"why 4K is wrong" ???????????

[Bobby Farokhzad]

Graeme, I always enjoy your posts. I think it's about time you change your signature to www.red.com - 6k Digital Cinema Camera.
Regardless of what the author of the article may say.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Phil, there's so many reasons. I think you've covered a lot of them. We know HD had the detail circuit cranked up - the aesthetic was all wrong for cinema. 4k gets you the detail (and when done properly) without the excessive ringing sharpness that can be so ugly.

But what annoys me is that video was held back for so long because cameras were limited to the broadcast standards, rather than having the camera, editing, production in a superior format that was dumbed down to whatever the broadcast format of the day was. The solution wasn't even unknown - film was so often used for TV where it was shot, edited and mastered in a much higher format than could be broadcast at the time. I think now is the right time to learn from that lesson. I get a lot of new blu rays from the UK where old TV shows shot on 16mm or 35mm are being remastered for HD and they look fantastic, whereas old shows shot on video only look the same as they've ever done (or worse, because the original tapes were lost).

Graeme

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Ok, it now says 6k. Thanks for that Bobby!

Graeme

 

[Steve Sherrick]

As an audience member, you know what I love? When I don't care about what camera was used. I'm not a huge James Bond fan, but I enjoyed Skyfall. I watched it on a 27' cheap TV in a hotel room. Did the use of Alexa stop me from enjoying it? Not at all. Even my techie side never interfered, just enjoyed the story. We are all filmmakers here. We are used to looking at things with a critical eye. Thanks to the crazy amount of extras on DVDs and Blu-Rays as well as a general increase in overall tech savvy, the average audience member is perhaps more aware of technical quality than they were in the past. But the differences between 4k and 2K are generally not enough to pull them out of a good story. This is an internal, camera people issue for the most part.

What we really need to acknowledge is that as filmmakers we have options. We can choose the tools and styles we think will deliver our ideas best to an audience. Take Gunleik for example. He has a camera that delivers pristine images but he like to dirty things up, give it a style, his style. That which suits his tastes. The RED and whatever other cameras he may choose on a given project provide that gateway for him. If the Alexa provided that gateway, I'm sure he would use that as well. Saying 4K is not needed is not accurate, nor is saying 1080P or 2K is a waste of time. A lot of us have seen well shot 2K material that will hold up just fine compared to poorly shot 4K. The greatest thing for filmmakers is when these companies push each other to make more great tools, offering such great opportunities for us to push our work in many directions.

These threads, as well as the endless articles, blogs, etc that focus on why something shouldn't be are less constructive than ones about what something is and how it is being used to create something. I just read about a film that was recently shot on the Sony F950. As a camera geek, it might seem natural to ask why would they want to do that. But reading the filmmaker's reasoning for using it, I understood. I can't think of anyone here that would think of using an F950 right now, but the film I'm talking about has been met with some very good critical praise. That's why it's important to keep things in perspective. 4K is not a bad thing. 6K isn't a bad thing. It's great actually. But every project has different requirements and I choose to respect the decisions of those involved. They are not always the choices I would make personally.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Long live 2K!! I LOVE being able to see the actual pixels on the screen when I go to a movie. Not distracting at all.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Long live 2K!! I LOVE being able to see the actual pixels on the screen when I go to a movie. Not distracting at all.

Have not met one person not in the industry who has told me that they saw the pixels on the screen.

But just so my point is clear. I like quality. And when I say this is an internal, camera people issue, that's actually a good thing. We should be striving for quality. We should keep pushing the envelope. And I want RED to keep pushing it. It's in the best interest of all of us.

 

[Phil Holland]

Cheers Graeme.

I understand and sympathize with the birth of 1080p and 2K from a technical and commercial standpoint. It was indeed a step up from SD and a lot of other crazy formats. All the while we had film as the golden standard as a capture format. 2K not really being a step up from Super 16mm, but more of resolving equivalent.


Super 35mm film's still relevant (at least to me) because it can be scanned at 4K, 6K, and 8K in 16bit, which is where I came from. Although past 6K for that format you really don't gain much. However, it's just simply not cost effective, consistent, controllable, as portable, as deadline friendly in this market, etc.... I could go on. It is a fine medium, but there's issues. Larger formats are still relevant as well, but again the ease of use and cost really get in the way.


That concept, history, and legacy is what led me to Red. Red early on mapped out sort of a multi-format system that had a raw path. Exactly what I wanted. With Dragon now actually surpassing the resolution and dynamic range of film for the first time relative to format size. I can't tell you how excited I am for it to arrive. It's certainly visible the amount of effort that's gone into the new sensor and color science.

I think the real difference, and it's what I've seen first hand when lovely 4K material is projected, is how submerged people get and how quickly they get there. You obviously still have to shoot material carefully and with an eye for quality control. But when it all clicks that's what really sells the concept. And once you're there it's really hard to turn back.

 

[Eric M Hurt]

I will agree in part with one point in his article, (although I wouldn't use the term "Touted" because I've never heard a 4k camera manufacturer say this, but I would use the term "supposed"):

"Another touted advantage of 4K in post is that an editor can zoom in to an image to reframe it. It is common practice to light, compose and filter close-ups differently from medium or wide shots. So creating close-ups from wide shots that were never intended to be close-ups can be an aesthetic disaster."

I have to hold my tongue every time a producer asks if they can't just reframe the master in post for the medium or close up...but at least it's generally only commercial producers who somehow think this...

 

[Ron Steinberg]

:thumbsup:

As an audience member, you know what I love? When I don't care about what camera was used. I'm not a huge James Bond fan, but I enjoyed Skyfall. I watched it on a 27' cheap TV in a hotel room. Did the use of Alexa stop me from enjoying it? Not at all. Even my techie side never interfered, just enjoyed the story. We are all filmmakers here. We are used to looking at things with a critical eye. Thanks to the crazy amount of extras on DVDs and Blu-Rays as well as a general increase in overall tech savvy, the average audience member is perhaps more aware of technical quality than they were in the past. But the differences between 4k and 2K are generally not enough to pull them out of a good story. This is an internal, camera people issue for the most part.

What we really need to acknowledge is that as filmmakers we have options. We can choose the tools and styles we think will deliver our ideas best to an audience. Take Gunleik for example. He has a camera that delivers pristine images but he like to dirty things up, give it a style, his style. That which suits his tastes. The RED and whatever other cameras he may choose on a given project provide that gateway for him. If the Alexa provided that gateway, I'm sure he would use that as well. Saying 4K is not needed is not accurate, nor is saying 1080P or 2K is a waste of time. A lot of us have seen well shot 2K material that will hold up just fine compared to poorly shot 4K. The greatest thing for filmmakers is when these companies push each other to make more great tools, offering such great opportunities for us to push our work in many directions.

These threads, as well as the endless articles, blogs, etc that focus on why something shouldn't be are less constructive than ones about what something is and how it is being used to create something. I just read about a film that was recently shot on the Sony F950. As a camera geek, it might seem natural to ask why would they want to do that. But reading the filmmaker's reasoning for using it, I understood. I can't think of anyone here that would think of using an F950 right now, but the film I'm talking about has been met with some very good critical praise. That's why it's important to keep things in perspective. 4K is not a bad thing. 6K isn't a bad thing. It's great actually. But every project has different requirements and I choose to respect the decisions of those involved. They are not always the choices I would make personally.

These are the most reasonable words I've read in this thread. Well stated Steve, thanks for that.

This 2k vs. 4k reminds me of 10 years ago, when I was transitioning from film to digital (stills). I come from a commercial background shooting 4x5 and 8x10 inch transparencies (talk about resolution!!). It's the megapixel argument/race all over again. I think the Alexa produces lovely images (Skyfall was gorgeous, no matter what anyone says about the plot). I think the Epic produces amazing images too. Heck, my R1 MX does as well.

Eventually, this whole 4/6/8/gazillion k argument will go away. Then we can all concentrate on being better filmmakers rather than debating the tools. It will take about 10 years total judging by the stills world. Personally I'd much rather discuss glass, or lighting, than sensor resolution. At the end of the day, what you put in front of the sensor/film is far more important. And that of course includes the subject matter ;-)

 

[Evin Grant]

I'm sure his tune will change as soon as Arri announces a 4K Alexa. He's just being a smart businessman and trying to keep his (somewhat) obsolete camera relevant.
If that means spreading FUD then I guess he's just cynical enough not to give a shit.

 

[David W. Jones]

And because Citizen Kane was shot in black and white, we should all be shooting in black and white as colour adds nothing to cinematography.



Graeme

Mmmm, if I remember right, the Epic M Monochrome is a black and white camera.

But hey, I can shoot a really bad TV commercial at any resolution.

 

[Ron Steinberg]

I'm sure his tune will change as soon as Arri announces a 4K Alexa. He's just being a smart businessman and trying to keep his (somewhat) obsolete camera relevant.
If that means spreading FUD then I guess he's just cynical enough not to give a shit.

I'm really not trying to start an argument, or worse be kicked off the board by a moderator. But why is his camera "obsolete"? Simply because it's only 2.5k resolution? What of dynamic range, colour fidelity, how it handles highlights, noise, form factor (Red could take a lesson from Arri in how to design a "cinema camera" for ergonomics any day of the week).

I have no doubt that Arri will introduce a 4k+ camera, one of these days. But not before they've worked out all the issues that are important to them (see above).

 

[raufzaza]

I like Gareme's POV.

And as usuall, The train keep moving, and a lot of our fellow film makers, DOP, film editors are left behind..
We saw it with our fellow film editors who refused or couldn't make the transition to NLE.
4k, 6k are not future, they are today.
4k TV's are sold in store next building.
So let's talk about something productive, lets shoot good films with clever stories, drwa smile on audience faces, and maybe stop a war with our films.
That would better.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip) We know HD had the detail circuit cranked up - the aesthetic was all wrong for cinema. 4k gets you the detail (and when done properly) without the excessive ringing sharpness that can be so ugly. (snip)
Graeme

The amount of sharpening routinely done to HD video begs the question of why - is it because genuine image dynamics are so compromised by low bit rate distribution codecs, poor overall IQ and the preponderance of cheaply made displays that it looks mushy without it? Like a bland meal that needs salt?

RED has pursued a different target, more real image dynamics. More resolution is certainly part of that, and more genuine resolution obviates the need for over-sharpening/aliasing.

If I ever doubted that 6K was worth the weight, a week looking at Dragon footage fixed that. My sense is that the most compelling aspect of the Dragon 6K images is texture, with complex skin tones a close second. Spectacular.

Cheers - #19

 

[George Butterfield]

His conclusion ...

Summary

Until a producer or client calls and asks specifically for a 4K camera, there appears to be no real reason to have one for most video production professionals. The limited merit does not justify the cost....​

Well, Duh, OK, You win!

 

[Peter Moretti]

I will agree in part with one point in his article, (although I wouldn't use the term "Touted" because I've never heard a 4k camera manufacturer say this, but I would use the term "supposed"):

"Another touted advantage of 4K in post is that an editor can zoom in to an image to reframe it. It is common practice to light, compose and filter close-ups differently from medium or wide shots. So creating close-ups from wide shots that were never intended to be close-ups can be an aesthetic disaster."

I have to hold my tongue every time a producer asks if they can't just reframe the master in post for the medium or close up...but at least it's generally only commercial producers who somehow think this...

I wouldn't poo poo this. Reframing can save your ass.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

But cropping and reframing a 4K image means that you aren't ending up with a 4K image...

I'm in the camp that would prefer editors limit cropping and reframing to emergencies to save a shot, not to generate coverage that didn't exist nor to "improve" my compositions.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I am sick to death of the whole "Skyfall" as an an example of why we should all just sit back and not move forward... Frick I couldnt care less for that movie and Im a Bond fan.

Well, at $1,110,000,000, Skyfall is the highest-grossing Bond film in history and got generally great reviews. Roger Deakins is a cinematographer to be reckoned with -- the guy does great work (10 Oscar nominations, including this one).

I think the article is off-base because he makes a lot of hasty generalizations, but if you're just making little industrial films and local TV commercials in Colorado, he may be right: an Alexa will be totally sufficient for that. And there's a ton of huge movies shot on Alexa that did fine in 2K. And a lot of 4K movies shot on Red that were finished in 2K in post, because they had so many visual effects, they couldn't do it any other way.

The K is just a number -- not an indication of picture quality.

But cropping and reframing a 4K image means that you aren't ending up with a 4K image... I'm in the camp that would prefer editors limit cropping and reframing to emergencies to save a shot, not to generate coverage that didn't exist nor to "improve" my compositions.

Though I gotta say, David, I've had an awful lot of DPs sit with me in the color-timing room and recompose images. I can recall one film in particular that had at least 300-400 repositions. On average, I'd say there's at least 20 or 30, even if it's a tiny push in or a tilt down. It wasn't the editor's decision -- it was the cinematographer's (or the director's or both). In other cases, we had to stabilize some shots because the camera head wasn't locked down, and that required about a 10% blow-up to give the digital pin-registration software some room to work with.

I agree that it's better to get the shot right in production, but I'm a fan of giving post the ability to change things later on in terms of framing, especially if it ultimately helps the shot and the DP. I concede that there's places where there's no way to do this, especially under the tight schedules of television, or the non-compromise framing of anamorphic.

 

[Daniel Christensen]

The biff who wrote this article is an Alexa owner. If you own a camera in this price bracket, YOU ARE a fanboy. No offense to anyone who owns a RED, but it's the truth. You made probably the second biggest investment of your life in a camera, so you're going to try to convince others and really, when it comes down to it, convince yourself that your outdated equipment is adequate. 4K is the future, and the future is arriving. Even the obstinate Arri has admitted it. Everyone else needs to do it as well. Technology progresses at a much faster rate today than it did 10 years ago. Technology goes obsolete twice as fast now as it did when the transition happened between SD and HD. Now we're moving from HD to 4K and it's happening twice as fast. Get used to it folks.

 

[Mark Andersen]

But cropping and reframing a 4K image means that you aren't ending up with a 4K image...

I'm in the camp that would prefer editors limit cropping and reframing to emergencies to save a shot, not to generate coverage that didn't exist nor to "improve" my compositions.

I agree. Only do this as a last measure, strong cropping not only reduces resolution but it can make 35mm footage look like 16mm, or something in between, the shot will feel odd and not match the rest of the film.