zenpmd Posted December 8, 2014 Author Share Posted December 8, 2014 That video posted above, the 30 minute discussion, is really good. I learnt a lot. And of course usefully reminded me that everything is about lighting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 That video posted above, the 30 minute discussion, is really good. I learnt a lot. And of course usefully reminded me that everything is about lighting Some of the conclusions regarding 4k: • It's here to stay. It's not the norm already, and it won't be for a few years, but there's no point in denying the fact that the world moves towards it. • Experienced DoPs just don't care. They say it unisono, and they explain why. Because 4k is not about quality. • There are aspects that dramatically influence quality, and those are DR and color space on the technical side and lighting on the side of craftmanship. • To the question whether we need it, they more or less say 'no'. Clients who right now demand 4k for distribution are happy with upscaled 2k. Look at their faces. They are all old. People who grew up with camcorders and VDSRLs don't have the background to understand what they are talking about. Who never saw analog and digital material in direct and regular comparison probably assumes rec709 is a law of nature and that digital is superior in every respect. This majority of amateurs and semi-pros first look at the resolution specs but buy and are content with the same old compromises in other aspects. Things that may show very unfavorably, i.e. on a big screen. Like the widely believed misconception that resolution means sharpness and that it is sharpness that can't be exaggerated. That if you can't see a quarter color resolution on your monitor, it will hold up as well on a giant screen (everybody can check by changing the viewing distance) - especially if you show off your high-resolution image!. That a poorly composed image during recording will improve considerably when zoomed in in post. Asf. I completely second their estimation about the future of television (and cinema, for that matter). Netflix, Sky and the like are the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 • There are aspects that dramatically influence quality, and those are DR and color space on the technical side and lighting on the side of craftmanship. . and resolution. Why does it have to be one thing or another? High image quality is determined by various factors including resolution. In fact, I would argue that resolution is the most important factor affecting the audience and gives the impression of high image quality. Let's break the technical image elements that make high image quality: 1-Resolution and Sharpness 2-Colour depth and fedility 3-Noise amount (lowlight performance) 4-Noise structure and pattern 5-Shadow and Highlight information (Dynamic range) 6- Lack of image artefacts, which include Aliasing, moire, rolling shutter (In CMOS), codec artefacts like macroblocking or image breakup points, sun smearing (in CCD), and all the other digital artefacts that are not supposed to be in the image. Those are the image quality criteria and increasing any of them is a positive effect that increases quality. With the going with time all these elements will be elevated and improved upon. These elements are completely separate from the external factors that affect image quality, I have no idea why anyone wanting to improve one of these technical elements has to be accused of not understading the external factors. It's completely irrelevant. Juat for the note, the external factors can broken down to: -Lenses. (FL, DOF, FOV, quality, characters, etc) -Lighting (both technique and equipment quality) -Movement (motion equipment) -Editing and Colour grading And not to mention the other external factors un-related to image quality, like the acting quality, the waredrobe, make-up, Set design, each one of these elements contribute to image quality. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenpmd Posted December 8, 2014 Author Share Posted December 8, 2014 Someone else made the point about stills quality, and I agree with it, that, because you look at a photo for a long time, quality is probably more important, whereas films rely on lots of other stuff (to put it bluntly). Would the Godfather be any better today? Doubt it. When I look at the a7s video image I fail to see how it can be usefully improved. It looks that good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmcindie Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Let's break the technical image elements that make high image quality: 1-Resolution and Sharpness Every film I've seen when I was doing 35mm projecting was soft. Every. Single. One. They only looked "sharpish" when you watch them from way back. Anamorphicly shot films tended to be semi-sharp in the middle and completely soft on the sides. Even now, most really good looking films tend to be soft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWill Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Possibly shows they need more pixels to compensate for less, what? Talent? I think it takes far more talent to make 4k look good. That's why I still work in 1080p :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWill Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Are you talking about reframing? Like when the artist behind the camera had no clue what the motif was? Take this prospect and a really wide lens, and we'll never need to move the camera again, it will all be clean and sharp Ken Burns ;) Hmm, you seem to not understand that adding a "camera move" of 1080p over a 4k source is not something you can replicate by moving your camera. Think about when you move the camera, unless you have it mounted on a gimbal directly over the centre of focus of your lens, when you slide, tilt or pan your camera, things move across the screen at a different rate depending on their distance from the centre of focus. Adding a "pan in post" is not the same as panning the camera, it creates a different visual sequence, a different feel to the film and a different aesthetic that cannot be replicated in camera, unless you set up another camera broadcasting live onto a screen which you then shoot with a second camera... that screen would need to be 4k at least though... I'm sure you're about to tell me that the differences in a pan in post and a real life pan are theoretical but negligible, which is what a lot of people used to say about the differences between a dolly and a zoom shot, until talented cinematographers used each of them to great effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesku Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Post panning across 4k image is a new way to show scene. Does it have to look the same as a real camera pan? Which looks better? Must it always be the old way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danyyyel Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Some of the conclusions regarding 4k: • It's here to stay. It's not the norm already, and it won't be for a few years, but there's no point in denying the fact that the world moves towards it. • Experienced DoPs just don't care. They say it unisono, and they explain why. Because 4k is not about quality. • There are aspects that dramatically influence quality, and those are DR and color space on the technical side and lighting on the side of craftmanship. • To the question whether we need it, they more or less say 'no'. Clients who right now demand 4k for distribution are happy with upscaled 2k. Look at their faces. They are all old. People who grew up with camcorders and VDSRLs don't have the background to understand what they are talking about. Who never saw analog and digital material in direct and regular comparison probably assumes rec709 is a law of nature and that digital is superior in every respect. This majority of amateurs and semi-pros first look at the resolution specs but buy and are content with the same old compromises in other aspects. Things that may show very unfavorably, i.e. on a big screen. Like the widely believed misconception that resolution means sharpness and that it is sharpness that can't be exaggerated. That if you can't see a quarter color resolution on your monitor, it will hold up as well on a giant screen (everybody can check by changing the viewing distance) - especially if you show off your high-resolution image!. That a poorly composed image during recording will improve considerably when zoomed in in post. Asf. I completely second their estimation about the future of television (and cinema, for that matter). Netflix, Sky and the like are the future. Exactly what I think. In 2/3 years every camera will be shooting 4k and we will have do deal with it as hype marketing will make everyone believe that it is better. I am talking from cell phone to digital cinema camera, the video/tv manufacturers have to drive sale as they are running out of ideas. The sad thing is that for example Plasma has died because of the hype of led TV, while until oled comes plasma is so much better. Somehow, There will come a time of reason in the enthusiast and Pro level. The same that is happening in the photo camera world. The D800 was the step beyond, what I meant is that people just saw that they did not need that kind of resolution in 99% of time. In fact it was beginning to get cumbersome because of file size and processing. As a very satisfied owner of the D800 it does have super DR, colour etc etc but my next purchase will be a D750 because it will better cover 90% of my need. The same will happen here when people will realise that the difference between 4k and 2k is like 1% increment in quality, because we are reaching the limit of human perception. People can put all types of numbers and formula on the ground, but in the end until robots replace us, just go to a movie theater and watch a film shot with the Alexa and tell me if you saw pixel. I have seen people comment who went to see James bond in 4k claiming that it was better than film in 2k LOL as it was shot with the Alexa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenpmd Posted December 8, 2014 Author Share Posted December 8, 2014 The only good thin about resolution is for stills and the ability to crop. means having an aps body which mainly wildlife shooters used to have, now redundant. But I still think Nikons decision to go to 36 sucks because ultimately low noise is always more important Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Let's break the technical image elements that make high image quality: 1-Resolution and Sharpness I made manual prints in the darkroom professionally for almost six years (until digital photography came up and it became clear that the job would die soon). Afterwards I became a projectionist in a multiplex cinema, which from 2000 on experimented with digital projection ('til 2011, if I recall correctly). These are not very desirable jobs for most (film quotation quiz: 'Why would anyone want this shit job?'), I wasn't prancing. It's just that I consider myself THE expert on the topics mentioned above. What most people believe is that more pixels or finer film grain result in greater sharpness. Although there actually is no direct correlation between both, you could well say, it's the other way around. You need high enough resolution to render soft images that don't appear out-of-focus. Because as long as you can see the smallest picture elements, outlines look 'defined' or, er, outlined. Doesn't matter if you can literally count the aliasing steps of the edges or are just aware of some embossed-looking (sharp or sharpened) patterns in the image. These kind of aesthetics are desirable only if you want to sell chicken wings. So why is it that people think HD is not enough? Because, as of now, we have a lot of cameras which don't reach real 1080 despite the numbers on the spec sheet. I admit that. Therefore a camera that is (falsely) labelled 4k can provide the missing resolution. Given that your downscaling method is 'optical', even the effective color resolution can be improved (denied by purists, acknowledged by me), though unfortunately not the color depth. Somehow, There will come a time of reason in the enthusiast and Pro level. The same that is happening in the photo camera world. The D800 was the step beyond, what I meant is that people just saw that they did not need that kind of resolution in 99% of time. In fact it was beginning to get cumbersome because of file size and processing. As a very satisfied owner of the D800 it does have super DR, colour etc etc but my next purchase will be a D750 because it will better cover 90% of my need. The same will happen here when people will realise that the difference between 4k and 2k is like 1% increment in quality, because we are reaching the limit of human perception. The mere consumers won't be able to see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesku Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I can see pixels in fullhd videos at fullhd monitor. is that estethically good. I want to see the image behind pixels:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 That a poorly composed image during recording will improve considerably when zoomed in in post. Mock it if you must, but when shooting 4K for documentary, corporate, or "low-pro" jobs this ability is an effective tool to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 effective tool but maybe not ideal unfortunately, have many people had success in cropping this way? I had bad experience in that the images dont cut well as the grain/noise is increased.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 effective tool but maybe not ideal Doesn't have to be ideal to be effective. Besides, a small 5-10% crop to fix some wonky framing is not going to reveal too many flaws. I know many strive to have perfect pixel peeping portraits present in their productions. Possibly, particular people present partake polar preferences. Potential poll, perhaps? Point is, 4k is a good development. Why so many nay-say it is weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenpmd Posted December 8, 2014 Author Share Posted December 8, 2014 I think the nay-say is response to the hype of, say, this site saying anything but 4k IS TERRIBLE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 It's not just for correcting mistakes (although there no shame in that and you'd me deluded if you think you never make mistakes whilst shooting), but it's an effective tool that does something that simply cannoy be done without it. If I only have one camera shooting an interview, there's no way to capture both a close-up and a wide shot at the exact same time, I cannot get the close up shot exactly where I want it or get the wide shot exactly where I want it. Do all you grading on-set and never shoot raw or uncompressed because you are a professional that doesn't need to change exposure/white balance or colour in post. Also never use a lowlight camera because you're a professional and can light everthing perfectly at 100ISO. Don't use IS lenses because you're a professional and use high end rigging equipment. Having two cameras is what pros should do on an interview. All that is for amateurs. Amateurs are the only ones who prefer using inexpensive ways to replicate what the pros do, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animan Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Doesn't have to be ideal to be effective. Sure, course not, Im just trying to ask for those who use this technique how have the results been generally? I shot a theatre performance with 1 camera with the intention of cropping to simulate 2 cameras but the results were pretty dissapointing.. Definitely 4K is top of my list of priorities for any new cameras, even if not ideal, for my own run&gun work it will be surely invaluable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Do all you grading on-set and never shoot raw or uncompressed because you are a professional that doesn't need to change exposure/white balance or colour in post. Also never use a lowlight camera ...? No, I'm a bloody amateur. As such, I would of course embrace the possibilities to stabilize and scale in post (as the pros in the video confessed to do as well). All I say is, isn't it funny how sensitive everybody is? Are we taking ourselves too serious here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Are we taking ourselves too serious here? "Surely, you can't be serious..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.