Too much resolution?

[roxics]

I've heard stories of talent with contracts expressing they don't want to be shot in X format because it shows to many flaws. I don't know if that is true or just urban legend. I've never experienced that myself. But if it is true, I don't really understand that arguement. I've heard a similar argument related to pornography. Yet for decades we've had high resolution film cameras and high resolution digital still cameras that produce higher than 4K resolution images.

 

[craigbowman]

Anyone who has ever had to pull a matte on something, immediately recognizes the benefit of have decent resolution in the source. Anyone who only identifies with the end result shown to an audience is not likely to understand any kind of benefit and will natter on endlessly about what is good enough for capture. There are pluses and minuses to everything based on a POV.

 

[egproductions]

Since when does talent get to dictate one of the most important decisions a DP has to make? I don't think any normal producer would allow this to happen unless the project litterly revolved around a specific actor. If an actor had this in their contract I would pass, I can only imagine what other input they would want to have on set...selfish

 

[combatentropy]

My theory is that they indeed have seen shots of themselves where they looked worse and were told that they were higher-resolution cameras. So they connected higher resolution with more blemishes. It's an idea repeated here and elsewhere by camerapeople as well: higher resolution, more blemishes. It even sounds reasonable. But like you point out, we've had 35mm film for some time. We've had medium- and large-format still photography, too, and as a rule people look better not worse. I think it's more from oversharpening, which has always been a staple of video but is really rearing its ugly head with video that is high resolution. The typical video gamma, the one that gives it that "video look" also has a clinical look to it. I've found that if you apply a strong S-curve, till it really starts to look like film, that faces look more pleasant. So that's my answer: turn off oversharpening, apply film gamma.

 

[Gillvane]

If it's sharp enough it starts to have a look that isn't flattering. A certain amount of softness does hide blemishes, flaws in make up, wardrobe, etc. It's why people said the HFR version of the Hobbit looked fake, from the make up to the sets. It was the total lack of softness so all the details were bare and not hidden by "movie magic". Most actors want a little "movie magic" to make them look better and who could blame them?
A lot of 4k is softened in post, or during shooting with filters, or some of both. There are entire long threads on Red User about how to best soften 4k images so they look pretty.

http://www.cinema5d.com/?p=20634

 

[Bruce Watson]

I've heard stories of talent with contracts expressing they don't want to be shot in X format because it shows to many flaws. I don't know if that is true or just urban legend. I've never experienced that myself. But if it is true, I don't really understand that arguement. I've heard a similar argument related to pornography. Yet for decades we've had high resolution film cameras and high resolution digital still cameras that produce higher than 4K resolution images.

Sounds like the BS coming from TV news before the switch to digital and HD. Not an urban legend, just false.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

My friedn edited one of those straight to DVD videos with Steven Seagal. None of the CUs could be used because in the contract he had a right to bring his own DP for CUs. When the director said going in for CUs, the CU DP came in. The DP was told by Seagal to turn off all the lights so the editor couldn't use any of the CUs.