7D 2K Blow Up... Wide...
- Thread starter Polanski
- Start date
J Davis
Veteran
To me the focus is on the pink hair clip and the hairs on the side of her ear which places the focus about 1.5 inches behind her eyes.
What fstop were you at? 2.8, 2?
When I'm on 50mm I try to avoid going under f4 for this reason, but all the out of focus stuff will hide aliasing and moire.
Now you take a pic of someone wearing a zip jacket with a wide angle where everything is in focus and blow that up and the zip will alias like crazy.
What fstop were you at? 2.8, 2?
When I'm on 50mm I try to avoid going under f4 for this reason, but all the out of focus stuff will hide aliasing and moire.
Now you take a pic of someone wearing a zip jacket with a wide angle where everything is in focus and blow that up and the zip will alias like crazy.
roxics
Veteran
really? I dunno, seems reasonable to me. DVX and canon's XL's got some theater play. This must be pretty decent
Exactly. I screened my XL1 shot feature in a theater and didn't have any complaints. At the time I had a pretty destructive editing workflow so I suspect I had maybe 250-300 lines of resolution up there. But it worked.
There were a lot of films shot on DV that I've seen in the theater. Projected digitally. If you're not some image nazi you get used to it after a few minutes and you fall into the story. So long as it's good enough to grab your attention that is.
That's why I always find it funny when people ask or talk about whether a 720p or 1080p video is good enough for theatrical screening. If DV was good enough for screening, 720p or higher has to be better.
CiPO
Well-known member
Maybe I am missing something here. But the 2k standard for projectors runs at 2048x1080 and that is really not far from the 1920x1080 of the 7D. Why the HD video should not stand on for being projected at 2k ? Am I wrong ?
About the posted frame: I agree with JD about the focus issue. If it would have been focused on the eyes it would maybe give a better feeling to the viewer.
About the posted frame: I agree with JD about the focus issue. If it would have been focused on the eyes it would maybe give a better feeling to the viewer.
I've done this kind of uprez a few times. With a frame grab things look better than motion, I'd put up like 50 frames to really see what shows up when frames play as opposed to a still. Noise on a still, even if visible, won't feel bad like when it starts moving.
I'm making this point I'm sure everyone knows but I've just started to notice, as I used to work on stills after stills and when i render it still feels like i could've done more denoising correcting etc.
Projecting really makes a difference. I'd be more comfortable finishing to 720px wide and projecting off a regular LCD projector with these cams. Things show up like mad.
I never really cared for HD, at least as far as spatial resolution goes, just cause I live in a place that's totally incapable (industry wise) of broadcasting, working with, and managing HD. We still go SD here, and we scan kodak 35mm to digital beta.
I care for color, and I may be off, but cramming the not really 1080p of a DSLR or a GH1 into a 720 by 300 for example just feels thicker to me. I of course may not be scaling in the right way.
I tried this blowup on my first li'l makeshift digicinemacam, the nikon d90. I put it through Lee's fix, and then did some noisework, after I apply grain, which really saved the day. I can get grainy '16-y' footage from these cams, but I'm not too confident at how good a full 1080 would come out if i was after that noiseless clean.
Still, the blowup could work if there's enough light. The problem is that people may be tempted (myself as well) to shoot without light, or enough light. Once these cameras are on a well lit set, stopped down nice and sharp, things can look way better.
That said, I'm more confident in a good 2k blowup coming from a Gh1 in the daytime than a 7d. It just feels sharper.
I'm also over shooting wide open. Dunno what that has to do with anything.
Cheers all
T
I'm making this point I'm sure everyone knows but I've just started to notice, as I used to work on stills after stills and when i render it still feels like i could've done more denoising correcting etc.
Projecting really makes a difference. I'd be more comfortable finishing to 720px wide and projecting off a regular LCD projector with these cams. Things show up like mad.
I never really cared for HD, at least as far as spatial resolution goes, just cause I live in a place that's totally incapable (industry wise) of broadcasting, working with, and managing HD. We still go SD here, and we scan kodak 35mm to digital beta.
I care for color, and I may be off, but cramming the not really 1080p of a DSLR or a GH1 into a 720 by 300 for example just feels thicker to me. I of course may not be scaling in the right way.
I tried this blowup on my first li'l makeshift digicinemacam, the nikon d90. I put it through Lee's fix, and then did some noisework, after I apply grain, which really saved the day. I can get grainy '16-y' footage from these cams, but I'm not too confident at how good a full 1080 would come out if i was after that noiseless clean.
Still, the blowup could work if there's enough light. The problem is that people may be tempted (myself as well) to shoot without light, or enough light. Once these cameras are on a well lit set, stopped down nice and sharp, things can look way better.
That said, I'm more confident in a good 2k blowup coming from a Gh1 in the daytime than a 7d. It just feels sharper.
I'm also over shooting wide open. Dunno what that has to do with anything.
Cheers all
T
Polanski
Well-known member
The problem here is that unfortunately I shot with the lens wide open and handheld.
In almost every forum, we are too concern about how a still frame should look. Have you ever scanned a 35mm frame? There are a lots of blurred frames that you can't see while playing.
When video or film play, you cannot notice all imperfections. Audience doesn't care about technical things; it's about the story. Many sucessful movies were shot in SD and transfered to film and people never notice, but we technical police.
In almost every forum, we are too concern about how a still frame should look. Have you ever scanned a 35mm frame? There are a lots of blurred frames that you can't see while playing.
When video or film play, you cannot notice all imperfections. Audience doesn't care about technical things; it's about the story. Many sucessful movies were shot in SD and transfered to film and people never notice, but we technical police.
jambredz
Veteran
i dont get it though...i thought Phillip Bloom's Skywalker ranch thiny would have sufficed ?!
I guess not. Tired of all these technicalites to be honest. I;m not sayign they arent important but jeez...just write,shoot, light and kick back and watch a film
I'll be fine when i get a 7d and i dont think i'll be upgrading much after that for a while ...just an hmc150, which is a parallel move. My country cant even make use of these high and mighty camera's cuz we still broadcast in SD and everything still looks crappy,so why bother(for me that is). So my hmc150 and 7d would more than enough when i get them and even when we do start broadcasting in HD. I'm just goin to learn those camera's as best i can to make the best image come out of it. then when people shoot REd and wonder why my hmc looks better...its cuz i mastered my hmc and lighting or my 7d and lighting.
I guess not. Tired of all these technicalites to be honest. I;m not sayign they arent important but jeez...just write,shoot, light and kick back and watch a film
I'll be fine when i get a 7d and i dont think i'll be upgrading much after that for a while ...just an hmc150, which is a parallel move. My country cant even make use of these high and mighty camera's cuz we still broadcast in SD and everything still looks crappy,so why bother(for me that is). So my hmc150 and 7d would more than enough when i get them and even when we do start broadcasting in HD. I'm just goin to learn those camera's as best i can to make the best image come out of it. then when people shoot REd and wonder why my hmc looks better...its cuz i mastered my hmc and lighting or my 7d and lighting.
Last edited:
jambredz
Veteran
Ian-T
Veteran
The problem is too many people like to compare different cameras vs other cameras (especially the Red vs everything else). I still can’t believe folks are questioning if any of these lower end cameras are “good enough.” It’s not a question in my mind. I’ve watched Standard definition scanned to film in the past….HDV scanned to film in the past and here we are today. There should be no doubts . The flaw is in comparing these low cost tools to cameras like the Red One. Especially when folks start to A&B the footage…who do you think will come out (if shot well) with flying colors??
One of the things I’ve learned recently in this forum is that when scanning your footage to film it can actually end up looking better than the original. I think it has something to do with averaging out the imperfections of video (noise, artifacts etc.) onto film. Sort of like when you downsample 1080p footage to 720p…the noise/artifacts are smoothened out. But with digital projection there is more of a chance that your flaws will all be projected. But like you said…Phil Bloom’s report was encouraging. Keep it lit…shot clean… and don’t worry…be happy.
Hey Jambredz I was born in your area and used to live in Duhaney Park as a kid.
jambredz
Veteran
I agree.
Thats cool pretty cool Ian. duhaney park is maybe a 25 min drive from me (trafffic depending)