Bluray from 4K better than from good 1080?

[Vince Sweeney]

Is anyone aware of any tests or good examples exploring the possible benefits of delivering a project from, lets say an Epic, compared to something like an F3 (shooting to 10bit)? Im trying to justify a long-term project shooting with an Epic or whatever may come out over the next year, compared to using an F3. The reality is that we live in a "Bluray is the best you can practically deliver" outside of theater related matters, though even then 1080 F35 or Genesis features have looked good outside of inherent color/digital issues. Some of this will likely be on film as well but the majority needs to be digital for costs consideration. 4k TV's are years away and even then Im not sure there is much of a difference beyond 6ft. to our eyes. I would think good 1080p will convert quite well. The F3 with Slog seems to also have the same DR without HDR obviously, so why not use something cheaper and easier to obtain?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Oversampling will generally produce nicer results, particularly in terms of noise, but if you really only need a 1080P master and don't want to protect for 4K or repurpose the footage for 4K markets, then I suggest you run some tests yourself and decide whether you can see enough improvements on Blu-Ray to justify the extra expense of owning an Epic instead of a F3 with something like a Gemini 4:4:4 recorder. Keep in mind the other benefits of the Epic, like slow-motion beyond 60 fps and HDRx, plus ability to crop & reframe the image for 1080P.

Personally, unless you absolutely have to own something right now, I'd just wait for the Scarlet or the Epic-Lite (or whatever it is called). Or get a used Red One, it's bound to end up cheaper than a F3 and Gemini recorder combo.

 

[Vince Sweeney]

I'd truly rather not own anything again and hire the best DP/rentals I can but some projects, like this possible one, are very hard to work that way for much of it. Technology-chasing has never been a hobby of mine but we are in a frustrating time when you have to worry about (usually ignorant) markets asking for certain things that may not really make a difference in the end, but sound good or are trends on paper at the time. Shoot a high-end doc that finishes in three years from now and I bet the worry of 4K delivery will become more valid. I do not, however, think this applies to more traditional narrative films as much (esp. drama) where even 16mm might be more appropriate than "Whatever K".

I think what I'd like to see is someone (like RED, BandPro, Abel, etc) setting up a 46"+ 4K display and showing people first hand what the difference is with direct comparisons to 1080, on the same monitor. If 4k displays are coming in a few years, I want to see how it may affect my current camera choice for this particular kind of project. I can't test this out on my own very easily.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If your question is whether in a 1080P Blu-Ray you'd see the benefits of shooting in 4K, I think you would -- after all, even on NTSC television you could see the difference between 35mm and 16mm even though in theory both outresolved NTSC (of course, grain size was one clue, not just sharpness.) What you have to decide is whether it is worth it financially compared to getting a cheaper 1080P camera for what may not seem like a dramatic enough improvement to be worth the expense. Forgetting all the arguments about future-proofing, etc. for the moment, it comes down to what you will be happy with, image quality wise, and no one can decide that for you.

I have seen some tests of the F3 recorded in S-Log to a 4:4:4 recorder and the jump in quality was quite high (having the new Leica Summilux-C lenses on the camera didn't hurt!) but I can't help but think about how much all of that is costing, between what seems already like an overpriced camera + the extra charge for the S-Log upgrade + a 4:4:4 recorder... just seems like you'd be hitting the near-$20,000 mark without even the lenses, so I question the value-for-money of it all when a 3K RAW Scarlet is coming soon down the road for less money. But if you can afford it and like the pictures, etc. then perhaps you should look into it. Right now, despite the higher costs, the F3 is still the cheapest 4:4:4 Log camera on the market but I can't help but think that there will be some more affordable options soon.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Well, Graeme just reminded me that if you want to deliver very sharp 1080, you need to have sensors that are greater than 1080p to actually deliver it.

I like the F3 as it turns out especially when paired with an external recorder. But it doesn't deliver all that 1080p can display.

I think that if you are committed to delivering 2K, that shooting 3K RAW is sufficient. Scarlet and Alexa are very smart bets.

Scarlet has all the size advantages you might enjoy in Epic ... but doesn't exist yet outside of Red.

Alexa's RAW is uncompressed and that can be a bear to handle. Plus its the size of Red One more or less.

Of course Jim would tell you to acquire 4K or higher.

I think he has reason to believe that 4K delivery will be practical very soon.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I have several Blu-ray movies which originated from 1080p cameras, it's not like they are soft they are just as sharp as the social network which I also own.

 

[Vince Sweeney]

PS- With Canon about to introduce a new 35mm 1080/4k camera under $20k, with at least 10bit 422 built in, it makes this camera game even more entertaining.

 

[Kalani Prince]

PS- With Canon about to introduce a new 35mm 1080/4k camera under $20k, with at least 10bit 422 built in, it makes this camera game even more entertaining.

where does this news come from?

 

[Vince Sweeney]

Probably shouldn't say but it wasn't on the internet if that helps. The info was very vague but that was as accurate as could be determined based on the limited facts reported.

 

[Wolfgang Woehl]

Resizing is a wicked beast. Not necessarily will it yield better results than 1:1 sampling. Depends entirely on the methods and tricks used. Googling for methods and algorithms makes your head spin and at the same time it makes you realize that there are vast differences in quality. I think if one is stuck with tool Foo and Foo doesn't have an advanced clue about resizing then oversampling will be of no use at all.

True, Vince, wrt the "Bluray" reality. And lots of people keep forgetting that one can never ever put sunsets, The Great Gradient, or fades on them. They will suck so bad in 8bpc. Hence the noise masks on problem shots everywhere. Aesthetics and technology, those odd siblings ...