Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

4k cropped or shoot 2k?

S

Steve Phillipps

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
897
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Website
www.stevephillipps.com
Just wondering if there was a technical reason why shooting 4k and cropping / zooming in in post would not look as good shooting 2k natively?
As far as I'm aware, all the 2k is doing is cropping in camera, so I assume you'll get the same results in post?
Obviously you save disc space with 2k, and also get higher frame rates.
Thanks,
Steve
 
Well, there are some reasons to shoot 2K natively vs 4K. Technicaly the most sound one is obviously the additional frame rates. Also, lets not forget the redcode compressions selectable during these different modes. You might be able to use a lower compression redcode in 2K recording, which could help compared if you're shooting 4K mirror with a Higher compression redcode.

Shooting 2K gives you also a much better (personal opinion here) "view"of the shot you want cropped. It doesn't allow much in terms of reframing, but it allows for the Director of Photography or Camera operator to correctly frame the shot and get the proper "feel" and composition he wants.

Shooting 2K also can make your not so telephoto lens become telephoto. But it demands much more from them. If they aren't sharp, then in 2K they are going to look very soft in both scenarios, cropped from 4K or native 2K.

Remember thought that shooting 2K on Epic, in my personal experience, is very unforgiving if you underexpose. Get your exposure right and, if in doubt, overexpose to avoid excessive noise when going to post!
 
All good points Sergio.
It's telephoto cropping that's one of my main reasons for wanting to shoot 2k - but shooting 4k, as long as the quality is the same as native 2k, you have more options - crop in for the extra telephoto reach or stay withe the full frame for a wider shot - it's like having a sequence-building zoom in a prime!
Steve
 
Steve Phillipps said:
Just wondering if there was a technical reason why shooting 4k and cropping / zooming in in post would not look as good shooting 2k natively?ap
Steve
Click to expand...

Steve, I think I remember Jim saying many times, if I got him well, that shooting 4K then crop in post was better than shooting at lower resolution (if you don't need higer frame rates, naturally). The reason for which I don't quite remember. From a practical standpoint, I use long to very long telephotos for wildlife, and I always prefer to shoot 3 or 4K. Of course, if you want the same apparent magnification, the higher the "K"'s, the bigger the telephoto, the shallower the DOF and the harder the proper focussing... resulting in more missed shots. But the gain in quality is worth it.
 
Thanks Denis, and of course using a "higher K" would be ideal but there is a limit to just how big a lens you can use! At 5k resolution even an 800mm f5.6 is not that powerful. This has also been a bit of an issue with the Phantom HD - coming from a 2/3" chip camera you'd need something like a 3000mm lens to equal an HJ40!
Steve
 
Steve Phillipps said:
.This has also been a bit of an issue with the Phantom HD - coming from a 2/3" chip camera you'd need something like a 3000mm lens to equal an HJ40!
Steve
Click to expand...

Sure... I didn't mean to teach rocket science :-) Coming from tiny sensors myself, I found it difficult to adapt... And I sure don't need 5 K. 800mm, 4 or 3K is perfect...You loose magnification, but at least your subject is free to move in the frame and looks what it is : free in its natural environment. I suspect that it was the lack of resolution that partly caused the need for very tight frames... Red allow more natural frames, while retaining all the detail we need. And if I need real close-ups, well... I manage to get closer. Anyway, if you need a bigger lens, it must mean you shoot from a distance that will cause massive heat shimmer... IMHO, the real problem with big lenses is the extra weight and the shallow dof when shooting a moving subject... M
 
Denis Buhot said:
I suspect that it was the lack of resolution that partly caused the need for very tight frames... Red allow more natural frames, while retaining all the detail we need. And if I need real close-ups, well... I manage to get closer.
Click to expand...

That's certainly a factor, but the main need for tight frames is in order to be able to cut a sequence (you can make a whole sequence from BCUs but not from mid shots), as well as the impact that CUs give, especially in slow motion.
And you're absolutely right about getting close, definitely the best option, and I'm definitely not a fan of bigger and bigger lenses, but there are limits. I've always had the benchmark for wildlife being a 600mm lens on Super 16 or 2/3" chip - more than that and as you say you get lots of haze, plus camera shake and other problems, but less than that and you lack pulling power. So the equivalent on 4k is around 1500mm? But, because you can crop without quality loss then a 600mm should be fine.
Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top