Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Panasonic 4K Consumer Camera

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    yep, if some people can save the day just by using 4k instead 2k, it is ok for me.
    i just mean that 4k as display format is useless unless you look at your screen with a magnifier.
    but the technolgy behind 4k is very uselfull because it will allow better equipement (more bandwith everywhere even if not used).
    It is not a secret that people shooting big movies are already shooting large and cutting in the final frame in post, why should it be a shame.
    It is a good way to track microphones, special effect tracking marks, limit of sets if you can actually see them instead guessing if they will sudenly pop in you fov.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Adamsenoj View Post
      So you mean 4K's advantage is to be able to save directors and DPs from their own incompetence from getting the shot right where it should have been gotten right, the set?
      People can change their mind on what "right" is. Maybe in the editing room, they decide that they prefer the shot to be tighter and retrospect, wish they shot it that way. Even if on set they were sure they wanted what they got. It happens, and it's nice to have the freedom to change things around.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Adamsenoj View Post
        So you mean 4K's advantage is to be able to save directors and DPs from their own incompetence from getting the shot right where it should have been gotten right, the set?
        This is a pretty arrogant response, if not downright insulting towards those of us who have worked on, or been involved in producing feature films. This is especially true on low budget indie films which is at the heart of what DVXuser is for and the purpose it serves. On the flip side even on high budget productions it is often planned for and is not only used to correct mistakes on set.

        I don't wish to get into the 4k vs 2k debate for cinematic film production purposes, but it's pretty obvious anynone who agrees to that statement has never worked on a feature film or edited one.
        Dennis Hingsberg

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by starcentral View Post
          This is a pretty arrogant response, if not downright insulting towards those of us who have worked on, or been involved in producing feature films. This is especially true on low budget indie films which is at the heart of what DVXuser is for and the purpose it serves. On the flip side even on high budget productions it is often planned for and is not only used to correct mistakes on set.

          I don't wish to get into the 4k vs 2k debate for cinematic film production purposes, but it's pretty obvious anynone who agrees to that statement has never worked on a feature film or edited one.
          I work extensively in narrative. I just hate the whole fix it in post attitude that most people seem to adopt these days. It's much easier than actually having a vision and planning for it and any hack can carry it that way. If you want to call it arrogance then be it. It's your right. But don't come telling me I can only say that if I have never shot or edited a feature film before, because this is what I do.
          Cameras: Panasonic AF100, GH2 (x2) and Sony EX3.
          Lenses: Zeiss CP.2 primes

          Comment


            #35
            You can hate anything you like and that is not a problem with any of us, but so far you've implied that anyone using 4k as a post-production enhancement tool has adapted a "fix it in post" attitude, hasn't had vision or planned for it, and is incompetent.

            I agree with you about the "fixing it in post" attitude, but sometimes it is just far more practical, cheaper, time-efficient, etc.. to do so then worry about it on-set.
            Dennis Hingsberg

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by starcentral View Post
              I agree with you about the "fixing it in post" attitude,
              Then great. We agree!



              Originally posted by starcentral View Post
              but sometimes it is just far more practical, cheaper, time-efficient, etc.. to do so then worry about it on-set.
              Or maybe we don't!


              Sometimes as in once in a very long while for some very unforeseen situation or as in always counting on it?
              Cameras: Panasonic AF100, GH2 (x2) and Sony EX3.
              Lenses: Zeiss CP.2 primes

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by starcentral View Post
                ...but it's pretty obvious anynone who agrees to that statement has never worked on a feature film or edited one.
                Wrong.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Adamsenoj View Post
                  Sometimes as in once in a very long while for some very unforeseen situation or as in always counting on it?
                  If it is planned for (as I alluded to in prior posts) and it comes down to being more "practical, cheaper, time efficient" then does it really matter if it is "sometimes" or "always counted on"?

                  For those really doubting the use of 4k/5k and framing in the post-production process I can only suggest you look into the works of David Fincher who worked on The Amazing Spiderman (3D), The Social Network, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo to name just a few. Perhaps he too is incompetent as you say.
                  Dennis Hingsberg

                  Comment


                    #39
                    What have 4k to do with AF100?
                    http://www.c4film.se

                    Comment


                      #40
                      4K without at least 10bit 422 or 444 codec is simply pointless. If you increase the detal to that degree, you'll have to have signal to actually back it up. RED doesn't look this good, just because it's just 4K. Consumer JVC 4K camera actually looks far worse then say F3. Resolution isn't everything- BMDCC footage can back up this statement. Particularly if you take into a consideration that 99.9% will never make to to a big screen with 4K projector.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Of the nine films nominated for Best Picture Oscars this year, six shot (primarily) on film and three on digital. Of the five Best Cinematography nominations this year, three were shot on film and two on digital. (I say "primarily" because Argo used both film and digital to differentiate the scenes set in Istanbul (digital) from from those set in in Iran, Washington DC, and Hollywood (various film stocks).

                        What is noteworthy for this discussion is that, with one minor exception, all the above mentioned digitally-acquired films were shot on Arri Alexa cameras. The one exception is that "Skyfall" (shot primarily on several different versions of Arri Alexas), also used a Red Epic for some additional 2nd unit action shots. They probably wanted the higher res for compositing reasons.

                        If these Academy Award nominated block-busters (a billion dollar+ box office in the case of "Skyfall") can shoot on less than 4K, I think that maybe super-hi-res is being over-proselytized here.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Dynamic Range, Resolution, color, etc... Improvements are always welcome. Shoot with the best you can get your hands on. Sure, there are some jobs I couldn't care less about but there are plenty I worked on back on SD that make me cringe having to put those on my reel. Shooting and editing in 4K these days is no big deal. Let look at the bigger picture.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Fix it in post in great, if you are the DP and the editor (and not dumping the work on someone else). Frankly I don't care if someone thinks they are "better" because they did it "right" in camera. The only "right" way is what looks awesome at the end of the day, and works, in the easiest/cheapest/fastest way possible.

                            Maybe it's cause I'm young, but I shoot stuff "wrong" all the time knowing I can fix it in post in less time then it would take me to do it "right" on set. Mix color temperatures on an interview shot? Sure, I can just mask and re-white balance the part that's wrong in 60 seconds. Over expose the sky on a tripod shot, then shoot a sky "plate" and composite it in with a feathered mask to double my dynamic range? Yup, sure beats bringing out a ton of lights to brighten my subject and expose "correctly"

                            Shoot handheld in a run'n gun documentary setting, stabilize the shot in post? Zoom/get the framing just right if there's resolution to spare? Of course. Especially for live events or weddings where you can't set things up just perfect. Or even in narrative, you plan something out and then when cutting you realize the cut would look better framed different or what not?

                            Sorry, if someone has a problem with that they're self righteous. I'm in it for the creative process, and for me that happens from start to end. That includes post. And I'm into practicality. If I can achieve the same result cheaper and easier by fixing in post that I am going to fix in post.

                            I think someone is just sore that their skill on set is no longer as irreplaceable as it once was thanks to computers. Which I get, sure. But don't tell us we're incompetent because we want 4k cameras to have even more flexibility in post. Adapt. It's about the creative process and the end result, not relying on computers minimally. That is a personal preference, not a "higher" way.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by filmguy123 View Post
                              Can you/could you retain a M43 lens mount design with an s35 sensor? Or would it require a change in mounts to utilize s35 sensor?

                              Because if you had an S35 sensor with M43 mount, it would crop a little bit of the S35 sensor... yes? But wouldn't it still give the benefits of the larger sensor (better low light) and even with the crop, reduce the crop factor greatly from the AF100? If this was the case, would 4K still be possible or would it be closer to 3K? Not that it matters much to me, I don't need 4K resolution...

                              Perhaps the AF100 could be an S35 internal sensor but with a slight bit of a crop factor, retain M43 mount?
                              by the way, can someone answer this?

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Technically 4K is just a resolution and is not attached to any sensor size. So in theory a M43 size sensor can indeed be 4K.
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X