Why 4K?

[Steve Sherrick]

And just so I'm clear, I've done reframing on my own projects, so I'm not against it. I just understand how it could be frustrating from a DPs perspective.

 

[Keith_D]

IMHO, film making is not only a collaborative process; it is also an evolving process. Things are gleaned in post (and in screenings) that were not conceived of or planned for in production (even with the advent and influence of previs and animatics.) Because the need can arise, acquisition and a work flow that is cost-effective and offers the most flexibility will always be highly prized by both the creative and the business sides of this industry

 

[JD Holloway]

4K 3D is just 4K at 48fps - you don't need an 8K pipeline.

ESPN sports is likely to go for 60P, not 24P drama.

I see your point though.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

ESPN sports is likely to go for 60P, not 24P drama.

We'll see how the 3D broadcast spec shakes out.

PCs with DualLink DVI are capable to do 120Hz full HD 1080p@60fps per eye

HDMI 1.4 can handle 8.16Gbit/s and is capable to send 1080p@60fps per eye at 8bits per color or 10bits per color (can't do 16bits per color depth).

I wish they would just adopt a 24p broadcast standard.

But alas ... WAY OFF TOPIC now ...

BY THE WAY ... IS ANYONE THINKING ABOUT WATCHING SPORTS ON REDRAY IN 4K? YOU JUST WAIT ....

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Because the need can arise, acquisition and a work flow that is cost-effective and offers the most flexibility will always be highly prized by both the creative and the business sides of this industry

I'm not sure that flexibility is always the best thing in making art, not when it comes down to a "I can keep changing my mind as to what I want" line of thinking. Art thrives with restrictions, limitations, borders - often self-imposed. I mean, why should a costume designer carefully choose the colors for the wardrobe when you can just change it all in post anyway?

Moviemaking is more flexible than ever, so are movies better than ever? I don't think so. There is more creativity on display in "The Red Shoes" with a Technicolor camera the size of the refrigerator than in most of the modern studio movies.

I'm all for better tools, don't get me wrong, and I'm a pragmatist at heart... but I want those tools wielded by artists who know how to use them -- and know what they what to be saying with them. At least when the tools were less "flexible" it was easier for artists to protect their work, even if it took more effort to create that work. Making art easier to do, and easier to change one's mind about what one wants to do, and making it easier for others to change what you do, doesn't necessarily make for better art.

If filmmaking is "evolving" into adding more cooks into the kitchen, and no choice is sacred, and everyone can throw paint at the wall to see what sticks... then I'm not sure it is evolving in a way that I like. The movies I admire were carefully conceived and carefully executed by a few individuals working towards a common artistic vision.

 

[Ryan E. Walters]

I'm not sure that flexibility is always the best thing in making art, not when it comes down to a "I can keep changing my mind as to what I want" line of thinking. Art thrives with restrictions, limitations, borders - often self-imposed. I mean, why should a costume designer carefully choose the colors for the wardrobe when you can just change it all in post anyway?

Moviemaking is more flexible than ever, so are movies better than ever? I don't think so. There is more creativity on display in "The Red Shoes" with a Technicolor camera the size of the refrigerator than in most of the modern studio movies.

I'm all for better tools, don't get me wrong, and I'm a pragmatist at heart... but I want those tools wielded by artists who know how to use them -- and know what they what to be saying with them. At least when the tools were less "flexible" it was easier for artists to protect their work, even if it took more effort to create that work. Making art easier to do, and easier to change one's mind about what one wants to do, and making it easier for others to change what you do, doesn't necessarily make for better art.

If filmmaking is "evolving" into adding more cooks into the kitchen, and no choice is sacred, and everyone can throw paint at the wall to see what sticks... then I'm not sure it is evolving in a way that I like. The movies I admire were carefully conceived and carefully executed by a few individuals working towards a common artistic vision.

Wow, well articulated. That expresses some of the feelings that have been floating around in the back of my mind but have not had the words to articulate. Thanks for putting words to it for me.

 

[Hugues Wisniewski]

And just so I'm clear, I've done reframing on my own projects, so I'm not against it. I just understand how it could be frustrating from a DPs perspective.

Right, and when I first mentioned the positive aspect of being able to reframe in my original post, I was specifically thinking about the cases where the cinematographer is also the editor, which has happened to the non-professional shooter that I am, but also to other big names in this business.

There are quite a few famous directors who write, shoot, director and edit their films and I'm sure that in the editing room new ideas come up. Some shoot full frame and adjust the 2.35 framing in post. I remember the making of T2 where the framing was precisely adjusted dynamically in post.

4K is also presumably great for composites or for smaller budgets who will always deliver 1080P work and won't have the budget to have longer lenses.
At this price, many non pro users will be interested in these cameras and these users will likely be the ones who handle all the stages of the process, from pre to post production.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There are quite a few famous directors who write, shoot, director and edit their films and I'm sure that in the editing room new ideas come up. Some shoot full frame and adjust the 2.35 framing in post. I remember the making of T2 where the framing was precisely adjusted dynamically in post.

There was less of that than you think -- after all T2 had to go through an optical printer blow-up so frame-by-frame adjustments would have only been done when deemed absolutely necessary to fix some stunt or something. Cameron was actually quite strict with various departments about the framing of T2; I know, I saw the framing chart he sent out. But sure, a big action movie shooting wild stunts, some reframing becomes necessary. On the other hand, many action movies have been shot in 35mm anamorphic (Michael Bay's for example, or the Raiders movies) where the ability to reframe is restricted and limited even in a D.I.

But I'm not going to defend the artistic integrity of the composition when you are talking about a dozen cameras pointed at an exploding building -- what I'm talking about has more to do with shooting drama with a single camera and the need to maintain the integrity of the framing.

 

[JD Holloway]

BY THE WAY ... IS ANYONE THINKING ABOUT WATCHING SPORTS ON REDRAY IN 4K? YOU JUST WAIT ....[/B]

I was told Redray wont do IP real time, and I think that's a HUGE oversight.

The encoding of the 4K files is very complex, hence the intended distribution model for RED RAY and RED RAY Pro media is download / store / play.
With it's 4K HD to 1080p downconversion, connecting your RED RAY to an existing high end plasma or front projector will also work nicely.
The extra bit depth and higher resolution of a 4K RED RAY encoding v's "1080p native" distribution systems is still apparent to the observer.

But perhaps its not too late. Its not like its been released. I figure some sort of streaming codec wrapper should do it. I don't really understand these things;
hopefully somebody more knowledgeable can chime in.I just know that it would look fantastic on 100" screen in my living room at 1080.
I think I'm going to have to wait a while for a 4K projector.

 

[Keith_D]

Originally Posted by David Mullen ASC:
I'm not sure that flexibility is always the best thing in making art, not when it comes down to a "I can keep changing my mind as to what I want" line of thinking. Art thrives with restrictions, limitations, borders - often self-imposed. I mean, why should a costume designer carefully choose the colors for the wardrobe when you can just change it all in post anyway?

Moviemaking is more flexible than ever, so are movies better than ever? I don't think so. There is more creativity on display in "The Red Shoes" with a Technicolor camera the size of the refrigerator than in most of the modern studio movies.

I'm all for better tools, don't get me wrong, and I'm a pragmatist at heart... but I want those tools wielded by artists who know how to use them -- and know what they what to be saying with them. At least when the tools were less "flexible" it was easier for artists to protect their work, even if it took more effort to create that work. Making art easier to do, and easier to change one's mind about what one wants to do, and making it easier for others to change what you do, doesn't necessarily make for better art.

If filmmaking is "evolving" into adding more cooks into the kitchen, and no choice is sacred, and everyone can throw paint at the wall to see what sticks... then I'm not sure it is evolving in a way that I like. The movies I admire were carefully conceived and carefully executed by a few individuals working towards a common artistic vision.

David, I agree. But the polemics of “art by committee” or the lack of a coherent and consistence vision in a film is not the fault of the tool used to make that movie. Contemporary films do not fail because of the advent of new technologies or their new capacities. I do concur that the underlying problems and concerns that you speak of are often exacerbated by them.

 

[Michael Hastings]

... and would use it even if I had to keep it submerged in some sort of mineral oil bath to keep it cool.

I can help you with that :smile:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm not sure that flexibility is always the best thing in making art, not when it comes down to a "I can keep changing my mind as to what I want" line of thinking. Art thrives with restrictions, limitations, borders - often self-imposed. I mean, why should a costume designer carefully choose the colors for the wardrobe when you can just change it all in post anyway?

Moviemaking is more flexible than ever, so are movies better than ever? I don't think so. There is more creativity on display in "The Red Shoes" with a Technicolor camera the size of the refrigerator than in most of the modern studio movies.

I'm all for better tools, don't get me wrong, and I'm a pragmatist at heart... but I want those tools wielded by artists who know how to use them -- and know what they what to be saying with them. At least when the tools were less "flexible" it was easier for artists to protect their work, even if it took more effort to create that work. Making art easier to do, and easier to change one's mind about what one wants to do, and making it easier for others to change what you do, doesn't necessarily make for better art.

If filmmaking is "evolving" into adding more cooks into the kitchen, and no choice is sacred, and everyone can throw paint at the wall to see what sticks... then I'm not sure it is evolving in a way that I like. The movies I admire were carefully conceived and carefully executed by a few individuals working towards a common artistic vision.

Some arguments to the contrary being a movie like Avatar or Ratatouille where the directors can change and tweak to their heart's content.

While careful craft is necessariliy. I think by that logic you should only be able to cut a movie once and never get to go back and make another cut before release. "We must be careful in every cut so that it's perfect!". I think that stifles creativity and makes people timid to explore and be creative. If you know you can change it later if it's wrong then you are more free to take a chance. If you have more dynamic range so that you can expose differently you can take that chance that you might otherwise be afraid would get you fired.

Being self conscious can be as damaging to the creative process as being uninhibited.

Moderation in all things?

 

[Michael Lofquist]

I found even when finishing in 1080 the 4K latitude brilliant - you want to crop your footage ... no problem as there is plenty of margin in 4K to 1080.

try that with a 5D footage ;-)

 

[Henri H]

EPIC is a 5K sensor that delivers a full 4K measured resolution. More than just about anything you can shoot and exactly what the doctor ordered for the future.

Hmm. I though that EPIC is 28K. Is it not?

We encourage you to consider the future possibilities of what your footage can be used for when making a camera selection. Why would you shoot SD now? If 4K delivery is the future, why would you shoot 1080P and limit future options?
Jim

Well, I think that 28K is a bit overkill at the moment, but I would probably shoot a medium/big budget movie with UHDV resolution (7680 x 4320). That should be future-proof. One day we may have UHDV displays!

I have a question: Can I shoot 7680 x 4320 video at 24 fps or 48 fps with Red EPIC?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hmm. I though that EPIC is 28K. Is it not?

Well, I think that 28K is a bit overkill at the moment, but I would probably shoot a medium/big budget movie with UHDV resolution (7680 x 4320). That should be future-proof. One day we may have UHDV displays!

I have a question: Can I shoot 7680 x 4320 video at 24 fps or 48 fps with Red EPIC?

Only on one of the Medium Format Epics (645, 618). Epic isn't one camera. It's a product line. The first epic being released is the 5k Super35.

However if you shoot medium format to get that "future proof" resolution your film might look super dated if extremely shallow DOF is a passing fad.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The S35 Epic is 5K, the future FF35 Epic will be 6K, after that, I think the next size up (645?) will be 9K. But the larger-than-FF35 Epic won't be out for a while. Keep in mind that a digital efx-heavy movie will be quite expensive to produce entirely at resolutions higher than 6K.

 

[Henri H]

However if you shoot medium format to get that "future proof" resolution your film might look super dated if extremely shallow DOF is a passing fad.

Hmm. Actually, I would like to shoot everything in sharp focus. I think there would be deep spaces with lots of "layers", which should all look sharp like in the "Citizen Kane" (though I haven't seen the film, just some screenshots).

Some questions:
- Is it possible to shoot deep spaces with deep focus (everything sharp) with RED cameras and lenses?
- Will the perspective look wrong, if I use deep focus (everything sharp)? I have seen some pictures where the Moon or Sun looks too big compared to the characters in foreground.

 

[Jannard]

Hmm. Actually, I would like to shoot everything in sharp focus. I think there would be deep spaces with lots of "layers", which should all look sharp like in the "Citizen Kane" (though I haven't seen the film, just some screenshots).


Some questions:
- Is it possible to shoot deep spaces with deep focus (everything sharp) with RED cameras and lenses?
- Will the perspective look wrong, if I use deep focus (everything sharp)? I have seen some pictures where the Moon or Sun looks too big compared to the characters in foreground.

Sure it is possible. Shoot wider instead of longer and find plenty of light so you can stop down your aperture. If you shoot a 25mm (or wider) and stop down to T16 or more... you'll be amazed what is in focus. Need more in focus? Just go wider and stop down more...

Jim

 

[Rob Ruffo]

It is amazing to me that people are choosing to shoot feature films on 1080P cameras... I know, I know. Just sayin'...

Not so subtle reminder... 4K is 4.3 times the resolution of 1080P.

Jim

For feature films, I agree. I can't understand why anyoen would get an F35 when they can use a Mysterium X that costs so much less AND is so many times the res AND is so much lighter/easier to use AND now matches or exceeds Sony's lattitude.

But.... For TV, especially cable TV, sometimes it boils down to budget. Wrangling that much more data is an expense that cuts into margins that are not always huge. It means more hours sitting at hard drives every night at the hotel, this by a crew person who is also doing many other things early teh next morning, because there is simply not the money to hire someone just for this. It means more hard drive arrays, more backup LOTs, etc.

That said, it would be really great if we had so much more margin of error for reframing. I am working on a doc series now, and sometimes we reframe to 720p to save a cut-away or something short (we can't re-shoot...) but wow would it ever be a dream if we could re-frame that much and still be in full 1080p for 1080i or 1080p broadcast/Blu-Ray.

Shooting 1080p for TV now is fine most of the time, but the minute your dolly had an operator error in it, or your Steadicam (which lets face it, does happen even when your crew is primo, especially in 1-take doco situations) , you're moving down and away from 1080p to something less, and you just hope no one will notice.

In part for this reason, we are thinking of adding RED to our arsenal, especially for those shots which are short and prone to operator error, but, as of yet, we can't afford to shoot 4K for every shot (on this show, anyway), as docos have ridiculously high editing ratios and lowish budgets.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Hmm. Actually, I would like to shoot everything in sharp focus. I think there would be deep spaces with lots of "layers", which should all look sharp like in the "Citizen Kane" (though I haven't seen the film, just some screenshots).

Some questions:
- Is it possible to shoot deep spaces with deep focus (everything sharp) with RED cameras and lenses?
- Will the perspective look wrong, if I use deep focus (everything sharp)? I have seen some pictures where the Moon or Sun looks too big compared to the characters in foreground.

I love this style too, but not for every shot. Sometimes you just want to zero in for an intimate moment with a talking head.