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 :)

Whats the use of 4k in a budget camera?

Thanks, Graeme.

You're on fire this morning. Now go play with the junior coders - but don't push them too hard - make it fun!
 
Steve, this is like the old days on RU. Love it.

Graeme
 
Valery Latyshev said:
So what you are saying is that films like Clockwork Orange, Space Odyssey, Alien, Starwars and even newer MEGA budget productions like Dark Knight are caught with their balls in their hands?

And what are you going to do in 10-15 years time when you'll have to blow your 4k four times to 8k and maybe higher?

Im not saying your argument is invalid, but its also not as clear cut as you try to present it.
Click to expand...

His argument, from what I understand, is the exact opposite. He was comparing the staying power of SD to film, and pointing out that film lasted while SD doesn't. In the same way, a pixel in 4K being the same size as a grain of s35mm film will have far more staying power than HD.

From what I understand the visual difference between 4k and 8k will not be as drastic as between HD and 4K unless you are displaying a restoration of a 70mm film on an 8k projector.

I saw the Astro 8K display here in Tokyo, and to be honest I had trouble telling the difference between 4K.

The difference between SD and HD was huge. In the same way, the difference between HD and 4K is also huge.
 
Why is this obsession about resolution getting higher and higher 8k 10k 20k, I mean don't get us wrong but at some point the human eye wont be able to process fotage at this high rez let alone see the difference, the higher you go, and at the end of the day this is just sounding ocd rez talk, lol we lov 4k but really high and higher? and spitting on 1080p come on most normal lower/even some middle class ppl still don't even have bluray players they still buy dvd and that is most ur audience, the ones that would even care our ppl like us and we make things 4 audiences. lol just saying is all, some of us are acting like we have been shooting 4k most our lives butt the truth is most of us have never even seen a true 4k image displayed properly on screen, so come on lets relax and us for one still think 1080p is not dead =)
 
Tyler Larson said:
#9. When it comes to detail shots and then compressing them for the current youtube or vimeo upload, you're not going to see a big difference between a DSLR and a Red Scarlet/Epic. But shoot a wide shot with lot's of scenery and the story changes. I love my HDSLR, but it isn't true 1080p.
Click to expand...

No you can see the difference between dslr and 4:4:4 camera , in vimeo if the compression is well made .

One good compression is better than two or three ( one from the cam and one from you, after cc ,....... plus one from vimeo )

So yes you can see the difference if the compression have been done very nicely ......with a least megui ( this the minimum nice tool for a good compression )
 
Higher rez means for larger screens / larger field of view without seeing the pixels, which leads to a more immersive experience.

Graeme
 
Ruben and Sheri O. said:
Why is this obsession about resolution getting higher and higher 8k 10k 20k, I mean don't get us wrong but at some point the human eye wont be able to process fotage at this high rez let alone see the difference, the higher you go, and at the end of the day this is just sounding ocd rez talk, lol we lov 4k but really high and higher? and spitting on 1080p come on most normal lower/even some middle class ppl still don't even have bluray players they still buy dvd and that is most ur audience, the ones that would even care our ppl like us and we make things 4 audiences. lol just saying is all, some of us are acting like we have been shooting 4k most our lives butt the truth is most of us have never even seen a true 4k image displayed properly on screen, so come on lets relax and us for one still think 1080p is not dead =)
Click to expand...

A point I have been making for a long time. It just seems that people want more, doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. Though I do believe that around 4K or 5K as a master and delivery format we have reached a point where we might not need more resolution for the human eye. I think there is a graph somewhere that shows this, how large we can make a screen a certain resolution before seeing pixels and how far away we are from that screen and the combining numbers that show where the edge is where there is no need for more resolution.

As I see it, the point where resolution is at it's maximum compared to what our eyes can see is the point where we should stop hunting resolution and maybe start focusing on getting better image quality.

Graeme Nattress said:
Higher rez means for larger screens / larger field of view without seeing the pixels, which leads to a more immersive experience.

Graeme
Click to expand...

For regular screens I don't know how much further we should push it based on what I wrote above, but when speaking immersion, having a "bent" screen that creates a 180 field of view image you might need more pixels, I don't know, there aren't a lot of math done on that.
 
Look at proper IMAX / OMNIMAX for an example of what an immersive field of view with high resolution can do. I've always found such presentations highly impressive. Even at home I have a much larger screen than the viewing distance would suggest....

Graeme
 
For the work I intend to do in my life, the point of diminishing returns is 3K-4K. That, to me is the significant target.
It's useable in a theater, in broadcast, in web. It's all I will need.
The fact that it's now more affordable than 15-year-old S16 gear is amazing to me.

But the horizon will continue to move on. We know it.
We alll saw how disruptive and expensive the move to HD/1080P was.
I believe 4K will, eventually, be as big or bigger. Maybe not in 2 years, but absolutely within ten.

The Scarlet-X isn't the perfect camera for everyone or every job, but I pity anyone who tries to compete against the Scarlet-armed masses with 1080p tools.
 
Wow, quite a bit of activity since i last visited. Many great replies and ideas.

Since there were a number of posters speaking about future-proofing and 35mm and comparing it to 4k...

AFAIK theatrical releases on 35mm as measured on the actual delivery format falls into 700-900 lines range. Which is lower then 1080p. "Master" copies were around 1400 lines, but that resolution never reached the theaters.

But some of you guys compare 35mm to 4k and say that 1080 is nowhere near 35mm? How come?
 
Probably for two reasons - the lack of obvious pixels in film, and that grain adds a perception of resolution / detail.

Graeme
 
Future proofing and display resolution aside, what are we talking about when we're saying a budget project? Are we talking about a corporate video that is only going to pay you 200 a day to shoot it and that is supposed to cover the camera as well? Is it some one's dream feature that they fund-raised on kick-starter for and only have 7 grand to work with, if that? I ask because I think we all have different ideas about what a budget project is. Can you pay your crew, are you paying your talent, can you pay to rent your locations, can you even afford insurance for your production, can you even feed your crew?

I ask because if your answer to all of these are no then it doesn't really matter if you are shooting 1080 or 4k because that's the reality of your budget and you're probably never going to get your project made. If you are sacrificing your camera budget so you can feed and insure your production then at least you are making tough choices about your shooting formatte for the benefit of your production and those involved. It's even better if you're doing it so you can pay your crew.

The thing is if you're cutting your budget so you can afford a name actor, say Lance Henriksen, and your not paying your crew and you plan to shoot on the 7d so you can get a couple more days with Lance and your crew is eating pizza every day of the shoot(or sandwhichs, not good ones either) then you're a dick and I hope I never work for you again.

If you're planning to shoot a low budget film and you're making your camera budget do the math and figure out how much it would cost to shoot it in s16. from camera rental to film stock to development to transfer and then compare it to the cost of renting/buying a scarlet package and the cost of working with its post work flow.

I guess my vague and rant like point is what is your budget and where and why are you trying to cut costs? Once you've decided that then start debating if you need to shoot in 4K.
 
4k footage compressed to 1080p still looks way better than good 1080p footage rendered to 1080p.

I can see a noticible difference. Thats all that matters to me.
 
Valery Latyshev said:
I totally agree that its about quality!

But quality doesn't always mean resolution, and in fact some times it means LESS resolution.

Id rather see a 2k/1080 Scarlet with 35mm sensor, HDR, RAW, high frame rates and superior LOW LIGHT ability (which sometimes is VERY important for low budget)

IMHO that is more required in a 10-20k camera. BUT i really don't want to turn this thread into another "what i wanted from scarlet"
Click to expand...

Great post, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top