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 :)

WHO has ever finished a video in more than 2K?

In one camera you have a super 35, a 4/3 and a 2/3 motion camera. And a 5k still camera.
 
Our last project delivered at 12,800 pixels wide. However, those are niche market projects.

I think if you're creating work which will not be seen in 4k on delivery and will not have any future value - then, sure, finish in 1080p. Definitely the most efficient. However, I also think three years from now you may start finding requirements for delivery hitting 4k. Generally the requirements bump up before the medium is standardized. HD was required before we switched to HD. So, I think future proofing on the 3 year mark is on the edge without going 4k.
 
I'm coming down off of 10 yrs of SD myself (think: trusty Sony VX2000), but am planning to invest in a Scarlet-X package sometime this year. Anyway, I thought this was a pretty cogent/concise reply to the question -

Noah Yuan-Vogel

11-30-2011, 10:56 AM
"Not sure it's really that simple. Broadcast and web content still benefit from oversampling and 13.5stops of DR, and content that is being graded or adjusted or re-framed or has VFX all benefits from 16bit 4k RAW..."​
 
I just finished grading a film in 4k, exported to 4k DPX and went to the screening last weekend at The Astor Theatre in Melbourne where it was projected at 4k. Looks phenomenal. 4k is the new 2k (for final) but red have given us the future now to enjoy! And whoever said this is "the wrong forum" needs to realize the benefits of conversation topics like this one....or, just loosen up!
 
Hi Matthew, thanks for sharing your experience with finishing in 4K. it wasn't so hard was it. I like reading from people with experience. That's why i come here.

@Joseph. You're right about Noah's statement: DR, framerates and RAW are definitely something that every film can profit from.

@Marc. can you share some details? any link? I can't imagine the horsepower needed to drive that resolution.

make no mistake, i am so exited to shoot with the Scarlet, but i need to do a reality check every now and then.
 
Sascha Rossier said:
+1 for 4k in VFX ... wouldn't wanna live without it anymore ...
Click to expand...

Agreed ... green screening hair at 1080p is such a hassle/impossible(specially if there are any strands ... like womens long hair). Also btw, the bit depth of red footage allows so much more flexibility in compositing VFX and SFX(it's just amazing how "deep" you can go with RED RAW, it still freaks me out a bit what you can do with red raw). I haven't done any final coloring at 4k ... a final coloring setup at 4k is still real expensive(i.e. you really need both a 4k screen and 4k projector that are properly color calibrated).
 
we use 4K everyday for VFX work...but if that doesn't work for you or your clients save some dough and buy a 720p camera. 4K is not for everyone, get what works for your projects.
 
I have a JVC HD-110 I'll sell you that makes truly beautiful 720P images!!! Really!
 
Daniel Kunz said:
Hi, i know this sounds a bit harsh around here, but i wanted to know if any of your clients ever needed more than a 2K export. Please don't answer with "i once did a test.." type of film. only videos or films that were paid jobs or for a film festival. I really don't see that much use of 4K in the next 3-4 years. Any arguments against my statement?
Click to expand...
I've only done archival projects for major studios in 4K, some of them going back to film for the vault. None of them were current features. Any of the feature D.I.'s I did were all done at 2K, then uprezzzed to 4K for the film-out. The reason why was, our pipelines were too slow to accommodate the sheer amount of material and the changes made by the editors close to delivery. The biggest one you would have seen was Martin Scorsese's Shine a Light concert documentary, which was all done in 2K and had a 4K film and Imax release. The film looked great, not because of me or because of the resolution, but because DP Bob Richardson did a great job.

Nowadays, there are lots of high-end post houses with fast enough networks and servers that can handle 4K, at least at the very end. I think it makes more sense to just use 2K proxies during color correction, especially if there's lots of layers and complex corrections, but if the system can handle 4K, why not? To me, it's more a question of time and money than anything else.

Given that 90% of most indie films and TV shows will never screen in 4K, I think it's kind of a moot point. Major studio features, sure -- 4K makes sense and can work. Given the number of indies and shorts I've encountered that ran out of money during post, even getting them through a 1080 finish can be rough (and expensive).
 
It doesn't matter what you have done... it matters what you can do next.

Jim
 
This thread is like asking "Why shoot film?" when the first HD cameras came out. Because it looks better in the end.

How it finishes is only part of the equation. Keeping the maximum quality through the process till the end will give you a much nicer end piece.
 
For years I thought SD was wonderful when I started out...Now I can't even watch my old clips on youtube they are so pixelated and horribly compressed. I think Jim is right to tell us future proofing is an issue. I can't really use any of my SD stuff in my reel these days, its all basically useless quality wise... There are lots of SD shots I wish I had in 2k or 4k, but I don't and I cant necessarily reshoot certain things....
 
Last edited:
If there is an 8K camera that you can afford to shoot... do it.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
If there is an 8K camera that you can afford to shoot... do it.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim,

I don't think NHK develop digital cinema cameras, all their cameras are 2,5-inch and 1,25-inch sensor for broadcast. I don't believe either their cameras are available for sale.
 
I work mostly TV, but I am going to finnish a number of shorts in 4k, if it is practical.

For TV drama, I see a number of benefits of shooting 4k. (But we still shoot 4khd on the Epics.)
Most/All have been listed.

Thing is that as our R1s are replaced for Epics, and we look at candidates to replace DSLR docu/interview cams, 4k source may very well trickle down to other uses.
I am going to teach the other (non drama) redactions how to use RED in a fast turnaround situation i January and C300/Scarlet are candidates for new cams.
Really looking foreward to compare those. Now, Jim/RED will say that these are not comparable... And that is probably true for theatrical release, drama, commercials etc. But for this kind of use, they are.

Both will then effectively be used the same way:
Shoot (and make the most of the adjustments in-camera). Deliver.

Looking foreward to this test. As I am not very familiar with video-cameras, I have taken the R1/Epic out for straight interview jobs myself, and have started to shoot a docu on R1 for the same reasons we use it in drama.

But it is a horses for causes situation. If you don't need it, don't use it. I find that I mostly need it.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top