Leaderboard

Who the hell even has a 8k display to view it on, maybe a few in Japan but... But sure for visual effects why not. I really can't imagine any woman in the world wanting a closeup of them in 8k.

Really the title of the thread says all that needs to be said. The aesthetic. You shoot on whatever you need to shoot on to achieve the aesthetic you want. If the aesthetic is the measure, then, qualitatively, the perfect camera can be an iPhone, an EOS-M or a Panavision DXL package. Fincher likes the resolution as high as possible, other directors/DPs want something more lo-fi (for *this* project - might want something else entirely for *that* project). If we're talking art then the best cameras and lenses are the cameras and lenses that best realise the artist's vision. No need for any argument, really.

With the lack of basic features such as even a single SDI output however I can't see the C70 ever owning the mid range like the FS7 did.

Yeah, that was a funny experiment... With that bargain, that created a style with short shots -- who can forget the new aesthetics founded in the meantime? LOL Art follows life, as this camera seemed so! : D I miss those enthusiastic times... ...when people didn't wonder on endless no overheating 8K60p RAW as a silly introduction... Let alone the IBIS debate! : X Crazy times we live today! : P

But they have been working on giving you both. Nikon just put ProRes in a mirrorless camera. BM has offered it for awhile. C70, A7SIII, BMPCC6K and a few others are clocking in at 13-14 stops of DR. Anything higher is from an extremely expensive ARRI camera. Color depths has been increasing. 8-bit to 10-bit internal...now some are offering 12-bit internal. We also have cameras that shoot from 2K-8K resolutions at a touch of a few buttons or menu items. We have entry level RED cameras at $6K that offer 13 stops, REDCODE RAW and "autofocus" (well better than Panasonic anyway!) in a mirrorless sized box camera with a global shutter! You can throw on your favorite vintage lens, shoot at what ever resolution makes sense for you and get amazing results. I don't get all the circular complaining.

VR goggles are one of the most retarded inventions ever.

We're all talking about aesthetics. We're talking about aesthetics when we talk about the "look", but we're talking about it when we talk about specifications too. A debate rages about what is "enough" resolution, "enough" sharpness, "nicer" bokeh... what is "cinematic"... what is "visible"... what is "practical". This thread is a reality check against the warped concepts that stills photographers and their camera-club specifications-obsessions have given us. Because, for the most part, better objective measurements are mostly worse subjectively. It's our imperfections that creates our humanity, and it's analog imperfection that creates emotional images. Baseline First, let's establish a baseline. Here are some test images from ARRI that are designed to showcase the technology, not a creative aesthetic. Note the super-clean image, lack of almost all lens-distortions (except wide angle distortion on the wide lens, which is actually super-wide at 12mm). If you were there, this might be what it actually looked like. Those were grabs from a 4K YouTube upload, but lots of trailers aren't uploaded in 4K, so here is a still from 1080p Youtube video that ARRI uploaded in 2010. Now, without further ado.... The Aesthetic - The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina These are obviously very distorted, and I chose frames that were especially so. This should instantly disavow you of the idea that somehow Netflix demands "pristine" images - these are filthy as hell, but this is appropriate to the subject matter, which is about witchcraft, the occult, demons, and literally, hell. Whenever I hear someone say "oh I can't believe how terrible that lens is - look at the edge softness" I just laugh. The person may as well be saying "not only don't I have a clue about film-making, but my eyes also don't work either.. please ignore everything else I say from now on". The Aesthetic - Sex Education A show with a deliberately vintage vibe, the look is suitably vintage, with some pretty wicked CA. One thing that's interesting is the last shot, which was either a drone with a vintage lens on it, or it was doctored in post, because it has pretty severe CA - look at the bottom right of the frame above the Netflix logo. Also note how nothing looks sharp - the first image should have had something in-focus, but softness of this level is deliberate because once again, the last shot is a deep-focus shot with a stopped-down aperture and should be super-sharp but isn't. The Aesthetic - No Time To Die Some shots are softer than others, but note the amazing barrel distortion and edge softness on the middle two shots. In case you missed it, here's the star of this $400M movie in a pivotal scene from the movie: Are there lenses that could have made this shot more "accurate"? Sure - just scroll up to the ARRI shots which look pristine (and they're ZOOMS!). This was deliberate and is consistent with the emotion and narrative. The Aesthetic. The Aesthetic - The Witcher Sharp when it wants to be, oversharp too - see the second image, but with anamorphic bokeh for the look. Ironically, a fantasy story of witchcraft and monsters, using cleaner more modern looking glass. The complete opposite approach of Sabrina. Note on the second-last image the vertical anamorphic bokeh, and then look at the last image and note the "swirl" in the bokeh. I doubt this was accidental. The Aesthetic - You Sharp and clean when it wants to be, and other times, really not. Appropriate for the subject matter. The Aesthetic - Squid Game Clean, sharp but not too sharp, neutral colour palette, but note the vertical lines on the edges of the frame aren't straight? Subtle, and perhaps not deliberate, but picture it in your mind if they didn't flare out.. it makes a difference, deliberate or not. The Aesthetic - Bridgerton Clean, spherical, basically distortion free, but sharp? No. Go look at that Witcher closeup again for some contrast. The Aesthetic - The Crown Clean and relatively distortion free, but lots of diffusion, haze, and low-contrast when required. The Crown is a masterpiece of the visuals matching the emotional narrative of the story, which is made extra difficult as the story is set in reality, and the emotional tone is so muted that had lesser people been involved in making it any subtleties may well have simply been bland rather than subtle but deep. The Aesthetic - Mindhunter Perhaps the most interesting example here. After looking at the previous images the above might seem completely unremarkable, except that this look was created in post. and I mean, completely in post: More here: https://filmmakermagazine.com/103768-dp-erik-messerschmidt-on-shooting-netflixs-mindhunter-with-a-custom-red-xenograph/#.YftoaC8RrOQ and here: https://thefincheranalyst.com/tag/red-xenomorph/ (there's a great video outlining the lens emulations in post in this one). That's enough for now. Hopefully now you can appreciate that "perfectly clean" optically is actually only perfect for "perfectly clean" moments in your videos. Sure, if you're out there doing corporate day in and day out then it might seem like "clean" is the right way, or if you're in advertising or travel where neutral reigns, but when it comes to emotion, it's about choosing the best imperfections to suit the desired aesthetic.

Exactly. We can't ignore the image results even if at the moment our post production cannot handle that easily.

I started offering video on top of photography some 15+ years ago on the basis I never knew what type of muppet would show up 😉 To be fair, not all videographers were muppets, but few were compatible shall we say... So yes, totally in house ever since other than the 3 clients since who have breached contract, 2 of which were fine, thwe other, muppet. On the day, the couple hated him from quite early on and by the end of the day... (and don't ask about afterwards...). I've tested at 4k and 6k and 4k was better from the S1H. Motion blur is the biggest issue with 50 or 100fps shutter speeds... But I reckon I could get away with doing zero photography on the day and just producing screen grabs from 4k footage. I don't think a single person would ever know. I will test that theory soon, perhaps this year even, but the simple fact is I enjoy photography. I am as much photographer as I am filmmaker so why would I want to not actually take pics? Otherwise I just become a technician. Anyway, what was this thread about? Aesthetics. To keep it on topic, I'm going to be exploring the aesthetics of 4k screen grabs this year...

Maaaaaybe once ARRI has released a handful of cameras with their new 4K S35 tech, they might release an extra mini camera with the "old" sensor, like the current Arri Mini but even smaller.

I've had guests turn up at weddings before with an enormous pro grade shoulder camera. I've had guests turn up with backpacks full of cameras, lenses and lighting... Some introduce themselves and ask if they can shoot alongside me all day. Err, no. Others just get on with it as if I'm not even there, indoors or out. I had one Leica toting dude directing bridal prep a couple of years back before I had a quiet word with the couple and said it's him or me, choose now. Nothing to do with ego if their camera is 'bigger or better' than mine, but when you have a professional image to uphold... It's no different to me walking into a chefs kitchen and saying, "Hiya, I've brought my own knives but I'm just going to use some of your ingredients the rest of the day if that's OK with you?" And that's the polite version, - imagine just wandering into the pro chef kitchen and just using their ingredients without a word as if you owned the place. There's bold and there's absolute fuckwittery... Fortunately, that kind of thing happens rarely, like 1 in 30 gigs maybe, but from time to time it happens. Once, it was the parents of the bride. Yep, blanked me from the start and acted as if they had been booked. Bride went along with it because they were paying but when I asked her why she booked me she looked at me funny and said, "because my parents are shit". At one wedding with 9 guests, 2 of them turned up and tried to shoot it like pros all day and when discussed with them, told me they could do as they wished. Imagine, one quarter of the people there were capturing the other 3/4. That was a fun day. I could write a book and one day, maybe I will 😉 People eh? Messing with my aestheticism 🤨

There only 4 modes, motion shapshot, smart phot selector, still image and movie. i'm thinking its in still mode. Turn on raw, turn on the high speed electronic shutter, hit the shutter release button and let rip. Makes the most sense. All the other modes produce a hd 1920x1080 movie or image. I then presume you export the raw images to your dng converter of choice and go from there. more infomation has come to hand during the day. The v2 version of the v1 allows you to use non oem lenses of any type with the hispeed shutter. On my v1 only cx or native lenses work with the electronic hi speed stutter it seems.

thats very interesting. thanks for the memory jog although i dont think i saw andrews blog about it before. I was reading up on the v1 myself last night, different review, different site (sacrilegious i know, right? ) i did read about the burst mode on it, but hadn't connected the dots until you posted that link. I did find the battery charger and the adapter that allows me to use m42 lenses on the v1 last night. As well as the kit lenses i have, so i'm good to go. Im not sure about the raw format however. There's no options to change the movie format that i can see. A very quick walk outside and putting it in the correct mode... i think, produces a file with .mov extension about a second long which is what was expected. For further clarification we'd have to ask Mr @Andrew Reid about the actual workflow oh how to go about it.

Not many people are actually delivering in 8K aside from a handful of YT channels and 1 or 2 TV networks in Japan. The point of 8K today is really getting great 4K deliveries or extracting stills. Just like Yellowstone is shooting on an Alexa in 3.2K for 720p/1080i delivery. It's actually oversampled acquisition. It's not at all about cropping 400% into someones face. Does a medium format portrait photographer on a 100MP Hasselblad publish stills zoomed into the nostril or eyeball of his models? Of course not and the same common sense applies to high res video. It's not a bad camera at all, especially if you shoot in RAW. But the h264 4K on it is really soft (whereas the C100 had the best oversampled FHD). C200B kinda sucks too, you'll have to buy the over-priced LCD just to get touch AF, same with top handle and side grip. Then all of a sudden you're in R5C/C70 territory. So yeah I'd wait until it drops some more if you're eyeballing it. EF mount is about to be phased out and all those C cams are dropping in value like crazy. I don't personally specialise in these type of gigs but what I can tell you is this: the camera itself isn't really where the production costs are: gathering talent, locations, directing, scripting, editing etc however are. shooting with an iPhone can also bring its own share of challenges, the cameras suck at low-light for ex. Which is why sometimes we'll actually use a mirrorless to emulate a smartphone look. Finally the overall budget and profit margins are nowhere near what other big projects may involve, so in short no, not that lucrative. But It's an interesting alley to explore, shooting vertical isn't always as bad as people may think (there are ways to take advantage of it even).

My bad I didn't mean it in such a condescending way, I was still shooting myself on a FHD C100 not that long ago. Once I upgraded to a 5K iMac Pro, well that's when I realised that FHD footage wasn't going to cut it for me anymore. Even C200 4K looked terribly soft, so I got rid of both. (That and because of lack of 10-bit codec). Never looked back. I just feel sometimes that most people who hate on 6K/8K haven't really properly experienced it and the benefits it can bring. Having actually worked on 8K footage, I feel it can't be unseen. But I'm also on +4K monitors. So I guess I could easily reverse ignorance is bliss to upgrading can raise expectations. I'm not some kind of high-res fanatic though. I enjoy lo-fi aesthetics immensely as well. I just don't get this idea that high-resolution is somehow taking away from other IQ related specs. Pocket 6K & Z9 give you ProRes. 10-bit & 12-bit RAW are now internal. DR keeps getting better. Rolling Shutter keeps going down. Low-light keeps improving etc.. I never advised 8K for social media. An actual iPhone is usually enough to create.. an iPhone look. Anybody can shoot Portrait mode tho.. the cool kids are all about standing out.. and looking cool. Retro/nostalgia is a powerful thing. Gen-Z all about the 90's right now. Anything from clothing to technology to music, animes etc from that era is what's popping. For example Contax T3's are listing for $3K, you can thank YT/IG analogue influencers. oh yeah it's wild, experimental, artistic and funny !.. must see.

@leslie do you have the version that can shoot raw? I believe it's the V1... https://www.eoshd.com/creative-filmmaking/nikon-v1-shooting-4k-60fps-raw-for-200/

Sorry... I think you are contradicting your own thesis statement here... 'ignorance is bliss...' I don't understand why these discussions always devolve into condescension? Plus, I haven't read anywhere, in this thread, where people are complaining about tech moving forward. That would be a futile complaint. With that, at what point, do we as consumers, tell Canon, Sony, et al... that we don't want higher resolution? Give us ProRes, give us true 14+ stops of DR, give us better color depth. Is 8K enough? DO we need 12K... 16... 20K? Most of these companies haven't even given us very good 1080p yet. For some reason there's this belief that higher resolution = technological evolution when it's fairly obvious that Arri has proven that resolution is probably the least important factor in image quality. Sorry, I was discussing two different things there and should have separated my thoughts more clearly. What I meant was that I find it really depressing that the trend is to create images/videos that look like they were shot on an iPhone. For those projects, it seems a camcorder would be a better choice than a FF stills camera that shoots 8K video. My other comment was just a reaction to the idea that shooting on an iPhone in Portrait mode seems to be a modern concept so I find it surprising that these young kids are interested in analogue photography. Anyway, nice images

ok ok i figured it out.... Mururoa atoll. Because that bad boy would have made some waves 😎

No no no... the OTHER French New Wave 😉

Good point. But most films are still projected in 720p/1080p as well. So this idea that 4K+ is NECESSARY seems a bit far fetched. With that said, I am a firm believer of doing whatever you want with your money. But where does it end? How much does one need to crop? How many zoomed in versions of the same angle is sufficient to put together an edit? As someone else already said, it doesn't matter because technology advances so the future is higher resolutions. But Kye also has a point that when these higher resolutions require a lot of filmmakers to dirty the image for a pleasing aesthetic, one has to wonder what is the point in using the higher resolutions? On this forum, it seems there is more videography being shot than narrative, so the discussion is kinda moot. I assume most clients want the newest tech. This so interesting... yet so depressing. I wonder if it's form vs. function. Film photography is huge on IG, so is it that the new generation prefers authenticity, or are they truly just seeing the world differently now that they have had their heads glued to their smartphones for the past 15 years? With that being said, it seems that this only strengthens the less is more argument. Why would anyone shoot 8K for such content? Honestly, if I were creating this type of work, the first thing I would do is go out and buy a small sensor camcorder. It would pay for itself in an hour or two, and the production benefits are massive. Anyway, I think discussions like these go off the rails way too easily. Obviously, this is a theoretical discussion on some level, but people end up taking offense because it defies their own thoughts or choices. The truth is there are valid reasons for both camps. However, I will say that I imagine it could be pretty frustrating for beginners to read this site only to learn that you need to have an 8K camera now to create proper footage. This isn't personal to you, or anyone specifically, but it seems we're in a place, as a culture, where we yield to the commands of consumerism rather than the rebellion of creation. Recently, I was wondering what camera Godard would use if the French New Wave happened today.

13 days to go

Yes, I really wish that the C70 and FX6 offered an evf add on for shoulder, handheld use.

C70 is making waves and is pretty popular, and with the RAW light update it's only getting better. I'm split in between getting one and the R5C. Also a long-term FS7 user, this camera still does it for me in 2022. Absolute workhorse. Love the IQ in Cine EI mode. The shoulder mount ENG config is what sets it apart from the rest of the "budget" cine cams out there. Would love an FX9 but I can't really justify the $11K price tag upgrade.

@kye not only do I get what you're saying, I've rebutted every single "complaint" you've brought up about +4K resolution. ($1M budget VFX, battery life, color science, processing power, SD cards). like it or not, tech is moving forward. especially in mirrorless. BMPCC 6K Pro, R3/R5/R5C, Z9, S1H are paving the way with compressed RAW, 10-bit & 6K/8K. All specs you find in much more expensive cine cams. I call this progress. Of course that won't replace lenses, lighting, grading & skills. But the bottleneck isn't the camera anymore. In the end you're entitled your opinion (things were better a decade ago - i.e. pre-4K) but in that case, simply don't upgrade. problem fixed. Just saying.

actually the crop is about 2.7 before anyone calls me out. sorry my bad 😳

Not just those considerations - also actors who can stay on their mark, who can repeat the scene multiple times without screwing up. I forget the film and the director, but I heard a tale about Bette Davis where the director told her 'we're going to track up the stairs and along the corridor in a continuous shot, then enter the room and dolly to a close up on your face, where a tear is just starting to form.' 'Which eye do you want the tear in?' asked Davis.

I just need the bucket.

Editing might be, perhaps, one of the only things in film-making where you can't buy results. Writing might be another one. With editing, if you have equipment good enough to edit, then the only difference between a blah edit and a spectacular edit is the skill of the editor. In terms of classic movies, while editing on film was obviously not as easy as an NLE, they had most of the tools at their disposal. Even if you're just limited to making a simple cut, most edits would not be diminished by this restriction. The ability to dissolve, either fading to black or white or cross dissolving, gives more expressive freedom, but it's not a hugely common technique. ie, it's used very very rarely compared to the straight cut. The addition of the NLE feature to gradually crop a shot can allow the fine-tuning of match-cuts, which I notice in older film films are sometimes not quite aligned and so it diminishes the effect. However, the match cut is even rarer still, making the availability to match framing almost, but not quite, irrelevant. When I was choosing which NLE to go with, FCPX, PP, or Resolve, I realised I needed very powerful colour grading functionality, including stabilisation, but only very basic editing functionality. I find this to be true now, even more than then. I haven't used anything except a straight cut or the odd dissolve in any serious way in any of the dozens of videos I've edited. Resolves ability to do fancy things is going up and up, and my desire to use anything fancy at all is going down and down and down.

Nikon Rumors has jumped in to the discussion with more posts coming. https://nikonrumors.com/2022/02/05/this-is-why-craig-quit-canonrumors.aspx/

Yeah, social media has become such a detriment to society at this point. I'm constantly blown away seeing adults, some in their 50s and 60s, acting like children and reveling in their ignorance. It's frustrating and depressing all at once.

Maybe I'm alone here but I totally embrace 8K. Can think of quite a few practical uses for it. If you don't need it you always got oversampled 6K/4K. That 8K50p RAW is something else. I've been working with (R5) 8K RAW footage recently and I'm loving it. It's that same effect of going 4K from FHD. It can't be unseen (even though I'm on a 5K monitor) and now regular non-oversampled 4K almost feels too soft. The really nice thing about R5C is you can jump from 8K/6K/4K/3K in all codecs with FF/S35/S16 crop factors. That just gives you so many options. Slashcam article also reveals 4K60p is no longer line skipping and 4K120p also takes a leap forward in IQ. I'm really starting to warm up to this camera, I was all set on C70 but I'm sort of GASing harder for R5C now. Couple grades from that video just for fun.. (model deserved better)

"camcorder gimmicks" lol... I guess it depends how you shoot. I think exposure/focus tools can be very useful, especially at +4K and for fast turnarounds when you're not shooting raw. I also like to be able to have shutter angle & gain measures. the anamorphic desqueeze can be clutch. the LUT support is probably my favorite cine cam feature. YMMV of course. Z9's EVF is actually not that high res at 3.69 m-dots (which is kinda mid-range A7IV/R6 level) compared to R3/R5's 5.76 m-dots or A1's whopping 9.44 m-dots. E-shutter only, there are pros/cons to that. N-log's a bit dated (not the best DR, they need Nlog2/Nlog3). But overall though, I agree Z9 on paper has the better specs in most areas. Like you were saying earlier, the biggest problem with Z9 will be getting a hold of one. Canon I just read have managed to get around the chip supply shortage and that may very well turn out to be a great advantage at this time and point.

I've used the 7IV on a few jobs now and love it. Next week I'll have my first video job with it. Excited to pair it up with my Siii! Its quick, easy to use and fits within everything I need it too.