F55: A top DP went 4k and not 2k

[starcentral]

Claudio Mirandam, ASC, known for Tron, Oblivion, went for 4k on the film Oblivion - the first major motion picture to be shot with the Sony F65.

http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/03/29/claudio-miranda-asc-on-oblivion/

Our Sky Tower sequences, all done in-camera, look great. Iceland is stunning. That’s where we really wanted the 4K for the textures and what we got out of the camera was great: these beautiful exteriors in Iceland that we wanted to capture in full rez and background. When we saw it back in 4K it was stunning.

ok ok... well it was shot 4k and while Joe Kosinski (Director) wanted to release it in 4k, due to limited time and money the DI was done in 2k and so was the release.

Anyway enjoy the article, there are some very interesting perspectives on shooting in very high resolutions in there.

cheers,

 

[rx8pilot]

......wanted to release it in 4k, due to limited time and money the DI was done in 2k and so was the release

Time and money is why it's called "The Business"
All the best intentions can be stepped on, even on the largest of features. Its kind of crazy to think about the implication of moving from 2k to 4k through the entire production path. 4x the data is expensive.

 

[Viddovation]

It really shouldn't be a surprise that today's major studio motion pictures are being acquired either on film or in 4k, nor should it be a surprise that many of them still finish their DI in 2k.

This is economics in motion. Oblivion had a budget of 120 million dollars. What's practical and business savvy at that budget level doesn't necessarily apply to people shooting movies for $500k or less. The Sony F35 - the camera Claudio Miranda used on Tron: Legacy - is now available for less than $10k due to the popular love affair with 4k. Cameras like the F5 and F55 offer the flexibility of acquisition in 1080, 2k, or 4k, for costs under $40k.

"News" like in the OP can certainly be handy information when swaying a client one direction or another, but the numerous major motion pictures shot at 1080p on cameras like the Sony F35 and Panavision Genesis are empirical proof that 1080p is sufficient for audiences. Movies like Avatar, Tron: Legacy, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon prove that 1080p is sufficient for heavy CGI and SFX material. TV shows like Bones, The Vampire Diaries and Justified have demonstrated that 1080p is sufficient for major TV dramas. Combine that with the cost saving 1080p offers through the entire production pipeline, and there's a compelling argument to be made that low budget productions should shoot 1080p and dedicate the cost savings to other departments, including casting.

To be perfectly blunt - audiences and distributors care about actors with name recognition, not pixels.

We live in an incredible world folks - you can buy a major motion picture digital cinema camera for under $10k. It's all at your fingertips. To quote The Last Crusade - "You must choose, but choose wisely."

 

[starcentral]

Chris Forrester (Journalist and Industry Consultant, UK) discusses and convnices producers and channel managers to start thinking about 4k. It's quite a long video but BBC discusses how they chose to shoot an entire series in 4k for the detail level and ability to re-frame fast running game out in the wild hunting its prey. They also talk about how the biggest issue right now is the storage and money needed for it - imagine shooting 1500 hours of 4k RAW footage?

Anyway I thought this was incredibly interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S6WNImRaec

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Chris Forrester (Journalist and Industry Consultant, UK) discusses and convnices producers and channel managers to start thinking about 4k. It's quite a long video but BBC discusses how they chose to shoot an entire series in 4k for the detail level and ability to re-frame fast running game out in the wild hunting its prey. They also talk about how the biggest issue right now is the storage and money needed for it - imagine shooting 1500 hours of 4k RAW footage?

Anyway I thought this was incredibly interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S6WNImRaec

Around 27 minutes, the fellow speaking says something to the effect of 4k creating shallower DoF to help 'pop-out' the hero animal (among other animals).

Ummmm no. I have a feeling this comment was because his division (Wildlife shooting, etc) was still shooting 1080p in a 2/3" video format such as tried-and-true Panasonic Varicams. He is likely jumping from 1080p 2/3" platform to 4k S35mm platform. So yes, the change in sensor size would dictate longer lenses for similar FoV range they are used to. Thus the shallower DoF. He must have missed the years and extreme popularity of S35mm sized sensors shooting 1080p/2k and thus made this error in logic.

For those who do not know, DoF has to do with in-the-field settings (subject to camera distance, Aperture and focal length). However, the focal length can be dictated by the sensor size, as mentioned above, however that has nothing to do with resolution. In fact, you can pack 4k worth of pixels into a small chip, like the GoPro Hero3, or you can stuff it in something very large, such as a full frame video sensor, such as the Canon 1Dc DSLR. Both cameras boast 4k, but the sensor sizes are VASTLY different.

When shooting 4K F65/F55 or 4k Epic/Dragon, the sensor is still S35mm ballpark, the same as F3, F5, C300, Alexa, F35, Etc, etc. In fact, a 5DmII under similar circumstances would offer less DoF even at 1080p, because resolution does not matter on actual DoF. There can be perceived differences in sharpness thus perceived DoF changes (but not actual), however, I think this guy just doesn't have his facts straight. More resolution does not equal less DoF. Perceived sharpness within that DoF might change with resolution, but the DoF will be the same.


He further goes on to assure the audience 4k can work with macro photography, example of him shooting a tiny spider. *Facepalm* again, 4k has nothing to do with optical ability of a lens's close focusing ability. This seems like an infomercial for people who have no idea how resolution and cinematography works.




Also, regarding the ability to 'zoom' in digitally for reframing... if the deliverables and target presentation is 4k, you better capture in 6k or 8k if you are going to really lean on post reframing because 4k cropped in as much as that cheatah example was, was quite a stretch. It looked to be almost 25% of the original size, making it pretty far from 4k. If their arguement for 4k is so strong, our capture medium better be higher! Doing this for a shot or two isn't terrible, but it's not 4k either.

I'm not against 4k, but I heard very little real points regarding the use of it. Most of it was general half-truths paraded around as being more significant than they really are.

 

[TimurCivan]

I believe in 4k for one simple reason. 4k is instantly accessible on youtube, soon vimeo, and in the near future Netflix. Having acquired a film in 4k means you can post in 1080 and release now, then when 4k content is needed, you can reonline in 4k, and poof, Your work has a whole new money making market.

It extends the longevity of your product.

TV shows shot in the 90's were all on film. When Netflix 1080p came out, suddenly all those shows were available in glorious 1080p and became relevant to a modern audience in the digital age.

 

[starcentral]

Yes some of his facts are wonky and resolution-irrelevant but still the fact is the BBC is producing a series in 4k and dealing with the mass requirement for storage, etc. despite the fact there isn't even a mainstream 4k delivery stream. In their case often capturing "one of a kind" footage it makes sense to shoot it in as high resolution as possible, heck maybe even higher than 4k. Imagine all the time, money, and resources that went into the now useless SD wildlife footage they had previously acquired.

The discussion about broadcasters not being ready for 4k also comes up in this video. They somewhat speculate the shift from to 4k won't be as drastic as it was when going from SD to HD and that it also won't take as long (although nobody really knows how long it will take) but reality is, as Timur highlights, there are many more options now for 4k delivery and the way consumers are watching content.

With Apple pushing the resolution race with their devices, Sony pushing it for capturing content (consumer and professional), and companies like NetFlix trying to get into 4k as well, it's only a matter of time.

Tick tock.

 

[harddrive]

Ummmm no. I have a feeling this comment was because his division (Wildlife shooting, etc) was still shooting 1080p in a 2/3" video format such as tried-and-true Panasonic Varicams. He is likely jumping from 1080p 2/3" platform to 4k S35mm platform. ........

There can be perceived differences in sharpness thus perceived DoF changes (but not actual), however, I think this guy just doesn't have his facts straight. More resolution does not equal less DoF. Perceived sharpness within that DoF might change with resolution, but the DoF will be the same.

The normal definition of depth of field is as given in Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field ):

In optics, particularly as it relates to film and photography, depth of field (DOF) is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image.

The next question is what is meant by "acceptably sharp", and this is where the whole subject of "Circle of Confusion" comes in. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion )

For video systems, the value taken as circle of confusion must largely be determined by the system resolution. It's reasonable to take a value around the size of an individual photosite on the sensor - hence he is quite correct in saying that (all else equal), the depth of field in a 4K system will be less than for a 1080 one. This is nothing new. In still photography, it's always been the case that (again with all else equal) a different figure for dof had to be accepted if the end result was going to be a postcard size print or a 10x8 enlargement.

It's quite true that in an image with shallow depth of field, then the "defocussing" effect on the background will not vary regardless of system resolution. In general terms, the overall look of the image will be similar with varying system resolutions between the point of focus and something well behind or in front. But this is not what depth of field is defined as. Don't confuse depth of field with deep/shallow focus. Similar concepts, but different.

A given setup may result in a point just behind the plane of focus appearing equally sharp in a 1080 system - but not in a 4K one. This is why it's perfectly accurate to say that depth of field varies with system resolution, and (all else equal) will be shallower with 4K than 1080.

As regards the subject of reframing, then I take there to be two separate scenarios - 4K for presentation, or 4K to allow lossless reframing (up to a point!) No, you can't have your cake and eat it - but unless you shoot 4K in the first place, you can't have either! Isn't his argument more in favour of 4K ACQUISITION where possible as a good thing, allowing at least one or other of the two possibilities? Whereas acquire in 1080 and both doors are closed?

Finally, when you say "I have a feeling this comment was because his division (Wildlife shooting, etc) was still shooting 1080p in a 2/3" video format such as tried-and-true Panasonic Varicams. He is likely jumping from 1080p 2/3" platform to 4k S35mm platform. So yes, the change in sensor size would dictate longer lenses for similar FoV range they are used to. Thus the shallower DoF." then that's only true with a caveat of for the same f stop.

I've posted about this in another thread about using B4 (2/3") lenses on s35 cameras via an adaptor. Fundamentally, the image characteristics won't change for any given setting of the lens controls. The effect will be a longer focal length - but a smaller f stop and a larger image size. And the effects cancel each other out. The angle of view and depth of field (likewise deep/shallow focus characteristics) will be identical in each case. Hence the normal wisdom of "bigger sensor means shallower depth of field" is only true if referring to the same f stop in each case - and this need not be the case. (A lens for larger formats can be stopped down much smaller than one for 2/3" before diffraction limiting sets in.)

And I think starcentral is correct when he says that the real significance here is that the BBC are already using 4K acquisition on a flagship item, see value in it, and that even before there's much likelihood of general 4K distribution. Yes, the data requirements, workflow etc may stretch matters at the moment, but that is going to ease rapidly with time and technical advances.