GH5 What formats are expected for docos, music videos, films, ads, etc? Settings?

[analogs]

Generally, what formats are usually expected when it comes to producing docos, music videos, short films, ads, etc?

I understand it can depend on the delivery platform, ie. online, etc, but do you still leave yourself room by shooting at higher format/quality or not?

Are clients, stations, etc, these days expecting final delivery rendered at 4K or 1080?

If you have free reign, do you usually have a general basic setup depending on the project? For example, if its a doco you generally shoot all at 1920 x 1080 30fps, advertisements/important clients 4K 60fps, etc?

What settings do you usually set it at, ie. All-I, 8bit, etc?

What are your reasons for working this way?

Thank you.

 

[OnSet]

Most of what I shoot is either documentaries or corporate stuff.
Since buying an EVA1, followed shortly by a GH5s, most of my clients have been willing to try shooting in 3840x2160. Virtually all of them, once introduced to the higher resolution, have stayed with it.
However, almost everything is delivered at 1920x1080, so this gives them some room to resize or create small moves in postproduction if they want.

I may be a bit different, but I use the 150 mbps 4:2:2 10 bit Long-GOP recording almost exclusively. A few reasons:
I haven't seen any real quality difference between the Long-GOP and the All-I, particularly for interview footage.
I have 128GB v90 cards and normally will double-record to both slots (this produces a backup, and also makes it more convenient for using multiple computers to speed up off-load to several drives) - and since most of the interviews that I shoot seem to run between 75 & 90 minutes, this means not needing to stop and change cards.
Pre-Covid I also shot a bunch of Broadway shows using the EVA1 -- and the 128GB card length allowed me to swap cards between acts as well as start the Act 1 transfers during intermission. (Again, Act 1 would normally run between 65 & 85 minutes, depending on the show.)
Corporate shoots normally have much shorter interviews, but typically there will be a lot of them in a day, so the faster data transfer times really pay off at the end of the day. Particularly when al the interviews are shot from 2 angles. And one thing that I don't have control over is what kind of drives my client brings for the transfers -- almost never the SSD's that I suggest...
In terms of 8 vs 10 bit -- I had run into some banding issues a while back with 8-bit footage that were were making some extreme sky adjustments, so whenever 10 bit is an option I never even consider 8 bit. Of course when you start shooting at higher frame rates you may not have the choice...

 

[NorBro]

When you start shooting really important visuals you'll be told how to shoot (and sometimes on cameras that will already be set up for you).

And in those cases; yes, most people leave themselves some room and use the best quality or close to it (e.g. like keeping the compression ratios down to the top 3 options on REDs or never going below PR422 on ARRIs).

If you come across projects that are personally important to you (based on the client relationship and/or how much money you can make off of something), weight your options but also communicate with people. Tell them what you can or can't do (maybe the budget would open up).

It may be unrealistic for you to shoot 50 days in 8K, but it could be nice to have that 4K RAW for a special 30-second spot or a great music video.

I'd shoot in the highest quality possible. You never know who's watching.

But keep in mind you can ruin projects with a non-ideal framerate so think about that more carefully (just mentioning that because most wouldn't want 4K/60p over 4K/24p like you noted above).

 

[BobKo]

Obviously, it depends on what you are shooting and for whom. I do only occasional commercial projects and mostly shoot YouTube videos. I experimented some with 4K/24 but didn't like the results, so now I do 4k/30 for virtually everything. I use the 10-bit 4:2:2 150Mbps setting nearly all the time, and keep the ISO to 800 or less. I never use the I.S. Lock feature for additional stabilization, as I don't like the look if the subject has any motion. And I've recently started shooting everything with exposure as manual as I can get it, to reduce blown-out highlights. I get regular comments about how good my videos sound and look -- they are usually tutorials and product reviews, and there are zillions of terrible-quality tutorials. Mine stand out by being clear, well lit and with good audio.

Edit: A couple months ago, I was contacted by a filmmaker regarding some footage that I shot of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington Cemetery. (I have a popular video showing the changing of the guard at the Tomb.) The filmmaker wanted to use a couple clips from my video in a documentary about a WWII soldier, and was delighted to get them in 4K 4:2:0 8-bit -- that was better than she expected. (/end edit)

Which brings up a point: It's natural that we focus on the image quality, but bad audio will make a video unwatchable. I teach a class for the local school district called "How to Become a YouTube Star," and I tell my students to plan first on how to get good audio, then figure out how to get good video once you have the audio plan done. Getting good audio is often harder than getting good video.

Sorry to digress...

 

[cyclone]

plan first on how to get good audio, then figure out how to get good video

Right on. I taught BEGINNING FILMMAKING at UCLA for some years. There were several of us, each was to select a subject that interested them to teach. I chose "Audio." Your comment says it all: "bad audio will make a video unwatchable." I know that we all know that already, but beginning filmmakers do not. This was back in the days of all sound being double system, so we had an inventory of Nagra III's and IV's with several types of Sennheisers that I'd send them out with. The class was taught from acquisition through music recording (we had 1 music stage), foley work and final mix (we had 4 mixing stages). I loved it (and I think the students did, also). It still kills me today when I see beginning filmmakers slate a scene that isn't double system with the sticks...and, for beginners, most aren't double system these days.

 

[OnSet]

This was back in the days of all sound being double system, so we had an inventory of Nagra III's and IV's with several types of Sennheisers that I'd send them out with.

I sometimes think of it as the Golden Age of Film Craftsmanship -- before the video assist, video village and decision by committee... when the camera operator was the only one who actually saw the framing and composition during the take, and could actually request another one! (And the sound person could also request another take...)

Of course nowadays the slate is a good reference or double-check for multi-camera syncing.

 

[cyclone]

I sometimes think of it as the Golden Age of Film Craftsmanship --

Of course, nowadays the slate is a good reference or double-check for multi-camera syncing.

YES! To me, the cinematographer was the real magician. He had to know physics, chemistry, optics, mathematics, engineering (I saw one pull an Arriflex apart and put it back together in the field) and so much more.

And point well taken about clapping the slate today having good uses for backup even in the day of single system shooting. Now, "Get off of my lawn!"