DP shot 2K closeups for a 4K movie?

[George Butterfield]

why couldn't the DP on your project just get closer or change lenses and shoot at 4K? lame.

I'm guessing he couldn't change lenses for some reason, and he didn't want to get closer as that would distort the face in an uncomplimentary way. But he should have shot 4K and zoomed in in POST. (maybe)

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

Sounds like this dp should stick to dslr if he likes soft images.

 

[Mike Kushner]

4K can be unflattering, resolving too much detail in facial pores and blemishes and such. Filtration can change the feel of the overall contrast and cause halation where resolution changes may not show the difference as much as some filtration.
This sounds comparable (although for different reasons) to Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfister's approach to "Dark Night", where Imax was used for some of the wide shots, helicopter, action sequences and the dialogue and main part of the film was shot in 35mm. I personally think that jump between 4K and 2K is too different...I would try 4K and 3K if i was trying to achieve the same thing. Whether you agree with the technique or not, it is the Director of Photography's choice as long as the producer and director are agreeable. That is the DP's job to make those aesthetic decisions with the director...which may not necessarily be the simplest workflow for the editor.

 

[Jason Comparetto]

Sounds like a mistake to me. He couldn't admit to it. Some guys can admit their mistakes, some can't. Have sympathy for him, I guess it *could* happen to anyone.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I've seen this before. I thnk it's nuts. Especially since you can just do a 1/2 debayer if you really want to throw away some detail - and yeah - tons of tools in DI to selectively soften a face and window an area. Not the same and as organic as using filters or a lens choice - but way smarter than lowering resolution for a close up.

 

[Marc Wielage]

4K can be unflattering, resolving too much detail in facial pores and blemishes and such.

Naaaaa. Pull a defocus key on skintone and it's gone. Literally, this takes about :30 seconds to do in Resolve. I did a sitcom pilot not too long ago where every single shot of the female lead had defocus on her face, and I don't think that work added even half an hour to the entire session.

Shooting close-ups in lower resolution is just beyond insane. I hope nobody here ever, ever repeats a mistake this stupid.

 

[jake blackstone]

Just today I had a client, that casually mentioned, that they were planning to shoot on Epic in 2k. Mind you, almost every shot will need to be green screened, composited, stabilized and some will need to be punched in. When I asked why they were planing to do this, producer answered, that because they were finishing in HD, 2k was plenty! Luckily for them, I set them straight, before they discovered for themselves the "beauty"of 2k shooting mode

 

[Bob Gundu]

Amazingly sad

Just today I had a client, that casually mentioned, that they were planning to shoot on Epic in 2k. Mind you, almost every shot will need to be green screened, composited, stabilized and some will need to be punched in. When I asked why they were planing to do this, producer answered, that because they were finishing in HD, 2k was plenty! Luckily for them, I set them straight, before they discovered for themselves the "beauty"of 2k shooting mode

 

[Paul Russell]

I'd rather have detail to lose in post than blurry images that can't be fixed later.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Since it is unclear whether this move is motivated by ignorance or creative decision, criticism towards the DP's choice diserves some consideration.

Although it is understandable that in an UHD imaging era decreasing spacial resolution in acquisition is likely to be a less popular choice, it is also worth considering who is the creator of the image in this creative process and who gets to decide.

Naaaaa. Pull a defocus key on skintone and it's gone. Literally, this takes about :30 seconds to do in Resolve. I did a sitcom pilot not too long ago where every single shot of the female lead had defocus on her face, and I don't think that work added even half an hour to the entire session.

Shooting close-ups in lower resolution is just beyond insane. I hope nobody here ever, ever repeats a mistake this stupid.

Defocus on a skin tone looks like a defocus on a skin tone, more obvious to an experienced professional, more subliminal to an average viewer, the appearance which may or may not serve the purpose for a particular intended context of the image. Other tricks with a same goal of digitally reducing detail in a frame also have their own aesthetic. In addition to this aesthetic, the image is being dismantled into a composite of different textures, which often decreases the natural impression of the image.

Defocus key on a skin tone reduces viewer's focus on a part of the face covered with skin. Since this part takes most of the face, what's left is a smaller part, consisting of teeth, eyes, eyebrows, eyelashes and hair, which consequently get more attentuated. In a CU, likely with shallow DOF, and with UHD levels of detail, this has a tendency of changing the overall impression of the image and switching the attention from human appearance in general to face details, which may or may not fit the shot's intent. This difference may be less apparent or even unnoticable on a 3 sec shot and entertainment type of project, and on a TV set, but it may be more apparent or even crucially different on a face 15 feet high, in a dramatic and emotionally filled shot lasting a minute.

While we've never had this exact type od scenario, and generally don't recommend this route I can understand the DOP's attempt, in the context of aesthetic decision. If this is not distracting and final edit meets the intent.

Alexa's spacial resolution is noticably lower than resolution from Red cameras and at times gets chosen for this reason. Some DPs prefer not capturing more detail than they need at the very start, instead of having more detail and having to reduce it. Some are also allergic to re-touching a face in post after they put so much effort in crafting the image on set.
Also, 2K from RED cameras is still superior to DSLR mush, which hasn't stopped Anthony Dod Mantle from using them for specific shots. His SI-2K route is another example.

It is interesting how rubbing vaseline or putting a stocking on a lens is normally perceived as a creative route, using noticable higher compression as a space saving technique and even aesthetic choice, completely dismantling the image in post as look creation, even going so far as re-designing lighting choices in post and affecting facial elements, but sampling a sensor in lower detail for achieving a specific look is perceived as technically inadequate, hence "wrong" and frowned upon.

The criticism from necessarily more technically oriented, utmost performance focused mindsets is understandable, the creative and emotionally focused part of a storyteller may persist regardless.

 

[emil tanem]

"I've heard too many times from DPs over the last 20 years, "sharpness is not our friend." "

Shooting 2k and upping to 4k creates "blockiness", not "softness". It might appear soft to someone with bad eyesight though.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It's like shooting a movie in 35mm and your close-ups in Super-16 because you want to soften them, rather then just using filters or softer lenses, etc. Sort of a sledgehammer solution. 2K off of a 4K sensor not only magnifies artifacts like noise, but the image tends to look enlarged, like a blow-up, which it is. It's just odd that it's a DP who wants to shoot close-ups on 2K and the rest in 4K and the editor who thinks it's a bad idea -- usually it's the reverse, editors who want to crop & blow-up images in post to create close-ups and the DP's who are appalled at the thought.

 

[reuben colazo]

I couldn't agree more David. I recently DP'd a music video and saw in the edit (note the director was the editor) did a lot of post zooms, extreme zooms that make the image look even more blown up then a straight 2k file. I was unhappy to say the least. A lot of people noticed the softness of the zooms. I would have been happy to swap lenses for the quick shots they ended up being. Lesson learned.

It's like shooting a movie in 35mm and your close-ups in Super-16 because you want to soften them, rather then just using filters or softer lenses, etc. Sort of a sledgehammer solution. 2K off of a 4K sensor not only magnifies artifacts like noise, but the image tends to look enlarged, like a blow-up, which it is. It's just odd that it's a DP who wants to shoot close-ups on 2K and the rest in 4K and the editor who thinks it's a bad idea -- usually it's the reverse, editors who want to crop & blow-up images in post to create close-ups and the DP's who are appalled at the thought.

 

[Marc Wielage]

It's like shooting a movie in 35mm and your close-ups in Super-16 because you want to soften them, rather then just using filters or softer lenses, etc. Sort of a sledgehammer solution.

Very apt comparison. And that looks real soft, too.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

It's like shooting a movie in 35mm and your close-ups in Super-16 because you want to soften them, rather then just using filters or softer lenses, etc. Sort of a sledgehammer solution. 2K off of a 4K sensor not only magnifies artifacts like noise, but the image tends to look enlarged, like a blow-up, which it is. It's just odd that it's a DP who wants to shoot close-ups on 2K and the rest in 4K and the editor who thinks it's a bad idea -- usually it's the reverse, editors who want to crop & blow-up images in post to create close-ups and the DP's who are appalled at the thought.

David, I respectfully propose the consideration of few additional factors in the context of this comparison and in perceiving this approach in general:

- The texture in 35 mm and 16 film and their resolution compared to properly exposed ultra clean digital 4K/5K and 2K crop;
- Scenario #1 - Director's/ DP's choice is deliberatley intercutting 35 and 16mm for a same scene in attempt of achieving a specific intent, however unconventional it may seem;
- The same "texture" applied in post to digital material which enhances the similarity of different intercut material (without local alterations done to an image);
- The type of edit where the viewer does not have temporaly close reference to a detail in a 4K image which would stress the resolution difference (shots in between of abstract nature, low detail elements, flashbacks type of shots with hard filters and post applied, etc);
- The fact that eye sight is highly accomodative and viewer's perception/sensibility to image resolution varies depending on the content and viewer's participation;
- Scenario #2- If the DP wanted this digital look specifically, fully aware of the sledge hammer approach;
- Scenario #3 - In case the DP did not have the time, lens or light equipment to go with a different and more subtle route and could not or did not want to use post alternatives;

It should be stressed that my comments are not meant to generally advocate this approach, nor propagating the "easy way out", or lowering the criteria in image acquisition. My subjective issues with this particular approach discussed (being aware of the editing approaches which would make this resolution jump less obvious than it may seem) are mostly related to cropping the lens, which creates discrepancy between one lens property (FOV) and many others, especially space and motion representation. Also, from my perspective 3K might have been a less drastic route. That is again, all without knowing the context.

My comments are merely attempting to reduce criticism without knowing the whole context, and avoiding propagating a mental environment where DP's are slammed and frowned upon for exploring their options, in cases when those options go against "technically superior" ones.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You make some good points -- obviously we don't have the DP here to explain his reasoning more clearly.

However considering how cheap it is to drop a diffusion filter in front of the lens, I can't believe that economics were the reason for shooting the close-ups in 2K just to soften them, nor is it likely that they weren't carrying any medium to long focal length lenses to shoot close-ups on. But, again, we haven't heard the DP's side of the story. Maybe they only had one 25mm lens and had to shoot 15 pages a day and this was some sort of solution to getting close-ups quickly.

I know that digital images enlarge more easily due to lack of grain so my analogy was not completely accurate, but I could have said that it was like shooting a project in 1080P and doing all the close-ups cropped to 480P just to soften them. There are easier ways to soften a close-up. Using a smaller sensor area changes the depth of field characteristics for one thing compared to switching to longer lenses on the larger sensor area.