Dynamic Range, Color Science or Resolution...

Hey BM Community,

As IBC wraps up, I feel its safe to say 4k video is more than a niche trend, it is basically a universal requirement. Nearly every camera on the horizon records 4k. Even a $999 app apparently lets you record RAW 4k 24p video on your iPhone (which looks terrible by the way). Its pretty clear that 4k is not only here to stay, but also a bigger priority than sensitivity, dynamic range, color science, etc...

So I figured I'd ask you guys, being that we cover a pretty broad range of filmmakers,

In order of importance, what are the features you want your next camera to focus on?

1. Resolution

2. Dynamic Range

3. Color Science


Also share your reasons why. I'm interested to see if we have as much of an obsession with high resolutions as camera companies seem to....

Really all three are equally important to me. I suppose I could go without the 4K, but I like to shoot in it for the flexibility. My ideal camera would be, 2K/4K RAW/444 prores, 14+ stops DR, 120 FPS, and BMCC color science. 12G SDI out to a recorder/monitor with SSDs in stripe, basically the Atomos Shogun.

Gimme 2-2.5K, 4:4:4, 60 frames and 13+ stops of DR and I'll be a happy chap.

I value color science above all. I'm sorry to say, but regardless of the resolution I find the GH4 and the A7s footage to look like cheap crap. Perhaps they can be made to look more cinematic with aggressive grading, but in that case, I wish they would record raw video since I don't trust that compressed footage can be pushed particularly hard in post.

Secondly, dynamic range. It's once again one of the features of film that I have always liked and that it has set it apart for so long. Without good dynamic range, the footage (why do we even keep using the term "footage"?) looks cheap and artificial.

Resolution to me is the last consideration. I have seen fantastic images shot on cameras like the Alexa at 2K which rival anything I have seen from Sony, Panasonic or Blackmagic at 4K or RED at 6K.

Of course, the above is very subjective and specific to my needs as a filmmaker. Others have very different needs and I'm sure they will disagree.

I agree 100%!

Color Science and DR above all, resolution is just nice to have (and sometimes you'll deliberately knock it down for aesthetic reasons).

While we have cameras with true 13+ stops DR these days (not only claimed by manufacturer, but tested), color leaves a lot to be desired. I don't want a camera with a "look", I want it neutral. "Looks" are done with lighting, gels, filters and in post.

If you try to reproduce a qualified chart and check it on a vectorscope, you can see that even the best (like Alexa or the much improved Dragon) have a long way to go until we get neutral reproduction.

3, 2, 1

DR of recent cameras is sufficient for the most controlled environments. Resolution is even less important because the main audience won't notice.

We might find resolution on a film, not digital yet.
To fill HD we need of true 4-8k (Eye can see the 2-4-8k difference on HD monitor)
So Color Sciense + Dynamic Range + Low Light capabilities are welcome.
If it goes with BMPC4K's Resolution Sciense, that would be very tempting.

3, 2, 1

DR of recent cameras is sufficient for the most controlled environments. Resolution is even less important because the main audience won't notice.

I personally completely agree. Im not a fan of this trend focusing on resolution. The sony Fs7 promo video to me kinda looked like garbage, same thing with the cion video (the skin tones of the actress were very magenta, a sure sign of early/bad color science).

We might find resolution on a film, not digital yet.
To fill HD we need of true 4-8k (Eye can see the 2-4-8k difference on HD monitor)

Thats not quite true.
On a 1920x1080 monitor you never see anything more than 1920x1080. So you see not 4k.

The thing is how the 1920x1080 content was created. Resolution on a film and on a lens is not a hard border like nyquist on a digital system but a decrease in the modulation transfer function.
A lens that is sharp enough for full-HD may have some little smearing than. Remember such calculations like hyperfocal distance. Such is calcualated via unsharp circles that are noc actual circles but gaussian blured dot.
A lens or a focus adjustement that ist sharp in 4k is doubled as sharp. And downsampled sharper than native HD. Thats not because you had it once in 4k but that "native HD" is not as sharp.

In earlier days advertisment for TV was filmed in 35 mm. Although theoretically 16 mm would be more than good enough for 720x576. But only by looking at the theoretical specs (linepairs per mm).
In practice the 35 mm film is much sharper (scaled to same size), has smaller grain and has a better MTF value. Hence more contrast on by given linepairs per mm. And this strikes through to the lower e.g. digital beta resolution.

Or the other way round: a computer generated image in HD is equally good than a downsampled 4k CGI. It's the better optical path before or at the sensor. Not the the resolution later.

Thomas

Couldn't have said it better Tom.

also a lot of folks just count sensor pixels, but eave the whole optical path out of the equation, "because still lenses are made for much more resolution" - it's not THAT simple.

Just think about what OLPF actually does (if your camera has one) and you open up a whole can of worms.

BM team,make an Alexa for $900 and everybody gonna be happy

Now we have many cheap cinema stuff and the productions still not better than before.
We are blinded and infatuated by cameras,lenses.....

There are more camera test that great indie movies
What a madness age!

Thats not quite true.
On a 1920x1080 monitor you never see anything more than 1920x1080. So you see not 4k.

We'll be back after week, i'll try to show what i mean with pics of 4-8k downscaled to HD.
There is a difference between 2k and 4k downscaled to 2k.
(i dont mean bmpc HD mode, i believe is a downscaled UHD)
Even 8k to 2k, eye can detect the difference.
Sorry, have no time now

Colors
DR
Resolution

Downscaling from 4K to get better IQ might be true on a DSLR that doesn't really make for great HD but on the BMPC it looks pretty much the same. I guess the camera scale it for you.

Here is a side-by-side of HD and scaled down 4K I made, I don't really see a huge difference other than when crop the HD way to much. And call me crazy but the 4K looks less sharp as in digital sharp (I mean it in a good way), but that might be me after starting at it to much.

http://prolost.com/blog/ibc2014

This video was just posted in another thread.



Color is most important, I can't think of any situation where it wouldn't be. I'm going to have to give resolution and DR a tie, because I think those two really depend on the type of shot you're going for.

Color science is already good for most uses IMHO, and a bit of grading is all what I need now with my BMCC. I'd love the new camera to have 120fps in full res and at least 240fps windowed. 4K would be good to have. And please make it modular like RED (or at least small like BMCC), not as big as URSA!

Couldn't have said it better Tom.
also a lot of folks just count sensor pixels, but eave the whole optical path out of the equation, "because still lenses are made for much more resolution" - it's not THAT simple.

I have a theorie. This theorie applies more to amateurs than real pros. But anyway this behaviour I could observe on pros, too.

Most effects of e.g. a better technical spec produces a more subtible chance in quality. Where the difference between bad and mediocre is easy to detect, the difference between good und very good are often very small. And sometimes other subjective influences ("Tagesform" - dont know the english word) are greater.
So most people are not really able to see or taste the better quality by itself, by its own senses. So they judge by easely accessible hard facts. Like pixels, like sampling frequencey, like bits or in case of whisky in wine ages and prices. They judge art by price. You often notice such persons by their first question "What does XY (e.g. your camera) cost?" and then by asking such technical spects ("How many megapixels?" "Oh, only 2 - my smartphone has 14"

For resolution:
Sensor and optical Resolution alone gives not the impression of sharpness and details.
I notice on all my cameras - so also on the bmpcc - that the pictures are sometimes great crispy, sharp, with details and sometimes they are kind of muddy. Depending on the lens, the lighting, the exposure, the motive contrast.

I'm still learning. All earlier filming I did with Video-8, VHS and beta SP. Since BMPCC I see how hard it is to set and pull focus for HD. Its unforgivable. And 4k would increase this problem. Shallow depth of field - often mistaken as "cinematic" - and 4k and amateurs ... good look. But thats the discussion in some consumer forums.


P.S. please don't call me Tom The only two persons that call me Tommy sometimes are my mother and my girlfriend. All other do this only sarcastically. "Thomas", "Thiele" or my nick at university "TNT" or "T'n'T" are ok.

Mattias,

Many thanks for your demonstration of 4k versus 1080p.

Indeed, it's not all about resolution.

Sincerely,

Tom