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 :)

Do you shoot in 4k 16x9 or 4k 2:1?

Kevin -
Yes, 1920x1080 is correct when using L&T for importing 4K HD. I'm not cataloging it as a "bug," but the files do behave differently when using the EasySetup "match" function as compared to 4K 2:1 files. But ProRes is ideal for editorial in FCP anyway, so Apple might have automatically set the compressor to that since it enhances the performance over the compressor "Redcode."

Jason-
HD is not 16:9 per-say. The initial definition of "HD" was technically resolution raster sizes between 1280x720 and 1920x1080 (this has been up for debate because it renders cameras like the HVX200 glorified PAL cameras and not actually HD since they don't achieve square pixel 720p). But ether way, HD (in this case) is defined as 1920x1080, which is not a full aperture resolution you can get with 2:1. 4KHD is exactly 4 x 1920x1080. In fact, it's not even 4K, is 3.8K. There was a time where this mode was going to be called "QuadHD" (which I think is less confusing) but this mode is by far the best mode the camera offers for television driven post production. I recommend total elimination of 2:1, as 4KHD makes this mode uselss. If you want more pixels, you shoot 4K16:9. If you want better performance and storage economy, you shoot 4KHD.

James-
I have seen 4KHD, 4K 16:9 and 4K 2:1 on film. The best way to put it is no, you will not see a difference because the film softens the image anyway. However, you will feel a difference in the varying performances you get in posting each of the formats.
Brandon points out the pros and cons of the 2 formats well, and conveniently leaves out 4K2:1 (again, an essentially useless format) but if you want the actual difference then 4KHD is the sharpest in 1080p. 4K16:9 is the sharpest on film.

michael

Michael Cioni
Founder, PlasterCITY Digital Post
www.plastercity.com
 
Yes, but that won't allow us to "Send to Color" and maintain RAW, I don't believe, which is a big part of the Apple/RED workflow.

Ugh. Hope they get this stuff sorted out and soon. We've gotten great results, but can't wait to test less...

Thanks.

Kevin


Michael_PlasterCITY said:
Kevin -
Yes, 1920x1080 is correct when using L&T for importing 4K HD. I'm not cataloging it as a "bug," but the files do behave differently when using the EasySetup "match" function as compared to 4K 2:1 files. But ProRes is ideal for editorial in FCP anyway, so Apple might have automatically set the compressor to that since it enhances the performance over the compressor "Redcode."

Jason-
HD is not 16:9 per-say. The initial definition of "HD" was technically resolution raster sizes between 1280x720 and 1920x1080 (this has been up for debate because it renders cameras like the HVX200 glorified PAL cameras and not actually HD since they don't achieve square pixel 720p). But ether way, HD (in this case) is defined as 1920x1080, which is not a full aperture resolution you can get with 2:1. 4KHD is exactly 4 x 1920x1080. In fact, it's not even 4K, is 3.8K. There was a time where this mode was going to be called "QuadHD" (which I think is less confusing) but this mode is by far the best mode the camera offers for television driven post production. I recommend total elimination of 2:1, as 4KHD makes this mode uselss. If you want more pixels, you shoot 4K16:9. If you want better performance and storage economy, you shoot 4KHD.

James-
I have seen 4KHD, 4K 16:9 and 4K 2:1 on film. The best way to put it is no, you will not see a difference because the film softens the image anyway. However, you will feel a difference in the varying performances you get in posting each of the formats.
Brandon points out the pros and cons of the 2 formats well, and conveniently leaves out 4K2:1 (again, an essentially useless format) but if you want the actual difference then 4KHD is the sharpest in 1080p. 4K16:9 is the sharpest on film.

michael

Michael Cioni
Founder, PlasterCITY Digital Post
www.plastercity.com
Click to expand...
 
What is the difference in FOV? I suppose minimal.

I 16:9 would also be a good idea for 1080p output if you were concerned with stabilization, or wanted a bit of extra resolution for a bit of re-framing, and you didn't mind the render times, or the extra work necessary to crop a 4kHD frame out of the 16:9, which I suppose would be possible for a 1080p downconvert. Right?

If that is correct then perhaps I would want to shoot 16:9 for helicopter or driving shots for stabilization and make sure to get my framing right on set, as it should be... :glare:

I'd love to see a comparison between a 1080 out of 16:9 and 4kHD to take a look at just how noticeable the difference in sharpness is.
 
USlatin said:
What is the difference in FOV? I suppose minimal.

I 16:9 would also be a good idea for 1080p output if you were concerned with stabilization, or wanted a bit of extra resolution for a bit of re-framing, and you didn't mind the render times, or the extra work necessary to crop a 4kHD frame out of the 16:9, which I suppose would be possible for a 1080p downconvert. Right?

If that is correct then perhaps I would want to shoot 16:9 for helicopter or driving shots for stabilization and make sure to get my framing right on set, as it should be... :glare:

I'd love to see a comparison between a 1080 out of 16:9 and 4kHD to take a look at just how noticeable the difference in sharpness is.
Click to expand...

The FoV difference isn't too significant. It's easy to see just by switching back and forth and watching how it affects the frame.

Since nothing I shoot is made specifically for broadcast, I prefer full 4k, since I get my widest wides and the shallowest DoF when I need it.

Anyone know the difference in data rate between 16x9, HD, and 2:1? I'd be very curious to know the difference.
 
Thanks very much Brandon and Michael.

Michael-- it is an absolute privilege to have you posting on these boards--your advice and experience is invaluable--thank you very, very much for sharing.
 
Jason Ing said:
sorry, i'm a little lost here. what is HD? isn't HD = 16x9? is 4kHD the same as 4k2:1?
Click to expand...

Hey Jason,

16x9 on Red isn't exactly 4 x 1080. 4KHD is exactly 4 times, making the calculations easier and the downresing sharper as it doesn't have to make up pixels.
 
James Press said:
Michael-- it is an absolute privilege to have you posting on these boards--your advice and experience is invaluable--thank you very, very much for sharing.
Click to expand...

My pleasure. Anything myself and my team can do to help.
I'll see if I can round up our stills with the sharpening 4KHD vs. 4K16:9 comparisons we've done.
We also have lots of debayering tests from multiple systems in multiple combinations that always yield interesting results.

michael

Michael Cioni
Founder, PlasterCITY Digital Post
www.plastercity.com
 
Michael_PlasterCITY said:
I recommend total elimination of 2:1, as 4KHD makes this mode uselss. If you want more pixels, you shoot 4K16:9. If you want better performance and storage economy, you shoot 4KHD.
Click to expand...

One thing you're forgetting here is overcranking possibilities, which are greater with 2:1 - so it's definitely a keeper for my money. Those extra 10fps in 3K 2:1 can be invaluable when finishing for 1080p (or 2K, for that matter) and therefore wishing to avoid 2K shots whenever possible.

I do appreciate you may well be talking specifically about 4K 2:1, in which case you've got more of a point, although personally I also like it for shooting spherical material for a crop to 2.40:1.

So count me out of the 2:1 witch-hunt, please! All-in-all, great posts though mate, and a lot of valuable info - so don't get me wrong, I'm not having a pop!...

Cheers,
All the best,

Dom.

EDIT: Oh, and I'd love to see those comparison stills of 1080p material from 4KHD and 4K 16:9, if and when you get the chance to post them - thanks again!
 
hi all, i am workin on a feature on RED ONE,need to know what is the best possible format to shoot in 4k HD,4K 16:9,or 2:1 4k.for theatrical releas .
 
Dominic Jones said:
One thing you're forgetting here is overcranking possibilities, which are greater with 2:1 - so it's definitely a keeper for my money. Those extra 10fps in 3K 2:1 can be invaluable when finishing for 1080p (or 2K, for that matter) and therefore wishing to avoid 2K shots whenever possible.

I do appreciate you may well be talking specifically about 4K 2:1, in which case you've got more of a point, although personally I also like it for shooting spherical material for a crop to 2.40:1.

So count me out of the 2:1 witch-hunt, please! All-in-all, great posts though mate, and a lot of valuable info - so don't get me wrong, I'm not having a pop!...

Cheers,
All the best,

Dom.

EDIT: Oh, and I'd love to see those comparison stills of 1080p material from 4KHD and 4K 16:9, if and when you get the chance to post them - thanks again!
Click to expand...

I'm with you Mate!

Emmanuel
 
Ramesh Jai said:
I've been recording 4K 16:9 on 8GB cards. No probs.
Click to expand...

Me too I just did a test, shooting 4KHD on an 8gb card set to REC 28 @23.97 fps no problems at all.

But 4KHD and 4K 16:9 set to REC36 is a no go on the 8gig cards
 
how big is the difference in DOF between 4K HD and 4K 16:9?

has anyone taken a still of that?
 
john bollozos said:
how big is the difference in DOF between 4K HD and 4K 16:9?

has anyone taken a still of that?
Click to expand...

A better way to think about it is "how big is the difference in FOV between 4K HD and 4K 16:9" .. DOF doesn't change between different capture areas, it's the FOV that changes, which results in a perceived change of DOF.. but that's not actually what you are seeing.

It's a small but very important difference when trying to understand and visualize how these things work.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Very small... the difference between 4096 (standard 4K) versus 3840 (4K HD) pixels on the same sensor, well that would be like the DOF difference between a 50mm lens and a 47mm lens.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure... shooting 4k HD will decrease the amount of the sensor used, but only by a small amount, thereby only increasing the depth of field by a small amount. But will this mean that the original frame is cropped at all? Will there a smaller field of view?
 
Yes the "original" (ie 16:9) frame is slightly wider than 4KHD ie the field of view of 4KHD is slightly smaller-- you can easily see the difference by changing the setup on camera and see the frame guides shift (contract) slightly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top