7D 2K Blow Up... Wide...
- Thread starter Polanski
- Start date
Ian-T
Veteran
I have to agree with this.
visugeek
Well-known member
And projected 2K has a sound stripe on the Left side that makes the image 1828 wide, so I wouldn't sweat it. It looks better than the HD cameras that George used for Phantom Menace, and keys better too.
shaocaholica
Well-known member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
No way they would use MKV even though its pretty damn suitable.
MXF, MKV and MOV are not formats but containers. Those containers support many different formats for both video and audio.
Specifically, it looks like its JPEG2000 which is pretty much just a sequence of images rather than a interframe video codec. Still, it makes sense since there isn't really a storage limitation and this implementation is much simpler. Image data is linear with gamma stored in meta data for application during projection.
Now, I wonder how they handle errors. That last thing you want is to see a corrupt frame during a big screen showing.
GRENCH
Well-known member
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
Well said!
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
Actually, what would be a good question here is, how does 720p footage hold up together with 1080p footage when they're both upscaled on an HD projector or transfered to 35mm?
In case I want to mix in some slowmo, I mean.
In case I want to mix in some slowmo, I mean.
Sinsemilla
Member
Let me see if I'm understanding this right.
2k projector = 2048 x 1080
HD from 7D = 1920 x 1080
So then, there's really very little loss of resolution when footage from a 7D is projected from a 2k projector?
MDKfilms
Well-known member
Ok I gotta get in on this. A few years back I shot a short with my good ole AGDVC60. It was a simple movie about love and loss, you know boy meets girl, boy looses girl, boy meets alien you know where this goes. Anyway, there I am trying to shoot as clean and sharp as possible doing all the things you do when shooting SD, checking aliasing and moire, CCing. And then the big night... I entered it into the Montreal Film Group comedy shorts at a local cafe. Teeth clenched as they started to project my work, thinking my god is someone going to notice the edgies at frame 2034 or the moire at.... No they didn't. As a matter of fact the crowd loved it, the girl next to me
was laughing so hard at the end I thought she might pee herself. So guys and gals, in the end it doesn't matter what you shoot it on, its the story, really. Since that night I have a whole new look on my life as an ex pixel counter.
Here is the link to the film if anyone is curious. So now just shudda yo faces and go maka da movie...
http://www.douglasjohnkropla.com/nmqp.html
EDIT: Just an extra note here, I wish I still had that camera, it was excellent for fast action and corporate events.
EXTRA EDIT: I realise now that after reading some of these posts that some people will never get past the pixel count/resolution phase of their lives.
SORRY LAST EDIT: I am quoting someone here just not sure who but, it's not the camera or the brush that makes great art, its the hand behind it.
Originally Posted by PaPa
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
was laughing so hard at the end I thought she might pee herself. So guys and gals, in the end it doesn't matter what you shoot it on, its the story, really. Since that night I have a whole new look on my life as an ex pixel counter.
Here is the link to the film if anyone is curious. So now just shudda yo faces and go maka da movie...
http://www.douglasjohnkropla.com/nmqp.html
EDIT: Just an extra note here, I wish I still had that camera, it was excellent for fast action and corporate events.
EXTRA EDIT: I realise now that after reading some of these posts that some people will never get past the pixel count/resolution phase of their lives.
SORRY LAST EDIT: I am quoting someone here just not sure who but, it's not the camera or the brush that makes great art, its the hand behind it.
Originally Posted by PaPa
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
Last edited:
Secret's out: I shot that with my Motorola RAZR.
TrueIndigo
Well-known member
Coming from 1920 x 1080 the enlargement to 2k is as follows:
2k CinemaScope (2048 x 858) needs an enlargement of 6.67%.
This makes 2048 x 1152, so a vertical crop of 294 is required.
2k 1.85 (1998 x 1080) needs an enlargement of approx 4.06%.
This makes 1998 x 1124, so a vertical crop of 44 is required.
Interestingly, 2k CinemaScope is a lessor image area than 16:9 full HD (ie. 1920 x 1080). I started a thread called "2k CinemaScope from next gen DSLRs" speculating on how great it would be if a DSLR maker offered this frame shape, since the datarate would be less than current 1080p.
2k CinemaScope (2048 x 858) needs an enlargement of 6.67%.
This makes 2048 x 1152, so a vertical crop of 294 is required.
2k 1.85 (1998 x 1080) needs an enlargement of approx 4.06%.
This makes 1998 x 1124, so a vertical crop of 44 is required.
Interestingly, 2k CinemaScope is a lessor image area than 16:9 full HD (ie. 1920 x 1080). I started a thread called "2k CinemaScope from next gen DSLRs" speculating on how great it would be if a DSLR maker offered this frame shape, since the datarate would be less than current 1080p.
Ethan Lane
Active member
lolz
dufloorman
Member
They look good to me. A still from full HD is equivalent to a 2M still file (tiny by still photography standards). I'd love to see a 1080 still capture that looks better than the cat shot. That would be impressive indeed!