Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Maximum push-in and still be at 1080p?

Stephen Pruitt

Stephen Pruitt

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
3,302
Reaction score
39
Points
48
Website
www.thetreemotionpicture.com
Hi all. . .

This is probably the stupidest question of the day, but here goes: I'm editing a 2:1 4K film on CS5.5 and I want to push in a shot. . . a lot. What I don't know is how far I can push a shot in and still stay at a 1080p resolution. I'm not sure how the push-in percentages work. If my current 4K shot is at 100%, what do I get when I push it in to 200%? 300%? 400%?

I'm not sure how the math works here. It seems to me that a 200% push-in would be the maximum, but if it is done in terms of the total number of pixels on the screen, we could push it in much further.

Thanks for the help.

Stephen
 
Hi Stephen,

In my experience it's not so much about how many pixels you have to work with, it's more about how far you can push in before it doesn't appeal to your eye.

For me, I find if I try to use the image 1:1 it doesn't have nearly the same effect as having a beautifully oversampled source. Cutting them together could make it stick out.

To answer your question, if 4K 2:1 is 4096x2048, pushing to 200% will give you 2048x1024, which is smaller height than 1080. About 190% will get you to about the right place but you will be cropping the sides as 2:1 is much wider than 16:9 (1080p)

Beware that you are now 1:1 so look closely to ensure your image looks as good as everything around it. Remember, oversampling is king! :coolgleamA:

Is there a reason you shot 2:1 if you are editing at 16:9? Perhaps TV/BluRay release initially followed by cinema?

Hope this helps!
 
Thanks, Jim. . . it does help. It's what my gut told me, but I wanted to be sure.

I actually don't like 16:9, but I love 2:1. Apparently, Jim Jannard feels the exact same way. So, what we do when we go to DVD/Blu-ray is preserve the original 2:1 aspect ratio and have small bars at the top and bottom.

Thanks again!

Stephen
 
jimhare said:
To answer your question, if 4K 2:1 is 4096x2048, pushing to 200% will give you 2048x1024, which is smaller height than 1080. About 190% will get you to about the right place...
Click to expand...

I still would take debayer efficience by 80% off resolution...

Pat
 
jimhare said:
Hi Stephen,

In my experience it's not so much about how many pixels you have to work with, it's more about how far you can push in before it doesn't appeal to your eye.

For me, I find if I try to use the image 1:1 it doesn't have nearly the same effect as having a beautifully oversampled source. Cutting them together could make it stick out.

To answer your question, if 4K 2:1 is 4096x2048, pushing to 200% will give you 2048x1024, which is smaller height than 1080. About 190% will get you to about the right place but you will be cropping the sides as 2:1 is much wider than 16:9 (1080p)

Beware that you are now 1:1 so look closely to ensure your image looks as good as everything around it. Remember, oversampling is king!

!
Click to expand...

All this is true. Another thing to look at as you do this is how sharpening the image looks after you've done the crop. Try a couple of different methods, if the software you're using allows. Depending on the material, it can help make the image look better and make it fit into the surrounding sequence better. Test it, and trust your eyes.
 
Stephen -- I actually know this well. I use 4k for this reason often.

I always finish in After Effects. If I want reframe an interview or push-in digitally, After Effects is the place to finish. I would have to look at how to do this in Premiere Pro. But in After Effects you can import your whole timeline with Dynamic Link, or just by dragging your sequence from your project window and dropping it into the After Effects Project Window. It will import your R3D assets and recreate your Premiere Pro Timeline entirely.

From there, you can change the project settings to 1080p and reformat the dimensions to 1920x1080. From there all of your R3D footage will be windowed out -- in other words, you will only see the middle of the shot.

From there, start to play with the Scale on each layer -- or all of them at once selecting all and playing with any one scale setting.

Now you can scale the R3D back down to it's native framing by changing the scale to 47%. That will get you to your original framing and include your black bars top and bottom on 2:1.

I hope this makes sense. It works for me every day. Post back with questions.
 
Hey there, Andrew. . . thanks for the tip.

I'm using Premiere Pro to do our push-ins now (I definitely do a fair amount of reframing on some scenes). Here is a "scale" button that allows me to set exactly what sort of "push-in" percentage I'm interested in. It is my understanding, which may not be true, that when I export from the PP timeline, it automatically pulls directly from the R3D at the associated push-in resolution. I don't have After Effects, so I'm not sure if it's different from your methodology or not. I'm just in the rough-cutting stage anyway, so it doesn't matter all that much at this point.

Anyway, thanks for all of the help!

Stephen
 
Andrew Patterson said:
Stephen -- I actually know this well. I use 4k for this reason often.

I always finish in After Effects. If I want reframe an interview or push-in digitally, After Effects is the place to finish. I would have to look at how to do this in Premiere Pro. But in After Effects you can import your whole timeline with Dynamic Link, or just by dragging your sequence from your project window and dropping it into the After Effects Project Window. It will import your R3D assets and recreate your Premiere Pro Timeline entirely.

From there, you can change the project settings to 1080p and reformat the dimensions to 1920x1080. From there all of your R3D footage will be windowed out -- in other words, you will only see the middle of the shot.

From there, start to play with the Scale on each layer -- or all of them at once selecting all and playing with any one scale setting.

Now you can scale the R3D back down to it's native framing by changing the scale to 47%. That will get you to your original framing and include your black bars top and bottom on 2:1.

I hope this makes sense. It works for me every day. Post back with questions.
Click to expand...

It is best to resize the project like this or is it best to resize the project on output? i have always worked in a k4 timeline for as long as i can. If i want to do a push in i enlarge the file beyond 100% knowing that i'll only be exporting at 1920? i export via AE. any thoughts?
 
Okay -- I'll see if I can explain my findings and experience.

Based on a Resolution only approach, it appears that you can push-in/blow-up/scale up/reframe a 4K image to 213% for the purpose of retaining and outputting at 1080p Resolution. This is based on Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5.5 and After Effects CS 5.5.

I have actually found that the better approach rather than blowing it up from a 4K sequence is to reduce it from 4K to a 1080p Sequence. And here is my step by step process:


  • Edit your sequence at 4K in your editor (I use Avid)
    • If you aren't editing in Premiere Pro Natively, Import to Premiere Pro or After Effects as a 4K Sequence and relink to R3D using EDL or AAF
  • In Premiere Pro or After Effects create a New Sequence that is 1080p
  • Open your original 4K sequence and Copy the entire timeline
  • Open your 1080p Sequence and Paste your entire timeline
  • Now you have a sequence that only show the middle of the R3D image
  • Now you know exactly, in terms of resolution, how far you can push-in/scale-up/reframe
  • Scale to Taste
    • For 4K 16x9, to scale down to 1080p -- 47%
    • For 3K 16x9, to scale down to 1080p -- 62.5%
Now, this doesn't account for losing resolution due to the Bayer Pattern Sensor. But as far as pixel for pixel up-scaling, this is a method that has worked for me for a couple years.

Let me know if this doesn't answer the above questions and I'll try to clarify.
 
Andrew,

your workflow makes sense. I wonder if there is a benefit for working in a 4k timeline when applying effects in either PP CS5 or EA CS5? would there be a quality difference in applying the same effect to a 4k timeline and a 1920 timeline?
 
I always stay in a 4K timeline/Sequence as long as possible for effects & rendering. That way the render/effect is done at the top of the food chain before I scale-up/reframe or down-res to 1080p. I think this is a given to stay at the highest resolution for the longest time when doing color correction, effects, renders, etc.

Also, in Premiere Pro or After Effects, you should also probably change the default sequence Color Bit Setting from 8-Bit to 16, since R3D is definitely not 8-Bit.

Any output after will be better from all renders/color correction/effects being done in 4K. Conforming is a last step before output.
 
In After Effects, it's at the bottom of the Project Window. It says "8 bpc" -- change that to 16 if you are creating effects and whatnot.

In Premiere Pro, I believe since it is accessing the R3D natively, it is operating at 12-Bits since that is the R3D Bit Rate.

But when creative media, you should definitely be above 8-Bit.
 
Andrew Patterson said:
I always stay in a 4K timeline/Sequence as long as possible for effects & rendering. That way the render/effect is done at the top of the food chain before I scale-up/reframe or down-res to 1080p. I think this is a given to stay at the highest resolution for the longest time when doing color correction, effects, renders, etc.

Also, in Premiere Pro or After Effects, you should also probably change the default sequence Color Bit Setting from 8-Bit to 16, since R3D is definitely not 8-Bit.

Any output after will be better from all renders/color correction/effects being done in 4K. Conforming is a last step before output.
Click to expand...

I am not an Adobe engineer, but based on the program's behavior, I believe that AE applies effects to the layer before scaling it. I suspect this because if you apply a blur or a soft shadow to a layer that is being scaled down, the blur is scaled down as well. As a result, you have to use a larger blur setting to get the expected blur (unless you pre-compose the layer).

That would mean that working in a 1080 composition is just as good (quality-wise) as working in a 4K comp and then scaling down at output.
 
Andrew Patterson said:
In After Effects, it's at the bottom of the Project Window. It says "8 bpc" -- change that to 16 if you are creating effects and whatnot.

In Premiere Pro, I believe since it is accessing the R3D natively, it is operating at 12-Bits since that is the R3D Bit Rate.

But when creative media, you should definitely be above 8-Bit.
Click to expand...

Even better, if you work in 32bit float, there is room for overbrights without clipping.

In PPro, many of the effects work in 32bit color space, even though the program only displays 10-bit color. Here's a rather long blog post about color handling in PPro. It's worth a read
 
I've done that many times. IMHO, these points have to be considered:

1. Graeme Nattress claims that Red has a debayer "factor" of roughly 80%, meaning that the transcoded RGB picture contains 80% of the RAW source's resolution. Other RAW experts set this factor more to 75%. Lets presume Graeme is right and calculate how large the RAW source must be for a full resolving 1080p picture: 2400 x 0.8 = 1920 . Therefore, it makes sense to start with a minimum RAW source of 2400 x 1350 for a full resolving 1080p picture - the more flesh, the better. 3K transcodes very nicely to 1080p and is "fat" enough to "bare" some noise in the RAW.

Everyone who tried to transcode 2K R3Ds to 1080p know that this formula works very well. 2K to 1080 is an underwhelming experience, logically - 2048 x 0.8 = 1638 which is an upscale to 1920.

2. Every software has its own scaling abilities. The scaling abilities of FCP, for instance, are rather poor. AE does a much better job, so does Shake or Smoke. I have no clue how well Premier Pro does the scaling job but I doubt that it will be as good as AE other compositors that are made for such a task.

3. The better the source the better the scaled result. I transcode to the highest possible resolution with noise reduction to 0 and all the sharpening off. Sharpening, etc... can be much better applied later. I find that RedCineX and Storm do a decent job in this regard. With the two applications you can reframe within the software and get very convincing results.

Hans
 
Last edited:
I'm doing exactly the same thing and have decided (arbitrarily) to limit myself to 160% while still at 2:1. Of course I also take into account what is in the scene (like noise or lack for contrast. I am also successfully pushing in during a shot by hiding it in camera moves (like in whip pans or certain dolly movements that have a forward component). Part of the beauty of shooting a low budget indie on the Red is that you can shoot wide-ish and bounce into tighter coverage in the edit.

Still undecided how I will do the 16:9 conversion when the time comes.

Bob
 
Hans -- I am glad to know this. I was careful in my posts to state that the numbers I was using was based completely on Pixel Information and did to factor in the Bayer Pattern Resolution Loss. I have only used the push in over 200% a couple of times and don't suggest it for any heavy lifting. In my case, I was finishing to Standard Definition DVD, so I could have pushed in significantly more in that instance.

I just appreciate the fact that you can reframe at all, relatively speaking. I noticed that David Fincher used this many times in "The Social Network", which finished at 2K. There's a featurette on Adobe's website that shows how they conformed the whole movie in After Effect and you can tell that they extended shots, digitally added to sets/locations and pushed in digitlally in various places for better framing and composition. Incredibly Handy!
 
Andrew Patterson said:
Incredibly Handy!
Click to expand...

Yes. Indeed it is. The significantly higher resolution of Red's RAW files compared to the RGB delivery format is, IMHO, the big selling point of Red. Nice 1080p pictures deliver other camera manufacturers as well. Wether 4K is going to be THE delivery format of the near future or not remains to be seen but 1080p is now and the ability to "knead" the material, scale to a significant extend, etc... is huge.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top