Who needs 4k, RAW and Primes?

cyvideo

Veteran
89%Rotten Tomatoes

8.4/10IMDb

7.9/10Rating Graph


Having watched all the seasons so far I was interested to read the following technical production specs of what is obviously a successful string of series:

Technical preparation was eased by the fact that “Showtime was not bothered about the whole 4K thing, and they still don't seem to be, so we didn't need a 4K camera,” Polonsky notes, referring to the requirement of some other studios to shoot in 4K to help future-proof content. This led to a straightforward camera choice: the Alexa Plus, shooting 2K ProRes to SxS cards. “They were reluctant to have a traditional DIT on the whole show, so we wanted to put in place a workflow that was fairly bulletproof,” says the cinematographer. To this end, he used the conventional, built-in Alexa Rec 709 LUT, describing it as “a basic idea of what you want the picture to look like.”

Principal lenses were Angenieux Optimo 17-80mm (T2.2) and 24-290mm (T2.8) zooms. “[The 17-80mm] is not the newest thing,” Polonsky says, “but it offers a combination of being quite fast — T2.2, so it’s close to what a prime lens might offer you — and focusing close. It’s also not massive.” He estimates that 95 percent of the show was shot on the lens, often at the wider end of the short zoom. “Every time we used a wide-angle closeup, the results felt enormously three-dimensional. You have to be a little sensitive to the physiognomy of your actors, but we all felt that our characters could take it if we wanted to use it.” This effect was enhanced further in the geometric environment of the modernist Axe Capital offices: “On the 17-80mm, there was quite a lot of distortion. I initially thought this was a problem, then I realized I quite liked it.”


https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/April2016/Top-Dollar/page1.html

Chris Young
 
I agree, but I think most would take an Alexa shooting 2k ProRes over lesser cameras shooting 4k. ProRes approaches RAW in its upper levels as data is data. The camera lens combo quality is always more important than resolution or any one spec imho. Interesting that even though they probably have the resources they chose to stay in 2k. But many movies have been made this way and this series started a few years back so they probably wanted to keep it consistent.
 
We are living in a time when HD is still perfectly acceptable for today's viewing. But check back with the owners of that series in a few years to see if they still feel it was a financially good idea not to shoot 4K when they could have. Only time will tell if their choice not to future-proof was a wise one or not. I'm a fan of both Billions and Bloodline, and they both look great, but someday HD ain't gonna cut it while other shows live on and on.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but those quotes are from 6 years ago. What are they shooting Billions on now?
 
We are living in a time when HD is still perfectly acceptable for today's viewing. But check back with the owners of that series in a few years to see if they still feel it was a financially good idea not to shoot 4K when they could have. Only time will tell if their choice not to future-proof was a wise one or not. I'm a fan of both Billions and Bloodline, and they both look great, but someday HD ain't gonna cut it while other shows live on and on.

I'm willing to make a (friendly) wager that very few viewers will care, or even notice, if their shows and movies were shot in 4K or simply upscaled from HD. I'm not even sure most people notice the difference between 720p and 1080p, which to my eyes is actually significant (unlike the leap from HD to UHD in most consumer viewing formats).

I wish streaming services would have focused on better quality HD (i.e., less destructive compression) rather than chasing the marketing ploy that is most 4K branding. The gap between Blu-Ray quality and streaming quality is far, far more noticeable than anything having to do with resolution.
 
I'm willing to make a (friendly) wager that very few viewers will care, or even notice, if their shows and movies were shot in 4K or simply upscaled from HD. I'm not even sure most people notice the difference between 720p and 1080p, which to my eyes is actually significant (unlike the leap from HD to UHD in most consumer viewing formats).

I wish streaming services would have focused on better quality HD (i.e., less destructive compression) rather than chasing the marketing ploy that is most 4K branding. The gap between Blu-Ray quality and streaming quality is far, far more noticeable than anything having to do with resolution.

I agree with all of that and I won't take your wager. :-)
 
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but those quotes are from 6 years ago. What are they shooting Billions on now?

True. I did have a quick look to see if they had upped the tech aspects of the production but couldn't find any info. That being said I really don't see much difference in the 'look' between seasons 1 and 6.

Re the use of zoom lenses. I think there is a slow move to more use of zoom lenses now with the speed, size, and performance of these all improving over recent years. Especially the performance which is now approaching and bettering many primes from just a couple of years back. Canon's new FF zoom pair will no doubt attract more users to zooms with the move to more FF camera use.

https://www.cined.com/canon-cn-e20-50mm-and-cn-e45-135mm-t2-4-l-f-fp-full-frame-cine-zoom-lenses-introduced/

Chris Young
 
To me skyfall looked great. better than anything ive ever done with my various '4k' cameras. It was good enough to enjoy apparently.

In terms of archive and res.. people will still watch Fools and Horses or whatever.. as we like the content and CA and 480 4:3 is part of the fun.

Overall I think the text in yellow is really nice.

Hre I am with c200 and R6 and basically I dont have any camera envy. (id take a c500 and actively drool over a phantom flex)

Im prepping for a feature and the fact that they might use something bigger than the c200 is just annoying. Ask anyone who has moved two oconnor heads longer than a month shoot.

backbreaker..
 

Attachments

  • backbreaker.kpg.jpg
    backbreaker.kpg.jpg
    65.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Only time will tell if their choice not to future-proof was a wise one or not.

I'm not fully convinced anything we shoot today is "future-proof" just because it was shot in a certain resolution, certain raw or log format or on a certain camera. I know we all like to think we are future-proofing for whatever we're told might be the next thing (ie. Rec2020 or HDR displays)... but it's an educated guess at best what will become the de-facto standard ... if there ever is another one like REC709.
 
Yes, it's hard to predict what the future will bring. But shooting for RAW/LOG/HDR today gives me that option later to go back and grade for HDR if I need it. But shooting for SDR today, closes that door. Shooting 4K today means I can deliver 4K tomorrow with no uprezzing. But shooting HD today, closes that door. To me, it is all about keeping my options open. And if I don't really need those options later, well, it was just as easy to shoot HDR and 4K as it would have been to SDR and HD. No harm. There's no valid argument that higher resolution or better dynamic range isn't a good thing to have, all other things being equal.
 
Back
Top