F3: F3 and 2K projection

Y

yoclay

Veteran
Hi,
After having seen a ton of 4K footage come through (either shooting or grading for others) from a variety of cameras over the last few years, I have to say I am less convinced than ever that many cameras are necessarily better than my F3 /external SLOG. Still love it.

So here's my question.
How many have you shot F3 for large screen 2K projection?
If you have, how do you feel it holds up when projected ?


I am speaking of course of real life experience, not theory here.
Thanks for your input.
 
Yoclay,
I shot a low budget web commercial last year that ended up airing in Cineplex Theatres in Canada. Unfortunately it was shot internal codec only. https://vimeo.com/99058473
(In my defence it was a surprise for me when the client decided to push the campaign to Cineplex theatres) I never actually saw it in the theatre - but the client was really happy with how it looked on the big screen. I now shoot external 10bit 422 or uncompressed for most everything and I'm confident 10 bit would look fantastic projected 2k thanks to the F3's 2448x1377 sensor resolution, 12 micron pixels, and slog gamma which produces incredible color fidelity when shaped with tools like LutCalc and DaVinci.
 
Last edited:
I've had a lot of my work screen on theatre screens for film festivals, etc. The F3 definitely holds up. Some 720p60 blown up to 1080p was a bit soft but it's because I didn't shoot slow mo to external deck.
 
starcentral said:
I've had a lot of my work screen on theatre screens for film festivals, etc. The F3 definitely holds up. Some 720p60 blown up to 1080p was a bit soft but it's because I didn't shoot slow mo to external deck.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dennis. How would you say it compares to some of the 4K cameras you have shot with in that regard? (2K projection on big screens)
 
I think once you scale it down from 4K you're not going to see any notable difference if you had just shot it in HD in the first place. I mean of course there's this thing where detail improves going from 4K -> HD and even noise patterns scale down, etc.. but this is like serious pixel peeping you're generally not going to be able to see. Others might have different opinions.

Most screenings I go to if the filmmakers are asked what camera's was used, I'm the only guy on the stage who says "Sony".

It's always DSLR, RED, Arri, Sony.

(Of course these are smaller tiered film festivals and exhibits)
 
A couple of weeks ago I screened my feature, shot on FS7 at 4K and scaled down to 2K at the DCP creation step. It was screened at this theater, which is equipped with state of the art 2K projection and a screen the width of the theater. I was 100% happy with how it looked. 4K was extremely useful for reframing, cropping, stabilization, etc, but I see no real need to screen in 4K. I think it might look a bit TOO sharp, like those 4K TV's in the big box stores do.
.franklin theatre.jpg
 
When the F3 was first released, Sony Australia screened a short film by Jason Wingrove that was shot around Sydney's rockpools, and recorded without SLOG (it wasn't available back then) to the camera's internal 8-bit 4:2:0 35mbps XDCAM. Everyone was kinda flabbergasted by how s*%tty a codec Sony gave the camera (I guess to protect their flagship 8-bit 50mbps 4:2:2 broadcast cameras), but the footage spoke for itself, even using the camera at it weakest, the footage looked gorgeous projected on the big screen at 2k.

Seeing that projected image was what convinced me to go with the F3 when I decided to by my first camera 3 years ago.

Fate/work-bookings have kept me from ever seeing my own films that I shot on the F3 projected large. But the feedback I've been given on those screenings was very positive... 'it looked like a real movie!' :p

I've seen both SR444 1080p and 4k raw projects that I've shot on the F5 projected large (at 2k), and couldn't discern any real difference in overall image quality - where the difference lay was in our ability to push things in post with the raw footage. But for regular images, that don't require heavy VFX, the difference between good HD and downscaled 4k is nil to minimal.
 
pchristoph said:
Yoclay,
I shot a low budget web commercial last year that ended up airing in Cineplex Theatres in Canada. Unfortunately it was shot internal codec only. https://vimeo.com/99058473
(In my defence it was a surprise for me when the client decided to push the campaign to Cineplex theatres) I never actually saw it in the theatre - but the client was really happy with how it looked on the big screen. I now shoot external 10bit 422 or uncompressed for most everything and I'm confident 10 bit would look fantastic projected 2k thanks to the F3's 2448x1377 sensor resolution, 12 micron pixels, and slog gamma which produces incredible color fidelity when shaped with tools like LutCalc and DaVinci.
Click to expand...

Why does the kid's top change color!! :-o
 
IronFilm said:
Why does the kid's top change color!! :-o
Click to expand...
Ha ha. It's been awhile but here's a couple thoughts on the shifting shirt color. It's more than likely due to poor color grading continuity and little idea (at that point) of how to correctly utilize slog. I also believe it was the first project I ever tried color grading in DaVinci Resolve. I call that a double rainbow. Lol.
 
Grug said:
When the F3 was first released, Sony Australia screened a short film by Jason Wingrove that was shot around Sydney's rockpools, and recorded without SLOG (it wasn't available back then) to the camera's internal 8-bit 4:2:0 35mbps XDCAM. Everyone was kinda flabbergasted by how s*%tty a codec Sony gave the camera (I guess to protect their flagship 8-bit 50mbps 4:2:2 broadcast cameras), but the footage spoke for itself, even using the camera at it weakest, the footage looked gorgeous projected on the big screen at 2k.

Seeing that projected image was what convinced me to go with the F3 when I decided to by my first camera 3 years ago.

Fate/work-bookings have kept me from ever seeing my own films that I shot on the F3 projected large. But the feedback I've been given on those screenings was very positive... 'it looked like a real movie!' :p

I've seen both SR444 1080p and 4k raw projects that I've shot on the F5 projected large (at 2k), and couldn't discern any real difference in overall image quality - where the difference lay was in our ability to push things in post with the raw footage. But for regular images, that don't require heavy VFX, the difference between good HD and downscaled 4k is nil to minimal.
Click to expand...

This has been really interesting for me. I have seen F3 projected, shot and graded in Prores 422HQ and it looked tremendous. However, I don't remember if they actually even made a 2k DCP.

Part of the reason I mention this is because as time goes on, I see the rush to buy new cameras and the obsession all around me with 4K and higher resolution and I feel less and less convinced that it is all so necessary. So many young kids with entire systems costing tens of thousands of dollars and frankly they would be just as well served by this "ancient" camera costing less than fixing their two front teeth. It feels like we have all bought someone else's bill of goods.

Given the choice today, to spend a small fortune on rental or purchase for the feature I am preparing to embark on, I have the sense that this money might better be spent on other production values. Which is ironic considering that I have spent my life being concerned with the image side of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top