The video format for next 5-15 years

[Damphousse]

URSA Mini 4.6K for $5,000.  In a controlled studio setting you can mitigate most of the major caveats the camera has.  You also get 4k raw right out of the box.

On that budget I don't know how you can do better.  You get 4k raw.  HDD are cheap so archiving shouldn't be a problem.  CFast media isn't cheap though.  But if you have a good shoot and offload technique you should be okay.

[bunk]

7 hours ago, Jimmy said:

If you read the post you quoted, I was actually talking about viewing 2D content within VR (in an IMAX style VR cinema).

Ah, that's not how I read it. In that case ignore my post ...and I would like to add, isn't 8 K slightly over the top for just one element? Unless people like to zoom in on the screen and loose the overview of the movie they are watching.

[Jimmy]

20 minutes ago, bunk said:

Ah, that's not how I read it. In that case ignore my post ...and I would like to add, isn't 8 K slightly over the top for just one element? Unless people like to zoom in on the screen and loose the overview of the movie they are watching.

A 2k film on 2k headset looks like shit... 4k on 4k will look good... maybe it will take 8k on 8k to look amazing though.

[Dan Wake]

In my opinion video will go up to 16k thanks to virtual reality. maybe a little bit more that 16k for who needs to crop/stabilize.

8k would be good videoprojectors and ultra mega huge TV's.

 

[MountneerMan]

You guys are all crazy! lol.

[manufilm]

20/20 vision is  60 pixels per degree. Yes, human vision on average is really 20/15 or 85 PPD. 

There was a calculator posted on Reddit where people noted, that although people could strain/focus their eyes on individual pixels to resolve above ~60 PPD, it was uncomfortable to do for an extended amount of time as eye fatigue sets in. Why would you be focusing on individual pixels and not the whole image anyway? The practical (comfortable) limit is probably ~60 PPD.

Calculator to test your eyes:

http://jsfiddle.net/w5se983j/3/

Human vision: 180 degrees horizontal and 134 degrees vertical FOV or 10800x8100 to achieve 60 PPD.

VR headset: 110 degree FOV: 6600x6600 per eye to achieve 60 PPD. 

 

 

[j-oc]

Interesting question.

I think some of the replies have missed the point a little. The OP has already decided to shoot his interviews on video so discussing VR or 3D is a little like saying why don't you write a stage play or a book. They are different mediums and the OP is interested in e source material being available for 2D video.

VR and 3D will be a thing at some point in the future but there is no point second guessing such infant technologies.

FWIW I think you should either shoot on film as per Bioskop, or shoot on something 4K and create a master in the highest quality, most common codec you can. Which is probably Prores, right? Stuff disappears digitally when it is stored on niche hardware or with a niche codec that becomes quickly obselete so go with something popular and make new masters each time this changes.

Good luck!

[ND64]

Shooting film is stupid right now.The less a medium is used, the more is the cost of keeping it alive and usable. Kodak would stop the production few years ago if it wasn't the cash support from cinephile snobs like Tarantino. 

Shoot 4k, with a HLG-like profile, ProRes 10bit 4:2:2, and store it in enterprise HDDs. 

[Mattias Burling]

Same old story. If someone doesn't like the same pizza topping as the next guy they are "stupid"...

[fuzzynormal]

9 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Same old story. If someone doesn't like the same pizza topping as the next guy they are "stupid"...

Anchovies.  If you don't like em, then you don't like real pizza.  

...and you're stupid.

 

[Bioskop.Inc]

Contrary to common belief, film isn't dead & probably will never die. The stupid ones are those that believe the marketing tools of modern digital camera makers - lots of Films/TV are still shot on celluloid & I'm not just talking about the big Hollywood blockbusters.

There was an article a while back, where someone demonstrated that it isn't actually that expensive to shoot on 16mm film, if you have a budget & do your sums right.

The real problem that exists is that most people here do not have a realistic budget from which to produce a film with & of course, this is coupled with the proliferation/over saturation of CGI & the fix it in post brigade. Digital has made people a little ignorant/unappreciative of many things that are taken for granted when using film - the fact that you can blow highlights is probably the most common misunderstanding (not saying that you should do it all the time, but it has its place & you don't have worry about this so much). And finally, the irony of this whole debate is those digital evangelists that are forever trying to replicate.....do I dare say it....."The Film Look"! 

Whose stupid now?

[Mattias Burling]

5 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Anchovies.  If you don't like em, then you don't like real pizza.  

...and you're stupid.

 

Im pretty sure I read on YouTube that anchovies are "fake and gay" or was it "just popular because it reminded people of pizzas of yesteryear and that the newer sharper fish was superior."

[The Chris]

On September 13, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Novim said:

I'm a long time reader of this excellent site, now my first - perhaps a bit unusual - question.

Suppose during this winter you should shoot a series of interviews (some 20-30 hours with some 30-40 people) and that digital video material would be archived for use by others in the future (in videos, TV. films etc.). Interviews will be shot in improvised studio (mostly, but not always), the sound taken separately. What format - techically speaking - you'd use? What would be your preferences? 10-12 bit, 4-2-2 or better, what DR, etc? What gear you would buy / use for such a project (the gear budget will be 5,000-7,000€)? - Thanks in advance.

10 years ago I was shooting lots of SD and occasionally 720/1080i to HDV tapes. Because the cost of upgrading the broadcast pipeline is significant and declining revenues are an annual blight on broadcasters balance sheets, I'd be surprised if most broadcasts even hit true 1080p in 10 years (most right now are 720p or 1080i), much less 4k. TV sales are collapsing, 1080 isn't getting replaced anytime soon. I can still edit old SD from an old drive. A good 10-bit 4k image should easily look good in 10 years, as mentioned use a high quality prores. I'd be more worried about the integrity of your storage.

[Novim]

On 15.9.2016. at 7:29 PM, Damphousse said:

URSA Mini 4.6K for $5,000.  In a controlled studio setting you can mitigate most of the major caveats the camera has.  You also get 4k raw right out of the box.

 

My idea, too, with URSA Mini 4.6K, and CinemaDNG raw. Especially since I own BMPCC and BMMCC and know their limits.

The best alternative for this tight budget would be to shoot on 16mm film (analog film tapes), but it would have other problems.

Aside the specific project of mine (I'll do it with a group of my students), the question remains what present video technology can do for shooting testimonies of people so that the shots could be usable 10-20-50 years later.