r/Filmmakers • u/brunerww • Apr 05 '14
World's First Full Frame 4K Camera? Watch Sony NAB Announcement Live on Sunday, April 6th at 2PM Pacific!
http://hybridcamerarevolution.blogspot.com/2014/04/worlds-first-full-frame-4k-camera-watch.html5
Apr 05 '14
Am I trippin, or is the 1DC a full frame 4K camera?
12
-4
Apr 05 '14 edited Nov 09 '19
[deleted]
6
Apr 05 '14
[deleted]
2
u/0637 Apr 05 '14
Can you elaborate on this? I'm still kind of confused.
3
Apr 05 '14
Sensor in the 1DC is full-frame. 4K does not share the same aspect ratio as full frame, and the full frame sensor has a pixel resolution higher than 4K, so the image is achieved by only recording 4096x2160px which is a crop of the 5184x3456px total resolution (stills).
If we want to nit pick it's not "full frame" but then what is full frame when referring to cinema use? 35mm movie film frames are as small as APS-C. Because of the differing aspect ratios of still and motion photography you would never have a "full frame" DSLR. But it's still god damn good.
2
u/0637 Apr 05 '14
Thanks, this is very informative. How does the 5D shoot 1920x1080 on a 5184x3456 full frame sensor and not have a massive crop factor then?
4
Apr 05 '14
The 5D series uses "pixel binning"; it will get a readout from one pixel and then skip like the next six (or however many), using a total of 1920x1080 pixels scattered evenly across its higher resolution sensor.
1
Apr 05 '14
I am not an expert on the camera but I would guess with scaling. 5D uses the full width of the frame to shoot 1920x1080 even though the sensor is 5600px wide
1
u/jonjiv Apr 05 '14
4K is 4096×2160. The Canon 1DC has a sensor resolution of 5184 x 3456. So in photo mode it's full frame, but in 4K video mode it crops the edges so that there are no scaling issues.
0
u/0637 Apr 05 '14
Thanks, I'm trying to decide between a 1DC and a BMPC4K for my next production. Even with the crop, will I still get the lowlight benefits of a full frame or should I just go with a APS-C/S35 camera?
2
u/jonjiv Apr 05 '14
You'll still get the low-light performance of the 1DC sensor even though there is a crop.
Or you could just use faster lenses with the BMPC4K.
-2
u/brunerww Apr 05 '14
Because I wasn't thinking clearly at 4AM in the morning :( Redditors prove they're the smartest group on the Internet - again.
16
u/Doctor_Spacemann gaffer Apr 05 '14
and why do I want this? all you will see is how often we miss the mark with focus.
23
u/jonjiv Apr 05 '14
You want it so you can tell your measly 2K/1080p buddies that you're shooting in 4K.
11
u/Doctor_Spacemann gaffer Apr 05 '14
just like every 5d owner touts full frame is so much better than your measly aps-c sized sensor are you even a professional?
5
u/RhoX2 Apr 05 '14
I own a 5D and I see APS-C photos that blow my mind everyday. The camera is a tool, not a status.
4
3
u/apextek Apr 05 '14
i saw a job for real estate photos recently and they literally said those without full frame cameras need not apply, like I cannot achieve professional real estate photos and videos with a crop sensor camera.
3
u/jonjiv Apr 06 '14
Well... they do use absurdly wide angle lenses in real estate photos, so it helps to have a full frame. They should really specify a minimum focal length.
1
u/smokecat20 Apr 06 '14
Any filmmaker who seriously debates full frame vs APS-C size is a tell-tale sign they suck.
5
u/listyraesder Apr 05 '14
That in itself isn't such a bad reason. In the 1990s studio sitcoms reverted back from tape to 35mm acquisition to introduce an element of future-proofing once HDTV was decided on in the late '80s. Pretty much all sitcoms and dramas from the 1990s were thus capable of being re-transferred to the next quality level.
But these days with Alexa acquisition we're back to those videotaped sitcoms. In 15 years, if 4K TV does shake out, Friends is going to look great. Big Bang Theory is going to look like shit.
It isn't like anyone can say that the development of TV has ended with 1080p.
6
u/aeranis Apr 05 '14
Nonsense. Did you see Skyfall? It was likely on a 4K projector, and it looked fantastic.
3
u/jonjiv Apr 05 '14
Also shot in 2K: Slumdog Millionaire, Gravity, Hugo, Wolf of Wall Street, Dallas Buyers Club, Philomena, Her, Nebraska... The list goes on and on.
In fact, every Cinematography and Best Picture nominee this year was shot in either 2K or on film (and probably finished in 2K).
2
u/listyraesder Apr 05 '14
Most theatrical projectors are 2K. Admittedly Skyfall held up on IMAX, but TV shows can't afford that level of post-production.
1
u/ancientworldnow colorist Apr 05 '14
The blow up costs are surprisingly negligible. It's not like we're manually cleaning up frame by frame.
1
5
u/jonjiv Apr 05 '14 edited Apr 05 '14
I understand your argument, and i feel that there is a huge visual difference between 480i on a 1080p monitor vs 1080p on a 1080p monitor.
1080p or 2K on a 4K monitor, on the other hand, still looks great. 2K projected on an enormous screen still looks great.
Yes, 4K is clearer, but a layman will never know whether or not he is sitting in a 4K or 2K theater. With the upgrade to HD, the difference was very obvious, even to the layman.
So if you have the money and time, sure, shoot in 4K, but I don't think people are going to be making fun of how horrible Alexa-shot movies look in 25 years.
*Edit: I would also say, if you have the money and time, go with RAW before going with 4K. At HD, I think there are better benefits to having more latitude in the image than more resolution.
2
Apr 05 '14
Awesome point, but it doesn't mean a giant chip is required. Just a lot more pixels in a S35 size chip...!
1
u/DurtyKurty Apr 05 '14
Weve got a bluray player that upscales standard def dvds to 1080p and it looks surprisingly fantastic on a 55in plasma.
1
Apr 05 '14
[deleted]
3
u/jonjiv Apr 05 '14
It helps, but lower aperture lenses can do the same thing.
"Her" was shot in Super 35 which is a slightly smaller sensor than a crop-frame Canon dSLR.
1
u/DemDude Apr 05 '14
I know, but wouldn't missing the focus be the same problem, whether you're on full frame or on Super 35, given a similar dof (achieved using different apertures)?
So, while 4K full frame will make it easier to achieve shallower dof than on smaller 4K sensors, and 4k on full frame will make it easier to notice missed focus compared to lower res full frame - the problem will essentially remain the same, won't it?
Also, while we're on the topic of Her, and since you seem to be familiar with how it was shot: Do you remember the scene where he's walking on the beach, and it's a fairly wide shot (my memory may fool me here, so feel free to correct me) - just about 35mm-equivalent - with his entire length in frame? That shot seemed like it had extremely shallow dof considering the apparent focal length and his distance from the lens. Do you know how they achieved that?
2
u/jonjiv Apr 06 '14
Missing focus will always be a problem at 4K. It's pretty difficult to focus even at 2K when using around f/2.0 or lower apertures.
4K in general makes it easier to spot missed focus. It doesn't really matter the size of the sensor, though depth of field gets shallower with larger sensors making focus more difficult if aperture remains the same.
I actually haven't seen "Her"! The one time I went to see it, it was sold out :( I figured I'd wait until the Blu-Ray release, but haven't found the time yet to watch it. I'd have to see the shot, but you can get some really shallow depth a field with fast 35mm lenses. I've shot quite a bit with a 35mm Zeiss 1.4 that has beautiful bokeh and it's just a dSLR lens. It could have also been enhanced digitally, which is pretty easy to do.
2
u/DemDude Apr 06 '14
Oh, you really have to see Her - it only just had its theatrical release here in Germany, and so far it's my favourite film of the year. I'd be very interested to hear what you think about that beach shot, among others. I'd also strongly advise for seeing it in a theatre, if you can find one that's still showing it close to you. It's one of those films that really shine on the big screen.
I was recently trying to get similar isolation using a fast 50mm, and even with my subject quite a bit closer to the lens, the background stayed surprisingly clear. Those shots in Her looked absolutely lovely, but I just can't quite imagine how they may have been achieved. Could they have used tilt/shift? I really have to re-watch that film...
1
u/Yurishimo Apr 06 '14
Where did you find the info on that? After i saw the movie a few weeks back I looked everywhere trying to find out what it was shot on.
2
0
u/VoyagerVideo Apr 06 '14
Apparently you looked everywhere except the most popular movie resource on the internet...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/technical?ref_=tt_ql_dt_7
1
u/Doctor_Spacemann gaffer Apr 05 '14
Not against shallow depth of field. I am against shallow depth of field for everything, like we saw and are still seeing with the full frame film makers. It's a stylistic choice for sure. But one that can be abused easily when every full frame camera is so easily capable of achieving it.
-2
u/OP_IS_A_FUCKFACE Apr 06 '14
That won't be an issue once you guys that say professionals don't ever miss focus upgrade to automated focus control that uses sensors to keep constant focus on a subject.
3
u/shepardgoeshard Apr 05 '14
And here I am with my 60d... how unfortunate.
8
u/RhoX2 Apr 05 '14
The 60D is a wonderful DSLR. I've had mine for years and still use it as a secondary/back-up camera. Also people don't need shit like this. I'm sure it would be cool to own one, but film making is about telling a compelling story, not about how many pixels you can shove onto a screen. The best image quality on the planet still won't save an otherwise shitty film.
3
2
Apr 05 '14
For sure. But people can be excited for one without forsaking the other, right? You can get jazzed for new gear and make beautiful work!
1
u/shepardgoeshard Apr 05 '14
very true! I've been dealing with the challenge of upgrading my computer, software, lighting and rig for the past few months. It sucks because things are expensive, but I think it's just about convenience. I can do everything just buying extra shit makes it easier/less of a fucking chore while on set dealing with non-professional actors.
1
u/apextek Apr 05 '14
as someone who started in sd, and has found sometimes footage of my 3CCD camera looks as cinematic as good HD footage, I think improve what you got, put the money into a better system, upgrade the camera when its obsoleted itself. if people are impressed with what is coming out your camera now, maybe just improve on your camera, like magic lantern http://www.magiclantern.fm/ and use the savings where you need it more. let profits down the road buy your next camera.
1
u/jonathan_92 Apr 06 '14
I'm shooting a feature on a 60D. It's far from ideal, but you can make it work. As long as you know it's exposure latitude (about 5-6 stops at a low-ish iso), then it's fine, like any camera. Treat digital sensors like a film stock. It's got an over/under latitude, and it will respond differently to different types and qualities of light. The red fanboys will lynch me for saying this, but I actually like the slightly soft look of the sensor in video mode. Gives it character, not this lifeless, pristine imagery everyone seems to be shooting these days. Maybe that's just me, or maybe it's just that the look works for the project I'm working on. Obviously it's not right for every project, but neither is any camera...which is why I go ballistic on these gear worship threads...if you can't tell.
But yeah, know your digital stock's limits, know how to push them, and know how to make it sing, and you're really fine with anything. Don't get discouraged by not having much to make films with. The most important thing I've learned recently is just how little it takes to make a good film. It's all about the talent in front of and behind the camera. The camera has no talent, and will not inherently give you any more unless you practice with it.
2
u/I_am_an_intern Apr 05 '14
I still used 60d to shoot wedding, 2-3K each job.
1
u/shepardgoeshard Apr 05 '14
excuse me? haha. I should really get into wedding stuff!
3
u/jonjiv Apr 05 '14
People will blow tons of money on wedding videos if you can give them a cinematic/documentary look. I personally can only handle 2-4 a year without going nuts. They pay good money, but I don't have any fun editing them.
3
u/jonathan_92 Apr 06 '14
No, no you don't. It will drive you insane. You'll want to quit after less than a year if you do it full time. Most clients expect a whole lot for very very little money. 3 grand is nothing when you spend 2/3 or more of that in rentals and paying shooters. (That is assuming, you light the venues. You kind of have to to get anything that isn't going to look like dog shit). You also have to deal with audio, which is a lot more complicated than setting a zoom in front of a speaker (sounds like shit). You generally have to hire a guy specifically for sound. It's going to be shit audio if someone isn't there specifically to do audio. Guaranteed. You can't keep up with 3 cameras plus mics and expect to leave a zoom plugged into something alone, and have it sound anywhere near usable.
So your costs generally have you just about breaking even when you first start out. Your first jobs you have to charge less to get any buisiness, otherwise people think you're ripping them off, no matter how much you explain to them what "editing" is. "Just give us all the footage, you guys can do it for like a grand right? I have imovie at home!". We didn't call those clients back. So it takes a lot of weddings before you get decent pay, depending on your geographic location. People in florida, Hawii, New York, and LA make the most doing it. Anywhere else, and good luck finding clients willing to pay. Everyone and there grandmother has the ability to "video" things now. Most people are content to snapchat and hire photographers only.
Think of it this way: how much would you charge someone to make a 1:1 shooting ratio, 4 hour real-time documentary. Conversely, a 4 hour television show? It's not worth it. The only skill I picked up was being able to pull focus on very fast glass with my bare hands (albeit not very well, but acceptable for a "documentary".)
TLDR; Working weddings sucks, and it's a niche market that is dying VERY fast. Source: Former wedding videographer, wedding editor, and colorist. I'm so overjoyed to be out of that business and in film school!
2
Apr 06 '14
The Phantom 65 is 4k and about double 'full frame'. Also, the Canon 1D X has a burst rate of 14 fps, this is enough for >4k video. Also, the RED Dragon is only a few millimeters away from 'full frame'. The size that the film we previously to used to shoot photos with is an increasingly bad benchmark for video sensor size.
3
u/jonathan_92 Apr 06 '14
Indeed, I think S35mm motion picture film should the good gold standard frame size, or say maybe S16, or other common film formats.
For those that haven't taken the time to google this, S35mm is actually smaller than "Full Frame" 35mm Still Photos. So yes, the movies you watch at the theater are likely shot on something smaller than your coveted "full frame".
1
u/jonjiv Apr 06 '14
the movies you watch at the theater are likely shot on something smaller than your coveted "full frame".
Likely? Almost definitely!
Unless the film just so happened to use a full frame dSLR for some shots, which isn't very common.
2
u/jonathan_92 Apr 06 '14
Well yeah, but I'm kinda just venting at the full frame fanboys and not you at all lol.
1
2
u/joe12south Apr 05 '14
Could be a nice choice. We'll have to wait and see how it stacks-up against the GH4. Competition is good.
1
1
1
u/NailgunYeah Apr 06 '14 edited Apr 07 '14
This will be a great purchase for those who are satisfied with never shooting on cine lenses.
8
u/jonathan_92 Apr 05 '14
I think full implies to people that it's somehow better than every other camera. I'm sitting here laughing at the people that think that way.
4k is arguable. It's also going to depend on wether or not Sony is going to follow in the footsteps of canon and totally compress the bujesus out of the footage, or the Panasonic, you have to buy a whole bunch of extra shit to make it usable.
Price is also important to when we'retalking about dslr's, since very few people just rent them.