Cinematography : What Matters to You (in a camera)? by Jaap Ruurd Feitsma

Everything, the whole package has to be reliable every use, every day. Been fortunate to play with RED and Arri Alexa. I care more about grip equipment - sliders, dollies, tripods, tracks, cranes, steadicams, drones - than the cameras.

Totally agree with you there, Dan MaxXx!

I deliberately didn't mention dollies, lighting setups or lenses (those are very, VERY important as well :P), etc., but simply talked about cameras exclusively for this post.

But indeed, everything you use needs to work properly throughout the entire workflow of the production. :) God I love this job haha!

Ergonomics appropriate to the shooting style are tops; if the operator has to fight the camera, the camera is at fault. ENG/Doc work usually dictates a traditionally configured camera form (think most Sony cameras, Arri Amira); some do it better than others. All DSLRS, REDs, BM fail at it IMHO, some more blatantly than others. Any camera can be studio rigged, but the proper kit to make that operator-appropriate will still matter. Tons of cabling and offboard gack and fiddly mounts to accomplish what was more elegantly perfected decades ago is silly, but people put up with it often because they haven't known and used better. In addition to ergonomics, and equal to it, robust reliability and readily available backups, parts, service. Then we have color space, latitude ( dynamic range) and exactly how the camera's color science interprets and renders what it sees. Things like codecs and image processing can matter or not depending on the intended use and later manipulation of the image if any. All these things are from a DPs point of view. Wearing a producer hat, it's most important the camera system and workflow deliver the footage to the expectation of client or intended market; always always always go backwards from the delivery goals to narrow the equipment choices that will then fit shooting style. The right tools for a specific given goal usually make a very short list.

What type of lenses do you prefer, Willem Lodewijk Elzenga? I try and do a whole project with 2, max 3 (prime) lenses. There are of course exceptions.

The look of the camera’s image is the first thing that I consider for a given project. Which camera or cameras will best translate the story’s images in my head onto the screen. Next comes a peek at the budget, and how does the best choice now become compromised? Cameras deal with sensitivity, resolution, latitude, and colour range. All of those things can be lessened but never made greater without other, possibly negative, effects on the image. Shooting resolution is often dictated by the deliverables for the project. The highest resolution you can shoot in, knowing all the ancillary effects that choice will have on the image and the production, the better. As long as you are in control in post, you can lower resolution in specific shots or objects in shots. Sensitivity is important, low as well as high. High sensitivity lessens the amount of light needed, so smaller lights needing less power. A lot of latitude makes things quicker, easier and cheaper since not as much lighting is needed for fill. Colour has a couple of aspects, range and accuracy. The larger the range of colour, gamut and bit depth, the more subtly you have to work with. In conjunction with lighting, the accuracy of reproduction is critical, particularly for faces.

Camera choice has many parameters but the relative importance of the various aspects of your picture as you interpret it, are what leads to the final choice that I make as a DP.

As technologist I can't say that a wide dynamic range or high resolution is a bad idea. The market is moving into this direction. But I don't think would change for drama movies or comedies. But I must say it's an absolute for action and scifi movies.

IMO the most important factors are the look. I'm not as concerned in most cases about the accuracy of the color as I am about how pleasing it looks. Resolution is a fringe benefit rather than a primary criterion, and factors like sensitivity and dynamic range affect how easy it is to use. As Andrew pointed out, having switched from a camera with a base ISO of 200 and a dynamic range of 12 stops to a camera with a base ISO of 800 and a dynamic range of 16 stops, things just became easier. A 1K through a scrim was now enough light to get an exposure that required a 2K open face without modifiers, so I have a lot more latitude for sculpting the light without needing bigger and more expensive fixtures.

I think it really comes down to the project you are rolling on. I own and shoot on a mirrorless GH5 in a cage with follow focus, shotgun mic, and a monitor for my personal work. My rig is setup so I can quickly snap it into a fluid head and slider or lift it off and go shoulder mounted. It’s a one man camera and the 4K and 10-bit is a lovely bonus. It works great on sets that need short setup times. I’ve worked with the Alexa classic and it is a 2-3 person tank of a camera. If you have the time where you might get 25 setups a day then opt for that kind of shooting. If you need to get 45-50 setups, use a cam that is light and nimble. I know of a couple other DPs that swear by Sony A7S cams who have done features and they look incredible. Really very few people have ever seen an image and have been able to tell what it was sourced off of. My last short had people wondering if I ran a full sized sensor camera.

Lots of variables. Are you doing color correction afterward? More control in post, higher cost... Talk is the day is coming when everybody is going to want 4k. That day is not today. I shot a film a year ago with 4K. For the most part, the detail in 4k is only going to show up in a theater. For that reason, I edited in 2K, which was awesome for editing because is gave me a ton of flexibility. If I have a choice in the future, I will shoot 4k, simply for that reason. We used a Sony A7, which was great in low light conditions...

Almost every film nominated for an Oscar this year was shot at 2k or max 3.8k. THE K's DO NOT MATTER!!!! 35mm print, scanned is a 2.5k image. We've never needed more than that and we never will need more than that. Large Format is wonderful to have, but only for key moments, like large establishing shots with the compression of a portraiture lens. You see this often. Even many films said to be shot on the Alexa 65 were only using the Alexa65 maybe 30% of the time. All of the normal coverage in-scene is still captured at 3.8k on an Alexa Mini.

To support this idea, remember that most 4k TVs are Upsampling a 1080 image to 4k... guess what. It looks amazing. 3.8k upsampled to 8k is the same darn thing. Looks amazing.

This is a deep habit hole, and there are many more issues to consider. Size and depth of each pixel is a big one... and the affects smaller pixels have on Moire, Halation, and other issues that actually make sharp edges far more blurry and therefore terrible for VFX.

Check out Steve Yedlin's amazing study in Resolution and Deliverables on YouTube. (He's the DP from a little film called Star Wars: The Last Jedi) He kinda knows what he's talking about. ;)