So, annoying podcasts aside, have you had an issue shooting 4K? Why did you shoot 4K? What was your final master? What camera did you use? What was your workflow? Where did your production actually suffer?
I recently was on set to shoot this music video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckGpFjV5yXA
I was there as the VFX supervisor and ultimately, did the compositing and VFX. We shot with a pair of RED Dragons (one was on a steadicam, the other on a dolly- we had a ton of media). The edit was smooth, using proxy footage in premiere and then ultimately finishing on my Smoke (Smoke on Mac 2015- running on a hackintosh).
Now, our footage was 6K, which is by all means insanely stupid for a music clip that will be mastered at HD. But it made certain crew members feel better, and once I down sampled that footage to HD it keyed nicely.
It is worth noting, that I have had 4K composites with 20+ layers and it sucks. But these are projects for cinema that needed a 4K final clip.
Thats the thing- it sucks when you need to master in 4K. However, in my experience shooting an ultra HD format is still beneficial because you can immediately down sample the footage to something more manageable. Yes, some cameras cost more money to shoot raw, but if possible, why not capture a larger image and then process it down?
One common misconception about UHD is that I don't believe in punching in on it anymore than 35-30%. This is the same amount I suggest to clients when punching in on an 1920x1080 image. I hear so many people talking about reframing shots "because they are shooting 5K" and thats crazy. If the rest of your 5K footage is down sampled at 1:1 that 3:1 shot is going to stand out. It will look soft by comparison. The grain pattern larger and a colorist is likely to crank the sharpness to try to offset it.
Resolution is one aspect of image quality. Ultimately, it may not even be the most important one. There is no reason to be afraid of UHD. There is also no reason to not make a movie because you cant shoot 4K. Back to my original question- what are the rules or standards you are shooting by?
I recently was on set to shoot this music video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckGpFjV5yXA
I was there as the VFX supervisor and ultimately, did the compositing and VFX. We shot with a pair of RED Dragons (one was on a steadicam, the other on a dolly- we had a ton of media). The edit was smooth, using proxy footage in premiere and then ultimately finishing on my Smoke (Smoke on Mac 2015- running on a hackintosh).
Now, our footage was 6K, which is by all means insanely stupid for a music clip that will be mastered at HD. But it made certain crew members feel better, and once I down sampled that footage to HD it keyed nicely.
It is worth noting, that I have had 4K composites with 20+ layers and it sucks. But these are projects for cinema that needed a 4K final clip.
Thats the thing- it sucks when you need to master in 4K. However, in my experience shooting an ultra HD format is still beneficial because you can immediately down sample the footage to something more manageable. Yes, some cameras cost more money to shoot raw, but if possible, why not capture a larger image and then process it down?
One common misconception about UHD is that I don't believe in punching in on it anymore than 35-30%. This is the same amount I suggest to clients when punching in on an 1920x1080 image. I hear so many people talking about reframing shots "because they are shooting 5K" and thats crazy. If the rest of your 5K footage is down sampled at 1:1 that 3:1 shot is going to stand out. It will look soft by comparison. The grain pattern larger and a colorist is likely to crank the sharpness to try to offset it.
Resolution is one aspect of image quality. Ultimately, it may not even be the most important one. There is no reason to be afraid of UHD. There is also no reason to not make a movie because you cant shoot 4K. Back to my original question- what are the rules or standards you are shooting by?