7D 2K Blow Up... Wide...

Polanski said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
1+


Polanski said:
but we technical police.
Click to expand...

Yes its true focus drifts and the audience doesn't notice but this is usually when the focus is drifting to/from where it should be.

If focus remained on a hairclip or the background for a minute while an actor spoke his lines while his face was out of focus IMO it would very noticeable.

The bottom line is you posted a still to prove a point (maybe in response to 7D zone charts?) so you are inviting technical responses! :smile:
 
Last edited:
Polanski said:
Phil Bloom’s report? I missed this. Can you, please, post a link?
Click to expand...

Story of Phillip Bloom getting invited to George Lucas's ranch to shoot some dslr footage and project it on the 40 foot theatre screen.
Needless to say Lucas and company including Tarrentino, were very impressed.

there's a thread somewhere around here that discussed it

http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/12/12...er-ranch-red-tails-star-wars-and-canon-dslrs/



edit: oh snap...the thread is the first sticky here lol
 
Last edited:
B-unit was also recently back at the ranch...he may still be there. I suspect we'll be seeing some more from him very shortly...

Also, Nino Leitner to be reviewing a preprod version of T2i very soon.
 
Paul Jay said:
Be a man and upscale to 4K :P

HD to 2K is such a small step.
Click to expand...


I don't consider myself a manly man by any stretch of the imagination, but was curious as to how the 7D h.264 footage holds up when scaled to 2k and 4k. In general I wouldn't recommend 4K or any upscaling for that matter, as I see artifacts reminiscent of of my DV days.

http://picasaweb.google.com/smokecat20/2kAnd4kBlowUpFrom7D1080pH264#

I had to do a mild noise reduction (using neat video) but gives it an almost plastic look, I'm pretty sure there are better NRs out there.


4k setting: 4096 x 3112
2k setting: 2048 x 1556

Had to crop the sides from the 16:9 footage
 
Last edited:
smokecat20 said:
I had to do a mild noise reduction (using neat video) but gives it an almost plastic look, I'm pretty sure there are better NRs out there.
Click to expand...
You are using it wrong then. Neat video is by far the best noise reduction tool out there(IMHO). When done too much....it will look plastic.
 
Ian-T said:
You are using it wrong then. Neat video is by far the best noise reduction tool out there(IMHO). When done too much....it will look plastic.
Click to expand...


Agreed. NV is super versatile but it takes some skill to get it to the top of its game.
 
Maybe the word "plastic" is not the right choice of words, or for that matter using Neat Video as the filter to smooth/eliminate unwanted camera/codec artifacts for upscaling. But yes, I agree Neat Video is awesome, I use it all the time.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is a method in which you can upscale an image for 2k for 4k, similar to for example the IMAX DMR process. But even 35mm film blown up to IMAX has this "plastic" and or unsharp mask look to it--not sure how to best articulate it.
 
I think that once George Lucas projected 5DmkII footage at 2K and decided it looked great all of our tests became totally insignificant. The verdict is in: it's good enough. Now go shoot a film.
 
Here's a frame from a clip I took earlier today. I would absolutely not consider this the most technically-precise captured video, as I still have much to learn about photography/using my 7D to the best it can do. But, it's relatively well lit, and in relatively well focused. It was taken at f4, 160iso on a tripod, and blown to 2048 x 1152. The lens used was a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8.

lyle2k.png


I'm not sure how I feel about the way it looks blown up. It's obviously not great, but what can we expect? I have no idea how it would look projected.
 
Polanski said:
Hey, that looks really good.
Click to expand...

agreed, that looks superb.

guys, wtf is the point of all of this. its a sub 2k camera that George has "okay'd"

As previously stated, you have the tools, now if this isn't good enough, then it's not the camera holding you back :)
 
Anyone too afraid to project DSLR films on the big screen either doesn't know what they are doing or they just have too much money. I've done my DSLR due diligence now I'm working on much more important stuff like a good script.

The DSLRs are about to get a whole lot better too.
 
i somehow like how many people will use stills to illustrate their point about moving imagery.
when do you have the opportunity to arrest the projection to pixel peep when actually watching a story unfold on the big screen.
the framerate really does make spatial resolution less of an issue than most would think. perceived definition is higher when things get in motion.
to my eyes, it is much more about keeping banding / noise and such compression artefacts under control over shots lasting a bunch of seconds that really need to be addressed, not the crispness of signle snapshots.
i've witnessed my own job projected onto 52 feet wide and it looked great except for the typical moire/aliasing issues we all know.
add a little grain to fool the color banding from compression and it looks beautiful.
 
One question...can't we deliver 1080 for a 2k projector? Is the projector actually running an up-conversion on the fly? I thought stuff like Avatar was just 1080p...and that 2k projectors could project 'up to' 2k. Am I wrong about that?
 
Frame size specs from the Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI):

4k container = 4096 x 2160
4k 2.39:1 = 4096 x 1714
4k 1.85:1 = 3996 x 2160

2k container = 2048 x 1080
2k 2.39:1 = 2048 x 858
2k 1.85:1 = 1998 x 1080
 
yes some projectors do have a setting to output incoming 1080p using 1:1 native pixel matrix (somewhat of a picture in picture cropped mode instead of scaling input to full 2K)
best results indeed but then you need to optically adjust the beam to take full size on the screen.
for temporary installations such as event videowalls and showcases of video art, it works perfectly with impressive crispness.
i'm currently working on such an anamorphic project mixing live action and motion graphics to be shown using dual 20k lumen beamers side by side for a super wide picture accross the stage. initial tests look awesome on a pair of these http://www.barco.com/en/product/2021/specs
i would not worry much about regular "big screens" after seeing the footage beautifully wrapped on such huge venue : we can output up to 80 feet wide for spectators to feel quite immersed in such field of view
 
Last edited:
Both of the huge images in this thread do not look like HD. Maybe with some unsharp mask magic they can look better, but as of now they make me search for the glasses. Obviously, everything can be projected, I've seen movies that were more blurry than these stills.
 
Eric Ferguson said:
I think that once George Lucas projected 5DmkII footage at 2K and decided it looked great all of our tests became totally insignificant. The verdict is in: it's good enough. Now go shoot a film.
Click to expand...
I don't question the quality of the footage or the capabilities of the cameras as much as I question George Lucas' judgement.

But all kidding aside though, it's not really about "Will it look good on screen" as much as it's about "How will I make it look good on screen".
It's a workflow question, really.

How high can I crank the ISO and still make it look good projected if it also goes through the 35mm process?
Stuff like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top