fuzzynormal Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 So I'm kind of believing that we've hit, for all practical purposes, a kind of pinnacle of digital IQ in motion pictures.* This does NOT mean that cameras stop improving, but I'm implying that from now onward if "you" (a typically casual end-user consumer) buy a newly released camera, you're gonna have imaging that will look great for the rest of your life. Yes, in the future the DR will be wider and resolution will probably be 16+k plus, but even so, watching an image on a 80" monitor from 10 feet away will kinda look similar to 4K, even good 1080, for that matter.4 decades ago, great motion picture IQ wasn't a consumer possibility. 8mm film stuff shot then looks like it was shot then. 3 decades ago consumers were shooting NTSC video on crappy CCD's. That stuff is dated. It bears the mark of the 1980's. However, if you go film a scenic of, say, Florence this afternoon then it's still gonna look great 4 decades from now and onward, which is kinda cool --and sad in a way.The advance of technology is wonderful, I'm just musing on what's lost when we gain. For instance, personally, I have a tendency to make my pristine footage look retro through lens choices and post-production. I feel images need some sorts of "flaws" to feel authentic. I grew up in a darkroom, so I nurture that aesthetic nostalgia in my images. And, of course, many people love instagramming their stills, so there's still a strong desire to 'analog' the 'digital.' Could this tendency be an attempt to psychologically grasp a past that's easier to comprehend rather than the future that is rushing to us non-stop? Anyway, that's all part of the mix too.This sort of stuff, maybe it matters more to us older folks that have this visual legacy that bears the mark of technological evolution. I suspect new kids aren't hung up on this sort of thing, they just go do stuff, and they get to do it without an obvious technological time-stamp.Any thoughts?* talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story. mercer, Don Kotlos and David Brunckhorst 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Kotlos Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If people that watch my videos complain about resolution, digital artifacts, lack of color or any other technical deficiency, then it is not the camera to blame or even the post process. It is my fault that I didn't make a stronger story. But I can't deny I am a gear addict. BrorSvensson, Inazuma and mercer 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted July 9, 2015 Super Members Share Posted July 9, 2015 After playing for a year with 4K in the Bmpc, LX100 and NX1 I've now moved back to HD. I don't really get any big benefits from it. HD broadcast in Sweden is 720p. 4k and HD on youtube looks the same. And anything looks good if not full screen. Instead I focus on having a proper robust codec that can take some abuse. Also there isn't any 4k cameras that ticks all the boxes of what I need. And if a project all of a sudden require 4K I will rent. (Worth mentioning is that I have never used my own gear for serious work. Maybe a small gig here and there but otherwise my employer takes care of it.)I guess I'm on the same page as the biggest broadcaster here in Sweden. When asked recently where they are in the process of 4K development they said roughly,"We don't care about that right now because it wouldn't look that much better. What really would look better and that we are working on is 10 bit and wider DR. The transition to HD isn't even done yet so no hurry for 4K. I know this wasn't exactly what the thread was asking but it's the thoughts that came to mind when I read it. mercer and BrorSvensson 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhar Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 After playing for a year with 4K in the Bmpc, LX100 and NX1 I've now moved back to HD. I don't really get any big benefits from it. HD broadcast in Sweden is 720p. 4k and HD on youtube looks the same. And anything looks good if not full screen. Instead I focus on having a proper robust codec that can take some abuse. Also there isn't any 4k cameras that ticks all the boxes of what I need. And if a project all of a sudden require 4K I will rent. (Worth mentioning is that I have never used my own gear for serious work. Maybe a small gig here and there but otherwise my employer takes care of it.)I guess I'm on the same page as the biggest broadcaster here in Sweden. When asked recently where they are in the process of 4K development they said roughly,"We don't care about that right now because it wouldn't look that much better. What really would look better and that we are working on is 10 bit and wider DR. The transition to HD isn't even done yet so no hurry for 4K. I know this wasn't exactly what the thread was asking but it's the thoughts that came to mind when I read it. Shooting in 4K helps even if you're doing 1080p: simulate multi-camera/slider/jib/zoom/pan/recomp/etc. See Using 4K to simulate two-camera shoot (and other things) for some examples/discussion. IMO the trick is to always figure out how to take advantage of new technology, not resist it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Shooting in 4K helps even if you're doing 1080p: simulate multi-camera/slider/jib/zoom/pan/recomp/etc. See Using 4K to simulate two-camera shoot (and other things) for some examples/discussion.The issue with using 4k to simulate camera movement is that there is no effect of parallax. I do find it effective as a subtle dolly though. Just recently, I shot a video in 1080p with absolutely no consideration for resolution. I "destroyed" the image by cropping in to stupidly low resolutions, made the grade fuzzy and pixelated, blended images over images over images, used "crappy" old lenses to make sure the image wasn't sharp and had loads of flaws...the list goes on. I did this because the project required this style over the full duration of 4mins30secs. If i made it all "perfect" looking... it would of cheapened the video. Yes that's right...it would of cheapened it. This video would of looked like garbage in pristine 4k and 14 stops of dynamic range. Next weekend, I'm shooting a high end music video funded by a beer brand on the Sony FS7 at the highest quality the camera can record in. It's got to look classy, modern and sharp. A massive difference to the other project. It would also look like garbage if I did the same principle then above. It's awesome that we have these options these days. As with anything, you have got to have your reasons for using the technology - but never let the camera specs dictate your creative output or you have already lost. Nick Hughes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 In 10 years you will notice awful colors and relate them to this period, among motion qualities,etc... Julian 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted July 9, 2015 Super Members Share Posted July 9, 2015 Shooting in 4K helps even if you're doing 1080p: simulate multi-camera/slider/jib/zoom/pan/recomp/etc. See Using 4K to simulate two-camera shoot (and other things) for some examples/discussion. IMO the trick is to always figure out how to take advantage of new technology, not resist it.Imo,I don't think doing that looks good.And also, I often reframe HD 10% without second thought and sometimes up to 20%. Not once have anyone noticed. Also I have mixed 4K with HD upscaled, in other words zoomed in 100%, again without anyone noticing. But mostly, I frame properly from the get go and use real sliders to get real parallax. So, that is not reason enough to get a camera that has either a bunch of imo other short comings or cost a minimum of $5K. But I totally see your point and get why some would go that route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Portas Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Any thoughts?* talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story.All interesting thoughts.However, I'm not so sure the same aesthetic we have today will be consumed by the majority.This has happened time and time again since the inception of cinema, TV, home video, YouTube, etc. I question, for example, if young people 20 years from now will find "The Hobbit" aesthetically pleasingor just a garbled mess of pixels that look fake. The story is solid, but will the delivery stand the test of time?Twenty years in the future maybe we'll all revert to real 16mm film to achieve a "different look" than the majority :] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inazuma Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Just recently, I shot a video in 1080p with absolutely no consideration for resolution. I "destroyed" the image by cropping in to stupidly low resolutions, made the grade fuzzy and pixelated, blended images over images over images, used "crappy" old lenses to make sure the image wasn't sharp and had loads of flaws...the list goes on. I did this because the project required this style over the full duration of 4mins30secs. If i made it all "perfect" looking... it would of cheapened the video. Yes that's right...it would of cheapened it. This video would of looked like garbage in pristine 4k and 14 stops of dynamic range. Link to vid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j.f.r. Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 After playing for a year with 4K in the Bmpc, LX100 and NX1 I've now moved back to HD. I don't really get any big benefits from it. HD broadcast in Sweden is 720p. 4k and HD on youtube looks the same. And anything looks good if not full screen. Instead I focus on having a proper robust codec that can take some abuse. Also there isn't any 4k cameras that ticks all the boxes of what I need. And if a project all of a sudden require 4K I will rent. (Worth mentioning is that I have never used my own gear for serious work. Maybe a small gig here and there but otherwise my employer takes care of it.)I guess I'm on the same page as the biggest broadcaster here in Sweden. When asked recently where they are in the process of 4K development they said roughly,"We don't care about that right now because it wouldn't look that much better. What really would look better and that we are working on is 10 bit and wider DR. The transition to HD isn't even done yet so no hurry for 4K. I know this wasn't exactly what the thread was asking but it's the thoughts that came to mind when I read it. HD broadcast around the world is basically 720p.......... So yeah 4k and above is amazing, but still years away for worldwide acquisition. Now it still would be great to capture your projects in 4k so they can have a longer shelf life (Movie's, Documentary, Sports, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Link to vid? Sorry, the video hasn't been released by the artist yet. If you want to see a selection of my stuff on my Vimeo, then go here: https://vimeo.com/videoinkofficial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted July 9, 2015 Super Members Share Posted July 9, 2015 HD broadcast around the world is basically 720p.......... So yeah 4k and above is amazing, but still years away for worldwide acquisition. Now it still would be great to capture your projects in 4k so they can have a longer shelf life (Movie's, Documentary, Sports, etc.)Agreed, but if its good enough it will last in HD. Given that the aliens or what ever in the future still watch at a normal viewing distance like today I don't think the classic movies are going anywhere any time soon as long as they are good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted July 9, 2015 Super Members Share Posted July 9, 2015 Twenty years in the future maybe we'll all revert to real 16mm film to achieve a "different look" than the majority :]Im doing that as we speak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Portas Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Im doing that as we speak hehe, well done Sir. Mattias Burling 1 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.