Thread: 4.5K 2.40:1 or 4K 2:1 for 2.40:1 Widescreen film release?

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    20
    4.5K, if I remember right, was not available untill last spring. I remember becouse I shot a film last summer on 4.5K. The workflow wasn't perfect last summer, so the time they shot Social Network it wasn't possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Richard Foster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    USA, Caribbean, England
    Posts
    656
    Thank you all for your answers. Quality is very important to me, so even though 4480/4096 is only a 10% difference, I'll take all I can get. I am concerned about the Color problem Patrick mentioned. I will have to test it, but does anyone else have info? I just assumed Color could handle 4480x1920 4.5K.
    Richard Foster
    http://www.fosterent.com
    RED MX #1058 "Secretariat"

    If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. - Einstein

    Carpe Diem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member Patrick Tresch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Switzerland, Lausanne
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Foster View Post
    I am concerned about the Color problem Patrick mentioned. I will have to test it, but does anyone else have info? I just assumed Color could handle 4480x1920 4.5K.
    Colors does a half debayer and see the 4,5k footage as 2240x960. The solution I'm thinking of is to render from REDCINE-X dpx either in 4k ana flat 4096x1744 (41MB/frame) or 2k ana squeezed 2048x1744 (18MB/frame) (wich is the format for my 35mm scan) but the second option is not good for a 4k DCP.

    Here some fast tests I've done from original files shot in 4,5k output in 2k dpx from Color, and from REDCINE-X (full debayer). Please test yourself to get your final decision.

    Greatings

    Patrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    I guess 4.5K would make a difference but with I wonder 2.4:1 would look on 5K on the Epic.

    I never liked the idea of chopping off lines from the top and bottom of the image just to give it a certain aspect ratio. I think the real difference maker on the Red one would be an Anamorphic lens to get 2.35 to you don't have to cut off so much when you go for 2.40
    wiihacks.com may know how to mod your wii but they will steal your money. Do not join their website, do not donate to them, do not give them any single second of your time.

    JOB LISTING:
    Willing to write a story outline for either film or tv(updated August 16, 2010)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member sandro-bachmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    stuttgart
    Posts
    139
    How much are we away, from 2:35:1 by shooting 4,5K ?

    if i remeber right, its something around 2:33:1 right?

    i like the idea, of shooting the way, your final product has to look like.

    i just, like to see, the final format an set, and not going to crop and chopping the image later in post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member Ravi Kiran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert McGee View Post
    I never liked the idea of chopping off lines from the top and bottom of the image just to give it a certain aspect ratio. I think the real difference maker on the Red one would be an Anamorphic lens to get 2.35 to you don't have to cut off so much when you go for 2.40
    It would be great to have a custom anamorphic lens for 16:9 sensors so that you could use it to get 2.40:1 without cropping the sides the way you do with 2x anamorphic lenses. That way you get extra resolution and the anamorphic flares and bokeh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts