Good enough...

[Jim Retar]

That Kotter show is what, 30-40 years old?

Is it not just as likely that 4k will seem massively outdated in 2050? Maybe we should all be shooting 3D to future proof our work, not worrying about 2D resolution? (just playing devil's advocate, I don't actually believe this).

 

[shashbugu]

You're debating the wrong person here. I'm all for more resolution and more dynamic range and getting the best picture for post and for posterity.

But many productions, especially TV ones, have a pretty strict budget and will only pay for anything beyond their immediate delivery needs if it adds ZERO to the budget -- and very few things have zero impact on budget. Yes, it's short-sighted and sad.

"Replacement for film" after all covers more than features, it covers commercials, music videos, and some high-end TV shows. The argument to master in 4K is easier to make for features, that's all, and it gets progressively harder to make with projects aimed at the small screen, particularly if they don't think they will be in syndication for decades to come.

Not entirely accurate. TV execs understand PR and marketing very well. Programming specs are a very important part of production. I know you have a lot of experience in the technical side of things, but shooting Red is considered very affordable for Production. The majority of shows are reality based. The idea there is to shoot good enough for broadcast, but with the look of a soccer moms camera for realism and spontaneity. You can verify that for yourself. All shows Originated on film will slowly die out. The film specs have been dictated so far by cinematographers and Directors not the the TV execs.

 

[Stephen Williams]

As far as ease of use, Red is easier than a film camera, because you can see what you are actually acquiring.

Hi,

I find a film camera can be very easy to use, in some cases only an On/Off switch and a viewfinder. I can see exactly what I am acquiring without problems. The director however may not be able to see what I am shooting, such problems are rarely bother a DOP.

Stephen

 

[Jay Gannon]

When it comes to TV try pushing 4k in a country where the national broadcaster is still SD.

 

[Stephen Williams]

4k isn't good enough for us even right now. We have been extremely successful in convincing our clients that pulling stills from the motion we shoot for them saves them a ton of money. All it takes is keeping a couple gorgeous 50mb TIFFs on our iPads and Macbook Pros. When clients see it for themselves they suddenly get it. They get high quality stills and don't have to bring in a separate photographer. 4k is at the very low end of what is acceptable for stills, though. 5k will be better and 6k will be great.

Hi,

1/48 shutter speed, whilst ideal for motion is not ideal for stills IMO.

Stephen

 

[Lee Saxon]

That Kotter show is what, 30-40 years old?

Is it not just as likely that 4k will seem massively outdated in 2050? Maybe we should all be shooting 3D to future proof our work, not worrying about 2D resolution? (just playing devil's advocate, I don't actually believe this).

Nah, it's true it ALSO hasn't aged well, but it looked like crap the day it was shot. Movies twice that old shot on 35mm still look great today.

 

[Jay Gannon]

Not entirely accurate. TV execs understand PR and marketing very well. Programming specs are a very important part of production. I know you have a lot of experience in the technical side of things, but shooting Red is considered very affordable for Production. The majority of shows are reality based. The idea there is to shoot good enough for broadcast, but with the look of a Hoochie Mamas camera for realism and spontaneity. You can verify that for yourself. All shows Originated on film will slowly die out. The film specs have been dictated so far by cinematographers and Directors not the the TV execs.

I see your point but they are not dictated by the DP/Director by in large, the Producers are used to working with Film and costing a film production. Its what they know any many are scared of the unknown factor.

 

[David Rasberry]

Hi,

I find a film camera can be very easy to use, in some cases only an On/Off switch and a viewfinder. I can see exactly what I am acquiring without problems. The director however may not be able to see what I am shooting, such problems are rarely bother a DOP.

Stephen

With film you don't see what you are acquiring until it comes back from the lab. Film is a reliable medium that allows one to test and anticipate what the image will look like within reason, but it still requires a lot of skill, and faith.

 

[Stephen Williams]

With film you don't see what you are acquiring until it comes back from the lab. Film is a reliable medium that allows one to test and anticipate what the image will look like within reason, but it still requires a lot of skill, and faith.

Hi,

I have eyes, I know EXACTLY how it will look without any color grading. Testing & experience, no faith other than in my competence to deliver. Skill is what I am paid for.

Stephen

 

[Jannard]

Hi,

1/48 shutter speed, whilst ideal for motion is not ideal for stills IMO.

Stephen

It depends... covers of top magazines are being shot at 1/48th second (Esquire, Time, Vogue, etc). When it isn't appropriate... just set a different shutter speed. There are times when motion and stills are perfectly compatible and times when they are not.

Jim

 

[Stephen Williams]

It depends... covers of top magazines are being shot at 1/48th second (Esquire, Time, Vogue, etc). When it isn't appropriate... just set a different shutter speed. There are times when motion and stills are perfectly compatible and times when they are not.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Larger sensors will be very beneficial in that respect.

Stephen

 

[Álex Montoya]

BTW, Stephen, from your posts I understand that you are a very skilled and appreciated DoP, but I'm not able to find your credits.

Can you point me to your IMDB URL when you find the time?

 

[Justin O'Neill]

Hi,

1/48 shutter speed, whilst ideal for motion is not ideal for stills IMO.

Stephen

While I would only select 1/48 only in special situations on an SLR shoot we have been surprised at how many sharp looking stills we can pull from our 1/48 motion. I think it has to do with the fact that you are basically getting 24 still shots per second. With that quantity of stills it is much easier to find sharp shots even at 1/48. On top of that, we plan in advance and if there is a shot with lots of movement that we know we will want as a still we just roll for a couple seconds at a higher shutter speed.

I know it seems like it shouldn't work in theory but trust me, it works very well in practice.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

That makes sense, because on my stills camera, when shooting hand-held, I've always found shooting a burst and picking gives great results as usually the first press of the shutter is soft due to your movement in pushing the shutter, and by the second or third frame the movement has settled down and it's getting sharper. Obviously, if the movement of the scene is very fast, shutter speed becomes more important though.

Graeme

 

[James Brundige]

Exactlly?

Exactlly?

Hi,

I have eyes, I know EXACTLY how it will look without any color grading. Testing & experience, no faith other than in my competence to deliver. Skill is what I am paid for.

Stephen

Pardon, but you don't know about dirt on the neg or all sorts of things. I once learned that volcanic ash can be invisible and still ruin a roll. I lost a critical portion of a show because the power went out at the processing facility in Toronto when our film was in the machine. And then there was the unavoidable xray machine in Bangladesh. With your experience, you have a good idea of what it will look like if nothing goes wrong. But you are not actually looking at the footage you are creating.

 

[Stephen Williams]

BTW, Stephen, from your posts I understand that you are a very skilled and appreciated DoP, but I'm not able to find your credits.

Can you point me to your IMDB URL when you find the time?

Hi Alex,

I shoot commercials so don't have any DP credits, 2 of the 23 Stephen Williams on IMDB are me. A google search will find my website.

Stephen

 

[Liam Hall]

One reason RED stills will look reasonable at 1/48th is there's no mirror slap. Also, it's probably sitting on a big heavy tripod.

I often used to shoot stills handheld at 1/20th or slower, it ain't easy and I'm very pleased we now have useable high ISOs.

 

[M Most]

I see your point but they are not dictated by the DP/Director by in large, the Producers are used to working with Film and costing a film production. Its what they know any many are scared of the unknown factor.

I don't understand why so many here seem to associate a decision such as what format to shoot on with "fear." Many producers and studios continue to use film because they feel it's the best possible medium to shoot on at the present time. And there are a lot of reasons that is a sensible conclusion.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Pardon, but you don't know about dirt on the neg or all sorts of things. I once learned that volcanic ash can be invisible and still ruin a roll. I lost a critical portion of a show because the power went out at the processing facility in Toronto when our film was in the machine. And then there was the unavoidable xray machine in Bangladesh. With your experience, you have a good idea of what it will look like if nothing goes wrong. But you are not actually looking at the footage you are creating.

Hi James,

I find that dirt on the negative is usually caused by sloppy loading. I have never had any issues with Labs, Xrays etc. Not everybody can handle film reliably, it's a people problem.

Stephen

 

[Liam Hall]

Hi James,

I find that dirt on the negative is usually caused by sloppy loading. I have never had any issues with Labs, Xrays etc. Not everybody can handle film reliably, it's a people problem.

Stephen

You must have had a stock fault. I've had stock faults shooting for Eastman Kodak!

Anyway, how did this get on to discussing film? I thought this was about Alexa...