Hi Guiseppe:

That is an interesting distinction however I have not heard of it. I would thus have to say that this distinction is not made in the film industry at large. There may well be exceptions of course. As for me, I call myself both interchangeably.

anyway:

the transfer of "The Perfect Sleep" was fantastic, the movement was very natural and did not have that blurry quality that can sometimes indicate a digitally originated project. It was indeed a thrill to see it on the big screen (not my first, but I am particularly proud of the way this project looked, it was a rare opportunity to really imprint on the look significantly).

Let me give my 2 cents over this.

Shooting at higher resolution than target resolution it's always better when it comes to technical quality, in my opinion.

Take the following footage sizes and resize them and see for yourself as follows:

1. Footage shot at 4k resized to 1080p compare to footage shot at 1080p.
2. Footage shot at 1080p resized to DV resolution compare to footage shot at DV resolution.
3. Noisy footage at highest res you can get, resize to 1080p, 720p, 480p and compare with noisy footage shot at those resolutions.

You would be able to notice the great differences in technical quality. If I would had this decision on my hands on a project, I would go shooting in the highest resolution available to my budget and scale down as needed (editing, distribution etc).

Shoot higher than your target resolution if your budget/skills/time permits. Remember, scale down using a proper scaling algorithm such as "lanczos3" etc.

You would be able to notice the great differences in technical quality. If I would had this decision on my hands on a project, I would go shooting in the highest resolution available to my budget and scale down as needed (editing, distribution etc).

.

There are other factors to consider besides shooting in the highest resolution - although I'm not sure where this places the F35 and Genesis which have high resolution sensors, but downscale in camera to 1080p. For a particular film you may wish to have a camera which is extremely good at dealing with highlights or has a large DOF or has wonderful skin tones or looks gritty, when making the camera choice the sensor resolution (4k or 1080p) is only one element to be considered.

you may wish to have a camera which is extremely good at dealing with highlights or has a large DOF or has wonderful skin tones or looks gritty, when making the camera choice the sensor resolution (4k or 1080p) is only one element to be considered.

Fully agree, my comment refers strictly to the resolution aspect.

Just a few things.

First off I wouldn't consider 720 a legacy format, it's one of the 18 ATSC formats available for broadcast. 720p evolved because a ton of broadcast/electronics guys said progressive frame capture couldn't be done! So what happened, 3 guys in a garage in Boston using a Philips HD camera proved it could be done, this was the late 80's early 90's. 6 months I think was the development time. Polaroid sponsored the effort but not with huge cash just a few bucks. I remember seeing the camera demo in LA at the Showbiz Show, very impressive. Film cameramen wanted progressive frame capture, which is far superior to interlace. Interlace is a holdover from the 1920's-30's when bandwidth and electronics were a huge issue in the broadcast world. I personally like 720p24, the images look just awesom on a 40 ft screen even compared to 1080 interlaced.

1080 is more of a legacy format than 720. 1080 is an offshoot of analog 1035 of the early 1980's which NHK of Japan developed to succeed 480 analog. In the early 80's there was a rash of films shot on 1035 analog but it was difficult to say the least. Recording out to film posed problems since the image was captured interlaced and brought all those problems since de-interlacing required huge computing power. I only saw a few of them but they were there. Like DV films there was a lot of experimentation but not many great scripts or well funded films.

Now Japanese companies are at it again with 8k cameras. Saw a great effort at NAB, NHK again, but I would love to see a great visual artist show what is possible with that format. The demo wasn't bad but it was shot by TV guys with a thin premise, it was colorful though. Most of the high definition development in the past 40 years has been done by the Japanese though. US companies just let the R & D go to someone else so they can take the profits. What a shame!

A true artist will always learn the tools and then use the best one for the project.

To really judge a format you have to project it onto a 25 ft to 40ft screen, then the flaws really jump out at you.

Yes, and if you would use a 10.000ft screen every pixel in a 32K projected film would be visible. But this is not the problem.

If you want to project on a very large screen and want to satisfy the people on the front row you should not use 128K cameras. Use interpolation instead.

Yes, and if you would use a 10.000ft screen every pixel in a 32K projected film would be visible. But this is not the problem.

If you want to project on a very large screen and want to satisfy the people on the front row you should not use 128K cameras. Use interpolation instead.

There are always cost trade offs for a system and since most audience members don't sit in the front they don't put in that investment. However, if you want to tell how good a camera is sit at the front, not the usually best place for viewing the film, but if you want to spot the flaws that's the place to be.

And unless the projector's lens is optically perfect, the flaws you see on the screen could as well be attributed to the lens and have nothing to do with the acquisition system.

And unless the projector's lens is optically perfect, the flaws you see on the screen could as well be attributed to the lens and have nothing to do with the acquisition system.

That could be the case and if you were testing different formats you'd have to be aware of any flaws with the projection system. However, when comparing formats these flaws would apply to all the shooting systems being projected would exhibit the faults of that particular projector. The projection quality can vary between theatres, but once you've been to a few you can tell which ones have the best projection systems.

Camera lenses are usually tested in a projector that only has a test pattern that's projected by the camera lens, so nothing else comes into the equation.

Hi Guiseppe:

That is an interesting distinction however I have not heard of it. I would thus have to say that this distinction is not made in the film industry at large. There may well be exceptions of course. As for me, I call myself both interchangeably.


This is actually a proper linguistic distinction, even if its a bit archaic now.

A DoP, or DP, is someone who directs lighting and camera.

A cinematographer is a DP who operates a camera.

Having said that, I don't know anyone outside of Europe who really uses this distinction. Even there I think its anachronistic.

We could probably have a whole discussion on the terminology of our profession. How about "first cameraman" for starters?

My take on the whole discussion is that people tend to forget about the art and focus on the technology of image making.

I think that this is because "1080/24p" or "4k" is easier to master than the art of lighting. Camera profiles are easier to try and manipulate than planning coverage and designing good shots that serve the story and draw an audience in.

Does 4K matter? Absolutely. If you are finishing for theatrical presentation. When finishing at 2k or 1080p for theatrical presentation you need significant oversampling, to me that is what a "4k" camera like RED provides.

In my mind 35mm sensors are a good thing, but almost exclusively for film style productions, where the shots can be designed. When ineffectively used 35mm sensors, and their inherent DoF qualities, can distract the audience and muddle the message.

One thing to bear in mind- the value of many of these digital cinema cameras is the dynamic range of the sensors and the color sampling that they record. Those things matter far more to me than 4K or even 35mm sensors. (and I am so attached to 35mm sensors.)

So, is 2/3" and 1080p enough? Absolutely yes, for many productions. The vast majority I'd suggest.

I have a shoot coming up where 1080p 2/3" would be ideal, but I'll shoot either 1/2" 1080p or RED because that's what's available. 1/2" gives too large a DoF, and RED is just overdoing it for this show. An F23 would be overkill too. An XDCAM F800 or an HPX3700 would be the ticket.

C'est la vie.

I haven't heard of first camera man, but lighting cameraman (or I guess cameraperson these days), was extremely popular in the UK (and other places in the world), especially in television, until DP or DOP spread out of feature films and commercials into other areas. They basically do the same jobs and a few features have a "lighting cameraman" rather than "director of photography".

Last time I looked the BBC credits guidelines only allow director of photography on dramas, although it that didn't stop one company giving that credit on a life style programme for BBC regional television.

So here's an interesting question for you all, then. If a camera existed that gave you say 12 f-stops of latitude (>72dB), recorded in 12-bit RAW or CineformRAW, 2/3" optical format, full 1920x1080 at 60fps max for around $15k, would you buy it? Not to mention overcranking and undercranking up to 240fps in lower resolutions. Food for thought.

Why, are you planning to make one? If it was CCD rather than CMOS so much the better. If so, yes, I'll have one.
Steve

Given good ergonomics there would be a lot of interest from those people who make productions that don't have fast turn around requirements of many TV productions.

So here's an interesting question for you all, then. If a camera existed that gave you say 12 f-stops of latitude (>72dB), recorded in 12-bit RAW or CineformRAW, 2/3" optical format, full 1920x1080 at 60fps max for around $15k, would you buy it? Not to mention overcranking and undercranking up to 240fps in lower resolutions. Food for thought.

Over the past 5 or so years on these forums I've seen many nice spec sheets but very few delivered products. Unless you've got a working piece of hardware ready to beta test, I've got no interest.

Ethan, couldn't agree more. Where's the Ikonoskop by the way?
Steve

A cameraman in Australia is using one, I'm not sure if it's part of a beta testing process, but it's out there.

Last time I checked the Ikonoskop forum people were getting totally upset that they were getting no feedback at all on progress or anything to do with delivery dates - worse than RED even!
Steve

In their defense, they're not nearly as well backed financially as Red.