Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

EPIC - ARRI, SIDE BY SIDE FACTS.

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Mullen ASC said:
Honestly, it's going to look the same later. The only question is whether tastes will change later, but it's not going to look worse later, only other (newer) things might look better in comparison. Modern 35mm film stocks are sharper and less grainy than they were thirty years ago, but guess what, I still watch movies made thirty years ago! And they look like they were made thirty years ago... and I accept that. I expect movies made in the 2010 to look like they were made in the year 2010 when I rewatch them in the year 2020, I don't expect to look like they were made in 2020.

I don't choose what to watch based on meeting the most current standards of technical quality -- speaking as someone who watched an episode of "Space: 1999" on Blu-Ray last night. Now of course one could argue that it was great that "Space: 1999" was shot on 35mm because now it can be retransferred to 1080P, and they'd be right... but I'm not sure it needs to be redone at 4K, I'm already starting to see the seams in the sets, the wires holding the models, the powder in the make-up, etc. at 1080P, and I'm not sure that the 5254 stock used back then would resolve 4K anyway.

In the future, "Game of Thrones" will just look like any number of TV shows shot on the Alexa in the year 2010, and whether you are rewatching it in 2020 will mainly depend on how much you enjoyed the show, the stories, the characters, the lighting, the production design, etc. Besides, some scenes are shot with a diffusion filter so clearly an ultra-sharp image isn't necessarily the primary look intended for the show. Look at "Excalibur" -- that was shot with a net over the back of the lens PLUS a Harrison Black Dot Texture Screen in front of the lens... it's a noticeably soft-looking movie, as it was in 1981 when it was released. That was intentional. Not everything has to be uber-sharp.
Click to expand...

David we get that. But you also have to see it from our view that if future proof 4K acquisitiuon technology exists today, why not use it?
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Honestly, it's going to look the same later. The only question is whether tastes will change later, but it's not going to look worse later, only other (newer) things might look better in comparison. Modern 35mm film stocks are sharper and less grainy than they were thirty years ago, but guess what, I still watch movies made thirty years ago! And they look like they were made thirty years ago... and I accept that. I expect movies made in the 2010 to look like they were made in the year 2010 when I rewatch them in the year 2020, I don't expect to look like they were made in 2020.

I don't choose what to watch based on meeting the most current standards of technical quality -- speaking as someone who watched an episode of "Space: 1999" on Blu-Ray last night. Now of course one could argue that it was great that "Space: 1999" was shot on 35mm because now it can be retransferred to 1080P, and they'd be right... but I'm not sure it needs to be redone at 4K, I'm already starting to see the seams in the sets, the wires holding the models, the powder in the make-up, etc. at 1080P, and I'm not sure that the 5254 stock used back then would resolve 4K anyway.

In the future, "Game of Thrones" will just look like any number of TV shows shot on the Alexa in the year 2010, and whether you are rewatching it in 2020 will mainly depend on how much you enjoyed the show, the stories, the characters, the lighting, the production design, etc. Besides, some scenes are shot with a diffusion filter so clearly an ultra-sharp image isn't necessarily the primary look intended for the show. Look at "Excalibur" -- that was shot with a net over the back of the lens PLUS a Harrison Black Dot Texture Screen in front of the lens... it's a noticeably soft-looking movie, as it was in 1981 when it was released. That was intentional. Not everything has to be uber-sharp.
Click to expand...

Agreed David. You're spot on with pretty much everything you said. I didn't want to make it sound as though I'm a resolution or quality snob - I'm not. I have a Hitchcock DVD collection (not BluRay) and I love it ...

However, I think Jim's point - which I agree with - is if you know how things are evolving and the writing is on the wall ... why not shoot in a format that will make your work look just as current as any 4k production that is shot years from now when 4k is the standard?

Why lock Game of Thrones into looking like 2010 ... when you could have it look like 2010 and 2014 with the same work and negligible extra cost?

We are in the luxury position of KNOWING the future - and - having the tools to keep pace with the future, even while it's not yet the standard.

Anyway, I was just clarifying ....
 
I'm going to retire... call me when the world realizes that 1080P was a huge mistake.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
I'm going to retire... call me when the world realizes that 1080P was a huge mistake.

Jim
Click to expand...

I hope by "retire" you mean "sleep"!!! This huge mistake of 1080p was not obvious enough to anyone else to the extent that they decided to build a camera that rivaled or surpassed film in virtually every way - and even though you have done that, we still need you ... please don't say "retire" for a long time Jim :)
 
I have to admit that I was pretty appalled too at the thought of 1080P/2K becoming the new gold standard for cinema, and in particular, 1080P origination (at least you can rescan film at a higher resolution later).

I'm not so sure, however, that everything has to be shot at 4K and higher, from the smallest late-night infomercial to the biggest Hollywood blockbuster. Some range of resolutions in use is inevitable, not to mention, artistic license is always a factor, which is why some people are still shooting in Super-16. Not every project is about achieving maximum resolution.

I don't want a one-size-fits-all future where every movie has to look like it was shot in IMAX -- I just want the option of my movie looking like it was shot in IMAX, which is why I'm so excited by the development of the EPIC camera. But I'm not going to tell someone else that their photography has to be sharper anymore than I want them telling me that.

At least with higher resolutions and better standards, we have the option of working artistically within a range of technical quality, we aren't limited to a middle of the road "good enough" mentality when we want to achieve something better. But conversely I don't want to be creatively restricted to only delivering the highest resolution images either, otherwise it's like the days when cinematographers had to light movies so that they looked bright enough for dim drive-in movie theater projection -- an arbitrary standard.
 
1-800- Fiji

Jim
 
Dialing now Jim, it's 3:53am and I need a bedtime story ...... the Birth of Red Digital Cinema anyone???
 
Jannard said:
Features shot on film 40 years ago has 4 times the resolution of 1080P. That's a fact. When 4K home theater comes (next year)... all those old movies will be ready. Warner Bros. is already doing 4K scans of them. This is not the case with features shot on 1080P.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim, you yourself keep pointing out that none of your tests of 35mm has ever shown it resolving 4K, so why would 40 year old 35mm negative stock be able to resolve 4K if modern 35mm stock can't? The reason that these movies need to be archived at 4K or higher is that scanning and storage resolution should exceed the amount of detail on the original to get around aliasing -- and 35mm resolves more than 2K, hence why 4K is needed for archiving. But honestly, a 4K presentation of some 1970's movie isn't going to look as sharp as something shot on the Epic and mastered at 4K.

But yes, at least they weren't shot in 1080P, which is still worse than whatever they actually do resolve detail at, let's say 3K.

But what about a movie today like "The Hurt Locker" or "Black Swan", shot on Super-16? Was it as "dumb" for them to choose Super-16 as it would be if they had chosen 1080P? No, because it was an artistic choice to achieve a certain look. Now of course I would say that it is less likely for someone to say that they were choosing 1080P for an artistic look, but I certainly can see someone saying that they tested and chose the Alexa for the way the image looked, knowing full well how much it was resolving.
 
There's no question where I stand here. The Epic's we got was like having a new born. Instant love. It's finally a camera. Loved to get my RED's and have loved to shoot RED ever since, but EPIC's. Completely different - It feels like a camera.

BUT comparing is useless in one way. Because people will have their opinions no matter what. It's fun and I couldn't agree more. I choose size and possibilities over the "comfort" of the already known (so to speak). DP's, epsecially in Europe, are very loyal to ARRI (for a strange reason as AATON always been a much more ergonomic camera - ARRI compared to AATON has, funny enough - always been a brick LOL).

What I think is important is to stop the resolution war - that is not where it's going to win in general - meaning that IMO I don't think people (DP's etc) will listen. Instead we need to get the frame rates out there, the size and the HDRx. That's the winner.

BUT even more importantly - this is where Hollywood have the advantage - a workflow that shows the advantages over ARRI. DIT's are not as important in Europe as they're in the US. Productions are mostly hiring "data wranglers". Post houses does horrible mistakes in converting the material. I've seen this with good post houses that I haven't worked up close with from the start. I've come to telecine's and been dumb-strucked over that I'm grading REC 709 444 prores material - at a stage where so much post have been done to what I thought where "dailies" or luts on the previews.

In Europe the big loss I believe is that there's a lazy treatment to the RED material. I'm constantly fighting it. The easy way out is very often taken and other producers, director's and even worse... DP's don't know anything else.

So for them they only see...... it's the same in post anyway....

Why should they then care for resolutions and shooting RAW.

We need to change the understanding of how to work with RED RAW afterwards and on set. We need to show them that it's RAW 16bit and how it should be respected.

Only then will the game change 100%.

I believe this is the case from my experience. As I daily hear... but it's so easy... it shoots prores directly and there's no need for the conversion. It's what you use in the end anyway.

It will all change when for example FCP X is resolution and format independent but it will take time, but for now it's what is the main issue..... the post production side is not treating this files as they should - therefor the results are "equal".

If the sets in Europe had actual DIT's on set (I'm generalising, of course there are true DIT's in Europe as well). DIT's that shows the benefits of how to work the cameras and the footage on set already. Who helps the DP's seeing and diplomatically warns them when they're on the edge. Post houses who knows how to take the material and in the end finishing with RAW 16bit......... Then they'll all see what is the difference.

Before that the resolution war is in a way useless. Zoom in on a converted RED RAW prores file and it's equal to the ARRI prores....

My 2 cents
 
There are a number of shows I'd love to see in 4k in the future and I'd watch them all over again.
Starting with Twilight Zone... but unfortunately six episodes in season 2 were shot on video tape.
Not sure about the later seasons.
 
Jannard said:
... why is this stuff so difficult to understand? Boggles my mind.
Click to expand...

Well 1080p may just be enough for most people as viewers.

That boggles my mind - it makes me mad in fact. I've written about it a lot here ... ordinary people have a hard time seeing the difference.

I like to think that part of it is that they aren't accustomed to reasonable resolution. People expect so little from their TV experience.

It's rather clear that 720p and 1080p are kind of awful formats driven by the limits of technology ... but can we really expect that the viewing public will note or appreciate the difference between 2K delivery and 4K delivery?

I don't think there is much question about using 4K+ for acquisition any more. So, as film makers we should every one of us be lined up behind either film or Epic. (And I pick Epic)

But I'm not convinced that 4K delivery will take off - and I don't think we can settle that on a forum like this. Too many of us can spot the difference too easily.

To answer the question, we have to step outside our peers and ask our customers what they can see, and how much they value it.

Until we do so, I think it will be an open question.

What I want to believe is that 1080p just wasn't enough of a difference from SDTV. I'm hoping that 4K presentation in the home is a larger qualitative leap from 1080p than 1080p was from SDTV ... or 720p for that matter.

All I am really saying though is that this specific question needs to be researched and understood.
 
Last edited:
I think that soon a 4K film scan will be the new SD.

The future is about advancement... not what was good enough 50 years ago. 1080P will be looked at as the mistake of 2000s. The future is not hard to see. Walls of images, not a 40" screen. Sometimes it seems like I am alone with this concept (accept Jarred and Deanan)... ugh.

Jim
 
Just to wrap this up.

5k RAW at speeds of 120 fps is here! and the reason is for far better creative decision in edits, post, grading everything in fact. (not to mention projection)

But it's not all about projection, you tube, film outs... Were images end up could be anywhere!

It's about having a huge creative palette to work with... 16bit, 5000 pixels, at 120 fps... think about it. you can zoom in out, move around it, do anything with it. You are limited with HD especially if your mastering out in HD.. Thats as far as you can go. you can't do anything crazy with with risk of it going soft. what you shoot is what you get.

5000 pixels... Thats a fucking big Canvas that you can do anything with.

Everyone has to stop thinking about were it ends up, and think more about what you can do with it...
 
If I am wrong... I am wrong on the short side. That makes 1080P really wrong.

Jim
 
Mark, as a DP who likes to compose his images, the ability to blow them up radically and reframe them is WAY down on my list of priorities, if anything, it's the one thing I wish there was rarely any ability to fix or change, i'd almost rather live with a mistake in the shot. Last thing I really want is an editor to take all my medium shots and turn them into close-ups, there are already too many close-ups in the final cut most of the time. I wish there was a frame "lock" feature that only the cinematographer could unlock...

Not to mention, it's not a 4K image anymore if you crop and blow it up by 500%...
 
Jannard said:
I think that soon a 4K film scan will be the new SD.

The future is about advancement... not what was good enough 50 years ago. 1080P will be looked at as the mistake of 2000s. The future is not hard to see. Walls of images, not a 40" screen. Sometimes it seems like I am alone with this concept (accept Jarred and Deanan)... ugh.

Jim
Click to expand...

I tend to agree more with Dave Mullen on this.

There are several issues floating around though ... and I'm afraid they are getting conflated.

I think that for acquisition, shooting 35mm or Epic is absolutely the way to go- if you can afford it.

For presentation though I question whether or not 2K is sufficient in the home. Even with wall sized displays - most of our walls just aren't that big Jim!

The real crux though is that I don't trust you, me and David Mullen to determine the answer to the question of presentation resolution. I think we need to ask our customers if they can even see the difference, and if they are willing to pay for that difference.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Mark, as a DP who likes to compose his images, the ability to blow them up radically and reframe them is WAY down on my list of priorities, if anything, it's the one thing I wish there was rarely any ability to fix or change, i'd almost rather live with a mistake in the shot. Last thing I really want is an editor to take all my medium shots and turn them into close-ups, there are already too many close-ups in the final cut most of the time. I wish there was a frame "lock" feature that only the cinematographer could unlock...

Not to mention, it's not a 4K image anymore if you crop and blow it up by 500%...
Click to expand...

Here here!
 
Are you talking about today or tomorrow? Actually, posts like this really make me think that what we are doing is a waste of time. I just don't think people think in terms of tomorrow.

"If you can afford it"? What can you shoot that is cheaper? A DSLR?

Jim

Alexander Ibrahim said:
I tend to agree more with Dave Mullen on this.

There are several issues floating around though ... and I'm afraid they are getting conflated.

I think that for acquisition, shooting 35mm or Epic is absolutely the way to go- if you can afford it.

For presentation though I question whether or not 2K is sufficient in the home. Even with wall sized displays - most of our walls just aren't that big Jim!

The real crux though is that I don't trust you, me and David Mullen to determine the answer to the question of presentation resolution. I think we need to ask our customers if they can even see the difference, and if they are willing to pay for that difference.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top