For those who are breathlessly reading specs on new or announced cameras and debating whether they can possibly compromise their vision with such pedestrian formats such as 2/3" imagers or 1080 acquisition, I suggest you go see "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". I'm not much a fan of the film overall, but the visuals are absolutely worth it. Claudio Miranda's lighting and the overall look was for me an uncompromised cinematic experience--yet having been shot on the Viper, it's saddled by those "lowly" specs.

I don't want to get too preachy but in my opinion, the obsession with shallow depth of field and ever-increasing resolution is leading a lot of people down the wrong path. Beautiful lighting and composition will make any camera look good, but even the most advanced camera can't automatically conjure up either. Cinematography is a lifelong study, and while it's easier than ever to access tools that can recreate a high-end look without the Hollywood pricetag, the tools are only as good as the talent who wields them.

Bravo Claudio!

Given that the vast majority of work will only ever be seen on a TV set in someones living room I cannot understand the obsession with ever increasing resolution. The human eye can't even take advantages of 1080p on anything other than the largest screen. Then there is viewing distance to take into account as well. Given the optimum viewing distances for 1080, why on earth would anyone want to have to sit any closer for even higher resolutions?

My understanding is that 1080 high def was created to enable home viewing to obtain a similar viewing distance/screen size as the cinema. The ability to watch larger screens from a closer distance without seeing individual pixels. 1080 has achieved this already. As people who have seen 1080 projected on a really good 4k projector at places like NAB will attest, what exactly does even more resolution get you? 99.9% of people are not shooting for theatrical display or distribution.

Instead I would much rather see a concerted effort to increase framerates to obtain 1080p/50/60 and to totally ditch the legacy 720 format. There is far too much mess at the moment. If someone is shooting stock footage for example, do they shoot 720/24p? 720/25p? 720/60p? 720/30p? 720/50p? 1080/24p? 1080/25p? 1080/50i? 1080/60i? 1080/30p?

With digital cinema I would like to see 24p ditched. AFAIAC it has no place any more. It is an awkward rate and finnicky to handle. If US TV's could be unlocked to handle other frequencies like everybody else in the world then people could use 25p instead, which really has no difference in look to all but the most bearded of people. 25p would make sense because when 1080/50p comes along that footage could be used to create a 50i, a 50p, and a 25p version of footage. Great for people shooting stock footage since it would make things go a lot further. Same for 60p. So for stock footage people would only have to choose between 50p and 60p and interlaced or film style versions could be derived very easily without issues.

The situation is currently totally ridiculous and it needs sorting out. The obsession with resolution just seems to be diverting the powers that be from sorting out the real issues IMHO.

Simon, I couldn't agree more. For example, one of the arguments that garners huge debate surrounds the resolution from the little Canon cams when footage is acquired via the camera HDMI interface, or vs HDV to tape. Yes there's a difference, but on a typical HD screen, who cares? There's a ton of hype and questionable information being circulated all over the place and I honestly feel for folks who only 4 years ago were faced with pretty much one choice at the lower end of things...DV. We spend a lot of time looking at HD output from a variety of cameras ranging from $800 to $25 000 and one thing I do see though is even at 1080p, there's still lots of room for improvement to get to true 1920x1080 resolution. The Nyquist theorem would suggest that you do need to "oversample" at resolutions significantly higher than 1920x1080 to arrive at an image that would down-convert with better results. So I guess that's an argument for 2K, 4K etc. even if your product is not destined for film/projection.

We had Ryan Keller, a director working in Toronto visit our offices over Christmas. He brought with him a DVD of four clips shot with the Second City comedy group, which subsequently aired on Bravo. They were shot with the HVX200, our adapter, and more importantly, excellent lighting, camera movement, sound, acting etc. etc. The very simple thing that struck me about one of the pieces is that they actually lit properly for video and then crushed the blacks in post to get nice clean images free of the usual HVX200 noise. In other words, there was nothing there to distract even a non-technical viewer and I couldn't help but getting sucked right into the comedy. In my mind, that's as it should be.

Cinematography to me represents a wonderful challenge, and as Charles has indicated, is infinitely complex in it's nuance. Perhaps the reason we all get caught up in technical details is that a high level of "mastery" is attainable to anyone, whereas that same mastery of the form of visual media, will never be. The fact that the most downloaded clip on our website (with 45 000 thread views) was shot using an HV20, by a talented young film-maker says something about how the technology is rapidly democratizing the industry. For us, it's a very exciting place to be as we continue to be exposed on a daily basis to the raw talent out there.

Cheers,
Dennis Wood
www.cinevate.com

Here Here Simon.

I've seen technology demo's of 2K and 4K films along side 1080P video and the biggest differentiator is always the composition and lighting. In real world situations I struggle to see the difference between 4K and 2K. Sure in demo's where your un reasonably close to the screen I can see the difference, but that's not how movies and TV are watched.

I've recently seen quite a few IMAX movies and went to the cinema for the first time in ages just the other day. I found the motion quite objectionable and that's from someone that currently shoots most things at 25P!

There are still very few TV's and monitors that really do justice to 1080 images, let alone anything with higher resolution. As Simon says we should now consolidate and really concentrate on getting the best from the standards we have. I too believe 50P to be the future. Don't forget that with any kind of motion resolution also becomes a function of frame rate.

... even at 1080p, there's still lots of room for improvement to get to true 1920x1080 resolution. The Nyquist theorem would suggest that you do need to "oversample" at resolutions significantly higher than 1920x1080 to arrive at an image that would down-convert with better results. So I guess that's an argument for 2K, 4K etc. even if your product is not destined for film/projection.


Well said. The Thomson Viper captures 24Mp (3 1920x4320 chips without interpolation) to get 1920x1080 w/4:4:4 color. The output is very beautiful: http://www.rubbermonkey.co.nz/images_detail/candles.jpg

I agree, especially on this pathological obsession over shallow DOF. Those unwieldy, ungainly 35mm adapters are awful in my book. They make the image weak from what I've seen.

The Thomson Viper captures 24Mp (3 1920x4320 chips without interpolation) to get 1920x1080 w/4:4:4 color.

Presumably that's not 24mp but 8mp - ie 3 ccds one for each colour.

Steve

Presumably that's not 24mp but 8mp - ie 3 ccds one for each colour.

Steve

Thompson Grass Valley say 3 x 9.2 Mega Pixel CCDs, but presumably they don't use all the pixels. They seem to combine different numbers of vertical sub pixels to give you the option of 1080p, 720p or Scope.

I think the main point being made was the use of 2/3" sensors rather than the 35mm sized sensors

I have been one of those looking for that perfect 35mm rig. The new scarlets are something I'm looking forward to seeing. And I have had my current FX1 camera mounted with 35mm rig waiting for the film to use it. But in each of my last four outings, I have opted of the standard shooting arrangement because of the simplicity, the nice image, and the realization that most shooting situations are enhanced by the the bare camera's capability. I have to agree that we sometime overemphasize that aspect.

12 years ago, I recall a group of gearheads, on this very website, bemoaning the unfilmlike look of DV video and proclaiming that DV will never be as artistic as film. Fast forward to today, where HD and HDV is now driving the resolution race. Artiste's are actually dumbing down footage with gaussian blur filters in order to achieve that ever elusive "film look".

Viper based films like "The Fast Runner (Atanarjuat)" set the bar.

I submit for your consideration that after there are no living generations of "film" shooters and audiences, contemporary video will be the "look dujour". Everything is relative. People are able to comprehend only that for which they are used to.

12 years ago, I recall a group of gearheads, on this very website, bemoaning...Sorry -- could not have been here. We've only been around as a forum for seven years.

Twelve years ago we were barely a handful of pages called the XL1 Watchdog, and we most definitely were not "bemoaning the unfilmlike look of DV video" nor were we proclaiming "that DV will never be as artistic as film." But I can think of a couple of other sites from those days that you might have confused us with.

"Fast Runner" was not shot on the Viper. I believe it was shot 480i NTSC, like on a Digital Betacam or something. I remember articles at the time about the conversion from 60i to 24P for the film-out.

Chris..

ahhh, my timing is off, indeed. But, yeah, verily, it was on this very site when in its infancy. In fact, my first post, lo those many years ago, was concerning this very topic. As I recall, while owner and moderator, extra-ordinaire, you were not one of those film-snobs. No doubt, film is a beautiful medium. But, digital has its own form of beauty and can co-exist along-side film. The contemporary gripe, IMHO, is with CG, which I find cartoonish and unrealistic, even in such good examples as "Spiderman". The bottom line is well said by Charles, above..."...Beautiful lighting and composition will make any camera look good, but even the most advanced camera can't automatically conjure up either". On the other hand, noir classics like Battlestar Galactica make excessive use of digital characteristics...high contrast, blown highlights, etc, but, set the standard for artistic use of the "digital look".

David..

Indeed! A quick check revealed the following:
Atanarjuat was shot on wide screen (16:9) digital betacam (NTSC), transferred to 35mm film through a 'smooth motion' process with true film resolution at Digital Film Group, Vancouver. The film's visual strategy was designed to heighten the audience's sense of being there, despite the exotic locale. Even state-of-the-art digital cameras can take you places a film camera could never go. The goal of Atanarjuat is to make the viewer feel inside the action, looking out, rather than outside looking in. This lets people forget how far away they really are, and to identify with the story and characters as if they were just like us.

I'm a DV wannabe, so don't take this as being written by someone who knows what they're saying. :)

I've just stumbled across Charles's post, but have been having similar thoughts. Only mine were prompted by learning that Crank 2: High Voltage was shot with an XH-A1.

I'm looking forward to seeing this film, not only because I've got the IQ of a 14 year old boy, but also to see how it's been shot. My guess is that the film makers felt that XH-A1 produced sufficiently good image quality, and they felt that the benefits (lower cost, ability to film with multiple cameras and from otherwise inaccessible locations) outweighed the opinions of a few film geeks.

The film look strikes me as being an attempt to replicate the quirks of an obsolete technology because that's what we associate as being better, but not necessarily having an objectively higher image quality. It's like musicians talking about analogue warmth being preferable to a digital recording.

I love shallow depths of field and a nice bokeh, but is it really necessary? Pulling focus to shift attention from one actor to another is surely a cliché by now. Does the audience really notice, or are things shot to impress peers?

My point is that we should be looking at the new tools available, and seeing what we can do with them. To paraphrase the old punk saying: Here's three shots, now make a movie.

Film is far from an obsolete technology, it still offers advantages that the digital cameras a struggle to match eg dynamic range. I know of one science fiction series that uses Super 16 for its slow motion green screen shots because film has a larger colour space than the DVPRO HD used on the Varicam.

Art isn't objective, its subjective it's full of artifice and artists and even film makers make use of the characteristics of each meduim. Just because acrylic paint came out doesn't make oil paints or watercolours obsolete.

Video formats have to date become obsolete extremely quickly and have archival problems in the longer term. For large screen theatrical productions HDV cameras like XH-A1 the don't really hold up to film or the higher end HD cameras. However, for lower budget films that are mostly aiming at the DVD market or perhaps the art house cinemas they can allow productions that wouldn't otherwise happen or they have an aesthetic quality that suits the story and how it being told.

"Lawrence of Arabia" would be an entirely different film if shot on HDV as against 65mm because the weakness of the 1/3" cameras is that they're OK for the closer shots, but they begin to fall apart on the wide shots rather like 16mm or even Super 16 (although less so) do when blown up to 35mm. 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.

There is a movement towards digital formats to replace film, largely I suspect on TV productions in the shorter term, which are under increasing budget pressures. However, they won't be using HDV cameras, but the 2/3" cameras under discussion here, plus the 35mm sized sensor. The HDV codec has problems as it goes through the post production/ transmission chain, so TV producers tend to only use it on productions or shots which require the use of smaller cameras.

"Lawrence of Arabia" would be an entirely different film if shot on HDV as against 65mm because the weakness of the 1/3" cameras is that they're OK for the closer shots, but they begin to fall apart on the wide shots rather like 16mm or even Super 16 (although less so) do when blown up to 35mm. 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.

There is a movement towards digital formats to replace film, largely I suspect on TV productions in the shorter term, which are under increasing budget pressures. However, they won't be using HDV cameras, but the 2/3" cameras under discussion here, plus the 35mm sized sensor. The HDV codec has problems as it goes through the post production/ transmission chain, so TV producers tend to only use it on productions or shots which require the use of smaller cameras.

When I first saw Lawrence of Arabia it was letter-boxed on an old 4:3 CRT TV and it was a stunning film even then because of the quality of the cinematography. It is a film that is full of vast wide shots where the DOF is massive. I'm not saying it would look better if it had been shot differently, just that what makes the film incredible is the quality of the craftsmen (and women) in front of and behind the cameras and in the edit suite.

I find that projecting with a good quality projector will hide many of the smaller artifacts that will show up on a big LCD or plasma screen. I have seen a lot of my work projected onto very big screens with 4K projectors and I've seen HDV, XDCAM and HDCAM material side by side and it's often very difficult to differentiate between them. Right now I'm working on a year long 3D HD project that will be projected in 4K. We have done extensive tests and so far the pictures we have been getting have looked IMHO excellent. We are using XDCAM EX's. Despite "only" having 1/2" sensors we have excellent dynamic range and accurate tonal reproduction. Noise is minimal, certainly less than from super 16.

Sure, highly compressed codecs have to be treated with care, but that doesn't mean you can't use them. Just look at Deadliest Catch or Ice Road Truckers on Discovery HD. They are shot on HDV but look very good when you consider the atrocious filming conditions. Would they have looked better shot with 2/3" or 35mm sensors? I doubt it. Can you image how band TV news would be if it was shot using cameras with 35mm sensors. Non of it would be in focus ;)

I've had clips that I shot on HDV included in feature films. We are all getting too wrapped up in the technology, me included. I keep having to remind myself of the old adage:

Content is King.

Any camera is merely a tool to record the content.

I find that projecting with a good quality projector will hide many of the smaller artifacts that will show up on a big LCD or plasma screen. I have seen a lot of my work projected onto very big screens with 4K projectors and I've seen HDV, XDCAM and HDCAM material side by side and it's often very difficult to differentiate between them. Right now I'm working on a year long 3D HD project that will be projected in 4K. We have done extensive tests and so far the pictures we have been getting have looked IMHO excellent. We are using XDCAM EX's. Despite "only" having 1/2" sensors we have excellent dynamic range and accurate tonal reproduction. Noise is minimal, certainly less than from super 16.

Sure, highly compressed codecs have to be treated with care, but that doesn't mean you can't use them. Just look at Deadliest Catch or Ice Road Truckers on Discovery HD. They are shot on HDV but look very good when you consider the atrocious filming conditions. Would they have looked better shot with 2/3" or 35mm sensors? I doubt it. Can you image how band TV news would be if it was shot using cameras with 35mm sensors. Non of it would be in focus ;)


Think that's why people like Discovery want to know your post workflow plans when they commission a production shot on HDV. I don't know about those particular programmes, but one workflow for one of their commissions involved doing the on-line using uncompressed HD that's been converted directly from the HDV camera tapes.

Indeed, much depends on the story you're telling.

I've seen video material which looks OK on a monitor, but looks extremely soft projected onto a screen. Same thing with a video colour grade which had been poorly done, with miss-matched shots that just jumped out at you. I assume the colourist had been using a computer monitor and didn't notice the shots were way out, even though the cameras themselves had been matched on location.

Ice Road Truckers

I thought this was shot on a few 350's as well?

I can't generally trust people when they say they've seen artifacts in various pictures mainly because I only have their word for it that they are looking at a top quality monitor. If I was to judge the EX by watching its footage on a Panasonic Viera for example, excellent TV's though they are, the picture is full of aliasing.

colourist had been using a computer monitor and didn't notice the shots were way out,

Surely if they were any good they'd see such differences on the scopes?

Content is King.

Actually as far as making money goes I'd say that schlock is king ;-) Horrible as that sounds. I never cease to be amazed at how much rubbish makes money while more worthwhile stuff leaves the producers penniless.

Going back to the cameras and formats though, far too much is made of it all. There is also too much elitism, like the way most people on the Cinematography Mailing List regard people who use cameras like the XDCAM HD as sub human, or beginners who have never used a 'real' camera. Some of those guys seem to be in a permanent state of irritableness. A lot of them need to ask themselves whether, despite all their 35mm goodness, half of the films they lens would interest an audience at all if they were shot on a PD-170. If the answer is no then the elitists should take a look at what they are really achieving.

Surely if they were any good they'd see such differences on the scopes?

Actually as far as making money goes I'd say that schlock is king ;-) Horrible as that sounds. I never cease to be amazed at how much rubbish makes money while more worthwhile stuff leaves the producers penniless.

Going back to the cameras and formats though, far too much is made of it all. There is also too much elitism, like the way most people on the Cinematography Mailing List regard people who use cameras like the XDCAM HD as sub human, or beginners who have never used a 'real' camera. Some of those guys seem to be in a permanent state of irritableness. A lot of them need to ask themselves whether, despite all their 35mm goodness, half of the films they lens would interest an audience at all if they were shot on a PD-170. If the answer is no then the elitists should take a look at what they are really achieving.

Oh absolutely they should've spotted the grading differences, you didn't even need a scope or a grade one monitor to spot the differences. I think it was just done on the cheap by the producer. The one thing about the large screen was that so much easier to spot the differences compared to the standard monitor size.

The schlock can always find a place on the niche world of multi channel television.

I think Geoff Boyle has always placed CML at the higher end, but I suspect what is taken as elitism, more just being hard nosed. I've never got the impression that XDCAM HD users are regarded as sub human on CML, indeed one of their regulars shoots on a PD 170. More likely that some people believing that RED will create a whole new wonderful world are given a hard time than XDCAM HD people. Currently, most RED discussions on CML are practical and are similar in nature to the professionals found on RedUser. Certainly, there's a lot more discussion about digital cinema on CML than 35mm film at the moment.

To go back to the original post and keeping in the Awards season, in addition to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire is also a product of the digital cinematography revolution and probably couldn't have been made as well if completely shot on film.

They used the SI-2K camera for that film to supplement a 35mm camera and ended up shooting half the film with the SI-2K because of the shooting conditions in the slums and the needed flexibility the digital camera provided. DOP Anthony Dod Mantle did an amazing job with lighting and interweaving both cameras that it is practically impossible to tell when he is using each camera. I know the SI-2K is a bit over HDV etc., but its pretty comparable to the Viper.

Also, they used some Canon still cameras to capture some crowd shots at 12 fps to get a more "real" feel without the people knowing they were being filmed.

To go back to the original post and keeping in the Awards season, in addition to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire is also a product of the digital cinematography revolution and probably couldn't have been made as well if completely shot on film.

They used the SI-2K camera for that film to supplement a 35mm camera and ended up shooting half the film with the SI-2K because of the shooting conditions in the slums and the needed flexibility the digital camera provided. DOP Anthony Dod Mantle did an amazing job with lighting and interweaving both cameras that it is practically impossible to tell when he is using each camera. I know the SI-2K is a bit over HDV etc., but its pretty comparable to the Viper.


Even more interesting in that it's the SI Mini recording onto a laptop rather than the full SI 2K rig. Definitely a 2/3" camera.

Would they have looked better shot with 2/3" or 35mm sensors? I doubt it. Can you image how band TV news would be if it was shot using cameras with 35mm sensors. Non of it would be in focus ;)


Two things about these statements. First, it probably would have looked better if shot on 2/3"/35mm cameras. Why? Because normally bigger chips give you less noise, not to mention that the MPEG2 format tends to be noisy by itself (which, if shot 2/3" into a MPEG2 codec, you might still have a decent amount of noise.) When you go to broadcast that noisy footage, the broadcast codec (MPEG2 I believe) falls to pieces because it's got more information to encode in the same amount of bandwidth. Less noise=better encoding.

I know you put a ;) in your last statement, but I don't want other people to be confused. Just because you have 35mm optics, doesn't mean that DOF is incredibly shallow on everything naturally. F-stop, distance to subject, subject to background, and mm lens is set to, make a huge difference. It's fairly easy to get everything in focus even at 50-60mm on a cine lens. Just go to f11 or above.

Unrelated, I don't know why anyone would want to shoot without some shallow DOF. Our eyes naturally have a somewhat shallow DOF and so it seems weird when I see shots that should have some DOF, without any. I understand it's hard to get shallow DOF on a 1/3" camera without zooming in, but that's a dead giveaway on what type of camera it was shot on (prosumer). I also understand many people not liking the 35mm adapter look. Most of the time when I see it used, the DOF is way to shallow for the shot. Online I see shorts/etc with med wide shots will have a fairly close background that is WAY out of focus--when it should be just slightly out of focus. It's finding that happen medium between making your subject have some depth and making them look like they were shot on greenscreen.

Matthew

Back in the mid 80's I was a Producer/Director for Compaq Computer. We shot a lot 16mm film projects, primarily to control the scan flicker on computer CRT's. (This was before clear scan). But, it gave us a more national commercial look than shooting Beta SP could have ever provided. Couldn't afford 35mm/ Twice the film, at double the cost, at double the processing, etc. So 16mm worked great for us.

We were shooting in and at IAH airport, large crew, lights, actors. Drew a lot of attention. When a woman Producer from LA walked up asked what we where doing. The standard answer was always a manyonaise commercial. When she saw the Arri SRII she said, "Oh 16, it's not a real shoot unless it's 35." My asst. camera op said, "Hey, if it pays, it's real." The 10 minute video we produced won a regional addy and a couple of telly's. And we were on budget. And everyone got paid.

I don't care if it is 16mm, 35mm, Viper, Red, SI, HDCAM SR, HDV, XDCAM EX, or AVC. If you're good you'll get paid. It isn't show, it is showbidness.

So, as the Talking Heads say, "Same as it ever was, same as it ever was."

Cheers.

Just because you have 35mm optics, doesn't mean that DOF is incredibly shallow on everything naturally. F-stop, distance to subject, subject to background, and mm lens is set to, make a huge difference. It's fairly easy to get everything in focus even at 50-60mm on a cine lens. Just go to f11 or above.

Not really true, Matthew. Check your depth of field calculator for the parameters you describe and you'll find that the hyperfocal (given a 55m focal length) around 35 feet, delivering 17 feet to infinity. Once the subject moves under 12 feet or so, the background will be noticeably soft even at f11. It's best not to shoot with your lens stopped down to the max which is often f16, so this is the best you can do.

Even quite wide lenses like a 20mm on the 35mm cine format can appear to deliver an extensive depth of field, but it's still quite possible to see soft backgrounds as the subject moves closer with an aperture like 2.8, which of course is much more likely for interiors or night work.

Can anyone tell me how to make a movie with drama motion effects and not using low framerates like 24P or 25P?
ArildP

Can anyone tell me how to make a movie with drama motion effects and not using low framerates like 24P or 25P?
ArildP

You could shoot at 50p or 60p, but it won't look like film, but more like video. I believe this effect was also noticed on Showscan which was shot on 65mm film, but they used 60 fps rather than the usual film 24fps.

Quite a few dramas are shot at interlace 50i or 60i or in progressive 50p or 60p. However these tend to be the soaps rather than the dramas going for that more "filmic" look. If you're going for TV or DVD distribution rather than a theatrical release (which you will need to shoot at 24p or 25p for transferring to 35mm) there's no problem doing this. The down side would be that if you're looking for the "drama motion effects" you won't get them because they're caused by shooting at 24p or 25p.

Not really true, Matthew. Check your depth of field calculator for the parameters you describe and you'll find that the hyperfocal (given a 55m focal length) around 35 feet, delivering 17 feet to infinity. Once the subject moves under 12 feet or so, the background will be noticeably soft even at f11. It's best not to shoot with your lens stopped down to the max which is often f16, so this is the best you can do.

Even quite wide lenses like a 20mm on the 35mm cine format can appear to deliver an extensive depth of field, but it's still quite possible to see soft backgrounds as the subject moves closer with an aperture like 2.8, which of course is much more likely for interiors or night work.

I'm sorry, I was referring more towards shooting with not a ton of space. If you are shooting outside, for the most part, it's easy to get a decent, shallow DOF. However, it seems like many people think that by shooting with cine lens in a tight space, they are going to have this really shallow DOF--but it ain't gonna happen. Too often, when they get their FOV correct, they find that they are on a wider lens and further away than they need to be. Heck, at 20mm/t5.6 (wider than most prosumer cameras go when you do the size conversion) with my subject standing 2' from the lens I can get a decently shallow DOF. However, that is not all that flattering to my subject and weird slightly weird.

I'm just saying that by using cine lenses in a 35mm size sensor does not instantly produce super shallow DOF. If you look at most wide/med wide shots in movies, there's more in focus than you realize. Even when the background is soft, it's just soft, not way out of focus--just enough to help the subject pop off the screen.

Matthew

Two things about these statements. First, it probably would have looked better if shot on 2/3"/35mm cameras. Why? Because normally bigger chips give you less noise, not to mention that the MPEG2 format tends to be noisy by itself (which, if shot 2/3" into a MPEG2 codec, you might still have a decent amount of noise.) When you go to broadcast that noisy footage, the broadcast codec (MPEG2 I believe) falls to pieces because it's got more information to encode in the same amount of bandwidth. Less noise=better encoding. Matthew

Why would it have looked better? If you watch the shows I'm talking about you will see that they have very low noise anyway. I just don't believe that it could have been shot with large sensor cameras as for many of the situations the cameras would have been simply to big and bulky. In the case of Deadliest Catch bigger, harder to use cameras would mean less variety of shots, it would be near impossible to hold bulky camera on the deck of a rolling ship with waves crashing over the crew. That would have meant the series would have to have been shot from the ships bridge loosing the impact of being there on the deck with the crew. For me it is that intimate on the spot shooting that make the programmes interesting and enjoyable to watch.



Unrelated, I don't know why anyone would want to shoot without some shallow DOF. Our eyes naturally have a somewhat shallow DOF and so it seems weird when I see shots that should have some DOF, without any.

Matthew

Actually our eyes have a remarkably deep depth of field down to the fact that they are wide angle lenses with relatively small aperture. The background doesn't disappear into a blur when we focus on a close object. What does happen is that our eyes converge on that object which causes distant objects to diverge and it is this that gives us depth perception and makes the object we are looking at the center of attention. Just go and watch a 3D movie and see how you can have massive DOF yet still bring the viewers attention onto a single plane by messing about with the convergence.
Simple experiment. Hold you finger out at arms length and look at the tip of you finger. Clearly the finger will be in focus while distant objects are indistinct. Now close one eye. The distant objects become much clearer. This is an example of how convergence makes the background indistinct. We use shallow depth of field in 2D video and cinema to try to mimic perception of depth. This supper shallow DOF that some people are obsessed about is not at all natural, but a cheat that is often over done. What we should be doing is working towards shooting everything stereoscopically.

The best sensor to use is the one that is the most appropriate to the shoot/budget and that often won't be the biggest.

In the case of Deadliest Catch bigger, harder to use cameras would mean less variety of shots, it would be near impossible to hold bulky camera on the deck of a rolling ship with waves crashing over the crew. That would have meant the series would have to have been shot from the ships bridge loosing the impact of being there on the deck with the crew. For me it is that intimate on the spot shooting that make the programmes interesting and enjoyable to watch.



I'm not you could sure that larger cameras couldn't be used. Certainly I've used 16mm and 2/3" cameras on a rolling boat, but I'd say an Aaton film camera is much handier than the 2/3" ENG video cameras which tend to be long and have an board battery which bangs into walls and doors.

However, I'd add you'd tend not to want to write off expensive cameras like they do on "The Deadliest Catch". I can't remember the numbers, but quite a few got damaged beyond repair on the series, so perhaps they could also be regarded as crash cameras.

Certainly for what they were filming the 1/3" cameras nicely fit the bill for the story they were telling in the series. However, I would add just because they used 1/3" cameras on an action series like "Deadliest Catch" doesn't mean they're the best cameras for other programmes/series. It's a case of the best tool for the production you're making.

Totally agree with you Brian. For a beautiful period costume drama a 35mm sensor may be the best choice, while for deadliest catch a compact video camera is best. Don't forget that super 16 film is not permitted by discovery because of excessive grain plus you would have the added issue of needing separate sound recording equipment.

It is the use of the appropriate tool for the job, as with any trade. Even if the final work is going to be shown on a cinema screen it is not essential that you use a big sensor and 4k resolution. When I watched the last 4k, 2k and HD demos at IBC in the big theater I really couldn't tell the difference between most of the 4K, 2K and HD at the distance I was from the screen. The biggest difference was in the production values and quality of the camerawork, not the technical specs of the cameras.

Totally agree with you Brian. For a beautiful period costume drama a 35mm sensor may be the best choice, while for deadliest catch a compact video camera is best. Don't forget that super 16 film is not permitted by discovery because of excessive grain plus you would have the added issue of needing separate sound recording equipment.


It's a pity about Super 16, it seems to be the 500 ASA stocks that have the problems during the transmission chain compression. Personally, I only use only that speed if I really need it, fortunately for most work 200T or even 100T is fine and the 50 ASA daylight stocks are great.

However, HDV is in the same position as Super 16 with Discovery HD and the BBC HD.

On board sound recorders were made for the Aaton for those people wishing to shoot sound while working alone. The main problem with single person crews is that the sound is a bit of a compromise compared to having the sound recordist with the mic boom etc..

I really couldn't tell the difference between most of the 4K, 2K and HD at the distance I was from the screen. The biggest difference was in the production values and quality of the camerawork

And it stands to reason. As you go to higher resolutions you need to have much larger screens or you need to sit closer. So in reality the push for 4k and now 6k and beyond is becoming as silly as the Megapixel ratings in digital cameras. 10 bit and above colour resolution is more desirable to me than outright resolution. As are higher progressive framerates.

To contribute, I've also noticed quite a lot of folks taken by the number of pixels as well. I don't think it helps to have the sales people at electronics stores to go on and on about how "you NEED to have FULL HD!". That's in reference to 1080p vs. 720p. Like John says in the interview, people for some reason need to have some sort of number to grab on to.

Sure, I like HD a lot more than I like SD, but I think I'd rather see High-Definition evolve to faster frame rates and better color like Simon said above.

I agree that faster frame rates and better color are more important than higher resolution, but I would add greater light sensitivity also. Especially the smaller HD cameras are just barely adequate for indoor recording without lots of extra lighting.

The contemporary gripe, IMHO, is with CG, which I find cartoonish and unrealistic, even in such good examples as "Spiderman".

I have to agree with you 100 percent on that one, Bill. The CG shots in modern film making stand out like a sore thumb to me. I tend to shy away from action movies for that reason alone.

-gb-

I had to switch over from "Pearl Harbour", having just changed over to it in the middle of the attack. The thing just looked like a video game and now "Tora Tora Tora" just looks more impressive with time... Although some of the ships moored in the harbour do tend to look a bit "modelish" at times in some shots, but the "Pearl Harbour" ships often look like GCI anyway.

BTW The previous time I started watching "Pearl Harbour" I didn't even get to the attack before turning it over and that wasn't to do with the CGI.

Well said. The Thomson Viper captures 24Mp (3 1920x4320 chips without interpolation) to get 1920x1080 w/4:4:4 color. The output is very beautiful: http://www.rubbermonkey.co.nz/images_detail/candles.jpg

Benjamin Button was shot, edited, timed in 2K.
Just talked to VFX head on the show.
No DI was used.
-C

2K timing is for all intents and purposes a DI...? The term is a bit confusing in a pure digital workflow as it was coined to refer to projects that originated on film, but it is widely used now for all-digital projects, generally indicating a digital color correction process.

Yeah. It is confusing. It's also confusing when you talk about Red 4k, but cut in a DI, then go back to Red 4K for timing. I agree that a new term should be used when talking 1's and 0's all the way through. I vote for DF = Digital Film.
-C

Each stage in a workflow will need to have a title or a term, so something as loose as Digital Film won't cover this. A DI is part of a process, just the RED's Bayer 4k data is another part. This is no different to say creating a film print from a film negative, there are different workflows and a number of stages in each: these can include creating a DI or interpositives and internegatives.

What is important is a common terminology that doesn't include things like a "telecine" for colour correction, which seem to develop because the colour correction system was attached to the telecine machine, rather than transferring film to video.

If these terms get picked up by the industry as a whole is another matter. The BBC for example, had (perhaps less now) different terms to the rest of the television industry. For example, CSO (Colour Separation Overlay) for Chromakey.

I remember reading awhile back about the reasoning behind why Panavision decided to use a 1920x1080 35mm sensor in their Genesis system versus a higher resolution sensor. Apparently, they chose this resolution because it was the best compromise between picture quality and light sensitivity. I suppose this is why Sony chose this frame size for their new F35, considering Sony makes the chip for both companies.

It's a 12.4 megapixel sensor converted to an 1920 x 1080 array, which since it's full RGB has advantages over a Bayer sensor.

Unfortunately for me I've never been to a good projection showing for matching various resolutions against the other. That being said I can easily tell the difference on a 24" dell monitor between 720p and 1080p or 1.5k vs 2k in Apple Color. like within a few frames of watching it I just know. I can also usually see every pixel on the screen in a theatre if I'm not too far from the screen. I can honestly see all the little squares and although resolution doesn't make good stories it does mean something to those of us with 20-20 or better vision. In the case of the RED the 2k is OK at 1080P. 4K is massively better at 1080P and 3K is basically the same at 1080P. Most people don't notice, can't tell, or don't care but saying that there isn't much difference between rezzes on a big screen doesn't hold true for me. But my left eye is getting a little softer than my right so in 10 years maybe a cell phone camera will be fine for me.

Red One Camera Test and demos (http://www.redonerental.net)

The RED has a Bayer sensor as against the 3 x 2/3" chip and by it's nature the 2k Bayer would be expected to be less resolution than the traditional 1080p 3 chip cameras. That's why the 2/3" Scarlet will have a 3k chip.

I believe the debate is more about the aesthetics of 35mm DOF as a requirement in a cinematic film compared to the deeper DOF found on a 2/3" sensor rather than resolution.

Here's the bottom line on all this talk about 2K, DI, 4K, Bayer patterns, whatever. I saw Knowing last week (shot on Red) and although not a great movie, it looked and felt like a film to me. End of story.

I'm highly curious to see what Crank, High Voltage looks like on the big screen. A prosumer HDV big (relatively) budget Hollywood film. You kidding me? It'll be interesting to see how that holds up in the theater.

I'm highly curious to see what Crank, High Voltage looks like on the big screen. A prosumer HDV big (relatively) budget Hollywood film. You kidding me? It'll be interesting to see how that holds up in the theater.

I've seen "Once" that was shot on Z1 as a 35mm film out, it looked rather like 16mm blow up, which given the figures I've seen for that particular camera seems about right. OK for the closer shots, but weak on the wide shots. But still workable for the right story.

I could certainly almost always do with a little more DOF on interiors. I think the 2/3" is actually a great trade off. I remember seeing Gladiator a long time ago and thinking that it was not a very positive thing that the DOF on some of the candle lit scenes was so razor thin. I personally did not like it much.

I'm a DV wannabe, so don't take this as being written by someone who knows what they're saying. :)

I've just stumbled across Charles's post, but have been having similar thoughts. Only mine were prompted by learning that Crank 2: High Voltage was shot with an XH-A1.

I'm looking forward to seeing this film, not only because I've got the IQ of a 14 year old boy, but also to see how it's been shot. My guess is that the film makers felt that XH-A1 produced sufficiently good image quality, and they felt that the benefits (lower cost, ability to film with multiple cameras and from otherwise inaccessible locations) outweighed the opinions of a few film geeks.

The film look strikes me as being an attempt to replicate the quirks of an obsolete technology because that's what we associate as being better, but not necessarily having an objectively higher image quality. It's like musicians talking about analogue warmth being preferable to a digital recording.

I love shallow depths of field and a nice bokeh, but is it really necessary? Pulling focus to shift attention from one actor to another is surely a cliché by now. Does the audience really notice, or are things shot to impress peers?

My point is that we should be looking at the new tools available, and seeing what we can do with them. To paraphrase the old punk saying: Here's three shots, now make a movie.

I am sorry to say it, but your words are almost an insult to me. "...an attempt to replicate the quirks of an obsolete technology..." This is an art form with a tool that has been around longer than you. "...Pulling focus to shift attention from one actor to another is surely a cliché by now" So how about I just keep them soft and not focus at all? how about we just shoot everything so sharp and in focus the audience can sit there for 2 hours and not have any clue as to what the director or DPs intentions were?

Maybe its because I've been up all night, but I have to say these words are war to me. If you don't know film history or if you aren't a Cinematographer for a living you should not comment so strongly where others are surly to shoot down your comments of what seem to be a person who just doesn't know any better.

And just since we are throwing around opinions "Crank 2: high voltage" Cinematicly looks like crap.

The audience does realize the difference. They just dont know how to explain the difference because the aren't educated the way we are to explain footage. I can bet you anything that if I sat 50 people in a room and showed them footage, one from an HVX200 and the other shot on an Arri 435, the would be able to tell the difference the second the footage was played. They might not know what makes it different, but believe me they know its different, and one "looks much more expensive and movie like than the other."

"WE" the Directors of Photography, and Cinematographers, and Camera Ops (yes there IS a difference between all 3) have a duty to uphold in this time and age. Because of new technology and price drops, people are becoming dumb-ed down to their visual expectations. So much "crap" is being shot with cheap cameras and being thrown on TV and on the web, the general audience is getting use to anything better than "crap" is good. Instead of people holding the high standards there was, its being dropped for cheap, and ugly footage. "WE" need to keep shooting on film or digital equivalent, and "WE" need to keep lighting perfectly, and moving the camera perfectly, and picking the best lenses, and doing the best post work possible. "WE" need to keep pushing to the producers that it will benefit the program if you spend a little extra on good lighting, or a better DP.

This is a very rare age we are in, never in film has such (in my own opinion and others with standards for visuals) "Crap" been pushed to the big screen in all of cinemas life. The past 15-20 years has really changed the look of film for the worst. Sure "content in the story comes first" as people like to say... But this is an ART! You are throwing it away because you don't know any better, and would rather make a cheap looking film instead of the way its been done for 100 years? Thats not a "maturing" way of shooting, like when we went from 16mm as cheap shooting, to a Sony F900 in 1080p... no that's just getting lazy and cheep because you dont know any better and thinking things are cliche so you'll shoot a feature on an HVX and think it looked good.

As to the topic of this for 1080p 2/3 I do agree, this is still very strong format and we are getting a bit greedy with resolution and not enough with the lighting and work behind it. "Benjamin Button" is a great example of BEAUTIFUL cinematography with a tool at 1080p 2/3 dof. There is still the case that 35mm dof is needed, and its all to the story. But this again holds that 3k, 4k, and beyond can still be useful for SFX and other applications that the more resolution the better for a good outcome.

I can actually agree with part of what both Graeme and Guiseppe are saying (as they said in Spinal Tap, I'm between fire and ice, making me lukewarm water!)

I think embracing and exploring new technologies are worthwhile if interesting things are being done. I'm not a fan of much of the "lazy" shooting style I see in many indie projects that are shot small format, mostly from a lighting standpoint. As new technology like the 5D MKII moves us into a place where lights are no longer needed for pure exposure, we will be seeing more and more material that is not so much shaped as captured. Available light can be gorgeous, in some ways it is a cinematographer's dream to shoot in, but you also have to know how to shape it and capture it and often remove it (negative fill, for instance) to make the most beautiful image.

Since posting the beginning of this topic I have shot a project on the EX3 and had an absolutely fantastic experience with it. I love the portability and speed of working with that camera and was able to do more setups as a result. There were times I missed being able to throw the background out a little bit for a given shot but I simply worked around it and looked to create depth via lighting.

Also since then I have seen a feature that I shot on the F900 come out theatrically (transferred to 35mm) and have really been able to analyze for myself what 2/3" 1080 looks like and more importantly, FEELS like on the big screen. Interestingly there were some sequences shot on the Genesis (full-size sensor) and I could also evaluate the difference in a way that a reference monitor couldn't deliver. There were instances where the reduced resolution of the F900 was actually preferable, particularly on our female lead Roslyn Sanchez. I could see the extra clarity in the Genesis material but it didn't necessarily always feel more film-like. Very interesting. (if you want to see the trailer, visit theperfectsleep.com--sadly it's not in HD).

I'm not sure I would equate any recent 1/3" camera to having a "retro" look or to compare it to analog audio equipment, that is a bit of a stretch. Analog video was not so lovely. It would be cool to shoot with a truly retro camera like the Ikegami HL-79 just for fun, and I have (courtesy of our own Lorinda Norton) an 80's era home video camera that has an amazingly retro look with the smeary old tube sensor. However I think A1's and the like are what they are, not presenting too much of their own aesthetic at the current time.

Finally--Guiseppe, I don't know if I would draw a division between "cinematographer" and "Director of Photography". Certainly some DP's prefer the naming of convention of being called a cinematographer, but the jobs are the same.

Finally--Guiseppe, I don't know if I would draw a division between "cinematographer" and "Director of Photography". Certainly some DP's prefer the naming of convention of being called a cinematographer, but the jobs are the same.

I perfectly respect what you are saying, but I still feel that the difference is there, I can even give an example :)

I believe the "Director of Photography" can be a person that does not have to necessarily operate the camera, there are DP's out there that will work on the look, lighting, colors, and feel, but not actually operate the camera, they have a camera op A to do the actual moving of the camera and they direct him/her.

I believe a "Cinematographer" IS also the camera operator, and not someone who could be away from it like a "Director of Photography" could be. And a Cinematographer is more mending that world completely. You are doing lighting, color, look, and feel but also moving the camera A and controlling the pan, tilt, push, dip, whatever move you can do, by him/her self.

hey everyone has their own right? haha. by the way Charles, did the 900 have the feel/movement more natural than you expected, I just shot my first film-out from the varicam and I cant wait to see it on a 40ft. I have been so used to seeing the varicam in a digital state, I am really excited to see what the transfer will look like.