Blackmagic Forum

Hi all:
Here is a wonderful interview my friend Rick Young did of Phillip Hodges on the importance of 4K or NOT!
Have we gone way too far? I think you'll find this information very interesting!

Enjoy,

eric

http://www.moviemachine.tv/video/commen ... /77230136/

Brilliant interview!

+1

Great interview! He is so right. But: The clients are different from the pros! How often we had to shoot with a completely oversized rig only to be taken seriously by the clients? That will going to happen with 4k too IMHO. For passioned production for "own" stuff I see no need for 4k, but if you are the kind of guy who want to impress???

I agree, this is a great interview. "You can make people cry in SD, HD, 2K, or 4K..."

Given his preference for dynamic range and bit depth vs. pure resolution, one might conclude that BMD should make the BMCC as awesome a machine as possible. It seems a bit neglected of late.

I thought one possible benefit of 4K was the potential to crop but he answered that pretty definitively by saying that you need to shoot angles and that just cropping won't deliver what you need. In fact, he predicted a bunch of bad "DP" because there would be a tendency to move production decisions to post.

I would be interested in knowing what professionals on this forum expect to get from 4K (excluding the global shutter; that seems like a different deal).

Thanks again for posting this link. Well worth the time spent watching it.

Great stuff. I agree.

Carpenters know that it's wise to measure twice, cut once. In the case of video, it's quite hopeful to believe that what you capture at the glass is 1:1 all the pixels you'll need for production, but most of the time it's just not true. The BMCC is the first camera I've owned that has both the latitude in dynamic range and the extra cushion of pixels to deliver a really high-quality 1080p finish. Maybe the $25K or $50K or $80K studio cameras do 1920x1080p well enough that they are not a problem, but I can say for sure that cameras like the AF100 doesn't do 1080p nearly as well as I would like. 4K is a great shorthand for "gimme so many extra pixels that your crappy compression, 4:2:2 sampling, etc., doesn't eat all the margin I need for a good 1080p finish."

Indeed, if there were two options, a 2x crop sensor with an active micro four-thirds mount and a full-frame (or at least S35) active EOS mount, I would be good to go without 4K. I'm eagerly awaiting 4K because that's the "cost" of an S35 sensor from Blackmagic (or just about everybody else). I'm OK with the slightly over-cropped MFT camera (and kinda OK with the passive mount because I have Voigtländer lenses). But I'm probably also going to be OK with the new SONY 4K handycam if it ends up having enough good pixels to give me a good 1080p finish. Which I think it will do.

Great interview ... I would be happy with a 2K S35 sensor with global shutter. I could care less about 4K, but I am buying one and will scale all my footage down -- probably to 1080. I would have liked to see BMD further develop the BMCC line than go for the 4K. Those of us with cinema glass, need a S35 sensor not 4K.

CineMusic wrote:Those of us with cinema glass, need a S35 sensor not 4K.

Wouldn't the BMCC MFT with a Speedbooster be your best alternative at this point? I know that's in the near future for me.

Panamatom wrote:Great interview! He is so right. But: The clients are different from the pros! How often we had to shoot with a completely oversized rig only to be taken seriously by the clients? That will going to happen with 4k too IMHO. For passioned production for "own" stuff I see no need for 4k, but if you are the kind of guy who want to impress???

You're right. Im going through it for some time. I deliver results comparable or most of time better than my competition, but my rig does not impress who looks from outside. And it just shaked their vision of my ability to deliver good results. Even with previous works already made for the same clients, they still keep looking at my rig instead of the results and do not have enough trust on me. Its a shame!

Artbeats (stock footage house) had a post about 4K and showed stills of 1080 footage from 5D, Alexa and Red 4K scaled to 1080 of the exact same scene. Downscaled 4K had much more definition than the native 1080 footage as debayering loses some resolution (they stated about 20% loss). That would but 2.5K in the sweet spot for HD output. As always though, 4K wins for FX compositing.

Ya, I remember when I first heard that 4K was coming to consumer level I said the same things - I mean how silly is it to bring 4K to households when it's not even used in theaters, for the most part. And the fact that the consumer UHDTVs come in sizes as small as 55in is just plain stupid.

The sad thing is that consumers are dumb and live to follow trends; therefore, 4K will become popular at some point - although I don't think for 10+ years or so.

The sadder thing is that clients are just as dumb, so they're bound to start asking for it.

That said, as far as VFX work is concerned it's great and the idea of a global shutter makes it even better. Not to mention it's never a bad idea to shoot in the highest resolution possible.

PaulDelVecchio wrote:

CineMusic wrote:Those of us with cinema glass, need a S35 sensor not 4K.

Wouldn't the BMCC MFT with a Speedbooster be your best alternative at this point? I know that's in the near future for me.

I am thinking seriously about that, Paul. Do you know when is the EF version is supposed to be available?

We can talk about how 2k is good enough on the big screen all day long, but this interview just parrots the same "2k is good enough" argument I hear every day online. The real discussion to be had is how the small screen is changing in a big way. Less people are going to the movies, and TV series on Netflix is becoming more popular by the day. The iPad has a higher than 1080p display already.

What happens when the big screen is no longer as relevant and the small screen gets higher resolutions and frame rates? That's the more interesting and vital discussion.

jaredcaldwell wrote:The iPad has a higher than 1080p display already

Irrelevant for me as watching movies or TV on an iPad (or 4k phone) feels far more like work than an experience. Give me a couch, surround sound and a 60 inch screen (in HD, 2k or 4K) any day of the week.

jaredcaldwell wrote:We can talk about how 2k is good enough on the big screen all day long

What happens when the big screen is no longer as relevant and the small screen gets higher resolutions and frame rates? That's the more interesting and vital discussion.

Although you make very valid points, you almost answer your same question:

If people are going to the movies less and less and watching films in th home, and 2k is more that fine for theatre projection, then why do we need to put 4k in the consumer home?

The fact is that in order to really reap the benendits out of 4k, you would need to have a monsterous size screen and sit very close to it. I don't think most people have the space you would need for it, nor the money. At least not for another 10 years or so.

One of the most important things to note though is that the human eye really isnt going to make a destinction between the 2.

idut21 wrote:

jaredcaldwell wrote:We can talk about how 2k is good enough on the big screen all day long

What happens when the big screen is no longer as relevant and the small screen gets higher resolutions and frame rates? That's the more interesting and vital discussion.

Although you make very valid points, you almost answer your same question:

No I don't think these are valid points.

In the UK, cinema admission has been rising the past three years (169.2m, 171.6m, 172.5m) despite price rises. In e.g. China, admission is going up exponentially, in the future there'll be a billion new customers.

Cinema is not going away any time soon.

Jules

It´s all about content! You can be famous for your footage even if it is shot with an old VHS-Camera out of the window of a driving car - if the content is exclusive



On the other hand you have to have really good cameras, equipment and filming skills to shoot interesting pictures from talking heads ...



Everybody knows - except some clients.

I've still yet to hear the argument that higher than 2k is not good for the small screen. Like it or not, most content is not viewed on the big screen. Not everyone is a feature filmmaker.

If you shoot 1080p right now, whether it's a DSLR, Alexa, or Red (you can shoot in lower resolutions), the fact is you will see a loss in quality compared to footage acquired in 4k when viewed on an iPad. That's today.

What about a retina MBP? That's nearly a 3k screen.

Ask yourself this: will your work be shown on the big screen, or on the small screen? Almost all of you will answer with "the small screen."

I like the BMCC because it's extremely sharp at 2.5k. When you upres to 4k, the softening is pleasing and more film-like. When you downres, it looks great as well. It's not perfect, but it is amazing for the price. We're lucky to live in times like these.

Let's not forget, the moment you compress 4k for delivery, it's not 4k anymore. That is 4k of pixels (on paper) but not 4k of image information anymore.