TOTB Think Outside The Box: Upscaling HD...

[sonofaresiii]

I haven't figured out what the purpose of uprezzing to 4k would even be. Did we all stop delivering in HD while I was out of town last week? Wouldn't you just be uprezzing to downrez it again?

The best I can come up with is maybe it's easier to do color grading or FX, but you seem to be talking about audience's reactions...

 

[David W. Jones]

OK, don't take this the wrong way… But I guess I have been doing this as a business too long, as it's hard for me to understand some of the decisions folks make when they are doing this as a hobby.

Earlier you stated that $299 for a used Kino Flo light for filming interior scenes in your car was too expensive because your budget was ZERO. And now you are showing off your new $600 4K monitor?

Oh well, at least now that you have a new 4K monitor, maybe you will fix the extremely over exaggerated colors in the last clips you posted.

All the best!

Dave

 

[wwjd]

How would a light in a bright daylight convertible help the initial shot? One guy says flag it off, another says add light.... I think everyone has their OWN way of how they would do something. There's room for options. I already own plenty of lights - didn't feel I needed any on a bright daytime shot.

The shot that was commented on is no where near the final look - but the others are closer. Mine is supposed to look like a "Movie", a MODERN movie. I do visual and scope comparisons with commercial movies.

not a fan, but it's kinda popular:

Are those pictures too saturated? That is what I am going for. Mine aren't even pushed, just corrected and enhanced... mine is pretty much what the scene looked like in real life. I know, I was there, that is me. I'll never understand people who prefer the dull, washed out look I see all over Vimeo these days. Is it "moody" and expressive to NOT be dynamic? Is EVERYONE with a camera moody? What happened to color?

I'll call Hollywood and tell them thier colorings are all wrong.

I bought a 4K camera, I wanted to see it in 4K. Only makes sense to me. And my goal is to deliver 4k, not HD. A new monitor is way more useful to me than yet another light because the interwebs don't like a flat image I posted. I know I've got a lot to learn, and am doing so daily, including filming stupid little comedies that have no limits or restrictions nor penalties for failures - just a fun way to learn.

So, which is it? Flag it off with black, light it with a Flo? Maybe both?
Wasn't there something about resolutions here too??

 

[wwjd]

Then there is THIS god-awful atrocity:


It was a color pushed to max experiment with a special plugin I got. When I posted it online, I got more positive compliments on it than any other pic for this year. From normal folks, not camera people. I want to make entertainment for normal viewing audiences, not just for camera people.

 

[sonofaresiii]

Here's what I've learned about showing sstills to "normal" people.

They really, really dig atypical shots. Anything they don't normally see, or can't easily get with their point and shoot.

This means extremely oversaturated, unsaturated, extremely high contrast stuff. Basically anything pushed to the extreme.

Instagram.

It's why instagram is big, despite it basically destroying every picture it touches.

Here's the thing though: try watching a whole movie like that. You'll get a massive headache right before puking everywhere. In addition to noticing way more flaws crop up when the images start moving.

Anyway. That's just what I've noticed about getting comments from "normal" folk about stills. I'm not gonna comment on your stuff, but I will say the guy had a valid point. If you don't want the light don't get the light, but don't say you can't afford a cheap, simple light then come back with a new expensive monitor.

 

[wwjd]

the camera wasn't free either.... the monitor was part of the deal, a must purchase. A Kino was $1000 - I already have a ton of lights - and no one has said how to re-light the scene anyway. Someone said to flag with black, so that was something at least. What is the point of saying "your lighting sucks", then not offering something constructive to make it better? Kindaaaaaa pointless?

So, all the above multi-million profiting movies gave EVERYONE headaches? If normal views opinions don't matter, why are we bothering? For profit alone?

Anyway this thread was about mixed breed resolutions. Sorry for the derail.

 

[David W. Jones]

Just a couple of things before I sign off this thread….

The used Kino I linked to was $299, not $1000.

Folks did try to be helpful in this thread, but as happens so many times on these boards, it's not what you wanted to hear. "I already own plenty of lights - didn't feel I needed any on a bright daytime shot.."

And for the record, the grade on the stills you posted from your project look nothing like the the Hollywood movies you posted.

But hey, I'm just some guy on the internet!

All the best with your project!

Dave

 

[wwjd]

Thanks, Dave, your input was actually appreciated, as was everyones. I will go back and re-read this thread again to find the "lighting setup advice" for the scene that I missed.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

Since you are posting stills from other films, be aware what influences the way those stills look the way they do:
- framing
- composition
- camera placemneat
- camera move (hard to judge from still image)
- lighting
- flares
- acting
- casting
- costumes
- art direction
- location
- atmospheric effects
- context (edit, that's also hard to judge from still images)
- lens selection
- color grade
- color selection
- resolution
- direction
- make-up

As many budding filmmakers you take one of many many aspects of film and hanging onto it (in your case resolution) keep on thinking that that one aspect almost by itself is making the image - well, it doesn't. As said above, the reason the images you link to look they way they do because of a tremendous amount of reasons. One can't simply hang onto one aspect and expect similar results. All of it starts with the reason for the shot and then all other factors follow. So for instance in the shot you keep on asking about one needs to know if the shot is a quick cut away for a commercial where we see flares of the back light and then only passing grim of the smiling face of the content driver or is the scene a long exposition where the actor's face needs to be seen more and thus constant in-and-out flares from the light behind only distract from our perception of the scene. Then if the actor is wearing a tux, then he's going to/from an expensive party - how do we show it with lighting? What is expensive light? How do i recreate it? Flat lighting (as in your shot) = cheap, so my idea of "expensive party" gets lost by inept lighting. How to fix it? One of the suggestions would be to block off some of the front illumination with some 4x4 hanging above the actor, that way only a part of his face would be illuminated and then in-and-out flares would add some "richness" to the shot's perception. At the same time you chose to use a relatively wide angle lens - the kind of lens that often used for comical purpose, yet you are trying to add "value" to the shot with lens flares, but then remove that "value" with frontal lighting... So which is it? You see all those thing matter, not when you are a hobbyists playing with 4k video of your camera but it does when you are trying to tell compelling stories. Noone in the audience will be able to tell you, this works (or doesn't) because so&so but they all will be aware of it in some way.

 

[wwjd]

That is an excellent reply, Patryk. Seriously, thank you for taking the time to reply with all that helpful info. I plan to read it several more times and soak it in. I've a lot to learn and am doing so with your help there.

Without going deep, and DEFINITELY not making excuses, but this thread went in a wrong direction from the top - yet still fits the CINEMATOGRAPHY category very well. I'm glad you chimed in with feedback seeing as the derail started with your initial reply.

Resolution is FAR from my only concern, it was just simply the concern of the idea behind this thread about potential upscaling since I just got a new camera - just a technical question about an idea, not about the script, actor, sound effects, location, hairstyle, wardrobe, etc, just the potential to upscale specifically shot HD clips. Yes, there are ton of other aspects surrounding any production but that is beyond the thread's scope, I thought. The flat, dull pic I posted was no where near final grading and out of context, so I wasn't worried about any of that - just wondered if anyone has messed with specific HD content upscaling. I kept asking about the lighting, because people mentioned lighting, and I never heard back - saw it as an opportunity to learn something. Now you answered, and I thank you for your input there.

Yes, there is very little context about it since it was not the aim of the thread. Background is: it is a James Bond style spoof and that clip will show for maybe .5 second in a fast cut sequence of many other shots. Thus the tux - just driving hastily down some twisty England road in a sporty car. These are no where near compelling stories, merely sandbox experiments to try to film anything I feel like it - sure it shows, and I am new - and I am learning a lot and having tons of fun.

Just perplexed buy feedback saying there are bigger issues, and then not hearing any more detail about it. If I can't come in and ask a simple question about resolution, what's the point of this forum catagory?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Without going deep, and DEFINITELY not making excuses, but this thread went in a wrong direction from the top - yet still fits the CINEMATOGRAPHY category very well.

You should have made a second thread on the topic of lighting...

As for scaling to 4k... I'm sort of meh on the 4K bandwagon... I took advantage of the 1/2 price sale on the Blackmagic Pocket camera over the summer so, I've spent my 'budget' for a while on a 1920x1080 (near 2K...) and a Super16mm sensor size, rather than the M4/3 GH-4 and then had to worry about 4K...

As it is, the BMPCC does 10 bits and ProRes recording as well as 12 bit Bm-DNG/RAW whatever... so, some of my issues with limited dynamic range have been mitigated... (which I said I'd prefer improvements to DR over higher resolution long before the GH-4 hit the market...).

So, in my case I would have scaled the 4K to 2K/HD and that would have been the end of that 'problem'...

 

[wwjd]

yeah, there is a lot of understandable "meh" about the 4K thing. I think we are all pretty tired of the constant upgrade world. But, here I am, and I personally enjoy it, but I think 2k (HD really) is all that is needed for commercial movies.
I didn't even bring up the lighting. I'd said, "all quick tests, don't rag on it". That should have been that.

The point of this thread is: pixel count makes no difference with close ups, or really shallow DOF shots. With HD zoomed in, you are MATCHING the amount of pixel coverage of a zoomed out 4K. Kinda the same diff, if ya follow. This means I don't have to retire my old camera as quickly, and can have a second option on shoots for no cost - I already have it. It can be used for some specific things in 4K production... in my eyes anyway.


It is good and fun to think outside the box.