filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
yeah.. btw, any other tips for the job?D_and_G said:
New 4K Frame @ Red.com
- Thread starter Randomfactor
- Start date
firewallet
Well-known member
This my fav. post of the day. There is no one way to do a job. Craft, creativtiy, teamwork and flexibility is a key at every level when one is trying to deliver "their" story (idea). I for one appreciate the diversity of background and experience here.
Also, Stephen is absolutely correct -- it all comes down to lighting. Nice work on your site btw...
filmmaker1977 said:
Hmm, some people have had luck with a calibrated monitor (which I'm sure many will be using). And there was a post on home built/kit projectors with enough resolution (in one respect) to possibly do a rough job cc with.
The thing is I need a reference grade monitor to integrate into the workflow we're currently planning. Of course , I'm open to any solution that can give comparable results...:beer:
RED# cautiously optimisitic
lordnumberzero
Active member
D&G,
The JVC does 1080p but no more.
I spoke with the cinetal people and they only do 1080p right now but they are planning to allow for scaled 2k within the existing cinemage product. Properly outfitted it costs around 15k though.
The JVC does 1080p but no more.
I spoke with the cinetal people and they only do 1080p right now but they are planning to allow for scaled 2k within the existing cinemage product. Properly outfitted it costs around 15k though.
D_and_G said:
It looks out of focus to me, too. I don't think it's a property of the camera being "soft;" we've already seen plenty of footage (including shots from that same setup) that look plenty sharp. IMO, it's probably not a very strong image from that sequence to have chosen to showcase online (though I am grateful for the continuing addition of new 4K footage on a regular basis!).polispol said:
thisiswells
Retired
Usually the client pays for the post company's time, not the cinematographer. And, that's the fundamental difference between the type of people who use this level of equipment professionally and those who don't. I just can't imagine why anyone would bother with a 20lb. camcorder for home movies... The people using this camera for business are unlikely to find a client at the upper end of the market who will entertain the idea of a cinematographer doing the work of a post company, IMHO.DorkmanScott said:
Last edited:
That's what I thought. I remember now that I checked out the JVC 1710, when Mike Curtis mentioned it would be his pick for color grading. Yet, I would like to keep the 2K finishing option on the table, so... What I was thinking was using the e-cinema or cinetal for dual purposes - monitoring on set, and post grading (since they're fairly light LCD's) -
Hopefully, there'll be more options closer to the cameras release. I'm sure if enough users demand solutions that third party products will come to provide at least partial solutions...
So the cinetal will scale a 2K output into a 1080p frame ? Interesting. But, that's probably too much $$$ when converted to Canadian fruity money
:laugh::beer:
RED# cautiously optimistic
Hopefully, there'll be more options closer to the cameras release. I'm sure if enough users demand solutions that third party products will come to provide at least partial solutions...
So the cinetal will scale a 2K output into a 1080p frame ? Interesting. But, that's probably too much $$$ when converted to Canadian fruity money
:laugh::beer:
RED# cautiously optimistic
lordnumberzero said:D&G,
The JVC does 1080p but no more.
I spoke with the cinetal people and they only do 1080p right now but they are planning to allow for scaled 2k within the existing cinemage product. Properly outfitted it costs around 15k though.
filmmaker1977
Carbonite Member
Andrew :dankk2: for your support..firewallet said:
lord and i we are already in touch where it belongs our conversation (at the pm box)
but sure, i can just agree with you!
Jim Arthurs
Well-known member
Haakon said:
I'm grateful as well, yet I would have simply chosen a 4K version of the same frame as the 2K image originally in the gallery... makes for easier comparisons.
Having said that, here's a side-by-side of the now famous Dickies logo... the 2K crop was scaled to match the size of the 4K one.
Perhaps it's out of focus a tiny bit, or maybe we're just at the resolving power of that given lens... I still favor that it's the nature of the near 1:1 scale of the Bayer sensor. It looks very close to the image characteristics I've seen from the "other" 1080 sensor at its native scale...
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
Thanks Jim - that's a great comparison! It just goes to show those naysayers about bayer CFAs - you do get more resoluion than 2k scaled in 4k bayer!
Graeme
Graeme
Brook Willard
Well-known member
Jim, Thanks.
You're right - you really can't do a useful comparison without the 4K version of the same image. To me, the 2K version of the first image is sharp (but lower res), and the 4K version holds more res, but is out of focus (and there is also most likely some slight motion blur resulting from a 1/48 shutter). It would be better to have the 4K version from the original 2K image to truly do a side-by-side comparison. That being said, the DOF in both of these shots is pretty narrow, and the dickies logo isn't on the plane of focus to begin with. The shot taken with the 300mm lens would be an even better test as it is very clear where the focus falls.
You're right - you really can't do a useful comparison without the 4K version of the same image. To me, the 2K version of the first image is sharp (but lower res), and the 4K version holds more res, but is out of focus (and there is also most likely some slight motion blur resulting from a 1/48 shutter). It would be better to have the 4K version from the original 2K image to truly do a side-by-side comparison. That being said, the DOF in both of these shots is pretty narrow, and the dickies logo isn't on the plane of focus to begin with. The shot taken with the 300mm lens would be an even better test as it is very clear where the focus falls.