Anyone seen F35 footage in 4K?
- Thread starter VinceinLA
- Start date
From my understanding, you are going to get much better results using hardware designed for 4k uprez instead of trying to use software. http://www.bluefish444.com/ . Once blackmagic makes a littler converter box with 3g input and 4k output, we are going to have an interesting option for spitting out 4k files from the F35.
starcentral
Veteran
I agree with Ed, just mention the mega pixels and enough said to fool any producer. Grin.
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
Lying to your producer is always good for the relationship.
Is it a lie to say that a Red Epic/Scarlet M is built for a 4k delivery package? (not Dragon though, Dragon truly seems to be a "4k" camera through and through) Or that Epic M at 120 frames per second and like 8:1 or something is still "4k"? (I just worked with a bunch of footage and was pretty surprised how un-resolute it was)
Is it a lie to say that Alexa is not 4k yet when upscaled to 4k it's sharper/more resolute than epic footage in many instances?
Not saying that it's wrong to say to a producer that the F35 is a 4k camera, but I would explain it and say it's more than capable of delivering a good 4k product in many instances, though not all.
I always say it's a 5k camera that outputs at 1080...
I really hate this numbers game of current cameras, makes it seem like a pissing contest/marketing buzzword carnival.
Is it a lie to say that Alexa is not 4k yet when upscaled to 4k it's sharper/more resolute than epic footage in many instances?
Not saying that it's wrong to say to a producer that the F35 is a 4k camera, but I would explain it and say it's more than capable of delivering a good 4k product in many instances, though not all.
I always say it's a 5k camera that outputs at 1080...
I really hate this numbers game of current cameras, makes it seem like a pissing contest/marketing buzzword carnival.
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
Agreed. I think everything you mentioned has merit and is worth having a conversation about when talking to your producer before starting any project.
But flat out lying seems quite silly when articulating the facts can get you to where you want to be.
starcentral
Veteran
Show me where anyone said anything about "lying".
The F35 has 5700 pixels horizontally and by most manufacturer standards they would call it "6k". Everyone is "lying".
The F35 is a 12.6 megapixel camera technically, the F65 is 26.4 megapixels. Doesn't that give the F35 almost half the resolution of the F65? (more grins)
The F35 has 5700 pixels horizontally and by most manufacturer standards they would call it "6k". Everyone is "lying".
The F35 is a 12.6 megapixel camera technically, the F65 is 26.4 megapixels. Doesn't that give the F35 almost half the resolution of the F65? (more grins)
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
Perhaps lying is too strong a word, sorry Dennis.
I'm looking at it this way, if a producer is looking to complete a project (or at least acquire) in 4k, than a) Does the F35 have a 4k output? b) Does an uprezed 1080p frame from the F35 have as much resolution as a native 4k camera?
I would at the moment consider the F65, EPIC, and DRAGON native 4k fwiw.
starcentral
Veteran
No worries at all, I agree with you anyway. Outright lying is not the right way to go in reality.
I was mostly playing on the fact that some producers don't really know enough to know what is what, so answering them in megapixels would be a funny way to go about it. But a RGB stripe sensor is quite unique that way.
I get asked a lot in producer discussions if the F55 is 4k, when I say yes everyone seems at ease again. How silly.
I was mostly playing on the fact that some producers don't really know enough to know what is what, so answering them in megapixels would be a funny way to go about it. But a RGB stripe sensor is quite unique that way.
I get asked a lot in producer discussions if the F55 is 4k, when I say yes everyone seems at ease again. How silly.
F35 has an amazingly sharp and detailed HD image. Should scale well to 4K - but with very few 4K theatres out there, I personally don't see the reason why since you're just getting more pixels to process. Scaling / up-rezzing is it's own science. Choose your software and methodology wisely.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Yea the F35 is fantastic. I'm guessing it would upscale to 4K like a champ and probably look great. It's so stink in sharp at 1080p that with proper upscale it would probably look like a very nice film scan with that natural slight blur to the image that super clinical digital footage can have sometimes without the post-processing.
Viddovation
Veteran
Producers are asking for "4k" and "RED" because this is what they think they need to deliver a top notch product for distribution. But what the Producer really cares about is the top notch product that gets accepted for distribution, and makes money. And perhaps almost more importantly - if the producer can be convinced that he can deliver the same top notch product with less upfront expense (and therefore less risk) he'll be doubly enthused.
So, in my opinion, there's no need for lies. Just straight up facts.
1. Profitable major studio motion pictures - including $100M+ blockbusters - have been acquired and post-processed in 1080p or less. This includes a number of pictures shot of the F35 and it's cousin the Genesis. Audiences enjoyed these pictures, and had no concerns or issues about the resolution. Example: TRON: Legacy
2. A 1080p workflow costs less money than a 4k workflow, in everything from data storage to visual FX to color grading. And major studios still routinely choose to master footage initially acquired in 4k in 2k (very close to 1080p) because it costs significantly less, and finishing the film in 4k would make no discernable difference in profits/audience attendance. Example: Oblivion
3. If you're producing a $100M studio picture, by all means - shoot 4k - the added costs will not be terribly substantial to your overall budget. However, if your picture is shooting for under $1 million (or worse, under $350k) the money saved by using a 1080p workflow instead of a 4k one can be applied to other departments. It may help pay the fee of a name actor to appear in the film - something distributors care about far more that pixels.
4. Indie pictures get shown at festivals (likely only projecting at 1080p or 2k), but are ultimately destined for small screens, playing off of video files that are a maximum of 1080p. Content and actors drive sales here, not pixels.
5. "Future proofing" an indie film by shooting 4k puts the cart before the horse. Disney may make gobs of money rereleasing it's movies every 10 years in a new format and resolution, but this sales tactic is only valuable after your film is a "classic" or "cult hit". The distributors that make the initial decisions on whether to take on the negative cost of a film aren't going to weigh "future proofing" heavily into their decision. Instead, they'll gauge factors likely to determine whether the initial release would be profitable - name actors and content. Money put into actors salaries, art department, wardrobe, special effects, etc. will all prove more valuable than 4k.
6. You can crop in on 1080p briefly if necessary, and most audience members won't notice, remember, or care -- and if you're being sold on 4k as a way to cover your ass from mistakes in coverage, you should really sit down with your prospective director and DP and figure out why they're not confident they can shoot the shots they actually need with the projected schedule. If you end up cropping your way out of a small mistake, 1080p is just fine. If you're planning on cropping your way out of large omissions, you've likely got bigger problems under the surface that should be addressed before spending any more of the investors money.
And finally, the DP's argument...
7. If you really are determined to shoot RED/4K, I'll be happy to do that for you. I can still rent you my lenses/acessories/G&E package, and we'll just rent the camera body and cards from so&so. It'll look great on my reel, and you'll love the finished product, so I'm more than happy to do it. Please understand this though - I easily could have invested my money into a RED/F65/Blackmagic4k instead of putting it into my F35/lenses/G&E. And if, as a cinematographer, I felt it would provide my clients with a better finished product - on schedule and on budget - I would have invested in that 4k system. I invested in the F35 because it's beautiful and amazing, and I love it, and the clients who have used it have loved the work. There's no one camera for every job, and I couldn't run a profitable business if I bought every amazing camera on the market today. So I bought the most affordable and amazing camera I could, and I'm happy to rent the rest on an as needed basis.
That's a condensed version of my typical approach.
So, in my opinion, there's no need for lies. Just straight up facts.
1. Profitable major studio motion pictures - including $100M+ blockbusters - have been acquired and post-processed in 1080p or less. This includes a number of pictures shot of the F35 and it's cousin the Genesis. Audiences enjoyed these pictures, and had no concerns or issues about the resolution. Example: TRON: Legacy
2. A 1080p workflow costs less money than a 4k workflow, in everything from data storage to visual FX to color grading. And major studios still routinely choose to master footage initially acquired in 4k in 2k (very close to 1080p) because it costs significantly less, and finishing the film in 4k would make no discernable difference in profits/audience attendance. Example: Oblivion
3. If you're producing a $100M studio picture, by all means - shoot 4k - the added costs will not be terribly substantial to your overall budget. However, if your picture is shooting for under $1 million (or worse, under $350k) the money saved by using a 1080p workflow instead of a 4k one can be applied to other departments. It may help pay the fee of a name actor to appear in the film - something distributors care about far more that pixels.
4. Indie pictures get shown at festivals (likely only projecting at 1080p or 2k), but are ultimately destined for small screens, playing off of video files that are a maximum of 1080p. Content and actors drive sales here, not pixels.
5. "Future proofing" an indie film by shooting 4k puts the cart before the horse. Disney may make gobs of money rereleasing it's movies every 10 years in a new format and resolution, but this sales tactic is only valuable after your film is a "classic" or "cult hit". The distributors that make the initial decisions on whether to take on the negative cost of a film aren't going to weigh "future proofing" heavily into their decision. Instead, they'll gauge factors likely to determine whether the initial release would be profitable - name actors and content. Money put into actors salaries, art department, wardrobe, special effects, etc. will all prove more valuable than 4k.
6. You can crop in on 1080p briefly if necessary, and most audience members won't notice, remember, or care -- and if you're being sold on 4k as a way to cover your ass from mistakes in coverage, you should really sit down with your prospective director and DP and figure out why they're not confident they can shoot the shots they actually need with the projected schedule. If you end up cropping your way out of a small mistake, 1080p is just fine. If you're planning on cropping your way out of large omissions, you've likely got bigger problems under the surface that should be addressed before spending any more of the investors money.
And finally, the DP's argument...
7. If you really are determined to shoot RED/4K, I'll be happy to do that for you. I can still rent you my lenses/acessories/G&E package, and we'll just rent the camera body and cards from so&so. It'll look great on my reel, and you'll love the finished product, so I'm more than happy to do it. Please understand this though - I easily could have invested my money into a RED/F65/Blackmagic4k instead of putting it into my F35/lenses/G&E. And if, as a cinematographer, I felt it would provide my clients with a better finished product - on schedule and on budget - I would have invested in that 4k system. I invested in the F35 because it's beautiful and amazing, and I love it, and the clients who have used it have loved the work. There's no one camera for every job, and I couldn't run a profitable business if I bought every amazing camera on the market today. So I bought the most affordable and amazing camera I could, and I'm happy to rent the rest on an as needed basis.
That's a condensed version of my typical approach.
Film Scientist
Active member
Well said James (Viddovation).
SJX
Veteran
Who's lying? He said 6K sensor. It is!
SJX
Veteran
No, it was the wrong word.
If a 4K recorder comes out and you can acquire in 4K with the F35, will it stop being a...lie?
Like already said Red one was never 4K and there is some math to support that no Red has ever been till Dragon, which is not even really out yet is it?
Let me guess, are you a 4K camera owner?
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
The snark is unbecoming, but yes I would say it would. I don't care what it does internally, if I can't get a 4k recordable file out of the camera with 4k worth of resolution it's not really a 4k camera is it?
RED ONE was consistently measured at 3.2k once debayered. EPIC at 5k measures 4k once debayered, and I shot with a DRAGON last month and I was late to the party.
Does it matter? In the past year I've used pretty much everything out there worth using except the F65 (she's a ghost that one) based on how I can best deliver what the producer/client want on time and on budget.
I agree with everything Viddovation mentioned in his post. I don't think everything needs to be shot in 4k, most of my jobs over the past year were 1080p. And the reason for that was post related but only really in terms of how much data we were going to have to push around. It's different for everybody and every shoot - but what I do not understand is this vitriol that gets spit out on this forum every time someone talks about acquiring in 4k as a positive. Let it go. As a DP yes, I put things like DR and colorimetry slightly ahead of resolution - but it just so happens that the best cameras out today not only have that locked down but also allow you to acquire in better than HD if you desire (Arri, RED, Sony). For me the whole thing with DR, color, resolution is very shirt or pants; missing either one isn't a good look.
RedBlack999
Active member
<4K non RED making most of the big theatre $s at the moment:
US Box Office Top 10, 29 May 2014
1 X-Men: Days of Future Past. Camera: Alexa M, Alexa XT
2 Godzilla. Camera: Alexa Plus 4:3
.
.
10 Heaven Is for Real. Camera: Genesis