1080P is Better Than 4K (Or Why I Chose the Canon C100)

[FrankPaulPerez]

I thought this was interesting:

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/1080p-better-4k-canon-c100-ryan-e-walters/

 

[Colin Hubick]

I respect Ryan, and I think there is no need to throw daggers at his article. My guess is canon paid him nothing.

 

[Noel R.]

I read it, I think he's right to some extent, the C100 is better suited for weddings, but I don't want to shoot weddings, and I've continually turned people down who've asked me to shoot them. I'm fully aware RED is not the end all be all camera, but it's the best camera for most the situations I'm shooting in.

I don't feel I bought into RED because I was insecure about my work. I bought it for the same reason I bought my Linhof 617 large format camera. I love image quality, but with digital I have the power of RAW which I also love, and playing with my R3D files in DaVinci feels almost therapeutic.

Some of his points were borderline absurd, like (referring to RAW) "This same power can be disastrous when people who think they know something start playing around with reframing and grading the images, destroying what I have worked hard to create.” Is this even an argument? If you can't maintain control on your own project then that's your fault. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone complain about RAW.

Also "4k is not here, nor will it be for at least 5-10 years" Where's he been? 4K is already here. Maybe not in large distribution, but I give that a matter of months, not years. YouTube, Netflix, Sony, ODEMAX, all coming sooner that most think.

I'm not knocking the C100. It's a great camera for what it is, but why knock RED because it suits him? Good for you?

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

That article was certainly worth a read. Some of the points are quite lucid and the author speaks from experience, not the armchair. However, I think there are some fallacies:

It Is The Craftsperson, Not The Tool, That Matters

I don't buy it. Try telling an engineer that he can design and build bridges with school stationery.

Or how about the contents of this blog — does it matter if I am writing it on a Mac, PC, iPhone, or Android?

Yes, actually. Does this really need explaining?

4k is not here, nor will it be for at least 5-10 years

Hmm.

The compressed footage, and the fact that the C100 only outputs a 1080p file means that there is a lot less that can be done in post to drastically change what was shot.

I totally get that - people seem to want to mess with filters for no reason other than vanity. But why not just have a hands-off policy?

When a camera performs well in low light, it becomes more about removing light than adding it.

Fair point for documentaries. But the author does commercial work, right? Mind you, sensitivity and noise are very important features.

After all it is just a tool

Bullshit.

All the above is just my two cents.

 

[Colin Hubick]

Why knock anyone for their choice of camera? When I see an awesome photo, or awesome film, the first thought isn't about the gear it was shot on.

 

[Bob Gundu]

I supported Ryan when the shit hit the fan during the camera shootout. But I'm sure it has left such a bad taste in his mouth ever since. I don't believe he can be unbiased in his tests anymore. I wish him all the best, but I take his blog with a grain of salt now.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

When I see an awesome photo, or awesome film, the first thought isn't about the gear it was shot on.

It certainly is my first thought - but then again, I take photos. It is true, however, that the photographer/DP sweats over the details so that the audience can simply sit back and enjoy the work.

The only thing I disrespect is BS, especially when people should know better. But cameras? We all have our favourites.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

I agree with many of the points the author makes. For some projects 1080p is certainly good enough. But if I were to start shooting a feature (or short) film right now, I wouldn't do it with less than 4K resolution. Very, very soon distributors are going to ask for 4K masters for narrative films. Movies that don't have 4K masters will face an uphill battle trying to get distribution deals.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The choices you make define who you are.

 

[Adam Johnson]

Exactly. HD will soon be looked at the same way SD shooting was several years ago. It's just a fact that technology is advancing faster and faster and the industry (mainly television/ news) is having a hard time keeping up with it all. Hell I know of a couple small TV/ production stations that are still afraid to shoot in HD with their $40,000 HD cameras! And others that have yet to convert! But 4K is here to stay and will be the champion delivery medium for theaters and eventually for the home viewer as well. In a couple years I guarantee it will be all the rage on black friday! Once you see 4K on a 50+ inch TV (preferably Sony's OLED!) there is no going back!!!!!!! It is mesmerizing!

So for me. 4K is the only way to go especially when I am spending over $3-4k on a camera. Even if I'm not delivering 4K yet. It is funny that the $1k Pocket Cinema Camera has a better image then many of the ultra high-end 1080p cameras in existence and its only $1k! And the 2.5k BMCC is priced well too.

Canon, Sony, and anyone that wants to contend better step up or be left in the dust. By the way, how is Panasonic still making cameras? They have little clue as to who is largely driving the market right now (DSLR crowd, indie low budget shooters) and they are not catering to them at all. Small chip (low DR/ mediocre lowlight/ outdated wannabe GoPro gimic cameras) are so yesterday.... and I believe this is quickly becoming the issue with big chip 1080p cameras. Everyone and their brother has one.

I agree with many of the points the author makes. For some projects 1080p is certainly good enough. But if I were to start shooting a feature (or short) film right now, I wouldn't do it with less than 4K resolution. Very, very soon distributors are going to ask for 4K masters for narrative films. Movies that don't have 4K masters will face an uphill battle trying to get distribution deals.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Exactly. HD will soon be looked at the same way SD shooting was several years ago.

I'm not so sure about that, I guess if you spent a lot of time shooting Digibeta it would be a bit different but when I shoot with my EX1r I download my project onto the computer and am often more satisfied by how it turned out then I expected where as back when I was working with Mini DV I would shoot stuff dreading the moment when I would have to load the footage into the computer because it always looks so awful on the computer compared to the tiny little screen on the camera, even iPhone footage surprises me with the quality of the results I have been achieving it's just not the same as when I was working in SD.

 

[Martin Weiss]

Slandering is not accepted and will result in a ban.

 

[michael zaletel]

Why would anyone EVER shoot a wedding in 1080p now that 4K raw is so affordable? Are you kidding me? A wedding? It's the single-most important moment in most people's lives and will certainly be watched over and over for decades to come. Even if 4K adoption were 5 years away (which it is not), if you are documenting a wedding, 10-20 years from now is what matters most.

Not to mention that every EPIC 5K raw frame can be extracted as a high quality still for large prints and scrapbooks.

5K was MEANT for weddings if it was meant for anything.

-Michael Zaletel

 

[Marc Wielage]

The choices you make define who you are.

Sometimes, the choices are dictated by limitations of time and money. If it had to go right to broadcast in a matter of hours, RAW would not necessarily be my choice. This is why news footage and fast-paced documentaries are often shot in Rec709. With careful lighting, good exposures, and good lenses, they can still look great. RAW is certainly a valid way to go provided you have time and a budget permitting it.

5K was MEANT for weddings if it was meant for anything.

We must go to different weddings.

 

[dio Zafi]

canon can't be happy...in the article.. it says there is no big difference between the c100 and c500...so why not just save 20,000 and get the c100

 

[Scott Crawley]

I suspect that the moment you spark up your first 4k monitor on your editing system you will suddenly begin to feel dread similar to your mini dv scenario. The satisfaction we feel about our capture technology is relative to our display technology.

If that is true consider this: contrast ratios in displays have apparently topped off. With that in mind I theorize that we camera people are going to derive more long lasting satisfaction from cameras with better dynamic range and focus will shift to our ability to control contrast. This will become even more apparent as resolution begins to move to the back seat. (If that happens any time soon. The persistence of the 1080 is good enough argument suggests to me that it could.)

Do you think low con will be the new shallow DOF?

I'm not so sure about that, I guess if you spent a lot of time shooting Digibeta it would be a bit different but when I shoot with my EX1r I download my project onto the computer and am often more satisfied by how it turned out then I expected where as back when I was working with Mini DV I would shoot stuff dreading the moment when I would have to load the footage into the computer because it always looks so awful on the computer compared to the tiny little screen on the camera, even iPhone footage surprises me with the quality of the results I have been achieving it's just not the same as when I was working in SD.

 

[Ben Scott]

I agree with a lot of what that post says. Not so much about 4k not being viable, but about the ability of something like the C100 to turn a profit.

However much I love my Scarlet, it simply cannot be all things to all people and many's the time I've just needed a good, solid 1080p camcorder with XLRs and half decent monitoring. The fact it is good in low light and takes the sames lenses as my Scarlet and DSLRs makes it very worthwhile tbh.

 

[Mark Phelan]

Not to mention that every EPIC 5K raw frame can be extracted as a high quality still for large prints and scrapbooks.

5K was MEANT for weddings if it was meant for anything.

-Michael Zaletel

Great point. A huge strength of a camera like RED is the ability to pull frames for prints. I'm not doing that with 1080p. That is a huge reason I prefer 5K. Shot a portrait session last week using the RED. The benefits of not using flash, not waiting for a "click" but having the subjects just naturally sitting through the session made it much easier on everyone. This kind of shooting for large groups is a real blessing.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Michael and Mark, you two do make excellent points. Separate from those I would like to make a personal distinction. Sorry, it is OT. It is related to the (I'm paraphrasing) Most important moment in most people's lives idea. Women have been fed this line for many generations and the wedding industry has been all too happy to run with it. I think it is shit, and divorce rates relative to marriage rates is evidence.

Perhaps my objection is simply one of language. I don't disagree that a marriage is ONE of the most significant and impactful choices that people make, but a wedding is not the most important moment of anyone's life. I worked in weddings for 15 years. That is my truth, and I substitute it for yours.

Sorry for the soapbox, but 15 years of that shit compelled me. ;-)

 

[Mark Phelan]

Scott, a not-quite-awake early morning quote cut and paste. Wasn't trying to make a stand for weddings per se, but the ability to take stills in a new direction. I agree with Michael, that ability is a boon for these kind of settings.

I do agree the wedding industry is out-of-hand in the one upsmanship, which is why we have bridezillas and shows like the bachelor/ette, et all. No time is being spent on building a relationship with someone compatible, but more about the flash than substance. As for me, I've been married to the same woman for thirty-two years.