Steve Yedlin, ASC on Resolution

[Björn Benckert]

You know it's interesting. I personally think most slightly older films shown on "high res" screens look like crap.
I don't want to see the makeup on the actors for the first time.
The illusion of cinema is just that, an illusion.
The almost comical pursuit of resolution has only underlined to me why Speed Panchro's and Vintage glass have returned.
Pure compensation for an image so death defyingly sharp that we are lost on the surface.
Thing don't look more real for me as the resolution goes up. They look more video-like.

An example:
Roy Andersson's modern work looks less enticing to me because of the added resolution (despite how much he might love his RED cameras) than his older work shot on film, which was certainly less resolute. Fog machines and painted backgrounds blended with the grain to become an illusion I could dive into. I feel this to be less the case with his work today.

The other thing I think is comical, is that if folks believe so much in 8K, why do they continue to shoot at shutter speeds which have so much motion blur ? The motion blur definitely effects the sharpness of the subject and it's seperation from the background. I mean why not shoot at much higher shutter speeds ? The answer - because it destroys the very same illusion I have been referring to.

My conclusion is that what is essentially a FullHD machine - the Alexa (even the XT is an internal upscale) has been successful because it has hit the sweetspot of illusion that we are already accustomed to, in a way that higher resolution cameras mostly do not. This is also I think why Arri has had so much difficulty in moving up to a higher K count - they realize it might actually take away from what they have already achieved.

your comment about motion blur is a bit missing the point as everything thats not moving when camera is still is tack sharp and I dont think people want to avoid that. They like it. Motion blur takes you around the staccato effect from fast moving objects in a 24p film. Sure I like 24p I also like projectors showing 24p with 180 deg shutters, I dont like projectors showing the same footage in 24p 360 shutter and I for sure dislike higher framerate replays. Anything above 25p I kind of dislike no matter how you slice it.

Then regarding the cooke panchros. We are doing a 7k 10x45 min drama thing shot on those lenses and on 35mm film (the intro is on film the rest on helium in 7k) Comparing the two they look extremly much alike. Sure the helium is shot quite pushed showing camera noise etc. Which looks scary much like 35mm film. Also from looking close at that footage, the pancros are not soft. They are very much tack fucking sharp when things get into focus so no, saying they are soft is not really an argument for using them, if you dont have a bad set. They are sharp possibly not like the ultra primes or such but they for sure have a different focus fall of and 60s kind film character.


Then Roy Andersen shoots with a 18mm and diffusion filter in camera, he underexpose and expose to get the exact noise levels he is after for each shot and use "tyll" (fine mask fishnets) in depth of his scenes to get dept diffusion for his faked / painted backdrops. So the level of diffusion and resolution he is choosing has little to do with what camera he is using. Possibly you only seen a old copy of his old films with low res film print transfer and a compare that to vimeo feed of his newer alsters, as when looking at his lates work in 4k theatre it looks, to me, very much like the rest of his work.

I think the more 8k stuff that comes ut the more people will understand how oversampling works and what it could be used for. Simply put, high resolution does mean that the image need to looks like clean Iphone video or lacking character that if you dont like it and still get it, is just bad practice.

Here is a helium 7k frame, shot with a pancro. To me it has both a filmic look and sharpnes and it looks more film like out of the box than most digital camera I tested:

A002_C001_10207A.0000189F by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

And here is another one. both courtesy DoP Crille Forsberg.

HASSEL_STILL EP3.00057650 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

 

[Matt Bai]

They have a hard time BECAUSE IT'S HARD. Arri cameras 'have been successful' because of politics.

You know it's interesting. I personally think most slightly older films shown on "high res" screens look like crap.
I don't want to see the makeup on the actors for the first time.
The illusion of cinema is just that, an illusion.
The almost comical pursuit of resolution has only underlined to me why Speed Panchro's and Vintage glass have returned.
Pure compensation for an image so death defyingly sharp that we are lost on the surface.
Thing don't look more real for me as the resolution goes up. They look more video-like.

An example:
Roy Andersson's modern work looks less enticing to me because of the added resolution (despite how much he might love his RED cameras) than his older work shot on film, which was certainly less resolute. Fog machines and painted backgrounds blended with the grain to become an illusion I could dive into. I feel this to be less the case with his work today.

The other thing I think is comical, is that if folks believe so much in 8K, why do they continue to shoot at shutter speeds which have so much motion blur ? The motion blur definitely effects the sharpness of the subject and it's seperation from the background. I mean why not shoot at much higher shutter speeds ? The answer - because it destroys the very same illusion I have been referring to.

My conclusion is that what is essentially a FullHD machine - the Alexa (even the XT is an internal upscale) has been successful because it has hit the sweetspot of illusion that we are already accustomed to, in a way that higher resolution cameras mostly do not. This is also I think why Arri has had so much difficulty in moving up to a higher K count - they realize it might actually take away from what they have already achieved.

 

[Marc Wielage]

They have a hard time BECAUSE IT'S HARD. Arri cameras 'have been successful' because of politics.

I don't think that's true. I think a camera is just a line item on a budget. IndieWire just published a list of 50 indie films (non-studio 2017 productions), and I would say about 75% of the cameras used were Arri Alexa or Arri Amira. A camera package is going to be $750-$1000 a day almost regardless of whether it's a high-end Red or Sony or Panasonic or whatever. The DP doesn't always have a say. There is no mass conspiracy or politics behind it. The producers and DPs request what works for them.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I don't think that's true. I think a camera is just a line item on a budget. IndieWire just published a list of 50 indie films (non-studio 2017 productions), and I would say about 75% of the cameras used were Arri Alexa or Arri Amira. A camera package is going to be $750-$1000 a day almost regardless of whether it's a high-end Red or Sony or Panasonic or whatever. The DP doesn't always have a say. There is no mass conspiracy or politics behind it. The producers and DPs request what works for them.

They request Arri's because of Arri's strategy to focus their marketing on cinematographers who earlier shot only on film. Red was the revolutionary tech but they didn't do that, they just threw the tech into the open and hoped it would get traction. However, it went straight into either those filmmakers who didn't give a shit about film and really wanted the easy nature of digital while getting good amounts of resolution and DR. It appealed to younger DPs and filmmakers who wasn't really that into film in the first place. Arri on the other hand held out a hand to all the existing DPs, directors and producers, trying to make a digital camera that emulated the process of working with film and it worked. Almost all the DPs, directors and producers who was balancing on the edge into digital choosed Arri.

The following years the expected happened. Younger filmmakers and DPs have their favorite inspirations and almost all of those DPs would work with Arri because of their previous strategies.

People's choices doesn't appear in a vacuum. It's accumulating through external influence all the time and Arri's influence was big. That together with the early notorious problems Red had with their cameras created the opinions still echoing today.
At this time Red has caught up, become somthing bigger and more respected than the David to Goliath they were considered to be when Arri released Alexa. However, we are seeing the end of the line for cameras as we know them. We are hitting a diminishing return for the development. Just look at Helium and Dragon. The jump between MX and Dragon was huge, but Dragon to Helium wasn't really that big, except for resolution and noise handling. But there were trade-offs with full frame frame rates etc.

Same goes for Arri. They aren't really doing anything new in terms of sensors because they already have probably the best sensor out there. So all they do is chop them in different sizes. The level of innovation and development that we've seen the last ten to fifteen years has come to a slowdown.

That's why I think Red is moving into the Hydrogen territory. Filming holographic material might be the future of digital images. If similar screens gets released in larger sizes, TV sizes and computers, laptops etc. there will be a revolution in how people want their moving images. Glass-less 3D that is actually the way we want it to be would definetely be a revolution and might throw everything into having a holographic priority over 2D movies. The nostalgia will only survive for so long and right now, with Nolan and Tarantino on the marsch for working with film just shows how there's a desperation from those who prefer film over digital.

It all depends on the screens really. What the consumers will have in front of them determine what type of cameras we will use. Even cinemas are looking into changing silver screens to OLED screens, so what happens when holographic screens gets that big?

But back to the subject, Arri's current foothold in the industry is definetely the result of ten years of perfect marketing. However, as I mentioned, the nostalgia of film will dim out and when it looses it's foothold, so will probably Arri. A lot of hipster filmmakers who only want the cameras that their filmmaking idols use chooses Arri. But I see a lot of new young filmmakers who doesn't give a shit about film going straight for Red cameras.

The 2020 to 2030 will probably be a defining moment for the future of the majority of filmmaking. The last decade we moved filmmaking into the digital realm and now almost everything is digital. The next decade will evolve that digital process.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

They have a hard time BECAUSE IT'S HARD.

They are not having a hard time at all.

They dominate the cinema acquisition domain.

Arri cameras 'have been successful' because of politics.

Nope.

Because of the image, workflow practicality, camera functionality and brand perception.

Same goes for Arri. They aren't really doing anything new in terms of sensors because they already have probably the best sensor out there.

Nope.

Their ace is processing.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Great to have one film stock : Kodak and one camera : Arri.

Why should we have more choices?

 

[Misha Engel]

Why should we have more choices?

Because all single-chip cameras suffer some quite serious colorimetry problems compared to three-chip cameras.

 

[C. Burkhart]

Arri cameras 'have been successful' because of politics.

It's so good to see that you haven't fallen victim to politics or marketing yourself.
Since you probably own a RED, you are definitely a rebel, a "disrupter" fighting the establishment.
And we all know that ARRI is the Goliath establishment and who is therefore David in this situation. Right ?

I'm so happy to see that you have seen this situation clearly, unlike all those other foolish yes men who just happen to be a part of the ASC.

Who never bother to test cameras before shooting their feature films or major theatrical releases.
Who don't really care about image quality, ease of use or dependability.
The only thing they care about is politics.

Thank you for clarifying things for me.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

It's so good to see that you haven't fallen victim to politics or marketing yourself.
Since you probably own a RED, you are definitely a rebel, a "disrupter" fighting the establishment.
And we all know that ARRI is Goliath and who is David in this situation. Right ?

I'm so happy to see that you have seen this situation clearly, unlike all those other foolish yes men who just happen to be a part of the ASC.

Who never bother to test cameras before shooting their feature films and major theatrical releases.
Who don't really care about image quality, ease of use or dependability.
The only thing they care about is politics.

Thank you for clarifying things for me.

Good you made the good choices from the beginning.

 

[Marc Wielage]

But back to the subject, Arri's current foothold in the industry is definetely the result of ten years of perfect marketing. However, as I mentioned, the nostalgia of film will dim out and when it looses it's foothold, so will probably Arri. A lot of hipster filmmakers who only want the cameras that their filmmaking idols use chooses Arri. But I see a lot of new young filmmakers who doesn't give a shit about film going straight for Red cameras.

I dunno. I read an awful lot of industry publications and websites, and I can't recall ever seeing a lot of ads for Arri Alexa. I don't think their marketing made the difference. Nobody's getting bribed, nobody's getting kickbacks, nobody's getting politically-pressured... people choose the cameras they want, just based on experience and budget.

Speaking of film, Kodak is crowing that 17 of the features at the recent Toronto Film Festival were shot on film, so you have to wonder if this is a trend or if it's just a gimmick.

Film – the 35MM Kodak Kind – Resurges at Toronto Festival With 17 Titles
http://www.thewrap.com/film-the-35-mm-kind-roars-back-at-toronto-festival-with-16-titles/

I truly, honestly believe that it doesn't matter what you shoot on if the camera is at or above a certain level. Beyond that, it's all about lighting and lenses and exposure, and (most importantly) content. If you take 6 or 7 world-class cameras (including film), I think all of them can make very similar pictures, particularly if the scenes are well-lit and they do a good job in post.

BTW, here's that list I mentioned. It was 40 films, not 50, but the rest of the details are correct. The vast majority of them shot on Alexa. You have to wonder why, since none of them are big-budget studio films, and quite a few had very modest budgets.

TIFF 2017: Here Are the Cameras Used To Shoot 40 of This Year’s Best Films
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/09/ti...rs-shape-of-water-mother-mudbound-1201873801/

 

[Christoffer Glans]

It's so good to see that you haven't fallen victim to politics or marketing yourself.
Since you probably own a RED, you are definitely a rebel, a "disrupter" fighting the establishment.
And we all know that ARRI is the Goliath establishment and who is therefore David in this situation. Right ?

I'm so happy to see that you have seen this situation clearly, unlike all those other foolish yes men who just happen to be a part of the ASC.

Who never bother to test cameras before shooting their feature films or major theatrical releases.
Who don't really care about image quality, ease of use or dependability.
The only thing they care about is politics.

Thank you for clarifying things for me.

There are plenty of people who choose cameras based on their looks or other things. I've been working with almost every camera in some way or another and the camera that gives me the best possible "look" is Alexa. However, why I own a Red and why I primarily shoot Red is because of control. I'm a control freak, I want to be able to handle my footage, resolution, downsampling and be able to do manipulation with the image without loosing valuable resolution in the process. I would never have chosen Red if they didn't have R3D files. It's the single best achievement in high end post-prod workflow I've seen.

But then there are the victims of politics. I've seen them on both sides, both people who used cameras and never touched them. They speak bullshit passionately and want reality around them to be as they see it. To choose Red to be a rebel or to choose Arri because "they are the only ones who get it" are both reasons for a choice that has no basis in cinematography.

I respect people like Nolan and Tarantino, but the arguments they speak of in favor of film is often filled with so much nostalgic nonsense it gets ridiculous.

The thing that gives hope though is that the most vocal people on these things are a smaller sum of people than the ones who actually choose based on tests and preferred look/workflow.

I dunno. I read an awful lot of industry publications and websites, and I can't recall ever seeing a lot of ads for Arri Alexa. I don't think their marketing made the difference. Nobody's getting bribed, nobody's getting kickbacks, nobody's getting politically-pressured... people choose the cameras they want, just based on experience and budget.

Speaking of film, Kodak is crowing that 17 of the features at the recent Toronto Film Festival were shot on film, so you have to wonder if this is a trend or if it's just a gimmick.

Film – the 35MM Kodak Kind – Resurges at Toronto Festival With 17 Titles
http://www.thewrap.com/film-the-35-mm-kind-roars-back-at-toronto-festival-with-16-titles/

I truly, honestly believe that it doesn't matter what you shoot on if the camera is at or above a certain level. Beyond that, it's all about lighting and lenses and exposure, and (most importantly) content. If you take 6 or 7 world-class cameras (including film), I think all of them can make very similar pictures, particularly if the scenes are well-lit and they do a good job in post.

BTW, here's that list I mentioned. It was 40 films, not 50, but the rest of the details are correct. The vast majority of them shot on Alexa. You have to wonder why, since none of them are big-budget studio films, and quite a few had very modest budgets.

TIFF 2017: Here Are the Cameras Used To Shoot 40 of This Year’s Best Films
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/09/ti...rs-shape-of-water-mother-mudbound-1201873801/

Marketing in a niche industry like the global filmmaking community isn't much about internet ads and there's certainly not about bribes. It's about connections, it's about support. Arri chose to support a lot of DPs, directors and Producers who were coming from film wanting to shoot digital. They didn't do it with bribes but by support, being there, having technical advisors close and so on. Red did this too, they build their entire brand on the community we are writing within right now. Without Reduser and the transparency I don't think they would have made it to these heights as a brand new cinema camera developer. But the openness did hurt the feeling of exclusivity that Arri had their hands on and that exclusivity was the thing that attracted a lot of the top tier DPs and filmmakers.


But the resurgence of chemical film right now has a lot more to it than just being a choice of format. We have a society right now that's pretty focused on nostalgia. Everything has a feeling of 80s callback or nostalgia in some form or another. My personal theory is that whenever society progressively moves faster, you will see an increased nostalgia in culture. It's the fear of moving too fast, so trying to hold on to something familiar makes it easier to handle the present. It definitely affects the choices made by filmmakers. How they handle colors, framing and what format they use. It creates a form of technophobia for people who just want to make movies. They seek out the familiar.

That being said, it also a result of new filmmakers wanting to create something similar to their favourite filmmakers. Just wait until there's a generation that only has their favourite movies made in digital form. This is why I think the next decade will define the future of filmmaking. Because we both go into a new generation of filmmakers who grew up on films shot digitally with a lot of CGI. That's what they are used too. Combine that with light field, holographic content, VR and so on and I think that we are right now witnessing the dying desperate grasp on film nostalgia. People in my generation, born in the 80s still come from the "old" times, before internet and so on. The 90s generation will mark a very interesting shift when they come into power. So be prepared for that I'd say.

 

[C. Burkhart]

There are plenty of people who choose cameras based on their looks or other things. I've been working with almost every camera in some way or another and the camera that gives me the best possible "look" is Alexa. However, why I own a Red and why I primarily shoot Red is because of control. I'm a control freak, I want to be able to handle my footage, resolution, downsampling and be able to do manipulation with the image without loosing valuable resolution in the process. I would never have chosen Red if they didn't have R3D files. It's the single best achievement in high end post-prod workflow I've seen.
.

This makes a lot of sense to me.
I agree that this is one of the best arguments for shooting RED.

Personally, I prefer RED for more graphic or technical situations and Alexa for more narrative ones.
A bit like Master Primes vs. Cookes.

The funny thing is though that I am about to shoot a feature where it's all about the actors in an enclosed room.
For this one I would rather have three old F3's, than a single Higher quality cam given our budget.
I have to say that in a controlled environment, the old F3 with 1080P SLOG 444, can still look damn good.
As long as the highlights are controlled it yields a very organic image, not far off from an Alexa.

So for me the advance of technology is always interesting, but resolution is not always the most important factor.
Coverage matters more to me.
We will shoot with Cookes though.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I respect people like Nolan and Tarantino, but the arguments they speak of in favor of film is often filled with so much nostalgic nonsense it gets ridiculous.

Or perhaps they just have the sensibility, appreciation and aesthetic preference you don't, so from the perspective where that is lacking the mind assumes.

And due to Ego it commonly assumes own superiority and that the problem is in someone else.

My personal theory is that whenever society progressively moves faster, you will see an increased nostalgia in culture. It's the fear of moving too fast, so trying to hold on to something familiar makes it easier to handle the present. It definitely affects the choices made by filmmakers. How they handle colors, framing and what format they use. It creates a form of technophobia for people who just want to make movies. They seek out the familiar.

That's an interesting theory.

My conclusions, based on a long term interdisciplinary study and multiple evidence, are that in the Age of Idiocy humans tend to rush into things as technological development is ahead of the inner one.
So they tend to mess up themselves and the world around them and get caught up in repeating the same mistakes. And have deteriorated power of integration so tend to polarize things and themselves, needlessly competing with each other and using things for a while then completely throwing them away and moving on. Like a parasite.

Also, there is tendency to get infatuated with technology and under-appreciate and underestimate all else. "Left brain" analytical dominance, feeling gratification from quantity because the sense of quality is either deteriorated or undeveloped. Manifesting in arrogant throwing away of things. Which tends to lead to lack of fulfilment by blindly embraced ones and crying for things once felt then lost and wanting to get them back. In imaging domain manifested through film emulations and old glass which is not technically superior and factual looking.

Technophobia is often a generalized interpretation from technophilia state of mind.
To the best Craftsmen, technology is a servant and a mean, not a master and a goal.

Interpretation of separation between Arts and Crafts, past and future is an illusion of the age locked in "either/or" state of mind and the evolution depends on re-activating the power of integration.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Historically RED (Red digital cinema) was the first company that ambitionned the digital replacement of film. They where also named scammer for that.
Digital cameras, at that time (2006), where more studio cameras for greenscreen or FX work not as the main camera for narrative work.

This drove the logic for RED that it needed a S35 sensor and 4k+ resolution.
RAW was also a must have as it ambitionned to be on par with cineon or DPX files from 35mm scans.

RED ONE and his Mysterium sensor was not yet there to replace film though.

But RED is not quite the newcommer (technofilia) and nothing to do with maketing and hype. Just a tool that had the ambition to replace 35mm film given for indies (transfert->check->transcode on your PC). Tools that replaced the 16mm film budget.
Now Arri has an agressive politic of "bringing on board" well known DPs und using their names for marketing purposes. Remember Deakins and his "2k is enough for Imax" discussion when Arri didn't have any 4k camera 5 years ago?

From the Arri channel.

But that's normal, it's his choice.

Pat

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Arri didn't dominate because of politics they dominated because
1) Their cameras were easy for ACs to adopt and they didn't crash as much. If your camera department hates the camera nobody is going to stick their neck out to push for something which will be blamed for everything that goes wrong. I've pushed for RED a lot because it was the best tool for the job. And I've been on set VFX supervising and had the AC giving me death stares as the camera is rebooting for some reason. If the AC hates it. The DP hates the color and the director is just going off of what their camera departments are telling them then you're the scapegoat if something goes wrong. I don't mind an awkward to rig form factor because I'm not the one rigging it. But if it's easy for the ACs to work with then they'll happily recommend it and if they recommend it then the risk is shared.

2) Their color was phenomenal and their defaults were spot on almost on day one. Everybody is rightfully excited about IPP2. But they were also rightfully really excited about Dragon Color 2. And Dragon Color 1. And RedColor 3 and RedColor2 and RedColor etc. In that time Alexa... hasn't really made any major changes. For the last odd decade Alexa has had IPP2 quality color out of the box.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Now try shooting in S35 framing with same lens on Alexa and Epic, put in same 4K motion sequence (not a still frame), inter cut their shots (not side by side), and show that on typical viewing distance and FOV (TV set and cinema screen, not computer or mobile screen) to the average viewer (someone not working with imagery for a living) and just tell them to watch the imagery (not preconditioning their attention to the resolution aspect).

No. Because by that standard an iPhone video is as good as a RED. If we are starting from the premise "The average audience member doesn't care about the quality of an image anymore" then there is no point talking about 2k vs 8k there is no point talking about Cooke vs MasterPrime, there is no point talking about compression, there is no point in talking anything about image at all. Chromatic Aberation? No average viewer will tell in the context of the cut. ISO? No one in the audience knows what that is. Bokeh? What's that? Anamorphic? Is that a DVD format? Out of Gamut Colors? Is that what you call a film shot in Ukranian?

If the average viewer is watching in SD on YouTube on a 4" screen why even bother capturing HD?

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Because it's not the average viewer who does the capture.

 

[Gunther Meisse]

I really appreciate him doing this. Good stuff.

 

[Mike P.]

As others have said, Alexa dominates because it's essentially spot on out of the gate, super easy to use, and bulletproof (certainly more stable than DSMC1)... Even the first time I used it (with no prior experience), it took all of 90seconds to figure out where everything was and the image I got was objectifively (and noticeably) better than anything I could've shot on RED directly out of the cam (MX at the time), save for resolution. I brought it into computer expecting to have to tweak the image "to get more out of it" (as you *have* to do with .r3d), but I barely did anything (I think I adjusted the black point and took out a smidgeon of green).

I'm sure the amount of time you'd ultimately save (on set and in post) with Alexa more than makes up for the price difference and with Amira and Mini, Arri took away two of RED's three biggest benefits (IMO).

As for indies/low-budget productions shooting Alexa now, that's likely due to Alexa Classics being cheap/readily available, which is ironic because they're still renting well (can't say the same for any other 7+year old digital cameras though, including any previous generation Obselecence Obsolete 4K+ REDs).

All of that being said, and more on topic, while I'm certainly not a stickler for resolution, I really think Arri should've made it natively/true 4k to put the argument to rest. Sure the consensus is that film only resolves ~3.2k, and the majority of DoPs seem to use vintage lenses and filters to soften a "harsh digital image", but having 4096x2160 would've put the upscaling nonsense to bed, and kept netflix happy. Without it, all Arri has to hang their hat on is cinema, the majority of award winning films, majority of official film fest selections, and majority of network TV... Blegh, who wants those? (Yes, sarcasm).

 

[Kenneth C Merrill]

For the last odd decade Alexa has had IPP2 quality color out of the box.

THIS. I'm so glad Red is finally taking a break from the resolution craze to actually focus on the most important part of the image.