-
Apple apparently keeps stumbling it’s way to success, somehow ????..
-
[Bernard Newnham] “a Canon XF305 – and done the job properly”
We have those for conference shooting, in daylight my iPhone is better quality 🙂
-
[Bill Davis] “But turn a modern RED, a DSLR, or an iPhone at the same beautiful scene – and you’ll very likely come away with three different equally beautiful recordings. Modern camera ALL easily get you to 90% of the way to the goal of understanding and appreciating it’s essence as a beautiful scene.”
Nope. Not even close. Sure, take a 4K image and resize it to HD and encode to 4 Mbps H264 and they all look the same. But viewed at 1:1 on a 4K native display with minimal compression and it’s a WORLD of difference. The difference is precision versus impressionism. Often impressionist is nice. But most of our clients pay us for precision.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “But viewed at 1:1 on a 4K native display with minimal compression and it’s a WORLD of difference.”
Is it?
The reality is that “destination viewing” – which has always been the primary target for high raster content – is declining in importance. Big screen use is giving way to small screen use. I’d argue that content portability has already proved to be MORE important than content image density. At least in most real world viewing situations.
Most people would rather pay $10 a month for a Netflix subscription than $50-80 for a family of 4 to go to the movies. So at least some form of commpressed delivery will rule the day for the foreseeable future (at least until the whole world gets wired with fiber, anyway.)
If carrying a 4k (or 6k or 8k lightly compressed image from camera to screen becomes “frictionless” – then sure, we’ll see it ascend. But to the extent there’s still a premium charged JUST for high raster production, I have my doubts whether or not it will end up being the key to success at all.
The audience for that type of “premium viewing experience” is kinda fickle. Which is why only a few theaters in most markets are branded and promoted based on qualitative metrics.
Ask the market. Type in “premium movie theatre” in Google for your area and you’re NOT going to get a listing of technically better projection systems – what you’ll get is a list of movie theaters with comfy chair-side delivered food service a (accommodating FEWER viewers at higher prices!) – THAT is what the industry thinks is their differentiator now.
Oh well.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “Most people would rather pay $10 a month for a Netflix subscription than $50-80 for a family of 4 to go to the movies.”
Why do you think it is that Netflix requires 4K content for its originals with very narrow list of approved cameras?
[Bill Davis] “The audience for that type of “premium viewing experience” is kinda fickle. Which is why only a few theaters in most markets are branded and promoted based on qualitative metrics.”
I’m not even talking about a premium audience. I’m talking about basic corporate stuff and web-based infortainment. Even reality TV. The most oft-stated reason to shoot 4K is to be able to punch in. When you punch in at 1:1 on a high quality 4K camera image versus a DJI/GoPro/iPhone/etc image, there’s a world of difference. One is acceptable and the other is not. This is also true of most DSLRs, including something like an A7S.
I work with that stuff daily. The reason it’s not acceptable is that there truly is NOT 4K worth of resolution in their “4K” image. At 1:1 you see compression artifacts from the highly compressed file. And you see extensive banding and excessive smoothing on things like color gradients in the skin on someone’s face. That’s because of the crappy color system they use and how the software has to fudge the recording.
I get way more mileage out of manipulating an image from any high-quality camera than I do from these marginal cameras. That’s not even getting into things like lack of proper motion blur, rolling shutter artifacts, lens distortion, and the fact that a camera like an iPhone by default doesn’t record with proper synchronization. Quite frankly, the original HD image from a Canon 5D looked far more pleasing at 1:1 than any of this new crop. Even in spite of line binning.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “I get way more mileage out of manipulating an image from any high-quality camera than I do from these marginal cameras. That’s not even getting into things like lack of proper motion blur, rolling shutter artifacts, lens distortion, and the fact that a camera like an iPhone by default doesn’t record with proper synchronization. Quite frankly, the original HD image from a Canon 5D looked far more pleasing at 1:1 than any of this new crop. Even in spite of line binning.
“Sadly, in the real world. A lot of us don’t get the budgets to regularly work with “high-quality” cameras as much as we’d like.
Despite what you say there is a LOT you can do with “marginal” cameras to get the best from them when you have to.
-
[Steve Connor] “Despite what you say there is a LOT you can do with “marginal” cameras to get the best from them when you have to.”
I’m not saying out can’t. And I, too, sadly, have to work with material from these cameras. My point is merely that you can’t compare the two quality levels and believe that an inferior image is better than a superior one. We all have to make the best out of the situation. Often portability is the main concern. But given the budget and flexibility, I would hope that good quality is somewhere towards the top of the list.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] ” I would hope that good quality is somewhere towards the top of the list.”
Good enough quality is towards the top of the list. 😉
-
[Andrew Kimery] “Good enough quality is towards the top of the list. ;)”
As a producer friend has often reminded me: “It’s better than good. It’s done!”
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “As a producer friend has often reminded me: “It’s better than good. It’s done!””
lol
I need to remember that one.
-
[Oliver Peters] “I work with that stuff daily. The reason it’s not acceptable is that there truly is NOT 4K worth of resolution in their “4K” image. “
And there was CERTAINLY not 4k worth of resolution in any camera that recorded “The Tonight Show” in it’s decades under Carson – yet it somehow those guys made plenty of money with that substandard system.
My point is NOT that quality doesn’t matter anymore. Just that it’s not the gatekeeper to success that it used to be (if it EVER was.)
The key to success is, and always will be, the ability to turn an XX dollar investment, into a XXXX dollar return.
Do that and you get to keep going. Don’t do it, and you’re forced to stop. Be crazy good at what you do, or merely get lucky and turn XX dollars into XXXXX dollars – and suddenly you’re in a position where the cost of tools rapidly become negligible in relation to your ability to generate a return that has an even better chance of generating XXXXX dollars next time. That’s sorta the Morgan Spurlock Rule.
I saw a backstage piece featuring some shots of his operation at either NAB or ComiCon this year (can’t remember which) and his suite looked just like one I’d expect to see at NBC. And I KNOW he didn’t do SuperSize me in that environment. He GREW into it.
My point is that while there’s little to no barrier to using the best cameras you can AFTER you’ve achieved a robust measure of success, the Camera seldom was or will be the primary factor. Ever.
If it was, every project shot on Red would be more successful than every project shot on a GoPro – and we all know that just isn’t true.
And in certain markets (action sports viral videos are a good example) the better camera makes production so much more difficult as to suppress the ability to deliver the work that needs to be delivered.
Once again, this whole thing is a rehash of the old “THIS is how PROFESSIONAL production must work” tropes – and it just isn’ anymore. A particular project may absolutely justify and even require the DXL to make sense. But more gigs every day simply don’t. So viewing professionalism through one (cost level) of lens – is a lingering BAD habit, IMO. It’s kinda “*I* work with these tools – and I’m a Pro – therefore Pros must work with similar tools.
I understand that the answer to that contention should be maybe – but am always surprised by how many do NOT allow for the maybe not.
Those are the guys who keep hauling big cameras tethered to OB vans out to press conferences, while the kids come in with iPhones and get stuff on the air and on the web in a fraction of the time.
Such is life.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up