The Aesthetic

[leslie]

2 hours ago, kaylee said:

how is this discussion ranging from SD cards to Alexa 65s im confused

Our humanity shines through pretty quickly these days. I suspect it may be covid related, being locked up too much.  threads can wander....  i do agree with you this thread does take some determined intent to get through it. i think i'll hit the bed and sleep on it 😎 

[kye]

10 hours ago, kaylee said:

how is this discussion ranging from SD cards to Alexa 65s im confused

You asked why not have extremely high resolutions - the costs include things like memory and storage and processing.

Everything has a cost, even opportunity cost.

The cost of resolution which isn't needed for most images is the cool stuff we could have had instead.

[Oliver Daniel]

To sum it up… there’s no rules. No matter the lens choice, camera, grade, resolution, “aesthetic”… whatever it is, if it’s right for the story, and the process to tell it, it’s just… right. 

[Django]

13 hours ago, kye said:

Cameras are like that now.  The only people where 8K is actually better than 6K in any meaningful way (when actually looking at the end result) is people doing VFX of some kind (crazy stabilisation, severe cropping, VFX) but they're specialists.  So 8K is really a feature for specialists that is implemented in every camera.  So we all have to pay for this feature that we won't really benefit from.  But it's worse because all the energy being put into that feature is investment that could have been put into the other things that would have been of more use to a wider audience.

For anyone in this thread using this as an example of higher resolutions being useful, absolutely.  Anyone shooting a VFX film with a budget more than $100,000,000 - please understand that I'm not talking to you! 🙂 

 

Stabilisation, reframing & cropping aren't any kind of complex post techniques that would require $1M budget VFX unit.

Any NLE has those features built-in and just about any one can take advantage of those benefits..

13 hours ago, kye said:

You'd think that in a decade they'd have a camera that would take care of the battery life, because that was one of the cameras leading issues.  Not so, the R5C can record 8K RAW, but not on battery.  They've under-improved one feature and over-improved another.

This is simply untrue. CamerLabs reported:

R5C clips kept recording until its battery ran out after 53 minutes and 15 seconds of 8k 24p.

That is outstanding battery life for a MILC, let alone in 8K. Add the power grip and that time is doubled.

Only 8K60p requires an external battery. 

13 hours ago, kye said:

I keep saying that I wanted better colour science, and people keep saying that now 10-bit and RAW is more affordable so there I have it, but this is missing the point.  Colour grading RAW is very difficult and manufacturers are much better at doing it than we are (otherwise, why are people so enamoured with Canon colour, if anyone can do it?) so actually, the lower the cost of the camera, the better I want the colour science because the worse the owner will be at colour grading and the less money they can devote to it.

Color grading has various degrees of complexity but one can't deny its also become hugely accessible, especially thanks to Resolve which is basically free. I'm not even sure how you can start this "aesthetic" conversation with ARRI as a reference point if you're not willing to consider Log/RAW. No SOOC manufacturer profile will give you that million $ budget look you desire. LUTs can also bring you closer if manual grading is out of reach.

13 hours ago, kye said:

LUT support in camera would be great.  Guess why they don't include it in lots of cameras?  It takes processing power.   ............processing power that would be spare if the camera wasn't processing so many pixels!!

So why wasn't LUT support there in HD/FHD/4K hybrids? Aside from Panasonic & BMD nobody else has been doing it. its got nothing to do with pixels but more about keeping cine features aside for various segmentation reasons. Stills PDAF system on Sony/Nikon/Canon hybrids may also be a CPU factor which is why R5C reboots into a cine OS (with DPAF1) when in video mode.

13 hours ago, kye said:

To a certain extent these costs are hidden, because technology is getting cheaper, so the cost of getting a memory card that can record an hour of footage doesn't go up from year to year.  However, if I already own a large enough SD card for a given resolution, and they don't increase the resolution of the camera, the cost of an SD card for that camera drops to zero because what I own now is fine and I don't have to buy anything.

Such a bizarre argument. I guess never upgrade towards anything with that type of logic?! 

Trust me when investing +$5K/$6K on a 8K camera body, a new SD card isn't what's holding you back financially.

And on the economy side, cameras like BMPCC 6K allow you to record on a SSD via USB-C. That's cheaper buck/storage ratio than any card media.

Sorry bro we get you're not ready to jump above 4K and that's fine but your logic is really starting to sound like straw man argumenting.

[Tim Sewell]

On 2/4/2022 at 4:59 AM, Video Hummus said:

So in conclusion. It doesn't matter what resolution you shoot at because what matters most for these kind of productions is the lens choices, lighting, set production, camera positioning and movement, and talented colorists.

Not just those considerations - also actors who can stay on their mark, who can repeat the scene multiple times without screwing up. I forget the film and the director, but I heard a tale about Bette Davis where the director told her 'we're going to track up the stairs and along the corridor in a continuous shot, then enter the room and dolly to a close up on your face, where a tear is just starting to form.' 'Which eye do you want the tear in?' asked Davis.

[kye]

9 hours ago, Django said:

Sorry bro we get you're not ready to jump above 4K and that's fine but your logic is really starting to sound like straw man argumenting.

I'm sorry that you're not able to get what I'm saying, it's not through lack of trying.

[Django]

@kye not only do I get what you're saying, I've rebutted every single "complaint" you've brought up about +4K resolution. ($1M budget VFX, battery life, color science, processing power, SD cards).

like it or not, tech is moving forward. especially in mirrorless. 

BMPCC 6K Pro, R3/R5/R5C, Z9, S1H are paving the way with compressed RAW, 10-bit & 6K/8K.

All specs you find in much more expensive cine cams. I call this progress.

Of course that won't replace lenses, lighting, grading & skills. But the bottleneck isn't the camera anymore.

In the end you're entitled your opinion (things were better a decade ago - i.e. pre-4K) but in that case, simply don't upgrade. problem fixed.

Just saying.

[mercer]

On 2/7/2022 at 4:19 AM, Django said:

Different needs and different requirements.. for example Yellowstone is a a Paramount Network show, meaning it is broadcasted in 720p / 1080i (and in 1080p on streaming network). Meaning the Alexa Mini's 3.2K is more than sufficient. 

Good point. But most films are still projected in 720p/1080p as well. So this idea that 4K+ is NECESSARY seems a bit far fetched. With that said, I am a firm believer of doing whatever you want with your money. But where does it end? How much does one need to crop? How many zoomed in versions of the same angle is sufficient to put together an edit?

As someone else already said, it doesn't matter because technology advances so the future is higher resolutions. But Kye also has a point that when these higher resolutions require a lot of filmmakers to dirty the image for a pleasing aesthetic, one has to wonder what is the point in using the higher resolutions? On this forum, it seems there is more videography being shot than narrative, so the discussion is kinda moot. I assume most clients want the newest tech.

On 2/7/2022 at 4:19 AM, Django said:

Again depends on content/medium, but you're certainly right about Gen Z: I can tell you that when contracted to do certain social media content like IG stories,  clients usually insist on using iPhones so that the content appears "authentic". And if you do use an MILC, then you need to avoid shallow DoF, shoot in vertical, avoid LUTs etc. Basically you're emulating smartphones.

A lot of Fashion brands have also switched their aesthetic to shooting online photo campaigns on smartphones instead of FF or Medium Format. This includes the likes of very famous photographers which is kind of a shock and a trend change nobody would have predicted a couple years ago. 

This so interesting... yet so depressing. I wonder if it's form vs. function. Film photography is huge on IG, so is it that the new generation prefers authenticity, or are they truly just seeing the world differently now that they have had their heads glued to their smartphones for the past 15 years?

With that being said, it seems that this only strengthens the less is more argument. Why would anyone shoot 8K for such content? Honestly, if I were creating this type of work, the first thing I would do is go out and buy a small sensor camcorder. It would pay for itself in an hour or two, and the production benefits are massive.

Anyway, I think discussions like these go off the rails way too easily. Obviously, this is a theoretical discussion on some level, but people end up taking offense because it defies their own thoughts or choices. The truth is there are valid reasons for both camps. However, I will say that I imagine it could be pretty frustrating for beginners to read this site only to learn that you need to have an 8K camera now to create proper footage.

This isn't personal to you, or anyone specifically, but it seems we're in a place, as a culture, where we yield to the commands of consumerism rather than the rebellion of creation. Recently, I was wondering what camera Godard would use if the French New Wave happened today.

[leslie]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

I was wondering what camera Godard would use if the French New Wave happened today.

that model was called the guillotine...😳 

[kye]

2 minutes ago, leslie said:

that model was called the guillotine...😳 

No no no...  the OTHER French New Wave 😉 

[leslie]

ok ok  i figured it out.... Mururoa atoll. Because that bad boy would have made some waves 😎 

[Django]

49 minutes ago, mercer said:

Good point. But most films are still projected in 720p/1080p as well. So this idea that 4K+ is NECESSARY seems a bit far fetched. With that said, I am a firm believer of doing whatever you want with your money. But where does it end? How much does one need to crop? How many zoomed in versions of the same angle is sufficient to put together an edit?

As someone else already said, it doesn't matter because technology advances so the future is higher resolutions. But Kye also has a point that when these higher resolutions require a lot of filmmakers to dirty the image for a pleasing aesthetic, one has to wonder what is the point in using the higher resolutions? On this forum, it seems there is more videography being shot than narrative, so the discussion is kinda moot. I assume most clients want the newest tech.

I think its the principle that it is easier to dirty something clean, then "enhance" something dirty/low-res.

That said, nobody claimed +4K was necessary. On the contrary, shoot in 720p/1080p if that floats your boat. Never upgrade. Ignorance is bliss as they say! Just please don't complain about the tech moving forward..

55 minutes ago, mercer said:

This so interesting... yet so depressing. I wonder if it's form vs. function. Film photography is huge on IG, so is it that the new generation prefers authenticity, or are they truly just seeing the world differently now that they have had their heads glued to their smartphones for the past 15 years?

Film photography is having a resurgence with Gen Z because its A) Retro so cool B) Analog vs Digital (which perpetuates this idea of Real vs Fake)  C) Physical medium that they can touch. It's a bit like vinyl records making a come back for similar reasons. 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

With that being said, it seems that this only strengthens the less is more argument. Why would anyone shoot 8K for such content? Honestly, if I were creating this type of work, the first thing I would do is go out and buy a small sensor camcorder. It would pay for itself in an hour or two, and the production benefits are massive.

On the one hand yes, but it really isn't that simple when you actually think that 35mm film is approx equivalent to 20MP. Medium format can theoretically resolve from 80MP to 125MP. And Large format 300MP to 1,200MP. Of course this is greatly limited by optical lens resolving power and film adds all kinds of artefacts like grain/noise and has reduced DR etc. That immediately gives it an "old" feel. But one shouldn't mistake film = low res. 

What I'm trying to say is forget about resolution wars. The shift goes way beyond all these technical attributes, the fashion brands I'm talking about went from using A-list models, posing towards the camera in a studio background shot on Phase One in B&W... to faux-iPhone snapshots of popular Gen Z TikTokers in situ.. 

 

[Django]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

This isn't personal to you, or anyone specifically, but it seems we're in a place, as a culture, where we yield to the commands of consumerism rather than the rebellion of creation. Recently, I was wondering what camera Godard would use if the French New Wave happened today.

Actually living right here in Paris, France.. this does speak to me lol. FWIW Godard's last projects were actually done with rather low-budget digital camcorders, DSLRs etc.. but experimenting with 3D and heavily treated in post..

 

[Django]

..and for actual French new-wave cinematographers absolutely check out Gaspard Noé. His latest is actually a movie about a movie shoot gone totally wrong because of director/DP/actors gone mad:

shot on 35mm in multi-cam, displayed in split screen.. 

[mercer]

21 minutes ago, Django said:

That said, nobody claimed +4K was necessary. On the contrary, shoot in 720p/1080p if that floats your boat. Never upgrade. Ignorance is bliss as they say! Just please don't complain about the tech moving forward..

Sorry... I think you are contradicting your own thesis statement here... 'ignorance is bliss...'

I don't understand why these discussions always devolve into condescension? Plus, I haven't read anywhere, in this thread, where people are complaining about tech moving forward. That would be a futile complaint. With that, at what point, do we as consumers, tell Canon, Sony, et al...  that we don't want higher resolution? Give us ProRes, give us true 14+ stops of DR, give us better color depth. Is 8K enough? DO we need 12K... 16... 20K? Most of these companies haven't even given us very good 1080p yet.

For some reason there's this belief that higher resolution = technological evolution when it's fairly obvious that Arri has proven that resolution is probably the least important factor in image quality.

37 minutes ago, Django said:

On the one hand yes, but it really isn't that simple when you actually think that 35mm film is approx equivalent to 20MP. Medium format can theoretically resolve from 80MP to 125MP. And Large format 300MP to 1,200MP. Of course this is greatly limited by optical lens resolving power and film adds all kinds of artefacts like grain/noise and has reduced DR etc. That immediately gives it an "old" feel. But one shouldn't mistake film = low res. 

Sorry, I was discussing two different things there and should have separated my thoughts more clearly. What I meant was that I find it really depressing that the trend is to create images/videos that look like they were shot on an iPhone. For those projects, it seems a camcorder would be a better choice than a FF stills camera that shoots 8K video.

My other comment was just a reaction to the idea that shooting on an iPhone in Portrait mode seems to be a modern concept so I find it surprising that these young kids are interested in analogue photography.

Anyway, nice images

[mercer]

19 minutes ago, Django said:

..and for actual French new-wave cinematographers absolutely check out Gaspard Noé. His latest is actually a movie about a movie shoot gone totally wrong because of director/DP/actors gone mad:

shot on 35mm in multi-cam, displayed in split screen.. 

This looks wild, thanks for posting it. I loved the shots of the actors invading the other actors frames.

[KnightsFan]

Photo cameras have hovered between 20-30MP as standard for quite some time. 6k sensors have been the standard sensor resolution for hybrids pretty much since the DSLR revolution started. The 5D mkII would have been 5.6k if it had full pixel readout, which means that unless manufacturers decided to reduce sensor resolution since then, raw videos would never have been 4k for most hybrids. Even saying that resolution has increased is misleading imo.

Outside of Blackmagic cameras and a couple niche releases from companies that (tellingly) went out of business, there have never been consumer-priced cinema cameras with less than 4k sensors that are now using larger. Even the A7s3 is still 12MP. So, you can complain that Blackmagic specifically now sells a 4k pocket camera instead of an HD one, or that they picked a 4k sensor instead of a nonexistent 2.8k one. But honestly there's very few product lines that actually fall into the trend of increasing video resolution outside of increasing file resolution to match existing sensor resolution.

[Video Hummus]

55 minutes ago, mercer said:

With that, at what point, do we as consumers, tell Canon, Sony, et al...  that we don't want higher resolution? Give us ProRes, give us true 14+ stops of DR, give us better color depth. Is 8K enough? DO we need 12K... 16... 20K?

But they have been working on giving you both. Nikon just put ProRes in a mirrorless camera. BM has offered it for awhile. C70, A7SIII, BMPCC6K and a few others are clocking in at 13-14 stops of DR. Anything higher is from an extremely expensive ARRI camera. Color depths has been increasing. 8-bit to 10-bit internal...now some are offering 12-bit internal. We also have cameras that shoot from 2K-8K resolutions at a touch of a few buttons or menu items. We have entry level RED cameras at $6K that offer 13 stops, REDCODE RAW and "autofocus" (well better than Panasonic anyway!) in a mirrorless sized box camera with a global shutter! You can throw on your favorite vintage lens, shoot at what ever resolution makes sense for you and get amazing results.

I don't get all the circular complaining.

[Django]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Sorry... I think you are contradicting your own thesis statement here... 'ignorance is bliss...'

I don't understand why these discussions always devolve into condescension? Plus, I haven't read anywhere, in this thread, where people are complaining about tech moving forward. That would be a futile complaint. With that, at what point, do we as consumers, tell Canon, Sony, et al...  that we don't want higher resolution? Give us ProRes, give us true 14+ stops of DR, give us better color depth. Is 8K enough? DO we need 12K... 16... 20K? Most of these companies haven't even given us very good 1080p yet.

For some reason there's this belief that higher resolution = technological evolution when it's fairly obvious that Arri has proven that resolution is probably the least important factor in image quality.

My bad I didn't mean it in such a condescending way, I was still shooting myself on a FHD C100 not that long ago. 

Once I upgraded to a 5K iMac Pro, well that's when I realised that FHD footage wasn't going to cut it for me anymore.

Even C200 4K looked terribly soft, so I got rid of both. (That and because of lack of 10-bit codec). Never looked back.

I just feel sometimes that most people who hate on 6K/8K haven't really properly experienced it and the benefits it can bring. Having actually worked on 8K footage, I feel it can't be unseen. But I'm also on +4K monitors. So I guess I could easily reverse ignorance is bliss to upgrading can raise expectations. 

I'm not some kind of high-res fanatic though. I enjoy lo-fi aesthetics immensely as well.

I just don't get this idea that high-resolution is somehow taking away from other IQ related specs. Pocket 6K & Z9 give you ProRes. 10-bit & 12-bit RAW are now internal. DR keeps getting better. Rolling Shutter keeps going down. Low-light keeps improving etc..

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Sorry, I was discussing two different things there and should have separated my thoughts more clearly. What I meant was that I find it really depressing that the trend is to create images/videos that look like they were shot on an iPhone. For those projects, it seems a camcorder would be a better choice than a FF stills camera that shoots 8K video.

I never advised 8K for social media. An actual iPhone is usually enough to create.. an iPhone look.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

My other comment was just a reaction to the idea that shooting on an iPhone in Portrait mode seems to be a modern concept so I find it surprising that these young kids are interested in analogue photography.

Anybody can shoot Portrait mode tho.. the cool kids are all about standing out.. and looking cool. 

Retro/nostalgia is a powerful thing. Gen-Z all about the 90's right now.

Anything from clothing to technology to music, animes etc from that era is what's popping.

For example Contax T3's are listing for $3K, you can thank YT/IG analogue influencers.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

This looks wild, thanks for posting it. I loved the shots of the actors invading the other actors frames.

oh yeah it's wild, experimental, artistic and funny !.. must see.

[mercer]

6 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

But they have been working on giving you both. Nikon just put ProRes in a mirrorless camera. BM has offered it for awhile. C70, A7SIII, BMPCC6K and a few others are clocking in at 13-14 stops of DR. Anything higher is from an extremely expensive ARRI camera. Color depths has been increasing. 8-bit to 10-bit internal...now some are offering 12-bit internal. We also have cameras that shoot from 2K-8K resolutions at a touch of a few buttons or menu items. We have entry level RED cameras at $6K that offer 13 stops, REDCODE RAW and "autofocus" (well better than Panasonic anyway!) in a mirrorless sized box camera with a global shutter! You can throw on your favorite vintage lens, shoot at what ever resolution makes sense for you and get amazing results.

I don't get all the circular complaining.

You make some valid points.

Nikon did introduce internal ProRes into a $5k camera that has the possibility of coming to market before decade's end... and about 12 years after the start of the DSLR revolution and 8 years after BM introduced it into a $1k camera.

Progress.

I'm not complaining at all. I'm just curious when we have reached the apex of resolution?

At what point do videographers have the resolution they need... when we can confidently count the exact hairs in a model's nostril?

And just to be clear, I don't mean any disrespect and I'm really not complaining, or judging, at all. I feel very lucky to have a camera that I love that is more than enough for my skill and talent.

It's just a discussion.