6K is the new 1440p, Convince me otherwise

[mercer]

10 minutes ago, barefoot_dp said:

However, if those people are shooting films without proper lighting, proper sound, proper actors, proper production designers, etc, then the camera is not going to be the limiting factor in the final quality.

Production designers on a no budget/micro budget film? I think that article was meant for someone else.

This isn’t directed entirely at your statement but I am surprised how the Hollywood establishment has usurped the digital revolution. For the first time since the beginning of Hollywood filmmaking and union crews, any person could truly go out and make a film with the bare minimum.

Companies like Zoom and Rode created sound solutions to give a filmmaker proper sound on a shoestring budget. Chinese companies made LED lighting affordable. There are even apps that will tell you where the sun is at any location in the world but instead of going out and making a movie with what they have cheaply available to them, they were told they needed a boom operator, an art director and a 2nd ac to pull focus.

Now I’m not saying that people shouldn’t strive for the best work they can do, I just find it amazing that there hasn’t been an influx of great indie films shot with next to nothing. Instead, I am finding an influx of bad films shot by people trying to make a movie like Hollywood would make one.

I can only imagine what Kubrick or Truffaut could have made if they had access to these tools. Hell, could you imagine if Hitchcock had a drone for North by Northwest?

[barefoot_dp]

27 minutes ago, kye said:

 

Exactly.  So why take money from those things and put it into the camera dept?

My comments were about the Noam Kroll article, which pertains specifically to the new iPhone. A new iPhone is not exactly cheap either. I just had a quick look, for a "cheap" plan here in AUS it's $70/month over 2 years (on top of the base plan) for the iPhone 11 Pro (for a total of $1680). I think if I had a look around I'd be able to find a DVX100 or similar for $70 (one months payment), or for the total cost of upgrading the phone, I could get a pretty decent camera setup, with a couple of lights too.

Of course, you can shoot on a phone already. You don't need the newest iphone. But if current/older phones have not yet revolutionised filmmaking, why do you think anything has changed?

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, ghostwind said:

I disagree it's a "mere gimmick". The phone is small, even rigged up and will allow for a different type of filmmaking and look. It's not just about being cheaper, but about allowing for a different look that will become more and more popular. It has AF, OIS, is very small, etc, etc. Blackmagic "Pocket"? Not so much "pocket"  

Not pocket, the mid range you say will diminish... ; ) It's a mere gimmick as filmmaking camera, not the same as tool. Different meaning stuff : -)

[barefoot_dp]

16 minutes ago, mercer said:

Production designers on a no budget/micro budget film? I think that article was meant for someone else.

This isn’t directed entirely at your statement but I am surprised how the Hollywood establishment has usurped the digital revolution. For the first time since the beginning of Hollywood filmmaking and union crews, any person could truly go out and make a film with the bare minimum.

Companies like Zoom and Rode created sound solutions to give a filmmaker proper sound on a shoestring budget. Chinese companies made LED lighting affordable. There are even apps that will tell you where the sun is at any location in the world but instead of going out and making a movie with what they have cheaply available to them, they were told they needed a boom operator, an art director and a 2nd ac to pull focus.

Now I’m not saying that people shouldn’t strive for the best work they can do, I just find it amazing that there hasn’t been an influx of great indie films shot with next to nothing. Instead, I am finding an influx of bad films shot by people trying to make a movie like Hollywood would make one.

I can only imagine what Kubrick or Truffaut could have made if they had access to these tools. Hell, could you imagine if Hitchcock had a drone for North by Northwest?

On low/no budget everyone is doing multiple jobs. Maybe it's the director, or maybe it's the DP,  but SOMEBODY needs to be looking at the location and saying "lets move that table over there because it looks too modern" or "lets put a cheap rug on the floor to make it look more like grandmas dingy living room" or "he's the bad guy so he's going to wear the black hoodie". My point was more that people thinking creatively and doing there jobs well are going to have a lot more impact on the final product than whether you shoot on the newest iPhone or on my crappy Huawei or on an old DVX100 you borrowed from your school.

Oh and by the way, it's the 1st AC that pull focus.

[Emanuel]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Who will shoot on a phone and not the BM Pocket?

Someone who owns a phone but doesn't own a BM Pocket.  I know film-making is complicated, but I wouldn't have thought this part of it was particularly difficult to understand!

 

We ain't speaking about the same... LOL That's for sure! : )

Tell me, what kind of filmmaking you mention up there?

 

That one people look for the best tool to couple the finest IQ and match a proper best bang for the buck? Really?

That is, as the wiser producer would raise going with the most effective production value the budget can afford.

 

Or a mere show off to prove to himself/herself (most likely) : D friends, acquaintances and relatives, i.e., to the world : P how shiny the gimmick-piece looks? : -D

 

With the due respect, seems YOU and a few filmmakers of keyboard are the ones who don't understand the thing over there.

One thing is to be enthusiastic on these tools (BTW I am one of the few to feed the information about mobile photography tools in these boards, I don't see you to participate too much in those threads if not when Santa Claus goes to town) the other one is to think we're the smarter one who knows the craft over the other side ; -)

[kye]

20 minutes ago, barefoot_dp said:

My comments were about the Noam Kroll article, which pertains specifically to the new iPhone. A new iPhone is not exactly cheap either. I just had a quick look, for a "cheap" plan here in AUS it's $70/month over 2 years (on top of the base plan) for the iPhone 11 Pro (for a total of $1680). I think if I had a look around I'd be able to find a DVX100 or similar for $70 (one months payment), or for the total cost of upgrading the phone, I could get a pretty decent camera setup, with a couple of lights too.

Of course, you can shoot on a phone already. You don't need the newest iphone. But if current/older phones have not yet revolutionised filmmaking, why do you think anything has changed?

Your seem to be under the impression that people would decide between buying the new iPhone and hiring a camera.

I would suggest that the situation is more like "I want to make a film but I have no money for hiring a camera" and the next statement is either going to be something like "crap, it don't know anyone with a camera I can borrow that's good enough" or "wow, the new iPhone has the three lenses I really need.. Someone we know must have it! Right, we're in business!"

You're right that anyone could have made a film with the last iPhone, but the improvements in this one are taking the video quality past a threshold that makes things look palatable on a big screen (previous smartphones have produced footage that was borderline and so fragile it almost couldn't be graded, especially the 50mm camera) and it also adds a super-wide which makes it more flexible again.

I'll agree that the differences aren't night and day, but small differences at threshold points (FOV options, IQ, and perception) can make more difference than you might think.

[barefoot_dp]

19 minutes ago, kye said:

Your seem to be under the impression that people would decide between buying the new iPhone and hiring a camera.

I would suggest that the situation is more like "I want to make a film but I have no money for hiring a camera" and the next statement is either going to be something like "crap, it don't know anyone with a camera I can borrow that's good enough" or "wow, the new iPhone has the three lenses I really need.. Someone we know must have it! Right, we're in business!"

You're right that anyone could have made a film with the last iPhone, but the improvements in this one are taking the video quality past a threshold that makes things look palatable on a big screen (previous smartphones have produced footage that was borderline and so fragile it almost couldn't be graded, especially the 50mm camera) and it also adds a super-wide which makes it more flexible again.

I'll agree that the differences aren't night and day, but small differences at threshold points (FOV options, IQ, and perception) can make more difference than you might think.

It's going to be a lot easier to find someone who'll lend you a DSLR or mirrorless camera, or possibly even a Red, than to find someone who'll lend you their phone for an hour, let alone for the weeks or months it takes you to shoot. Plenty of people have cameras, even really good ones, which sit there for months at a time not being used. Some of those people are happy to lend it out to friends (And if you're into filmmaking, you or someone you're shooting with has probably got a few friends that own some of this gear). However people are much more attached to their phones (especially the Apple fanboys who rush out to get the latest, greatest iphone) and you're never going to get someones uncle to lend you there phone for however many hours/weeks/months it takes you to shoot your project. The only phone you'll be using to shoot a film will be one that belongs to a crew member that is already going to be there for every single scene - ie the director or dop. And as I pointed out in my previous post, you can get other proper cameras cheaper than the cost of the new iphone.

And regarding the better IQ/benefits of the newer phones - that will have much less impact overall than people's skills & creativity. Nobody is pixel peeping 4K footage when watching a $0 film. But if it's not well lit, or the sounds sucks, or the acting is terrible, or the story is non-existent, nobody will watch past the first 30 seconds. Also you mentioned IQ on the big screen, but lets be honest - a $0 film is not going to be seen on a big screen no matter how good. Even festivals have entry fees, assuming your final film is even good enough to make the cut (which - if you're a bunch of total amatuers who between you do not know a single person you can borrow an old DSLR from, is very unlikely).

[kye]

34 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

With the due respect, seems YOU and a few filmmakers of keyboard are the ones who don't understand the thing over there.

When someone no longer has anything rational to say as part of a discussion it is common to make the conversation personal instead of keeping on topic.

I used to think that you were above these kinds of petty contributions, but obviously not.

I'll be around here on the forums if you guys want to talk about cameras but I'm not interested in being part of a discussion that you're no longer willing to speak rationally about.

 

[Emanuel]

14 minutes ago, kye said:

When someone no longer has anything rational to say as part of a discussion it is common to make the conversation personal instead of keeping on topic.

I used to think that you were above these kinds of petty contributions, but obviously not.

I'll be around here on the forums if you guys want to talk about cameras but I'm not interested in being part of a discussion that you're no longer willing to speak rationally about.

 

Can seem to you but it is not an ad hominem attack, your point (my target) instead... For the person you are : ) Don't take it personally, that "YOU and" means the leftover, not you ; ) For some reason, I wrote "YOU" in capital letters and added the conjunction "and".

Not "or".

The devil is in the details ; ) pay more attention to it and please read again the condescending tone of your statement which triggered such response. You can't ask what you're unable to give. It doesn't matter how popular you are or how many approvals your team if so attaches to you. Sorry mate, but these forums seem a comedy at times : ) For a simple reason, people are not OBVIOUSLY at same level of experience, background, etc. But they exactly have the same rights of posting as due. Which looks like democracy serves the discussion. Eventually. But not the facts or the conclusions to extract from there. Especially when it is flawed by opinions of nice fellas like you. No matter how inaccurate it is. This doesn't serve any community. Fortunately, it doesn't happen as often.

[ghostwind]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Now I’m not saying that people shouldn’t strive for the best work they can do, I just find it amazing that there hasn’t been an influx of great indie films shot with next to nothing. Instead, I am finding an influx of bad films shot by people trying to make a movie like Hollywood would make one.

I can only imagine what Kubrick or Truffaut could have made if they had access to these tools. Hell, could you imagine if Hitchcock had a drone for North by Northwest?

I'm actually not that surprised. People need to fit in to get in. With digital photography people are still trying to emulate film stocks (among other things). It's still new, and an imitation game for now.  It will take a while until people stop trying to copy and emulate the past with current tools, and use the current tools for what they have to offer instead - different and unique ways of looking at things (not just low light abilities, technical advantages, etc.). But it will happen once the romance with the past is gone.

But my post was really more as it pertains to this thread - shoot for your audience - 6K -> 2K or even less. And the audience is more and more watching on phones. That means you need to change how you think, compose, expose, grade, etc. Wide, very detailed shots? Not so good on small phones. Shadow detail? Hmm..Same with photos. Vertical vs. 2x3 landscape. I can go on and on because I'm living it with my photography work somewhat. Reminds me of the cinematographer who shot that super-dark Game of Thrones episode - I forget the one. He was saying he was shooting it for a large "canvas" (he was shooting for HBO...), and that people should not be watching on phones, they should calibrate their OLED TVs, etc. I get it - he wants the best quality. But the reality is you have to shoot for your audience if you want your stuff seen and out there. Look at the legitimate backlash that guy got over that episode. And understandably so. I'm not saying shoot for crap, and compromise your vision or artistic integrity, but think differently if you want to stay relevant. 

[Emanuel]

41 minutes ago, ghostwind said:

But it will happen once the romance with the past is gone.

Romance with past is gone... WTH is that?!

Everyone got the point, I guess, but...

...that is past you don't see anyone to mimic or then show me who is going in the same boat:

 

I think one of these days someone should open a thread with the fav screenings of each one these current days.

Done:

 

[thebrothersthre3]

Large leaps in Dynamic range will be a game changer. If you have a camera that shoots 20 stops of DR, you could pretty much get away with not lighting your scenes. That said you still have to light if you want any kind of style. 

Tough we've been at the point for years, now more than ever where cameras are really cheap and really good. Yet still a lot of indie filmmakers would rather use 80% of their budget renting a RED camera. 

[Emanuel]

Computational photography will be the future and these mobile toys are incredibly exciting tools. But there's no way a bigger box won't provide you a better outcome...

[barefoot_dp]

21 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Large leaps in Dynamic range will be a game changer. If you have a camera that shoots 20 stops of DR, you could pretty much get away with not lighting your scenes. That said you still have to light if you want any kind of style. 

Tough we've been at the point for years, now more than ever where cameras are really cheap and really good. Yet still a lot of indie filmmakers would rather use 80% of their budget renting a RED camera. 

20 stops would be great but it's not going to negate the need for lighting. Having 20 stops isn't going to help wrap harsh sunlight softly around cheeks. Or get rid of harsh shadow lines under eyes from an overhead streetlamp. Or magically make a rim light or kicker appear where there is not one.

[thebrothersthre3]

19 minutes ago, barefoot_dp said:

20 stops would be great but it's not going to negate the need for lighting. Having 20 stops isn't going to help wrap harsh sunlight softly around cheeks. Or get rid of harsh shadow lines under eyes from an overhead streetlamp. Or magically make a rim light or kicker appear where there is not one.

I pointed that out in my post. 

[barefoot_dp]

2 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I pointed that out in my post. 

I wouldn't necessarily call those things "style" though.

They're just standard techniques for making your actors/actresses look good and be properly visible on screen.

Stylised lighting would be things like mixed gels, or low-key, or high-key, or golden hour, or night-time interiors, etc. Things that evoke a certain mood.

20 stops will help you control a bright, sunny background while shooting your subject in the shade for softer headshot lighting, but it's not going to help you with all the elements of shaping light that are the essence of cinematic images.

[User]

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

Reminds me of the cinematographer who shot that super-dark Game of Thrones episode - I forget the one. He was saying he was shooting it for a large "canvas" (he was shooting for HBO...), and that people should not be watching on phones, they should calibrate their OLED TVs, etc. I get it - he wants the best quality. But the reality is you have to shoot for your audience if you want your stuff seen and out there. Look at the legitimate backlash that guy got over that episode. And understandably so. I'm not saying shoot for crap, and compromise your vision or artistic integrity, but think differently if you want to stay relevant. 

I see you point, though I certainly appreciate and celebrate folks who run contra the herd in their approach and style.

I'm reminded of - though I've never been - concerts where one is given a bag that they have to put their phone in... because they have no respect and/ or self control. Perhaps one of the these bags needs to be made for... films/ serials? Can you imagine the wave of indignation? 

[Emanuel]

One is the aesthetics or form factor reasons, the other one is comparing apples to oranges as far as IQ concerns.

[thebrothersthre3]

28 minutes ago, barefoot_dp said:

I wouldn't necessarily call those things "style" though.

They're just standard techniques for making your actors/actresses look good and be properly visible on screen.

Stylised lighting would be things like mixed gels, or low-key, or high-key, or golden hour, or night-time interiors, etc. Things that evoke a certain mood.

20 stops will help you control a bright, sunny background while shooting your subject in the shade for softer headshot lighting, but it's not going to help you with all the elements of shaping light that are the essence of cinematic images.

Thats what I meant by style but I see your point. 

[ghostwind]

9 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Large leaps in Dynamic range will be a game changer. If you have a camera that shoots 20 stops of DR, you could pretty much get away with not lighting your scenes. That said you still have to light if you want any kind of style. 

Tough we've been at the point for years, now more than ever where cameras are really cheap and really good. Yet still a lot of indie filmmakers would rather use 80% of their budget renting a RED camera. 

We have never seen more mediocre and bad films that look so good since the advent of digital made filmmaking more affordable. As I said, it's an imitation game for most people for now. People making movies because they can, not because they have something to say. I see a lot of stuff shot on REDs or Arris that looks great, but feels like I'm back in college, watching aesthetics with no content, no message, no anything.