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?

Eric Rodemann said:
I just dont' get the "future proof" argument. What do you think is going to happen in the future? Everyone will have a 4k projector with a screen in their backyard?
Click to expand...


RED has actually announced a 4K home projector.

Should we all be capturing images on Betacam SP because the future is now and HD doesn't matter because it's going to end up on an SD DVD and NETFLIX?

This is a very strange thread. People complaining about 4K quality under 10K?

nutty.


David
 
Jon Thomasberg said:
There are many 4k projectors and Home Theatre monitors / TVs coming to market now. So while the use case for "Why 4k" is somewhat valid in 2011. It won't be for long. So if you are shooting news footage that will be forgotten about by Monday, I can see your point. However, knowing that 4k viewing is on its way, do you want to be behind the curve so your footage is no good in 5 years (based on your opinion about Scarlet's obsolescence) or still usable and relevant for at least the next decade?



If you are talking capture, then I would say MOST; if you are talking output, very few. But I remember hearing the same argument ~10 years ago about Blu-Ray and 1080p -- "Who needs any more than HD (720)?" And even still ~20 years ago -- "Sure those skinny panel TVs are new and cool looking, but those are only for someone that has a million dollars (back when $1M was significant), no one at home watches more than 480. Besides, I have a huge VHS collection and my (480i) rear projection works just fine thank you.
Click to expand...


So 5 years from now no one will ever watch Blade Runner, Captain America, or Star Wars because they werent' shot on 4k? Nothing being shot on the Arri Alexa now will ever be watched 5 years from now?

I don't buy the, your footage will be no good in the future because it wasn't shot on 4k! idea.

It wont' be 4k footage, true. But no good? As in no one will ever watch Gone with the Wind or Citizen Cane in 5 years because it wasn't shot in 4k?
 
the original star wars was shot on a 4k format. its called 35mm film. unless you're talking the prequels.

Marcos Montenegro said:
Eric:

Good point, we still watch old movies, right? The content is what matters the most. However, can you imagine if the original Star Wars movie was shot on a 4K format? It would have prolonged the future releases without spending the millions to digitally re-master them like they did, and it would have looked much better at 4K.

Marcos
Click to expand...
 
David Battistella said:
RED has actually announced a 4K home projector.

Should we all be capturing images on Betacam SP because the future is now and HD doesn't matter because it's going to end up on an SD DVD and NETFLIX?

This is a very strange thread. People complaining about 4K quality under 10K?

nutty.


David
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is complaining about 4k quality.

I'm simply saying, even if I get a 4k projector, I'm gonna watch the Matrix on it, and it wasn't shot in 4k.

It's not, if you shoot 4k people will watch it in the future, if you don't, people won't.

People are gonna watch stuff in the future that wasn't shot on 4k if it's good.

90% of the value of what you are doing is probably going to come from now, not 10 years from now.

If you're worried about that 10% in the future and that's why you're shooting in 4k, ok that's fine.

I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd shoot Scarlet or Epic for post production, 4k to 2k and what that looks like on a big screen, not what might happen a decade from now.
 
OK.

Sorry ERIC. I was typng this as you were posting. I'll also repsond to the other post.


Eric is making this an ART vs. Quality argument.

We've been down this road a million times.

does the camera make a difference in a film success. NO.
Do I want to shoot my own stuff at 5K. YES
does it make me better or guarantee success. NO
Will it look better. NO

Fatalistic way of looking at life and this business. YES

Pretending that everything will be exactly as it is right now. YES.

Were Classics shot on 16mm. YES
Were classics shot on video tape YES.
Were classics shot 4x3 black and white. YES
Were classics shot in cinemascope. YES
Were classics shot 65mm. YES
Were classics shot IMAX. YES
Were classics shot DV. YES
Did Kubricks use of steadicam change things YES
Are there better examples of steadicam YES
Were OSCAR winner shot on RED YES.
Did RED change things. YES
Did DSLR change things. YES
Does art imitate life. YES

Am I done. YES MAYBE MAYBE NOT NO


David
 
Blade runner was shot on 65mm and was scanned at 8k for the blu ray release. until epic came along film was the highest resolution you could get and with 65mm its still 8 to 9k as is imax.

Eric Rodemann said:
So 5 years from now no one will ever watch Blade Runner, Captain America, or Star Wars because they werent' shot on 4k? Nothing being shot on the Arri Alexa now will ever be watched 5 years from now?

I don't buy the, your footage will be no good in the future because it wasn't shot on 4k! idea.

It wont' be 4k footage, true. But no good? As in no one will ever watch Gone with the Wind or Citizen Cane in 5 years because it wasn't shot in 4k?
Click to expand...
 
Eric Rodemann said:
I don't think anyone is complaining about 4k quality.

I'm simply saying, even if I get a 4k projector, I'm gonna watch the Matrix on it, and it wasn't shot in 4k.

It's not, if you shoot 4k people will watch it in the future, if you don't, people won't.

People are gonna watch stuff in the future that wasn't shot on 4k if it's good.

90% of the value of what you are doing is probably going to come from now, not 10 years from now.

If you're worried about that 10% in the future and that's why you're shooting in 4k, ok that's fine.

I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd shoot Scarlet or Epic for post production, 4k to 2k and what that looks like on a big screen, not what might happen a decade from now.
Click to expand...

OK hear that and that makes perfect sense.

I still think my other post is fun though... :)


Peace.
David
 
It's different for all of us, really. I'm in Boise, Idaho, where renting gear is not feasible.
With the Scarlet, I can shoot trailers of my films to help sell them, in 3K or 4K, without having to re-shoot them when I get a budget together.
I can pull poster-size stills from ANY scene! I can use my Nikon SLR lenses.
When the time comes, I can RENT the Epic brain and cinema lenses, use Scarlet as a B-cam, and use all of my accessories.

I understand the argument for S-16, 2K, or 1080 also. But I don't understand trying to make a Motion Picture camera into a $25,000 1080p camcorder with no real advantage over a Sony or JVC. Those units will still be better for some things, like events and doc work, at least for now.
 
With all due respect and keep in mind we luv RED, but we have to defend film in this case. I hate to burst your bubble but RED will never be as good as actual FILM. That's a fact. Film catches a wider light spectrum than RED. So if you want to be truly professional as ppl claim, they should be shooting with film and not Digital. No offense just thought we would stick up for film this one time.
we responded to original post below something went wrong in post so had to do it this way,

QUOTE=David Battistella;873384]I'm only responding to the thread question.

Ask everyone who shot SD footage 20 years ago if they can use a frame of it now
Ask anyone who shot 35mm film if the shots are still usable.

If you want your images to endure shoot 4k.
If you want to be caught with your balls in your hands when you have a lifetime of 1080p that needs to be blown up 4x to be displayed shoot 1080p

The point is this, quality and future proofing.

Run a simple test take a frame from Alexa and blow it up to 4k. You'll have your answer.


David[/QUOTE]
 
I wish I'd seen this thread earlier....

Why 4k (why 5k, why more-k)??

If all you're worried about is 1080p, 4k will make a better looking 1080p than any 1080p native system will. If you measure the resolution on a camera designed for 1080p, from the mighty Sony F35 down to the 5D2 you'll find they show less measured resolution than 1080p and show aliasing to some degree. By starting with more (like 4k or 5k) and properly optically filtering and properly downsampling you'll get a better quality higher measured resolution 1080p

4k (or higher) leads to better MTF especially at low frequencies, which leads to a nicer looking image

4k (or higher) gives you more resolution so you can punch in

4k (or higher) gives you more resolution so that you can more effectively post stabilize

4k (or higher) gives you a better key for your greenscreen

All of those benefits are valid for low budget as well as high budget productions, and all are valid if your final output is 1080p not 4k.

When people read resolution they rightly think detail, but there's more to the capabilities of resolution than just detail.

Graeme
 
Bing Bailey said:
Blade runner was shot on 65mm and was scanned at 8k for the blu ray release. until epic came along film was the highest resolution you could get and with 65mm its still 8 to 9k as is imax.
Click to expand...

My understanding from this article was that IMAX is 4k.

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

But without getting into a deep discussion about pixels which is really over my head, point taken about Blade Runner. It's one of my favorites and I'm glad it was captured in the highest quality possible at the time.

I think you might have convinced me with that example that future proofing is important.
 
Ruben and Sheri O. said:
With all due respect and keep in mind we luv RED, but we have to defend film in this cased. I hate to burst your bubble but RED will never be as good as actual FILM. That's a fact. Film catches a wider light spectrum than RED. So if you want to be truly professional as ppl claim, they should be shooting with film and not Digital. No offense just thought we would stick up for film this one time.
Click to expand...

Never say never....

Graeme
 
Eric Rodemann said:
My understanding from this article was that IMAX is 4k.

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

But without getting into a deep discussion about pixels which is really over my head, point taken about Blade Runner. It's one of my favorites and I'm glad it was captured in the highest quality possible at the time.

I think you might have convinced me with that example that future proofing is important.
Click to expand...

That's not the best of articles.... We regularly demo 2k vs 4k on the 4k projector we use at the RED Studios. It's pretty easy to see the benefits of 4k. As for IMAX being only 4k, well.... I'd speak to the IMAX guys rather than the Panavision guys on that....

Graeme
 
Luis Caffesse said:
... especially when it comes to technology.
Click to expand...

And when you say "film" which stock and process are you talking about. When you say RED, which particular RED camera and image processing are you talking about. I'm sure there's some film out there with terrific response over a wide spectrum of colours, but not all films will perform that way. RED actually has a very good spectral response - captures more than most projectors can show.

Graeme
 
at the end of the day story is what counts but if the camera didn't matter we wouldn't be on this forum. more resolution , dynamic range is never a bad thing. the IMAX sequences in dark knight were incredible. dark knight rises will use even more of them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top