latitude? 4:4:4 vs DSLR ?

Randall_Oelerich

Randall_Oelerich

Veteran
Can anybody help me understand "4:4:4" cameras, and the technical benefits to going with greater latitude using a 4:4:4 camera system for filming an indie over a much cheaper DSLR system that is not 4:4:4? Are the benefits really worth it? A "must" if hoping for theatrical distribution?

I am a screenwriter primarily, made a few shorts with my a Canon XH-A1 and Canon T2i. Planning ahead to write/produce an indie horror in a few years. Wanting to better understand 4:4:4 and the much higher costs involved, if getting such a camera system is warranted, if finding a DP with such a system would be a must have, what the advantages would be, or if a HD DSLR camera system with prime lenses would suffice.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
Can anybody help me understand "4:4:4" cameras, and the technical benefits to going with greater latitude using a 4:4:4 camera system for filming an indie over a much cheaper DSLR system that is not 4:4:4?
Click to expand...

The term latitude typically means exposure latitude. The term 4:4:4 typically refers to a level of chroma subsampling. The concepts are at best only loosely related. Exposure latitude usually comes down to the sensitivity of the camera's imager hardware/firmware. The level of chroma subsampling is usually limited by the CODEC used to encode that image. One of the implications of CODEC choice, and to some extent subsampling used by the CODEC, includes file size which is often a fairly important consideration. A lower level of subsampling will give a smaller file size, at the expense of some artifacts like decreased gamut, smoother tonal transitions, etc.

There are many considerations when choosing a CODEC, chroma subsampling is but one.
 
Here is a little info... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling

At this point there are very few cameras capable of delivering a 4:4:4 signal, and they most likely will be rental items with their recorders, as they are incredibly expensive. Since you are still a few years away from producing your indie horror film, why not wait till you are a bit closer as the camera landscape will likely change by then.

In my opinion, and this is just me talking, the benefits of 4:4:4 sub-sampling are going to have little effect on the possibility of your film getting theatrical distribution. And have a greater impact on your overall budget.

If I were shooting a film for the big screen today I would probably reach for a 10bit 4:2:2 camera.

Good Luck with your project!

Dave
 
In short, 4:4:4 gives you greater color reproduction. To accomplish this, 4:4:4 cameras have sensors that are more sensitive, like the Red. If you work with a camera the shoots RAW, you will have superior options in post-production. A DSLR by contrast, shoots a 4:2:0 subsample. That means it takes averages of four subpixels to get the color value of a pixel. It also bakes into the footage a special subpixel array called the Bayer pattern. That limits your options for post-production work, especially when it comes to any kind of VFX work. If your film requires any amount of VFX, 4:4:4 is really the best and only option. Otherwise your VFX artist will have a nightmare time trying to get effects to sell. Bottom line: DSLRa are great if you have mastered their settings--you won't be able to change hardly anything in post. If you're serious about the film, shoot it on a 4:4:4 subsampling sensor or at least a 4:2:2 You will be happy later.Good luck with your project!
 
Mont Toronto said:
In short, 4:4:4 gives you greater color reproduction. To accomplish this, 4:4:4 cameras have sensors that are more sensitive, like the Red.
Click to expand...
It's the codec and electronics other than the sensors really. The signal coming off of the sensors is analog, so no subsampling will be happening at that level.
Mont Toronto said:
A DSLR by contrast, shoots a 4:2:0 subsample. That means it takes averages of four subpixels to get the color value of a pixel.
Click to expand...
That's the concept, but a more accurate way to describe it would be that it takes the average hue and saturation of four pixels to create one superpixel.
 
Randall_Oelerich said:
Can anybody help me understand "4:4:4" cameras, and the technical benefits to going with greater latitude using a 4:4:4 camera system for filming an indie over a much cheaper DSLR system that is not 4:4:4? Are the benefits really worth it? A "must" if hoping for theatrical distribution?

I am a screenwriter primarily, made a few shorts with my a Canon XH-A1 and Canon T2i. Planning ahead to write/produce an indie horror in a few years. Wanting to better understand 4:4:4 and the much higher costs involved, if getting such a camera system is warranted, if finding a DP with such a system would be a must have, what the advantages would be, or if a HD DSLR camera system with prime lenses would suffice.
Click to expand...

4:X:Y is a 'spatial' sampling specification. The significance of higher 'color sampling', indicated by 4:4:4, for RGB, and 'making movies', is that for such things as 'green/bluescreen' operations higher color resolution benefits the process.

"latitude" for a digital camera doesn't in some sense make sense... But the convention seems to be to use 'latitude' and 'dynamic range' interchangeably. Dynamic range is also tempered with bit depth. A camera that digitizes the video signal to 8 bits, will show banding in smooth gradient areas of the image... 10 bits will be better and 12 better yet...

In 'film film' 'latitude' referred to how many stops the film could be 'overexposed' and still produce distinguishable gradation of values. Negative film, depending had 8-12 stops in dynamic range, and so had 'latitude', because the 'output', the print paper had a range of 7-8 stops. Further, if a normal scene range was 5-6 stops, one could 'over expose' by 3-4 stops, and still have an image on the negative. However, overexposure would also cause more grain, and so yet again... there is no free lunch...

One film processing technique that did use the latitude, was to over expose the negative by 1 or 2 stops, then cut the development by an approximate amount, thus reducing 'grain', and blocking up the high density areas, but the 'shadow' areas would have more exposure. In printing the film the 'black' level could be adjusted on the positive print, and so one had 'better shadow detail' that otherwise.

I'm sure the high end digital cameras have some similar features... on cameras that ordinary mortals can easily access, at reasonable prices... we have to live with about 4-5 stops of dynamic range, very little 'latitude' and so pretty close to 'dead on' exposure is required to avoid digital noise in the low areas, or blown highlights in the high areas...
 
For people who don't study imagery and are not directors of photography or cameramen, the difference between 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 is negligible and you should not worry about it for an independent production.
 
444 in most situations (especially in yours) would be, in my humble opinion, totally overkill 422 is just fine/totally enough (again, "in most situations") and even 420 might be "just enough" for that, check "j davis"'s link ;)
 
Hydarnes said:
444 in most situations (especially in yours) would be, in my humble opinion, totally overkill 422 is just fine/totally enough (again, "in most situations") and even 420 might be "just enough" for that, check "j davis"'s link ;)
Click to expand...

While I do agree that 4:4:4 and even 4:2:2 could be quite over kill... I really would like larger dynamic range for cheaper... in terms of image quality for minimal-effects presentations.
 
Would liek to point out that Like Crazy was shot on 7D but they did use Ultra Prime Lenses. The colour sampling on DSLRs can be a non-issue especially if the story's great, but a good set of primes can certainly help your film look better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top