Film Analogy

[danbrazda]

When shooting 35mm film for television, I was constantly asked by those in and out of the industry- Why bother? Their logic said that it ends up as 640 x 480 interlaced anyway so isn't it just a lot of overkill? Of course I repeated my same old "garbage in, garbage out" explanations in hundreds of forms over the years never entirely convincing the doubters but, it brings to mind a question in this new era in which we find ourselves:

In the digital world there are even more flavors of formats then the simpler days of analog (can't believe I'm saying that because I used to complain about too many analog video formats). So does the film for television analogy still hold up in the following scenario:

-end broadcast is in 1080i (hopefully 1080p in the near future)
-shoot RED 4K and downconvert to 1080
OR
-shoot RED at 1080 in cam

I realize there will still be some transcoding going from RED codec to broadcast but will the final product take less of a hit by shooting 1080 and delivering in 1080 vs shooting 4K and delivering 1080? Not to taint the reply pool but I'm really hoping the consensus is to shoot 4K so I don't have to come up with a whole new series of analogies for the nay sayers .

 

[Visceral_IvaN]

The fact that you did manage to convince them to shoot on film is a credit to you.

And look at the wide variety of quality TV shows shooting on film these days. I think the big wigs have finally gotten the picture (pun intended) and the transition to 4k will not needs as much convincing.

If for no other reason than the simplified workflow, quality image, and the reduced cost of shooting 4k.

 

[Michael Stanmore]

Just tell them to go and knock two sticks together and stop wasting your time.

 

[danbrazda]

I'm really not trying to decide between 35mm and RED for broadcast as much as I'm curious about RED acquisition and end quality when broadcast in 1080 and being shot in 4K vs 1080. Logic tells me that the 4K downconvert to 1080 will look better but I haven't tried it so.....anyone?

 

[Remy Carter]

I am glad that a lot of projects were shot on film in the past due to the fact that we can now go back and re-scan the film prints and get nice HD images off of each. Shooting 4K now provides the ability to view present day projects in future on a standard format, when 4K becomes the standard somewhere north of 15 - 20 years from now. And the "garbage in, garbage out" still holds up.

 

[chuckt]

by shooting in film, you get the film look. When you convert to 480 lines, you retain the film look. Film look comes from the lens, not the lines of resolution. If you already have the movie lens, then, shooting 4k is not better than shooting 1080. That is why sony F35 uses movie lenses but record at 1080.
post work flow is easier with 1080 than with 4k. That is my humble opinion.

 

[Jon Corcuera]

I will say it will depend on what is needed, If you are going to make a lot of post work or not and the deadline, AND I will introduce the 2K with 35 mm optics as another chance, since it will be less volume to manage.
Jon Corcuera

 

[James Brundige]

4K for broadcast

4K for broadcast

One of the main reasons I am purchasing a Red one is to climb above the format dilemma for broadcast. I can down-convert 4K to whatever the future broadcasters want, 720, 1080 progressive or interlaced, so my footage will have legs. I am throwing away a whole library of hard to get SD nature footage, and I don't want to do that again.

That being said, I wonder about shooting 3K - that might be enough over-sampling for future broadcast needs, since I'm not shooting for theatrical release.

 

[danbrazda]

So let me simplify my question- If you shot the same scenes under the same lighting conditions with the same lenses on the RED in 4K and at 1080P and then finished to 1080P and watched them on side by side 1080P displays....would one look better than the other?

 

[Stuart English]

4K or 1080p

4K or 1080p

So let me simplify my question- If you shot the same scenes under the same lighting conditions with the same lenses on the RED in 4K and at 1080P and then finished to 1080P and watched them on side by side 1080P displays....would one look better than the other?

As you asked relative to RED-ONE, 4K. Even though the camera can do an excellent job of converting 4K to 1080p, the record resolution and dynamic range of 4K RAW is greater and offers more potential for post production than 1080p.

RED-ONE 1080p v's other camera's 1080p though is a different story, as for starters most other cameras won't be using 35 mm optics.

 

[danbrazda]

As you asked relative to RED-ONE, 4K. Even though the camera can do an excellent job of converting 4K to 1080p, the record resolution and dynamic range of 4K RAW is greater and offers more potential for post production than 1080p.

RED-ONE 1080p v's other camera's 1080p though is a different story, as for starters most other cameras won't be using 35 mm optics.

4K allows me to capture a greater dynamic range than 1080 even when downconverted later...Now you're working with me- sweet. Keep it coming....

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

hi all,

i have a question here, is shooting in 1080p mode uses less sensor area of the mysterium sensor? or it downconverts the picture from 4k in camera to 1080p before storing it? if it is just using smaller sensor area then you'll not get the film look you dreamed of!! coz lenses will act differently on smaller sensor area .. you got me? ((depth-of-field)) ..
i don't think that it downconverts the footage and it is just smaller area aquisition... someone corrects me if wrong!!

thanks,

best regards,

 

[danbrazda]

hi all,

i have a question here, is shooting in 1080p mode uses less sensor area of the mysterium sensor? or it downconverts the picture from 4k in camera to 1080p before storing it? if it is just using smaller sensor area then you'll not get the film look you dreamed of!! coz lenses will act differently on smaller sensor area .. you got me? ((depth-of-field)) ..
i don't think that it downconverts the footage and it is just smaller area aquisition... someone corrects me if wrong!!

thanks,

best regards,

Interesting. I assumed it was using the same 4520 x 2540 sensor area but downconverting in cam to 1080 when recording in that mode. If it is in fact using a smaller portion of the sensor then you really wouldn't gain the full dynamic range of the Mysterium. Hmmmm.... which is it?

 

[Alexander Christ]

You can't shoot 1080p. You can shoot 4K, 3K and 2K. When shooting in 3K and 2K a smaller area of the Mysterium is used, the RED ONE doesn't scale 4K to 2K (or 1080p).

 

[danbrazda]

You can't shoot 1080p. You can shoot 4K, 3K and 2K. When shooting in 3K and 2K a smaller area of the Mysterium is used, the RED ONE doesn't scale 4K to 2K (or 1080p).

If that's the bottom line I'm shooting nothing but 4K.

 

[Dj Joofa]

4K allows me to capture a greater dynamic range than 1080 even when downconverted later...Now you're working with me- sweet. Keep it coming....

Nope, dynamic range is determined by the bit depth of your sensor and its associated ADC and not by output resolution. I think you are mixing up detail with dynamic range. Higher detail should be present in 4k vs. 1080.

 

[danbrazda]

Nope, dynamic range is determined by the bit depth of your sensor and its associated ADC and not by output resolution. I think you are mixing up detail with dynamic range. Higher detail should be present in 4k vs. 1080.

So Joofa, are you saying that shooting 4K and downconverting in post to 1080 will not look better than shooting RED in 2K and doing the same?

 

[Dj Joofa]

So Joofa, are you saying that shooting 4K and downconverting in post to 1080 will not look better than shooting RED in 2K and doing the same?

No, I am not saying that. I was just elucidating the technical difference between dynamic range and resolution. Now coming back to your question of what will look better -- I think that question should not be decided by just looking at the raw 4K data vs. 2K data (where admittedly in theory 4k should have more detail, but not necessarily more dynamic range) and coming to the conclusion that 4k will necessarily *project* better.

Because, ultimately what is going to look better is going to be decided by the mechanism of the projection display system. Whether, you use an optical projector by doing a film out of both 4k and 2K, or by just projecting both using a digital projector, the light after bouncing off the white screen and coming back to the user may have quite less resolution. Also, that response is going to vary depending upon the distance from screen, flare compensation during projection, etc. Hence, there are many subjective interpretations involved here.

In theory 4k might project better, but after incorporating all these subjective measures, how many users will be able to discern the difference between a *projected* 4k and 2K is an open question -- we need side by side projection in a well-conditioned theater to come to a conclusion.

 

[dylancarter]

Nope, dynamic range is determined by the bit depth of your sensor and its associated ADC and not by output resolution. I think you are mixing up detail with dynamic range. Higher detail should be present in 4k vs. 1080.

There is a long thread about DOF vs FOV. If you shoot in 2k, you only use 2k's worth of sensor (width). I'll spare you all the details of the thread, but if you are interested you can find it here 3k_Thread

 

[William Robinette]

Dan, found this in another post in reduser. Does well to illustrate how RED gets 2k out of Mysterium. 3k Isn't on there as I don't think it was implemented when this was made but you can extrapolate from the 4k/2k image difference. Like it was stated before, RED does 2k/3k/4k but the former through a windowed sensor, only allowing you 35mm FoV with 4k. Since, I know you want that, and no matter what you shoot you will have to dowrez to 1080p in post anyway why not shoot 4k? I do believe either Jim or Graeme has said something along the lines of "the best 2k comes from 4k."