Harry Lime
Well-known member
I think it's an issue that has been addressed by many DoP like Rodney Charters etc. and there seems to be a real disconnect between the working cinematographers (in particular on the high end), the manufacturers and a contingent within our business that are very enthusiasts about new technology. It's a multifaceted issue and 4k tends to be both a boon and challenge.
One of the main jobs of a DoP is to make the talent look good, even if they are playing someone who is ill or covered in mud. That's just the way Hollywood works. Modern glass and +4k is extremely unforgiving to the point that it can pick up a lot of issues that you don't even see with the naked eye. You see pores, blemishes, botches, scars, wrinkles and depending on how sensitive the camera is to IR you may even see a little under the skin and pick up veins and all sorts of stuff that you normally don't see. There was an interview with Rodney Charters a while back and he was talking about how do you shot a 60 something year old actress under those circumstances and not get fired after dailies? On a lower resolution camera or on film this would have not really been an issue.
Given all of that how do you shoot anyone who isn't 18 years old or absolutely perfect? For starters you soften the light, but now you are not necessarily lighting the scene how you would want to light it, but how you need to light it to compensate for a high resolution sensor. The makeup gets a little thicker and you start to use diffusion filters to knock the resolution down. The price of vintage glass has sky rocketed, because while it is sharp, it is more forgiving to the talent and sets. We were very lucky to have a set of vintage Super Baltar primes on Chanel. Very sharp, but they don't have the micro contrast of the modern lenses that picks up the finest details. HD and those lenses also made our cheap sets look real.
Next you're doing beauty work in post. It has become standard procedure for stars to have a clause in their contract that allocates money for digital beauty work. So, yes we can soften the footage, but it does beg the question of why shoot 4k, when you're going to knock it down in post to 2-3k and yet still have to push around a ton more data?
Maybe the answer lies with the OLPF in front of the sensor. I've been looking at the FS7 and to me the 4k footage doesn't look as clinical and sharp as other 4k cameras. Maybe the OLPF on the FS7 is a little stronger and it's keeping that ultra fine detail under control?
I'm not saying that you can't make 4k work, but I do feel that it has introduced some issues that simply weren't a factor when we were shooting film or HD. Personally I think Arri has hit the sweet spot with the Alexa at 2.8k. Sharp enough to hold detail in a wide shot, but manageable on a closeup. If you blow it up to 4k the filtering seems to act like an antialiasing filter and gives it a pleasant organic feeling.
Whatever the answer is the simple fact is that 4k is going to be the new standard and that's it. I think the Alexa is the last big gun camera out there that is not 4k or higher and Arri isn't thrilled about being 'forced' to go 4k or higher. I have a feeling that two years from now pretty much all cameras will be 4k. So, we just have to make it work, because there will be no other option available.
Last edited:
