Great speech of Michael Cioni on the 4k workflow of Dragon Tatoo

Postmaster

Postmaster

Dark Side of the Camera
Whatever you are doing, stop, get yourself a coffee and spend the next 30 minutes watching Michael talk about large format workflow.
Packed full of information, this recent LAFCPUG presentation is not to be missed.

 
He's a very good speaker.

I got (understood) all of that and I'm way off ever doing it. Credit to the guy.

Brilliant.
 
Yeah, I very much enjoyed to listening to him (and all that information).

Is it just me, or does he look and talk like Leonard from "Big Bang Theory" ?

Frank
 
Very useful information - thank you for sharing it. I didn't know that they actually shot for the 1.6x 4K FF35 portion of the sensor and not the full 5K 1.3x, and that they didn't use LUTs. Also insightful is how logical and elegant the work flow is.

Nice. And yeah, he does sound like the dude from Big Bang Theory!
 
Terrific video Frank, thanks for sharing it.

I know I harp on a lot about how 4K is mostly unnecessary for almost any kind of distribution, and I'll stand by that viewpoint. But Michael raises the point about having wiggle room to re-frame with the extra resolution, and that's what I consider the beauty of it.

1080p is good enough for just about everything (bar IMAX screens), and 'good enough' really is all you need - but it's only just good enough, so it doesn't leave you much leeway for reframing your shots.
 
=B Where are all the people that talked about reframing and how it was useless?

I remember getting hammered by several people in a certain [Sony] forum about the usefulness of 4K to any production.
 
Kholi said:
=B Where are all the people that talked about reframing and how it was useless?

I remember getting hammered by several people in a certain [Sony] forum about the usefulness of 4K to any production.
Click to expand...

Well the re-framing argument is a tough one to have with 'video guys', because they've never really had the luxury of it, and for that reason it doesn't factor into their frame of reference for production shooting.

The argument I've always had with red fanboys, is that I consider re-framing the only real value of 4K resolution: the ability to pull your mid-shot and your close-up from a single take, and the ability to use precisely controlled post-zooms instead of dolly-moves/lens-zooms - both make for incredible time-saving measures on set.

Interestingly I've heard the argument for simply framing all your shots individually (i.e. as per normal) coming from red guys, as much as I've heard it come from regular video guys.
 
First post. I'll try to make it a good one.

After watching Cioni's presentation there were a few points that bothered me about his views towards framing and composition. The first was that features shooting on film would often trim and reframe shots; this seldom happened before DI. If you were to trim a shot it would need to go through two extra generations via an optical printer and there would be obvious generation loss (you also see it in older films when there's a dissolve, often with a small jump and heavier grain). Films shot in anamorphic 35mm were contact printed which meant a DP would frame exactly what the audience will see with no room for error.

People can take different philosophies with regard to composition and framing. David Fincher may enjoy the option to modify the frame in post but to others it can be considered indecisive. Some directors and DP's want to nail the shot during capture, others like the choice to alter a shot afterward. I recall reading that Werner Herzog doesn't like his camera operators using viewfinders because it's 'cheating' nor thinking of post as a means to 'fix' things after the fact. I don't believe it should be the norm to reframe shots in post; it's a nice option, but it shouldn't compromise the cinematographer's contribution to simply pointing the camera the right way.

With regard to LUT's, I don't understand his reasoning. A LUT is a non-destructive tool that can give the director and DP a vision of what a shot could look like once it has been colour corrected. It doesn't limit the image captured by a digital camera in any way if used only as a preview.

As far as 4K, there's no point in having 4K televisions in the home if there's no Blu-ray successor or 4K broadcasting. How many channels in the UK or in the states are in HD? And how many people receive HD channels in relation to how many are happy watching SD? DVD's and Itunes are outselling Blu-rays because most viewers don't see or don't care about the increased fidelity of HD images. At present cinema projection is the only place where 4K has some importance, but 1080p/2K is perfectly acceptable to watch in a theater and for film-makers to shoot features.

But hey, that's just what I think.
 
Grug said:
Well the re-framing argument is a tough one to have with 'video guys', because they've never really had the luxury of it, and for that reason it doesn't factor into their frame of reference for production shooting.

The argument I've always had with red fanboys, is that I consider re-framing the only real value of 4K resolution: the ability to pull your mid-shot and your close-up from a single take, and the ability to use precisely controlled post-zooms instead of dolly-moves/lens-zooms - both make for incredible time-saving measures on set.

Interestingly I've heard the argument for simply framing all your shots individually (i.e. as per normal) coming from red guys, as much as I've heard it come from regular video guys.
Click to expand...

There are more advantages, but not so many.

VFX and Re-Composition, though are the real sticky points that you can't really deny. Subjectively, well, 5K has this insane depth that my eyes can't get over. Especially on a huge screen. It's incredible.

Anyway, good tools to have.
 
Great video. Lots of good info in there and Michael is a good presenter on top of it all.

Grug said:
The argument I've always had with red fanboys, is that I consider re-framing the only real value of 4K resolution: the ability to pull your mid-shot and your close-up from a single take, and the ability to use precisely controlled post-zooms instead of dolly-moves/lens-zooms - both make for incredible time-saving measures on set.
.
Click to expand...
Dolly shots, lens zooms and post zooms all have very different looks that I don't really think are interchangeable. Sure, some times I've done post zooms because I had no other choice but I'd never want to only do post zooms and abandon dollies and/or zooms on set.


-Andrew
 
Last edited:
This video makes me happy because it makes me feel validated in some of my own choices as well (making 2 lower quality offline versions of the footage, using Premiere/After Effects to re-link and conform, etc)

Kind of goes without saying about getting the shot right in the first place (best takes, best framing/movement) but we like the possibilities of being saved in post too- even if we may not use them. I agree with the dude. With 5K, and their clipsters and the work ethic and budget - may as well use them! Having the best quality and best possibilities and all these companies ingenuity keeps the world going round ayeee.
 
Kholi said:
There are more advantages, but not so many.

VFX and Re-Composition, though are the real sticky points that you can't really deny. Subjectively, well, 5K has this insane depth that my eyes can't get over. Especially on a huge screen. It's incredible.

Anyway, good tools to have.
Click to expand...

Both good points, I've never really have much VFX in my work to date, so I've never really needed the extra resolution for that reason, but more is definitely better for CGI-work.

I've seen about a dozen 4K-projected films now (they remain very rare down here at the end of the world), but I'm yet to notice any real discernible improvement in detail over HD, 2K and regular film projection (and I have been looking for it).

adkimery said:
Dolly shots, lens zooms and post zooms all have very different looks that I don't really think are interchangeable. Sure, some times I've done post zooms because I had no other choice but I'd never want to only do post zooms and abandon dollies and/or zooms on set.


-Andrew
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but for those shots where you can get away with it - it's a HUGE time saver.
 
Wiggle room and reframing shots is a double edged sword.

I can see cinematographers getting really pissed off if the editor and production company reframed a bunch of shots to something that the cinematographer didn't want and then stuck the cinematographers name on it.

Same goes for RAW, color correction and the look of the film.

There are an increasing number of cases where the art of the cinematographer is being pushed down to a situation where they capture the cleanest image possible and the look is then created in post.

Yes sure the cinematographer can make it part of his contract that he sits in on the edit and cc sessions - but as David Mullen pointed out - he sure isn't getting paid for all that extra time.

This kind of stuff isn't going away either -- what it means is that we must be more and more careful of who we deal with and how contracts are worded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top