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 :)

Why 4K?

Something that Christopher Grant Harvey said about the 200Hz thing made me think a little. I hate how we have the tools and technology to make stunning hi res images (and audio for that matter) and most people view (or listen) to that content at utterly SHIT quality.

So while we blaze forth and future proof the images, we also view them on iPhones, highly compressed, ripped off avi files downloaded from p2p on dimly lit reflective PC screens, you tube and "hi def" cable movie channels that compress the bejesus out of it to fit more channels on the satellite. And don't get me started on people with 52" screens who zoom and stretch the image. It's just crazy. Remember when the home sound system was something to brag about? Now we listen to mp3's which is the equivalent of having the hearing of an 80 year old. Sadly, I think consumption of video is going down that track too. Ironically the film that seems to have re-ignited the argument for the theatrical experience (Avatar) is apparently 1080p uprezzed to IMAX size. Does rez really matter to the audience?
End rant.
 
Remember when the home sound system was something to brag about? Now we listen to mp3's which is the equivalent of having the hearing of an 80 year old. Sadly, I think consumption of video is going down that track too. Ironically the film that seems to have re-ignited the argument for the theatrical experience (Avatar) is apparently 1080p uprezzed to IMAX size. Does rez really matter to the audience?
End rant.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The general public isn't as concerned with resolution as they are with portability, affordability, and convenience. This is why Mp3's have killed CD's. The general public has gone to whats cheap, easy, and portable. Audiophiles have also abandoned CD's in favor of the (returned) Vinyl market.

This is exactly what is going to happen to movies, kind of.

The digital distribution market, for QUITE SOME TIME will still be relegated to 1080p or lower resolution. People won't be ready to trade up from their shiny flat screens and expensive HDMI cables for some time.

So why shoot 3k,4k, or 5k?

Because you should always use the BEST tools available for aquisition. PERIOD.

The one problem, for most of us, those resolutions are still just not available yet.

I'm shooting a feature film in July. I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to shoot it in 3k on a scarlet. But as of now i'm having to plan to shoot on an EX1 or 7D. Not because I want to, but because anything better just doesnt exist in my price range yet.

If I'm lucky, Scarlet will come out in May as said on Nov 30. But I can't plan on it becuase everything is subject to change.

So why shoot 1080? Because right now it's all i got.
 
Mick Jones said:
So while we blaze forth and future proof the images, we also view them on iPhones, highly compressed, ripped off avi files downloaded from p2p on dimly lit reflective PC screens, you tube and "hi def" cable movie channels that compress the bejesus out of it to fit more channels on the satellite.
Click to expand...
I think we may be confusing 'everyday life" with "entertainment of choice." That is, everyone just accepts low quality visuals when staying connected. But when we go to a movie or sit down in front of a home theater movie, we expect a better experience.

Also, I think as one grows older one begins to appreciate the quality of what they are watching as well as the content.
 
Christopher Grant Harvey said:
I am going to get flamed now :violent5:, but Blu-Ray has not really impressed me. Let me rephrase, it looks stunning but I don't like it, it is too sharp for my taste. I like a balance between a vivid crisp stunning image and a very sharp image. The feeling is worsened by TV's that are capable of 200mhz, yuck! Looks terrible. I have seen a large range of films from old to new on a variety of HDTV's and there seems to be a difference in quality. The second factor I find that bothers me is the Blu-Ray seems to enhance the grain in films, even animated films feel grainy and I see more compression artifacts compared to DVD.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with most of this. Studios have become quite good at authoring DVDs, but are struggling with producing quality Blu-Ray releases. They almost always over-sharpen and over-enhance. It's like they optimize their image output for a 42" 1366x768 LCD viewed at 12ft. Put most Blu-Ray discs up on a larger 1080p screen / projection and the over-sharpening will drive you nuts. BD releases like The Dark Knight, Iniana Jones 4 (they crystal skull travesty), and tons more just look like ass on Blu-Ray and at times I think the softness of a good DVD upconversion looks better because the DVD release isn't plagued with the artificial sharpening and edge halos.

There are lots of other issues plaguing HD and blu-ray delivery right now. Not all Blu-Ray players are created equal and many of them simply have terrible image quality. Lots of people using the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player, I did for a while too. But it's image is consistantly grainy with more aliasing with an appearance of over-amped contrast compared to most of the newer and better dedicated players, which are now cheaper. OTOH, the PS3 is one of the few Blu-Ray options that can be improved via software upgrades and it will support Profile 3.0 and BD-3D. So it's the most future-proof Blu-Ray player.

Another issue is the TV. The first thing I do when installing a new HDTV for myself or anyone else is to TURN OFF all the internal "enhancements". If the TV does not allow for this, I won't buy it. Most HDTVs add their own sharpening and color/contrast boost to the image, which will butcher it even more, especially with sources like Blu-Ray. And don't get me started on the 120Hz, 240Hz (and now 480Hz shown at CES!) "features". I think it's wonderful that LCDs are now becoming capable of fast refresh rates. This makes it possible for 3D delivery with shutter glasses on common displays and 480Hz will eliminate any ghosting and trailing issues. However, the "motion-flow" tech that a lot of TV makers are pushing where they smooth out a 24 or 30 fps stream by interpolating to 120+fps, just looks like shit. Why??? Why??? I think the algorithms are very impressive in how they can eliminate motion blur (I can think of some pretty good applications for that elsewhere), but it totally ruins most anything that was shot for delivery at lower frame rates.

Thankfully, all these TVs can so far turn this "feature" off. It's nice to see that some new panels with HDMI 1.3b and soon HDMI 1.4 will accept incoming signals at high frame rates, so we can actually start thinking about high frame rate applications and delivery and delivery of 3D content as well.
 
Then there is the infamous Batman Begins Blu-Rays and HD-DVDs. The blacks in that film flicker between about 5% gray and black. Strobing! Whoever mastered that deserves to be fired. BSG's Xbox Live release suffered from the same thing.

Hopefully REDRay makes for easy mastering and doesn't destroy your color.
 
Rick Presas said:
So why shoot 3k,4k, or 5k?

Because you should always use the BEST tools available for aquisition. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

But who says the best tools available shoot those resolutions? I don't believe that resolution is the only factor when considering the quality of an acquisition tool.
 
Cüneyt Kaya said:
so no CGI?
arent you limiting yourself? serious q
Click to expand...

Hi,

I really hate 99% of the CGI that gets shoved down my throat. However much it costs it always looks like CGI, or digital photography.

Stephen
 
Stuart English said:
No seriously, how does shooting a 4K digital original differ from shooting a 35mm original in regard to the fact that both allow post production reframing ?
Click to expand...

Seriousely does 35mm Anamorphic photography allowed for reframing?
 
I just threw away 25 years of SD footage. People (almost me) died on some of those shoots. The time and money put into that footage can never be recovered, and is a fraction of the cost of any camera.

That's why I jumped on Red as soon as I saw it. (NAB 07) Sure, it's more than you need for current broadcast, but who knows where we will be in 10 or 20 years? It's perfectly obvious that resolution is not as important as content, but if you are shooting worthy material that could be used some years from now, don't spend your time and money on anything less than 4K.
 
4K acquisition

4K acquisition

Stephen Williams said:
Seriousely does 35mm Anamorphic photography allowed for reframing?
Click to expand...

I didn't say anamorphic. Your point was that the the ability to re-frame was a reason NOT to shoot 4K.

I'm interested why you think that would be an issue rather than an advantage.
 
Stuart English said:
I didn't say anamorphic. Your point was that the the ability to re-frame was a reason NOT to shoot 4K.

I'm interested why you think that would be an issue rather than an advantage.
Click to expand...

I am the author of the image, I don't need or want any help with reframing. I also don't wish to light it flat, I don't want to change the look later. I know how to light & expose to get what I want.

Shooting 35mm Anamorphic with a photochemical finish would be my first choice, because I have the greatest control over the outcome.

What is to point of having a DOP if your going to change everything later?
 
Wow. 3022 posts and you seem to really not like digital or red.
You've got some serious grumpy pants on :)
 
Mike Gross said:
Wow. 3022 posts and you seem to really not like digital or red.
You've got some serious grumpy pants on :)
Click to expand...

It's an alternative, people like choices. Lowest cost is often the first choice, then it's time to get out a 5D MKII. I like photography & playing with light.
 
4K digital

4K digital

Which includes the choice of originating in a digital format that is both relatively inexpensive and yet very flexible...
 
Stuart English said:
What's the beef with originating in a digital format that is both relatively inexpensive and very flexible?
Click to expand...

None at all if relatively inexpensive & very flexible are your main criteria. I personally find skin tones & highlight roll off more important. Interested to see how MX & the new Arri chips perform.
 
Stephen, what about my earlier comment on reframing? Now granted, I don't work as a DP, but it seems to me that if you bring big enough balls to the table, what editor is going to fuck with your framing? Are you afraid the director and editor are going to team up on you behind your back and reframe your shots? Why not put it in your contract?

"The director and editor hereby promise not to f%^k with Stephen Williams' masterful frames."
 
LOL, right on Tom. :)

I fail to see how shooting 35mm has anything to do with controlling or stopping someone from reframing your shots. If you want to control reframing, you have to maintain control, period. Any time there is ample image to work with, it can be re-framed. And in most cases, I would say shooting 35mm would give the most opportunity to re-frame and would be superior in such an advantage (or disadvantage).
 
Tom Lowe said:
Stephen, what about my earlier comment on reframing? Now granted, I don't work as a DP, but it seems to me that if you bring big enough balls to the table, what editor is going to fuck with your framing? Are you afraid the director and editor are going to team up on you behind your back and reframe your shots? Why not put it in your contract?

"The director and editor hereby promise not to f%^k with Stephen Williams' masterful frames."
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

I often recut commercials for my showreel using the original one light pass from telecine, rather than the shot that has spent a week in Flame being posted to death. The DOP usually has little involvement after the shoot, the Director may only be around for the first cut.

I remember shooting with a director from the BBC, he always wanted me to record over the last take if he was not happy, so there was only 1 take for the editor, no room for error!

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top