@@milnefilm189 Still better to be able to compress dynamic range and being able to display some details instead of ugly blown highligts and crushed blacks. Even on narrow SDR display it will look better than clipped. Most smartphones got decent displays now. TVs and even laptops gots better so soon dynamic range of displays will not be a huge issue but still hybrid cameras struggle to overcome 12 stops. There are axceptions with even 15 stops but then they're heavily crippled on photography specs so not a true hybrid.
@@milnefilm189 Only partly true, generally speaking Log-Footage has always had higher dynamic range than rec709 and srgb. And color grading usually always occurs in a larger color space and than gets boiled down / transformed to a smaller display referred color space like rec709. But yes if most displays were rec2020 and p3 there would be more possibilities.
As a VFX artist I will say that to a point having higher resolution is super handy. Working on footage above 4k can be slow but there is a lot of times where being able to pull the detail or recreate shots from 8k plates is really nice. Above 4k is probably not required most of the time, but I personally think even with all the other factors that go into what makes an image great, no reason to not be at 4k now really.
I feel that for sure, if rotoscoping stuff by hand. If I’m trying to mask a lot of stuff and need to use automated masking tools, having higher bitrate/less compressed footage is preferable.
You've got to get into Topaz Video AI. I have a 10 year old Canon EOS 700D/T5i and that thing shoots 14bit RAW video but it's 3,2MP aka 62% more pixels than 1080p and 80% of 1440p. I upscale the image using the Theia or IRIS AI to 4K and it looks exactly like 4K. The lens needs to be sharp enough to resolve the detail for the upscaling. So basically a 10 year old camera which could shoot at 1080p30 max can now do 14bit Linear RAW at 4K 120fps using the power of an AI. No need for expensive shit. All it cost me was 250€ including the lens and a 128gb memory card. Rest of the money can be used to create a rig, buy a gimbal and a tripod, some extra lights and monitors. It's absolutely crazy
Yes! I was already thinking of making a video about this, the upscaling softwares are only getting better and as computers get faster our camera choices will probably be based on factors outside of what computers can currently do.
I use the 700D too, how do you compensate for noise on anything black without hindering quality? Does my lens also affect the noise (kit lens 18-55mm)?
You're absolutely right. The only benefit to higher resolution is > 1. Cropping 2. Increased overall latitude when adding VFX work 3. Making enormous enlargements (for stills) For pretty much everything else, your viewer is never going to notice the difference.
Higher resolution on a given sensor size (Full-Frame) equals smaller pixels. Smaller pixels pick up less light. Less light equals a higher noise to signal ratio and higher noise. Denoising eliminates detail so it's good to have more resolution to start with but higher pixel count creates more noise in the first place@@thiagolimadop
@@thiagolimadop100% The difference between denoising my 4k footage vs my 6k footage from my XH2s is pretty noticeable in post. I get more dynamic range out of the 6k footage, simply because there is more information to clean up. Although, I wouldn’t shoot in anything above 6k, aside from testing. Regardless, a lot of films shot at 4k and up are mastered at 2.8k and have all sorts of editing done to them to remove the clinically sharp look. High resolutions are more often than not chosen in the industry, simply for the sale of having more latitude in post production.
I think higher resolution is great for documentary work for that crop, but personally I want a camera with a higher dynamic range. I hate it when I am taking landscape shots and I have to choose to either expose for the sky or the ground because I only have 11 stops of dynamic range. Give me a camera is 18 stops of dynamic range and high bitrate before resolution any day
For a photo, yeah, but for video its a little bit more tricky. Especially if there is movement in the shot. You can technically composite a shot together, but it requires a lot more work in post that doesn't always look good. @@CallMeRabbitzUSVI
When you also remember that staying in the past will get you left in the dust by competent competition. Friends have lost out contracts to "TikTok Wedding guys" No Joke
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI your buddies marketing skills must be in the gutter if they're being beaten out by people who cater to those with three second attention spans on TikTok. And it's not about staying in the past, again, shows how much you know about the market. It's about adapting to what clients want and are willing to pay for. I photograph weddings exclusively on 35mm and I walk away with at least $10k for a six hour wedding. Most TikTok guys do 12-15hr weddings and are lucky to walk away with 1k. On top of the video guys I recommend who use either 16mm or Handycams, who also walk away with $8k easy for a five minute video. But again, we cater to those who value what we offer. Not the masses on TikTok who plan average weddings and pay below average market rates. Or God forbid, the people who want 8k footage, most likely paying for it with 'exposure.' Just look up 'film wedding photographer in Los Angeles' on Google and see who shows up first.... yup. me! And by far the biggest advantage is having little to no competition in this market. Some of use even have to turn away clients if you can believe it. It's not about booking a million clients a year, it's about booking enough to survive throughout the year. I'm good with a handful of clients a year. No need to dance or act like an NPC on TikTok to get 50 clients who will probably want it for free anyway. You think Tiffany & Co. care if they get beaten out by Etsy jewelers?
I love working in 1080p. There was a moment a few years ago when computers became fast enough to make working with HD comfortable without the need to convert to a proxy.
People want to confirm their purchases but the truth is more resolution isn’t always better. I hope cinematographers push for less compression and more quality of images and motion.
High res video is mainly useful for commercial projects where you can pull stills and crops later to use for posters and magazines and website stills. Though it doesn't work for fast moving stuff where you need to have motion blur set on the shutter. Otherwise they are going past where even 35mm film was resolving
We don’t even have 8K TVs really that are affordable. I think the FX3 really shows the true depth of what a pocket cinema should be. Nothing more nothing less
COMPLETELY AGREE. I stopped caring past 4K. I like the ability to punch in to fix a shot's framing, but that's about it. Affordable cameras need to focus less on K's and more on badass internal features.
A friend of mine made a movie for his film making degree about a decade ago. He used a Canon 550d which is a soft 1080p image with line skipping and moire etc. Yet it was noticeably better than the SD camcorders he'd used before. Anyway, he invited us for a viewing at the University on their huge cinema screen and it looked excellent. I don't think anyone was conscious that it had been shot on a consumer DSLR, and at the end I said to him the resolution was fine even on such a huge screen. He then told me he'd recorded 2 versions, a 1080p and a lower res version just in case and he'd actually shown us the lower res video. The thing is, if you're playing a video game then you can often tell the difference between 1080p and 4k on a large TV because everything on screen is in focus and has sharp edges, but in a video how much of the image is sharp and how much is bokeh? How much is motion blur caused by a 24fps / 48p shutter? How often is the camera moving? In some shots it's literally impossible to tell. People really do get hung up on the wrong thing. Bitrate matters far more than resolution. Ditto for photos. Look at the videos where someone's printed a 12mp photo from a micro 4/3 camera onto large paper, and then printed a 40mp photo from a full frame. They end up having to get a magnifying glass out to see the difference. Yes, there's a difference but what matters far more is the lighting and composition and subject, with resolution being much further down the chain.
I 100% agree with you. I bought the ZV-E1 to use with APS-C lenses to get that 2.8K upsampled to 4K look. I have an FX30 & A6700 so I don't need another sharp camera. This is also why 1.33x APS-C anamoprhic lenses are great. There is a reason they don't have other squeeze factors, because they don't have open gate recording. 4K 16:9 1.33x anamorphic is great. film in 4K DCI and you can crop the edges a little bit.
I would argue, 1080p unscaled on export at 4k 50 mbps to YT is good enough. And for most apps 1080p at 20mbps is the sweet spot for most in app compression.
I agree with you in some circumstances. For example higher resolution matters if you're shooting a campaign video that will go in aspect ratios of 16:9, 9:16 & 1:1 all at the same time. Higher resolution would yield a better quality when cropping for these situations and exporting a final product. VFX works better with higher resolutions. If you're just shooting narrative work, short films, movies ect, HD, 2K and 4K is suffice, it matters more about DR, Global shutter, Sensor, Raw/Log for colouring. That's why when you see some old Alexa Classic shot videos they still hold up next to some new 6k/8k cinema cameras, because the image out of those look great, same for the OG mini and the XT. Also consider your lens choice, that will dictate your overall image, consider it a paint brush.
More Open Gate options would be nice for all those cropping needs. Most filmmakers don’t need high resolution and if you’re a VFX person I think that’s going into a more specialized field where high speed cameras also live. Thanks for your comment.
@@Organalog I edit for corporate social media and I prefer high resolution. All the trendy motion transitions work better with more resolution. I push in, or crop in and add some type of motion in nearly every shot. Stylistically, maybe it’s not your thing, but a lot of Gen Z audiences with ADHD seek out that fast-paced and motion-heavy content.
yeah I get that! I'm glad you find that more resolution works for you. I do like cropping in, but nowadays with footage upscaling techniques in computers make it easier to do in post.
Excellent point about compression being the big issue, especially as we watch so much content online nowadays. As an owner of an FX30 and an Arri SXT Plus, I can tell you the 120fps in HD on the Arri looks absolutely gorgeous while the 100fps in 4K on the Sony is dull and falls apart easily. I actually prefer lower resolutions (3.2K is great) for the same reasons as you. Surprised you didn't mention dynamic range as something to focus on rather than resolution - it seems to me that's still the greatest limitation cameras have when compared to the human eye.
Thanks for your comment and opinion. I did mention dynamic range in suggesting dual gain (not dual iso) it’s different. Also, curious I’ve liked the results of the 120fps on the fx30 but I tend to like a little noise in the image, the fx30 noise is pretty film like to me, but I understand if people don’t like that, thanks again for sharing your thoughts, especially someone with an Alexa 👌🏻
I recently bought an OG Alexa Mini and I even find that is has a less pleasing imagine at 4k UHD. I'll usually shoot at 3.2k with vintage/softer glass and even that can be limit in terms of sharpness. I almost feel like Arri made their new Alexa 35 sensor 4.6k just to get the Netflix stamp and to not get any backlash for creating a sub 4k sensor in 2023. But I've recently heard some people saying it can look too sharp at times. Real cinematographers knows that anything above 2.8k is overkill/not needed/ can actually be a detriment.
@@Organalog It does man. People say gear doesn't matter. That's usually people who have shot high end stuff and think they're the reason why stuff looks great. And there's some truth to that but... I'll tell you this, you point this camera at anything and it looks amazing. It made me a better DP right away. 5-10% better image everytime. And that's a lot.
Arri has always done it right, within the topic of this video you can see how Arri never prioritized resolution, they worried about other factors and their dominance in the camera world is proof, other things matter more than Resolution or more (Ks) Thanks for sharing your experience.@@PLArseneau
@@OrganalogI own an Alexa 4:3 and it single handedly proves everything you said in this video. Even about codecs. The 2K 4:4:4 from it is much more detailed (in fine details) than the 4K that comes out of my FX6. Eg with vegetation, the FX6’s best codec turns the leaves into a vague muddy mess, while the Alexa preserves everything. Side by side, you wouldn’t think the Alexa was the lower res of the two. Ironic that platforms like Netflix and UA-cam probably use the most 6K/8K Red footage while having compression that looks noticeably worse than a 1080p Blu-ray. Also great video, totally agree with everything you said.
Unfortunately camera manufacturers focused on giving us smaller file sizes But also Red threw a wrench in rhe industry when they had a blanket copyright on raw video recording, luckily recently camera manufacturers are finding ways to get around it
whats interesting is the new Ai upscaling tools. Able to take the old photos of grandma and grandpa and it looks to be shot today. This will eventually be a tool for film makers. Prompting: Imax, 2x Anamorphic, graded like The Batman, --ar 2:39
Working on my chops and building a showreel, the tiny screens people watch on, I’ve been dang sure 1080 is fine for general purpose. 12k on a perfectly rectilinear lens has a use case for snap-panning between different loci of action in a scene, could be cool for Wes Anderson style dollhouse establishing shots…if I was doing stop motion or motion control I would definitely push for at least 6k simply to cut down on lens changes and keep up the speed of production. For my part it’s 4k that just feels silly for cinema on all but the biggest screens, most of us are shooting content that won’t ever show on anything bigger than a Galaxy Note. Low light and color depth are the real grail
Well said! We forget most people won’t be watching films on IMAX. I’ve been to film festivals and seen 1080p Camcorder footage look good. Thanks for your comment.
I've thought 4k, little more than a marketing scam since it's inception. For the home market at least. If it's something shown on a screen bigger than 55-75" screens that are becoming standard in the home, then it makes sense. 720p on a 55" tv gives you that screen door effect when you're less than 10ft away. That goes away at 1080p. It's somewhat noticeable in the first few rows when watching 1080p on a movie theater screen. At 4k that goes away. I've laughed at UA-cam viewers when they complained about content creators still filming at 1080. You upscale that 1080 to 4k in post, and they can't even tell. It says it's 4k so they are content. Now 4k is standard on most cameras but for content creators, those files are huge. If you are making a short film, ok shoot 4k or even 2.8, over frame your shot, and crop in to 1080, then render at 4k. For the majority of streaming content on the web 1080 is more than adequate. Especially when most people watch on their phones. I don't even want to think about the transfer rates and rendering time for anything larger than 4k 60p. Unless I have Hollywood budgets and equipment.
I hope people realize in the future that more important than resolution is just working on the basics of a good story/actor performance and lighting/composition. Those things will make more of a difference than all the 'ideal technical specs' in the world.
If you're planning on distributing your film on IMAX or shoot a ton of VFX, you might want 8K, but you really don't need anything higher than 4K. I can get behind wanting to oversample, it helps if you plan to push your image a lot in post. But too much focus goes to gear over how to actually use that gear. It really is all about your skills and knowing how to use what you have.
Have you seen 70mm Film projected? It’s a different experience but honestly I saw NOPE digital projected and I liked it more. Although watching anything on actual film is an experience because of the amount of scratches and grain on the print, I find it to be fun to see your favorite films in that way at least once.
@@Organalog I saw Oppenheimer on 70mm. I enjoy the quality of the projection, but the IMAX as an acquisition format I just feel "meh" on. I think it's the oversaturation of VistaVision shallow depth of field on nearly everything right now just has me yearning for s35 and s16. I think the glamour of shallow depth of field dead for me, I want something different.
I remember the first time watching Gemini Man 2019 in 2160p 60 fps that was shot in 120 fps and then discussing it with a film director I know that has 30+ years of experience of shooting stuff here in Ukraine, I asked what are his thoughts on higher resolution and higher fps (above 24 & 30), he said: - We, I mean humanity are not at the point of having a 4k tv's and other stuff like 720p is, minority has 4k, not majority, and about high frame rate, 60 fps video is good, yes, but 60 vs 30 barely noticeable, also it is easier to hide mistakes with 30, 24 fps, same with higher resolution, 2k is enough for now, maybe in 10+ years when 4k is going to be technologically a majority of use for everybody, we will might consider shooting higher than 2k and maybe even higher than 30 fps.
Nikon z9 over-samples from 8k with all the advantages you mention. Shooting 4k and exporting 1080 gives a ton of benefits from zooming to extra software stabilization. Re-export in vertical if you don't have open gate. The Z9 alllllmost has a global shutter, has internal IBIS, and is dual gain. Yay!
@@Organalogye, for log/raw its 800 and 4k. Not crazy low light like 7s, but two very usable iso-s. Shame nikon took video so late so there isn’t much support atm but they are so good video wise its forcing me out of my comfort zone as a photographer
@@eldengard23 yeah it's not going to be able to compete in low light as a 45mp with a 19-24 MP, but I find it pretty dang good for the sensor class. It really is such a shame nikon took so gosh dang long to take video seriously. As per this video exporting a higher resolution video in a smaller container like 1080 is a great way to hide video noise.
@@northofbrandon ye, i'll be shooting 4k OS 8k, try to stick to native iso-s and deliver in 1080p. The IQ should be great, i just gotta learn to deal with n-log grading
The thing about the “K’s” in my camera is that you only get to use full sensor if shooting in 6k - all resolution options down from that crop in rather than just down sampling the full sensor
2 notes. 1. One other time where higher res playback makes sense is for viewing environments that has much wider fields of view. As in perifery to perifery screens. What I am basically meaning here. Is IMAX and VR. Anything below that. At normal cinema screen sizes and normal viewing dostance, and 99.999% of TV installations viewers use... 2K is well enough. I am very certain that if you put a really good bitrate handled 720p (aka 1.28K) stream on any I?UHD/4K screen, the vast majority would not realize how few pixels they are seeing. Because there are simply enough pixels per light sensor in the eye for most peoples setups. Widen the field of view and you need more pixels in the playback device to compensate. But again. I'd wager 4K is enough for most IMAX presentations. Especially if they can do 4096x2864 for the full 15 perf 70mm image. 2. The definition of 2K. The K in resolutions is the horizontal number of pixels rounded to the nearest Kilo, or K. So. Alexas at 2.8K or 3.2K can both be comfortably referred to as 3K cameras. And they were built and optimized for 2K post production, with enough pixels enough to do a very good 4K upscale in post. Zodiac and most other full digital pre RED era movies were done with 2K cameras, that is, only roughly 2000 pixels wide. Basically Full HD at either 1920 or 2048 horizontal resolution. As that was the standard DI resolution for film scans at the time. That all being said. I do do my own renders at 4K. Not because I hope to get them on IMAX screens, but because of UA-cam's compression rules. As I love to add some film grain, anything lower than UHD renders just turns my videos to mush. Also. I second the Steve Yedlin recommendation. Especially the presentation he did where he proved that at equivalent apertures and field of views. IMAX and APS-C/Super35 images are indistinguishable at playback. There is no magic to large format lenses. It's how they are used that makes them feel special.
Agreed, I film 2k-2.8k using 5Dmk2 magic lantern raw upscaled 4k has enough details what I want, and stabilization too. good film is slight shaky but no problem
I'm constantly having to argue with people and defend shooting on my URSA Mini 4K. My previous camera was a Canon Rebel T2i. It had moire, rolling shutter and just looked soft. But we shot a feature in 2010, played it in a theater, sold DVDs and now it's on UA-cam. It actually looked okay. My URSA Mini 4K fixes the issues, has a little more dynamic range, a global shutter, no moire, and can shoot RAW. It's it the latests and greatest? Nope. But it makes a very nice image that's easy to work with in post. Just shot a feature on it this last summer and I was constantly asked why THAT camera as if there was some stigma about it only being 4K. My timeline for the film is set to 2048x858, so 4K is plenty. I can do some repos as needed and still have access to the RAW data (which has been amazing! I'd rather have more RAW cameras than cameras that shoot higher rez)
Excellent input, love to hear that 4K is also enough for you currently. I sometimes love raw too and the ability to push the image is great when it is absolutely needed. Thanks for sharing.
Yep. I would take a very fast 20-24MP full frame sensor over a 48-60MP capable full frame or bigger sensor any day and always for both, photography and video. My wish for the next big breaktrough is a 20-24MP full frame capable of open gate 240fps even if it is only for like 10-15 second bursts. That would be a dream hybrid camera.
Are you excited about what the newly announced Sony A9 III? Hopefully this tech will trickle down to more affordable cameras in the future, but only time will tell.
Most of all, the audience doesn’t care about the resolution. A good story, relatable characters, that’s what they care about. It’s what most of us care about.
Definitely true but filmmakers shouldn’t also be ignorant of the technology that can help tell their stories more effectively. It’s just a balance but I totally agree with you.
Watching Yedlin resolution demos it is quite clear that the AA/OLPF filter eats away quite a lot of the resolution (which of course is needed to not get aliasing), so to me it's clear that we need even MORE resolution to get more sharpness. Because it really is clear in his demos even at my 55" at 2.5m away that even 4K is not sharp enough, and this is by just watching stuff that I have next to my tv, they are MUCH sharper. Of course we don't need more sharpness to tell a story, but eye candy is always going to be eye candy (else we could just shoot with a 20 year old camcorder). I do respect Steve Yedlin as a cinematographer, but he needs to acknowledge that he might need glasses.
Interesting idea you bring out. Although I would argue just from personal taste and others might agree too, over sharp images aren’t especially pleasant, in fact it counters that soft but detailed look of celluloid film. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@@Organalog Yeah that I can see the point in that! And it might not be all too pleasing to watch every little pore and nose hairs on peoples faces in 32K on an IMAX screen either, but personally I'd still want a bit more sharpness than we have now, at least for some types of movies :)
IMHO also a lot of fantastic things have been captured in SD. It's all about the size of the "window" you give to your viewers and what you'll be able to fit into it. Not everything will look better in 4K 50 fps. Although, I do agree that a resolution greater than FHD is almost always a better and safer choice and most stories can't be told in a window that fits one face at a time.
When you have a top end camera, and a camera crew, and a gaffer, and time to light fully and time to block, measure, and rehearse every shot then the 2.8k 16-bit RAW does a fine job. But for solo work or in very fast paced shooting (events, low-budget commercial, social media) then having the extra resolution to punch in and/or reframe a shot in post is critical. So yeah, extra resolution matters and is a life saver much of the time.
I understand your point but I also feel some people make a big deal with punching in from a lower baseline resolution but I think sometimes a very good quality 1080p image with some sharpening or upscaling tools can also be punched in if needed and especially one that is starting at 2.8K. Unfortunately most cameras don’t have really great less compressed 1080p.
@@Organalog Yes you can upscale, but it’s a crap shoot especially when you turn the footage over to a colorist. Downscaling is generally the better option. NR has more data to work with, highlight and shadow gradations have more sampling etc. loads of benefits. At the same time yes, the rhetoric around high res punch-ins tends to be overblown. If for instance you haven’t framed the shot with enough margin around the edges then you have nowhere to punch into anyway. But most of the time small scale productions will benefit greatly with at least 4k cameras with 6k not being all that expensive either these days. Beyond that the resolution game does become a balance of diminishing returns. And 12k? Well if you’re doing commercial VFX then the extra plate resolution is huge but it’s a rare thing to need otherwise.
I've - as a "home user" - messed around with the "amateur cine film" formats - standard (or "Regular") 8mm, super 8 and Fuji's "single 8". I've also shot 16 mm film - and once - as an "indulgence" - some 35mm - on a second hand Arri 2C. With the exception of the last format - 35mm - all the others don't measure up particularly well "resolution"- wise. Nevertheless, there's miles and miles of 16mm that was shot for TV - before "ENG" - (and, also, for some theatrical releases - usually blown up to 35mm - "Easy Rider" may be an example). Bottom line - I can guarantee you that if there's existing 16mm negative film of a particular "news event" (particularly B&W that wasn't "push processed" for extra speed/ISO) from the 1960s - and it's "telecined" or scanned properly - the image quality can be quite pleasing and definitely "sharp enough". As another "indulgence", I bought myself a Red Komodo (original version) on my retirement - I'm really happy with it as a "digital capture" moving picture device - the 16bit colour depth is great - there are, of course, many other great (and much cheaper) digital capture devices out there - nevertheless, when I see some "old news item" - shot on 16mm - from the 1960s - it's a reminder that - apart altogether from 35mm cinema releases - pretty respectable picture quality was available "back in the day......" !
Dynamic Range is the most important sensor ‘stat’- that is where the Alexa sensor is great- and the newest Alexa 35 has 17stops! It is amazing how terrible many streaming services compression algos are!
Higher resolution is good for honestly nature projections etc Cinema is about latitude I’m pretty sure no one favorite film was shot on 4k even 2k in this comment section
I prefer having as much resolution as possible in order to have additional real estate around the live action area for motion tracking markers etc. makes life so much easier to have fewer markers to paint out / remove in post if some or most of the tracking can be done outside of the live action area. Higher resolutions also allow me to sample textures and other attributes that can be helpful in when building out CG / digital set extensions etc. I realize this is all VFX stuff but it’s important and helpful for those workflows.
Thanks for sharing that perspective! Ultimately most people will not be watching or mastering VFX at those high resolutions but I understand from a capture perspective.
I know it’s not your point but the Alexa didn’t over sample 2.8K to 4K internally, but 3.4K (and 3.2K for the Amira). Also, knives out was not shot on 2.8K either (since the SXT and Mini variant of the Alexa the sensor has been 3.4K). Finally, what format/compression you shoot on (Arriraw is uncompressed raw which is way better for handling upscale than any compressed video format) and what lenses you are using.
The original Alexa was 2.8k and there’s an asterisk in the video with *3.2 to correct myself for newer models although maybe should have added (3.4 too) Also Alexa Mini has a 2.8k shooting mode. This is based off online search, the only person who knows for sure is Steve Yedlin. Thanks for your input.
I agree with you on all of this, just want to make a note about blackmagic 12k and why I think it may be a good camera option event for people who don't need such high resolution - at 6K,as I've heard, this camera has really small rolling shutter! So that is in a way an alternative to a global shutter. Backlight illuminated sensor like on Fuji X-H2s is another option with a really low rolling shutter.
This sort of summarizes my thoughts on the Sony BURANO. They're making a big deal about it shooting in 8.6K but burying the fact that it only shoots in the most compressed version of X-OCN. Surely wouldn't most DPs prefer 6K in X-OCN Standard, which has a similar data rate to 8.6K in X-OCN Light?
Sensor size. Period. When you watch a video that was shot in 1080p but with a bigger sensor size you can watch it in 720p and the image will look good. If shot 6k on a lower sensor size the image in 720p will look horrible.
it does not matter if 2.8k is enough. there are no reasons why not shooting in the best resolution there is. there IS a difference in image quality . if i can have it i get it.
@@Organalog no reason. If your machine is to weak get a new one, if you dont have enough storage get one. I see a difference. When 4k came out guys like you said 1080 is enough.. i shoot everything in 6k and i can see a difference. The picture is just better.
It seems many can't see a difference especially from 4K to 8K. Just look at the lower sales of 8K TVs compared to 4K. I'm not against progress, I just wish more focus was put on other improvements than just resolution.
I agree with: - 4k is useless without the necessary data rate. - A good film will be good no matter if it is in Full HD or Ultra HD. I disagree with: "Ultra HD vs. Full HD does not matter". Here is my story: I watched hiking videos on You Tube in 4k that were recorded with a Sony A7SIII and was impressed by the detail. Back than I had no experience with recording videos whatsoever, so I thought "Cool! I want to record beautiful videos of nature myself. Ah my phone can record 4k so let's use that!". Back home when I looked at the videos it was a big disappointment. The videos where nowhere near as detailed as the ones that I had seen online. Turns out that it is mainly the compression of the phone videos that "ruins" them, while a dedicated prosumer camera can handle much higher data rates and the details are preserved. So I would say if detail is important, the resolution matters. Especially if the image is the main star of the video and there otherwise is not much story. I am definately interested to see what 8k with appropriate data rates, displayed on an 8k screen, will look like, but I feel that at least the hobbyist ecosystem is not ready for that amount of data yet. The 4k is still challenging ATM. But I would not mind if videos had the same image quality some day as todays fotos.
Thanks for your thoughts but it sounds like it was the compression or codec that was disappointing you for your videos not the lack of resolution. iPhone 15 Pro shoots ProRes Log now 🤯
well idk, from a viewing sidepoint i agree but from a recording standpoint as soon as ou have to do a lot of keying, every resolution stept counts, and from a delivery standpoint more resolution also is nice, like ou mention with oversampling ou can simply deliver awesomely clean footage and keys. I think we have a see it from many angles, do you need a high resolution to have a great looking shot? ... no ... but would the same shot look better if the resolution would be higher ? ...yes imo ... there is a technical good image and an aesthetically pleasing image, you do not need a technical good image to deliver a feeling, or to show a great scene but you can definately improve it with a technically better camera. 28 das later is an amazing movie shot on a crappy camera, it is an awesome movie, and it did not need an amazing camera to become an amazing movie, but i think it would have also been nicer to look at if it was shot on an arri. The resolution war is only in the minds of digital shooters, in the film world where low asa and big images mean better qualitiy nobody denies that a imax camera looks better than a 8mm camera ... and even if you need the 8mm aethetics degrading an image is always easier than tring to make up for it ... oh and an amazing video! i love that topic and imo dynamic range is more important than resolution in most cases^^
Well most people in Hollywood dumbed RED for Arri Alexa so that says something. I do think there is a place for 4k and maybe 8k and above. But those are special things. Maybe for someone that has a 200 inch TV set and wants to sit in close. Punching in in post I think is good when there is a small crew and you need to work faster. Sometimes you are thinking different in post and you are thinking this looks better zoomed in.
Yeah totally but also to add to the punch in point, this idea I think some people have that you can’t get good results when punching into a good 4k or even great 1080p image with some sharpening tools or even maybe subtle upscale tools too. Some people make it seem like if you punch in from a base resolution a little, it immediately looks unacceptable like 240p or something which is just not true in my experience. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
@@Organalog I saw a video of someone upscaling a Spider-Man ripped DVD of the new Spider-Man actor using Topaz and it looked like 1080p. If the software can lock on to a image it can upscale it most of the time very good. Tony Northrup was testing Topaz upscale for photos and had a America flag I think across a park or river the star on the flag was very small and the software just could not see the stars so it made circles.
Yeah when you import a RAW image into photoshop it opens up Adobe Camera RAW and if you click the three dots on the left and choose "enhance" from that menu it uses AI to 4X the resolution. Then just click open and it opens in Photoshop@@Organalog
Doesn't it depend on the size of the screen the final video is being watched on? 4k is more than enough for most cell phones, laptops, and even large 80 inch home flat screens........ Although if someone wants to make a nature documentary of animals for a 30 foot screen, that might be a specialized situation where 8k or 12k might be beneficial.... ............... .... For storytelling telling film making we don't need to see every pore and pimple on an actors face, infact less detail is often preferred.
Well said. Let me throw in a vote for 12 bit here. I'd pick a 1080p 12bit RAW image over a 4K 10bit lossy codec ANY DAY! This is Sigma fp FHD 12bit RAW, graded through Filmbox: ua-cam.com/video/73-1ngCiZ1A/v-deo.html
Very nice! Absolutely, a good 1080 12 bit could probably even upscale beautifully to 4K. Although 4K in some of these h.265 compressions is gotten pretty excellent.
@@markr041 Yeah but, friend, that's 5780 Mbps of storage. You'd need a one terabyte SSD for 23 min of footage. It's a nightmare. The point of the video is you're fine to shoot only 1080p as long as you're doing it in 12bit RAW. The bit depth and raw format is more important than resolution. So forget the 8K.
@alaeifR We are talking serious filmaking. Storage costs are trivial. I agree with you that 12bit RAW is more important than pure resolution, but that does not mean resolution does not matter. 12bit 8K 60P RAW, no compromise. And, sure, global shutter blah, blah, blah.
I appreciate what you’re trying to say here, but some of this is objectively inaccurate. Film is most *certainly* not lower resolution, film is devoid of resolution-part of the reason why it looks as good as it does, you can rescan film with newer and better technology essentially forever and achieve considerably better image quality as the tech grows. Take a look at some 6K scans of super 8 film-a supposedly “low resolution” film that becomes surprisingly sharp and high fidelity with the help of the higher resolution scan. Higher resolutions mean finer noise patterns at lower light which means less color inaccuracy and a lower noise floor, that results in better dynamic range and a better picture. You can see proof of this from Gerald Undone and CineD’s image tests with the Sony A1 shooting 8K. In filmmaking story is always king, but saying gear doesn’t matter is objectively false. The important thing is not to let your current gear stop you from telling a great story.
Hey, thanks for writing your opinion. Although I respectfully disagree, especially with the phrasing of “objectively inaccurate”. Certainly you are correct that film has no defined resolution number but implying an agreed upon consensus of film being an infinite well of image information to scan into resolution is objectively false. There are countless debates that have raged on and will continue in cinematography forums and the like about the limits of celluloid film and subjectivity is what’s at play there. My point in the video wasn’t gear doesn’t matter but rather camera manufacturers are sometimes focusing too much on resolution and not enough on other more useful aspects. You’re absolutely correct, someone’s low resolution gear shouldn’t hold them back. Again thanks for sharing your viewpoint, I do love to hear other perspectives!
I like what he’s saying but the movies he’s naming other than Knives Out… …are all OLD!!!! The Blare Witch, and Collateral look like video from day one.
Higher res ever so slightly improves dynamic range when all else is equal; and, if you're interested in filming high detail images such as landscapes, grass in the wind, or clothing with very fine patterns, you'll get significantly less aliasing/moire with higher res, even if downscaling to lower res in post. In fact in general, it's ideal to film in as high a res as your storage and computer performance will allow, then downsample to a timeline res that you intend to export in. In 10 years, when everything is shot in 12K, we'll look back on 4K footage with a mix of nostalgia and a bit of cringe. Like when everyone said in 2003 that the CGI in the Star Wars prequels didn't need to be better... That said, it's true that compression type, as well as bitrate, dynamic range, and global shutter, are far more important for cinema than resolution.
For more film related stuff youtube.com/@Organalog?si=-5kRiLZCkRziQN1t
I would love camera manufacturers to increase dynamic range as much as they are pushing resolution and frame rates
They’re only pushing what the consumer thinks is important.
@@memcrew1 unfortunately, most people underestimate the importance of dynamic range then.
its actually an issue that boils down to displays, the cameras have the dynamic range, but most displays are rec709 which doesn't have the range
@@milnefilm189 Still better to be able to compress dynamic range and being able to display some details instead of ugly blown highligts and crushed blacks. Even on narrow SDR display it will look better than clipped. Most smartphones got decent displays now. TVs and even laptops gots better so soon dynamic range of displays will not be a huge issue but still hybrid cameras struggle to overcome 12 stops. There are axceptions with even 15 stops but then they're heavily crippled on photography specs so not a true hybrid.
@@milnefilm189 Only partly true, generally speaking Log-Footage has always had higher dynamic range than rec709 and srgb. And color grading usually always occurs in a larger color space and than gets boiled down / transformed to a smaller display referred color space like rec709. But yes if most displays were rec2020 and p3 there would be more possibilities.
As a VFX artist I will say that to a point having higher resolution is super handy. Working on footage above 4k can be slow but there is a lot of times where being able to pull the detail or recreate shots from 8k plates is really nice.
Above 4k is probably not required most of the time, but I personally think even with all the other factors that go into what makes an image great, no reason to not be at 4k now really.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
I feel that for sure, if rotoscoping stuff by hand. If I’m trying to mask a lot of stuff and need to use automated masking tools, having higher bitrate/less compressed footage is preferable.
You've got to get into Topaz Video AI.
I have a 10 year old Canon EOS 700D/T5i and that thing shoots 14bit RAW video but it's 3,2MP aka 62% more pixels than 1080p and 80% of 1440p. I upscale the image using the Theia or IRIS AI to 4K and it looks exactly like 4K. The lens needs to be sharp enough to resolve the detail for the upscaling.
So basically a 10 year old camera which could shoot at 1080p30 max can now do 14bit Linear RAW at 4K 120fps using the power of an AI. No need for expensive shit. All it cost me was 250€ including the lens and a 128gb memory card. Rest of the money can be used to create a rig, buy a gimbal and a tripod, some extra lights and monitors.
It's absolutely crazy
Yes! I was already thinking of making a video about this, the upscaling softwares are only getting better and as computers get faster our camera choices will probably be based on factors outside of what computers can currently do.
I use the 700D too, how do you compensate for noise on anything black without hindering quality? Does my lens also affect the noise (kit lens 18-55mm)?
Sounds like a right pain though?
@@sebfleebee i found a way more efficient way to do this now
Most cinemas are digital 2K unless they advertise as 4K, 35mm, 70mm or IMAX screenings.
The same with streaming.
You're absolutely right. The only benefit to higher resolution is >
1. Cropping
2. Increased overall latitude when adding VFX work
3. Making enormous enlargements (for stills)
For pretty much everything else, your viewer is never going to notice the difference.
Thanks for your opinion and for watching.
Yes, and you can add the chroma key to this list. Denoise in a higher resolution is always good as well.
this seems like very a specific use case though? In the area of high speed cameras too perhaps @thiagolimadop
Higher resolution on a given sensor size (Full-Frame) equals smaller pixels. Smaller pixels pick up less light. Less light equals a higher noise to signal ratio and higher noise. Denoising eliminates detail so it's good to have more resolution to start with but higher pixel count creates more noise in the first place@@thiagolimadop
@@thiagolimadop100%
The difference between denoising my 4k footage vs my 6k footage from my XH2s is pretty noticeable in post. I get more dynamic range out of the 6k footage, simply because there is more information to clean up.
Although, I wouldn’t shoot in anything above 6k, aside from testing.
Regardless, a lot of films shot at 4k and up are mastered at 2.8k and have all sorts of editing done to them to remove the clinically sharp look. High resolutions are more often than not chosen in the industry, simply for the sale of having more latitude in post production.
I think higher resolution is great for documentary work for that crop, but personally I want a camera with a higher dynamic range. I hate it when I am taking landscape shots and I have to choose to either expose for the sky or the ground because I only have 11 stops of dynamic range. Give me a camera is 18 stops of dynamic range and high bitrate before resolution any day
Yes!
Maybe shoot multiple exposures and learn to edit HDR, I thought we all knew this for landscape shots 🤔
For a photo, yeah, but for video its a little bit more tricky. Especially if there is movement in the shot. You can technically composite a shot together, but it requires a lot more work in post that doesn't always look good. @@CallMeRabbitzUSVI
That's when you'd use a graduated ND filter.
What is happening, why only 340 subs and 6k views? Come on people like the dude and share the vid, we need to discuss the topic.
Awesome, thanks!
When you realize wedding clients are more than happy to pay you $10k for early 2000's Handycam footage.
Yep, i guess those canon XL2 days! They were expensive cameras.
When you also remember that staying in the past will get you left in the dust by competent competition. Friends have lost out contracts to "TikTok Wedding guys" No Joke
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI your buddies marketing skills must be in the gutter if they're being beaten out by people who cater to those with three second attention spans on TikTok.
And it's not about staying in the past, again, shows how much you know about the market. It's about adapting to what clients want and are willing to pay for.
I photograph weddings exclusively on 35mm and I walk away with at least $10k for a six hour wedding. Most TikTok guys do 12-15hr weddings and are lucky to walk away with 1k.
On top of the video guys I recommend who use either 16mm or Handycams, who also walk away with $8k easy for a five minute video.
But again, we cater to those who value what we offer. Not the masses on TikTok who plan average weddings and pay below average market rates. Or God forbid, the people who want 8k footage, most likely paying for it with 'exposure.'
Just look up 'film wedding photographer in Los Angeles' on Google and see who shows up first.... yup. me!
And by far the biggest advantage is having little to no competition in this market.
Some of use even have to turn away clients if you can believe it. It's not about booking a million clients a year, it's about booking enough to survive throughout the year.
I'm good with a handful of clients a year. No need to dance or act like an NPC on TikTok to get 50 clients who will probably want it for free anyway.
You think Tiffany & Co. care if they get beaten out by Etsy jewelers?
I love working in 1080p. There was a moment a few years ago when computers became fast enough to make working with HD comfortable without the need to convert to a proxy.
4K is pretty solid to on Mac, in my experience
Absolutely 100% true! I have been roasted soooo many times for saying stuff like this!
People want to confirm their purchases but the truth is more resolution isn’t always better. I hope cinematographers push for less compression and more quality of images and motion.
High res video is mainly useful for commercial projects where you can pull stills and crops later to use for posters and magazines and website stills. Though it doesn't work for fast moving stuff where you need to have motion blur set on the shutter. Otherwise they are going past where even 35mm film was resolving
totally agree! as I type this looking at my 6k pro... loved the video mate!
Thanks so much!
We don’t even have 8K TVs really that are affordable. I think the FX3 really shows the true depth of what a pocket cinema should be. Nothing more nothing less
COMPLETELY AGREE. I stopped caring past 4K. I like the ability to punch in to fix a shot's framing, but that's about it. Affordable cameras need to focus less on K's and more on badass internal features.
Yes! More of that.
Fantastic video my friend. You made hella sense. I agree wholeheartedly and it was very intelligently put🙏🏾
Thank you, I appreciate your comment!
A friend of mine made a movie for his film making degree about a decade ago. He used a Canon 550d which is a soft 1080p image with line skipping and moire etc. Yet it was noticeably better than the SD camcorders he'd used before.
Anyway, he invited us for a viewing at the University on their huge cinema screen and it looked excellent. I don't think anyone was conscious that it had been shot on a consumer DSLR, and at the end I said to him the resolution was fine even on such a huge screen. He then told me he'd recorded 2 versions, a 1080p and a lower res version just in case and he'd actually shown us the lower res video.
The thing is, if you're playing a video game then you can often tell the difference between 1080p and 4k on a large TV because everything on screen is in focus and has sharp edges, but in a video how much of the image is sharp and how much is bokeh? How much is motion blur caused by a 24fps / 48p shutter? How often is the camera moving? In some shots it's literally impossible to tell.
People really do get hung up on the wrong thing. Bitrate matters far more than resolution.
Ditto for photos. Look at the videos where someone's printed a 12mp photo from a micro 4/3 camera onto large paper, and then printed a 40mp photo from a full frame. They end up having to get a magnifying glass out to see the difference. Yes, there's a difference but what matters far more is the lighting and composition and subject, with resolution being much further down the chain.
Thank you for sharing the knowledge - I agree and I’ve subscribed to you
Very kind, thanks!
I 100% agree with you. I bought the ZV-E1 to use with APS-C lenses to get that 2.8K upsampled to 4K look. I have an FX30 & A6700 so I don't need another sharp camera. This is also why 1.33x APS-C anamoprhic lenses are great. There is a reason they don't have other squeeze factors, because they don't have open gate recording. 4K 16:9 1.33x anamorphic is great. film in 4K DCI and you can crop the edges a little bit.
That’s great, what mode are you shooting on the ZV-E1? How do you like it?
I would argue, 1080p unscaled on export at 4k 50 mbps to YT is good enough. And for most apps 1080p at 20mbps is the sweet spot for most in app compression.
Yes, most people watch this footage on their phones.
I agree with you in some circumstances.
For example higher resolution matters if you're shooting a campaign video that will go in aspect ratios of 16:9, 9:16 & 1:1 all at the same time. Higher resolution would yield a better quality when cropping for these situations and exporting a final product.
VFX works better with higher resolutions.
If you're just shooting narrative work, short films, movies ect, HD, 2K and 4K is suffice, it matters more about DR, Global shutter, Sensor, Raw/Log for colouring.
That's why when you see some old Alexa Classic shot videos they still hold up next to some new 6k/8k cinema cameras, because the image out of those look great, same for the OG mini and the XT.
Also consider your lens choice, that will dictate your overall image, consider it a paint brush.
More Open Gate options would be nice for all those cropping needs. Most filmmakers don’t need high resolution and if you’re a VFX person I think that’s going into a more specialized field where high speed cameras also live. Thanks for your comment.
@@Organalog I edit for corporate social media and I prefer high resolution. All the trendy motion transitions work better with more resolution. I push in, or crop in and add some type of motion in nearly every shot. Stylistically, maybe it’s not your thing, but a lot of Gen Z audiences with ADHD seek out that fast-paced and motion-heavy content.
yeah I get that! I'm glad you find that more resolution works for you. I do like cropping in, but nowadays with footage upscaling techniques in computers make it easier to do in post.
@@OrganalogTry to avoid upscaling as much as you can, always get the best look you can out of camera
Why would you feel that way? Because computer would be too slow to process? @@CallMeRabbitzUSVI
I'd rather have a camera with more dynamic range and color depth, than more resolution.
Yes, global shutter is pretty good too
I feel like the older blackmagic cameras offer everything you want except for stabilizization. An older Varicam would do that though.
Yes love the bmcc 2.5k unfortunately it’s not too practical today for me but beautiful images, and BMPCC OG too.
Excellent point about compression being the big issue, especially as we watch so much content online nowadays. As an owner of an FX30 and an Arri SXT Plus, I can tell you the 120fps in HD on the Arri looks absolutely gorgeous while the 100fps in 4K on the Sony is dull and falls apart easily. I actually prefer lower resolutions (3.2K is great) for the same reasons as you. Surprised you didn't mention dynamic range as something to focus on rather than resolution - it seems to me that's still the greatest limitation cameras have when compared to the human eye.
Thanks for your comment and opinion. I did mention dynamic range in suggesting dual gain (not dual iso) it’s different. Also, curious I’ve liked the results of the 120fps on the fx30 but I tend to like a little noise in the image, the fx30 noise is pretty film like to me, but I understand if people don’t like that, thanks again for sharing your thoughts, especially someone with an Alexa 👌🏻
Totally agree.
great to read that. 👍🏻
I recently bought an OG Alexa Mini and I even find that is has a less pleasing imagine at 4k UHD.
I'll usually shoot at 3.2k with vintage/softer glass and even that can be limit in terms of sharpness.
I almost feel like Arri made their new Alexa 35 sensor 4.6k just to get the Netflix stamp and to not get any backlash for creating a sub 4k sensor in 2023. But I've recently heard some people saying it can look too sharp at times.
Real cinematographers knows that anything above 2.8k is overkill/not needed/ can actually be a detriment.
very nice to hear that! I agree with 2.8K being all you need and also your Alexa Mini probably looks beautiful.
@@Organalog It does man.
People say gear doesn't matter.
That's usually people who have shot high end stuff and think they're the reason why stuff looks great. And there's some truth to that but...
I'll tell you this, you point this camera at anything and it looks amazing. It made me a better DP right away. 5-10% better image everytime. And that's a lot.
Arri has always done it right, within the topic of this video you can see how Arri never prioritized resolution, they worried about other factors and their dominance in the camera world is proof, other things matter more than Resolution or more (Ks) Thanks for sharing your experience.@@PLArseneau
@@OrganalogI own an Alexa 4:3 and it single handedly proves everything you said in this video. Even about codecs. The 2K 4:4:4 from it is much more detailed (in fine details) than the 4K that comes out of my FX6.
Eg with vegetation, the FX6’s best codec turns the leaves into a vague muddy mess, while the Alexa preserves everything. Side by side, you wouldn’t think the Alexa was the lower res of the two.
Ironic that platforms like Netflix and UA-cam probably use the most 6K/8K Red footage while having compression that looks noticeably worse than a 1080p Blu-ray.
Also great video, totally agree with everything you said.
1080p is also fine..dynamic range and good colour science is more important
Unfortunately camera manufacturers focused on giving us smaller file sizes
But also Red threw a wrench in rhe industry when they had a blanket copyright on raw video recording, luckily recently camera manufacturers are finding ways to get around it
Yeah I knew about that, excited for whats to come.
whats interesting is the new Ai upscaling tools. Able to take the old photos of grandma and grandpa and it looks to be shot today.
This will eventually be a tool for film makers. Prompting: Imax, 2x Anamorphic, graded like The Batman, --ar 2:39
Yes! I was going to mention this too, was already thinking of making a video about this, pretty fascinating what software can do now.
Absolutely correct!
Working on my chops and building a showreel, the tiny screens people watch on, I’ve been dang sure 1080 is fine for general purpose.
12k on a perfectly rectilinear lens has a use case for snap-panning between different loci of action in a scene, could be cool for Wes Anderson style dollhouse establishing shots…if I was doing stop motion or motion control I would definitely push for at least 6k simply to cut down on lens changes and keep up the speed of production. For my part it’s 4k that just feels silly for cinema on all but the biggest screens, most of us are shooting content that won’t ever show on anything bigger than a Galaxy Note. Low light and color depth are the real grail
Well said! We forget most people won’t be watching films on IMAX. I’ve been to film festivals and seen 1080p Camcorder footage look good. Thanks for your comment.
I've thought 4k, little more than a marketing scam since it's inception. For the home market at least.
If it's something shown on a screen bigger than 55-75" screens that are becoming standard in the home, then it makes sense. 720p on a 55" tv gives you that screen door effect when you're less than 10ft away. That goes away at 1080p. It's somewhat noticeable in the first few rows when watching 1080p on a movie theater screen. At 4k that goes away.
I've laughed at UA-cam viewers when they complained about content creators still filming at 1080. You upscale that 1080 to 4k in post, and they can't even tell. It says it's 4k so they are content.
Now 4k is standard on most cameras but for content creators, those files are huge. If you are making a short film, ok shoot 4k or even 2.8, over frame your shot, and crop in to 1080, then render at 4k.
For the majority of streaming content on the web 1080 is more than adequate. Especially when most people watch on their phones.
I don't even want to think about the transfer rates and rendering time for anything larger than 4k 60p. Unless I have Hollywood budgets and equipment.
I hope people realize in the future that more important than resolution is just working on the basics of a good story/actor performance and lighting/composition. Those things will make more of a difference than all the 'ideal technical specs' in the world.
Well said and people will show up to a movie shot on DV tape if they enjoyed the movie to begin with but it’s also nice to have good gear too.
If you're planning on distributing your film on IMAX or shoot a ton of VFX, you might want 8K, but you really don't need anything higher than 4K. I can get behind wanting to oversample, it helps if you plan to push your image a lot in post. But too much focus goes to gear over how to actually use that gear. It really is all about your skills and knowing how to use what you have.
Well said! And on the IMAX front, FX3 was used on IMAX released film The Creator, highly doubt people complained about blurry footage.
@@Organalog is it weird that IMAX doesn't really wow me the way it seems to wow everyone else?
Have you seen 70mm Film projected? It’s a different experience but honestly I saw NOPE digital projected and I liked it more. Although watching anything on actual film is an experience because of the amount of scratches and grain on the print, I find it to be fun to see your favorite films in that way at least once.
@@Organalog I saw Oppenheimer on 70mm. I enjoy the quality of the projection, but the IMAX as an acquisition format I just feel "meh" on. I think it's the oversaturation of VistaVision shallow depth of field on nearly everything right now just has me yearning for s35 and s16. I think the glamour of shallow depth of field dead for me, I want something different.
I understand that too! Shallow depth of field, should be used as a tool when needed.
Amazing Video!
Much thanks!
I remember the first time watching Gemini Man 2019 in 2160p 60 fps that was shot in 120 fps and then discussing it with a film director I know that has 30+ years of experience of shooting stuff here in Ukraine, I asked what are his thoughts on higher resolution and higher fps (above 24 & 30), he said:
- We, I mean humanity are not at the point of having a 4k tv's and other stuff like 720p is, minority has 4k, not majority, and about high frame rate, 60 fps video is good, yes, but 60 vs 30 barely noticeable, also it is easier to hide mistakes with 30, 24 fps, same with higher resolution, 2k is enough for now, maybe in 10+ years when 4k is going to be technologically a majority of use for everybody, we will might consider shooting higher than 2k and maybe even higher than 30 fps.
Nikon z9 over-samples from 8k with all the advantages you mention. Shooting 4k and exporting 1080 gives a ton of benefits from zooming to extra software stabilization. Re-export in vertical if you don't have open gate. The Z9 alllllmost has a global shutter, has internal IBIS, and is dual gain. Yay!
I’d didn’t know there was a Nikon with a dual gain? How cool
@@Organalogye, for log/raw its 800 and 4k. Not crazy low light like 7s, but two very usable iso-s. Shame nikon took video so late so there isn’t much support atm but they are so good video wise its forcing me out of my comfort zone as a photographer
@@eldengard23 yeah it's not going to be able to compete in low light as a 45mp with a 19-24 MP, but I find it pretty dang good for the sensor class. It really is such a shame nikon took so gosh dang long to take video seriously. As per this video exporting a higher resolution video in a smaller container like 1080 is a great way to hide video noise.
@@northofbrandon ye, i'll be shooting 4k OS 8k, try to stick to native iso-s and deliver in 1080p. The IQ should be great, i just gotta learn to deal with n-log grading
@@eldengard23 nlog is better than clog3, hands down. I work with both
I actually prefer the older red one/ red scarlet image to the newer stuff.
Yeah the OG red scarlet is something I definitely want to explore the image looks really nice still.
Why are we still stuck on resolution when all we need is global shutter
Amen!
The thing about the “K’s” in my camera is that you only get to use full sensor if shooting in 6k - all resolution options down from that crop in rather than just down sampling the full sensor
Sounds like a blackmagic?
Zcam
@@samuelguce I think there's a 2.8K mode in the S6
2 notes.
1. One other time where higher res playback makes sense is for viewing environments that has much wider fields of view. As in perifery to perifery screens. What I am basically meaning here. Is IMAX and VR. Anything below that. At normal cinema screen sizes and normal viewing dostance, and 99.999% of TV installations viewers use... 2K is well enough. I am very certain that if you put a really good bitrate handled 720p (aka 1.28K) stream on any I?UHD/4K screen, the vast majority would not realize how few pixels they are seeing. Because there are simply enough pixels per light sensor in the eye for most peoples setups. Widen the field of view and you need more pixels in the playback device to compensate. But again. I'd wager 4K is enough for most IMAX presentations. Especially if they can do 4096x2864 for the full 15 perf 70mm image.
2. The definition of 2K. The K in resolutions is the horizontal number of pixels rounded to the nearest Kilo, or K. So. Alexas at 2.8K or 3.2K can both be comfortably referred to as 3K cameras. And they were built and optimized for 2K post production, with enough pixels enough to do a very good 4K upscale in post. Zodiac and most other full digital pre RED era movies were done with 2K cameras, that is, only roughly 2000 pixels wide. Basically Full HD at either 1920 or 2048 horizontal resolution. As that was the standard DI resolution for film scans at the time.
That all being said. I do do my own renders at 4K. Not because I hope to get them on IMAX screens, but because of UA-cam's compression rules. As I love to add some film grain, anything lower than UHD renders just turns my videos to mush.
Also. I second the Steve Yedlin recommendation. Especially the presentation he did where he proved that at equivalent apertures and field of views. IMAX and APS-C/Super35 images are indistinguishable at playback. There is no magic to large format lenses. It's how they are used that makes them feel special.
Agreed, I film 2k-2.8k using 5Dmk2 magic lantern raw upscaled 4k has enough details what I want, and stabilization too. good film is slight shaky but no problem
I'm constantly having to argue with people and defend shooting on my URSA Mini 4K. My previous camera was a Canon Rebel T2i. It had moire, rolling shutter and just looked soft. But we shot a feature in 2010, played it in a theater, sold DVDs and now it's on UA-cam. It actually looked okay. My URSA Mini 4K fixes the issues, has a little more dynamic range, a global shutter, no moire, and can shoot RAW. It's it the latests and greatest? Nope. But it makes a very nice image that's easy to work with in post. Just shot a feature on it this last summer and I was constantly asked why THAT camera as if there was some stigma about it only being 4K. My timeline for the film is set to 2048x858, so 4K is plenty. I can do some repos as needed and still have access to the RAW data (which has been amazing! I'd rather have more RAW cameras than cameras that shoot higher rez)
Excellent input, love to hear that 4K is also enough for you currently. I sometimes love raw too and the ability to push the image is great when it is absolutely needed. Thanks for sharing.
i agree 100%
The one and only reason why I went with the bmpcc6k over the 4k is for fixing framing issues in post.
Very nice, totally understand the benefits of that!
I went for the 6K FF because it has an OLPF.
Yep. I would take a very fast 20-24MP full frame sensor over a 48-60MP capable full frame or bigger sensor any day and always for both, photography and video. My wish for the next big breaktrough is a 20-24MP full frame capable of open gate 240fps even if it is only for like 10-15 second bursts. That would be a dream hybrid camera.
Are you excited about what the newly announced Sony A9 III? Hopefully this tech will trickle down to more affordable cameras in the future, but only time will tell.
Most of all, the audience doesn’t care about the resolution. A good story, relatable characters, that’s what they care about. It’s what most of us care about.
Definitely true but filmmakers shouldn’t also be ignorant of the technology that can help tell their stories more effectively. It’s just a balance but I totally agree with you.
Watching Yedlin resolution demos it is quite clear that the AA/OLPF filter eats away quite a lot of the resolution (which of course is needed to not get aliasing), so to me it's clear that we need even MORE resolution to get more sharpness. Because it really is clear in his demos even at my 55" at 2.5m away that even 4K is not sharp enough, and this is by just watching stuff that I have next to my tv, they are MUCH sharper.
Of course we don't need more sharpness to tell a story, but eye candy is always going to be eye candy (else we could just shoot with a 20 year old camcorder). I do respect Steve Yedlin as a cinematographer, but he needs to acknowledge that he might need glasses.
Interesting idea you bring out. Although I would argue just from personal taste and others might agree too, over sharp images aren’t especially pleasant, in fact it counters that soft but detailed look of celluloid film. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
@@Organalog Yeah that I can see the point in that! And it might not be all too pleasing to watch every little pore and nose hairs on peoples faces in 32K on an IMAX screen either, but personally I'd still want a bit more sharpness than we have now, at least for some types of movies :)
I understand that too@@gurratell7326
Ive been using a Sony Nex FS 100 and I love it and think it looks great. And I just got a Canon C 100, cant wait to really get into using that one
I’ve shot on C100 it’s a great cinema camera, now with Ai upscale I’m sure you can push it more. Thanks for sharing.
16mm film is my favorite look wish it wasn't so expensive, resolution doesn't matter at all there
Me too!
Those OG cameras have something special about them
IMHO also a lot of fantastic things have been captured in SD. It's all about the size of the "window" you give to your viewers and what you'll be able to fit into it. Not everything will look better in 4K 50 fps. Although, I do agree that a resolution greater than FHD is almost always a better and safer choice and most stories can't be told in a window that fits one face at a time.
When you have a top end camera, and a camera crew, and a gaffer, and time to light fully and time to block, measure, and rehearse every shot then the 2.8k 16-bit RAW does a fine job. But for solo work or in very fast paced shooting (events, low-budget commercial, social media) then having the extra resolution to punch in and/or reframe a shot in post is critical. So yeah, extra resolution matters and is a life saver much of the time.
I understand your point but I also feel some people make a big deal with punching in from a lower baseline resolution but I think sometimes a very good quality 1080p image with some sharpening or upscaling tools can also be punched in if needed and especially one that is starting at 2.8K. Unfortunately most cameras don’t have really great less compressed 1080p.
@@Organalog Yes you can upscale, but it’s a crap shoot especially when you turn the footage over to a colorist. Downscaling is generally the better option. NR has more data to work with, highlight and shadow gradations have more sampling etc. loads of benefits. At the same time yes, the rhetoric around high res punch-ins tends to be overblown. If for instance you haven’t framed the shot with enough margin around the edges then you have nowhere to punch into anyway. But most of the time small scale productions will benefit greatly with at least 4k cameras with 6k not being all that expensive either these days. Beyond that the resolution game does become a balance of diminishing returns. And 12k? Well if you’re doing commercial VFX then the extra plate resolution is huge but it’s a rare thing to need otherwise.
I've - as a "home user" - messed around with the "amateur cine film" formats - standard (or "Regular") 8mm, super 8 and Fuji's "single 8". I've also shot 16 mm film - and once - as an "indulgence" - some 35mm - on a second hand Arri 2C. With the exception of the last format - 35mm - all the others don't measure up particularly well "resolution"- wise. Nevertheless, there's miles and miles of 16mm that was shot for TV - before "ENG" - (and, also, for some theatrical releases - usually blown up to 35mm - "Easy Rider" may be an example). Bottom line - I can guarantee you that if there's existing 16mm negative film of a particular "news event" (particularly B&W that wasn't "push processed" for extra speed/ISO) from the 1960s - and it's "telecined" or scanned properly - the image quality can be quite pleasing and definitely "sharp enough". As another "indulgence", I bought myself a Red Komodo (original version) on my retirement - I'm really happy with it as a "digital capture" moving picture device - the 16bit colour depth is great - there are, of course, many other great (and much cheaper) digital capture devices out there - nevertheless, when I see some "old news item" - shot on 16mm - from the 1960s - it's a reminder that - apart altogether from 35mm cinema releases - pretty respectable picture quality was available "back in the day......" !
Dynamic Range is the most important sensor ‘stat’- that is where the Alexa sensor is great- and the newest Alexa 35 has 17stops!
It is amazing how terrible many streaming services compression algos are!
Yes!
Dynamic range and 12 bit recording at least.
It’s nice but 10 bit is more than enough for most people.
Higher resolution is good for honestly nature projections etc
Cinema is about latitude I’m pretty sure no one favorite film was shot on 4k even 2k in this comment section
Most high end movie VFX is still done at 2k believe it or not
Absolutely! That’s what I read too.
agreed
I prefer having as much resolution as possible in order to have additional real estate around the live action area for motion tracking markers etc. makes life so much easier to have fewer markers to paint out / remove in post if some or most of the tracking can be done outside of the live action area.
Higher resolutions also allow me to sample textures and other attributes that can be helpful in when building out CG / digital set extensions etc. I realize this is all VFX stuff but it’s important and helpful for those workflows.
Thanks for sharing that perspective! Ultimately most people will not be watching or mastering VFX at those high resolutions but I understand from a capture perspective.
I know it’s not your point but the Alexa didn’t over sample 2.8K to 4K internally, but 3.4K (and 3.2K for the Amira).
Also, knives out was not shot on 2.8K either (since the SXT and Mini variant of the Alexa the sensor has been 3.4K).
Finally, what format/compression you shoot on (Arriraw is uncompressed raw which is way better for handling upscale than any compressed video format) and what lenses you are using.
The original Alexa was 2.8k and there’s an asterisk in the video with *3.2 to correct myself for newer models although maybe should have added (3.4 too) Also Alexa Mini has a 2.8k shooting mode. This is based off online search, the only person who knows for sure is Steve Yedlin.
Thanks for your input.
BMCC 2.5K is all you need
Yes! My favorite camera!!
I agree with you on all of this, just want to make a note about blackmagic 12k and why I think it may be a good camera option event for people who don't need such high resolution - at 6K,as I've heard, this camera has really small rolling shutter! So that is in a way an alternative to a global shutter. Backlight illuminated sensor like on Fuji X-H2s is another option with a really low rolling shutter.
Yeah, definitely benefits to those cameras besides resolution!
This sort of summarizes my thoughts on the Sony BURANO. They're making a big deal about it shooting in 8.6K but burying the fact that it only shoots in the most compressed version of X-OCN. Surely wouldn't most DPs prefer 6K in X-OCN Standard, which has a similar data rate to 8.6K in X-OCN Light?
interesting , didn't know too much about BURANO's shooting modes. I heard X-OCN is a great codec though?
5:11 science
A/B uncompressed 4k and 2k on a 4k monitor and tell me there is no difference
Interesting, are you on a 4K monitor?
@@OrganalogAll my monitors are 4K, and he is correct. It is not subtle. But, of course, we sit close to monitors.
Sensor size. Period. When you watch a video that was shot in 1080p but with a bigger sensor size you can watch it in 720p and the image will look good. If shot 6k on a lower sensor size the image in 720p will look horrible.
It has something to do with the cameras ability to process more data? 6K to 4k on the Sony cameras is excellent.
Cropping in is not the only argument for high resolution. VFX is another big one.
Certainly more of a specific category than general though, much like high speed cameras. Thanks for your input!
facts bro
Hopefully more people see the truth! Haha
Great video, bro
Thanks 🙏🏻
The only thing cinematographer need is dynamic range ;-)
10 bit is nice too.
it does not matter if 2.8k is enough. there are no reasons why not shooting in the best resolution there is. there IS a difference in image quality . if i can have it i get it.
Storage is not a reason? Not seeing a tangible difference is not a reason? Render times is not a reason? Thanks for your input just curious as to why.
@@Organalog no reason. If your machine is to weak get a new one, if you dont have enough storage get one. I see a difference. When 4k came out guys like you said 1080 is enough.. i shoot everything in 6k and i can see a difference. The picture is just better.
It seems many can't see a difference especially from 4K to 8K. Just look at the lower sales of 8K TVs compared to 4K. I'm not against progress, I just wish more focus was put on other improvements than just resolution.
I agree with:
- 4k is useless without the necessary data rate.
- A good film will be good no matter if it is in Full HD or Ultra HD.
I disagree with:
"Ultra HD vs. Full HD does not matter". Here is my story:
I watched hiking videos on You Tube in 4k that were recorded with a Sony A7SIII and was impressed by the detail. Back than I had no experience with recording videos whatsoever, so I thought "Cool! I want to record beautiful videos of nature myself. Ah my phone can record 4k so let's use that!". Back home when I looked at the videos it was a big disappointment. The videos where nowhere near as detailed as the ones that I had seen online. Turns out that it is mainly the compression of the phone videos that "ruins" them, while a dedicated prosumer camera can handle much higher data rates and the details are preserved. So I would say if detail is important, the resolution matters. Especially if the image is the main star of the video and there otherwise is not much story.
I am definately interested to see what 8k with appropriate data rates, displayed on an 8k screen, will look like, but I feel that at least the hobbyist ecosystem is not ready for that amount of data yet. The 4k is still challenging ATM. But I would not mind if videos had the same image quality some day as todays fotos.
Thanks for your thoughts but it sounds like it was the compression or codec that was disappointing you for your videos not the lack of resolution. iPhone 15 Pro shoots ProRes Log now 🤯
Loved it. Btw your video has 8K views
Haha at one point it was at 2.8k views
well idk, from a viewing sidepoint i agree but from a recording standpoint as soon as ou have to do a lot of keying, every resolution stept counts, and from a delivery standpoint more resolution also is nice, like ou mention with oversampling ou can simply deliver awesomely clean footage and keys. I think we have a see it from many angles, do you need a high resolution to have a great looking shot? ... no ... but would the same shot look better if the resolution would be higher ? ...yes imo ... there is a technical good image and an aesthetically pleasing image, you do not need a technical good image to deliver a feeling, or to show a great scene but you can definately improve it with a technically better camera. 28 das later is an amazing movie shot on a crappy camera, it is an awesome movie, and it did not need an amazing camera to become an amazing movie, but i think it would have also been nicer to look at if it was shot on an arri. The resolution war is only in the minds of digital shooters, in the film world where low asa and big images mean better qualitiy nobody denies that a imax camera looks better than a 8mm camera ... and even if you need the 8mm aethetics degrading an image is always easier than tring to make up for it ... oh and an amazing video! i love that topic and imo dynamic range is more important than resolution in most cases^^
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this and thank you for watching!
4k spit out as 1080 is a great way to hide noise.
Well most people in Hollywood dumbed RED for Arri Alexa so that says something. I do think there is a place for 4k and maybe 8k and above. But those are special things. Maybe for someone that has a 200 inch TV set and wants to sit in close. Punching in in post I think is good when there is a small crew and you need to work faster. Sometimes you are thinking different in post and you are thinking this looks better zoomed in.
Yeah totally but also to add to the punch in point, this idea I think some people have that you can’t get good results when punching into a good 4k or even great 1080p image with some sharpening tools or even maybe subtle upscale tools too. Some people make it seem like if you punch in from a base resolution a little, it immediately looks unacceptable like 240p or something which is just not true in my experience. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
@@Organalog I saw a video of someone upscaling a Spider-Man ripped DVD of the new Spider-Man actor using Topaz and it looked like 1080p.
If the software can lock on to a image it can upscale it most of the time very good.
Tony Northrup was testing Topaz upscale for photos and had a America flag I think across a park or river the star on the flag was very small and the software just could not see the stars so it made circles.
4k is more than enough. Do you know the resolution used to shoot new Avtar?
Frame rates. Frame rates. Frame rates.
I think higher than 4k is great for vfx shots, but honestly ideal resolution for me is 4k
Most people don’t need higher resolution.
@@Organalog I’ve been shooting pics with my FX3 and the 12mp images are just fine, also can just use photoshop to quad the mp 😊
very cool, is that an upscale feature in Photoshop? If upscale software gets better and faster the possibilities seem great @@filmmakerevolution
Yeah when you import a RAW image into photoshop it opens up Adobe Camera RAW and if you click the three dots on the left and choose "enhance" from that menu it uses AI to 4X the resolution. Then just click open and it opens in Photoshop@@Organalog
that's great, I don't use photoshop but that's nice they offer that@@filmmakerevolution
Doesn't it depend on the size of the screen the final video is being watched on? 4k is more than enough for most cell phones, laptops, and even large 80 inch home flat screens........ Although if someone wants to make a nature documentary of animals for a 30 foot screen, that might be a specialized situation where 8k or 12k might be beneficial....
...............
.... For storytelling telling film making we don't need to see every pore and pimple on an actors face, infact less detail is often preferred.
I say it does and doesn’t 4K film The Creator was enough for IMAX. Certainly most people do watch most things on their phone.
4k+ allows sloopy filming. Frame it in post
I do like re-frame sometimes but I agree I try to shoot the final frame in the filming stage.
Its the same as the cpu GHZ battle in the early 2000s! Pointless after a while.
nice :)
But you upload in 4k
And I explained in the video why, it’s about compression.
Resolution doesnt matter... Sure thing, but hitting critical focus on your resolutiontype video also matters -_-
Absolutely
yeah i guess you're right, sorry
im .3k short….bmcc 2.5k og….
No worries, the 2.5K is one of my favorite cameras I ever shot on.
Well said. Let me throw in a vote for 12 bit here. I'd pick a 1080p 12bit RAW image over a 4K 10bit lossy codec ANY DAY! This is Sigma fp FHD 12bit RAW, graded through Filmbox: ua-cam.com/video/73-1ngCiZ1A/v-deo.html
Very nice! Absolutely, a good 1080 12 bit could probably even upscale beautifully to 4K. Although 4K in some of these h.265 compressions is gotten pretty excellent.
@@Organalog It does. Upscale first, with Davinci's slow "neural" upscale, and add the grain and halation, etc, after.
So, shoot with the Nikon Z9 and get 8K 12bit RAW, at up to 60 fps.
@@markr041 Yeah but, friend, that's 5780 Mbps of storage. You'd need a one terabyte SSD for 23 min of footage. It's a nightmare. The point of the video is you're fine to shoot only 1080p as long as you're doing it in 12bit RAW. The bit depth and raw format is more important than resolution. So forget the 8K.
@alaeifR We are talking serious filmaking. Storage costs are trivial. I agree with you that 12bit RAW is more important than pure resolution, but that does not mean resolution does not matter. 12bit 8K 60P RAW, no compromise. And, sure, global shutter blah, blah, blah.
I appreciate what you’re trying to say here, but some of this is objectively inaccurate. Film is most *certainly* not lower resolution, film is devoid of resolution-part of the reason why it looks as good as it does, you can rescan film with newer and better technology essentially forever and achieve considerably better image quality as the tech grows. Take a look at some 6K scans of super 8 film-a supposedly “low resolution” film that becomes surprisingly sharp and high fidelity with the help of the higher resolution scan.
Higher resolutions mean finer noise patterns at lower light which means less color inaccuracy and a lower noise floor, that results in better dynamic range and a better picture. You can see proof of this from Gerald Undone and CineD’s image tests with the Sony A1 shooting 8K.
In filmmaking story is always king, but saying gear doesn’t matter is objectively false. The important thing is not to let your current gear stop you from telling a great story.
Hey, thanks for writing your opinion. Although I respectfully disagree, especially with the phrasing of “objectively inaccurate”. Certainly you are correct that film has no defined resolution number but implying an agreed upon consensus of film being an infinite well of image information to scan into resolution is objectively false. There are countless debates that have raged on and will continue in cinematography forums and the like about the limits of celluloid film and subjectivity is what’s at play there.
My point in the video wasn’t gear doesn’t matter but rather camera manufacturers are sometimes focusing too much on resolution and not enough on other more useful aspects.
You’re absolutely correct, someone’s low resolution gear shouldn’t hold them back. Again thanks for sharing your viewpoint, I do love to hear other perspectives!
My inoffensive comments keep getting deleted?
??
@@Organalog I wrote that Avengers shot at 4K looks the same as Avengers Infinity War & Endgame on Disney+ in 4K
Infinity & Endgame shot on Alexa 65 in 6K
@@bgeardigital very nice! Wasn’t the original avengers upscaled to 4K?
Yes it was shot on the first Alexa at 2.8K raw which is a good starting point to upscale to 4K
@@Organalog
idk I cant lie this video looks like crap to me honestly. like it was shot in 720 or something.
Turn it up to 4K
@@Organalog it is, on my macbook pro m2 😭😭 but besides that. Good talking points because you cant tell passed 4k until technology catches up
Strange! It looks fine on my end, thanks for the comment. Glad you enjoyed it.
I like what he’s saying but the movies he’s naming other than Knives Out…
…are all OLD!!!!
The Blare Witch, and Collateral look like video from day one.
And people still watch them! 😂 that’s my point.
Higher res ever so slightly improves dynamic range when all else is equal; and, if you're interested in filming high detail images such as landscapes, grass in the wind, or clothing with very fine patterns, you'll get significantly less aliasing/moire with higher res, even if downscaling to lower res in post. In fact in general, it's ideal to film in as high a res as your storage and computer performance will allow, then downsample to a timeline res that you intend to export in.
In 10 years, when everything is shot in 12K, we'll look back on 4K footage with a mix of nostalgia and a bit of cringe. Like when everyone said in 2003 that the CGI in the Star Wars prequels didn't need to be better...
That said, it's true that compression type, as well as bitrate, dynamic range, and global shutter, are far more important for cinema than resolution.
Do you really think people will get to 12K? Or will it hit a ceiling like stills cameras or audio gear.