Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

F**k the Numbers (Geoff Boyle)

How about... "Love the Numbers".

I do.
 
Martin Stevens said:
How about... "Love the Numbers".

I do.
Click to expand...

I kind of get the impression that Boyle is saying the same thing with the opposite words.

Make a camera good enough so you don't have to worry about the numbers anymore.
Ban lossy compression and stop whining about the excessive amount of space full RAW uses (Storage is freaking cheap these days).

Bayer sensors are not a problem, just make sure it has enough pixels to make a decent high resolution RGB image.
Rule of thumb 1.5x horizontal/vertical resolution and some extra when the OLPF blocks a little to much.
 
I too feel that image quality has degraded over the last several decades. The most common pictures today are from bloody iPhones.
It takes something like a Digital Medium-Format Hasselblad and some well-positioned lighting to create a fine art picture worthy of praise, and worthy of public presentation for the people looking at it to appreciate it.

For moving pictures, presented on the big screen, motion is as important as the pictures flowing within it.
The pictures take a bit less of a roll, as they hit our eyes rapidly, but when we see movie scenes of very little camera movement and little action happening in the scene - it's then that you come to appreciate the quality of the pictures, and you're left with awe.
When a good story is well directed, well cut & edited, well color-graded and well audio recorded - it's the most rewarding feeling for the viewer enveloped with this amazing story-telling visage.

With all that said, I also feel that (high-end) digital is finally catching up with film. Today's tools, such as Red DSMC2, Arri Large-Format & Sony Venice, to name a few, seem to me like they're at the level of quality that is finally getting us to what we've lost a few decades ago.
 
Last edited:
Adam Brian Dada said:
Amazing new video up on YouTube under Cooke's channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko_V6LZ-zqQ&feature=youtu.be
Click to expand...

Up to interpretation, obviously. But in my opinion some of the responses are missing Boyle's point. My interpretation of that point being that we become overly obsessed with the "numbers", overly obsessed with the tech and tech talk. But an individual who knows next to nothing about sLog or color space or any of the tech side can go out and create visually compelling images, if not visually stunning images. And there are individuals highly knowledgeable in the technical side of things, in the numbers and the science, who don't produce visually compelling work and, as the saying goes, can't shoot their way out of a paper bag. All of the tech, the numbers, doesn't have all that much to do with creating visually compelling imagery. Cinematography is more emotional than it is scientific. But we ( the industry in general ) fall into being calculating about it. The tech, the calculating and the numbers, are more about the science of the electronic image than about cinematography itself. Cinematography, or great cinematography at least, is about self-expression, emotion, and "art".

I don't think Boyle necessarily contradicted himself with the comments about Sound of Music being so stunning after undergoing modern processing. Maybe he was only saying that the modern processing caused him to better see how visually stunning is the cinematography of Sound of Music.
The "numbers" benefit great cinematography but the numbers are not what make the cinematography great. That would be the light, the composition, the color, the camera movement, and the emotion the cinematography elicits in the viewer. Numbers are cold, emotionless, and calculated. Cinematography is not and should not be. Cinematography is a feeling and not a math equation.

The numbers are a tool in cinematography but cinematography is mostly about emotion. Don't get caught up in the numbers and forget the emotion.

"F*ck" the numbers" is hyperbole with a point and not to be taken literally. He's warning not to let the numbers take over to the detriment of emotion and passion. Or at least I think that is what he is saying.
 
John David Pope said:
The "numbers" benefit great cinematography but the numbers are not what make the cinematography great. That would be the light, the composition, the color, the camera movement, and the emotion the cinematography elicits in the viewer. Numbers are cold, emotionless, and calculated. Cinematography is not and should not be. Cinematography is a feeling and not a math equation. The numbers are a tool in cinematography but cinematography is mostly about emotion. Don't get caught up in the numbers and forget the emotion.
Click to expand...
Thank you -- I think that's exactly the right attitude.
 
"Fuck the numbers!"?!

How about ditching the Math completely, and revert to Numerology? :biggrin:

It's like saying: "I don't want to know about letters, I just want to write books", or "I'm not interested in working, I just want the money"..."Ima peacock, goddammit, lemme fly!".
:rofl:
 
Without the right brush and paint it's hard to make a good painting.

The Beta's first have to make, build, engineer, etc... something before the alpha's and creatives can use it.

Without the numbers no paint, brushes, camera's, display's etc...

At the end it's the combination of all things that make the picture (or you have to be Leonardo Davinci).
 
Perhaps, Hump the Numbers, would be a slightly more erudite way of expressing dissatisfaction.

:)
 
sorry.....love cinematography but not gonna get me to sit through 2 hours 52 minutes of "Sound of Music" because of the beautiful images.

the title is a spoiler alert for non musical lovers. i'm joking...kind of

go onto a screenwriting forum and say fuck the writing its about the acting!
 
In the beginning you do it because you love making images.
Along the way you love the tools.
In the end you come back to what counts most, the expression of humanity behind your images.
 
John David Pope said:
My interpretation of that point being that we become overly obsessed with the "numbers", overly obsessed with the tech and tech talk.
Click to expand...

I agree. Most Alexa's only have 2 & 3K resolution (until recently) and still make the best looking images imo. Resolution isn't everything. Same point was made here and discussed on another thread: http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/ResDemoPt2.html
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
A commercial DP who usually shoots the Alexa said of the Panavision DXL2, "It was the best thing that I have ever seen."
Click to expand...

And this uses the Monstro sensor (Red's best sensor, imo), so what is Panasonic doing differently (if anything)? Yedlin makes the point that other factors (processing algorithms ect) are just as important. Looking forward to the day when the Monstro sensor is in a more affordable package. One can dream.
 
Carlos Garcia-Diaz said:
And this uses the Monstro sensor (Red's best sensor, imo), so what is Panasonic doing differently (if anything)? Yedlin makes the point that other factors (processing algorithms ect) are just as important. Looking forward to the day when the Monstro sensor is in a more affordable package. One can dream.
Click to expand...

Monstro is a steal already, compared with an ARRI 4.4k sensor.
 
A forgotten factor as to why resolution seems more controversial in cinematography: because taking single frames is easier than 24 each second, stills cameras that offer 5K or more have been around for much longer. And they are quite cheap.

Now we have 100Mpx digital backs. They are not necessary but they are nice luxuries to have. If you have a really good 24Mpx sensor, you don't need more. Even the Leica M8, with only 10Mpx, is plenty. 10Mpx is approximately 4K. The M8 was released in 2006.

Low resolution is okay if the package is really small. The S35 Alexa sensors would be justified in a really small body at a really low price - but ARRI can't or won't do that.

A lot of people really like the now very old Leica Digilux 2, or Panasonic DMC-LC1, at base ISO. It's a small CCD with a mere 5Mpx:

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica_digilux2.html

Would I use that today? Sure, why not? In some ways it was superior to many DSLRs of its time (e.g. Canon 10D).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top