Le cinemascope en 6K, here we go !

[seb33]

This is my first test of using the 6K 29,97p 3:2 ratio on the new GH5.
I'm happy with the results, please tell me what you think.
But I want to share my teething troubles working with the GH5.
1- The first question was which focal lens setting did I have to choose for the stabiliser. My prime lens is a 35mm, but did I have to include the 1,75x factor of the anamorphic, that is influencing only on the width ?
My first impression is that the internal stabiliser is not really the friend of anamorphic lens, some distortions or rolling shutter. There is some small moments in the movie that you can notice, but most of the strongest were unedited.
Because of the prime lens which is 35mm, and maybe the wildest I can use with my baby Hypergonar anamorphic lens, I had to zoom in the image sometimes, when it's in movement for example, to avoid moving vignetting in the frame. I did up to 17%.
2- the H265 codec that is used for the 6K mode
I had problems editing the 6K mode video. I have Premiere CC2017, but even when it downloads the H265 / HEVC codec, I couldn't really import the original files. Some of them were working, but most of them had strange result on the timeline with green colors. And not to mention the lag with playing the video, on Premiere or VLC.
I test it on two different iMac, mine that is a end 2012 with 24 Go of RAM, and at the university that is a 5k iMac with 8 Go.
So I transcoded the video with Handbrake, which surprisingly accept the 5184*3486 with H264 5.2 level. Then I decided to export directly in anamorphic without the black bars, in 5184*1976, then doing a same dimension sequence in Premiere.
Badfully I couldn't export the same dimension when I finished my edit on Premiere, so I did it in the maximum that my version of Premiere accept at my home : 4K (4096 maximum on the width).
When I will find the solution, I will export it in its original dimension 5184*1976.
Having troubles with a new camera and a "new codec" and new dimension "6k" is not new for me and I accept it I remember when a long time ago when I bought the GH1 I had to switch from Final Cut Pro 7 to Premiere to be able to edit the H264 clips directly on the timeline.
Thanks for watching the movie and do not hesitate giving me your opinion and your experience with editing 6K material from this new beast named GH5 !
GH5 6K 5184*3486 3:2 29,97p export to 4k 29,97p anamorphic 4096*1560
prime lens : Qioptiq 35mm f1.6 wide open most of the time
anamorphic lens : baby Hypergonar 1.75x
focus module : SLR Magic Rangefinder Imperial
ND filters : Hoya 32x, 4x and 2x
slight black and white levels / no color correction
cropping due to vigneting of the anamorphic due to the stabiliser from 0 to 17%
Thanks to Virgil for his GH5

 

[Emanuel]

You said you export it in its original dimension 5184*1976. For 1.75x. Right. Why not for same ratio but 9072*3486? Hardware limitations for your workflow?

Secondly, how was your longest take? Did you notice any overheating or any other limitation on 6K Photo 3:2 mode for 5184*3486 recording? BTW, they should call it 5K video, once it captures sound, right? So...

 

[seb33]

You said you export it in its original dimension 5184*1976. For 1.75x. Right. Why not for same ratio but 9072*3486? Hardware limitations for your workflow?

Secondly, how was your longest take? Did you notice any overheating or any other limitation on 6K Photo 3:2 mode for 5184*3486 recording? BTW, they should call it 5K video, once it captures sound, right? So...

Yes limitation on my Premiere.
My longest take was below 2mn. No problem.
There is the sound !!!!!!!!

 

[Greg_E]

9000x3000... Why invent pixels that don't exist? Sub sample the smaller side to get far superior color and resolution in the pixels that you really do have.

 

[Emanuel]

9000x3000... Why invent pixels that don't exist? Sub sample the smaller side to get far superior color and resolution in the pixels that you really do have.

Because you have a squeeze and you can be willing to upsample it in order to print a grab in a large format printer, just for the case. In a way or another, you'll have to put your hands in a side or another. For a Plotter, you'd be down sampling and going backwards again. You're only unsqueezing, "the pixels" come from there.

Why don't label it as a 5K video camera? For sure, there's no 6K wide at all but it is possible to reach 7K (1.33x) - 9K (2x) anamorphic for 2.39:1 ratio.

Nothing of scientific but here's a quick experience from the original to 1.33x (vertical first to mimic the anamorphic distortion, the horizontal side next) and back to the original size trying to mimic it, even though, the squeeze was not made optically, so it is a bit apples to oranges, it only serves as resemblance because I wonder about the differences there being the squeeze introduced by optics. Have we ever heard about increasing sharpness when we upsample to downsample later as 2nd step? It happens ; ) By software? For sure. Nothing against. Made on Paint, as simple as there. Artifacts? Judge by yourself.

We're usually not looking after sharper outcome when we're already on 4K territory for motion pictures, very likely. Not for stills, not for printing (large format), though.

 

[Cary Knoop]

I had problems editing the 6K mode video. I have Premiere CC2017, but even when it downloads the H265 / HEVC codec, I couldn't really import the original files. Some of them were working, but most of them had strange result on the timeline with green colors. And not to mention the lag with playing the video, on Premiere or VLC.
I test it on two different iMac, mine that is a end 2012 with 24 Go of RAM, and at the university that is a 5k iMac with 8 Go.

HEVC is a very complex CODEC and not designed for editing.

So I transcoded the video with Handbrake, which surprisingly accept the 5184*3486 with H264 5.2 level. Then I decided to export directly in anamorphic without the black bars, in 5184*1976, then doing a same dimension sequence in Premiere.

I would recommend that if you transcode you transcode to ProRes or DNxHx or if you insist on H.264 use an all intra format.

Badfully I couldn't export the same dimension when I finished my edit on Premiere, so I did it in the maximum that my version of Premiere accept at my home : 4K (4096 maximum on the width).
When I will find the solution, I will export it in its original dimension 5184*1976.

Strange, I can export that dimension just fine to H.264.
What error did you get and what exact version of Premiere 2017 are you using?

 

[Emanuel]

Part II

Part II

9000x3000... Why invent pixels that don't exist? Sub sample the smaller side to get far superior color and resolution in the pixels that you really do have.

Because you have a squeeze and you can be willing to upsample it in order to print a grab in a large format printer, just for the case. In a way or another, you'll have to put your hands in a side or another. For a Plotter, you'd be down sampling and going backwards again. You're only unsqueezing, "the pixels" come from there.

Why don't label it as a 5K video camera? For sure, there's no 6K wide at all but it is possible to reach 7K (1.33x) - 9K (2x) anamorphic for 2.39:1 ratio.

Nothing of scientific but here's a quick experience from the original to 1.33x (vertical first to mimic the anamorphic distortion, the horizontal side next) and back to the original size trying to mimic it, even though, the squeeze was not made optically, so it is a bit apples to oranges, it only serves as resemblance because I wonder about the differences there being the squeeze introduced by optics. Have we ever heard about increasing sharpness when we upsample to downsample later as 2nd step? It happens ; ) By software? For sure. Nothing against. Made on Paint, as simple as there. Artifacts? Judge by yourself.

We're usually not looking after sharper outcome when we're already on 4K territory for motion pictures, very likely. Not for stills, not for printing (large format), though.

Following my previous post here's some interesting stuff on topic:

http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...pres-ing-and-the-future-5-years-of-resolution

And especially this one:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=8116.msg126639#msg126639

That is:
http://avisynth.nl/index.php/Main_Page
http://avisynth.nl/index.php/Nnedi3#Filters

Finally, here's an interesting link with a fair explanation (see Graeme Nattress entry):
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?10124-Oversampling-Why-Does-it-Look-Good