Red Scarlet 3k suitable for 35mm transfer?

[sean orelaja]

I'm currently developing a documentary project to be shot on DSLR at 1080p, whilst this will be distributed soley online with a further dvd release, it is my intention to utilise the opportunity to raise funds for a dramatic feature to be shot using the Red Scarlet camera (possibly and when they become available).
My concern is this. Whilst digital theatrical distribution would use the full 3K resolution a 35mm transfer would be compromised, as it is my understanding that less than 2K resolution would be visible. Ideally a digital theatrical release would be ideal if possible, but if it were to be 35mm, would this be a viable option. Budgets are limited, hence the Scarlet over Epic S, M or X.

Sean Orelaja
Martial Archetype Ltd

 

[David Rasberry]

Most theatrically released films go through a 2k Digital Intermediate process even if released on 35mm film. 3k Scarlet will resolve about 30% higher than any 1080p camera and produce a fully resolved 2k digital cinema format output even at 2.39 scope and 1.85:1 wide screen, something no 1080p video camera can do. It should produce a film print with resolution as good as or better than anything out there except a Red 1, or Epic, or 35mm film.

 

[Peter Arnold]

It's even higher than that.
Actually FullHD is 2'070'000 pixel at best, 3K is 5'308'000 Pixel (16:9)
Thats about 256% more, not just 30%

Peter

 

[Stephen Gentle]

My concern is this. Whilst digital theatrical distribution would use the full 3K resolution a 35mm transfer would be compromised, as it is my understanding that less than 2K resolution would be visible. Ideally a digital theatrical release would be ideal if possible, but if it were to be 35mm, would this be a viable option. Budgets are limited, hence the Scarlet over Epic S, M or X.

Sean Orelaja
Martial Archetype Ltd

In both cases you'd probably be distributing downscaled to 2K. I'm not sure if upscaling to 4K would produce better results, but for the film transfer at least it's probably too expensive to print 4K anyway.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Most theatrically released films go through a 2k Digital Intermediate process even if released on 35mm film. 3k Scarlet will resolve about 30% higher than any 1080p camera and produce a fully resolved 2k digital cinema format output even at 2.39 scope and 1.85:1 wide screen, something no 1080p video camera can do. It should produce a film print with resolution as good as or better than anything out there except a Red 1, or Epic, or 35mm film.

It's even higher than that.
Actually FullHD is 2'070'000 pixel at best, 3K is 5'308'000 Pixel (16:9)
Thats about 256% more, not just 30%

Peter

Peter - You are right that Scarlet has 256% more pixels than FullHD, but I think David is talking about what the sensor will actually resolve, not the nominal pixel count. By all indications, the Scarlet 2/3" sensor will fully resolve at about 2400 vertical lines on a test chart. I believe what David is suggesting is that this is about 30% better resolving power that the highest quality 1080p camera and, obviously, more that the needed 2K for a high quality down-rez to DI. Of course, David can speak for himself better than I can. :smile5:

 

[Peter Mosiman]

Even then, I have seen footage from the JVC GH100U which records to 720p put up on 35mm film. Looked pretty good.