Resolution-wise sample shot on 12K from 8K export

[Emanuel]

by Phil Holland:

" (...) rigged the system with 3X RED Weapon Monstro 8K VV cameras, which once processed creates stunning 100 megapixel motion picture images with a sensor size of approximately 645 Medium Format Film "

 

[BTM_Pix]

And yet....

I look at something like this, shot on a single camera that is now owned by DJI, and wonder how long it will be before you will be able to make your own medium format sized aerial videos without needing to have access to a helicopter and then having to stitch shots together.

A word of caution about looking at the other videos this guy has shot on Hasselblad is that you may well then be tempted to start putting your cameras, furniture, cars and expendable relatives on eBay to raise the funds and buy one  

 

[tweak]

That first video was pretty boring.

[majoraxis]

I took the attached screen grab of the explanation of the lens configuration from the video as I wanted understand how that made and stitched the image together.  I really liked the image and may try to emulate it for a ultra wide angle shot some day when I have 3 camera synced together.  To me this had a great wrap around 180 video feel without the distortion of a 360/180 camera.  

[BTM_Pix]

37 minutes ago, majoraxis said:

I took the attached screen grab of the explanation of the lens configuration from the video as I wanted understand how that made and stitched the image together.  I really liked the image and may try to emulate it for a ultra wide angle shot some day when I have 3 camera synced together.  

Here is a more exposed shot of the rig for you.

Couple of brackets, some 3D printing and a roll of gaffer tape and you'll have it sorted

[buggz]

All this AI stuffz need to hurry up and provide stitched video files, as well as nail content fill/remove, etc...

[webrunner5]

Trouble is I Only have a 2K 30" display. SO to be honest it really doesn't look any better to me than my 2.7k GoPro footage. I can obliviously see the smoothness of it, so the info is there. I just can't see it in it's glory. My trouble is when you get older if you buy a 4K or higher Monitor you can't read the damn print. Piss Ant sized print even scaled up is still small as heck. It is a problem that would cost more money than I can throw at it is probably to have 2, maybe 3 Monitors utilizing different aspects of it. Years ago I had a monitor just for text and the other just for graphics.

[fuzzynormal]

 

6 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

looking at the other videos this guy has shot on Hasselblad is that you may well then be tempted to start putting your cameras, furniture, cars and expendable relatives on eBay to raise the funds and buy one  

Honestly, I look at that and think, "It looks very nice and well crafted... and he would shoot something incredibly similar on just about any camera these days."  Even more honestly, an old 5DII has more visual character in what it produces than what this does. But I like like soft and imperfect images, especially for something romantic and purposefully dreamy like a wedding.  Then again, that's me.  I suppose I have my own style.

Who really knows with this stuff?  The couple may have seen his reel and love the clinical and high-res look of his previous videos.  

Still, what are directors of these sorts of productions exactly reaching for?  Shooting a compelling film or using expensive and cool gear?  I'd like to shoot on medium format too just for the fun factor of playing with neat-o technical stuff, but the more important question comes down to, what actually works and looks best?  

If I'm being really nit-picky, I'd say that many of the shots are stagey and the couple don't look wholly relaxed.  Now, is that a factor of their personalities?  --or are they a little awkward because this guy was doing a bunch of gear rigging for his Hasselblad shots?  Is he demanding precision for his scene direction?  Is he missing a chance to put his couple at ease by prioritizing his gear selection and his image creation?  What's happening on the other side of that lens?

You know, having a good relaxed relationship with your subjects is so exponentially more important than equipment.  Anyway, I'm off on my typical "gear-not-so-important" rant again.  At the end of the day, the new IQ era we're in is great.  I'll shut up now.

[BTM_Pix]

1 minute ago, fuzzynormal said:

 

Honestly, I look at that and think, "It looks very nice and well crafted... and he would shoot something incredibly similar on just about any camera these days."  Even more honestly, an old 5DII has more visual character in what it produces than what this does. But I like like soft and imperfect images, especially for something romantic and purposefully dreamy like a wedding.  Then again, that's me.  I suppose I have my own style.

Who really knows with this stuff?  The couple may have seen his reel and love the clinical and high-res look of his previous videos.  

Still, what are directors of these sorts of productions exactly reaching for?  Shooting a good video or using expensive and cool gear?  I'd like to shoot on medium format too just for the fun factor of playing with neat-o technical stuff, but the more important question comes down to, what actually works and looks best?  

If I'm being really nit-picky, I'd say that many of the shots are stagey and the couple don't look wholly relaxed.  Now, is that a factor of their personalities?  --or are they a little awkward because this guy was doing a bunch of gear rigging for his Hasselblad shots?  Is he missing a chance to put his couple at ease by prioritizing his gear selection?  What on the other side of that lens?

You know, having a good relaxed relationship with your subjects is so exponentially more important than equipment.  Anyway, I'm off on my typical "gear-not-so-important" rant again.  At the end of the day, the new IQ era we're in is great.  I'll shut up now.

Nope, can't really find fault with any of that point of view to be honest.

For me, personally, I like the look (such as it is because its RAW so we're looking at a choice) because it satiates a long held daydream of having a motion version of my H3D but with regard to this particular production then, yeah, I'm not sure whether the happy couple look uncomfortable with having the degree of intrusion that was probably going on to get those shots or whether they are looking uncomfortable because of the life choice they'd just made

It was also to the broader point of being able to have medium format video from one unit that cost a "mere" $25000 instead of three units at $50000 each but, of course, the question of whether we actually need that anyway is the, erm, $64000 question.

[Emanuel]

9 hours ago, tweak said:

That first video was pretty boring.

For sure : ) That was strictly a resolution test, let's be fair : -)

Which actually hints you don't need resolution at all to make some interesting to pop up.

As we all know I guess, it depends on so many other variables. There's the only discussion to be worthy here, really.

 

That said, certain details can just shine if you have resolution, though. So, the higher number of pixels the larger sensor size format makes then the necessary sense to be in order to fit the task. That's the whole point, as matter of fact.

 

I can be a happy MFT camper, I am indeed. But I don't think anything wrong with the colour of someone's else T-shirt... : D

 

I think the general problem with the human kind is the B&W approach and bias.

'My dick is bigger than yours' attitude flaws any intelligent discussion. Unfortunately, it is the closest scope we'll find in reality from so many people, more often than it should.

[newfoundmass]

Can we be real about resolution, honestly?

From a PRODUCTION standpoint I get wanting higher and higher resolution. I have no real desire for 8K (and higher), 4K is more than enough given everything I do is pretty much edited for 1080p, but I do get why others want it. 

From a delivery standpoint though? I have a 55 inch 4K television. I watch some 4K content but most is 1080p. Truth be told, unless I'm within a couple feet of the TV I can't see much difference between 1080p and 4K content. I don't think most people can tell the difference unless they have a giant 4K TV. Simply put, for most of us, the size of the televisions we'll be able to afford makes 8K feel like a marketing gimmick more than anything.

I watched this on my 4K television and frankly I've seen stuff in 1080p and stuff shot in 4K that looked just as good as this. Like, what are we really doing here? 

I feel like I'm the old man yelling at the clouds, but this is all so very silly to me. What size 8K television (or hell, 4K television!) would I need to really be able to truly appreciate this, and other videos, shot at such a high resolution? 

[Emanuel]

To be fair yet, this is not even straightly addressed to the resolution topic in a literal sense or shouldn't exclusively be.

Human view has its own limits, obviously, a bit like our stomach : D You can go shopping to your local supermarket before or after lunch. Your bill will surely vary, count on it! LOL : ) You'll end there for shopping food in a way or another ; -)

 

When I mention details up there, not exactly related to picture resolution in stricto sensu but the potentiality of their existence in your hand(s) as finest tool.

We live exciting times nowadays in the realm of computational photography. Smartphones of today are only the peak of the iceberg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking

[kye]

12 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

 

Honestly, I look at that and think, "It looks very nice and well crafted... and he would shoot something incredibly similar on just about any camera these days."  Even more honestly, an old 5DII has more visual character in what it produces than what this does. But I like like soft and imperfect images, especially for something romantic and purposefully dreamy like a wedding.  Then again, that's me.  I suppose I have my own style.

Who really knows with this stuff?  The couple may have seen his reel and love the clinical and high-res look of his previous videos.  

Still, what are directors of these sorts of productions exactly reaching for?  Shooting a compelling film or using expensive and cool gear?  I'd like to shoot on medium format too just for the fun factor of playing with neat-o technical stuff, but the more important question comes down to, what actually works and looks best?  

If I'm being really nit-picky, I'd say that many of the shots are stagey and the couple don't look wholly relaxed.  Now, is that a factor of their personalities?  --or are they a little awkward because this guy was doing a bunch of gear rigging for his Hasselblad shots?  Is he demanding precision for his scene direction?  Is he missing a chance to put his couple at ease by prioritizing his gear selection and his image creation?  What's happening on the other side of that lens?

You know, having a good relaxed relationship with your subjects is so exponentially more important than equipment.  Anyway, I'm off on my typical "gear-not-so-important" rant again.  At the end of the day, the new IQ era we're in is great.  I'll shut up now.

Well said.

Advancements in technical aspects like resolution and DR etc can contribute to a higher production quality, but if they come at the expense of something else that is more valuable, like talent comfort, shot design and camera moves, ability to improvise, etc then it works out to be a net loss.  In a sense the big high-end cameras aren't that well suited to weddings and other situations where the camera needs to follow the action, rather than the action following the camera.  This is why when I'm making holiday videos of my family I want a flexible setup that can get the shot the first time, because I don't want to ruin the holiday by making my family act in a video rather than have a holiday.  Also, the magic is very difficult to repeat, especially for non-actors.  They say that your wedding day goes by so fast, if the photographer and videographer were to slow that down to "I thought the day would last forever because it seemed like the posing for photos and video would never end" I don't think that would be success!

[ND64]

8 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

 

I feel like I'm the old man yelling at the clouds, but this is all so very silly to me. What size 8K television (or hell, 4K television!) would I need to really be able to truly appreciate this, and other videos, shot at such a high resolution?

In near future your TV is not a device you mount to your wall. Your wall is TV. 

[fuzzynormal]

10 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

In near future your TV is not a device you mount to your wall. Your wall is TV. 

In Russia you don't watch TV, TV watch you.  Here, TV is wall.  What a country!

[fuzzynormal]

12 hours ago, kye said:

In a sense the big high-end cameras aren't that well suited to weddings and other situations where the camera needs to follow the action, rather than the action following the camera.

My opinion of making documentaries follows similar principles. 

My first goal is to interact with my subjects as naturally and chill as possible.  Gear selection is a part of that.  It's a process that has led to a certain style and result that's hard to quantify, but definitely makes a difference.  When I walk away with my shots and the subject telling me, "That was easier than I thought."  I feel like I'm on the right track.  Now, for a lot of what I do, that means I don't necessarily get the most dramatic shots --as I constantly have to improvise by giving the subject more freedom, but that freedom creates a certain feeling that might go uncaptured otherwise.  I'm an unnatural interloper in moments that demand naturalness, so minimize that unnaturalness, you know?

Anyway, if you follow stuff I type here on EOSHD, you'll see I'm a fan of Olympus and smaller LUMIX cameras.  The single most important decision I ever made, for me, was to decide to minimize my gear footprint with a camera like the EM5II, do things handheld that would otherwise require insane amounts of gear, and just learn how to "ghost" while still directing what needs directed.

On the other hand, I have an old-school colleague that can't seem to enter a room without bringing three tons of crap into it, making sure it gets all unpacked, and then spending 2 hours to capture what I'd, more or less, grab on the fly in two minutes.  What he creates is often legit and prettier than what I get, it's just rarely reads as authentic to me. 

So, what's the end game?  That's where you gotta decide what you want to be as a filmmaker.  I'm making a deliberate effort to shore up my storytelling skills rather than chasing technical achievement.  I didn't always use to be this way. 

As for IQ?  Man, I've just not cared a lot about that recently as the gear gets me to the threshold I'm happy with, and has done so for awhile now.  Just speaking for myself and how I'm approaching things, I'm more excited of where my career in motion pictures is going than where it used to be.

(so much for saying I would shut up) 

[webrunner5]

Just go out and buy a old Canon 1DC and a box of C Fast cards lol. They are getting pretty cheap. Probably all I would need. I still can't get out of my head this frame

 grab someone posted on here from one.

[kye]

6 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

My opinion of making documentaries follows similar principles. 

My first goal is to interact with my subjects as naturally and chill as possible.  Gear selection is a part of that.  It's a process that has led to a certain style and result that's hard to quantify, but definitely makes a difference.  When I walk away with my shots and the subject telling me, "That was easier than I thought."  I feel like I'm on the right track.  Now, for a lot of what I do, that means I don't necessarily get the most dramatic shots --as I constantly have to improvise by giving the subject more freedom, but that freedom creates a certain feeling that might go uncaptured otherwise.  I'm an unnatural interloper in moments that demand naturalness, so minimize that unnaturalness, you know?

Anyway, if you follow stuff I type here on EOSHD, you'll see I'm a fan of Olympus and smaller LUMIX cameras.  The single most important decision I ever made, for me, was to decide to minimize my gear footprint with a camera like the EM5II, do things handheld that would otherwise require insane amounts of gear, and just learn how to "ghost" while still directing what needs directed.

On the other hand, I have an old-school colleague that can't seem to enter a room without bringing three tons of crap into it, making sure it gets all unpacked, and then spending 2 hours to capture what I'd, more or less, grab on the fly in two minutes.  What he creates is often legit and prettier than what I get, it's just rarely reads as authentic to me. 

So, what's the end game?  That's where you gotta decide what you want to be as a filmmaker.  I'm making a deliberate effort to shore up my storytelling skills rather than chasing technical achievement.  I didn't always use to be this way. 

As for IQ?  Man, I've just not cared a lot about that recently as the gear gets me to the threshold I'm happy with, and has done so for awhile now.  Just speaking for myself and how I'm approaching things, I'm more excited of where my career in motion pictures is going than where it used to be.

(so much for saying I would shut up) 

I think you captured it brilliantly with your interloper statement, and I completely understand.

I've gone the same gear route as you - my workhorse rig is GH5, Rode VMP+, 8mm / 17.5mm / 40mm lenses, and a wrist strap.  My second setup is a GoPro Hero 3, waterproof case, and a floaty handle that I use for wet locations.  I also have a Gorillapod 5K and a Manfrotto Pocket with me but neither gets much use.  I'm great at the point-camera-at-other-people-doing-things shots, and getting good at travelling shots as b-roll between scenes, but not so good with establishing shots, time lapses, or basically the shots where I'm doing something other than filming, such as shots where I'm in them.  I need to learn how to expand my repertoire.  

In terms of video quality, I'm still exploring the potential of my GH5, but it's way better than I am, and my limitation is my skill level.  I'm a little bit disappointed with the Hero 3, but considering that it's many generations old, that's probably to be expected.  My equipment is not the limiting factor any more.

38 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Just go out and buy a old Canon 1DC and a box of C Fast cards lol. They are getting pretty cheap. Probably all I would need. I still can't get out of my head this frame

 grab someone posted on here from one.

Nice grab.  I wonder how much of it is the set design, lighting, and grading, as opposed to the camera.  No doubt that the 1DC makes lovely images, but I'd be surprised if there aren't more modern options that could get close enough so no-one could pick them apart.

[webrunner5]

I don't know the 1DC has a hell of a good bit rate for a camera. Well actually for storage it is terrible but.. It is possible the 1Dx mk II could match it I guess. But way out of my price range. I admit maybe a Fuji X-T3 might do it? But for as old as they are the Canon sure is special. Canon was on a roll back then if you had the money to buy what they had. They were leaders than, not so much now.

[kye]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't know the 1DC has a hell of a good bit rate for a camera. Well actually for storage it is terrible but.. It is possible the 1Dx mk II could match it I guess. But way out of my price range. I admit maybe a Fuji X-T3 might do it? But for as old as they are the Canon sure is special. Canon was on a roll back then if you had the money to buy what they had. They were leaders than, not so much now.

I don't know... compared to the P4K, every other camera has a completely bone-head-stupid-ridiculous-waste-of-time-pure-BS-almost-zero-practically-no-data-at-all bitrate