Thread: NAB 2018 Prediction

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 80 of 80
  1. #71  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    2,365
    Stip, we are, what we are saying is 8K right now is very unrealistic and their is no real advantages for a lot of the work being done today.
    A 8K work flow with today’s editing equiyis also going to be a mighty stretch, as is data management, unless the video is highly compressed, like the full 4K Sony and Panasonic Cameras shoot. A 4K raw file is more than a lot of systems can handle, let alone a 8K raw file.

    But, give it Time, who knows in 2-4 years, 8K might be where 4K is today, an acquisition format.
    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Senior Member Perry Mulder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Hulst, Netherlands
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Smith View Post
    Perry, sounds like you just described a EVA1, and close to an Ursa Mini Pro, less the GS and BMCC form factor.
    Bu this would be a sweet camera you just described.
    Cheers
    haha..What I described is the BMCC v2 :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    Senior Member Timothy Cook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    852
    No one is shooting current modern movies or TV (well maybe low-end TV) in 720p. They maybe delivering in 720p but it was shot in 2K, 3K or 4K.

    This is not the same as saying 720p is fine and 4K is useless. Things shot in 720p and viewed on current TVs look like dog crap. 720p is literally less than one megapixel resolution.

    Watching a football game (American) on Fox which uses 720p is sub par vs CBS which sends my TV a 1080i stream and looks noticeably better. I'm not sure why the 1080i is so much better than the 720p. But CBS football looks considerably better than Fox.
    Now, neither of those holds a candle to what Ive been experiencing watching the Olympics in 4K HDR at a buddies house. It glorious!!! I mean insanely glorious.

    Sorry, but I don't have to be a Director of movies, a DoP, a Writer, a Colorist or even in the industry in some form to look at an HDR 4K broadcast (not even talking cinema) next to a 720p broadcast and know that the 720p looks like poo comparatively.
    I'm also 40, and if some progressive minded youngsters want to hang out on my lawn with new ideas that will usher us in to a better future... I won't tell them to get off my lawn. :P lol



    I say this in a loving and respectful tone :P, but some of you guys need to get yours vision checked, and if you already wear glasses it may be time to stop the denial and move on to the stronger prescription.
    Last edited by Timothy Cook; Today at 12:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #74  
    Senior Member Taikonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,567
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Higher resolution has nothing to do with DR.

    The very vast majority of what most people see is not shot 4K. Even on Netflix, unless it's specifically a "Netflix Original" it's probably shot with a not 4K camera.

    Most of what one sees at a cinema these days that is considered "good" and high end is also not shot 4K.

    I guess it's nice if you want to brag about your K's but it's diminishing returns past 4K realistically. It's possible they'll have to for marketing, but I'm pretty sure the best selling and most beloved camera that Blackmagic make is "only" 1920.

    I'm shooting a series right now for Fox / Disney that only airs in 720. They have zero interest in 4K let alone anything more.

    JB
    What I'm getting at is material being shot in 8k but down sampled into 4k or less that produces better IQ than native resolution. Noise, aliasing gets squeezed out and you can use footage that would have been too noisey to do so at lower resolution being impacted by noise. Is it not the noise level that can dictate the amount of useable DR?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #75  
    Senior Member Taikonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,567
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    There probably also should be an indication of the difference between a final product that's delivered in 1080p/720p acquired from higher resolution sensors vs. lower resolution sensors.

    There are constant ads everywhere in life (online) that are delivered/streaming even in 480p but are shot with higher resolution cameras.

    A native 1080p chip (at least in a big city) these days will only get you so far unless it's for a niche type of personal work for a particular client.
    Exactly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #76  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Smith View Post
    Stip, we are, what we are saying is 8K right now is very unrealistic and their is no real advantages for a lot of the work being done today.
    A 8K work flow with today’s editing equiyis also going to be a mighty stretch, as is data management, unless the video is highly compressed, like the full 4K Sony and Panasonic Cameras shoot. A 4K raw file is more than a lot of systems can handle, let alone a 8K raw file.

    But, give it Time, who knows in 2-4 years, 8K might be where 4K is today, an acquisition format.
    Cheers
    I was being sarcastic.
    We're on the same paige Denny, I think 8K is silly at this point just like you and I and JB ect pointed out earlier.

    I am a firm believer in content and how you present it, not with what, so discussions like this make me kind of forget myself quite fast
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #77  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    175
    I remember when the first footage for Blade Runner 2049 came out. IMDB had it listed as being shot on the Alexa 65, so everyone was excited to see 6K footage shot by Roger Deakins. After seeing this footage, cinematographers and videographers all over the net were praising the beauty of the Alexa 65. Everyone was praising how much better, clearer, and sharper it looked over the classic 2K Arri. How the 6K resolution was a game changer. Then Roger Deakins publicly said that the movie was in fact filmed on the classic Arri Alexa, not the 65.

    Resolution has hit the razors edge. Plenty of science to prove it. But, if I show someone a clear cut rock in one hand, and claim its quartz, that person will only see its flaws. If I show the same person the same rock from another hand, and claim its diamond, that person will only see its perfection.

    Resolution is the lowest hanging fruit in the camera world. Every few years marketing will switch hands and claim "#K is quartz, this new #K is diamond", and they will push that claim with the white hot intensity of 1000 suns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw View Post
    I remember when the first footage for Blade Runner 2049 came out. IMDB had it listed as being shot on the Alexa 65, so everyone was excited to see 6K footage shot by Roger Deakins. After seeing this footage, cinematographers and videographers all over the net were praising the beauty of the Alexa 65. Everyone was praising how much better, clearer, and sharper it looked over the classic 2K Arri. How the 6K resolution was a game changer. Then Roger Deakins publicly said that the movie was in fact filmed on the classic Arri Alexa, not the 65.

    Resolution has hit the razors edge. Plenty of science to prove it. But, if I show someone a clear cut rock in one hand, and claim its quartz, that person will only see its flaws. If I show the same person the same rock from another hand, and claim its diamond, that person will only see its perfection.

    Resolution is the lowest hanging fruit in the camera world. Every few years marketing will switch hands and claim "#K is quartz, this new #K is diamond", and they will push that claim with the white hot intensity of 1000 suns.
    Let's assume that all modern movies should be delivered in 4k.

    If I shoot a film in both 4k and 8k, and deliver it in 4k after simple editing and CC, there probably wont be any difference in the image.

    BUT for me as an editor 8k opens much more flexibility in post. Here are a few advantages of 8k over 4k which I clearly see:
    1. reframing options. Yes, you should plan all the frames in advance, but sometimes there are unexpected "greatness" in the frame which you want to accent. With 8k I can digitally zoom in to at least 150% without noticeable quality loss.
    2. much better and easier masking, keying, etc...
    3. you can do experimental stuff, like for example, zoom in and rotate the image (a rolling shot (?), "a-space-odyssey-hallway-shot"), fake dolly-zoom shot (it's imperfect, but it might work for the scene), etc.
    4. better stabilization options

    You can't notice the difference between films shot in low-res and high-res because a good editor (or vfx artist) never use a shot which he can't handle/fix/clean, he just skip it.

    There is a great film called "Upstream Color", which was shot on dslr. I think the film was almost ruined by low-res image with noticeable low-bitrate artifacts. Really wished It was shot on something more professional other than dslr.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #79  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    2,785
    Quote Originally Posted by core_50 View Post
    BUT for me as an editor 8k opens much more flexibility in post. Here are a few advantages of 8k over 4k which I clearly see:
    1. reframing options. Yes, you should plan all the frames in advance, but sometimes there are unexpected "greatness" in the frame which you want to accent. With 8k I can digitally zoom in to at least 150% without noticeable quality loss.
    2. much better and easier masking, keying, etc...
    3. you can do experimental stuff, like for example, zoom in and rotate the image (a rolling shot (?), "a-space-odyssey-hallway-shot"), fake dolly-zoom shot (it's imperfect, but it might work for the scene), etc.
    4. better stabilization options
    The problem is that all your advantages are actually solutions to problems that usually you can avoid if you shoot it properly in the first place.

    As a cinematographer who works very hard on set with a director and operator, I object pretty strongly to the idea of casual "re-framing". I'm pretty sure almost any reasonable DP would do so. I wouldn't go back to working on a production that thought this was OK.

    I did a show once with RED that was delivering to HD, and the editor realised he all of a sudden had all this great resolution to be able to do these re-frames and re-positions and post zooms, all without any planning or intent from set.

    Everyone loved it as an editorial treatment, however, getting into the grade everyone then realised if you zoom 400% to the top left corner on a wide zoom lens to someone standing in the deep background when the lens is focussed at 6" you get an out of focus mis-shapen head. Lenses distort. Often they're not focussed on what you're punching in on. It's as simple as that. Rarely do I see these giant corrections working UNLESS they're planned on set.

    And frankly, it's EDITORS who tend to think this is a good idea.

    Sure, punch in 20% to fix a problem, but I have very great skepticism of this idea of a giant safetynet of re-framing. I mean it just says you're afraid as a filmmaker to commit to a composition and want the chance to re-stage something later. You don't need to overshoot so much resolution even if you need to stablise.

    Maybe if you're doing something that's all VFX all the time, sure.

    But shooting a format that puts such an onerous cost (media and pipeline) on production just in case you want to fix something later is just lazy. And disrespectful to the craft of cinematography.

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #80  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,866
    I've shot for editors before. There is a certain propensity for favoring flexibility over strong decision making that I've observed. Regardless, I don't think anyone is arguing these points in and of themselves. 8K is better, it's easy to say, how much better is the challenge. I think we're all aware of the majority pros and cons though I would like to point out that currently the Red has to shoot 5:1 in 8K @24p and that drops down to 12:1 @60p The Redmags can't even support Prores HQ at 8K. So there is definitely a tradeoff with compression vs. resolution. Lensing will also become a limiting aspect, for digital reframing you'll likely run out of lens resolution long before you'll run out of pixels. Unless we now shoot everything at f8.0 so the lens is sharp enough to reframe digitally?

    Personally I'm a fan of oversampling for the sake of oversampling. Single chip Cmos, 1:1, no OLPF, no thanks, too many artifacts. Bayer sensors are driven too hard to try and reconstruct detail, lot's of aliasing and demosaicing artifacts, step back and it looks fine but if you're peeping it's pretty easy to spot. If you're delivering true 4K to the big screen I think you should probably be shooting around 5-6k. For the small screen 4K down to 2K is more than adequate. Admittedly I'm not one of the 3 guys on the internet who can tell the difference between 8K and 4K.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Probability of a new BMD camera in 2018?
    By stip in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 02-05-2018, 10:16 PM
  2. MARCO VARNI ADV Campaign 2018
    By Le_Chris in forum Footage / Frames
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-06-2017, 08:16 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •