F**k The Numbers
- Thread starter Bern Caughey
- Start date
Bassman2003
Veteran
Thanks for sharing. Great video. Could listen to him talk for a long time.
Great video.
But in the end it is a bit confusing. He starts by saying picture/image is all and pixels are not that important (and I think he is right).
But at the end he is complaining that the quality of older films is so much better than modern digital camera's. (which might be right but than, who cares while pixels are not important.)
I have to see it one more time I think.
But in the end it is a bit confusing. He starts by saying picture/image is all and pixels are not that important (and I think he is right).
But at the end he is complaining that the quality of older films is so much better than modern digital camera's. (which might be right but than, who cares while pixels are not important.)
I have to see it one more time I think.
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
I love his quote about being the guardians of the image.
"We are guardians of the image and that's how I see our role as DP's. It's our job to make sure the images are right"- Geoff Boyle
It's very similar to a line from another shooter on another forum that I've been using for YEARS in my signature line there:
"Making video look good isn't a luxury, it's a must. That's our job, that's what we do for a living." - I don't know his real name.
"We are guardians of the image and that's how I see our role as DP's. It's our job to make sure the images are right"- Geoff Boyle
It's very similar to a line from another shooter on another forum that I've been using for YEARS in my signature line there:
"Making video look good isn't a luxury, it's a must. That's our job, that's what we do for a living." - I don't know his real name.
Shush, do you want to annoy marketing people?
What would they sell then if you took the numbers away?
Feelings are already reserved for audio.
Since no one shots on film anymore, pictures are reserved for ARRI.
Here is the right type of videos that should be promoted here:
https://youtu.be/yGBNco2TwhA
(Two high-school kids making subjective conclusions and representing them in a 'scientific' manner. Spoiler alert: winner by the(ir) 'numbers' didn't win.)
Part of the problem has been Bayer sensor sampling resolution. Without sufficient oversampling (Nyquist), edges look unnatural and harsh, especially when sharpened to make up for lack of real detail. His comment on the chain mail shot: the latest cameras are looking very good for true detail without artifacts:
VENICE 6K:
Incredible detail viewed in Chrome on a 4K monitor. Even more impressive is no aliasing, moire, or other artifacts:
Alexa LF 4.4K (not Nyquist level oversampling; impressive nonetheless):
Without using diffusion filters or lenses with character (less clinical), or with post processing (simulating diffusion/glow in post), the last two videos don't really look like film. However both cameras can absolutely create filmic looks either through lenses/filters/lighting or by shooting clinical and post processing.
Everything I saw in the Boyle video I know I could simulate in post if starting with real, artifact free detail, high dynamic range, accurate color reproduction, and 10 or more bits per pixel. The challenge has been color, which film still provides inspiration, such as my favorite: Eastman Kodak EXR 100T 5248. ARRI has gotten the closest, Red is getting better all the time, Sony F65 had a few amazing films, and the VENICE is looking to be very compelling. I can get great looks out of the C300 II, however it took a lot of time to figure out settings and technique (as opposed to say an Alexa, which just works if you expose correctly).
I remember seeing a relatively recent movie, and thinking, wow that's really bright and super detailed, wonder what camera they used, thinking it was digital. It was film. So it can go the other way too.
While numbers (math) ultimately can describe visual systems, the element that doesn't seem to get discussed much is the emotional response to 'unreality' of the cinematic/filmic look. This is partly related to the concept of Uncanny Valley, where we must either make something very accurate/real, or go the other way, make things stylized/dreamlike and not real. That said, intentionally making something evoke the Uncanny Valley effect could be a useful tool in storytelling.
Ultimately, the reason modern movies don't look like older movies shot on film, is the lenses, lighting, and post process. It takes extra time and money to get those looks, and that appears to be the reason modern movies look the way the do: audiences haven't shown a preference to more stylized looks and thus business oriented productions don't spend the money to get those looks.
Perhaps now is a time when these kinds of stylized looks can make a comeback. Study the old film(s) you like, find out what lenses and filters they used, and experiment in post to see various ways you can achieve those same looks. Thousands of examples and ideas online: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cinematic+techniques+looks
VENICE 6K:
Incredible detail viewed in Chrome on a 4K monitor. Even more impressive is no aliasing, moire, or other artifacts:
Alexa LF 4.4K (not Nyquist level oversampling; impressive nonetheless):
Without using diffusion filters or lenses with character (less clinical), or with post processing (simulating diffusion/glow in post), the last two videos don't really look like film. However both cameras can absolutely create filmic looks either through lenses/filters/lighting or by shooting clinical and post processing.
Everything I saw in the Boyle video I know I could simulate in post if starting with real, artifact free detail, high dynamic range, accurate color reproduction, and 10 or more bits per pixel. The challenge has been color, which film still provides inspiration, such as my favorite: Eastman Kodak EXR 100T 5248. ARRI has gotten the closest, Red is getting better all the time, Sony F65 had a few amazing films, and the VENICE is looking to be very compelling. I can get great looks out of the C300 II, however it took a lot of time to figure out settings and technique (as opposed to say an Alexa, which just works if you expose correctly).
I remember seeing a relatively recent movie, and thinking, wow that's really bright and super detailed, wonder what camera they used, thinking it was digital. It was film. So it can go the other way too.
While numbers (math) ultimately can describe visual systems, the element that doesn't seem to get discussed much is the emotional response to 'unreality' of the cinematic/filmic look. This is partly related to the concept of Uncanny Valley, where we must either make something very accurate/real, or go the other way, make things stylized/dreamlike and not real. That said, intentionally making something evoke the Uncanny Valley effect could be a useful tool in storytelling.
Ultimately, the reason modern movies don't look like older movies shot on film, is the lenses, lighting, and post process. It takes extra time and money to get those looks, and that appears to be the reason modern movies look the way the do: audiences haven't shown a preference to more stylized looks and thus business oriented productions don't spend the money to get those looks.
Perhaps now is a time when these kinds of stylized looks can make a comeback. Study the old film(s) you like, find out what lenses and filters they used, and experiment in post to see various ways you can achieve those same looks. Thousands of examples and ideas online: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cinematic+techniques+looks
Just like I say for us sound recordists: "we're there to protect the dialogue".
JPNola
Veteran
Boyle has made me feel better about not only my struggle to understand sLog3 vs sLog2 but my disinterest in understanding it.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I dont think he persues a strong narative argument.
Starting with the painters.. If you have ever had to do repro on paintings then I guarentee you that the numbers come in to play.
Then he moves to a bunch of films.. film is a great tech for numbers, about 60mb for a frame no? (with a bit depth of what 16, maybe 32 and a sensor array in a random pattern to kill stair stepping, edges and moiree)
Then slags off digital. Of course - its not 60mb per frame - or maybe venice and the big arri are just.
Of course if it looks good it is good - the window behind him looks f-ucked - maybe they should have used some numbers to get thier light ratio correct for the window.
And the guy in labs coats from technicolor - we could do with a guy in a white coat on every set contracturally removing crap-leds from the scene - it would be great for the DOP.
Starting with the painters.. If you have ever had to do repro on paintings then I guarentee you that the numbers come in to play.
Then he moves to a bunch of films.. film is a great tech for numbers, about 60mb for a frame no? (with a bit depth of what 16, maybe 32 and a sensor array in a random pattern to kill stair stepping, edges and moiree)
Then slags off digital. Of course - its not 60mb per frame - or maybe venice and the big arri are just.
Of course if it looks good it is good - the window behind him looks f-ucked - maybe they should have used some numbers to get thier light ratio correct for the window.
And the guy in labs coats from technicolor - we could do with a guy in a white coat on every set contracturally removing crap-leds from the scene - it would be great for the DOP.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I’ve known Jeff for a long time. The point is to not get lost in the numbers, don’t be a slave to a spec. He doesn’t mean to just toss them on the side, but instead to put them in their proper place. The image comes first.
Run&Gun
Veteran
That was my takeaway.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
One comment - if the numbers dont help - you are using the wrong numbers. Arguing with numbers is a bit like arguing with the spherical nature of the world 
Jim Feeley
Veteran
Remember that the video is something extracted from a longer interview with Geoff and edited by someone else. He does have a good narrative/spiel about all this stuff. He also has a rather technical mind and serious technical skills (like Mitch, I've been pals with Geoff for about 20 years now). He's not a luddite. But like a good musician, he has acquired solid chops but knows those aren't the end in them selves; they're in service of his craft and art.
So I think of this as more of an excerpt from a sermon rather than a treatise...
Last edited:
I had the same thought after watching it as well - why did the DP decide to use that blown-out window for the background - if image comes first?? I do get his point & mostly agree - but it does feel like perhaps this excerpt is missing some of his larger context.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Yep there are load of videos on the Cooke site and around the place shot in the same location.
GB is worth a listen - I respect him for using AF when applicable rather than keeping his head completely in the sand like some of the other old skool DPs
S
GB is worth a listen - I respect him for using AF when applicable rather than keeping his head completely in the sand like some of the other old skool DPs
S
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Lots of videos on the Cooke YouTube channel look awful, I really can't understand how a super-high-end lens maker can shoot a great DP and post the interview online looking like that. Sure, it's the content that is important, but "we don't really care about how bad the image is" is not the message you want to convey.