4K is weak, 6K is where it's at now

Check this out.

www.redsharknews.com/post/item/1940-davi...d-used-36-tb-of-ssds

I don't know why anyone would ever edit in wimpy 4K when 6K is available. 4K is so low res and blurry, everyone must hate it. Regular ol' HD is like watching a single pixel change colors it's so bad. Gotta get Final Cut Pro XI on the New New Mac Pro (late 2015) with Quad GPUs to edit this.

*For those without sarcasm detectors please note that I have employed the use of said sarcasm in this post.

... I don't know why anyone would ever edit in wimpy 6K when 8K is in use, e.g. at the Soccer World Cup, lately in Brazil:



:silly:

I agree, 8K looks SO much better on my iPhone

And while we're at it: in the article Joe refers to they say they shot 6K to be able to "reframe" in post production. Anyone who has ever been involved in film making knows that this is something you only do when mistakes have been made during the shoot. When you reframe a shot in post you always create false perspective and the image looks wrong. This may be OK for presentations, sports or event videos but it is something no serious movie director would ever accept. If you're too lazy to move a camera in order to get accurate framing during the shoot you should not be making movies.

- Ronny

ronny courtens wrote: .. no serious movie director would ever accept...

Would you count Sylvester Stallone a serious movie director ...?

www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?120...K-WORKFLOW-DISCOVERY

…So the next time you find yourself in an argument about the benefits of shooting and finishing in 4K, feel free to cit the story of how The Expendables 3 used scales, zooms, and repos on 50% of the feature as a creative tool to improve the story. …

...

Would you count Sylvester Stallone a serious movie director ...?

No.


- Ronny

ronny courtens wrote: ... No. ...

BEFORE I wrote the post above, I wrote your answer on a piece of paper and put it in an envelope...

I'm now opening the seal - aaaaand:
I predicted your answer correctly! ... :woohoo:

re-framing in sports and some sorts of documentary is a legitimate tool imho, just to catch the unexpected.
But for 'scenic', a serious DoP or director should indeed make up his mind before shooting.

No exact quote from Mr.Hitchcock:
"filming is the most boring part of movie-making - because the film is already done in my mind before I reach the set."

You are right. In a fast-action entertainment movie you can get away with anything as long as you don't give the viewers the time to realize your shots are all wrong. Actually these are the easiest kind of movies to edit. Just make sure you have plenty of cutaway shots that you can throw in when things go wrong and you'll be fine.

I agree reframing in post is okay for sports and event reports and for some types of documentary work because many times during these shoots you just don't have the opportunity to get the framing exactly as you would like to have it. In drama and scenic movies reframing is unforgiven. And yes, in my book Mr. Alfred Hitchcock IS a serious director

- Ronny

I've also read that once Hitchcock had a new Director of Photography on a film. Hitch told him to use a certain lens, say a 50mm, in a certain setup but never checked through the camera to see what it would look like. To make things easier for himself, the DOP instead used a different lens but changed the camera distance to get the same field of view, assuming that Hitch wouldn't notice or care. What he didn't realize was that Hitch knew *exactly* what it would look like without *having* to check.

That was the DOP's last day working for Hitchcock.

You folks are so last year.
While I’m not supposed to talk about the secret beta project I’m working on with Jony, I’ll let slip a few hints.
The skunk works campus had a recent “traveler” visiting engineer develop new quantum entangled spectral generators, we are able to “record” at over 2.2PetaFlops/sec and by using the soon to be released iCloud webkit we are able to deliver in near instantaneous time to a 3D holodeck anywhere on the planet. Of course this wouldn’t have been possible without entangling 2 iWatches that also have 3D field capture/projection. The best part is the ability to not only see the projections, but the touch, taste and smell of the 3D projections.
Look for a demo in early September. Sorry can’t give any details.
Name withheld to protect my job.
Beam me up Scotty :silly:

LOL! That must be some pretty heavy stuff you are smoking :woohoo:

- Ronny

Karsten Schlüter wrote:

ronny courtens wrote: .. no serious movie director would ever accept...

Would you count Sylvester Stallone a serious movie director ...?

www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?120...K-WORKFLOW-DISCOVERY

…So the next time you find yourself in an argument about the benefits of shooting and finishing in 4K, feel free to cit the story of how The Expendables 3 used scales, zooms, and repos on 50% of the feature as a creative tool to improve the story. …

...

The Expendables 3 had a story? I guess they didn't do enough of it... it was horrible!

This actually makes some sense in terms of differentiation. Now that you can shoot 4K on some phones, movie producers are going to keep looking for ways to shoot something larger and create products with higher perceived value. Not that 4K or even HD is more than enough resolution for a lot of project types already but there will always be another hill on the horizon. 10K anyone?

ddixon wrote: I've also read that once Hitchcock had a new Director of Photography on a film. Hitch told him to use a certain lens, say a 50mm, in a certain setup but never checked through the camera to see what it would look like. To make things easier for himself, the DOP instead used a different lens but changed the camera distance to get the same field of view, assuming that Hitch wouldn't notice or care. What he didn't realize was that Hitch knew *exactly* what it would look like without *having* to check.

That was the DOP's last day working for Hitchcock.

That was actually a story about Stanley Kubrick. It wasn't the DOP's last day but it came close.

"Yeah, I heard that story, too. But I heard it was his foot..."

There may have been a similar Kubrick story as well, but I was quoting from this 2010 Hitchcock biography I recently read by Patrick McGilligan:

www.amazon.com/Alfred-Hitchcock-Life-Dar...id=1409521832&sr=1-1

Frank Capra reframed Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life in the bar scene. What a couple of hacks those guys are!

www.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/trivia?item=tr0765764

KAVpictures wrote: Frank Capra reframed Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life in the bar scene. What a couple of hacks those guys are!

www.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/trivia?item=tr0765764

People are always re-framing shots, it's part of editing. I think the point here is that now people are just shooting wide and re-framing everything. That's new.

Reframing a shot is definitely a tool in your toolbox, but almost all of the time, you're doing it to correct a mistake or to frame something out that shouldn't be there. There may be times where you have a thought in post that might improve a scene, like in the Capra example above, but it's hardly something a good director or dp would rely on.

I will agree with a lot of people that shooting hi resolutions for the purpose of being able to make new shots by reframing is mostly used by the lazy and indecisive. It's just a hacky way to go about things. You should know what you want to shoot and what you want to frame. More options are not always better, and it almost always points to someone who couldn't make a decision.

ronny courtens wrote: ...Anyone who has ever been involved in film making knows that this is something you only do when mistakes have been made during the shoot. When you reframe a shot in post you always create false perspective and the image looks wrong....

This is also my opinion, especially when you consider today's higher shooting ratios. You typically have many takes of the same scene. Are they all framed wrong, and if so why?

Nonetheless, David Fincher used reframing in post on Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A wider, higher-res frame does give better options for digital stabilization in post (which Fincher also used).

nofilmschool.com/2011/12/fincher-reframes-post-4k-release-the/

That was despite a *200-to-1* shooting ratio!

So I guess if your DP can't properly frame stable shots with 200 times the released material, a 4k - 8k frame is helpful

That said, incessant technological progress is providing these capabilities anyway. People will find new ways to use them. Another example is Red's HDR feature: www.red.com/learn/red-101/hdrx-high-dynamic-range-video

With film we had to get a stable shot, properly exposed, and properly framed. Doing things like object removal in post wasn't possible. Now things have progressed from "we'll *fix* that in post" to "we'll *implement* that in post".

Today you can shoot 200:1 ratios, fix framing and stabilization errors in post, rely on HDR to fix exposure problems, and retouch in post anything you don't like. To a degree these are available even to lower-end filmmakers, e.g, CoreMelt's SliceX can do basic object removal, and Magic Lantern firmware allows HDR video on Canon DSLRs (with some limitations): www.fcp.co/dslr/canon/683-shooting-hdr-v...gic-lantern-firmware

Nah, forget 4K, 8K

10K is the future

Side question. Does anyone know the resolution of a human eye?