The new DUNE movie was shot digital (on the ARRI ALEXA LF and Mini LF), then was transferred to 35mm film, and then was scanned back to digital. All that to create the most accurate emulation possible, reducing the digital sharpness, and elevating softness.
@@ThePooper3000 That would be the "Film-Out" method. This is where the movie is printed out to film using a film printer and has been used as long as there have been digital film editing software. Originally done to print scenes with digital effects, it extended to printing whole film reel masters from it's computer film editing software. Sadly this method is not used as much anymore thanks to digital cinema, but some still use it.
@@victorseastrom3455 Because they got a better result doing it this way. They tried shooting on film when doing tests on set and they didn't get the result they wanted but still wanted some of the characteristics of shooting on film so they went with the third option which is this digital to film method. It's just as valid an option as any other.
@@victorseastrom3455 The DoP of Dune was Greig Fraser, one of the best out there. He’s shot with both film and digital. On Roger Deakin’s podcast he talks about testing both film and digital for dune, but they decided to go with the Alexa LF and the the film print/re-scan in post, to give a look that they felt sat in the middle of the two mediums. On a personal note, I think they made a very good choice. I think it’s one of my favourite looking films to have ever been shot.
I guess part of the reason why everything is shot in 4k these days is because its safer and offers more options in post; its far easier to remove detail from, and soften a high resolution image than doing the inverse.
I guess that's not the point of the video. the thing is people are obsessed with gear thinking it will make their work better, but only skill and dedication can do it.
We shouldn't confuse resolution with sharpness here. A digital and extremely sharp look is certainly a stylistic choice, and not always desirable. But as stated in the Video, high resolution doesn't necessarily lead to a very sharp image. Low resolution on the other hand, (especially once one starts to see individual pixels) looks extremely digital to me, and should be treated as a stylistic choice as well. Really high resolutions like 8k give a pretty neutral representation of what is captured by the lens. The level of sharpness and detail in the image can then be freely controlled by adding diffusion, choosing a softer lens etc. Considering this, I'd say higher resolution actually can lead to a more organic looking digital image.
this honestly put into words what I was thinking, while I will agree 8K isn't always needed, the video mostly talks about sharpness, and the two while being partially linked, are not the same. I also would like to add as a viewer (though I also work with cameras typically for photography but I want to try my hand at cinematography) when something is delivered at a lower resolution than the display device or if the display device has too low of a resolution for the size, especially noticeable on stuff like 1080p projectors in home setups (and 480 line CRTs but that's obsolete), you can see the pixels and the loss of detail in an undesirable way, but when you deliver the content at the appropriate resolution for the screen size and distance it looks more natural on the screen and the obviousness that its artificial disappears, then combine that with scanned film or diffusion filters/any other way to soften the image without lowering the resolution its self and you can have a soft image without harsh pixels that can distract from the viewing experience. The video goes on about resolution when sharpness is the main thing here,
This. Thank you. High resolution does not mean the end result has to be tack sharp. There are numerous ways to soften a shot if that is the goal but doing it via lower digital resolution is not generally going to be the best choice. And then there is the whole issue of color space and HDR that could be more important to presentation that resolution. This whole video was nonsense.
Speak for yourself. When I meet a new person, I also focus on the details of their face, including blemishes. Thus, I prefer high resolution movies because it feels real, not dreamy. I just don’t wanna be an spectator, I wanna be immersed.
Honestly, high resolution is just simply peace of mind knowing I can crop or punch in any way I want in post. You can film further from your subject and then crop closer in post without losing detail for the perfect framing.
Surely your DOP/cinematographer should be in charge of getting the perfect framing on set. It's lazy to say "I won't move closer, I'll just crop it in post and reframe then?"
Human eyes are a lot more sensitive to contrast than resolution. A 2K presentation in HDR will look sharper to our eye than 4K SDR. Or scenes with a high dynamic range. 4K scenes that are very flat in range will seem less appealing and dimensional. But 4K is more than enough. I can really enjoy a supercrisp 4K presentation like The Revenant but the softer more romantic look also has it's charm. It's a creative decision. 8K is a waste of space, only usefull to have more reframing possibilities in editing but ridiculous as an output resolution.
@@berlin03030 I bought an LG B7V 65 inch OLED 4 years ago for about 2200 euros. Very happy with it. Blacks are perfect. The max brightness is 750 nits for 10% of the screen but it works very well. More recent OLED's do have higher max brightness and thus a bit better HDR. But I wartch in a darkened room so it's not a big issue for me. OLED screen have been getting cheaper the last couple of years. A similar TV now is about 1500 euros so considerably cheaper. QD-OLED might drive the price down.
To add to your point, dynamic range IS also a creative decision. A lack of dynamic range in a shot doesn't necessitate it being less appealing or dimensional. Shooting a scene in higher dynamic range where it diminishes the artistic intention is just as silly, of course I imagine it's way easier to "correct" this in post.
@@TinLeadHammer I think we all know the difference between pixels and the actual detail that is resolved. My point was for a theoretical perfect 2K and 4K presentation. A lot of UHD discs don't actually resolve 4K detail, certainly not those 'real' 35mm scans. But that was not my point.
Maybe for the average viewer with a TV, 8K might be ridiculous. But for people with big projection screens, the added resolution might bring the home experience closer to the cinema experience.
love this point you made; just because technology can do something doesn’t mean its always right. We have all these incredible cameras out there with 8k capabilities but DP's such as myself slap on a black pro-mist and add a load of film grain to give it the same look that 16mm would give off anyways.
True!! Thats the funny part.. at this point if youre not shooting a film like Matrix, actual "8k output" would result in an image so clinical that you would have to slap 20 filters to add character to It 🤣🤣
It is ironic we do this, BUT...I'd say it's still cheaper (and faster maybe?) to go this convoluted route than to do it with the equipment that does it by default especially since everything is distributed digital these days anyway.
Digital grain isn’t very good tho. Look at films like 3 from hell that used the old footage from the previous shot on film installment to match the grain structure. That works only due to the care and attention used with that add on. Than compare to others like joker which look so unnatural that it takes away from the presentation due to the uniformity real grain doesn’t have. It’s better to retain the natural look of the camera you are using than to add so many layers and effects that it’s like you’re watching when the killer calls. It is easy and a lot more cost effective but when in the movie business has those words ever yielded a movie worth talking about.
I feel like comparing the old Matrix with the newer one would have been better. Having two totally different films with a drastically different look and feel doesn't quite work.
You can also see this same comparison with the most recent and previous. Representing the matrix with more abstract photography is more fitting in my opinion. The world is abstract, thus if the photography is abstract it just helps to make the world feel more erie. Which is what the original achieved very well as apposed to the new adaptation.
I disagree here, while I have other problems with the new Matrix fillm, I think this hyper realistic and artificial look adds to the digital world of the matrix which is quite artificial. Maybe it would've looked to different but I could imagine they could've shot the "real world" scenes on actual Film to further seperate both worlds. In the end it is a tool you use to convey your message: Do you paint with big or small brushes?
Resolution when it comes to digital cinema is always misunderstood. Acquisition of 8K has nothing to do with pushing resolution higher just "because". 8K acquisition generates a much better supersampling and it generally softens the image, not sharpen it. You mentioned nothing of this in the video? Supersampling algorithms are usually using sharpness when rescaling, but many choose to not oversharpen while supersampling down in order for the sharpness to become natural instead. Shooting 8K with this supersampling moves a digital camera closer to an IMAX resolve. 8K supersampled down to 4K removes the digital problems of the bayer sensor, you get pure pixels instead of divided between red/green/blue. The digital noise is also lowered. The point is that you use optical elements to set the character for the image, instead of letting the sensor block your work. A problem is also that you chose the new Matrix movie that is so overly produced in color grading and mismatching shutter speeds that it's a very bad representation of digital cinema. Even though the point is that resolution is a creative choice, we still have standardized 4K now, new TVs aren't sub-4K in resolution and HDR will in a couple of years also be standardized. There's no point in learning a workflow that does not end with a 4K HDR master at the output because that's gonna be the standard for any project soon. It's a rip the band-aid situation and people need to understand how digital resolution practically works, not just that it's a choice. For instance, take something like the Red Raptor and use vintage glass on it. The supersampling will take care of the digitalness of the image, and without post-sharpening, the image will resolve everything about the vintage glass. Apply proper post-workflows, maybe even post-grain processes and if everyone knows the tech knows the post-workflow, it can reach 4K resolution without those bad high-resolution looks that people complain about. It's a joint effort between the art department, makeup, cinematographer, director, image pipeline personnel, colorist, and VFX. I've done hundreds of projects since digital cinema first matured and every time there are people who don't know what they're doing, i.e they're incompetent, the digital image becomes trash. Shooting high-resolution digital cinema requires people who understand both the technology AND the art of creating images. The problem right now is that there are either people who knows the art or people who knows the tech. Back in the days of 35mm, that was not the case. Back then, cinematographers understood the technology of 35mm, they knew how to handle it. But today, many cinematographers have no knowledge, or interest to learn the knowledge of digital cinema, which leads to incompetent handling of the technology.
And that my friends is why you don't choose your DI from the camera department. Hiring a proper DI is the way to establish the best baseline for the image.
@@namesurname624 Started out on set as a camera crew up to focus puller, moved to editing, post production and VFX, now I'm writing and directing. So I've been through most segments of production, from tech to art and that's why I mean tech and art aren't opposites, tech informs the art, the art demands the tech.
You’ve illustrated 100% of my feelings towards today’s filming trends. I really hate that netflixy feel, these projects lack so much of substance that they try as hard as they can to fill them with over good looking cast, over sharp images, overuse of catchy music, injustified camera movements, and so on… everything feel so “plastic” it’s absolutely awful. It’s terrible to see that things are more and more driven by money making, and not only in cinema, but all sort of art mediums, and in fact in almost every aspect of our lives today, everything gets industrialised… this + the fact that today’s children are educated by this type of content i’m worried about what future artists they will become…
i think the craze for high resolution dictated by mainstream audiences that are already accustomed to clean sharp images (ai processed smartphone pictures, high end clean look commercials), therefore many companies demand things to be shot at a high resolution and a clean color tone. high resolution can be great when handled properly, such as mindhunter shot on 6k and 8k.
@@mubaraksuleiman5227 I believe that diversity of medium has to be preserved. Filmmakers must keep the choice of medium on which they want their stories to be told…
I watched this on a 14" Daewoo CRT I bought for $1 at the thrift shop with a $10 HDMI>RCA converter for my Chromecast. Needless to say, it spoke to my soul. I love watching RU-vid on an ActualTube.
This video was really encouraging to me. I don't really have enough money to get a high res camera, I always thought I couldn't make my own films because of this limitation. This told me I don't need to worry about that. My job is just to make art.
I have to disagree with the point about the extras in the background being "more attractive" these days, for a number of reasons. The "modern" shots you used as the example of attractive extras, we're of 1) Amanda Seyfried, who I highly doubt was an extra in the movie you referenced, and 2) a male model extra in the foreground of the shot. You seem to confuse "focus" with "resolution" in all of these shots, or at least complain that the attractive models in the background are only visible because of the increased resolution of digital as opposed to the director of photography choosing a wider depth of field for the shot, a choice he could have made in a film or digital production. All of the reason anyone ever cites for why analog is better than digital (even in the classic argument of records vs CDs) always comes down to some pseudo-scientific bull like "warmth" or "softness" when we all know that anything you want to do to digital to emulate the look of film can be done in a computer. A movie filmed on 16mm film can never be as sharp as one filmed in a 8k, but you can always apply grain, blur, post effects etc, to make 8k footage more gritty. It's about flexibility.
It's more like having a long piece of wire or wooden board that needs to be cut to a certain length, and you need to guess where to cut it. It's better to cut the wood or wire so it ends up too long, even if off by a large amount, then even a bit too short because if it's too long you can always cut more off...it's a lot harder to put it back on to make it longer again. Same goes for digitizing magnetic audio tapes...you want the azimuth to be at the most sizzlingly brightest sound to be captured...there is no setting on the azimuth screw that's going to result in a sound that's brighter than what was originally recorded, anything but the correct setting will produce a duller, muddier sounding transfer. If the tape is screechy or annoying you can run a low pass filter in digital audio editing before you burn the final CD.
@@brentfisher902 yup, not to mention people will complain about modern technology making everything look too digital, as they watch movies filmed on 60mm IMAX film stock on their 13-inch 1080p MacBook air.
High resolution is only great for cropping without losing detail but most professional movie productions don't need to crop out 50% of the shot. High resolution is best for non professional filmmakers
Cropping, digital zooming, reducing for sharpening when you miss focus slightly, reducing for better color (on cheaper cameras), stabilization in post, there are tons of reasons a low budget film maker may need those extra pixels. When you are a "one man band" I don't care how good you are, you will mess up time-to-time, and that extra resolution can be a life saver.
I totally agree resolution isn't needed for every movie it brings out the flaws of the production, for example I watched a movie recently and because it was super high resolution I could see the actors wearing fake moustaches and beards it took me out of the story. Film grain brings out detail too in a movies that's why older movies look so good in 4K UHD disc because of the grain there is so much detail.
I think your example of the downsides of high resolution is very true but I disagree with your statement about grain. Grain doesn't increase detail in any way because it's just a random pattern. The image might appear sharper but that's a different story.
@@maxkern4419 This is not something I made up about film grain, some Filmmakers have said it that filming on older cameras that weren't digital they way to bring out detail was how on it was filmed on old film stock which was very grainy but it bought out the detail.
The grain acts like a dithering pattern, allowing you to perceive details that would normally be below the noise floor. The same trick is used in audio mastering. A 7bit piano recording sounds way more realistic with a spoonful of dithering noise than without.
@@bigogleOh really, but when I watch behind the scenes of movies the filmmakers talks about how the film grain brings out details, am I misinterpreting it.
Steve yedlin, ASC did an amazing deep dive into the difference between technical resolution, and the perceived resolution to the human eye - I think it would interest a lot of people
@@Ljm488 The "resolution" of the human eye is a pretty complex topic, but it's better described in terms of pixel density than total resolution; and even then it depends on viewing distance. For instance, a 4K smartphone is wasteful overkill, while on a large tv, 4K is more meaningful - but if you're far enough away, it could be 720p and you wouldn't be able to notice.
@@AxTechs in terms of pixels on a monitor or computer not really. That’s what I meant, how the eye views an image in relation to an image. And Steve Yeldin did say the exact thing I’m saying in his video so I’m just relaying that message
Great points made here. I'd love to point out how intriguing it is that The Matrix is the visual centerpiece used to frame the discussion. I agree with many of the points made and I'd also argue that The Matrix is one of the few counterexamples in which high-res and ultra-sharp visuals actually serve the art and further the intention on the film and story. Makes this video even more wonderful and complex, well done!
Those HYPER crisp images in the new Matrix felt very intentional. Especially since the movie is SO concerned with capturing faces. You see ever pore, scar, and wrinkle. It's quite striking.
The next step in this conversation with regards to action films but The Matrix more specifically is BLOCKING. After watching Resurrections, I went back and looked at a few scenes from the trilogy and found myself enjoying and following the action than the new installment. Why? I think because of the size of the camera. I believe the trilogy was shot on a large 35mm camera (my guess is a Panavision or Arri). They’re bigger, heavier, more tactile. It’s not like a nimble little Red Komodo or the like that you can just whip around set on a whim. The result was I found the new movie to have actions scenes that were either unintelligible in terms of a storytelling (I’m thinking specifically of the Merovingian fight in Resurrections) as opposed to the trilogy (take your pic; they’re all extremely clear). There is something we’re beginning to lose in terms of craft at the altar of digital clarity, because more and more we’re enamored not by the data we’ve captured for post, but the flippant nature of our blocking with such powerful little tools at our disposal.
@@_mixedsignals while I see what you are saying there are a number of films shot with heavy film cameras that had very rapid movement like the Bourne sequels. Yet those offer more clarity the Taken which also shot using similarly heavy cameras, and the same “shaky cam” aesthetic. It’s just now with the easier barriers means people have quicker means to opt for that quick blocking. Without ever needing to learn to work within “the box” of a weighty camera rig. And this happening all over again with the ronin 4d, I have seen so many people now thinking everything needs to a one take tracking shot just because they can. So I think the age old adage “just because we can doesn’t mean me should.” Applies here. It the case of the matrix I have heard Lana loved the small rigs because she felt liberated enough to use a more free flowing work flow and add set ups on the fly. Where as reloaded and revolutions used a stricter approach which involved copious amounts of takes. (30-50 per set up.) This burned out Bill Pope so much that he hasn’t worked with Lana or Lilly again. So in the pursuit of effective well crafted shots that tell the story it’s always important to remember how many people are involved and try to find a way to capture the film without burning out your crew members. For me personally it all comes down to prep, getting a grip on the story and then the logistics and gear to capture that story while ensuring the actors (hopefully) get enough time to play around a bit and be ready for any “happy accidents”. “We’ll fix it in post.” Has and always will be a rather large red flag, (of course there are numerous examples of post saving films but using as a crutch is never a great place to start.)
This reminds me of what happened with audio -- basically sample rates climbed and climbed, but after a few years of that it became apparent that 44.1 or 48k were sufficient for pretty much everything. I personally like 1920 x 1080 most of the time, it's easy enough to upscale with no loss in quality.
Me : "I don't want to see Matrix images before I see the film. But I really want to watch the new IDC video. But I don't want to get spoiled. But I want to watch the IDC video now. But..." **brain disconnects**
I think you're missing out on one crucial consideration when access to 4K and 8K cameras is becoming more and more universal: the longevity of high resolution master for different output solutions across a wide range of platforms for years to come
That's how I see it too. And I love seeing grain, even if it's just grain from a digital sensor. Which you often don't see in 1080, especially when its compressed (youtube, Netflix etc.) I heard the new ARRI Alexa cameras have even texture settings for the sensor
Wow, a lot of terrific comments below - and love the video - in my mind spot on. I once sang in a choir where the chap beside me was so over perfect in his words, it was downright annoying singing beside him - it was unnatural and unpleasant. Digital is done the same thing in a way - so over the top it is not much fun anymore. No one looks at the tiny pores in a face, or the insane detail in the Hobbit (which was a bomb in comparison to LOTR). We are absorbed in the story, like the great movies. Yes Ben Hur was shot in 70mm for that detail but it was for an enormous wide screen that needed it. The story was king and a person was so absorbed in the story, they didn't look at insane resolution. I have both Blueray and standard 1080 editions and quite honestly, when I got to watching the movie, i forgot about the detail and got entrenched in the story. Oh, that was 1080? Hmmm, never knew. Ya, this video is excellent. Well done.
You can always reduce the resolution in post, but if you have not capture the details, they are lost forever. Just look at the remaster of Star Trek Next Generation (shot on high res analog film) vs Star Trek Voyager (shot on magnetic video tape). The former could delivery a beautiful image for modern screen, whereas Voyager will be stuck with a blurry image. There is not higher res master to go back to. So the lesson to learn, is it not to shot only for current displays, but also for the future, if you believe the work will become a classic.
I'm one of those pople that say: always future proof your resolution. If you want a "softer look" go for softer lenses, not less resolution. That way, in future, on 8K monitors people will still see smooth image instead of smooth squares.
@@km099 I remember when 720p was deemed "unnecessary for most people" because "nobody would ever need this much resolution". how do you know people wont have 10 feet wide screens at home in future? I already do for my 4K projector.
@@bqgin I'm not convinced. Unlike you, I never heard people complain about 720p. The step up from SD to HD was significant and very noticeable to consumers. But resolutions like 6K or 8K? Not so much. I'm talking about final delivery of course, not necessarily the recording. There's simply a point of diminishing returns when it comes to resolution. Stuff like a better dynamic range are way more important, just look at the new 4.6K Alexa 35. Just ask your friends if they can tell whether their local movie theater uses a 2K or 4K digital projector without looking it up.
@@km099 As an indie filmmaker I purchased a 4K 140inch short throw projector for special effects. Let me tell you, the difference between 2K and 4K is immediately noticable. So is on my friends 6K tv I don't know exact dimensions but its alot smaller than my projector screen. And it's extremely apparent with cgi. Maybe you should wear glasses if you can't see the difference? I'm not being mean I genuinely don't know how one can not notice the difference. I get on a phone or a computer screen cause they're small but on a TV and moreso in cinema it is visible even nowadays. Who knows what technology can bring us later?
@@km099 Regular VHS quality was the dogs breakfast compared to 480p double scan. 720p looked gorgeous. 1080p not much better, and 4K is like killing a bathtub spider with an AR-15.
Absolutely right. At least for the pre 4K generation. We are used to the dreamy blurry look - it feels like a movie, not a birthday party family video.
The higher the resolution of the sensor and recording format, the more organic and less pixelated the image will be. Choosing a softer lens and/or filming on S16mm film (which will limit the effective resolution) are valid artistic choices, which will not negatively affect the technical quality of the image and won't cause it to look "digital". Over-sampling (shooting in a higher resolution than the finishing resolution will end up being), can reduce the appearance of digital noise, and improve image quality. Giving the advice to shoot in lower resolutions is truly a terrible advice. Shooting or even finishing in less than 4k is going to limit distribution options, will sometimes even limit which festivals the project be exhibited in, and will cause it to appear more digital "videoy" and pixelated when watched on a high resolution display. You can soften the image with the right choices of lenses and filters, and can also do it in post production in a more controlled way, reaching whichever look you desire.
I have to fully disagree with you. Super crisp sharpness CAN be incredibly visceral as an experience if its shot artfully. KNIVES OUT has an incredibly sharp image, deliberately exposed and shot (both on 35mm and digital in almost equal measure) to push a super-sharp and very crunchy aesthetic and it makes the film not only look gorgeous, romantic and engaging, but also creates a sense of immediacy as well. 4K scans of VistaVision films have the same effect for me. THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY is breathtaking for instance. I think it really is a matter of personal preference and while there is an aesthetic appropriateness for soft images vs sharp images, sharp images alone are not a problem. You keep using THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS as an example and yet its actually one of the most atmospheric, rich and textured films I've seen on Digital in a very long time. Especially in the bland wasteland of Marvel and Netflix films. There's no superiority of sharpness or softness inherently within the aesthetic or process. Just how its shot and how its displayed.
Holy crap, yes. Thank you. Every time I hear someone talk about what does or does not make something "look cinematic" I throw up a bit. All of these things are just tools that are used as a means to an end. They can be used skillfully, or they can...not. I thought The Matrix Resurrections looked cinematic as hell. If anyone tries to tell me that looked "too video-y", I am going to tell them they are out of their damn mind. And Rian Johnson? I mean come on. That stuff is going to be stunning. It doesn't matter if it's shot digitally, or at which resolution, or frame rate. If the people know what they are doing, it will look good. I'm willing to bet that few people are criticizing Christopher Nolan in this way for lugging around gigantic IMAX cameras around his shoots. That's he's "too focused on resolution" or whatever. And I'll bet the reason why is because he shoots on film. In that case, it's fine. I think the thing that bothers me most when people talk about what is cinematic, is that so much of it is simply what they've been told is cinematic. And what they were told is cinematic was based on the technological limitations of film-making during the first part of the 20th century. If those same attitudes were applied to other forms of art there'd be two or three "real" painters, and nothing newer than Tchaikovsky would be considered "real" music. Sorry for the rant. I don't mean to direct it at you. I mean, we are in agreement. I just fucking hate gatekeepers, man. Whether it's cinema, video games, whatever. And I can get a bit riled up about it.
I completely disagree with you. Every single movie from say the 90s shot on the film looks more romantic and engaging but it's also related to who the movies used to be lit. Nowadays nobody seems to have a clue what they are doing with the light. And don't get me even started on modern post processing.
@@dash3dot I dunno man. That's a pretty broad statement, and I'd be willing to say objectively not true. There was an awful lot of dreck produced in the 90s, the same as there is an awful lot of dreck produced every decade. And something looking "romantic" or "engaging" is totally subjective. You might prefer a certain look, but that's just a personal preference. It's what you've become acclimated to, or learned from a young age that "this is what cinema looks like", or whatever. And that is totally fine. People will like what they like, and I am all about encouraging them to explore that. But that does not objectively mean film is a better medium than digital formats for making motion pictures. It's just a tool. One that can be used well, or not. The same as any other tool. Shooting on film isn't going to save you if the DP stinks, or if the editor is having a lousy month. You pointed that out yourself, the ability to control light is of utmost importance in a visual medium. Put an iPhone in the hands of a skilled and creative director, with a shit-hot DP, and they will be able to make something that is extremely engaging and beautiful.
@@NicholosRichter Agreed - I can't see someone watching GOOD WILL HUNTING or BEVERLY HILLS COP 3 or SHE'S ALL THAT or a plethora of other flat, piece-meal, blandly filmed movies of the 90's and think that just because they're shot on celluloid that they have some kind of 'romanticism' to them. If anything they've GAINED romanticism just because they look a certain way that's distinctly different from digital, but in context they were nothing to be wowed by. If anything, those films could have been shot on Digital and honestly beyond a much heightened sharpness to edge lines they wouldn't look all that different to something filmed today. If anything its the difference of LED lighting vs tungsten lighting that would make the differences seem more pronounced. It's always been down to the DOP, not the medium. And no matter the medium, there will always be DOPs with ideas that just won't work at all. I am kinda disturbed, personally, by this trend of people thinking that because film (through duplication artefacts) is "Soft" and not as sharp as digital, that this is somehow better.
How did your preference in anyway in contrast with his views in this video? He never said super crisp sharpness can't be visceral or artful, he merely stated that it is a part of the artistic equation, meaning you can CHOOSE to use it to your advantage to manipulate the image's artistic expression. It is just not something that is inherently and automatically superior.
I've been considering this for some time and couldn't agree more. I recently watched a film about the camera setup of various youtubers. Most everyone was shooting in 4K. The segment of the video that appealed most to me, however, was shot in FHD. It looked more cinematic, in my opinion. Since then, I've been experimenting with a 12 year old Canon rebel camera and have been really impressed by what can be achieved with light, lenses and patience. Lower resolution has a definite role in certain situations.
You're missing 2 important factors here. One is that movies are filmed in high res and then "diffused" because upscaling ruins the quality. It's better to have a "diffused", "vintage lens filmed" in 8k then downscaled to a 4k bluray and/or 1080p TV than having a 720p movie upscaled by deeplearning algorithms or stretched by the monitor. Other factor is that scenes filmed at 8k/12k can be edited in post, with zoom-ins, for example, without losing quality if the final product is sold in 4k/1080p.
Completely agree. 'Upscaling' with film is far different than Digital. That's why we can re-release old movies in Blu-ray with minimal intervention compared to if a film was recorded in 480p and then upscaled to 1440p. I completely get that the standard resolution that we are shooting/watching at is getting near it's necessary limits, but you're locked into the quality that you shot at a LOT more in digital than you are in film.
@@pilebunker420 exactly. You can go back to original film and scan it at a higher resolution and a lot of quality will be retained. Where as you can't with digital. I feel like this channel is trying to apply film logic to digital.
3:10 16mm can be delivered in 4k. Go watch Evil Dead 1981 on 4k Blu-ray. Also you need a certain amount of resolution or things look terrible. Case in point 28 Days Later 2002 looks terrible today. The only thing that really matters is having a sufficient resolution for the viewing device. Since 28 Days Later was captured with a 480i digital camera the movie is mostly ruined for future use because most devices are too high of resolution. One of the beauty of film is you just can keep scanning it. Even 16mm can be scanned at 8k would benefit from a higher scan theoretically if you had a 8k tv and a native 8k source since you wouldn't need any upscaling.
If you scan 16mm film at 4K you aren't getting a more detailed image. You are merely getting more detailed grain. It's similar to exporting a 1080 HD project in 8K: it can work, but there isn't more detail in the exported project.
when resolution reaches to the threshold to not hinder the viewers' watching, more resolution vs enough resolution is just different styles instead of necessicity.
You can remember a great movie when it's almost a textural feel, the lighting mood & music, pacing of the camera ... everything feels like an organic vision of someone or a small team of people collaborating. So many movies today feel focused on the ip or a story that might go viral online that they forget that there's so much else to consider ... such as not making something automatically extremely high-res and sanitised.
The topic has merit of discussion but it's odd to compare a movie intentionally made to look vintage like Jackie with a movie where the vast majority of the time is spent in a simulation designed to look artificial like Matrix 4.
It's perfect for this point because the 16mm in Jackie helps to create a feeling of the early 60's and the detail of Matrix helps contribute to the artificial world feel. The medium as a tool point
@@davidcunningham9282 It wasn't 16 and it wasn't presented as ruggedly as Jackie though. Larrain very much uses film texture to time stamp his movies. He did it perfectly in Spencer this year
@@JonPlarr that's not the point i'm making. i'm just disagreeing with the notion that a matrix movie should look more digital. in fact after rewatching it recently i'd forgotten there's a decent amount of grain
@@davidcunningham9282 I got you. Yeah I have no problem with a futuristic movie still being shot on film. Probably would be my choice. I think set design and color is probably more effective in conveying a feeling in that case than medium anyway
There was a popular video recently(-ish) about how 60fps was bad for movies and they were mostly comparing Gemini Man with some Bond movie form a few years before. I'm glad I'm not crazy for arguing that it's not just 60fps that was the issue, the two movies looked nothing alike - extremely high resolution ultra-crisp digital look with weird color-correction had much more effect on making Gemini Man look like it was shot on a handycam. 6:13 is pretty much the exact comparison
It's so great that this video exists amidst a scarce few on the same topic, yet it should be noted that there is an inherent downplay on the photochemical choice of filmmaking. Kodak 35mm or 70mm film, provide immense resolution with the inherent components that you present in your video, and are far more superior choices as far as depth of colour, dynamic range, and overall softness is concerned. Needless to say that 65mm IMAX film is an immaculate medium for capturing images, although not used in commercial terms due to financial reasons. Kodak has a few papers on their website in which they compare digital sensors against 35mm film that yield some amazing results. I think it's extremely important that not only you talk about these current trends in the industry, as I was talking about this exact same thing because The Matrix really befuddled me with its cinematography in that regard. Its is extremely important to not forget how sophisticated the human eye is, but also how our perception of what constitutes images cinematic can be atrophied over time, simply by new technology from companies whose sole goal is to produce this new technology only for financial gain.
Is it really a resolution problem though? Modern native digital 4K movies can look amazing and "cinematic", just look at Roger Deakins work. Film scans can get up to 8K (or even more?) and also look great. But displaying 1080p on 4K display is just a shittier experience, no amount of artsy justification will change that. I prefer the older film look, but that is achievable with high resolution and looks better than targeting 1080p. The bad thing about Matrix: Resurrections isn't the high resolution, it's mostly bland cinematography with majorly handheld shots, with bad shutter speeds that add motion blur. That's why I think it looks like a TV show and not a big budget, thought out, "real" cinema.
I like to think of this as being similar to cameras that shoot 60fps and 120fps, or even more. Just because the camera is capable of doing it doesn't mean everything should be shot in 60fps or 120fps, it should only be done when necessary and when it brings something to the story or the artists vision.
More resolution will ALWAYS look better, even if your source material is shot with 8mm film. Having that scanned and shown at highest possible resolution will make it feel more analog when you get rid of as much of those pixels and that aliasing as possible. And shooting digital with objectively bad lenses for artistic reasons will also look better the higher resolution you have because it captures all those minute details of the lens characteristics better. Except for cost I really don't see no reason whatsoever to go for as high resolution as possible.
The 4 nonsensical "obsessions" of new and amateur videographers: - the highest resolution possible - extremely wide open aperture shots - high FPS - anamorphic lenses None of the above is nessesary or makes you automatically a good "film maker". Yet they all want to have it, often without really knowing what all these things really are and how they effect their footage or creating a mood. But they obsess, discuss and fight over it as if there was no tomorrow. In the end, we have to remember Star Wars Episode 1 was shot on a full HD cinema cam. Jaws was shot on film and you can get both in 4k Remastered and never know on which original medium or resolution it was first shot. Also interpolation software these days is INSANELY good for enlagening formats. And I personally also think that a too high resolution movie loses its magic. Also I can't enjoy a lot of remastered movies because they add so much artificial sharpness and correct every little flaw out of the image that all the character of the movie gets lost. Let's get back to Jaws or Apocalypse Now: The remastered versions look stunning and feel as if they could have been shot in the early 2010s (just by judging the image style), but they look nothing like the originals that I love so much. They corrected out the yellow tin from Jaws to make the white balance spot on perfect and released it in 4k with so much sharpness that it looses all it's charme because of it.
I've seen lesser and lesser projects with anamorphic lenses, so idk what you're talking about in that last point. Plus, they actually work against the whole 8k prores crispy netflix thing because they lack the sharpness and even have distortion. Knowing when and where to use them is very important. Take the rise of Marvel for example. So many of the shots in these Marvel movies are shot on spherical, and colour graded like an Amazon commercial.
"They corrected out the yellow tin from Jaws to make the white balance spot on perfect and released it in 4k with so much sharpness that it looses all it's charme because of it." That's just like your opinion man. Also anamorphic lenses are fine, there's a reason they are still used today.
@@zr_1234 You are missing the point. I didn't say anamorphic was bad in any way, I am saying that amateurs who should more focus developing skill before obsessing over gear they don't understand and waste a lot of money on gear, which they could have put into a project to actually have something in their portfolio. And yes, that is indeed my subjective opinion - just as it is yours to disagree.
The new Batman movie was praised for looking so good cause it wasn't super sharp. Imo it just looked like a blurry mess. What you are comparing in this video isn't fair either cause you are comparing what I assume is a very good movie to what is an extremely shoddy one.
I love recording in 8k or 4k to set 1080p as final output for a simple reason: it’s easier to crop to zoom while editing, this helps a lot to get “fake camera zoom” to focus on a specific part of the subject (like the faces). It gives a bit more freedom on low budget projects, framing the scene is easier since some parts could be cropped and discarded later. Recording directly in 1080p requires more precise shots, making “digital zoom in editing” impossible.
Very interesting point of view. In fact when I was watching new movies (filmed in very high res) I was feeling that there were no magic or a lost of "special taste" I didn't think about this before and it makes sense for me too, my attention was scattered in details rather than the story of the film. But as you said in some projects is good filming in high res and for others not. Very good video
Totally agree with this. The obsession with high resolution, over such things as dynamic range, colour depth, bit rates, codecs, and even subjective ‘character’, can actually be quite depressing. Many aren’t aware that the camera with the highest number of cinematography awards to its name, the Arri Alexa, doesn’t even shoot true 4K. For me, the only real consideration when it comes to resolution is what the final production is intended to be viewed on. Modern cameras and glass can be far too clinical and overly sharp for me. I rarely shoot without diffusion and often use vintage lenses to offset the contemporary look. Great video mate 👍🏻
👍🏾 Tommy Rowe, GREAT to see you here, mate!! I purchased your awesome DJI Pocket LUTs awhile back, and luv 'em. Great point about the Arri, too! Hey, wishing you and your family a Fantastic Year, brother.
honestly im glad to see consumer equipment starting to focus on HDRI etc. I thought wed be forever caught in the "resolution wars".. and Thank God the 3D fad is over. it'll never sell until they can pull it off without glasses. corniest fad ever, felt like I was back in the 50's
I get the claim and I agree, though, this vid falls short in many ways: Today, nearly any visual aspect of footage and later result can decided or edited: aspect ratio, framerate and timelapse/slow motion effects, color using LUT, lens effects, depth sharpness and bokeh, low light look, and at last, after decades of analog formats (8/16/35/70mm film) and the grain of different types of film, digital resolution, even for non-static cameras including the needed postprocessing experienced a dramatic power boost, so that even cheaper production have them in reach. (Not to mention digital correction of details, superimposion or CGI, just speaking of original footage to final cut, without "photoshopping") In the early years, there was barely a choice, film was expensive and reducing to 18fps instead of 24-30 was acceptable, and led to later acceleration by 30%, that we all know from watching theses classics on TV. Sound was added - allowing dialogs and music/singing, "fast lenses" and faster film peaked in the film noire visual style and storytelling, Color came - providing more reality or even exaggerated colorful pirate classics, finer grain, sharper lenses, lighter cameras and dolly/crane etc came to the game, zoom lenses (vertigo effect) allowing even more expressive camera work stereo came up and multichannel sound was tested color correction using filters or during postproduction 3D comes up every decade steadycam systems evolved framerates for increased realism are being tested lately .... but which of these really added to the medium and its content? Many quality features may add to the big screen experience, but get either boring on a rather small, in many ways limited TV, or lead to an unnatural look. Even more: Whenever the camera+lens changes between scenes (especially during scenes using small mobile cameras, like for a bicycle chase), it will be noticed at least by the experiences viewers, and might break the following of the action, cause the brain starts to wonder, what changed. So, instead of making production easier, many more problem areas have been added. What I miss here, are some case studies, where certain virtues of the latest camera developments make sense, and when the director might rely on "older" state of the art.
I disagree. I think the advancements in image quality with sensors and lenses has greatly benefitted movie making. The artistic looks of 16mm film and certain aesthetics make movies like Midsommar and The Lighthouse greatly stand out. With Midsommar being shot in 8K with a super clean clinical look that enhanced the visual aspects, where as The Lighthouse being shot on low-sensitivity film and WWII-era lenses gives it a very authentic feel for its time and setting.
This is exactly what he spoke about, that having it available is great, but that many films use the highest resolution when it doesn't really suit that particular movie. It works for some, not for others.
2 года назад
I think we need to differentiate between sharpness and resolution. We don't need a super sharp image of something, but a low resolution will often look unnaturally blurry and puts a lot of fatiugue on the eyes. It is unconfortable to watch. I would argue that a high resolutiuon is always a positive thing, as it allows for a more natural image. How sharp that image is and what is depicted on it, is purely up to the creator.A blurry image because the content itself ius blurry is more confortable and natural than a blurry image because the resolution is too low. When you have a 4K image of a 240p VHS, it looks much better and more as intended than a native 240p image from a VHS on a 4K screen. Florian Koch Visuals put it in much better words than I just did down in the comments.
This reminds me of the components run on PCs in the 2000s-early 2010s, when you'd buy the XXX CPU, however much RAM you needed and the YYY GPU, to find six months later that your CPU was late gen and couldn't support the games you wanted to play. I still see it on some games, Call of duty and the likes, where each new iteration offers more or less the gameplay ("if it ain't broke...") but needing more and more CPU GPU and diskspace to process all the new textures for a "photoreal" game. I think it's good videogames have moved from that with the rise of indy studios, and no one, nowadays bats an eyes at an "unrealistic looking" game, rather focusing on the design and the mechanics. It seems that digital cinematography is on the same slope. So, Netflix requires you to use a camera equipped with a 4K sensor (due to, if I'm not mistaken, some folks on the Netflix board being also the Arri board ?), but really it's an artificial constraint.4K for the sake of 4K, or for being able to brag about your content being 4K. Like you said, some cinematographers still use filters to sotfen it. Or even digital filters to give it a "retro" look. The question of lighting and composition also comes to mind. We grew up on VHS and DVDs, and the great movies were no less impressive. Die Hard remains an amazing piece of action movie with some of the best cinematography ever, whether I put my DVD or my Blu-Ray in the player. Or Michael Mann's Miami Vice (the movie) shot on HD cameras. And it's brilliant and beautiful and makes for an amazing film. On the other hand, some recent netflix movies look like shit. Or, you know, every other netflix movies. This discussion reminds me of late 40s-early 50s technicolor movies. So West Side story (everyone go check out the Spielberg remake BTW, it's amazing), Duel in the sun, the red shoes, she wore a yellow ribbon. The goal was never fidelity, it was heightened hollywood reality. And it works beautifully. So yeah, thanks a lot for making this point and sorry for the long post. Love your work.
1:44: The "p" stands for "progressive" in this case, not pixels. This means that each frame has all the pixels updated at once, as opposed to "interlaced" where each frame only has every other line updated at once as TV often worked in the past.
A very valid point. I have thought of this before too. The extreme level of detail and sharpness can be in your face and rather distracting. Taking the focus from what is actually being conveyed to the things that are used to convey the story -yes, I am saying this even though I am a big proponent of ultra high image quality.
Great video! I think there was a time in the digital world where resolution actually mattered. Because the more resolution you had, the more natural/organic the image looked and the less you were reminded that you're looking at something digital. And I think it was very important for technology to move over that threshold where the pixels don't distract anymore. For me that threshold is in most scenarios 1080p/2K. It's a very neutral way of presenting footage. I think 4K is still kinda within the boundaries of being neutral. Anything above 4K and below 1080p for me is a stylised choice and it doesn't affect quality, but style. While I think it's important to use new technology and advance, I think it's important that we accept that there WAS a time when more resolution meant better image quality, but that we are now past that. Now resolution doesn't mean the same anymore and neither does quality. Technologically I think we are at a sweet spot now for the way images are viewed/used today. There might be workflow improvements for filmmakers that helps them tell the stories (high resolution is one of them), but It won't affect the technical quality of the image we see in the end. Maybe it's really a sweet spot most of us should embrace and use the chance to focus more on the storytelling and less on technology. In the end that's what good technology does, it makes you forget that you're using it.
Kind of like when I was so happy to get a birthday card done on a dot matrix computer printer when I was 9 in 1991...I was like "wow, the future is here, cool dots..." but later I learned that the drive for better quality was to make it look so that a document made on a computer should not look like it was 'made on a computer'. I kind of get the nostalgic feel for big pixels, simple polygons/teapots, a black void background, and music with oscillator/FM synthesizers...technology just doesn't seem so futuristic anymore...
We should leave that "VERSUS" I say as you said in this video 4k or 8k for certain things (especially TV shows, football games or car races, etc.) but for something more ARTISTIC (like music videos, recitals and obviously movies, I think super 8, 16mm, etc.) is something indispensable.
You’ve made excellent points, but you didn’t factor compression. Streaming platforms typically give more bit rate to higher resolutions. So much so, a project shot in 1080 but uploaded in 4K would look better than a 1080 upload. My approach is to shoot at a minimum of 4K and soften the image with filters or lenses for the right vibe. I think it’s also important to know the difference between resolution, sharpness and detail. As it’s not always gives the same result.
before watching this video my opinion is: A sharper image is not important. High resolution is very nice and I like it but the sharpness of an image is something different! After watching the video: Yeah my opinion hasn't changed. The sharpness is an artistic thing. I actually put a slight blur ontop most of my irl shot videos, just because I like the look of old films. But I still keep it on a higher resolution. Blurry images look different on different resolutions! In his video it sounds like the higher resolution are sharp everytime. Look at movies like Jurassic Park. The blu ray has a greater resolution but the image itself is still blurry. I hope someone gets what I trying to say... So I agree that a low resolution can achieve the look you want but where I disagree is that I think a high res video can still result in the same artistic feeling as a low res.
While I agree with pretty much everything said here, I simply don't like images below 720p. They're too blocky for my tastes. If you're going to give me a less perfect image, please use a filter or a lower mm film camera.
The problem is framing. Filmmakers still using the same framing when they tell us a story: when someone speaks or shows some emotion, they fill the entire frame just with their face. Stop this! I don't want a face hanging before me in the screen in hi-res! Show me the upper body, then on the hi-res footage the face has fewer pixels.
Achieving a less sharp image is something I am completely on board with. Achieving it by using low resolutions I am absolutely not on board with. Its different to have a soft organic image and its different to have a low res blocky aliased pictured. Low resolution always looks worse. I usually like soft images with high resolution.
I'm a hobisit photographer and have been for more than half my life. I not some amazing pro or anything, but I totally agree with high-res vs lower res. Sometimes I notice when I take a photo using my $2,000 digital camera, yeah it's crisp and perfect looking- great for professional jobs like weddings or family portraits. But at the same time, I can get bored with it because it feels...empty and I notice I can get more excitement when shooting a photo with my little $40 Fuji instax camera.
You can actually shoot 4k or whatever high resolution you want, but make it look less sharp in post production. Creativity shifts, we are allowed to change our minds. You may think the story requires a less sharp image, but when shot, you discover the medium you or your audience would view your work through, may desperately condemn your work, because you chose to go for less and not fully harness the power you are given. It's better you have it and not use it, as opposed to you not having it and getting phased out or ignored by the people your work of art was to appeal to. 😁
just because they capture at 8k doesn't mean that that has any implications on how it is finished. if they wanted to, they could take that 8k image and make it look like 16mm footage. BUT shooting at the highest resolution possible GIVES YOU MORE OPTIONS down the road during post production. 8k can be treated to look like 35mm film down to 8mm film. you CAN'T take 16mm film and make it look 4k. imo, capture should be PURELY about practicalities. the artistic decisions can come later. i'm actually kinda surprised that dps are still putting filters in front of camera lenses. you can get whatever kind of softness you need in post/grade. it's like recording sound. you want to get the most "dead", isolated voice recordings you can whether it's shot in nature or in an echoing church. you don't want the result of the environment BAKED IN to the recording. all that stuff can be added in post and doing it that way GIVES YOU THE MOST OPTIONS.
I recently shot some Super 8 when working on a short film for an organization. I did not know if this would work as I had not touched this camera in 40 years and also I had misgivings about how it would look in the shift to the 4k footage (edited in 1080 though) that makes up the bulk of the film. The Super 8 experiment gave me just enough usable footage to open and close the final film nicely. Inevitably, a friend who saw it praised what she thought were the use of "vintage effects."
I WISH when I met and saw people that I could focus on their whole face. Instead, I literally see and focus on every single blemish, wrinkle, and texture on their face. And the problem with that is that it means I am excessively critical of my own blemishes, wrinkles, and textures. It's always been a problem ... and I suspect those who also have body dysmorphia can relate.
I like that Roger Deakins is such an outlier when it comes to this. He creates some of the most beautiful images in modern cinema but he likes having the cleanest image he possibly can. I remember in interviews he’s said that he doesn’t like seeing any blemishes from the lens or camera used at all. But he fully acknowledges that it’s his preference and will shoot anamorphic or use a stylized technique if it helps tell the story better.
roger has a great lighting skill, paired with a knowledgable DI Colorist, i think thats why his movies dont look "boring", there is always something eye catching in the frame be it the shadows or the color tones.
@@HBarnill True, I meant more in my interpretation of his sentiments he might be willing to do something like that if he and the director agreed it helped tell the story. He did employ that very stylized look for flashbacks in The Assassination of Jessy James by the Coward Robert Ford. But yes he definitely has a clear preference for clean, spherical images.
Also a suitable video bitrate is perhaps equally important. You can have an 8k video but captured at 128kbps and you get a lot of pixelation and banding artefacts. It is like the ISO of film. If you want to capture high speed movement or low light composition, you need higher ISO if you want enough exposure. At the same time, as this video highlight, it also depends on the intended cinematography you want. Search for VHS 480p and you will be surprised at how crisp those videos are.
I actually remember reading an interview with Robert Elswit where he said lighting Velvet Buzzsaw was extremely difficult because Netflix insisted on 4K cameras but that meant he needed double the lighting fixtures he needed and needed completely different lenses. And on Billy Lynns Halftime Walk and Gemini Man which shot at 120 frames a second, the reason both films look so visually flat is because they needed even more lighting then with traditional digital or film cameras because having so many lighting fixtures was the only way to get a usable image. So unfortunately there’s an element of truth to some 4K or 8K films having an unnatural look to them.
I think GEMINI MAN especially is only aesthetically useful when you pair it with 3D. On it's own, it is very flat. But the depth the 3D brings to the high framerate, there's nothing else quite like it out there.
Meanwhile I bought a 6k camera the past few months. Honestly I didn't buy it for the 6k. I bought it because it's a cinema camera, and that's what I wanted to get. It's easier to record the detail up front, then remove it, than to never record such detail, and need it later. This primarily works in terms of missing takes I need to fill a space in a story, not usually resolution. Also I think it's a bit different comparing digital films to one shot on 16mm. I don't have the money to shoot on a physical format like that. I'd love to someday when I get a budget to shoot with, but until I'm given the money to make artistic decisions for the sake of artistry, I need to rely on practicality instead. Practical decisions equates to less expensive, which is what digital is. It's much cheaper to buy a hard drive, than it is to develop all of your film for a project, make digital negatives, edit, then reprint back onto film, to then have digital reprints made for distribution. I love the way film looks, but I'm not heading a project with a budget that'll be able to allow me to use film anytime soon. For now I'm just excited to finally have a cinema camera. I'll shoot content that way, and expand my knowledge and expertise in that manner for now. :)
You can just shoot at hight res and than export it at a lower one, so you'll have more flexibility in post... (for example crop-in, stabilization, etc.)
Owning a 4k disc for me is just about owning the best version of a movie. Imo when you have huge landscape scenes like in 1917 or Hostiles or Dunkirk, 4k is better. Kubrick's 2001 looks great with HDR. Some 4k discs improve the sound quality. Sometimes I just want a cool looking steelbook, lol. But for the most part the best version of a movie is the original director approved blu ray where the colors aren't touched and the overall feel of the movie is as intended.
Disagree. I think an image should hold as many details as possible. I see so many production flaws in hi-res and while that's annoying it will result in an evolution of moving pictures, there will be better props, better costumes, better photography, better scenes, better lights. I kinda stopped watching films that aren't UHD and rewatching my old favs in UHD is mindbending. I don't see why in the age of MUBI and AppleTv or Netflix anyone should watch pixelated pictures
wow i always thought the same !! im from Brazil and all the eletronics and cameras here are just so expensive, iv always wanted to buy a new camera with much higher resolution than i have, like a 6k or something, but at the end, all i want to do is movie, that will touch ppl, so resolution wont change that, the truth that is being put into the work is that it matters at the end, i might stick with my camera and keep on shooting, cuz buying something that is so expensive just for the resolution to be much higher than at the end someone will watch my work on a cellphone screen
It's very common to see begginer 3D artists and amateur game developers using the highest resolution possible on everything in their works, from very small objects to greater in size pieces... But that's simply not the way to achieve quality, the key part of 3D enviornments playable or not is the cohesion, and thats why some times older games look great even today... they hadn't the resolution but had the quality control of making everything have the same aspects of detail and texturing, and that includes resolution sizes, you want everything to follow the same aspect acordingly to the 3D space the object finds itself in, every object needs to be relative to everything else around it... An example: A low resolution flower on a high resolution vase will look bad when whe compare both of them, but if you have a low resolution flower on a vase that follows the same resolution ratio you have nothing better/ or worse to compare them with, soon, you have a cohesive piece.
videos like these are just harmful to young filmmakers. if you're going to shoot something, you are seriously limiting your reach by shooting anything lower than 4k. say goodbye to any possible client sales or chances of broadcasting your work. You can make your images look however you'd like them to, regardless of resolution. Just don't mess around with tech specs! SHOOT 4K!!!!!
As an VFX Artist (and i am speaking just for myself, just saying) i like high Resolutions and more fps. But it is a lot more work, you have to put in the image on the whole production process, to avoid that TV-Look. As you mentioned like with these filters for example, which also creates more problems for the VFX, but thats where you have to choose right :)
It's also important to address difference between capturing certain resolution and sensor resolution, AND size of sensor, while talking about this subject.(technically, not practically) We can record 4k video on sensor with smaller resolution, but it would not produce same effects as native resolution. And the opposite: sensors can be downscaled to record 4k from 6k, but it may introduce line skipping or other artifacts. It's not most important to get "highest resolution" cameras and good example of that are smartphones. We all heard about phones with "108 mpix" sensor or smthn' like that. But this tiny seniors can't deliver much due to their size. And comparing 1080p from camera and from phone is a joke.
I shoot 4K so I can then bring it down to my liking with filters etc, I agree that often the attention to sharpness ruins narrative, but sound, that is where the attention must go as far as fidelity.
resolution really doesn't matter... until you have a scene with green screen in your movie. or need to overlay some CGI. you need a high-res source material to make it look good. (about 4 times more pixels than resolution of a final video)
There is a big difference between resolution and sharpness. Even a comparatively low resolution image could be "sharp" with aliasing and detail enhancement, but won't be very pretty. Film was so popular because technically a high resolution image even 4k+, it's very very soft and naturally kinda diffused. Shooting digital, super high res might be good, not for finals, but initial capture. 6 or 8k might be better for 4K because of chroma subsampling and quantization artifacts in image capture. VFX and most post really much better for full 4:4:4 rgb color after downsample.
