of high quality production if you capture it with a low quality camera.

Because the most expensive and beautiful camera in the world is worth absolutely crap if you have nothing good to put it in front of and shoot.

Not all things are created equal, and I believe that is a lot of the differing opinions here regarding, "if you had to sacrifice something due to budget, what would that be"

I am in the EXACT same boat. We are doing viral videos at the moment and it makes NO sense to rent a Red One since these are destined for 720p web output. We are putting money into props, locations and talent, and since I am using a VERY sensitive camera with fast glass, minimal lighting has been required.

Cost IS a factor that IS important to many people. The problem is you have a mixture here of people at BOTH ends of the spectrum in terms of where and how they can allocate funding.

For instance, my GOOD ENOUGH is definitely not with my DSLR, and not just because of the line skipping, but the frame size. We shoot action in many of our films. With legs flying and people flipping about, we like to shoot a bit wide and away from the actors so that in post we can crop and track. We couldn't do 1080p if we wanted to maintain what little resolution we have now doing this. With the Scarlet, we'll get PLENTY of resolution. For us, given what I have seen, that will be GOOD ENOUGH for now

But will the Scarlet 2/3 Fixed be GOOD ENOUGH for shallow focus for me in tight places? No. And until I can get the S35 my 7D will be used in difficult settings like this as a stop gap until I can (a) get the funds together for that body and (b) given the possible time difference between release.

 

[joshua csehak]

Recently I had a choice to make, I could either spend 2000 euros off our budget to rent a RED ONE or I could use that money for better props, high quality make-up, experienced actors, proper catering and top of the line light gear. I chose the latter and shot with my 1080p DSLR.

What would you have done?

Sami

Was it for the web, TV, or theater?

 

[Sami S]

Was it for the web, TV, or theater?

Music video for web and occasional TV rotation. I think Rick hit the nail in the head, there are some people doing things for web some for cinema and all are writing about the same thing with hugely different perspectives and viewpoints.

I think people (myself included) are forgetting that the original thread by Jannard was about whether 1080p is good enough to replace film and the current DSLR's and other 1080p cameras certainly do not do that. I guess what sometimes frustrates me is that at the moment I simply don't have the money to join the 4K, 35mm frame size, 13+ stops latitude crowd. I still have to wait for a year or two for that, either make more money or wait for a cheaper camera.

I do think 1080p is good enough to showcase your talent.

Sami

 

[Alex D. da Silva]

Recently I had a choice to make, I could either spend 2000 euros off our budget to rent a RED ONE or I could use that money for better props, high quality make-up, experienced actors, proper catering and top of the line light gear. I chose the latter and shot with my 1080p DSLR.

What would you have done?

Sami

If your storytelling is good the camera you used is not that important. That said, keep in mind that the best your film looks better change you have to get it noticed.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

That said, keep in mind that the best your film looks better change you have to get it noticed.

Not really, in the grand scheme of things the audience doesn't care.
As long as you can hear what the characters are saying clearly and the story is interesting with good performances from your actors the film could just as well be shot on a cell phone camera.

Look at 28 days later, shot on DV people love that film.

 

[Michael McVicar]

I don't believe the 5D or 7D footage is equivalent to that of a Red, Alexa or any other fully 1080 capable camera, but yesterday watching the season finale of "House" on a 1080 set I can tell you it was not fuzzy or 1/10 of the qualities! The episode was shot entirely with 5D and Canon lenses.

I've been fascinated by this thread and surprised, some times, by the reasonable discussions from both sides of the issue.

It was wonderful watching House and how a smart creative team can work with and use the limitations of their tools.

One of the most popular TV shows on it's finale was given freedom to do some very experimental work. Much of the show was written with the choices of the equipment in mind. The small form factor was especially put to good use. Was it "Good Enough" for this one episode? Considering the options available on this episode, it'll have to do. I know they struggled with a lot. Would they have used something else if they had it? Probably. Could you shoot a whole season like that? No. It was a big step backwards on a lot of their normal production values.​

It was a great show but I'm sorry, it just didn't look "Good Enough" for most TV production. If you don't need some of the advantages you can get, (or have it in a dust filled crawlspace) then most other regular options look better. An Epic or S35 Scarlet would've been great.

 

[chrislancaster]

o.k. can we be honest ? all i hear about is how the story trumps all and how if you have a great story that it can be shot on an iphone.


HAHA! What?!? How many movies have you gone to in the theaters this year?

Hollywood is pumping out pure shit for stories. It's either pretty or kablamblooey!!!

Avatar, Hurt Locker or any random Apatow crap was all mindless drivel. DSLR's are going to kill hollywood and I have to say they deserve it.


:emote_popcorn:

Yes, hurt locker stunk and you know it. It was unrealistic to the point of insult.

 

[Alex D. da Silva]

Not really, in the grand scheme of things the audience doesn't care.
As long as you can hear what the characters are saying clearly and the story is interesting with good performances from your actors the film could just as well be shot on a cell phone camera.

Look at 28 days later, shot on DV people love that film.

Actually "28 Days Later" looked pretty good. Specially considering was shot on DV.

What makes a good movie is certainly not the resolution or definition, it's the story. Bad movies can also be tremendously successful for one reason or another.

Hollywood can pumped a product and sell it based on anything: 3D, big stars, sequels, mammoth marketing budgets, etc... If you don't have any of these things going for you, focus on your storytelling and try to make your film look as good as possible.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Not really, in the grand scheme of things the audience doesn't care.
As long as you can hear what the characters are saying clearly and the story is interesting with good performances from your actors the film could just as well be shot on a cell phone camera.

Look at 28 days later, shot on DV people love that film.

This is simply not true - and 28 days later was shot in HD.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

o.k. can we be honest ? all i hear about is how the story trumps all and how if you have a great story that it can be shot on an iphone.


HAHA! What?!? How many movies have you gone to in the theaters this year?

Hollywood is pumping out pure shit for stories. It's either pretty or kablamblooey!!!

Avatar, Hurt Locker or any random Apatow crap was all mindless drivel. DSLR's are going to kill hollywood and I have to say they deserve it.


:emote_popcorn:

Yes, hurt locker stunk and you know it. It was unrealistic to the point of insult.

Box office has been very good this year. as a professional, I look at my clientele for what they like, not the whims of myself and my friends.

Most stories on indy films and terrible - bad dialogue, bad plot structure.