Jump to content


Photo

Play back issue/ project setting


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Alex Worster

Alex Worster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 25 May 2008 - 04:21 PM

Another problem has arisen on the feature I'm ACing with the Red. We're shooting 2k 16:9 at 23.98 framing for 1.85 and about 3/4s of the time we try to play back the camera crashes and reboots itself. I called Red and they said that happens with 2k 16:9... great. So now I'm wondering what happens if I change the project settings to 2k 2:1 and frame for 1.85 as Red says play back is fine with in 2:1. Of course I would talk to the editor and post dudes as I don't want to bone them. The real question is: is there any quality difference between 2k 16:9 framed for 1.85 and 2k 2:1 framed for 1.85? It seams like you would lose some image area going the 2:1 route but maybe not. The DP, director and producer all really want play back but are weary of changing the project settings, especially the DP who wants as much info out of 2k as possible. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
  • 0

#2 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 May 2008 - 12:51 PM

The physical dimensions of the chip are 1.78:1, so if they're using the whole chip for 1.78, losing a little off the top and bottom to make 2.00 and then losing more off the sides to make 1.85 would mean having fewer photosites in the frame.

Given that the whole chip is 4520 x 2540, a 2.00:1 extraction would be 4520 x 2260. Extracting 1.85 from that would give you 4181 x 2260. Compare that with extracting 1.85 directly from the whole chip, which would be 4520 x 2443.

Bear in mind that dropping the linear dimensions to 92.5% of the full chip isn't a whole bunch of resolution to lose, and that only the Red guys themselves know for sure whether their camera really works in accordance with the numbers above.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#3 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 May 2008 - 12:56 PM

John

As far as I'm aware shooting 2K means you only use the centre of the sensor, not the whole 4K area. So cropping it even more might not leave you with a whole lot of resolution anymore.
  • 0

#4 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 May 2008 - 01:22 PM

Oops, yes -- They're shooting 2K. All my numbers were for 4K, and don't apply here. Only Red would know how their windowing works in 2K.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#5 Shawn Booth

Shawn Booth
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Honolulu

Posted 28 May 2008 - 05:21 PM

Another problem has arisen on the feature I'm ACing with the Red. We're shooting 2k 16:9 at 23.98 framing for 1.85 and about 3/4s of the time we try to play back the camera crashes and reboots itself. I called Red and they said that happens with 2k 16:9... great. So now I'm wondering what happens if I change the project settings to 2k 2:1 and frame for 1.85 as Red says play back is fine with in 2:1. Of course I would talk to the editor and post dudes as I don't want to bone them. The real question is: is there any quality difference between 2k 16:9 framed for 1.85 and 2k 2:1 framed for 1.85? It seams like you would lose some image area going the 2:1 route but maybe not. The DP, director and producer all really want play back but are weary of changing the project settings, especially the DP who wants as much info out of 2k as possible. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Curious, why not shoot 4K?
For playback purposes, you should shoot 2:1 wether you're shooting 4K or 3K or 2K. How far along are you in the show?
In post (even on set) you can use RedCine or RedAlert! to output your 16x9/1.85 image.
  • 0

#6 Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 31 May 2008 - 10:32 AM

Curious, why not shoot 4K?
For playback purposes, you should shoot 2:1 wether you're shooting 4K or 3K or 2K. How far along are you in the show?
In post (even on set) you can use RedCine or RedAlert! to output your 16x9/1.85 image.


If it's not your intention to shoot the whole movie @ more than 60 fps, 2k is a very bad decission from almost any perspective I can think of, and should almost certainly have the one making that decission... eh... seriously rethink that.

That is if you don't want the extra edge and controll downsampling to 2k gives you, and really do NOT want the optical carracteristics of 35mm.

Noise issues are 4 times the ones @ 4k if you choose to shoot 2k, the post prosess is at least 4 times harder and everything is just not as nice.

Really, really, really, really rethink that decission.


Cheers!
Gunleik
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Opal

The Slider