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 :)

2K vs. 4K

T

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This is a really basic question but I'd appreciate if someone could point out a good source of info on it... I know the basic differences between shooting 2K and 4K are the lenses (16mm vs. 35mm), resolution, and the frame rate options. What other differences are there in terms of 2K and 4K? I know 4K 2:1 seems to be standard but Che was shot 2K and used anamorphic lenses (I believe). Thanks in advance for your help! Tommy
 
No, "Che" was shot in 4K, 2:1 probably, 16:9 hopefully... but with standard 2X anamorphic lenses on the camera, you have to later crop the sides because the image is too widescreen otherwise once unsqueezed. So "Che" ended up somewhere around 2.5K to 2.8K after cropping.

"ANA" mode I believe does the cropping for you so you only have to record the usable area.

The loss of resolution with the increase in the size of noise artifacts, etc. is the main argument against shooting 2K over 4K. I don't know why you need many more reasons to avoid 2K.

Remember that an anamorphic frame ends up being 1.20 : 1 with a 2X image squeeze, to be unsqueezed during projection to 2.40 : 1.
 
Olpf

Olpf

Tommy said:
This is a really basic question but I'd appreciate if someone could point out a good source of info on it... I know the basic differences between shooting 2K and 4K are the lenses (16mm vs. 35mm), resolution, and the frame rate options. What other differences are there in terms of 2K and 4K? I know 4K 2:1 seems to be standard but Che was shot 2K and used anamorphic lenses (I believe). Thanks in advance for your help! Tommy
Click to expand...

Because the blur of the OLPF is constant for shooting both 4K and 2K I would ALWAYS shoot 4K, and then downres well to 2K for post and output if you cannot post in 4K DI.

I was told by SS that CHE was output on a cinevator which seems to be 2K, I liked the scope better than the flat, part of that was #2 was output on fuji stock and #1 on Kodak standard stock, not the better one.

http://www.cinevation.net/cinevatio...ion.net&page=p_product.jsp&cat=Cinevator&id=8

So it could have looked better filmouted on a 4K film recorder to color seps and printed in a dichroic step printer on the better Kodak stock. It seems we went the low cost way since the film is sooooo long. For an 88minute film color seps make for better results maybe, maybe a little less sharp but with deeper color, it depends on if the lab knows what it is doing...
 
If you shoot 2k, you're only going to be good for about 720p resolution. The only reason I shoot 2K over 4K is if it's only ever going to be seen on the web or SD dvd. Even then, I know it's not optimal but sometimes it's worth it if you need a light-weight zoom for handheld out in the middle of nowhere for zero budget.
 
Tim Sutherland said:
If you shoot 2k, you're only going to be good for about 720p resolution. The only reason I shoot 2K over 4K is if it's only ever going to be seen on the web or SD dvd. Even then, I know it's not optimal but sometimes it's worth it if you need a light-weight zoom for handheld out in the middle of nowhere for zero budget.
Click to expand...

This isn't strictly true. A 2K RAW image will output approximately 1.6k of observable resolution. Slumdog Millionaire was shot on 2K RAW and it has a pretty good 1080p RGB image. Obviously you should shoot 4k when possible, but if you feel that shooting in 2k is going to provide a justifiable advantage you shouldn't worry that it's going to look awful.
 
2k gets a bad press around here.

I did my own testing with some super 16 lenses including a beautiful Arri zoom. I have to tell you that it looked pretty good!! It does not have the majesty of 4k for sure but it is certainly more than usable if your final medium is television.
 
3k and 2k offer higher frame rates as well. I guess the effect of slow motion supersedes the loss of resolution in most cases, and since most master in 2k anyways, the loss of resolution isn't really going to have that much of an impact.

I guess in OP did mention "besides frame rates", oops.
 
I shoot 4k unless I need higher frame rates, then I shoot 3k. When you down-rez 3k to 1080p it looks excellent, plus 3k cuts well with 4k if you need to intercut the two.
 
I used 2K on several occasions to quickly double my focal length when I didn´t have a long enough lens with me, in that case from 135mm to 270mm. You don´t notice the larger depth of field of 2K because you´re in the long telephoto range and after downsampling everything to 1080 the 2K and 4K shots mixed seemlessly.

Even on a class 1 HD monitor in the grading suite I wasn´t able to see a difference in quality. I attached 2 shots from the same project, one is 2k the other 4k. They mix just fine...
 
Rob Castiglione said:
2k gets a bad press around here.

I did my own testing with some super 16 lenses including a beautiful Arri zoom. I have to tell you that it looked pretty good!! It does not have the majesty of 4k for sure but it is certainly more than usable if your final medium is television.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think people forget that when we talk about only getting somewhere near 70 - 80% of the resolution, all that means is the image will be slightly softer. You can still have very usable and beautiful footage, but if you want the absolute best quality you can downscale it a bit.
 
Hi Guys,

I'm quite new to this forum and this info well might be here but I didn't find it. We are doing a first test shooting with a RED in a few weeks and still trying to put all the pieces together. We are shooting in a semi dark indoor set and was thinking of getting quite some slow motion material as well. I'm just unsure should I shoot all the normal shots in 4k and slow motion in 2k or how do we get the "sweet shots" you can see all over the net in various reels? Im afraid the footage wouldn't match and Am concerned that 2k material with 16mm lenses wouldnt give us the "35mm film look". Oh and when shooting 3k which lenses should be attached?

-Paul
 
I am shooting a long project on 2k because the director preferred the look of the 2k images to the sharper 4k images so I HAD to make 2k work. It is possible to get a nice clean image if you feed enough light to the sensor. I set ASA to 250. The images can look magnificent with good lenses. Of course you wont get a 35mm "look" because the DOF will inherently be deeper with super 16 lenses. However, that suits the film we are shooting. It sounds to me that you should be shooting 4k.

For all other projects, even docos I shoot 4k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top