6K is the new 1440p, Convince me otherwise

[Snowbro]

On 9/30/2019 at 9:41 PM, 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. 

I would spend 100% of my budget on an Alexa, just to lick it. 

On 9/30/2019 at 10:14 PM, 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 have actually seen and done exactly that in post and I dont even have anything close to what Hollywood has for post production. Software is pretty crazy now, if you know what to do. I have seen tons of proprietary programs that would blow your mind. I think many people here would be scared for their job if they knew what is around the corner. Which brings everything back to the main point many of you were making, it really is about the story. If you cant tell a good story or evoke emotions through your work, keep it a hobby or prepare to find a different job down the road. 

[barefoot_dp]

1 hour ago, Snowbro said:

I have actually seen and done exactly that in post and I dont even have anything close to what Hollywood has for post production. Software is pretty crazy now, if you know what to do. I have seen tons of proprietary programs that would blow your mind. I think many people here would be scared for their job if they knew what is around the corner. Which brings everything back to the main point many of you were making, it really is about the story. If you cant tell a good story or evoke emotions through your work, keep it a hobby or prepare to find a different job down the road. 

I would love to see an example of a shot where you've effectively added a non-existent kicker in post to make the subject stand out from the background and still look natural, or turned a hard edged shadow into soft falloff across a subjects face.

 

[Snowbro]

This is a screenshot of before and after from what I did in just premiere; mavic air footage. That is mind numbingly basic compared to what I am talking about. Our SF dev team showed us some stuff they had built where it was actual computational videography, from a camera capturing multiple exposures at once etc. It has insane highlight rolloff (which is what you are trying to describe) and dynamic range, way beyond anything I have ever seen. Hell, the iphone a few years ago started doing something like that, I won't be surprised when the camera companies finally catch up in that regards. 

We specialize in AI imaging (Hyperspectral) for industrial applications, and have whole systems running on their own, that normally took a whole crew before. These people we worked with to develop our software, also showed us stuff outside of our industry. They obviously were using AI, to add lighting from these multiple exposure cameras. It looked like something you would see from a behind the scenes pixar movie, but it was footage shot of real people. I don't really care if you do not believe me, you'll see in 4 years minimum, what I just mentioned.  

It reminded me of something like this, but you aren't spinning around a 3d model. Not in the demo I saw. It was however, more powerful in creating natural looking light that was aesthetically pleasing. 

 

Quick lighting done in Premiere last year

[barefoot_dp]

Ok, so you've graded some drone footage. That's not exactly adding lighting that wasn't there to begin with. It's just playing with colour and contrast. It's a standard part of every editor & colourists job.That's a far cry from adding a rim light or kicker to a talking head that wasn't there to begin with.

Also I'm not talking about highlight rolloff - that is a function of the camera - I'm talking about quality of light; whether it is hard or soft. Gradients. Big sources vs point sources. Photography/cinematography after all, are about painting with light.

Now you've also introduced computational photography, multiple exposures, etc into the mix. That has more in common with 3D modelling, animation and compositing than cinematography. My initial comment was that 20 stops of dynamic range is not going to replace the need for lighting. Maybe other technology will (eg the combination of photo-real animation and motion capture for 100% virtual sets), but dynamic range will not.

So, do you have any examples that show you have "actually seen and done that in post" regarding the three examples you made that comment about (ie added a kicker/rim light, turn harsh sunlight into soft portrait light, or completely remove harsh shadows created by a direct overhead source)?

 

[thebrothersthre3]

We see more and more computer generated effects in movies these days and less and less practical. Its certainly likely at some point Computational photography will replace practical lighting effects as well. However at this point in time adding a few lights is way quicker than trying to do it in post and less expensive.

 

5 hours ago, barefoot_dp said:

Ok, so you've graded some drone footage. That's not exactly adding lighting that wasn't there to begin with. It's just playing with colour and contrast. It's a standard part of every editor & colourists job.That's a far cry from adding a rim light or kicker to a talking head that wasn't there to begin with.

 

I think he did more than just grading on that footage.

[mercer]

On 9/30/2019 at 9:38 PM, barefoot_dp said:

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.

True but that article was suggesting more than just the overall quality of an iPhone’s image, it was about the freedom of the production as a whole when making a film with little resources but still want a higher production value. Sure there are other cameras that offer similar freedoms, I utilize it with my 5D3, but a phone is completely different and apparently the video capabilities on the new iPhone is a major step forward. Idk, I’ve never really wanted to shoot anything on a phone but I am in the market for a new one, so maybe I’ll give it a go.

On 9/30/2019 at 9:38 PM, barefoot_dp said:

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

Really? What does the 2nd AC pull...

Jokes aside, I assume the 2nd AC traditionally loaded the film but what do they do now? Offload drives?

[thebrothersthre3]

26 minutes ago, mercer said:

True but that article was suggesting more than just the overall quality of an iPhone’s image, it was about the freedom of the production as a whole when making a film with little resources but still want a higher production value. Sure there are other cameras that offer similar freedoms, I utilize it with my 5D3, but a phone is completely different and apparently the video capabilities on the new iPhone is a major step forward. Idk, I’ve never really wanted to shoot anything on a phone but I am in the market for a new one, so maybe I’ll give it a go.

Really? What does the 2nd AC pull...

Jokes aside, I assume the 2nd AC traditionally loaded the film but what do they do now? Offload drives?

He's the Clapperboard guy. Also responsible for rentals, charging batteries etc.

[Snowbro]

10 hours ago, barefoot_dp said:

Ok, so you've graded some drone footage. That's not exactly adding lighting that wasn't there to begin with. It's just playing with colour and contrast. It's a standard part of every editor & colourists job.That's a far cry from adding a rim light or kicker to a talking head that wasn't there to begin with.

What I did could not be packaged up into a 3D LUT. It is possible that you are partially blind, not sure. I don't think many people know about, or are very proficient at adding multiple artificial light sources, masking and blending them to look natural. It's ok, I didn't know about it two years ago. 

I also mentioned that what I did, was very crude in comparison to what is out there. I don't even know the extent of it, I wasn't seeking it out. I was just showed some proprietary software while on a trip to our devs HQ. The average videographer has always been what, 10 years + behind what hollywood can do? I am not going to try to educate you; it doesn't seem like you are the type of person that learns easily. 

[barefoot_dp]

1 hour ago, Snowbro said:

What I did could not be packaged up into a 3D LUT. It is possible that you are partially blind, not sure. I don't think many people know about, or are very proficient at adding multiple artificial light sources, masking and blending them to look natural. It's ok, I didn't know about it two years ago. 

I also mentioned that what I did, was very crude in comparison to what is out there. I don't even know the extent of it, I wasn't seeking it out. I was just showed some proprietary software while on a trip to our devs HQ. The average videographer has always been what, 10 years + behind what hollywood can do? I am not going to try to educate you; it doesn't seem like you are the type of person that learns easily. 

How predictable. I though it was nigh time you started resorting to insults.

As for educating me, I consider myself more of a visual learner. So perhaps you can show me a visual example demonstrating what you've said you've done?

[ghostwind]

19 hours ago, Snowbro said:

I would spend 100% of my budget on an Alexa, just to lick it. 

I have actually seen and done exactly that in post and I dont even have anything close to what Hollywood has for post production. Software is pretty crazy now, if you know what to do. I have seen tons of proprietary programs that would blow your mind. I think many people here would be scared for their job if they knew what is around the corner. Which brings everything back to the main point many of you were making, it really is about the story. If you cant tell a good story or evoke emotions through your work, keep it a hobby or prepare to find a different job down the road.

Yep, which is why trying to emulate or imitate what Hollywood is doing, what I was saying in my posts, is a losing battle. Focus should be #1 on story and #2 on acting. If you have those 2 nailed, it doesn't matter if you shot it with an Alexa or a DSLR. Everyone agrees on story, but without good acting, you will not evoke emotions from your story. Way too many "pretty" movies out there from young, independent filmmakers with nice images, expensive cameras, great lighting, and even decent stories. But a lot of bad acting. It's not easy to have great acting on a small budget, but it should definitely be a priority over everything else IMHO. I believe this is overlooked at the expense of other items.