Jump to content
jasonmillard81

1080 vs. 4K: What is REALLY necessary?

Recommended Posts

@iamoui significant advantage for shooting RAW stills over JPG. I haven't shot raw video yet but im sure the advantage is the same. Still I won't lose sleep over shooting 8 bit. Like JPG the closer you come to getting the look you want in camera the easier the image holds up to grading in my experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I have a tiny personal anecdote about the importance of 4K. I do a lot of food cinematography for a company that does video recipes, cookbooks etc. Their output is mainly online, on social media and the home pages of food companies.

We've been shooting 90% on BMCC in prores 1080p. On one production we had to knock out a large amount of videos in a short time, so I rigged an RX10 MK2 to the ceiling of the studio to get us an overhead look of the process, giving me two angles simultaneously. I suggested the producer I'd shoot in 4k to give him room to crop the image in post. He laughed and told me even 1080p gives plenty leeway for what they do - they delivered in 720p, and in the case of instagram, 640xsomething.

I've yet to have a client ask for 4K. I figure it'll be at least a few years before it'll be the norm or a requirement.

And if you're talking about a fixed price point, the choice often comes between 4K or other attributes like raw/Dynamic range. I'll take the raw and DR over 4K anytime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

@iamoui significant advantage for shooting RAW stills over JPG. I haven't shot raw video yet but im sure the advantage is the same. Still I won't lose sleep over shooting 8 bit. Like JPG the closer you come to getting the look you want in camera the easier the image holds up to grading in my experience

I think you meant to tag Liam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I shoot properly in camera and don't need my photos to look crazy, so raw isn't an advantage. Still "better" I guess, if I could ever figure it out, but overkill? Hell yeah. If this discussion has some people raving about raw and great work to show as proof, and some people showing off their stunning gh4/nx1 videos, and Kendy Ty just killin it, as usual, I guess we all win. Cuz we better be talking about the end product. Otherwise this is all silly. In fact, if you can get a great image out of a compressed 4k camera, that probably would have a slight edge over a 1080p raw camera for the final image. Sometimes 5diii raw doesn't look insanely detailed, and that's not something you can skill out of the camera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Liam said:

Yeah, I shoot properly in camera and don't need my photos to look crazy, so raw isn't an advantage. Still "better" I guess, if I could ever figure it out, but overkill? Hell yeah. If this discussion has some people raving about raw and great work to show as proof, and some people showing off their stunning gh4/nx1 videos, and Kendy Ty just killin it, as usual, I guess we all win. Cuz we better be talking about the end product. Otherwise this is all silly. In fact, if you can get a great image out of a compressed 4k camera, that probably would have a slight edge over a 1080p raw camera for the final image. Sometimes 5diii raw doesn't look insanely detailed, and that's not something you can skill out of the camera

110% agree. Whether RAW or Compressed it's just a path to the final image. Yeah they both have their advantages depending on who you ask but yeah whats the end product look like ? I seen plenty of footage shot with 5D Raw or BMCC that I wasn't interested in or felt like the end result wasn't far off from what I get with my totally unprofessional consumer cameras lol. Admittedly I've looked at some of Kendy Ty's t3i footage and it looked better than any of the content I've seen from Philip Bloom and a couple of other pro's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Liam said:

Yeah, I shoot properly in camera and don't need my photos to look crazy, so raw isn't an advantage. Still "better" I guess, if I could ever figure it out, but overkill? Hell yeah. If this discussion has some people raving about raw and great work to show as proof, and some people showing off their stunning gh4/nx1 videos, and Kendy Ty just killin it, as usual, I guess we all win. Cuz we better be talking about the end product. Otherwise this is all silly. In fact, if you can get a great image out of a compressed 4k camera, that probably would have a slight edge over a 1080p raw camera for the final image. Sometimes 5diii raw doesn't look insanely detailed, and that's not something you can skill out of the camera

You can get a great image out of a GH2 as well, why bother with a GH4???...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tweak said:

You can get a great image out of a GH2 as well, why bother with a GH4???...

Bingo. Really why bother unless there is a specific feature you need. New aint always better. Again if you like the aesthetic a camera like the Gh2 gives then go for it.

SB : The gh2 had a better looking image than the gh3 & gh4 imo. Gives us a gh2 that could shoot 4k and a magnesium alloy body @panasonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, tweak said:

You can get a good image out of a VX2100, why bother with an FS7???...

again it comes down to user preference. If you like the image then why not use it ? Cause it's old ? not good enough of a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to say that if I could get a VHS camera that recorded images that looked like 35mm film, I would take that over any regular HD camera any day. 

It's all about the character of the image. We've all spent years trying to dig down and figure out just what those individual elements are that make up the character of 35mm film images many of us love. But whatever they are, you can display them a VHS tape with bad color bandwidth, low resolution and interlaced frame rate and still get something super cinematic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to be ironic as the guy above said, "you can get a great image out of a compressed 4K camera that probably has an edge over 1080p Raw camera"... give me 10 of whatever he's on. :glasses: 

Any old camera (or worse codec) can give you a great final image if you work it properly, that doesn't mean it's better than another camera that you can get an even better image from if you know how to use it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, tweak said:

I was trying to be ironic as the guy above said, "you can get a great image out of a compressed 4K camera that probably has an edge over 1080p Raw camera"... give me 10 of whatever he's on. :glasses: 

Any old camera (or worse codec) can give you a great final image if you work it properly, that doesn't mean it's better than another camera that you can get an even better image from if you know how to use it properly.

Gh4

g7

T3i

Ten glasses of wine would literally kill anyone. Don't be a hero

The guy, me apparently, could easily classify each of these as the best image ever. Which means a better camera used properly would NOT be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have shot HD with my Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 85 1.2L on a rig and I have shot with my Sony FDR AX100 on a basic Benro S8 tripod and fluid head.  When I put both on my Samsung 55" 4k TV people are in awe of the clarity and detail of the Sony hands down no comparison.  The Sony when shot at 4K and rendered to 1080P looks almost like 4K still breath taking.  No matter what I do with the 5D II I just don't get the same customer response as when i shoot in 4K.  They think I am just an excellent photographer much better than others.  I don't always tell them they are watching 4K when in my studio.  It is pretty easy to explain that when i delivfer their product for Internet use like Yoututbe or Vimeo that I have to downscale the video so they don't expect what they saw in my studio.  my next camera will always be 4K or above.   Now looking at the Black Magic Cinema 4.6K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get what the videos you posted are meant to prove. Just posting videos from "such and such" camera is proving nothing except that it's possible to get a good image with that camera. Do you know how the scene was lit? Do you know how the footage was graded? etc.

The fact that you think Raws vs Jpeg in stills photography is "barely a difference" sends alarm bells ringing...
I think you really need to play around a lot more with some different equipment and tools before weighing in on this one. You yourself admitted you don't know how to properly manage a Raw still file thus I'm going to assume you've never had the delight nor know how to work with Raw video and thus haven't experience first hand the options/ quality benefits it can give you over an 8bit codec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tweak said:

I don't get what the videos you posted are meant to prove. Just posting videos from "such and such" camera is proving nothing except that it's possible to get a good image with that camera. Do you know how the scene was lit? Do you know how the footage was graded? etc.

 

2 hours ago, tweak said:

...another camera that you can get an even better image from if you know how to use it properly.

"even better". impossible when you're at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/06/2016 at 6:55 PM, jasonmillard81 said:

The following conversation gave me pause and I am hoping to get a few questions answered by more knowledgeable individuals:

 

 

One of the topics discussed was how these DPs feel that are sort of forced to use digital and many long for the days of film.  In addition they seem to acknowledge the necessity to keep up with the 4K, 6K, and 8K race but that sometimes the preferable image is of a much lower resolution and they spend time trying to achieve that by softening the image up etc. as they (maybe Deakins) feel that the audience finds the optimal image to not be so "realistic".

 

I'm curious on what everyone's opinions are.  If one isn't doing paid work and 4K+ aren't demanded then you still get away with investing in a new product that is 1080P if the image is currently seen as not only acceptable but desirable?

4K is about choice. It makes for great 1080p, very clean, less noise when downsampled in post. If it's too sharp or too realistic, you again have a choice... Use a filter, soften in post, there's all sorts you can do to make it look less digital.

A great digital pioneer Anthony Dod Mantle recently shot 5D Mark II with moire and aliasing on a major documentary production... This to me makes no sense unless it's an artistic choice. What was he thinking?

The leaders of this industry, the best DPs, are not always right... Trust your own judgement.

Share this post


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...