F5: Will 4k become expected sooner than we think ?

Sure - the 55 is a great package if you can finance it many great options of codec and man portable.

AFAIK the log is still a lot weaker than raw as a codec for colour and exposure flex IMO - Id take 2k raw* over 4klog personally

As for the F3(+shuttle) purchase : Im happy with the image/$ but still jealous of the formfactor of the 5/55 which I think is the best there is (full stop)

The O7q should give the F3 a better form and 60p, but Ill wait for six months on that one.

S


*not the 'skipped' 2kraw from the 5/55 BTW I mean in general.
 
Viddovation said:
When announced the F65 was looking like a 90k+ package. As of today, I've seen used ones going for as little as 48k and not moving. Which means in reality, you might be able to buy one for $45k. Just scary!
Click to expand...

The problems with the F65 are related to size, weight, ergonomics, power consumption, and workflow. Exactly the reasons I did not buy one. All of those are pretty much solved with the F55. Clearly the F65 is the better camera, but it comes at the expense of too many other factors that can't be ignored. You have to consider the whole package when deciding what to buy and what not to buy.
 
Doug Jensen said:
The problems with the F65 are related to size, weight, ergonomics, power consumption, and workflow. Exactly the reasons I did not buy one. All of those are pretty much solved with the F55. Clearly the F65 is the better camera, but it comes at the expense of too many other factors that can't be ignored. You have to consider the whole package when deciding what to buy and what not to buy.
Click to expand...

I would call them "tradeoffs" not "problems". It really depends on what type of work and client you have. Certainly the F65 is not the right choice for certain shooting situations, but that's the case with any camera system. The F55 does offer a great deal of flexibility, but even it's not perfect for all situations.
 
I know of a couple F65s at around the $40K mark.

I was talking to somebody about a 55/65 swap for a minute, but I have just too much (maybe 30-40%) work that needs a smaller camera. It's too bad.
 
Viddovation said:
I would call them "tradeoffs" not "problems".
Click to expand...

I meant "problems" in terms of issues that affect sales, not in terms that the camera is defective in any way. Iif those things weren't problems for most customers then the F65 wouldn't be selling at cut-rate prices.
 
morgan_moore said:
AFAIK the log is still a lot weaker than raw as a codec for colour and exposure flex IMO - Id take 2k raw* over 4klog personally
Click to expand...

Should we assume that you've actully tested and compared them yourself, or are you just making an educated guess? If you're just guessing, plese let us know what you think after you have actually purchased a camera that can do either one of those two formats.

I certainly wouldn't choose 2K RAW over 4K XAVC. Nobody I know is asking for 2K RAW , but 4K, in any flavor you want, already has traction and good ROI.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I meant "problems" in terms of issues that affect sales, not in terms that the camera is defective in any way. Iif those things weren't problems for most customers then the F65 wouldn't be selling at cut-rate prices.
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with the sheer amount of marketplace competition. Essentially Everything you listed as a "problem" is shared by the Alexa, and that camera is wildly popular for high end production. But there's enough marketplace choice now at a variety of price points, that fewer people can justify spending 75k+ on a camera.

And a great many cameras are selling at "cut-rate" prices. In the last year the Epic took a $15k nose-dive. I've seen $35k barebones Alexa packages. Sub $10k F35 packages. And ridiculous prices for 16mm and 35mm film cameras. It's a supply issue - there is a great deal of supply, with new features, at lower and lower initial price points. It drives the whole market down.
 
4k acquisition is definitely here now. It's too great an asset for post. And even when shooting a compressed codec when down sampling to 1080 you get benefits color wise. Sony has a great system, I think f55 will have a long life like the f3. Still going. Epic dragon looks to be great. Its just what red needed, a more modern, faster sensor, with more dynamic range. The 4k Alexa will likely show up at NAB. Anything serious I do 4k is a requisite now. Raw if possible, log if not. But I've shot plenty of compressed non-raw 4k on the f55, c500, and 1dc. It's easy to post. Really easy. I don't see what the fuss is all about.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Well you're the only one. I definately see the difference and it is HUGE. The first few seasons of Breaking Bad on AMC were only available in SD with Verizon FiOS. I stopped watching after a couple of episodes and waited for them to come out on Blu-ray. It was well worth the wait. Like letting a fine wine age a little. I hope that you've at least seen some episodes in HD so you know what your missing? Watching a show like Breaking Bad in HD makes a huge difference to me and most other people who aren't even in the business. Why is IMAX bigger than ever? Why are theaters converting to 4K digital projectors? Why does Apple keep improving the resolution of all their devices? This attitude that it's all about the content rather than the image quality is outdated and weak. You can tell yourself that it doesn't matter, but it does.

And you also prove my point about acquistion being what is important today. Breaking Bad wasn't shot in SD because Osslund thought that would be good enough. And it wasn't edited in SD either. Breaking Bad was shot, edited, and graded in the best format they could afford without regard to how someone is going to watch it at home today. When we talk about 4K you have to separate acquistion from deliverables, because those are two different issues.
Click to expand...

My point is that a good flick or other content has first priority and image quality comes maybe third on the list. Why would yt clips circle around the world in low quality generating millions of views if people put iq as the most important feature? I've had a very elaborate home theater with a 74" screen and high end audio at home but frankly I enjoy movies or tv series much more when I don't need to suck in the high image quality. To the masses iq doesn't matter. Sadly you could say but the way HD and even SD looks these days with advanced viewing capabilities I can understand there's little need for anything higher than HD at the end users display. I also viewed BR when it was fresh and marvelled at the quality but it soon faded when everything turned towards streaming video and the ease of how you could watch anything when you wanted. Without the wait on a disc to hit the market.

I never thought of the newer Star Wars as not enough resolution and these are acquired in HD. I've seen many features using the F35 and I constantly work with Alexa HD files and Red 4k/5k files and in the end it really doesn't matter. Sometimes 4k is the way to go but most of the time it isn't needed to get the result you want. There will always be a craze for the hottest new thing but these days HD looks to damn good and the jump to 4k might not even be noticed if you look at the end result.

Many broadcasters accept 1080i or 720p which in effect are both 720p so even 1080p is more than what's needed to fullfill 720p. But things are turning slow even towards HD. In Sweden HD channels are just a niche business and most feel SD looks great. Bandwidth and the ability to output more channels in lower quality is more important than a few high quality channels.

A few years back 3D was the thing promoted but who shoots 3D today? Very few. We have a TV series for children in Sweden shot with a Red Epic. No effects really and that's a perfect example of a waste of resolution. Just like it would be to put out a news broadcast in 4k or even HD for that matter. Reportage from war zones are transferred in lower quality and local news are often made with a, at best, HD ENG camera.

You are right. Breaking Bad was shot on 35mm and had a 2k intermediate master. But how many users watched it thanks to the 2k mastering? Or was it the great story? Had it matter if it were made in 720p or even 576p?

Bottom line. 4k has greater resolution than HD. Is it necessary to use 4k to make a good enough content? To we have to rush to get there? If manufactures are outputting devices that captures 4k and views 4k is that the only way to follow their lead?
 
I think shooting in the highest format you can is advantageous. I remember David Gilmour lamenting a couple of years ago that Pink Floyd should have shot the massive 1994 Pulse concert on film instead of Digi Beta. They did a stellar job of mastering the SD for DVD in 2006, but that's a legacy that can never be changed. When everyone has gone 4K and beyond, how will that 4:3 SD classic concert be looked at? Not everything is worthy of being shot in 4K, but the good stuff is.
 
txdp said:
4k acquisition is definitely here now. It's too great an asset for post. And even when shooting a compressed codec when down sampling to 1080 you get benefits color wise. Sony has a great system, I think f55 will have a long life like the f3. Still going. Epic dragon looks to be great. Its just what red needed, a more modern, faster sensor, with more dynamic range. The 4k Alexa will likely show up at NAB. Anything serious I do 4k is a requisite now. Raw if possible, log if not. But I've shot plenty of compressed non-raw 4k on the f55, c500, and 1dc. It's easy to post. Really easy. I don't see what the fuss is all about.
Click to expand...

You must not have worked on many indie features. Trying to post a small feature with raw 4k files would not have worked in any way on the last two i worked on. The storage isn't the only thing. One had 3 different FX and title people all in different cities and files were being sent over yousendit by the dozens. There was often no time to even offload files after the shoot day. There was limited drive space for back up on set. There are two different editors involved with one using FCP6 and color work would have taken so much longer. The list goes on. In the end, no one would have been able to tell if it were 4k or HD anyway! People love to justify their opinions based on what camera they just bought or what project they just worked on, assuming the rest must be like that. In reality the mix of format needs are extreme and 4K might be appropiate for 5 or 10% of them as of 2014, best case.

Lol, what was that? The Epic needed a more modern sensor? I guess it was old and outdated already. Wow the tech needs and perceptions of this generation have reached a laughable level.
 
Last edited:
The MX sensor is getting old. That's a fact. Newer sensors are cleaner noise-wise (f55, c500 etc), as Dragon shows. Still a great sensor, but different discussion. Anyway, look, there are many ways to get through post, and you don't have to work with the raw 4k files. Although that's really not hard either these days.
 
Considering Oblivion, shot on a budget of $120 million by Claudio Miranda had it's DI processed in 2k despite being shot in 4k... I think it's fair to say that low budget productions might have more pressing concerns than posting in 4k, and can easily justify shooting in 1080p, should they want to.

The acquisition argument isn't new. Shoot in the highest quality format now, release in what's practical today, then leverage the original footage to re-release in higher quality later. I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold much water unless you have a visual spectacular on your hands. There are, of course, certain sorts of films that rely heavily on visual spectacular, and they may well benefit from higher resolution, and profit from it to boot. But I've worked on plenty of talking heads projects, shot primarily in close-ups and mediums, with establishing wides... and if anything the DP is using filters to cut down the sharpness of the digital sensor on the actors faces.

Not all content needs 4k. Not all content can justify the cost expense in today's market. Not all content can reasonably expect a profitable re-release down the road.

But if 4k is right for you - or right for your project - do it. I'll shoot 4k on a regular basis just as soon as my clients pay for it on a regular basis.
 
I wonder if everyone getting caught up in the whole "future proofing" idea is actually looking at the wrong variable... Maybe it is not resolution that will future proof the footage, but 60p? (or both). Who know what will be the key factor that makes our current footage actepable for the next generation.

That's the thing about the future, we can try and predict it, but "future proofing" is hit and miss at best.
 
Jay Birch said:
I wonder if everyone getting caught up in the whole "future proofing" idea is actually looking at the wrong variable...
Click to expand...

The variable is image quality - is the picture pretty?

I know this clearly from my transition in stills from film to digital (I used to shoot both for a while one on each shoulder - dig' to 'wire' - send to the daily press, film to syndicate to magazines)

Shooting film I used to do low res scans but knew my 'master' could always produce something nice if revisited - my first digicam (1.4mp) I knew I was skating on thin ice - It did not look pretty.

By my third digital stills camera I was still shooting film on the other shoulder but the rolls just never got processed - that tells a story.

Stills wise a 10mp digital file is pretty and has archive value,

My F3 upped to 4k is pretty - and pretty is what counts.

It wont cut with a future 4k nat geo ubersaturated super sharp stuff, but it will slot in a doco nicely if any of my stuff is ever worthy of archive reuse.

S
 
Most material we shoot will eventually become..... old.

I have over a thousand BVU, Hi-8 and Betacam tapes in storage that I thought I might need to access one day. Didn't happen.
 
Morgan, comparing stills to motion only stretches so far. The way we perceive motion is just as important as image quality

Watching charlie chaplin at 18fps is bearable and nostalgic, but you would struggle to sit through a BBC earth documentary at that frame rate. Maybe in 20 years time, people will be so used to 60fps that 24fps will create a similarly strange sensation to them.
 
Speaking of BBC nature documentaries, people may find this video of interest. If you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing, at least jump in about 28:00 and watch a little from the BBC producer explaining why they chose 4K.
A lot of the benefits he's excited about for 4K also apply to any large-sensor HD camera, but the overall points he makes are good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S6WNImRaec
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top