Why you all are going to want 28K

[Zack Birlew]

Okay, I haven't seen anyone mention this, but let me start off by saying that I really wonder if someone at RED had read a previous post of mine a while back because I immediately thought of that post when I saw the 617 announcement.

Okay, why the big landscape, why 28K, why would anyone need that? I'll tell you why, because it is the future of cinema. Okay, say you're filming a narrative film on this, right? Well, with 28K and the long focusing distance, you can set up your camera away from the actors and set and be able to punch in and get closeups, your master, and any little extras that show up in the scene. 28K gives you that ability. You've seen it in movies all the time, a couple are sitting down at a restaurant, they're talking and, little do they know, they're being spied on by a man sitting at a table across from them and he has a partner nearby serving as a lookout. One camera setup with the 617 can, depending on the framing of the shot, get all of those closeups and masters, as well as post zooms from one to the other, such as the guy at the bar and then dollying back to the couple.

Theoretically, this system would be perfect if it was paired with one of those 3D lenses Adobe showed off. Then you would probably only need one or two camera setups for the whole shoot at the restaurant.

Also take into account those "Happy Accidents" that happen off screen, such as an off-screen actor giving an interesting look or gesture that normally wouldn't be on screen with a normal camera. Or, maybe an ambulance drives by and you needed an ambulance shot, there, you got it while you were filming something else. What about a chef who causes a burst of fire to flare up while he's cooking, as happens often. You've got that pickup shot now.

There's many other examples, but you get the point.

[Martin Weiss]

Problem is, when cutting from say a wide shot to a cu you should change the angle as well, otherwise the cut will look jumpy.

[Julio Quintana]

I see your point, but I don't think this is a very practical implementation for narrative work. 8 hours a day of static footage at 28K? That's an absurd waste of computer storage and processing power, not to mention the time someone would have to spend scanning all that footage on a big monitor in the off chance that someone gave an "interesting look" in the background. It would end up being cheaper, and in my opinion, more effective, to just use talent and foresight to create these moments on purpose.

This could, however, be a very effective technique for filming live events, like a concert, for example. Instead of using multiple cameras, just film the whole event in a wide shot and pull shots out of the master.

[Emery Wells]

I think you are off base here Zack. Having all that resolution to punch into extreme CU has really great VFX applications (think '300' battle scenes) but using it as coverage in your narrative is lazy film making. Happy accidents are nice but a director isnt going to chose shooting with the 617 because he will get more happy accidents.

[Matt Uhry]

6x17 @ 24fps ? Hell Yes. You could easily divide the mammoth sensor up into left and right eye and have a wild 3d-Imax+ camera that is the size of a toaster. ( use 2 linked x-pan 45mm lenses, and a baddle that prevents overlap. )

Anybody who has the slightest doubts about the pressing global need for that is crazy.


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/10_1226940197.jpg

I think the top lens on this rig is just for viewing and focus...makes it look dangerous..


Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Michael Morlan]

Zack,

I would add that medium and close-up shots are often shot with shallower dof than a wide master for aesthetic purposes. So punching into a tighter shot from the master would only be a fallback position, not a plan.

One favored technique of shooting for multiple shots on a single take is with multiple cameras, one wide, a second tighter and closer to the axis. This makes it easier for the editor to cut between shots.

Best,

Michael

[Dylan Macleod, CSC]

A lot of people have been saying this - even with 4K. "Oh, 4 times HD, great we don't need to d close ups".

The notion of shoot it all wide and figure it all out later is - to put it bluntly - hack Zack.

You have a lot to discover about cinematography (and editing!) if you think this is a viable way of shooting your day.

There are so many things that change visually when you move the camera. Subject to background relationships change, which help to make smoother cuts. Tighter lenses can compress the subject more with the background, and as Michael suggested, you can play with shallower depth of field to isolate your subject more. You light differently for a wide shot than a tight shot...man, the list goes on.

The "shoot everything wide" and figure it out later is lazy and takes the art out of cinematography.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm with Dylan. There's a lot more to cinematography than simply getting it "in the can". Zack does make some good points about uses of the large format, though.

For me, the 617 is very appealing because of what it can mean for shooting for custom venues, advertising and signage, FX work, etc.. If the current bayer methodology holds true, we could expect the camera to deliver a nominal or measured resolution of a bit more than 22K. For advertising and print work, that equates to photographic quality prints as wide as 10 to 12 feet. Or 24fps video shot with the camera to fill multi-display panoramic delivery systems.

[Dylan Macleod, CSC]

I'm with Dylan. There's a lot more to cinematography than simply getting it "in the can". Zack does make some good points about uses of the large format, though.

For me, the 617 is very appealing because of what it can mean for shooting for custom venues, advertising and signage, FX work, etc.. If the current bayer methodology holds true, we could expect the camera to deliver a nominal or measured resolution of a bit more than 22K. For advertising and print work, that equates to photographic quality prints as wide as 10 to 12 feet. Or 24fps video shot with the camera to fill multi-display panoramic delivery systems.

This is being tested successfully in 4K. The doc I did last spring needed a bunch of print material for their "booth" at a trade show. They created a small theater to show the documentary. They did billboards and various other print media to adorn the display. Everything came from 4K TIFFS from the actual footage. They said there was consistency to the display that would not have been achieved if they combined someone elses stills work.

No more duking it out on set with stills photographers!

There are absolutely applications for 28K! I'm excited about it. Shoot it wide and figure it out later is NOT one of them.

[Brent J. Craig]

No more duking it out on set with stills photographers!

Hey! I was shooting the stills on that job! :-)

Besides the obvious application for 3D on a single 'filmstrip', I can also see the 617 being used by people who shoot product catalogs to be able to offer motion video of the same shots.

Does anyone think Red will make a view camera front bellows for it?

[Matt Uhry]

The old pan and scan has been done a few times, and it's pretty cool in this REM video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEhT2QlRBMo

However if that's the only thing you can think of doing with the 6x17 you should abandon film making and look into a career in burger flipping.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry

[planet e]

still, it will be interesting to see how filmmakers experiment with filling such an enormous frame, maybe someone will re-create the opening shot from "A Touch of Evil" as a gigantic tableau...just for the hell of it...

[Joseph Ward]

6x17 @ 24fps ? Hell Yes. You could easily divide the mammoth sensor up into left and right eye and have a wild 3d-Imax+ camera that is the size of a toaster. ( use 2 linked x-pan 45mm lenses, and a baddle that prevents overlap. )

Anybody who has the slightest doubts about the pressing global need for that is crazy.


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/10_1226940197.jpg

I think the top lens on this rig is just for viewing and focus...makes it look dangerous..


Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

I hope Red would do this for the 617! I would save up for this for sure if they were to announce Stereoscopic with it!

[Zack Birlew]

But that's exactly it, it's a different method. Of course you could film from more than one angle, but the principle still applies. What about filming wide from different angles? You would get your base shots and more, just from the different angle.

Also, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying this is the ONLY way to use the 617 but it does, more so than even 4K, allow for that kind of canvas-like "in-post shooting" style. Let's not forget, what you consider "standard" could be considered boring to someone else. The "300" example was a good choice, they made a cinematography choice that was something nobody else had done before and it paid off big. Was there another more "traditional" way to do it? Sure, but the filmmakers got creative and came up with something that worked better for them. That's what I'm saying this style allows for, innovation.

Now, you could go ahead and film in full 28K for the whole movie in traditional filmmaking style, that's fine, you'll have some pretty crazy resolution there and your makeup team will be out for blood, but it'll look sharp and, hopefully, pretty. But, as a style, the in-post method, when used creatively, could yield some powerful results.

So, to come back with one comment made, *cough*Matt*cough*, if you guys can only think of one method to use the 617, then maybe you guys should abandon filmmaking and take up burger flipping!:) Ha!

[Joseph Ward]

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to use 617. That its the ultimate Epic camera to make an Epic, is one!:)

[Bruce Allen]

Can someone explain to me how exactly you confirm that you nailed focus on this crazy 28K camera that has no OVF? Even given 4K screens by that time you'll only be able to see a tiny fraction at 1:1. Everyone's gonna have to make REALLY SURE that their lens marking are accurate ;)

Also, in order to do what you suggest, you have to make sure all possible things you want to crop into are in focus. Which takes away our ability to guide the eye creatively via DOF. And you make huge compromises in terms of composition, blocking of actors, lighting, sound, etc.

I don't think it's a good way to make a movie. I mean, you could get 10 HV20s and 10 film students and tell them all to stand in the same place but film different parts of the scene. It probably wouldn't guarantee a good result.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com