UHDV, 240 fps and HDR with Red Epic?

[Henri H]

(I haven't made movies, but I know you all already guessed this...)

Yes, I want to shoot movies in 3D, too, but I didn't mention it, because of the obvious reasons. Also, I want to use two cameras, not beam splitters or things like that.

Why do I want to make "over the top picture quality" movies? Becaue I don't think they would be "over the top picture quality" movies in reality. I was inspired by these old colour photograps from the early 1900s. I mean, look at those photos. They could be actors dressed in an old fashioned clothes in 2011! But no, they are real colour photos from the beginning of the last century. It's a shame that most of the photos and movies from the 1940s and 1950s are black-and-white. We really had the technology back then to make colour movies and even 3D movies. Many Finnish films from the early 1970s are black-and-white. There are none 3D Finnish movies so far. We have the technology but we are too scared to be pioneers. It's really a shame and waste of good technology and opportunities.

Yes, the story is, of course, important, too. Can you name me two movies of each category?
a) movies with a good plot?
b) movies with a good character development?
c) movies with a good dialogue?
d) movies with a good cinematography?
e) movies with a good actor work (famous actors)?
f) movies with a good actor work (unfamous/amateur actors)?
g) movies with a good use of music?
h) movies with a good editing?
i) movies with a good director work?

PS. Also, is "ASC Manual 9th ed" a book for me?

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Henri,

I would love to help you, but its become abundantly clear you don't know enough yet to judge image quality. The images you linked to are impressive for their time, but they are very poor quality by 2011 standards.

Some people today are doing various things to their images specifically to reduce image quality, because they like the result - but don't confuse that with high quality.

I do think you should get the ASC manual ... I think every cinematographer should have a copy. Before you will make good sense of it though you'll need more experience.

I suggest getting the "Box Book" AKA the Set Lighting Technicians Manual by Harry Box, "The Grip Book" by Micheal Uva and "Cinematography" by Kris Malkiewicz and David Mullen (who has posted on this thread.)

Also, spend a lot of time making films. Really ... I thought I knew the material in the books I mentioned above (or their earlier versions) but I learn to understand it in different ways every time I shoot something new.

So ... happy film making!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Ha, this thread is worth its weight in Gold if only because it inspired Jim to hazard a guess as to when I should be able to pick up a FF35 RED.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Henri,

its become abundantly clear you don't know enough yet to judge image quality. The images you linked to are impressive for their time, but they are very poor quality by 2011 standards.

I find this statement to be

ignorant
precocious
pretentious beyond belief

I've ignored so many technocratic ramblings up to this point, but this has taken the cake for me.

There are -no- standards in 2011. If anything imaging standards have gone down.

Furthermore, standards of taste seem to have diminished in an inversely proportional manner to that of widely available high resolution imagers.

Don't believe me?
Take a look at digital cable. The horrible blocky compression renders any advances in image quality from resolution, and digital distribution useless. Things looked better on an analog tube tv than they do with most of the digital cable at least in California.

We are victims of contemporary good-enough-ism, and blind to lack of taste because of our presupposed technical superiority. Too bad really.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Furthermore, re-reading some of the things you have written makes me want to punch myself in the face for taking the time to ingest this level of blow-hardism.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

There are -no- standards in 2011. If anything imaging standards have gone down.

You make the same mistake I am speaking directly to.

The technological standards for imaging, both still and motion imaging has gone way way up.

That is to say, we are capable of much greater quality.

Furthermore, standards of taste seem to have diminished in an inversely proportional manner to that of widely available high resolution imagers.

I'd argue that you have a problem with the democratization of image making tools.

There are more people of all stripes making images, because they can.

If you subscribe to "Sturgeon's Law" 90% of everything is crap.

Don't believe me?
Take a look at digital cable. The horrible blocky compression renders any advances in image quality from resolution, and digital distribution useless. Things looked better on an analog tube tv than they do with most of the digital cable at least in California.

We are victims of contemporary good-enough-ism, and blind to lack of taste because of our presupposed technical superiority. Too bad really.

You are confusing compromises chosen for expedience with our taste and technology.

Digital cable in my area has delivered exactly one benefit to image broadcast ... blacks are actually black. Aside from that I agree with you that its a step backwards - in some ways a huge step. For some consumers digital meant better reception quality but for consumers with already acceptable reception it was a step backwards ... over all however the industry saw it as an acceptable compromise.

Image quality is how digital TV was sold, but its really about being able to deliver more programming at lower cost.

Now, some truly exemplary work is being done in all the arts - including still and motion imaging. I'd guess that we have just as many fantastic examples of work as in the "pre-digital" days.

There is just a LOT more work being done today - and much of it of dubious quality. I expect at least some here will find much of my work to be some of that dubious work- I'm just happy to be improving.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Furthermore, re-reading some of the things you have written makes me want to punch myself in the face for taking the time to ingest this level of blow-hardism.

Your courtesy is unmatched sir. Best regards.

 

[Tom Lowe]

You want to "future-proof" something, make a good movie that people want to see again and again -- "Gone with the Wind" is future-proofed, "Singin in the Rain" is future-proofed, "The Godfather" is future-proofed, "Star Wars" is future-proofed, and they are all 24 fps movies.

Well said, David.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Yes, the story is, of course, important, too. Can you name me two movies of each category?
a) movies with a good plot?
b) movies with a good character development?
c) movies with a good dialogue?
d) movies with a good cinematography?
e) movies with a good actor work (famous actors)?
f) movies with a good actor work (unfamous/amateur actors)?
g) movies with a good use of music?
h) movies with a good editing?
i) movies with a good director work?

Just reading this I have to say; study filmmaking first, the basics, this is not the time for you to ask for the kind of technology you talk about in your first post. A camera, whatever camera that is, will never EVER be the tool that automatically gives you the best award-winning movie ever made.

So my tip is, give up this hunt for this technology, it's a dead end for you. Take the camera you have, whatever it is, be it an Iphone 4 or a DSLR, but just take it and make movies. If you can't capture an audience attention and awe with that, then you will probably be even worse off with a better camera. Why? Because then they expect more from you. Start at the beginning, there are no shortcuts.
Use the equipment you got right now and just start making movies. Because it all comes down to story... it is NOT "important too" as you say, it is THE thing to master or else do something else.

David Fincher said during a seminar that if you start out right now, just write a story, film it and put it on the webb (youtube). There are people from the big studios who's job it is to just scan the web for talents. If you are lucky then you will be discovered, if not, then you need to work a little harder.

This is no joyride, it's hard work and I don't think you realise that the money you would need for the technology you want is probably more then a really small independent movie... just use it on that kind of a movie and you will be far better of then sitting there with a technology so advance you need a whole post production facility just to process it all.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Just reading this I have to say; study filmmaking first, the basics, this is not the time for you to ask for the kind of technology you talk about in your first post. A camera, whatever camera that is, will never EVER be the tool that automatically gives you the best award-winning movie ever made.

So my tip is, give up this hunt for this technology, it's a dead end for you. Take the camera you have, whatever it is, be it an Iphone 4 or a DSLR, but just take it and make movies. If you can't capture an audience attention and awe with that, then you will probably be even worse off with a better camera. Why? Because then they expect more from you. Start at the beginning, there are no shortcuts.
Use the equipment you got right now and just start making movies. Because it all comes down to story... it is NOT "important too" as you say, it is THE thing to master or else do something else.

David Fincher said during a seminar that if you start out right now, just write a story, film it and put it on the webb (youtube). There are people from the big studios who's job it is to just scan the web for talents. If you are lucky then you will be discovered, if not, then you need to work a little harder.

This is no joyride, it's hard work and I don't think you realise that the money you would need for the technology you want is probably more then a really small independent movie... just use it on that kind of a movie and you will be far better of then sitting there with a technology so advance you need a whole post production facility just to process it all.

I like how you said this better than how I said it.

The emphasis on practicing storytelling and gaining experience is where its at for me right now.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm not suggesting that there is an "either-or" scenario here, i.e. story versus picture quality. Obviously you can do a good job on both fronts, one doesn't negate the other, they tend to operate at different points in production and occupy different parts of the brain.

It's just that talking in the abstract about shooting in some yet-to-be-determined future format that goes way beyond current standards or even standards to be used within the next decade is a fairly impractical and merely academic discussion, and it suggests putting the cart before the horse. First you develop a project and then you figure out the best format you can use practically to achieve your goals considering your time and budget limitations. Sure, you want to make sure it has marketability for first and secondary markets, and markets further down the road. That just makes good business sense.

But the problems of putting together a feature and getting it made, and making sure it turns out well, are so enormous that worrying about whether standards will be higher in a decade is a bit silly, you make movies for the here and now, otherwise they would never get made. Would you go back in time and tell Francis Ford Coppola and Gordon Willis not to shoot "The Godfather" in standard 35mm at 24 fps using older optics because in the year 2022, all movies were going to be made at 8K at 240 fps? There are practical limits to how much you want to second-guess the far future when your immediate concern is getting the movie made right here and now.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

In audio distribution format we have actually gone backwwards from vinyl, to CD to MP3...all for practical reasons. There is a point at which the quality is "good enough" and practicality takes precedense. I would risk a guess that, as a distribution format, 8k and beyond are impractical and for this reason is likely to follow the HD-CD failure. There may be some compeling reasons to use 8k as acquisition format, but distribution...at 240fps...is not something I would worry about or even consider for the next decade.

 

[kenneth gruyaert]

Another thing I'd be interested to study is what happens with high frame rates in the viewer. I mean, the real world doesn't have motion blur - that's an artifact of our imperfect perception. At what point in watching moving images do we stop perceiving the motion blur in the actual images because our brain/eye system is contributing at least the same amount of blur.

I would like to know that too, but actually this is only relevant when your eyes are stationary in relation to the display and i dont think our eyes can focus on an object they are not tracking, i think this motion blurring only really occurs outside of where we really focus like if you are tracking a moving object the background around it will blur but you wont pay much attention to it anyways and as you probably know only a small center area of our eyes perceive high detail. In this case if the object you are tracking is stationary on the display and the background moving then the blurred background will mimic the blurring of your eyes, if on the other hand the object was moving across the screen and you were tracking it then it should not have any blur at all since its stationary in relation to your eyes and the background in that case might be stationary on the display which means the movement of your eyes will do the blurring on their own.
So there is the real reason for high framerate video, showing moving objects without any visible motion blur to be able to see them in full detail. Simply shooting at 60fps with very short exposures alone is not enough, the video also has to be shown with very short exposures because otherwise the image will be emitted from the wrong location at the wrong time basically moving across the eye and blurring (real objects dont do this since they actually move instead of being stationary and teleporting to a new location at 60fps)
The solution to this is either strobing a lower fps video of around 100fps with very short exposures or on a display which emits light continuously it would require much higher framerates.
It is pretty easy to see what kind of framerates or exposure times would be required, if youre looking for a maximum of 1 line of blurring for full hd resolution then a fast pan that moves one screen width in 3 seconds would need about 640fps, or lower framerate strobe exposures of about 1/640th of a second.
I have noticed that high framerate doesnt seem to get much attention yet, but for me its much more important than moving to higher resolutions.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

David Fincher said during a seminar that if you start out right now, just write a story, film it and put it on the webb (youtube). There are people from the big studios who's job it is to just scan the web for talents. If you are lucky then you will be discovered, if not, then you need to work a little harder.

But youtube does 4k now!!! :wink:

 

[Henri H]

It is strange, because I am not the one who wants to fill his movies with explosions and CGI. I still think the story is the most important thing in a movie.

There are many Hollywood movies with budgets over $100M, but it doesn't mean the story/script is clever and future-proof. If one can make a better movie (storywise and cinematographywise) with a budget between $1M and $10M, I think one can be more than proud of oneself...