piz

This is awesome news! For those who only want pristine 1080p would be then downscaling to 1080 4:4:4 and then grading or would we be grading in 4k 4:2:0 and then scaling down?

i'm holding out for the 4k baby mode

Excellent post Andrew. I think for those of us who are more concerned about getting the best 1080p it will be interesting to see tests around how well the different cameras scale down to 1080p look. Also there hasn't yet been any comparison of the GH4 4k scaled down to 1080p versus GH4 - 10bit 4:2:2 1080p. 10bit 4k on GH4 sounds too pricey but the biggest IMO will be if we can just as good as an image from 10bit 1080p as we do from 8bit 4k scaled down to 1080p then this is a HUGE win with less gear and getting pristine 1080p right out of the box. Just a suggestion for any future tests you may have for us.

Roger Deakins' Prisoners looked amazing which is obviously no surprise given who's behind the camera. All of his stuff on the Alexa has looked very filmic and in his hands it beats the best all the other RED stuff I've seen. I do believe because of Deakins' work on this camera a lot of other DPs are going to it for belief that they can replicate his look. Still though there are some RED films that really stands out for me and its either by Fincher and Soderbergh. Social Network and House of Cards both have a unique lighting that give the images a certain look that I've only seen been done on the RED. Soderbergh's Side Effects looked very unique and you can tell he used a lot of diffusion with some unique lighting. It almost seems where as the Alexa can look more filmic, the RED with unique lighting can create a look that isn't necessarily filmic but looks unique and fresh given the right projects. I believe the C500 scenes were mostly the night scenes in the car for The Wolf Of Wall Street. There's a point when it is intercut with film and you can tell from the bokeh its going from anamorphic (which i believe is film) and to spherical lens which is the C500. I highly doubt the average person could tell when it was film or digital though, although to me the lack of grain the digital scenes were noticeable after cutting from a scene shot on film.

This is a great interview of the ARRI folks at IBC 2013 in September. Their points about 4k and why they aren't jumping to it until they can see improvements in image quality are very interesting. I think what most of us are saying here is rather than stamping every new pro/consumer camera with "4K" which means who knows what other than resolution, make us an affordable 2.8K Alexa sensor which plenty of DPs are absolutely happy to film on for their 4K projected films.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Andrew. Always look forward to your blogs especially ones on the future. Overall I get the gist that 4k is going to give us better image quality compared to what we can currently get on pro/consumer cameras. However, consider the fact that plenty of big budget films being shot digitally right now and until next year on the Alexa will still be doing so at 2.8k. I know it maybe dated now, but even Hugo in 3D was shot in 1080p. Most DPs who choose the 2.8k Alexa over 4k RED say it was the resulting image quality that made them go with Alexa even after upscaling it for 4k projection. Help me out here because I'm at a loss as to why if it's not an issue for big budget films then is it a concern for us. Shouldn't we be pushing for a cheaper, reliable, feature filled camera that does it any any decent resolution but gives us amazing image quality? I think we all agree resolution is just one aspect of image quality and how DPs are choosing their cameras in hollywood proves that point. I just hope we're not giving up on pushing camera manufacturers to truly gives us image quality + features, which is not easy to put a marketing term to, as opposed to "4K" that in reality doesn't even mean anything to those with limitless budgets. Thanks in advance to any replies.

    aside from indie studios like the weinstein's who do the best job at not only putting out art but making it profitable, i doubt this is going to change.  case in point Relativity Media which puts any project through some computer model (Monte Carlo method) taking in all sorts of variables from script plot points, actors, genre, etc. before greenlighting a project.   it sounds crazy to any filmmaker that their project would be determined by an algorithm, but this is the sad reality of how it works now.   also, i do think in some way the superiority of home theaters is keeping people away from the theaters for certain genres.  my 12 year old nephew for the life of him doesn't get why we'd pay so much to watch a movie in the theater that doesnt utilize the big screen for 3D or the speakers for the blasting explosions ... and in some way he has a point but it does then support the industries theory of needing 3D, HFR, and whatever gimmicks they need to get people in the theaters.     btw, all hope is not lost.   i was actually amazed at how many people were in a mid day showing of Lincoln, a 2D non IMAX film with a higher dialog to effects ratio.     when the film ended the audience actually took the effort to applaud, something i find that actually doesn't happen for a lot of popcorn movies.   of course it took a spielberg and day lewis and the topic of the most famous president, but it was still a positive sign.

i really like all your postings Andrew, but this one i have to disagree with vehemently.      As far as the definition of what makes "cinema", i don't believe you can divorce the visual/audio experience from the audience.   no matter how superior your home theater may be, it is simply not the same thing as watching it with an audience.    aside from all the gimmicks of 3D, 48fps, or whatever new concoction hollywood tries, the audience is the one thing they will always have going for them that cannot be replicated.   there are plenty of people who don't like audiences  and home theaters are a God send for them, but for those who have grown up in sharing in the true cinema experience of an audience the desire to see it any other way will not vanish.   there is nothing that can replace a room full of people laughing, crying, or being attentively silent during a quiet moment of the film.     we can all bash popcorn films but the reality is if you truly want theaters to even continue to exist at all, you'd better get used to more popcorn films because they are the only profitable ones.  you really cant expect "The Master", despite the brilliant writing and visuals, to bring in mass audiences that are going to support funding for future films.   yes popcorn films are about consumerism, but then again, to hope that theaters are meant for amazing art is not realistic.      and in the end it really is up to the audience.  although The Hobbit did terribly with film critics, yet it has done very well with audience reviews on all film review websites.       i watched it in Los Angeles, on a rainy night (which keeps most people away in LA), at an IMAX 3D theater (24fps) at 11:00pm and it was a full house.   the audience seemed very much into it.  compare that what i would consider an amazing piece of writing and visuals, "The Master", which i saw during a nice summer night and there were about 8 people in the theater.    the ironic thing is The Master was by Paul Thomas Anderson who's famous for talking about why he left film school, because one of his teachers remarked "if any of you are here to make Terminator 2, you can leave" to which PTA says, "if someone wants to make Terminator 2, so be it, and it happened to be a great film."   all i'm saying is everyone these days seems to want to gripe about popcorn films, trailers, food prices etc. but fail to understand this is still a business and without all those things there wouldn't be many theaters to begin with.   ask any theater manager, what brings in the most profit margin, the ticket sales?   they'll all tell you no, its the popcorn.  thats the truth.              

I have a secret ... I often tell people my things are shot on a RED but in reality its a GH2.  Even RED owners whom I've shown my stuff to can't tell.  Please don't tell anybody.

One movie I saw and loved in 3D and I think could definitely make use of the higher frame rate look was JACK ASS.    It seems everyone is just talking about certain types of films but there are many possibilities for all sorts of films, not just your typical fictional narrative.  One thing that has never been done well in my opinion is a film strictly in POV perspective and I believe it has a lot to do with the strobing of 24fps that makes it difficult to watch and feels unreal.  This is one area of a new type of narrative I could see emerging given the new generations brought up on 1st person games played in POV but the key is having something like higher frame rate to give it is life like motion as possible. 

There's probably no one alive anymore but it would be interesting to know how early cinematographers during silent films era who shot at 16fps  felt when 24fps + sound became standard and if there was any resistance to it.    It's obvious that due to those technical advances the narratives that film dealt with began to drastically change.  I think this is the same shift in paradigm.  Higher frame rates + 3D have a different feel that can be applied to a certain type of presentation for a given narrative.  It maybe something completely new we've never seen before.  Take for example if when 24fps and sound came out if all they did was update silent movies to the new frame rate and just read cards out it would have been totally pointless.  Like wise maybe the current style of film narrative isn't correct for this new type of presentation.  I know this is off topic but Tupac is making the rounds as a hologram now.  We can only expect how that type of technology could completely later what a film is and how it can be experienced. 

i really believe this is a generational issue.  the issue really is what does someone consider acceptable for a narrative.  with younger generations who have grown up watching video games with narrative sequences in 60fps there will be less resistance to a 60/48 fps film.  they are used to seeing this all the time whereas older generations were only used to the soaps and sports. it might be that the hobbit won't be right because the fanbase is older, but imagine a film based off of a video game.  wouldn't it make sense to make the film feel like the video game in some fashion and therefore the higher framerate apply? curious to hear people's thoughts on the generational issue.