Axel

​Technically, maybe. But as I see it, picking one moment out of eternity and make it eternal is the heart of photography. The MO you decribe would be the death of photography. I have similar reservations if people rave about the chance to scale the perfect crop out of a 4k video. It's the frames' borders that count, and if one has no idea where they should be right when he confronts his motif, he has lost the point completely. I am hopelessly nostalgic ...

​You are right of course, but it's all taken out of context. Having seen some threehundred big scale prints by Meyerowitz in two hours, I dare to divide them roughly in three completely different styles: 1. Portrait photography. Here is one of the most famous: 2. Landscapes and the like. Big enlargements, photos taken with an 8 x 10 camera, Ground Zero is a motif: 3. ... and, finally, his own specialty, 'street photography'. Snapshots of people on the street. To anticipate where they will be in the next blink of an eye to get exactly the composition he feels right at the given moment, he has to watch what's not yet in his frame. That's where the 'primitive' Leica comes in handy ... (looks staged, but isn't)

*OT*: Funny thing that Resolve 11.1.4 (available on the App Store) now adds even better interoperability with FCP X. It now (allegedly, had no time yet to test it) fully understands compound clips, synched clips and all retiming operations within FCP X. 11.1.4 does not yet show up on the official BM site. Just a sidenote ...

Why should one have to edit in Resolve? You can edit in Premiere and send the sequence to Resolve, then render there. I may be wrong, but I remember having read about the optical quality re-framing there: Optical Quality Re-FramingColorists know that DaVinci Resolve has the highest quality reframing and resize tools in the industry. Now editors can reframe shots directly in the edit page and take advantage of the amazing optical quality sub pixel image processing in real time! 4K images look incredible when resized to HD and you can even reformat older standard definition footage for your HD and 4K projects! It's the most elaborate math of scaling an image, and it seems to be better than Premiere (or FCP, for that matter). The editing tools were quite good, had the world around not evolved further. But that's OT, like Andrew wrote.

The depth was around three inches for the medium shots (Barry and Grogan) and around one foot at the gaming table (Barry and Lady Lyndon). It's just that the shots don't aim at the usual characteristics of sDoF. Check again.

It's always an advantage, imo, if you know how to do something manually, analog (what's the adverb of that?). Helps even if you relight digitally. One could as well say, film is dead. And in the strictest sense, it is. Cinema is slowly dying, as we witness now. Books on paper? Might take a while, but the bell already rang. Will books for pads be written different(ly)? When photography came up, it seemed to many that the point of representational painting was gone, whereas really it was freed from a demand that was pointless from the start: to accurately depict reality. What you say, DigitalEd, is that basic craftmanship gets lost as well as expert jobs. Is digital to blame for that? It's also the 'production facilities in the hand of the proletariat'. And it's the said ongoing shift in the taste of the ordinary people. Your wedding photo would be considered a staged pose by most of the young couples I made wedding videos for. Unless the fun was to be ironic, few would proudly put it on their sideboard. At the last wedding the photographer (a 'housewife' as you so chivalrously put it) took 1300 photos. Of those, the couple chose only the most 'natural' looking. Where they looked good, where the event looked good. Midwestern Europe, 2014. There are cultural differences, of course. I saw a wedding video from Greece where the bride was literally beamed to the altar. A highlight in her life, knowing that afterwards she was doomed to stay in the kitchen.

Yeah. To be honest, I liked everything about it (what cool air shots!) but the images. Not very vivid colors ...

No, of course photography isn't dead. But certainly some major shifts are going on: > press photographers are divided in freelance artists (glossy magazines) and, to overgeneralize it, smartphone snapshot takers, many newspapers fired their photographers. > commercial photographers shoot plates and elements (they specialize), which are later comped in post. Not entirely new, but to take a picture for an ad that's lighted and dressed up to be perfect (almost, some retouching had always been done, also before digital) would seem absurd today. Not only seem. > people only believe in poor quality images, because they can do, er, post, on their smartphones, and there were too many reports about how easily everything can be faked in the media. > not only ordinary people don't believe in perfect images any more, photographers themselves don't. This winner photo of the 2013 World Press Award shows a funeral in Gaza: After nomination, other competitors complained about the plausibility of the light in the scene, others stated they could 'prove' that the photo was a composition out of at least three different shots. Paul Hansen, the photographer, was pressed to show the raw camera file - which unfortunately he couldn't. It's not a comp. It is a post-processed raw image with so many retouching steps, done by a professional pp house, that it looks too perfect. The most obvious thing is the vignette in all corners, the left lower corner is way to dark. To adress this problem, post houses now try to enhance the images by deliberately adding mistakes likes scratches on the lens, clipping of the sky asf. Undone look. The average viewer expects purism, so they fake authenticity. Post-processing analog photos in the darkroom was my first job (lost it for obvious reasons). Let me assure you: Photoshop just mimicks all the tools that were there before. I recently went to an exhibition of famous 'street photographer' Joel Meyerowitz. Very impressing. There were also videos projected in which Meyerowitz talked about reacting to the motifs. Good stuff, but I could tell at once that none of the prints could have looked the same had they just been developed and enlarged by a machine. Few are aware of that.

French and german broadcaster ARTE just released a documentary in five parts that was exclusively shot with the BMPCC, for these reasons: The camera had to look unsuspicious, be small and lightweight. Furthermore, it had to meet the strict technical standards of ARTE, 4:2:2. Here is one episode (you should be able to switch to french - click 'version' - , if you understand that better).

​My own experience lets me state that for very wide lenses sDoF is less appropriate. Because no matter the crop factor the focal plane will be rather a curve. That means that either the center is sharp or the corners (three flowers on the window sill ...). Doesn't look 'cinematic', looks wrong. More, the problem of a wide lens always is that it distorts proportions if you move too close to a foreground object (let alone face) which further contributes to shallow DoF looking wrong. Right now I'm using the Tokina 11-16 with the BMPCC speedbooster, which makes it a 19 mm equivalent. I suspect the lens isn't particularly sharp anyway, but be it as it may, it practically can't be used with open aperture. That's valid for the Pocket, an HD camera. The softness for 4k you mentioned is probably nothing else but the lenses' resolution beneath HD, because the same softening can be seen there. That can't be the goal. Another point is lowlight capability. Again imo it's better to use a slow wide lens on a decided lowlight cam like the A7s.

I don't think so. Very few books on screenwriting actually are worth a straw. They claim to have 'discovered' the ancient receipe for drama (Aristotle) in selected examples of famous films. But their application of the structure is arbitrary, and on closer inspection the theory crumbles. Scripts that are tailored around this structure are all banal, stereotyped and boring. This short article by Paul Schrader might interest you. What isn't true for feature films (I recently watched Godfather I-III again, and while doing so, I thought about it again), is absolute rubbish for modern mini series. What everybody just misses is that Aistotle also wrote on epic drama, which can develop it's plot lines freely. In traditional mini series, the ending of each episode had a cliffhanger, and very often you saw through it instantly. The hero hangs from a cliff? Okay, next week someone will rescue him. Breaking Bad, True Detective, The Killing: More often than not they just present a few possible threats at the end, full stop. They don't promise a climax, never. They promise further developments. Of action. But more important: of characters. The more complicated (and often misleading) the narration becomes, the more interesting and engaging. You have to interweave conflicts and just foreshadow crises that may come. The future of storytelling turns back to the roots of what stories are about. Descriptions and concepts of our lifes. Not compact moral tales ...

First on cages & rigs. Having shot with a EX3-Letus-follow focus-DVTEC Engrig set up that weighed tons, I appreciated the chance to build smaller and lighter rigs. With a normal camcorder, you don't need any rigging. With a DSLR/mirrorless and i.e. with my Pocket, you do. But the goal must be 'reduce to the maximum'. I had the Contineo cage for the BMPCC, but I sold it, because I found parts from the hardware store that were smaller and lighter and more ergonomical. The best rig is just a grip, in the optimal position for your hand, imo. Try to integrate a remote for start/stop. You almost never find the ideal solution from the usual rig-suppliers, even not from Zacuto. That's my experience. If the built-in display/viewer is usable with the addition of a better eyepiece or loupe - try this first. No monitors or external EVF for handheld/shoulder. They always mean cumbersome rods, screws, magic arms and what have you. I borrowed the Alphatron EVF, which has a superb image, but just makes everything way too difficult to hold and the HDMI latency makes it practically unusable. No follow focus. For serious grading, I can't understand why someone wouldn't want to use Resolve. It's free, and among colorists it seems to be the favorite app, as this poll suggests. I had FCS 3 with FCP7 and Color before and on an alternative Windows system Premiere CS5.5 with Color Finesse. Of these two, FCP was clearly more usable. No experience with Speedgrade. The most modern and easy-to-use NLE is FCP X. Though it's CC tools are very limited, they are also well integrated, because they are no 'effects' in the application, but clip properties. Sure, if you need to mix color channels, for example, you can't do it with the default CC. But then again there are hundreds of free or cheap APS-plugins that can do this. Some of them actually good. No need to smile at FCP X 'colorists'. Their results often convince (look at rungunshoots clips in the screening room, EDIT: Are all older posts offline now?). And they get there in no time.

The moment 4k has become standard is when ordinary people can distinguish it from HD, wouldn't you agree? Estimation vary, maybe it comes fast in the urban region, where there is fast internet and Netflix and the like have more or less replaced ordinary television. The moment ordinary people became pixel peepers and can distinguish 4k from HD with their naked eyes, the con- and prosumer video that's currently on offer will prove to be sub standard (like HDV proved to be closer to DV-SD, in hindsight, it's hardly considered HD now). You probably have read about the bayer sensors. Also, as Danyyyel has mentioned, OLED TV technique is gonna be the next big thing and will probably be affordable for ordinary people by then. That's when everybody will see - because it's very easy to see - how 8-bit images look bad in comparison to 10-bit (or more), no matter if HD or UHD. Future proof is, if anything, excellent craft and interesting content.

The days when doubled frame rates meant double weight and costs of the prints are over. The digital servers and projectors are capable of 48p, therefore there is no technical reason to stay 24p. We will see more HFR in the future. If it is appropriate for the film. Know, that HFR is by no means a new concept. George Lucas, who by then owned an, er, empire of state-of-the-art equipment for cinema, was influenced by Trumbull and demanded 48p in the early eighties already. Cameron also subscribed to this idea early on. Who if not they could have forced the industry to change this? I tell you: The audience. Not only did they not care, they voted against it in numerous test screenings. The same with UHD. 70mm prints and even IMAX existed since decades, side by side with lousy 35mm. Though there is no doubt that they were 'better', the cinemagoers didn't care enough to keep them alive. These are facts. Another point: Sound. Until around 1992 (low-res Jurassic Parc), mono sound was the de facto standard of cinema (Lucas again being ahead of time with his six track Star Wars). Surround (predominantly then a virtual surround, generated of analog stereo tracks, known as 'spectral recording') meant a very big investment for the cinemas, which practically had to be rebuilt sometimes to meet specifications (of Dolby as well as THX). But there had been test screenings, and what was found is that surround sound was crucial for immersion. People frequently complained when there was a bad splice and the sound went mono for two seconds. What does that tell us?

I see your point. As far as trite stories are concerned, cinema is dead. Braindead. You have much more intriguing narration in modern TV series. The excellent True Detective, for example, deals with philosophical concepts, the whole plot looks like a mere pretext to discuss the conditio humana. Needs no phony unobtanium. On the other hand I love cinema. I go there to let myself be overwhelmed. When the lights go down, I'm in a suggestible mood, I beg for immersion. Many couldn't help but find the world of Pandora kitschy and compared it to FernGully. Like the majority I really loved it. To quote a line from a biography of my favorite director: 'He found something to admire in even the vilest Hollywood movie once it grossed more than 100 millions at the box office'. BTW: The enormous success of this movie wasn't reduced by the fact (see imdb technical specs) that the bigger part of principal photography was captured in 1080. Resolution is overestimated. Sure, no one needs to justify his preference for quantity.

The stuff about the double bladed projector shutter (some projectors had a three-bladed shutter, there was also a prism-technology by the german manufacturer Kinoton, which, without Maltese cross, had tiny transitions between frames and no black phase at all), the 180° shutter and the discontinuity of time is true for digital technique as well. Insofar as the exposure doesn't capture 50% of all motion then. What imo counts most is the look and feel of it all. Old 50i/60i camcorders had indeed a more *realistic* way of capturing motion, it looked 'live' always. But as we all still recall, it never looked good. What people like Trumbull a.o. mix up is immersion and virtual reality. For immersion, which is the goal of fictuous cinematic storytelling, you need to fill the screen with obviously stylized images that trigger intended emotions. For virtual reality, you have to convincingly avoid obvious style. Ideally, you don't look through a sharp, noise-free window, but are surrounded by an environment. Not an image. Things like cuts and music will destroy that illusion. I am not entirely against HFR. I think all depends on the intention of the narrator. Cameron could have very well filmed Avatar in 48p. Because the narration was about the sensual experience of a virtual reality. He made images that were clearly pure CGI look like ENG-style camcorder-recordings. He inserted lens flares, camera shake, even jerky zooms. And it would have helped 3D to look clearer. I bet, Avatar would have been better in 48p. The Hobbit, on the other hand, is a fairy tale. Once upon a time, but not now. One of those stories where the voice of your grandma can carry enough magic to suspend your disbelief and get you there, totally immersed. I always thought of Galadriels narration ('The world is changed, I feel it in the water ...') that way. I immediately realized how Jackson had a very LFR approach to the accompaning images (as he often has, if appropriate). They could have rather been 12fps than 48fps. Just to test this theory, I downloaded the clip from Youtube and exported it with 12fps, here. Now of course it is a bit too much. With a modern 200-800 Hz TV-set everybody can easily check the opposite extreme and tell if he wants to follow 10 hours LOTR in HFR. A few days ago, Matt James Smith posted his 12fps test with GH4 raw footage,

Didn't check the technical background. Accompanied a friend who looked for a new big TV two weeks ago. UHD TVs looked better despite normal HD signals. Was very impressed with an OLED TV (HD 'only'), but it was very expensive. All in all, TV panels became so good and so cheap, I am ready to buy new technology every three or four years.

Why do you think this is embarrassing? Given that the actors are too young to be convincing, it's still a good job that shows a lot of talent, imo.

(Almost) any camera! 5 years ago, there were very few excuses to just go and make it happen. Today, there are none. My own experiences let me recommend a Lumix as a first camera. Just because they teach you how to work manually, without being too complicated to handle (and lightweight as well, compared to DSLRs). Price-wise, quality-wise and with all your described expectations in mind, they probably offer the best compromise. The said 5d Mark III with raw is definitely not the ideal beginner's choice, and without raw the quality is not worth mentioning anymore.

In Germany, the film is called 'Oh Boy'. I didn't see it. It may be 'not quite as good', as you wrote. But if so, then surely not because of the actor. Tom Schilling has a special quality. If he is cast almost as an egoshooter (indeed the title of an experimental film he starred in), if the audience is supposed to see everything that happens with 'his' eyes, then he easily carries the whole film, no matter how absurd it gets. Of course, he is probably not known outside Germany. Ewan McGregor is one of those exceptional actors. Watch Trainspotting again. Or indeed every film he appears in, even Star Wars. Did you see the incredibly boring (my impression) The Ghost Writer by Polanski? It would have been unendurable, hadn't McGregor played the ghost. All events look completely subjectiv (and therefore somewhat meaningful) just because he is in the frame. He is the perfect medium. I read at some time Nicolas Cage was cast for the (nameless) ghost. Just think of how cheap and arbitrarily constructed every mystery movie looked that he starred in! His antipode is an intense actor like Ryan Gosling. Watch Stay again, and see, how both are cast. Or John Cusack. If he playes the hero, he becomes you, you become him, instantly. Or is it just me? If he playes the villain, he still clearly is John Cusack, holding his dark side to the camera for a change.

This! In the right hands, a GH4 makes wonderful video. It's just that by their arguments you can tell that many owners don't have the right hands. Lamenting 'unsharp' images for instance. Welcoming better resolution should be a no-brainer. Meaning, we shouldn't even discuss it. We should do as those old DoPs do. Shrug and just keep following our goal to make 'fantastic images'. And admit (if we can) that resolution contributes little to this goal, compared to every other aspect.

No, I'm a bloody amateur. As such, I would of course embrace the possibilities to stabilize and scale in post (as the pros in the video confessed to do as well). All I say is, isn't it funny how sensitive everybody is? Are we taking ourselves too serious here?

I made manual prints in the darkroom professionally for almost six years (until digital photography came up and it became clear that the job would die soon). Afterwards I became a projectionist in a multiplex cinema, which from 2000 on experimented with digital projection ('til 2011, if I recall correctly). These are not very desirable jobs for most (film quotation quiz: 'Why would anyone want this shit job?'), I wasn't prancing. It's just that I consider myself THE expert on the topics mentioned above. What most people believe is that more pixels or finer film grain result in greater sharpness. Although there actually is no direct correlation between both, you could well say, it's the other way around. You need high enough resolution to render soft images that don't appear out-of-focus. Because as long as you can see the smallest picture elements, outlines look 'defined' or, er, outlined. Doesn't matter if you can literally count the aliasing steps of the edges or are just aware of some embossed-looking (sharp or sharpened) patterns in the image. These kind of aesthetics are desirable only if you want to sell chicken wings. So why is it that people think HD is not enough? Because, as of now, we have a lot of cameras which don't reach real 1080 despite the numbers on the spec sheet. I admit that. Therefore a camera that is (falsely) labelled 4k can provide the missing resolution. Given that your downscaling method is 'optical', even the effective color resolution can be improved (denied by purists, acknowledged by me), though unfortunately not the color depth. The mere consumers won't be able to see that.

Some of the conclusions regarding 4k: • It's here to stay. It's not the norm already, and it won't be for a few years, but there's no point in denying the fact that the world moves towards it. • Experienced DoPs just don't care. They say it unisono, and they explain why. Because 4k is not about quality. • There are aspects that dramatically influence quality, and those are DR and color space on the technical side and lighting on the side of craftmanship. • To the question whether we need it, they more or less say 'no'. Clients who right now demand 4k for distribution are happy with upscaled 2k. Look at their faces. They are all old. People who grew up with camcorders and VDSRLs don't have the background to understand what they are talking about. Who never saw analog and digital material in direct and regular comparison probably assumes rec709 is a law of nature and that digital is superior in every respect. This majority of amateurs and semi-pros first look at the resolution specs but buy and are content with the same old compromises in other aspects. Things that may show very unfavorably, i.e. on a big screen. Like the widely believed misconception that resolution means sharpness and that it is sharpness that can't be exaggerated. That if you can't see a quarter color resolution on your monitor, it will hold up as well on a giant screen (everybody can check by changing the viewing distance) - especially if you show off your high-resolution image!. That a poorly composed image during recording will improve considerably when zoomed in in post. Asf. I completely second their estimation about the future of television (and cinema, for that matter). Netflix, Sky and the like are the future.

Flexibility in post? Are you talking about reframing? Like when the artist behind the camera had no clue what the motif was? Ebrahim Sadaawi: Take this prospect and a really wide lens, and we'll never need to move the camera again, it will all be clean and sharp Ken Burns ;) I hope you realize I'm joking. Nothing is to dislike about the reality of higher resolution. Particularly if it comes at an affordable price and with greater color depth. It's just that some get into rhapsodies about it, like people recommending a restaurant for the sizes of the meals. Just for balance, a little sarcasm seems to be in order, no offense intended.