I love the look of the 12-bit 444 1080p on my C300 MK2 but if I'm hoping to gain distribution (Netflix, iTunes, etc) for an upcoming project, do I bite the bullet and shoot 4k? Or is 1080 not yet a deal breaker for most distributors? I have the ability to go 4k, but would rather not lose the 444 if I'm just delivering 1080 in the end.
C300: Documentary project: shoot 4k or 12-bit 444 HD on C300?
- Thread starter Lkorver
- Start date
seanarmada
Well-known member
Just a bit of an add-on to your question: In the same way that Arri footage often gets mastered at 4k even when its not shot at a lower resolution, is the c300 MkII 1080p/2k footage capable of being mastered at a higher resolution? I recall hearing something about Shane Hurlbut mastering C500 footage to 4k and actually preferring it vs. shooting natively at 4k as it was too sharp for his taste.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
The instructor for our C300 MKII class at Canon Hollywood, Suny Behar, discussed this last weekend. He too loves the 1080/2K 12-bit 444, it looks better than the DCI or UHD at 10-bit. He says he has shot projection tests and the 1080/2k up-rezzed to UHD and DCI projection still looked very nice. That said, this is a DP thing for someone who cares more about the quality than potential buyers and distributors. As far as distribution, shooting native 4K is a better sales idea, even though it doesn't look as good. Putting on my producer hat, if it were my project, I would shoot the 12-bit, upres and conform the project and have a 4k master. At that point nobody should care how it was acquired, just as if you had shot on an Arri. If you are trying to sell a non-conformed, non-finished film and are seeking finishing funds, 4K camera masters have more commercial appeal because distributors are not tech people for the most part, they go off of buzz words and what's popular and 4K is a lot more popular than 12-bit. So it depends on if you have the funds and time to end up with a finished 4K master.
- There's QC still. I've worked on projects that shot 720P, tried to uprez to 1080, got busted in QC and lost the sale.
- QC is no longer as rigid as it used to be. So don't be afraid of stories like mine above! It's a Doc. Shoot on what you can and it will sell if it's good!
- Distribution people are the last to know about new distribution formats, in my experience. So they are not a good resource when formats and technology change.
- I think there's two studios that require DCI aspect for deliverables, even for TV. So don't shoot HD, shoot 2048x1080 or 4096x2160.
- And yes, I do agree that 2K 444 looks better than 4K 422! Although if it was me I would shoot 4K, because it's impossible to reason with distribution people.
jm.gardiner
Well-known member
I had the same battle recently with my shoot in Rwanda. I ended up shooting verite and interviews in 2k/12bit and all my scenic B-roll in 4k. Cutting it all together and exporting everything in 4k I could barely see the difference, and then only in static shots. For us, backing up multiple 90 min 4k interviews a day in the field would have been detrimental to the production.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MADjM6V2Ps&feature=youtu.be
I know a number of people who have sold content to netflix and amazon. The 4k rule isn't as hardline as it's suggested sometimes. If you're getting initial funding from netflix or amazon then they will give you specs to adhere to. "Chef's Table" on netflix for example is shot Red Dragon 6:1, if I remember correctly. But a show like "Making A Murderer" was shot on half a dozen formats before switching to C300mk1, obviously was shooting before the 4k capture became relevent.
The point being that content is king and while it would be great if everything is shot 4k, I wouldn't jeopardize your look, style or the production schedule/budget just for the added resolution. I would also say that a 2k DCI looks a thousand times better than a 4k H264 or bluray export.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MADjM6V2Ps&feature=youtu.be
I know a number of people who have sold content to netflix and amazon. The 4k rule isn't as hardline as it's suggested sometimes. If you're getting initial funding from netflix or amazon then they will give you specs to adhere to. "Chef's Table" on netflix for example is shot Red Dragon 6:1, if I remember correctly. But a show like "Making A Murderer" was shot on half a dozen formats before switching to C300mk1, obviously was shooting before the 4k capture became relevent.
The point being that content is king and while it would be great if everything is shot 4k, I wouldn't jeopardize your look, style or the production schedule/budget just for the added resolution. I would also say that a 2k DCI looks a thousand times better than a 4k H264 or bluray export.
mraaron895
Well-known member
Why not record in 4K RAW then down-sample to 2k 12bit?
Part of me thinks that although RAW is labeled as 10bit you would be avoiding some in-camera processing to arrive at a 12bit XF-AVC file.
Part of me thinks that although RAW is labeled as 10bit you would be avoiding some in-camera processing to arrive at a 12bit XF-AVC file.
Thanks for all the info guys. I'll have to weight the pros and cons for my specific project.
Curious why the 2048x1080 is preferred over 1920X1080, and the same with 4k vs 16X9 4K? Is it aesthetics or something more technical I'm missing? I guess you can always crop out the extra resolution if you later decide to deliver 16x9?
Curious why the 2048x1080 is preferred over 1920X1080, and the same with 4k vs 16X9 4K? Is it aesthetics or something more technical I'm missing? I guess you can always crop out the extra resolution if you later decide to deliver 16x9?
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I think it's primarily because of the mindset that more resolution is better, even though it is minutely more resolution. If your delivery is 16:9, then I'd see shooting in 2K as making it more difficult to get your framing properly while shooting since 2K is ~17:9 aspect ratio. What I would like to see on cameras that shoot in 2K is an option to have the ability for the camera LCD/output to be recording in 2K, but to only show the 16:9 part of the image.
I just found out you can set markers to 16:9 while shooting in 2K (at least on the C300 Mark II), so you can then have markers on the sides of the image showing what you're final 16:9 deliverable image area is. That's nice. The only advantage of what I described over that is then your screen real estate would not shrink since when shooting in 2K, you have black bars at the top and bottom of the image which is then unused screen real estate, as well as the marker bars on the side, thus making your actual framing a smaller image on the LCD.
Anyway, if you can work with the framing issues using markers or whatnot, then shooting in 2K for 16:9 delivery gives you a little extra side to side resolution which you can use to adjust things side to side in post without resolution loss.
Yeah, but according to Academy award winner Christian Bale, non-Academy award winner Shane Hurlburt is an amateur. A bleeping amateur.
I have doubts about the higher resolution is "too sharp" argument. I'd think if you want a less sharp image, instead of de-sharpening digitally by lowering the resolution, you'd want to do it organically, such as using diffusion behind or in front of the lens, using a softer lens, adding film grain in post, etc. I just can't imagine anyone ever saying, "The image looks too sharp, so let's export it or film it at 720p or 480p as our method for lowering the sharpness to create a more organic look to the image."
Matt Turner
Well-known member
I think "wide colour" devices / smartphones will be a bigger market than 4K TVs.
Everything is shifting too rapidly. A lot of people don't watch content on an actual TV anymore, and on devices they might not even stream at FHD. I'm voting for the HD 12-bit 444 option for now.
Those who say you need 4K / WDR / HFR to future proof (yes, Atomos, I'm look at you) are talking out of their pigu's. Whenever I've heard about future proofing, that "future" has only lasted about 5 years.
Everything is shifting too rapidly. A lot of people don't watch content on an actual TV anymore, and on devices they might not even stream at FHD. I'm voting for the HD 12-bit 444 option for now.
Those who say you need 4K / WDR / HFR to future proof (yes, Atomos, I'm look at you) are talking out of their pigu's. Whenever I've heard about future proofing, that "future" has only lasted about 5 years.
Last edited:
On this idea, you could shoot 2K 12 Bit internal to the CFast cards in XFAVC, and then turn on 4K RAW output and capture that 4K RAW stream to ProRes on something like the Odyssey.
That gives you best of both worlds incase you need to remaster in 4K for distributors.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Very smart idea Macaholic. When I buy the C300 MKII (Probably as soon as they drop it to $9,999.00 next year around NAB possibly?) I will use the savings to buy a Shogun Inferno or Odyssey 7Q+ to do exactly this, that would be a great workflow. That's one of the things that most impressed me about the C300 MKII from the Canon Hollywood workshop, the amount of different options it gives you both internally (Proxy plus so many codecs) and externally (as outlined above by Macaholic). For 95% of work shot with the C300 MKII, I think RAW is impractical both from a file size and from a post process viewpoint. To me, RAW only make sense on a feature and if I am shooting a feature, it won't be on a C300 MKII. Nice option to have but Prores is good enough for almost everything. I've been shooting Prores HQ for the past two years with my Blade and the codec is superb.
Last edited:
Doug_EX
Well-known member
Would do the same thing...great advice!
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
For your feature, you'll use the C700!
ChristianMoriarty
Well-known member
To note: not all monitors accept the 12bit 444 signal for viewing as my Flanders
CM 171 will not.
CM 171 will not.