RODNEY CHARTERS: BM POCKET CAMERA, 4K ACQUISITION & ALEXA

[Zach Ashcraft]

Ebrahim,

Why does it cost hundreds of millions of dollars? I.e. What costs the most for a broadcaster to shift to 4k?

Thanks,

Rob

They've got to update their entire infrastructure from compatible switchers to displays, cameras, computers and hard drive space that can handle it all.

I could've give you any numbers but it is indeed a very costly upgrade for broadcasters

[richg101]

They've got to update their entire infrastructure from compatible switchers to displays, cameras, computers and hard drive space that can handle it all.

I could've give you any numbers but it is indeed a very costly upgrade for broadcasters

even if it only cost £100 to upgrade all their gear to permit broadcast of 4k they wouldn;t bother since it's a lot easier to send out 720p and palm off all the mugs who bought 4k tv's to watch the crap the said broadcasters actually broadcast.  I don;t want to watch commercial television in any resolution, least of all in 4k.  4k footage of staged terrorist attacks to justify going to war.  advertisments for consumer stuff, singing and dancing competitions and soap operas.  vile.  

[Hans Punk]

At least 50% of commercials in the UK are still broadcast in SD...1080p broadcast is compressed to hell - so when 4k does rollout, (and after compression for transmission) it will probably look like low compression 1080 at best.

 

[jonpais]

Imagine the big players took their heads out of their anuses, any modern camera could look like an alexa (or almost).

This is quite vulgar and adds nothing to the conversation. 

[DanC1]

As a 17yr old I had 2 copies of Conan the Barbarian, one grainy old vhs copy recorded off tv (with added cuts) and one remastered uncut copy on DVD. My brother and I used to watch this movie all the time, it was like comfort food. He always used to insist we watched the vhs copy and I'd go along with it but feel a bit frustrated as we had the remastered uncut version there. He reckoned it just 'felt' better from image quality to the cut, looking back and having watched a few things in 4K recently I can definitley see his point. 

[Oliver Daniel]

The worst thing about the Sony cameras is the white balance.  It's just so...off.  Daylight looks like it is 4500K or something. No matter how much you fine tune the custom settings it never (ever) looks correct. 

This. 

I've been regularly shooting on the A7S II and I am near absolutely certain that the white balance tech is off. My daylight lamps that I've used for years now look green when set to anything around 5600k on the A7SII. Tungsten seems to fit at about 4300k is. It makes lighting correctly an absolute pain. 

Canon C-series are just flat-out the most reliable cameras on the market, no issues whatsoever. That said, no classy features either!

I really enjoy working with REDCode footage, it's very frequent. That stuff is another level. Sure the gap is closing together from top to bottom, but you will never get that true thickness in image quality with the consumer range. 

[IronFilm]

Hilariously I saw yesterday released on YouTube the trailer for a local indie film. And boldly in the title it proclaims "4K UHD"!! 

 

Butttttt.....  I know for a fact they shot the whole thing on a C100 mk1! Ha.

[jonpais]

Even to that extent, I recently looked at upscaled 1080p and actual 4k. I talked to a guy who makes video games and does computer stuff. He told me in terms of actual detail to the eye once upscaled properly, hardly anything is actually noticed in comparison to 4k or 6k. What people are looking at in a 6k image that is better than an HD is just a very sharp image that's big, not pixelated, and clean. So with today's technology it appears easier to me to do it in those realms. With noise reduction, Upscaling software, and post sharpening, along with programs like Colorghear. Comparing and contrasting with film is another thing too, since film actual is more soft and vibrant like HD and 2k than 4k and 6k resolution. Or even 8k resolution.

 

Meaning your generic HD camcorder or DSLR if given the right circumstances can hold up to the expensive camcorders and film cameras that Hollywood and independents inherit. However, that is to not say each have it's own actual merit in terms of usage. It goes back to what the Alexa test compared to film is. A camera should be a data collector like a film camera should be a film collector. Collecting moving images is its goal. If it has it, it can be it's goal regardless of tradition or societial terms on a camera like a mirrorless or a DSLR. Yeah sure we can say that those are more atuned to photography since it can be picked up at walmart or Costco or any generic corporate store or website. But it is the fact that it can collect data is something else. The reason people react differently to a filmmaker holding a DSLR than an expensive camcorder or motion picture camera. Is that up to that point we have been used to seeing the body shape that is inherited by Canon or Nikon or Panasonic or Sony that it is to be like the 35mm still camera. Well even that is dumb, because when looking at a family car and suddenly seeing it in Nascar or some racing event boggles people just as much, because in their head by tradition the car that looks like a van usually would suck in Nascar, given the reason by societial tradition of the car driving 45-70 miles by some Dad or Mom. When shown in a race, we disassociate that and feel like the car is made by someone else or a different manufacturer, because family cars are for families.

 

Bounds like this do need to be broken, because I feel like everybody who can not afford a twelve million dollar Ferrari should have a chance still, even though we live in a time when camera manufacturers are trying their best to diverge camera reviewers into buying their products at B and H and Amazon or Adorama. So that consumers like Bill who tries to keep up with the times to seem cool and quirky, buys it. But in order to be like the guy who used the family car to win the race. You need to not think like Bill and think like Sandy, whom just finds a tool for the job and modifies it for the job she needs. Bill is just trying to appear cool and quirky and thinks by being that he can get far, while Sandy gets far by just taking a trip to a store and completely attunes it to her needs by some research and discussing and keeping up with the modifications and techniques of the time, rather than the body itself. People may still use old cars in races. The driver is more important than the car. In fact some cars get by faster than others. At times appearing foolhardy, but being resiliently intelligent gets you by in these things. I'd rather jump the boat and appear foolhardy or the opposite than to actually be those things and get a door in my face still. Meaning you go to a store and buy the camera you want or what you want to use and apply it to those terms and not use the camera that people say will help you in the end. Besides, people who don't put their ass in the game as much as others and "claim it" do not know much when saying that a specific camera is needed for a project. I have not seen Ryan Connolly or Shane Hurlburt test the same amount of filtration or modification with my DSLR still and still people are boggled about the subject of the photography camera in this 21st generation in the 2010's. Feeling that by just using what's out of the box is to be used. Yeah right? Like what are they going to do? Come to your door like the gestopo? I mean warranties are not worth it after a while and prices do drop. So I'd explore with the camera and not be stuck up with it. Like are there any GH4 hacks or A7s hacks yet or something? Or perhaps a way to make an effective data collector yet with what I own rather than a gimmeck by a corporation that wants me to up-purchase my camera because of the software?

Sorry, Zach, but this post is extremely unclear. I can't make heads or tails of it.

[Oliver Daniel]

Sorry, Zach, but this post is extremely unclear. I can't make heads or tails of it.

Welcome to the world of Zach. He has a way with words. 

[Nikkor]

Even to that extent, I recently looked at upscaled 1080p and actual 4k. I talked to a guy who makes video games and does computer stuff. He told me in terms of actual detail to the eye once upscaled properly, hardly anything is actually noticed in comparison to 4k or 6k. What people are looking at in a 6k image that is better than an HD is just a very sharp image that's big, not pixelated, and clean. So with today's technology it appears easier to me to do it in those realms. With noise reduction, Upscaling software, and post sharpening, along with programs like Colorghear. Comparing and contrasting with film is another thing too, since film actual is more soft and vibrant like HD and 2k than 4k and 6k resolution. Or even 8k resolution.

That's total bullshit, I also work on video games sometimes, as a freelance. On a console game you can get away with upscaling, but on PC you won't and games look best if rendered 4K and then downscaled, better than any Anti Aliasing.

Another story is 4K for TV's and compressed broadcast, I don't see the point as long as the 1080p footage is supersampled.

[Don Whitmore]

I know, I know, I know the URSA 4.6k mini sensor is different than the URSA 4k mini... but man o man was the 4k mini unusable when we tried it last week. Their studio 4k mini's did surprise me though.

[yoclay]

I don't agree that it takes a lot of extra work in post to make an SLOG image look good.  I think many people simply don't know how to grade very well.  It's a skill like any other.  Once your blacks and whites are leveled out, it takes very little time to establish a look for a scene or to create presets which work just fine.  Whether it's RAW or SLOG, the work is pretty equivalent.  Nor do I think that Sony produces images which are more Video-ish than BM or RED.  That was years ago. The truth is that highlight roll-off and greater dynamic range above middle grey are where improvement is needed.  Apparently, this is what is coming from the BM 4.6K Ursa Mini.  So great.  However, if you know how to light, most of this is a non-issue.  If you are run-n-gun documentary types, then none of these cameras are really fulfilling.  What is at issue is ergonomics, quick focusing, etc.  That's mostly Canon, whose DR isn't even close.  Or the FS7 for on-the-shoulder work. Different strokes for different folks.

[Cinegain]

Yeah, I love stuff like that! Director's takes on gear, techniques and ideas. Have seen Rodney out with the Newsshooter team getting a look at all the new stuff coming out at these tech innovation events and appreciating the somewhat lower end gear as well. Which I think is really cool that established cinematographers maintain to be grounded and open-minded about these things.

Then there's the 'the full Cinematographer Roundtable will air on Close Up With The Hollywood Reporter on Sunday, Jan. 31, at 11 a.m. ET on Sundance TV' which I'm stoked for to see. There's already some snippets up at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/cinematographer-roundtable-cons-cg-betraying-851551 . Those always give great insight on the way cinematographers approach things.

Ooh, only just now I noticed the one with the directors already aired: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/video/watch-thrs-full-uncensored-director-851649 .

Just a quick heads-up, should anyone care... Cinematographer Roundtable is up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8mZFSlGEJ0 / https://www.youtube.com/user/thrnetwork/search?query=roundtable .

 

[IronFilm]

Thanks!