I don't agree. I think it's going to switch back as more and more options become available for consuming online video on your TV.
Is resolution as threatening as others make it?
- Thread starter KyleProhaska
- Start date
I don't agree. I think it's going to switch back as more and more options become available for consuming online video on your TV.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Unless things change, mobile devices may over come 'fixed base' distributions like a big TV... One may download to a mobile device, then play later on the big screen, if that is desired... but I don't think mobile device viewing is going to decrease.
Oh, I don't think it's going to decrease. There's plenty of opportunity for short-form video on mobile devices that will continue for as long as we have mobile devices. But for longer content, I don't see smaller screens being the "go-to" device. I only watch TV shows/movie length productions on a TV unless I have no other option (say, on a plane).
analog_addict
Well-known member
The more resolution the better. 5K is better than 2K obviously. 4K will not make a huge difference to the majority of small video production houses because their content will most likely end up SD broadcast, DVD, web compressed or HDTV (720). Is it useful for people shooting shorts? Even then, at this point in time, I believe not so much. Most festivals unfortunately are still using DVDs to screen.
Will 4/5K make a difference to large feature film production companies. Of course, their content will end up being projected at 4K digitally, mastered to Blu-Ray etc.
Is 4K future proof. Yes. Is it needed now for most people or in the near future. No.
Will 4/5K make a difference to large feature film production companies. Of course, their content will end up being projected at 4K digitally, mastered to Blu-Ray etc.
Is 4K future proof. Yes. Is it needed now for most people or in the near future. No.
J Davis
Veteran
I've been analyzing my own tv behavioral watching patterns as well as others. What I see is that in most people there is only a certain amount of hours in a day or week that you watch TV, the rest of the time you do other things. Because TV has 'left the TV' and moved onto your iPad, your iPod touch, your laptop and your phone, you can now watch stuff you meant to watch while on your 1 hour commute to work, or while on your office lunch break .. etc. Well for me any way this means I'm spending less time per week watching TV in front of the TV and more time watching it at lower resolutions. My amount of watching hours per week has not increased, its been divided.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I know that I am unusual... but I've not watched TV TV regularly since CBS canned the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour... my boycott has been completely unsuccessful... TV TV has rolled on with out me...
However, until about 82-83, I had to actually go to a theater to see movies, and when I could afford it, I was watching movies about once a week. Since the advent of home Beta players (as opposed to VHS... well eventually...), I've pretty much watched 2-5 movies a week, and while the Daughter was growing up we would watch such movies as 'Sound of Music'(1965)... 100's of times...
These days I watch a similar amount on a combo of DVD and Bluray... No I've not moved to Netflix... One of the things I do watch in addition to the movies, is the special features, or enable the commentary on movies I've seen a number of times...
As a note... boycott Ultraviolet distribution... But most likely like my boycott of CBS and by extension all broadcast TV, and by further extension all Cable channels... that one will probably be the wave of the future...
I think it depends on many factors but the most important is why you are shooting and who you are shooting for. If you are shooting for posterity, or for your own satisfaction (which includes auteur films which end up making real money, too) then I think you should push the resolution as high as the budget can stand. Find your "obsession" point and go past it- 4K, 5K. IMAX if you are Christopher Nolan.
If you are shooting advertising spots or current events documentaries, shoot on whatever a "sensible medium" is for the time being- i.e. 1080p.
Personally, I started as an amateur stills photographer. I initially shot just for fun, but was usually disappointed in the results. I can remember the sinking feeling looking at my first developing darkroom prints and realising they just weren't SHARP, not sharp the way I'd seen them or imagined the captured images. I didn't really get a single image I was happy with until I discovered the combination of Fuji Velvia and prime L-series Canon lenses.
I took photos for my own benefit, scratching my own artistic itch. A decade ago I launched a modest paysite to sell them. Today it is my business. I went digital really early, when a single week's shooting in LA cost me more in film that the top-end dSLR of the time. I don't particularly regret that, even though there are images from that first 3.11 megapixel Canon that I wish I'd shot on 35mm slide. It was a commercial reality that forced the move on me. What I do regret is not having shot everything on RAW from the beginning. (Initially the RAW/JPEG issue was very marginal, with the early cameras not really having the dynamic range or bit depth to beat JPEG so clearly as modern cams do). But I was back to often being a bit disappointed in the clarity of the shots, even with L-series glass.
I finally cracked it by going medium format digital a couple of years back. My Hasselblad out-resolves my eyes on the scene and delivers pictures sharp the way I imagine they will be when I press the shutter button. And the RAW file bit depth and dynamic range lets me bring out the image I know is in there when I get to the post stage.
With film making, I'm in the "digital early day JPEG" phase with my AF100. It is 1080p, I'm using decent prime lenses, but it is really lacking the "record in RAW" goodness and suffers badly from being 8-bit. I never get an image from it that quite matches up to what I imagine I will see when I am on set, setting up the shots. It's not BAD, actually it is pretty bloody good, but it isn't "WOW WOW WOW!" either.
I know my movies will benefit from investment in the round, in every aspect from lighting and sound to production design and script, no question, same as investing in £30K+ of studio flash lighting has been necessary for the Hasselblad to shine.
For my own satisfaction I will be pushing towards as RAW as possible, and probably as 4K as possible, as soon as I can. Even if I have to take out a two year photo-lease to do it, like I had to with the Hasselblad. Because nothing beats sitting down and looking at the results of a shoot you've spent weeks planning and being just blown away, rather than disappointed.
My customers, bless their little cotton socks, are mostly still downloading my images at 1600 x 1200 pixels which more than fills their monitors. The 31 megapixel Hasslblad is overkill for them right now. But for those on the techie bleeding edge, they do appreciate it. And I have the satisfaction of knowing I've done the best job it is in my capability to do with the images. When I look back on the work of which I am most proud in the last few years, work that required organising a crew and models up to north of the Arctic Circle for a week or more in really tough conditions, I know I captured something special that will hopefully always be remarkable. I want to be able to show those images in their best light when I'm old and retired
I feel the same way about my films. RIGHT NOW, 720p web video at 3 kbps is overkill for most of my customers. Shooting at 1080p is already a bit overspec'd. But I look back on some really good work we did a few years ago shot in SD on DVX100's or 720p on HVX200's and I do wish that I had a 1080p (or 4K!) master in my back pocket. I am making better films now than then, but there's a certain honesty in the earlier stuff, a certain direct energy, and again the combination of work and people and places that took a lot to get together and will never be recreated that I am glad that I did at least record them as faithfully as I could at the time.
If you haven't guessed, I'm talking myself into a Scarlet! I want to get home and be blown away by the footage, and record these one-off productions as faithfully as I can. Damn the fact that the commercial justification is barely there. If I'd thought that way from day one I'd not have a business now, I only got going by trying to up my game all the time and launching a website to pay for some of the expensive kit!
Obviously, if you are making films for others, their needs and requirements trump your own. But I say if you are shooting it because you really believe in it, it is your passion, yeh, take out that loan and get the latest greatest acquisition so YOU can be blown away by what you shoot! (Of course, you may need something other than pure resolution to be blown away- if the project needs dynamic range or high-speed footage above all, or can only be shot in a certain way, lower res might be necessary).
But "good enough" doesn't advance your pride in your work the way that "the best I can do, and next time I'll do better!" does
Cheers, Hywel.
If you are shooting advertising spots or current events documentaries, shoot on whatever a "sensible medium" is for the time being- i.e. 1080p.
Personally, I started as an amateur stills photographer. I initially shot just for fun, but was usually disappointed in the results. I can remember the sinking feeling looking at my first developing darkroom prints and realising they just weren't SHARP, not sharp the way I'd seen them or imagined the captured images. I didn't really get a single image I was happy with until I discovered the combination of Fuji Velvia and prime L-series Canon lenses.
I took photos for my own benefit, scratching my own artistic itch. A decade ago I launched a modest paysite to sell them. Today it is my business. I went digital really early, when a single week's shooting in LA cost me more in film that the top-end dSLR of the time. I don't particularly regret that, even though there are images from that first 3.11 megapixel Canon that I wish I'd shot on 35mm slide. It was a commercial reality that forced the move on me. What I do regret is not having shot everything on RAW from the beginning. (Initially the RAW/JPEG issue was very marginal, with the early cameras not really having the dynamic range or bit depth to beat JPEG so clearly as modern cams do). But I was back to often being a bit disappointed in the clarity of the shots, even with L-series glass.
I finally cracked it by going medium format digital a couple of years back. My Hasselblad out-resolves my eyes on the scene and delivers pictures sharp the way I imagine they will be when I press the shutter button. And the RAW file bit depth and dynamic range lets me bring out the image I know is in there when I get to the post stage.
With film making, I'm in the "digital early day JPEG" phase with my AF100. It is 1080p, I'm using decent prime lenses, but it is really lacking the "record in RAW" goodness and suffers badly from being 8-bit. I never get an image from it that quite matches up to what I imagine I will see when I am on set, setting up the shots. It's not BAD, actually it is pretty bloody good, but it isn't "WOW WOW WOW!" either.
I know my movies will benefit from investment in the round, in every aspect from lighting and sound to production design and script, no question, same as investing in £30K+ of studio flash lighting has been necessary for the Hasselblad to shine.
For my own satisfaction I will be pushing towards as RAW as possible, and probably as 4K as possible, as soon as I can. Even if I have to take out a two year photo-lease to do it, like I had to with the Hasselblad. Because nothing beats sitting down and looking at the results of a shoot you've spent weeks planning and being just blown away, rather than disappointed.
My customers, bless their little cotton socks, are mostly still downloading my images at 1600 x 1200 pixels which more than fills their monitors. The 31 megapixel Hasslblad is overkill for them right now. But for those on the techie bleeding edge, they do appreciate it. And I have the satisfaction of knowing I've done the best job it is in my capability to do with the images. When I look back on the work of which I am most proud in the last few years, work that required organising a crew and models up to north of the Arctic Circle for a week or more in really tough conditions, I know I captured something special that will hopefully always be remarkable. I want to be able to show those images in their best light when I'm old and retired
I feel the same way about my films. RIGHT NOW, 720p web video at 3 kbps is overkill for most of my customers. Shooting at 1080p is already a bit overspec'd. But I look back on some really good work we did a few years ago shot in SD on DVX100's or 720p on HVX200's and I do wish that I had a 1080p (or 4K!) master in my back pocket. I am making better films now than then, but there's a certain honesty in the earlier stuff, a certain direct energy, and again the combination of work and people and places that took a lot to get together and will never be recreated that I am glad that I did at least record them as faithfully as I could at the time.
If you haven't guessed, I'm talking myself into a Scarlet!
I want to get home and be blown away by the footage, and record these one-off productions as faithfully as I can. Damn the fact that the commercial justification is barely there. If I'd thought that way from day one I'd not have a business now, I only got going by trying to up my game all the time and launching a website to pay for some of the expensive kit!Obviously, if you are making films for others, their needs and requirements trump your own. But I say if you are shooting it because you really believe in it, it is your passion, yeh, take out that loan and get the latest greatest acquisition so YOU can be blown away by what you shoot! (Of course, you may need something other than pure resolution to be blown away- if the project needs dynamic range or high-speed footage above all, or can only be shot in a certain way, lower res might be necessary).
But "good enough" doesn't advance your pride in your work the way that "the best I can do, and next time I'll do better!" does
Cheers, Hywel.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Stills phots are much more used to re-selling work due to the commissioning terms they usually work on
For example I make some bread and butter shooting hotel promos here in the SW of the UK
Most of those films need some 'stock' footage; surfer, couple on the beach, etc
One can see the need to make such stock shots as archival as possible so they can be re-used
Not to mention interviews, every one you interview will die.. and maybe have an obit piece
Of course when a major artist (for instance) dies we are happy to watch their obit in the medium of the time.. often B+W for example
On screen sizes.. what about bus stops, shops, billboards .. soon all of these places will be screens broadcasting footage.. 5 foot high cropped to upright in some cases, 1080 does not go too far in that world
Just thinkin out loud
S
For example I make some bread and butter shooting hotel promos here in the SW of the UK
Most of those films need some 'stock' footage; surfer, couple on the beach, etc
One can see the need to make such stock shots as archival as possible so they can be re-used
Not to mention interviews, every one you interview will die.. and maybe have an obit piece
Of course when a major artist (for instance) dies we are happy to watch their obit in the medium of the time.. often B+W for example
On screen sizes.. what about bus stops, shops, billboards .. soon all of these places will be screens broadcasting footage.. 5 foot high cropped to upright in some cases, 1080 does not go too far in that world
Just thinkin out loud
S
Cosimo Bullo
Veteran
Nat Geo and Discovery are still aquiring most of their material at 720/960 (tape varicam), I'm talking about the big budget newest shows. Resolution is a red herring.
David W. Jones
Veteran
You know I can't recall the last time I watched a feature and said to myself, boy the camera they used lacked resolution. Either I was entertained or I wasn't.
But when was the last time you EDITED a feature and said to yourself "Damn, I wish these shots looked better?"
Happened to me yesterday, editing the last short I hadn't edited that was shot in SD. Both the models from that shoot have now retired and it felt kinda sad not to have a record of that last shoot in as good a resolution as I shoot with now. There was more adrift with my technique back then that just resolution, but I did find myself wishing I had a higher res version to work with. It looked so tiny at 720 x 576 pixels on a dual 30" monitor setup!
I'm entirely in agreement that content is FAR more important than pure resolution. Of course it is. But if you believe in the story you are telling, don't you owe it to everyone's hard work to record in as high fidelity a recording medium as your budget can possibly, possibly stretch to? Future proof it and preserve it for posterity, if it is work you believe in.
As aforesaid, if you are shooting an advertising spot for a client, their needs tell you what you need to shoot. And if there's no way to afford 4K on a project sure, shoot HD (it is what I'm doing right now).
But why not shoot the highest res you can get your hands on unless another factor (dynamic range... frames per second... ability to physically fit a camera in a space...) drives you to balance a lower res for improvements in other areas?
SD shows its limitation pretty rapidly on a decent sized monitor; even an iPhone4 has more pixels than an SD video signal.
720 is a bit low these days, I think. It looks pretty lost on a big monitor.
1080 HD/2K is good enough for almost every purpose right now. It's a good fit to the equipment most people will watch it on and is a safe thing to aim at distributing work on.
4K/5K is plenty enough for the foreseeable future and that's where I want to be if I possibly can.
There are advantages to oversampling even if you know your work will never be seen at higher than HD. My 31 megapixel Hasselblad images definitely DO look crisper downsampled to 1600 x 1200 pixels than the 12 megapixel Canon 5D shots or even than 21 megapixel Canon 5Dii shots. Oversampling is only a part of the reason but it definitely helps. Oversampling at the front end of data acquisition is always a good idea if you are trying to get your final product right up there to the resolution limits of the final distrubution format.
Straw poll- who here regularly uses a camera capable of recording in multiple resolutions at LESS than its max, for any reason other than to get access to a different feature? I never shot a single frame of SD video on any of my HVX200s, and I only shot 720 to get slowmo. Now my AF100 shoots everything in full raster 1080p, I don't ever choose to shoot at lower res.
Cheers, Hywel.
Happened to me yesterday, editing the last short I hadn't edited that was shot in SD. Both the models from that shoot have now retired and it felt kinda sad not to have a record of that last shoot in as good a resolution as I shoot with now. There was more adrift with my technique back then that just resolution, but I did find myself wishing I had a higher res version to work with. It looked so tiny at 720 x 576 pixels on a dual 30" monitor setup!
I'm entirely in agreement that content is FAR more important than pure resolution. Of course it is. But if you believe in the story you are telling, don't you owe it to everyone's hard work to record in as high fidelity a recording medium as your budget can possibly, possibly stretch to? Future proof it and preserve it for posterity, if it is work you believe in.
As aforesaid, if you are shooting an advertising spot for a client, their needs tell you what you need to shoot. And if there's no way to afford 4K on a project sure, shoot HD (it is what I'm doing right now).
But why not shoot the highest res you can get your hands on unless another factor (dynamic range... frames per second... ability to physically fit a camera in a space...) drives you to balance a lower res for improvements in other areas?
SD shows its limitation pretty rapidly on a decent sized monitor; even an iPhone4 has more pixels than an SD video signal.
720 is a bit low these days, I think. It looks pretty lost on a big monitor.
1080 HD/2K is good enough for almost every purpose right now. It's a good fit to the equipment most people will watch it on and is a safe thing to aim at distributing work on.
4K/5K is plenty enough for the foreseeable future and that's where I want to be if I possibly can.
There are advantages to oversampling even if you know your work will never be seen at higher than HD. My 31 megapixel Hasselblad images definitely DO look crisper downsampled to 1600 x 1200 pixels than the 12 megapixel Canon 5D shots or even than 21 megapixel Canon 5Dii shots. Oversampling is only a part of the reason but it definitely helps. Oversampling at the front end of data acquisition is always a good idea if you are trying to get your final product right up there to the resolution limits of the final distrubution format.
Straw poll- who here regularly uses a camera capable of recording in multiple resolutions at LESS than its max, for any reason other than to get access to a different feature? I never shot a single frame of SD video on any of my HVX200s, and I only shot 720 to get slowmo. Now my AF100 shoots everything in full raster 1080p, I don't ever choose to shoot at lower res.
Cheers, Hywel.
Last edited:
For certain shoots I'm sure 4-5k will become good practice, ie. visual effects and maybe it will for cinema in general in the long run. But for distribution? There is already a huge amount of work from the last 20 years shot on video formats, some of it only SD, that will have to be uprezzed somehow in order to be distributed in 4k in the future. If I had to bet a Mars bar, I'd say that in 10 years time, 4k as a distribution format = Betamax.
Thoughts on resolution and the future are all well and good, but if it keeps you from working, then you're thinking about it too much. Go shoot.
Shoot for now. I mean the quality of the film that Citizen Kane was shot on is terrible compared to modern day cinema, but yet people are still watching it right now and it's considered one of the best films ever. Welles wasn't like "Is this stock future proof?" I think that HD/2k is still a good format to shoot on right now, especially for us indies.
LOL guess who is sitting here watching Phocus churn through exporting 1000 31 megapixel shots as 180 MB 16 bit TIFFs for photoshopping?
It has to be admitted that there ARE drawbacks to higher res, too, and the burning need for more computing power to process it is certainly one of them!
Hywel
Jordan Scott Price
Veteran
Acquisition and delivery resolutions are different animals.
Cameras that can shoot 4K or 5K are not used for a finish of that high a resolution, typically, because of the limitations of delivery - most theaters now have 2K projectors; broadcast supports 1080 at most; web and portable devices have very small resolutions.
A higher acquisition resolution, in theory, provides more detail when you squash the image to a lower resolution like 1080, which is the point: A somewhat compressed 5K image from a camera squashed to 1080 will often have more information than an image off a camera that is somewhat compressed at 1080. Also, more resolution means you can move your frame around - which is a great tool - since the delivery is less than 4K or 5K.
I just directed a short shot on the Epic, and the things I can do in post with that image are truly incredible. There was a shot I wish we had changed to a 50mm lens on, but now I can just punch in in the editing room and get what I need, since I'm mastering in 2K.
That's the benefit of high resolution acquisition. There are plenty of negatives - many already discussed.
Acquisition resolution will and should always exceed delivery resolution: you can do more with the image, since delivery is a lower resolution; and camera technologies evolve exponentially faster than delivery technologies.
Cameras that can shoot 4K or 5K are not used for a finish of that high a resolution, typically, because of the limitations of delivery - most theaters now have 2K projectors; broadcast supports 1080 at most; web and portable devices have very small resolutions.
A higher acquisition resolution, in theory, provides more detail when you squash the image to a lower resolution like 1080, which is the point: A somewhat compressed 5K image from a camera squashed to 1080 will often have more information than an image off a camera that is somewhat compressed at 1080. Also, more resolution means you can move your frame around - which is a great tool - since the delivery is less than 4K or 5K.
I just directed a short shot on the Epic, and the things I can do in post with that image are truly incredible. There was a shot I wish we had changed to a 50mm lens on, but now I can just punch in in the editing room and get what I need, since I'm mastering in 2K.
That's the benefit of high resolution acquisition. There are plenty of negatives - many already discussed.
Acquisition resolution will and should always exceed delivery resolution: you can do more with the image, since delivery is a lower resolution; and camera technologies evolve exponentially faster than delivery technologies.
It depends if you're making a film for filmmakers or for an audience. Doesn't shoot the argument down but puts it in a different angle. I find that I shoot more, and am more confident in my work, am more comfortable keeping the process to myself if I shoot something to show a friend instead of a colleague.
To be fair, Citizen Kane looks fantastic on Blu-ray and would probably still hold up to 4k. But I still agree with your sentiment.
An example of not "future-proofing" would be 28 Days Later. Shot on MiniDV, the film looks absolutely terrible on Blu-ray (compared to other films of that time period) since it wasn't shot in HD. But Danny Boyle picked that format because that's what he felt the film needed in terms of acquisition format. I highly doubt he sits at home winging his hands because he didn't shoot it in HD.
Last edited:
I could believe that. I watched Das Boot the other day and I was freaking my mind at how well the film held up. But you know, modern day film vs older film. Still working great, but not entirely at the same level.