Why 4K?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Keep in mind that a digital efx-heavy movie will be quite expensive to produce entirely at resolutions higher than 6K.

Not as bad as you would think (not as bad as I thought it would be when I started running tests). Adaptive sampling means we're already rendering some shots at 32x sampling for a single pixel. If instead we reduced sampling to 4x and rendered at a higher resolution you would get improved resolution but only a little bit more aliasing. Most scenes are largely low detail. You wouldn't notice the large expanses of shading with lower sampling. In some regards rendering small is actually more render intensive at times because a single pixel pixel encompasses far more detail. We've started rendering some passes in 4k for 1080p just because it made things quicker and easier.

That though only applies to 3D side of things. Compositing would indeed be a pain. Hopefully GPUs and solid state drives will remove that impediment in the next 2-3 years. On the 3D side rendering is going to be sped up by 10-100x in the next 1-2 years. We're about to go through a very dramatic shift in VFX in a very short time frame. Much of which will probably be visible before the Medium Format Epics ship.

On the other end of the spectrum. I'm comping a 4k shot right now which will have a 1080p deliverable but I think target web. The 4k might be slow and clunky on the rendering side, but it makes keying and tracking much easier than an SD or HD source. I'm not even sure tracking would have been possible in SD, I've had to rely on small wrinkles in the greenscreen. I would personally say the extra render time is less than the extra artist time on working with a lower resolution source. And unlike artist time, render farms are cheap.

We just need to drop the price of REDRockets so that it's financially sensible to put it in more computers and rely less on RAIDs.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

"I'm not sure that flexibility is always the best thing in making art, not when it comes down to a "I can keep changing my mind as to what I want" line of thinking. Art thrives with restrictions, limitations, borders - often self-imposed. I mean, why should a costume designer carefully choose the colors for the wardrobe when you can just change it all in post anyway?

Moviemaking is more flexible than ever, so are movies better than ever? I don't think so. There is more creativity on display in "The Red Shoes" with a Technicolor camera the size of the refrigerator than in most of the modern studio movies.

I'm all for better tools, don't get me wrong, and I'm a pragmatist at heart... but I want those tools wielded by artists who know how to use them -- and know what they what to be saying with them. At least when the tools were less "flexible" it was easier for artists to protect their work, even if it took more effort to create that work. Making art easier to do, and easier to change one's mind about what one wants to do, and making it easier for others to change what you do, doesn't necessarily make for better art.

If filmmaking is "evolving" into adding more cooks into the kitchen, and no choice is sacred, and everyone can throw paint at the wall to see what sticks... then I'm not sure it is evolving in a way that I like. The movies I admire were carefully conceived and carefully executed by a few individuals working towards a common artistic vision. "

David, I agree. But the polemics of “art by committee” or the lack of a coherent and consistence vision in a film is not the fault of the tool used to make that movie. Contemporary films do not fail because of the advent of new technologies or their new capacities. I do concur that the underlying problems and concerns that you speak of are often exacerbated by them.

Most films from previous decades were absolutely awful. We have a slanted view of how good they were, and how good foreign films are, because only the best are retained or imported, whereas all current Hollywood offerings are in our faces all the time.

For every Citizen Kane there were 75 terrible police dramas with wooden acting (remember, Method Acting is also a technology, that continues to evolve) that today, even a low-end cable network would refuse to air.

I used to think French Cinema was vastly superior until I lived in France and got the chance to see local fare at the local cinema, films that never cross the ocean. There was some good stuff, but on the whole they were far worse than Hollywood's average offerings.

It has always been hard to make a great film - so much can go wrong and everything has to go right (or at least a lot of stuff). This has always been true, and always will be. Great cameras like Red take away a variable in terms of what can go wrong, and make more options open up to solving problems and creating good drama, but you can't expect them to solve all problems that can occur on a set.

There are many truly wonderful films being created now, probably more than ever. Lovely Bones is an example, but there are many others, even some low budget ones, and there is lots of TV that is truly awesome: Lost, Flash Forward, Modern Family....

And BTW - do you really think that Studios at any time in history were art schools dedicated to directors' visions? No, they were always profit-oriented, and there were always committees. Sometimes these committees actually make a film better, as not all directors are unfailing genuises, and sometimes a director is very convincing and inspiring and no one argues or interferes. This too has not changed.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Tom,

I think there has been a push, but producers don't want to pay for it and often the DoP may be shooting something else during the post work. To some degree, the DoP can be involved in the early phase of post by using 3CP, SpeedGrade On-Set or DP Lights, if time allows.

A quick tool to mock up some sample pics at home and save the settings would be nice.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Some arguments to the contrary being a movie like Avatar or Ratatouille where the directors can change and tweak to their heart's content.

While careful craft is necessariliy. I think by that logic you should only be able to cut a movie once and never get to go back and make another cut before release. "We must be careful in every cut so that it's perfect!". I think that stifles creativity and makes people timid to explore and be creative. If you know you can change it later if it's wrong then you are more free to take a chance. If you have more dynamic range so that you can expose differently you can take that chance that you might otherwise be afraid would get you fired.

Being self conscious can be as damaging to the creative process as being uninhibited.

Moderation in all things?

I agree 100%. Also... production is a team effort, and part of that is assuming leadership. If experimentation is possible because post toosl are sophisticated, it might be easier to convince producers to take a risk with you. 'We can fix it in post' is an old joke, but I've used arguments along those lines to convince people to take risks with me on set, and some of those risks really paid off. If there was no sophisticated post, those same people might have been much more conservative in their lattitude.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I was really addressing the issue of recomposing the image in post specifically. Greater flexibility with some tools is great - extended dynamic range makes more types of lighting effects possible.

But to make a good composition does not take high technology, it just takes a frame. If we needed better tools to compose images, then how does that explain how great compositions were achieved in the past, in all forms of art?

I've worked with editors who were able to make framing and color changes that went against what I created because they had a different visual aesthetic than I did -- imagine if I went into the edit bays and changed the timing of their cuts to suit my aesthetics in editing? Where does that end? The sound guy coming in and making color-correction decisions? We all get hired presumably because we all have our areas of expertise, and we take the jobs not just for the paycheck, but the chance to express ourselves artistically. This really comes down to maintaining professional respect for each other, because we no longer have technical barriers from screwing around with each other's work.

(And if Rob Ruffo keeps making insulting comments on the history of cinema and us "old folks" who admire it, he's going to be put on my personal ignore list so I won't have to read his posts any more.)

 

[Elsie N]

(And if Rob Ruffo keeps making insulting comments on the history of cinema and us "old folks" who admire it, he's going to be put on my personal ignore list so I won't have to read his posts any more.)

I think David is calling Rob:anti-old: I hope to someday make the kind of movies that David refers to, only using modern methods. My targeted audience will be small, but if I can connect to that audience, then that's o.k. with me. Plus, that targeted audience may grow, since society may be regressing nostalgically during this "Reset" period we are going through.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

But to make a good composition does not take high technology, it just takes a frame. If we needed better tools to compose images, then how does that explain how great compositions were achieved in the past, in all forms of art?

It could certainly help take some of the demands off of grips to build complicated rigs to get difficult or impossible angles. But that would go far beyond simple re framing into the domain of virtual sets and scene reconstruction.

Or perhaps you had a shot framed up great, you got a great take but the actor missed their mark a bit and threw off the composition. High technology could let you adjust your camera position to get the angle and framing you wanted but didn't actually happen.

 

[Julio Quintana]

David,
I respect your opinion tremendously, so I'm curious to know how you feel about preserving the integrity of the writer's work when shooting a film. It seems that a writer could argue that his words come from a unique and specialized perspective, so any "reframing" on the part of the director and actors would be compromising his artistic vision. This might be a flawed comparison, but I'm having trouble seeing why.

Thanks,

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm sure there are a lot of writers who have not liked the end result of the filmmaking process once things have gone through actors, directors, editors, etc. And I'm sure some feel the need to fight for artistic integrity.

However, you can easily argue that the written word is not the actual movie, only the foundation for the movie that will get made. By definition, a screenplay HAS to be transformed into something else.

But a composition doesn't necessarily have to be transformed into another composition.

I think a more apt comparison would be when other people re-write a script who are not writers. There a screenwriter may have more to complain about when non-writers start to feel that they are just as apt at writing dialogue as the screenwriter. I'm not talking about minor changes, like an actor saying "hi" instead of "hello" but imagine how a screenwriter would feel if the Key Grip turned in his dialogue revisions for the pages for the shooting day?

I understand it's a grey area, but some things are greyer than others. If I honestly thought the post process was a good place to revisit and redesign the composition, then I'd be more actively involved in doing that than anyone else. But I don't. Instead what I see sometimes are people with limited visual skills deciding that their sense of framing is superior to the cinematographer who lined up the shot based on his years of experience and dedication to the art of composition -- and often the change is made on a whim, due to a basic lack of respect for the importance of composition.

But I'm not talking about turning back the clock because it would be impossible -- these tools exist today, they aren't going away. The key is to educate people on the importance of composition so that people don't get cavalier about it, and to seek out the input of the key person who designed that composition before changes might need to be made for various reasons.

 

[Julio Quintana]

That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If I sound short with Rob, it's just because the guy joined Dec 2009 and in that time, he's already repeated himself several times about how movies are getting better than ever, TV is better than ever, the past isn't that good, 70's cinematography was crap, etc. I read it the first time and I read it the tenth time, and I've had my fill, I don't have to read it anymore if that's what Rob wants to be known for on this site, the guy who doesn't like old movies and TV shows.

I'm very sensitive to this issue because I'm more or less self-taught, having spent many hours in libraries and watching movies and then making movies. I learned from the past work of others, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants so to speak, so to not respect the past -- and not defend it -- would be an act of arrogance and hypocrisy on my part.

Current methods, styles, and the status quo don't need defending because that's the majority of work, that's how everyone already does everything. But the past can be forgotten, hard-won gains and knowledge can be lost, and a lot of time can be wasted relearning things.

 

[Elsie N]

If I sound short with Rob, it's just because the guy joined Dec 2009 and in that time, he's already repeated himself several times about how movies are getting better than ever, TV is better than ever, the past isn't that good, 70's cinematography was crap, etc. I read it the first time and I read it the tenth time, and I've had my fill, I don't have to read it anymore if that's what Rob wants to be known for on this site, the guy who doesn't like old movies and TV shows.

I'm very sensitive to this issue because I'm more or less self-taught, having spent many hours in libraries and watching movies and then making movies. I learned from the past work of others, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants so to speak, so to not respect the past -- and not defend it -- would be an act of arrogance and hypocrisy on my part.

Current methods, styles, and the status quo don't need defending because that's the majority of work, that's how everyone already does everything. But the past can be forgotten, hard-won gains and knowledge can be lost, and a lot of time can be wasted relearning things.

David, when I was a kid my family would drive 20 miles into town on Saturdays to buy groceries and shop. My brother just older than me (by almost four years) and I would walk to the three movie theaters-the State, (loved that one because there was a plains mural on each wall with distant mesas and an Indian on horseback shading eyes and looking into the distance) the Lyric, and the Ritz-to see what was showing. Then my brother would decide which one we were going to see. I remember one time he chose Raintree County, and then he had to spend the whole movie explaining to me what was going on. That'll teach 'im.

Still, that movie has remained etched in my mind because I remember how visually clear it seemed as opposed to our usual B western Saturday fare. I seldom see a movie these days because they don't move me the same way. For "entertainment" I would just as soon watch TV. I'm sure this is due in most part to the inevitable change that occurs with age. But some of it is the lack of character development in many modern movies. Always exceptions to that and those exceptions are usually exceptional movies.

What I'm trying to say is that I think the past you are defending had a lot to do with creating character development. So many times it seems a visual with no dialogue can tell much about a character and much of the story itself.

I for one respect and salute the past you refer to and hope people like you can adapt the new technology to incorporate that hidden spark into future movies. At least you've seen the sparkle from the spark, so you know when you've created it.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

the last real director who lives is coppola , all others died...

kubrick, kurosawa, welles,

they didnt only have perfect content in their films, no, they even could produce that content THROUGH form, which leads to a few minutes of perfection,

today there is usually content or form, maximum is content with a nice form, but content through form?, last happened with coppola

 

[Tom Lowe]

the last real director who lives is coppola , all others died...

kubrick, kurosawa, welles,

You MUST be joking.

Ever heard of Terrence Malick?

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

You MUST be joking.

Ever heard of Terrence Malick?

oh tom, you are right! add him to the list and that makes two for me

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Geez Tom, it took you 4 minutes to get off your Malick blast - what took you so long? :emote_head_explode:

Cheers - #19

 

[Elsie N]

oh tom, you are right! add him to the list and that makes two for me

Wise move Kaya... do not get between Tom and his idol...er, no offense Tom.:lol:

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Wise move Kaya... do not get between Tom and his idol...er, no offense Tom.:lol:

yep, dont forget i want to have toms 3rd world war story...hehe

 

[Tom Lowe]

Geez Tom, it took you 4 minutes to get off your Malick blast - what took you so long? :emote_head_explode:

Cheers - #19

My automatic Malick Alert bots that crawl the forums need some fine-tuning, it's clear!

 

[Julio Quintana]

the last real director who lives is coppola , all others died...

kubrick, kurosawa, welles

I get amazed at some of the things that people say on this forum. Would you actually have the balls to look Martin Scorsese in the face and make that statement? Or Steven Speilberg? Or Ridley Scott? Or any other notable director who is living the dream that you and I strive for? Think before you type, because if you're lucky, these people might be your peers someday.