Is there a lense that can simulate 2k or 3k?

Faymus Media

Faymus Media

Well-known member
basically the reason hollywood movies look soo smooth at 1080p is because they are downscaled and look even better...

think of it like this....have you guys ever seen those pixized jpg files that when you look at them they suck? and if you enlarge they suck more?

BUT if you shirnk it down, or zoom out it looks great and even cleaner and clearer...

same thing with video...if you shoot at 1080p and then go direct with it with it to dvd it looks good but...

if you shoot say example 4k...thats a resolution somwhere around 5k x 2.2k i know its not right its just an example...

shirnk that down to 1080p and it looks SPLENDID!


Now onto my question, is there a lense and 35mm adapter that i can get that may simulate that kind of detail on my new sony nx5u that i am getting?

thanks
 
Raster size or resolution of the image is dependent entirely on the camera, not on the lens. The lens is one of the factor that affects the sharpness or resolved detail of the image. The NX5U will always shoot 1080p, nothing more.
 
yea it launched in january....and b&h has it and they pre-ordering 2 weeks in advance but its out....

i was just wondering if anyone had thoughts on it...
 
craven said:
BUT if you shirnk it down, or zoom out it looks great and even cleaner and clearer...

same thing with video...if you shoot at 1080p and then go direct with it with it to dvd it looks good but...

if you shoot say example 4k...thats a resolution somwhere around 5k x 2.2k i know its not right its just an example...

shirnk that down to 1080p and it looks SPLENDID!
Click to expand...

Other's feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think what you're saying is the right idea.

If you shrink a pixelated image down until it looks amazing... well that's just because it's resolution is that tiny size.

If you shoot something in 1080p, then you put it onto a DVD, well it shouldn't theoretically look any better than standard resolution. If it looks better then it likely has more to do with things like contrast, sharpness, and the camera itself.

When you shoot something in a larger resolution than 1080p, and you bring it down to 1080p and it looks amazing... well it shouldn't look better than anything else that's 1080, unless the camera, contrast, etc. are better than the image you are comparing it to.

Basically when you down convert something from a higher resolution to a lower resolution all that's happening is that you're losing information (pixels) by essentially shrinking the image to give the same resolution as the source. If it looks any better than it has nothing to do with resolution.

And lenses have nothing to do with resolution... well except maybe sensor size or film size.
 
Jon Starr said:
Other's feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think what you're saying is the right idea.

If you shrink a pixelated image down until it looks amazing... well that's just because it's resolution is that tiny size.

If you shoot something in 1080p, then you put it onto a DVD, well it shouldn't theoretically look any better than standard resolution. If it looks better then it likely has more to do with things like contrast, sharpness, and the camera itself.

When you shoot something in a larger resolution than 1080p, and you bring it down to 1080p and it looks amazing... well it shouldn't look better than anything else that's 1080, unless the camera, contrast, etc. are better than the image you are comparing it to.

Basically when you down convert something from a higher resolution to a lower resolution all that's happening is that you're losing information (pixels) by essentially shrinking the image to give the same resolution as the source. If it looks any better than it has nothing to do with resolution.

And lenses have nothing to do with resolution... well except maybe sensor size or film size.
Click to expand...
You do get better looking SD DVDs starting from HD. I can tell the difference in my own 720p and 1080 footage on SD DVD.

For the same reason he's talking about films in a Cinema looking great even though at that point your often only pulling 1K or res by the time it hits the screen.

The reason is cleaner sharper better starting point.

One of the reasons some of HDSLR's look sharper than 1080 HD is because some ,like the GH1 start with 4K and down rez to 1K.

But what you cannot do is put glass on your camera that makes it look downrezzed. Some glass will look sharper than others. But not to the extent that a 1080 source DVD looks better than a SD source DVD or the extent that your average theater print from a Red or 35mm film looks better than HD - though here it's less drastic than a DVD burned from a 720X480 source vs 1920X1080 source.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
You do get better looking SD DVDs starting from HD. I can tell the difference in my own 720p and 1080 footage on SD DVD.

For the same reason he's talking about films in a Cinema looking great even though at that point your often only pulling 1K or res by the time it hits the screen.

The reason is cleaner sharper better starting point.

One of the reasons some of HDSLR's look sharper than 1080 HD is because some ,like the GH1 start with 4K and down rez to 1K.

But what you cannot do is put glass on your camera that makes it look downrezzed. Some glass will look sharper than others. But not to the extent that a 1080 source DVD looks better than a SD source DVD or the extent that your average theater print from a Red or 35mm film looks better than HD - though here it's less drastic than a DVD burned from a 720X480 source vs 1920X1080 source.
Click to expand...


i comletely agree, its better to have it and NOT need it, than to NEED it and NOT have it....

starting out higher res gives you more options....
 
good lord some of the misinformation here is appauling.

to the OP, glass has not a thing to to with resolution. Yes, better class will give you a better image, but not in the way you are thinking.

Playing with resolution size will really not do much, and the method you describe really doesnt make any sense in the context. Id say do a bit of light reading on resolution, lens quality, and as jon starr was saying, how sensors grab and resolve an image.

jon
 
i just saw a few raw clips on dvinfo...and i dont understand why there is very very fine noise but its like pixleized noise....even at 0db is that the avchd codec?

i am just wondering if this nx5u would be more definitive than the fx1000....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top