F**k The Numbers

Ah...... guy, seriously? This conversation, that could go into so many fascinating avenues, get this kind of treatment? Someone posting some comparison videos of a sensor, another person arguing about overblown window? Come on guys..... Those are so supremely superficial factors they shouldn't be worth mentioning? Do you really have nothing better to add to the consecration?
How about talk how changing zaitgaist of society forces us to think like machines - in numbers - so poetic ideas that in themselves are supreme to numbers indeed get lost because the mass mind doesn't care?
Or how about that the video is a bit superficial about what makes a meaning in an image? It only states that it isn't the numbers (which of course it's correct on that point). Could it be that what was edited away (i speculate here) was "fluffy" stuff: that would fly over most people's heads because we are so stuck in number thinking?

I recently spoke with an ad world veteran and he told me how frustrating it is to talk to younger people working in his agency. They bring him "concepts" talking about cool shots and when he ask them the "why?" - what is the purpose of that cool shot - they are dumbfounded. For them the meaning is in the coolness. He's an ad guy, not exactly the most philosophical guy around, and even him has such a difficult time convincing those youngsters that "cool" shot doesn't move the merchandise. In other words, meaning beyond numbers, matters even if all you do is trying to sell some toothpaste.
 
I don't really like Geoff's painting comparisons. Just because someone can't tell you what resolution a painting is, doesn't mean that painters aren't also discussing highly technical aspects of their works.

The issue is there are many people in film production that rely on and succeed because of the numbers (RED). Plus who wants to work hard for a meaningful image!? (joke).

Patryk, surely those same agency people, now longing for images with meaning, also helped create the monster by demanding the latest tech all the time?

Do you think we can bounce back from this machine thinking or will the masses always be doomed?
 
Sttratos said:
You forgot the best color of them all. The F35. This is the main part I'm jealous of and wish my Alexa had. That color!
Click to expand...

The Sony/Panavision F35 was (is still) an amazing camera, with an ultra trick oversampled striped CCD (global shutter) sensor: the best CCD ever created? I’m sure if you shot color charts and people of varying skin tones with both cameras you could create reasonable transforms (3D LUTs) to get the Alexa looking closer to the F35. You can do this with Resolve and similar tools.

On the topic of cool shots vs. story/sales: they are related. The look(s) help sell the story through emotion. Plenty of tutorials and books for those who are curious about the psychology of color, light & shadow, imagery, and motion. Combined with matching audio/sfx, music, script, and dialogue delivery, powerfully compelling stories are told.
 
I think the F35 is an interesting example of 'the numbers' - or rather my quote above about knowing which numbers to use.

We all know that the F35 is better than a '4k' handycam - but 4k is a revered number, 12bit, for example is not. Oversampled is not.

--

Mr Turner was an interesting watch on the 'pixel peeping' of painters, I dont know my art history but 'Chrome Yellow' is an example of a paint that was expensive, and the painting DOPs (director of painting) were very excited when it was released as it provided a new bright colour (HDR paint!)

Chrome Yellow has a refractive index of up to 2.7 - 'game changer'

In fact GB seems to use, in his examples, a lot of paintings that use HDR paint in his examples!

Who shot on Chrome Yellow? Turner, Manet, Cézanne, Monet, and Pissarro. - Jannard or Arri would have that lot on thier social media stream 'Shot on Chrome Yellow' (logo in a circle at the bottom of the painting)
Actually turns out it was crap..
https://www.naturalpigments.com/art-supply-education/chrome-yellow-paint/

Any visit to an art paint shop you will see you can get $5 acrylic and $20 oil paints, you bet over at 'Paint User' the heads are all over the oils have ing better tonality, intensity or whatever numbers they care about :) I bought my Mrs some Caran D'Ache pencils for Xmas - the 4k of colour pencils apparently
 
Last edited:
rob norton said:
Do you think we can bounce back from this machine thinking or will the masses always be doomed?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you've met countless filmmakers who know their sliders, their jibs, their drones, their 4k, their pixels and their color spaces and yet when asked how this image influence their perception versus that image - they draw blank. So they are simpletons, whats the big deal, you might ask. My "ad guy" example proves that the new "talent" is clueless - they can't think outside basics of most rudimentary form. When you are so clueless - you become easy victim for those who understand the manipulation better than you. It happens so often, by now it's comical to me how often film people can't see past the manipulation of the very medium they suppose to be masters of.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
...
I recently spoke with an ad world veteran and he told me how frustrating it is to talk to younger people working in his agency. They bring him "concepts" talking about cool shots and when he ask them the "why?" - what is the purpose of that cool shot - they are dumbfounded.
Click to expand...

The capabilities of current digital cameras (and post software) has really ruined cinematography for me. Just because the image can be manipulated to extremes doesn't mean we should. I am so often unable to get into a film because the image is so over-manipulated, so artificial, so..... ughh, "cinematic". Throw Davici Resolve out the door and shoot something in-camera that looks great and leave it alone. Give me a Freddie Young image; simple, fantastic.
 
Paul F said:
The capabilities of current digital cameras (and post software) has really ruined cinematography for me. Just because the image can be manipulated to extremes doesn't mean we should. I am so often unable to get into a film because the image is so over-manipulated, so artificial, so..... ughh, "cinematic". Throw Davici Resolve out the door and shoot something in-camera that looks great and leave it alone. Give me a Freddie Young image; simple, fantastic.
Click to expand...

Remember the days when "Fix It In Post" was said in jest?
 
I don’t think good cameras are a bad thing - it is great to be able to produce nice work without being in 18k of HMi elite.

It does pressure us to keep on top of the game though as barrier to entry is so low
 
Sorry y'all, but some of the comments on this thread are stunningly tone deaf. The point behind Geoff's statements is to not be a slave to numbers and stats. Instead it is about what is important when and understanding the forest for the trees. Geoff is actually a technical pioneer in many areas and he is very well aware of the significance of every technical stat. All the comments of "I could do that in post" or "My camera can show that" completely miss the point.

Sorry, had to say it.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Sorry y'all, but some of the comments on this thread are stunningly tone deaf. The point behind Geoff's statements is to not be a slave to numbers and stats. Instead it is about what is important when and understanding the forest for the trees. Geoff is actually a technical pioneer in many areas and he is very well aware of the significance of every technical stat. All the comments of "I could do that in post" or "My camera can show that" completely miss the point.

Sorry, had to say it.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate Geoff’s many camera tests and very helpful test chart shots, the irony here is pretty deep. https://vimeo.com/geoffboyle
His Vimeo page is all about the numbers!
Was his rant video a comedy?
If one isn’t getting the results they expect from their camera, say skintones/color is off, DR is lower than expected, low actual detail, digital/non-organic noise, or high aliasing artifacts (non-filmicness), numbers and test charts can help understand why (which is what Geoff’s Vimeo page is all about).

People love to compare stats, make lists, and performance rankings, it’s human nature.

+ Netflix forced the top camera maker to build a 4K camera purely based on the numbers, even though they already had the best image quality (and that new camera is stunning).
 
Last edited:
Story is everything. drawn on a rock, written on papyrus, printed, told, on celluloid or electronical.
A good image is nice but is not important.
However, all storytellers use the best possible techniques to tell their stories.
They used film, oil paint or 65mm film because there was nothing better available (or at that time the best they could afford). I think Geoff is right, many stories were told with minimum equipment/materials. And he puts all in perspective.

As I may summarize his clip, 'you don't have to have the best equipment to tell a good story' And let me add: 'but if you can, use the best)'
 
Publimix said:
Story is everything. drawn on a rock, written on papyrus, printed, told, on celluloid or electronical.
A good image is nice but is not important.
However, all storytellers use the best possible techniques to tell their stories.
They used film, oil paint or 65mm film because there was nothing better available (or at that time the best they could afford). I think Geoff is right, many stories were told with minimum equipment/materials. And he puts all in perspective.

As I may summarize his clip, 'you don't have to have the best equipment to tell a good story' And let me add: 'but if you can, use the best)'
Click to expand...

That video and this thread are not about story in the same way 99% of the discussions on this forum are not about story. It is a common pattern on camera forums to rant about gear/tech/looks then someone yells “it’s about story!!”. Totally separate discussion. It’s related but is not the whole story, and was touched on briefly earlier in this thread:

On the topic of cool shots vs. story/sales: they are related. The look(s) help sell the story through emotion. Plenty of tutorials and books for those who are curious about the psychology of color, light & shadow, imagery, and motion. Combined with matching audio/sfx, music, script, and dialogue delivery, powerfully compelling stories are told.
Click to expand...

No one’s going to argue that story isn’t important, except for a discussion about camera tech and how films look etc. Which is his video and this thread.
 
Nah, Geoffs story is incoherent but I think his statement is right. He starts talking old masterpieces, claims numbers are not important and end with 'in my days it used to be better'.
But his point is valid.

I don't think both discussions technique/story are separate at all.

I is a pity Geoff can't comment here, would be interesting.
 
Publimix said:
Nah, Geoffs story is incoherent but I think his statement is right. He starts talking old masterpieces, claims numbers are not important and end with 'in my days it used to be better'.
But his point is valid.

I don't think both discussions technique/story are separate at all.

I is a pity Geoff can't comment here, would be interesting.
Click to expand...

What point is valid?

To reminisce about how things were better back in the day? Another common pattern and in this case not true. Today’s filmmaking tools are vastly superior. All those looks could be done again today if there was a financial incentive. The financial numbers are what can ruin/limit art. Nothing stopping Geoff from writing and directing his own films.
 
jcs said:
Today’s filmmaking tools are vastly superior. .
Click to expand...

No they are not technically- you need to examine relvant numbers to see that.


Film is many many bit (being a chemical process)- digital is usually 10 or 12 bit, even a 16 (a la Vanice) bit container does not imply true 16bit of capture sensitivity.

Film 'pixels' (crystals) are (dis)organised in a manner not to create stair stepping on edges, moire interferance, or need a filter that kills moire and resolution.

Film has excellent 'roll off' compared to the digital clip of an electronic sensor and can therefore handle wider DR scenes without nasty artifacts in the highlights.

Film has global capture to help avoid temporal artifacting.

Film is 100% RGB being three layers, single sensor cameras do not gather colour data for a certain channel for 66% of thier entire area.*

Yes film is less sensitive and more expensive, and may have less spatial resolution.

You will notice that spatial resolution is the last number I mentioned, yet the first number widely considered as an important spec today.

*depending on pixel array pattern and which channel one considers
 
Last edited:
As it happens I dont like film (having shot and processed professional stills on film for a decade,)

-its too expensive
-playback and comment on performance comes many hours too late.
-the chemicals are unpleasant to be around
-it is hard to back up

I feel these things affect performance/story in a negative manner. But film does have better numbers.
 
There's good news and bad news. The good news, is that it confirms my subjective prejudice :)... we all love when our prejudices are validated :) :) :)

Well, it really all comes down to something that I've become convinced of after a long time of experience and thought - and is relevant to all art forms, including film. And that is: use your own senses. There is no substitute. All theory that has built up around art criticism is something that's valuable to critics and academics, and when that theory infects the creative process of an artist, it can be quite destructive. It is very tempting to see how something is not working, and have a ready diagnosis "your character is flat", "the image is too dark", "the window is blown out" - and perhaps it is right, but perhaps it is wrong. In the end, what matters is not the theory but the fact in front of your eyes/ears - either something is working or it's not. WHY is a separate question. And on some level, who cares. An artist uses the most precious thing they have - *artistic judgment*. They look at a scene in a film (for example), and say "well, it doesn't work" - maybe they have a conscious theory why, but often they don't. One of the formative experiences I had in my life was a long time ago on a film set. A scene shot was not working. Now, you could've analyzed "why" for hours and hours and diagnose "badly written dialogue", "wrongly cast actor", "costumes", "lighting" and so on into infinity using all sorts of "artistic principles". But here is what the director did - and the only thing he did: when the scene was shot originally, the camera was stationary, but now he incorporated a very small movement in the beginning of the scene. And suddenly the scene worked! And worked very well. The psychological dynamic changed, and the atmosphere changed, and as a result the dialogue sounded different. It was a remarkable transformation - and all the director used, was not a bunch of theory "dialogue, actor, blah, blah", but his INSTINCT, and something that was not in any "book learnin'" theory. That's what it took. I never forgot that.

I've seen this repeated over and over again. People argue over a piece of work, and really, all I want to say is "use your eyes!". I DON'T CARE about your camera, your numbers, your technical this and that. I only care about the result. If it sucks, that's all that matters, and all the technical talk will not make it any better. We see this effect on these boards constantly - folks who are super knowledgable about technical stuff... and then they present their work, and it just sucks ARTISTICALLY. Because they have no judgment. It's like what Ray Charles reportedly told a young sound engineer who was telling him about a new soundmixing board that had like 99 tracks "I don't care how many tracks it has, how does it sound, baby?". Same here - you can tell me all day long about the numbers this camera has or that camera has - but I will use my eyes and either I'll like the image produced, or I won't. I don't care that you camera has "more DR", or whatnot - I may still like the image from the pocket BMC with super inferior tech numbers. My liking or not liking an image is not going to be influenced one bit by any tech number you care to tell me. So you may as well stop.

Use your eyes (or ears, depending on the art form). That's all you need to know. That's the good news.

Now the bad news is that it's so subjective and not transferable. You cannot transfer your artistic judgment to another person - which is why it is so tempting to loan your friend a camera/light with "better numbers", because you can do that, and you can't transfer your judgment onto him/her. You either have an eye or not. And worse, sometimes tastes differ, genuinely, no right or wrong. That makes it very frustrating.

We can argue over numbers until the cows come home. But show me a picture and I'll make my choice based on that, using my eyes alone and nothing else - subjective and nothing to argue over. Telling me "but, but, but the DR on the other camera is better" doesn't affect my judgment one bit.
 
+1 OldCorpse re: 'just watch it', how does if affect you... That's on the consumption side. For the creative production side, it loops back for that understanding.

morgan_moore said:
No they are not technically- you need to examine relvant numbers to see that.


Film is many many bit (being a chemical process)- digital is usually 10 or 12 bit, even a 16 (a la Vanice) bit container does not imply true 16bit of capture sensitivity.

Film 'pixels' (crystals) are (dis)organised in a manner not to create stair stepping on edges, moire interferance, or need a filter that kills moire and resolution.

Film has excellent 'roll off' compared to the digital clip of an electronic sensor and can therefore handle wider DR scenes without nasty artifacts in the highlights.

Film has global capture to help avoid temporal artifacting.

Film is 100% RGB being three layers, single sensor cameras do not gather colour data for a certain channel for 66% of thier entire area.*

Yes film is less sensitive and more expensive, and may have less spatial resolution.

You will notice that spatial resolution is the last number I mentioned, yet the first number widely considered as an important spec today.

*depending on pixel array pattern and which channel one considers
Click to expand...

All modern film processing involves a digital scanning step, so all those arguments go out the window.

The Alexa 65, Alexa LF, Sony F65, and Sony Venice all have sufficiently oversampled sensors and DR to prevent digital artifacting, as well as sufficient bit depth to be able emulate any desired characteristic of film if desired. This has been true for some time for the oversampled high-DR HD sensor for the Alexa.

Real world examples (~ 3 years old. We can do even better today):


For years we heard the same arguments for digital audio vs. analog, CDs vs. records and tape. A friend who does audio post/fx for film and video games used to argue that digital amp emulators will never match real amps. Until he bought an Axe Fx: https://www.fractalaudio.com/. Then he couldn't stop raving about it.

While it was true that earlier digital cameras were not close to film, today's digital cameras vastly exceed film in all measurable metrics. Color transfer function behavior is a flavor, and who's to say chocolate tastes better than vanilla? If one is jonesing for a particular film stock look, it's possible to closely match it with a bit of post work. With recent advances in machine learning / AI for image processing, it will soon be trivial.

High end film production is a business, and that means driven by profit. Audiences don't care specifically about the film look, they just want to be entertained. If the film look affected profit, top blockbusters would look different. I found the F65's Oblivion and Lucy to look stunning, not really like film at all (super clean and highly detailed), yet worked perfectly for the stories being told. If one's production could benefit from the film look, by all means use it as a tool to sell the story and potentially help with sales/profit. If it's a self-produced work, do whatever you want, you're in control!
 
Taking a pedantry stand point neither of the links above really test anything to its limits..

For example if one wants to test temporal distortion one would be better to check out videos/films of fan blade destruction in the aero industry than 'cinematorgraphy'

As for data collection in the highlights.. check some films of nuclear explosion tests.

Given any budget I would personally shoot digitally for narative work, I might consider film for scientific collection of extreme data sets.

I still beleive that checking 'the right' numbers is a good thing and most of 'the numbers' we check are wrong.. leading to the conclusion that number testing is a flawed activity.

I also agree that emotive content can be aquired on an iphone, while bland content can be aquired on a venice or vista film stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top