Jump to content

BS or Truth? Propaganda?


FilmMan

Recommended Posts

[indent][b]Agree or Disagree? According to RED:[/b][/indent][indent][b][url="http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?88034-Sony-F5-and-F55"]http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?88034-Sony-F5-and-F55[/url][/b][/indent][indent][i]I am going to give a tip of the hat to Sony tonight. These two camera announcements are significant.

While I do not see them as a threat to EPIC or Scarlet... I do see them as a threat to the conventional and outdated thinking of the industry that tried so hard to cling to "1080P and 2K are good enough".

We began to champion 4K as the respectful replacement for film in the digital motion world back in 2006. We were embraced. We were ignored. We were revolutionary and we were a scam.

Others in the industry incredibly attempted (and successfully in some circles) tried to convince the industry that 1080P and 2K was good enough. On one page of Arri's website they extolled the virtues of a 4K film scan and then on another sold the Alexa as a feature worthy camera that "had more resolution than other so called 4K cameras". (rolls eyes)

Every single camera manufacturer now has a 4K and/or 5K sensor program in the works now. Why? [b]Because 1080P and 2K acquisition was the biggest scam in the history of the film industry.[/b]

Sony has come to the party. God love them. The F65 is a true 4K camera (although not 8K as it is advertised). The F5 and F55 are 4K cameras soon to be released.

There are 4K display panels being released. 4K projectors. The world is finally coming to its senses. We predicted this 6 years ago. Now it is here.

What does this mean?

There is a new standard from Japan (not exactly sure why they get to call the shots) that a new consumer 4K standard has been set. It dictates that you can't up-rez to 4K.

It means that features and TV shows shot on 1080P or 2K are destined to be left out of a second bite of the apple for a 4K delivery opportunity.

It means that we were right after all. Not that we want to gloat. We are just sad we didn't do a better job of clearly explaining our position to more people over the past 6 years.

In the end... Sony has validated what we have believed in all along. 1080P is not a respectful film replacement and 4K (or more) is. Actually we believe in 5K+ bayer to a 4K finish. But I don't want to nit-pick Sony's announcements.

The image needs to get better over time. There was a moment in history when it got worse. It was called 1080P and 2K. Mercifully that time has passed. Thanks to Sony for acknowledging this truth.

Jim[/i][/indent]
Link to post
Share on other sites
So what are you saying is whether BS or truth? The Japanese 4K standard? Because the rest is a standpoint, an opinion on what should and shouldn't be. I happen to agree with it.
Although it is currentrly a luxury that few can enjoy (yet it's not just big budget films, the spectrum is quite broader) the future is in 4K. We'll be able to play it, we'll be able to edit it. It isn't crazy, far fetched or even useless. It will become a standard and I think it's great that it does so. Anything bigger than that, well... maybe that'll be kinda pointless.
Let's leave it a 5K to 4K and stop playing with standards every 10 years.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1080p looks awesome! I used to think 720p was good enough, back when I had a 1280x1024 4:3 monitor. When I got my 23" 1920x1080 monitor my life changed. And as the size of the screens and their resolutions improve (along with everything else) we will notice the difference and worth of 4K. Not that we need it now, but it will be in the future. And it'd be great if we could start shooting future proof content!
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='charlie_orozco' timestamp='1351746659' post='20757']
And it'd be great if we could start shooting future proof content!
[/quote]

This particular line kind of mind me chuckle a bit. I do understand the sentiment and the angle you're after I think. But nobody will want to watch a really polished turd in the future :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, if I had shot my earliest short films in 4K I'd probably be cringing at the sheer detail of my every failing shot (whenever they were in focus, that is).
Of course, my point is valid only in productions that are meant to be seen and enjoyed and succeed in doing so. 4K would give them "replayability" as standards increase. Like old films that still look awesome because they were, well, films. DV hasn't aged so well.

Then again, perhaps my current turds will be valuable in the future, so I'd rather give historians something worth looking at!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying 1080p or 2.8K don't look good. "Slumdog Millionaire" was the first almost fully digital film to win best cinematography and best movie and it was shot in 2K with the Silicon Imaging camera (not a RED One or something), and it looks really good (at least that's what I recall). I also love the look of Super 16mm film.
My point is there's nothing wrong with going that little extra mile. 4K does make a difference, and aspiring towards such goal doesn't seem to be a madman's thing. Not to me. Just like it wasn't back in 2006 when I discussed these things with my Photography teacher (elitist markets aside...).
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='charlie_orozco' timestamp='1351746659' post='20757'] And it'd be great if we could start shooting future proof content!
[/quote]
[quote name='Zach' timestamp='1351747048' post='20760']
This particular line kind of mind me chuckle a bit. I do understand the sentiment and the angle you're after I think. But nobody will want to watch a really polished turd in the future :)
[/quote]

As for professional use of video (and even more for film), the business is a 'business on demand', and I don't see anybody demanding 4k, let alone pay for it. Jannards manic speech makes me wonder if he is a cocaine addict.

As for amateurs, future-proof means that they can show off with their stuff ten years from now. I made quite a few dozens of videos ten years ago, and all I can say is, if they were any good (some of them can be enjoyed because they have interesting [i]content[/i] and are [i]edited well[/i]), they remain good. The rest deserves to be gone with the wind.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If I had the choice to shoot in 4K I would every single time. How can you argue against having a better image to start with and for future proofing. What I really like about 4K is how you can crop the frame and resize. The problem with 4K is only the big boys can afford the equipment that goes with it.
Shooting on 2K or 2.8 arri raw gets you the kind of quality skyfall and the last three star wars films offers. SO is that good enough for me??

Jim is not talking B/S in fact he has shaken the market up that has allowed everything to move forward. Without RED we would still be getting the next generation of 2/3 chip cameras. 4K is better but its certainly not a consumer format until equipment and software prices drop and hard drives get bigger and cheaper. However 2K or 2.8K is certainly still a pro fromat that happens now to be doable for most of us. He also predicted digital would surpass film. He is a visionery in this field. But logically 4K is not viable for most of us yet.

4K will undoubtably be the future but in this race for resolution has a cut off point if we want actors to still look wonderful Its alright seeing someone on stage but to see a close up of someone on a 40' screen with every pore every line every blackhead every hair hyper defined like a microscope against an out of focus background wont look real anymore it will look ugly.

Until my computer has a 4K screen and I can edit almost real time without using proxies and colour correct in 4k it just isnt going to work for me unless I want to spend endless hours forcing it.

I need to be more than a technician I need to be creative and for me thats not what 4K delivers yet.
Link to post
Share on other sites
lets see what Red Drop their prices to today .....that will give us a good idea of how much they are worried about the new
Sony Cameras !!

also James Bond - Skyfall is 2.8k Arri rezed up to 4k for projection and its the biggest selling Bond film so far!
The UK opening weekend take was the largest ever in Bond history
This just shows that film audiences are not really bothered about 4k aquisition .....we just want good films !


[url="http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/10/bond-breaks-records-as-skyfall-tops-uk.html"]http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/10/bond-breaks-records-as-skyfall-tops-uk.html[/url]


[i][b]UK box office top ten and analysis for the weekend of Friday 26th - Sunday 28th October 2012... [/b][/i]


[url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fpG9kY2dMds/UIozgZhA4YI/AAAAAAAAdq4/MZxiMpd210Q/s1600/skyfall+quad.jpg"][img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fpG9kY2dMds/UIozgZhA4YI/AAAAAAAAdq4/MZxiMpd210Q/s320/skyfall+quad.jpg[/img][/url]James Bond returned to UK cinemas this past Friday in [b]Skyfall [/b](read our reviews [url="http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/10/movie-review-skyfall-2012.html"]here[/url], [url="http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/10/second-opinion-skyfall-2012.html"]here[/url] and [url="http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/10/thoughts-on-skyfall-2012.html"]here[/url]), with Daniel Craig's third outing as 007 banking a hefty £20,180,369 to claim the highest opening for a Bond film (Craig's previous efforts [b]Casino Royale [/b]and [b]Quantum of Solace[/b] debuted with £13m and £15m respectively), as well as the biggest UK opening of 2012, besting fellow blockbusters such as [b][url="http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/04/movie-review-avengers-2012_26.html"]The Avengers[/url][/b] (£15.8m), [url="http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/07/movie-review-dark-knight-rises-2012.html"][b]The Dark Knight Rises[/b][/url] (£14.3m) and[b] [url="http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2012/07/movie-review-amazing-spider-man-2012.html"]The Amazing Spider-Man[/url][/b] (£11m).
Link to post
Share on other sites
All this debate about 1080 vs 2K vs 4K, but none of you have mentioned Super Hi-Vision (7680x4320).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11436939

Unfortunately, digital resolutions seemed like a revolution & it still does, but was it really a scam?
You really have to ask yourselves why some filmmakers are still using Film?
Is it because nothing will ever be able to replicate light hitting celluloid?
If you've ever talked to a projectionist, then you'll know that film is very sharp & that they would soften the image as time went on and their projectors got better & better - so as to keep things the same.

You also have to ask yourselves - How much detail do you really want/need to see?
Have you ever experienced how much make up is needed when making a film or even TV now? They just don't want to see everything - especially in TV!
These v.high resolutions (if you read the above article) are for big screens, so the image doesn't look too soft.

Will we ever get 2k or 4k TV programmes any time soon when they can't even deliver true HD.
The best quality HD channel i have is not surprisingly the NHK HD news channel. NHK claim they will be broadcasting in Super Hi-Vision by 2020 & we all know that we are about 10yrs behind Asia in getting this type of tech - look how long it took us to get True HD TVs.

Its all a BS scam! They feed us dribs & drabs of tech, in order to keep us happy & have forgotten about the digital age we live in - we know there's better out there!
Just look at broadband speeds - How is it possible that South Korea get faster broadband speeds when they're out & about, than we can get at home?

We're being lied to, scammed (whatever you want to call it) all in the name of profit & there's nothing we can do about it!
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351769963' post='20777']
If you've ever talked to a projectionist, then you'll know that film is very sharp & that they would soften the image as time went on and their projectors got better & better - so as to keep things the same.[/quote]

They never softened the image intentionally. Fact is, that in the past decade every movie, though filmed with a hypothetically possible resolution of 6k and more, was digitally edited - in 2k for 99% of all content. This was because everybody knew that 35mm film copies, through the whole process of analog degradation, until they reached the screen, never exceeded 2k resolution, mostly way beyond.

I believe there will be more 4k-screens every year, until some day it is the standard. Not because you can advertise it (like you could with 3D), but because the systems need to be exchanged faster than the old mechanic projectors, and it will become cheaper by the minute, just as 4k cameras will be less expensive soon or sooner.

[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351769963' post='20777']You also have to ask yourselves - How much detail do you really want/need to see?[/quote]

What does 'detail' mean? Do you see more details in a 1080p video than in a 720p video? Or do you just find the image more [i]clean[/i]? What does 'clean image' mean? A lot of sharp textures with millions of tiny details? Or a smooth and organic picture that doesn't show any patterns of the smallest elements (pixel = [i]pic[/i]ture [i]el[/i]ement) of which it is composed?
Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Axel - projection-wise i was talking about before digital editing, sorry should have been clearer. As soon as digital crept in, then yes.

As far as detail, i meant objects etc... I remember being involved in doing early tests using HD cameras for TV & it made me laugh how much more complicated it made everything. It showed up every imperfection, on clothes (dandruff & dust being the biggest pains), skin blemishes & every object - it was crazy annoying! Time saved in some quarters didn't quite equate into others.

But don't get me wrong, i love digital.
What does make me laugh is people still trying to get the "Film Look"!
Film has 1 foot firmly out the door, but is hesitating. It really needs a shove!
Lets reserve judgement on all things digital until The Hobbit and/or Avatar 2 hit the cinemas.
I'm really curious/excited about ditching 24fps - historically it was a film standard created due to the expense of using celluloid & i don't think it translates well to digital. I want the hyper real effect ASAP. I want to feel as if i could reach in & touch everything - a virtual reality effect if you will.
Less detachment & more emersion. I just watched Watchmen Blu-ray on the new Samsung TV using an Oppo player & it really shocked how crisp,sharp & real everything became - the opening scene was jaw dropping, bits of dust, glass etc... The image looked too real (people are claiming TV like) to begin with, but after 10mins it made the experience so much better!

I don't want 2k/4k, i want 7k & as many fps as possible!

If you've never used film to make a short or even a feature, then you've been saved a great headache - especially the one on your wallet!
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351779549' post='20786']
@ Axel - projection-wise i was talking about before digital editing, sorry should have been clearer. As soon as digital crept in, then yes.[/quote]

It's funny how no one remembers how bad cinema projection in the old days really was. It competed with TV resolution of the time (480 i, close to absolute glaucoma), and yet audiences complained (in vain), that very often the images were out of focus.

[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351779549' post='20786']I don't want 2k/4k, i want 7k & as many fps as possible![/quote]

I understand that. I have another background. I argue that neither bigger resolution nor higher frame rates add information to the image, perceived is only a cleaner, as you say hyperrealistic feel to it. This justifies to follow the flow of things and to not stand in the way of progress, but there is no reason to freak out. 60p or 5k don't change the way films are made, tempest in a teapot.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1351779549' post='20786']
@ Axel - projection-wise i was talking about before digital editing, sorry should have been clearer. As soon as digital crept in, then yes.

As far as detail, i meant objects etc... I remember being involved in doing early tests using HD cameras for TV & it made me laugh how much more complicated it made everything. It showed up every imperfection, on clothes (dandruff & dust being the biggest pains), skin blemishes & every object - it was crazy annoying! Time saved in some quarters didn't quite equate into others.[/quote]

I'm sure that's true to some extent but we all got used to it and now it's not really any more work then working on film. If anything the immediate on set feedback and not having to wait for film development sometimes saves time and effort in reshoots.

[quote]But don't get me wrong, i love digital.
What does make me laugh is people still trying to get the "Film Look"!
Film has 1 foot firmly out the door, but is hesitating. It really needs a shove!
Lets reserve judgement on all things digital until The Hobbit and/or Avatar 2 hit the cinemas.
I'm really curious/excited about ditching 24fps - historically it was a film standard created due to the expense of using celluloid & i don't think it translates well to digital. I want the hyper real effect ASAP. I want to feel as if i could reach in & touch everything - a virtual reality effect if you will.
Less detachment & more emersion. I just watched Watchmen Blu-ray on the new Samsung TV using an Oppo player & it really shocked how crisp,sharp & real everything became - the opening scene was jaw dropping, bits of dust, glass etc... The image looked too real (people are claiming TV like) to begin with, but after 10mins it made the experience so much better!

I don't want 2k/4k, i want 7k & as many fps as possible!

If you've never used film to make a short or even a feature, then you've been saved a great headache - especially the one on your wallet!
[/quote]

Ugh... 48 fps... Please no. And I don't understand what the big deal about 48fps is anyway. I mean, you can shoot 60fps in HD now a I don't see anyone clambering on about how much better it makes the footage look. Sure there are a few crackpot video heads out there like you who want higher frame rates. jk ;-) But an overwhelming majority of the public does not feel the same way. Seriously, can your eye even perceive a difference between 48 fps and 60 fps? So if higher frame rates are better as you say, why is it that when people see 60 or 50 fps they think it looks like video? And if we have the ability to shoot 50-60 fps why don't more people shoot their movies with it?
(And no, before anyone says it, I'm not talking about shooting 60 and slowing it down to 24)

I don't know if it's just that I'm old and I don't like change or if it's just that I'm to used to seeing 24 or if I'm so used to associating 30fps with video... I don't know. But I know that when I see 24fps I know it and I recognize it as looking better and more pleasing. I'm not saying it is or that I know better then anyone. I'm just saying that for me, frame rates that exceed the 23-24-25 range look bad to me.

I've heard it said that using higher frame rates to make things look more real actually breaks your suspension of disbelief and thus causes you to actually feel that it's fake or unreal.

By the way, if anyone is curious what 48 frames per second looks like and you happen to have a hacked GH2 or live in a PAL country with a camera that shoots 50p HD, shoot some footage and 50p and watch it native speed and tell us if you think it looks better than 24.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've only recently, like a few weeks ago, got a sneak at what 48fps might look like & it did my head in for a while, but then i relaxed into it. I'm no spring chicken either & the thought horrified me, but then i had my eyes opened!

Yeah, the video look, well not exactly.

The suspension of disbelief & audience identification etc...well that's Film Theory for you. And the theorists are still mulling over the Filmic Experience & there's still no straightforward answer to what actually goes on - hence the Theory.
You might have heard about the early silent film (the train arriving at a station - the first film?), where the audience all started running when they thought the train would burst through the screen. That looked real to them & things have moved on a huge amount since that film. So perhaps they're just trying to recapture that early experience?

It'll be interesting & a challenge for both audience & filmmaker.
Things will move on & that's just the way of it, can't live in the past forever.
We'll just have to suck it & see.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...