This video is sponsored by Squarespace, the one-stop-shop for building your website.
What is it with this recent obsession with high resolution images?
From gaming, to smartphone cameras, to, what we talk about on this channel,
films and cinematography. Why is the highest peak of photography associated with high resolution?
If you’ve ever worked professionally with cameras,
the first thing that people like to ask is: does it shoot 4K?
Maybe part of this is based on our continuous pursuit of technological advancement.
We tend to think that newer, bigger, sharper, faster,
is always better. Well I think this isn’t always true. Particularly when it comes to art.
So let’s talk a bit about what resolution actually is
and why I think high resolution isn’t always a good thing.
“Resolution is just nonsense.”
Some quick background on resolution. It refers to the amount of detail that an image holds.
This can be measured in different ways but in the world of video and
digital cinematography it is measured in pixels - tiny elements which record light.
Each pixel records a measurement of light and converts that data to a colour. I like
to think of pixels like bricks in a building. With each brick painted in a different colour.
When you have a small wall made up of very few bricks, the image will appear more blocky
or low resolution, whereas if you have a massive skyscraper with a ton of bricks,
an image will appear clearer with greater detail.
If you set this YouTube video to 240 pixels it will be low res and
blocky. If you set it to 1080 pixels it will be higher res with greater detail.
Most digital cinema cameras use Bayer sensors to capture light in pixels with a red, green and blue
pattern. 1000s of red, green and blue pixels are combined to create a representation of reality.
But enough with all the technical talk.
Why does resolution matter? Surely the more detail that a camera can capture the better the image is?
Well, this is where I disagree. Just because an image can be recorded in 8K
and resolve extreme detail it doesn’t mean that it is always appropriate to do so.
In the world of art, painting photo-realistic images that are
super sharp is one method of expression. You also get other painters that paint with broader,
more abstract strokes that express feeling rather than only focusing on
creating the highest fidelity image that perfectly represents reality.
Both are valid forms of expression.
In the same way, some filmmakers may prefer to tell their stories with less refined brushstrokes
using a medium with a lower resolution that captures less detail
like 1080p or even 16mm film as opposed to an 8K digital camera.
High or low resolution should be seen as a tool rather than something which is
mandated. An image being captured in a higher resolution doesn’t make it inherently better.
Resolving huge amounts of detail through high res
capture means that things like skin will reveal every pore and blemish.
Whereas resolving less detail gets rid of these unflattering flaws in a natural way.
It’s like when you meet someone in real life. Your eyes don’t fixate on the fine
details of a person’s skin. They focus on the face as a whole. Photographing
faces at a slightly lower resolution removes the focus on micro details.
I think that the way in which cinema is viewed now
also makes super high resolution images a little bit off-putting.
But before I get to that I’d like to thank the sponsor of today’s video Squarespace.
When it came to creating a website for this channel I needed a platform which was quick
and easy to use but also one that provided a good, modern level of design.
That’s why I went with Squarespace.
I post my weekly videos there using Squarespace’s blogging tools and
when I finish them ahead of time I use the scheduling capability to streamline the process.
For anyone looking to get into filmmaking having an up-to-date portfolio is a must,
which you can easily make using Squarespace’s customizable galleries.
So, go to Squarespace.com for a free trial, and when you’re ready to launch,
go to squarespace.com/indepthcine to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.
The way in which films are consumed by audiences is undeniably changing. We’ve
gone from sitting way back in a cinema viewing projections on a large screen
to watching content up close on laptops or phones.
The larger the image projected and the further away you are from it, the more subtle the level
of sharpness becomes. So when you watch Netflix on your laptop a few inches from your face
the sharpness of the image will feel magnified.
I think the close viewing of high resolution video on
high resolution screens results in images which are overly sharp images and a bit less…romantic.
Perhaps this is just personal preference but, aesthetically, I find that super crisp digital
cinematography can come off as feeling more video-y. More like broadcast TV on a 4K screen.
And actually, I don’t think I’m alone in this. Not amongst cinematographers anyway.
I’ve camera assisted on loads of shoots, and I’ve witnessed an overwhelming percentage
of those DOPs pair high resolution digital cinema cameras with either diffusion filters,
like an ⅛ or a ¼ Black Pro Mist or a Glimmer Glass, or pair them with vintage lenses.
This is to take some of the sharpness and edge off of the high resolution digital sensor.
Too much sharpness just feels artificial and unnatural.
Far fewer cinematographers pair high resolution digital cameras with modern high resolution lenses
like Leica Summilux-Cs, the Alura or Master Primes without any filtration. And most of
the time this is where the client or studio demands that the product must be very sharp.
I think this pursuit of maximum resolution and clarity follows the same pursuit of perfectly
santitised, idealised images which are created for many contemporary mainstream Hollywood movies.
For example, myself and my filmmaker friend always joke about the fact that most featured
extras in the background or actors with smaller roles in Hollywood films these days are now cast
to super good looking, young models. Instead of the average, everyday folk which would be
present in older movies. Like, come on, are these really what experienced scientists look like?
In the same way I think an overly sharp presentation of reality
creates a cinematic world that is, photographically too perfect.
Finally, an important consideration when choosing gear is not only the creative or
photographic look it has but also its economic and practical implications.
This isn’t really a consideration for high budget films,
but for lower budget projects, higher resolution cameras are more expensive to shoot with.
More storage space on hard drives is required and more processing power is needed to edit
and deal with that footage in post production.
Now I’m not saying that all films should be shot on 8mm film or at 720p. I think that
for most digital projects, shooting and finishing them in a standard 1080p or 2K
format is probably enough resolution to yield a sharp enough, but not overly sharp result.
However my main point is that sometimes 2K doesn’t feel right. Sometimes 8K is correct for capturing
the project. Sometimes a 2K scan of 16mm film is correct. Some films should be finished in 4K.
Certain stories may benefit from capturing extreme details, giving images a hyper sharp,
artificial digital look or benefit from the extra pixels needed for intensive visual effects work.
The choice of the resolution should always be a practical and artistic choice that is motivated
by the story and not just a default decision that is mandated or enforced.
Just because technology can do something, doesn’t mean it’s always right.
What do you think? Is 4K always the way to go? Let me know in the comments.
I’d also like to say a special thanks to all Patrons who continue to support the
channel and keep it going. Otherwise until next time, thanks for watching and goodbye.