6K is the new 1440p, Convince me otherwise

[Snowbro]

@kye What i'm getting at, is the fact that everyone views content on a low res phone. Unless you have your stuff on netflix etc.

[newfoundmass]

Resolution, when it comes to streaming, is kind of (but not totally) irrelevant. YouTube 1080p is so compressed that the resolution doesn't matter at all. 4K is a bit better on YouTube but again calling it 4K is misleading because it's the bare minimum when it comes to quality.

[kye]

3 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

@kye What i'm getting at, is the fact that everyone views content on a low res phone. Unless you have your stuff on netflix etc.

I think we're talking about the same thing.  My point was that I think in the future even 1080p phones will download the 4K stream, downscale it locally, then display it.  This would give a much higher bitrate and higher resolution source file for the phone to display, essentially creating a kind-of oversampling image pipeline.  This would greatly increase the IQ on any device, considering the very anaemic bitrates involved in the lower resolutions.

I view YT the way that @thebrothersthre3 describes, with it automatically going to 4K and me manually setting it to 4K when watching an image test video.

All this is to reinforce that content is king and IQ is the icing on the cake, rather than the cake itself.

[Snowbro]

I didn't think I would notice too much between an iphone 10x max and the S10+ watching a YT video. I can actually tell a big difference personally between 1080p and 1440p on a phone. It looks like 4k on my big tv to me. It would be nice if YT and apple can play nice in the future, tons of people use iphones.

[thebrothersthre3]

32 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

I didn't think I would notice too much between an iphone 10x max and the S10+ watching a YT video. I can actually tell a big difference personally between 1080p and 1440p on a phone. It looks like 4k on my big tv to me. It would be nice if YT and apple can play nice in the future, tons of people use iphones.

you notice a difference between a video that is uploaded in 4k playing at 1080 vs playing at 4k on your phone?

[Snowbro]

10 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

you notice a difference between a video that is uploaded in 4k playing at 1080 vs playing at 4k on your phone?

I can see a big difference between it playing in 1080 vs playing in 1440p

[Emanuel]

Because 1080p/2K is a sweet spot : ) Human vision has its range : -)

[Snowbro]

I think it really is all relative to screen size and distance to it. I would want 8K on a 150" screen sitting 10-15' away lol. I have a short throw projector that is 140" in my bedroom, I wish it was 4K.

Side thought; those laser short throw projectors are getting much cheaper. The ones without a color wheel. Still a good $5000 though, better than $80,000 from a few years ago though. 

[ghostwind]

Some food for thought. I tend to agree. The future will be this on one end, and on the other end, very high end cameras/production to differentiate. The middle, for the most part, will diminish.

https://noamkroll.com/why-iphones-are-now-the-inevitable-future-of-independent-filmmaking/

 

 

[thebrothersthre3]

Phone cameras are nice but they are just annoying to use. Cameras will definitely get way cheaper and sensor size will become less important. However the need for professional inputs and outputs and just a body that easier to handle will always be there IMHO

[kye]

11 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Phone cameras are nice but they are just annoying to use. Cameras will definitely get way cheaper and sensor size will become less important. However the need for professional inputs and outputs and just a body that easier to handle will always be there IMHO

I think Noams article was talking about the very ragged edge where people who want to make films will basically live off instant ramen if they could do it and be a professional film-maker.  For this segment of the market the phone will be the tool of choice, representing the biggest cost saving a project can have.  Imagine being a poor student or recent film school graduate and being able to get together a group of friends and shoot an entire film on phones, spending basically no money on lighting, sound, camera, wardrobe, art dept, etc.  You could literally make a film for the cost of a few lav mics running into each actors phone as an on-talent wired lav setup.  

Sure, you can buy an old Canon DSLR for almost nothing, but that's money, and it's also 720p at best.  A smartphone setup would be free, 4K or higher, capable of slow-motion, and has a set of lenses included.  Sure, you don't get DoF but storytellers don't care about such things, especially when your phone can get you onto Netflix and the old Canon cannot.

Noams other articles talk about film-makers stripping out every expense to basically make films with no out-of-pocket expenses at all, as the less you spend the less money you have to make from a film in order to stay in business as a professional film-maker, which is the goal of many many people.

[thebrothersthre3]

40 minutes ago, kye said:

I think Noams article was talking about the very ragged edge where people who want to make films will basically live off instant ramen if they could do it and be a professional film-maker.  For this segment of the market the phone will be the tool of choice, representing the biggest cost saving a project can have.  Imagine being a poor student or recent film school graduate and being able to get together a group of friends and shoot an entire film on phones, spending basically no money on lighting, sound, camera, wardrobe, art dept, etc.  You could literally make a film for the cost of a few lav mics running into each actors phone as an on-talent wired lav setup.  

Sure, you can buy an old Canon DSLR for almost nothing, but that's money, and it's also 720p at best.  A smartphone setup would be free, 4K or higher, capable of slow-motion, and has a set of lenses included.  Sure, you don't get DoF but storytellers don't care about such things, especially when your phone can get you onto Netflix and the old Canon cannot.

Noams other articles talk about film-makers stripping out every expense to basically make films with no out-of-pocket expenses at all, as the less you spend the less money you have to make from a film in order to stay in business as a professional film-maker, which is the goal of many many people.

That article mentioned phone cameras can look about as good as high end cameras with good lighting. At the end of the day the camera is a pretty small part of the budget on a film though. 

[kye]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

That article mentioned phone cameras can look about as good as high end cameras with good lighting. At the end of the day the camera is a pretty small part of the budget on a film though. 

I think it depends on how much you have to spend.  People have made feature films from people working for free, borrowing equipment and under $50 in cash. I think it's easy for people like us who have come a long way to forget what it's like being absolutely broke, owning basically no equipment and not knowing anyone with equipment but having all the time and enthusiasm in the world. Or maybe we got jobs first and were never in that situation.

Saying that everyone can make their film with a DSLR or MILC because it's a small part of the budget is the same as a big time Hollywood producer coming on here and telling all of us that we have no excuse not to film with an Alexa because it's a tiny fraction of the catering budget on a real film.

They don't understand our world in exactly the same way we probably don't understand the world of a no-budget film maker who might benefit from using their phone.

[Emanuel]

6 hours ago, ghostwind said:

Some food for thought. I tend to agree. The future will be this on one end, and on the other end, very high end cameras/production to differentiate. The middle, for the most part, will diminish.

https://noamkroll.com/why-iphones-are-now-the-inevitable-future-of-independent-filmmaking/

 

 

I obviously understand but can't agree on that one... Who will shot on a phone, when you have a Blackmagic Pocket?

Just for marketing or handy purposes : )

It's a mere gimmick.

 

Computational photography, on the other hand, is a whole some other discussion though, let's not mix up the stuff ; )

People tend to think smartphones are the only form of that and vice versa. We're speaking of something else actually.

 

Please discuss such topic in the right place:

We're all welcome! : -)

[buggz]

On 9/29/2019 at 5:25 PM, thebrothersthre3 said:

You notice it over the H264 10 bit 422?

I haven't compared.

Shrug, opengate is my default for this camera.

[ghostwind]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

I obviously understand but can't agree on that one... Who will shot on a phone, when you have a Blackmagic Pocket?

Just for marketing or handy purposes : )

It's a mere gimmick.

 

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"  

[barefoot_dp]

There's a lot of contradictions in that blog post.

In one paragraph he mentions how guerilla filmmakers can steal shots by shooting minimally, and a few par's later he says that you'll need to light your scenes more carefully and will require more lighting. 

There's nothing wrong with having more tools and options but I don't think phones are going to revolutionize the way films are shot in any way.

[kye]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Who will shot on a phone, when you have a Blackmagic Pocket?

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!

1 minute ago, barefoot_dp said:

There's nothing wrong with having more tools and options but I don't think phones are going to revolutionize the way films are shot in any way.

They won't.  But they might revolutionise who gets to shoot films because they didn't previously have enough money for a "proper camera".

[barefoot_dp]

3 minutes ago, kye said:

But they might revolutionise who gets to shoot films because they didn't previously have enough money for a "proper camera".

Those people can already shoot films without a proper camera (or without a proper recent camera). They've been able to do it for years on other phones and it hasn't revolutionised anything yet. And how much does a used DVX100 cost these days? Probably less than the monthly bill for a brand new iphone. And that camera has been used to shoot feature films. It's not hard to find a camera that shoots decent video for very little money (or even free).

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.

[kye]

 

4 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.

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