Jump to content

Is 4k Any Better?


DBounce
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, andrgl said:

Uploading in 4K and beyond, creating subtitles, using whatever best practices YouTube outlines for creators, all give your channel and videos just a few more points.

gotcha, thanks!

so, im making a short with no dialogue right now, is enabling subtitles a good idea with something like that just to make google happy? is that the idea? ill do whatever lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kaylee said:

gotcha, thanks!

so, im making a short with no dialogue right now, is enabling subtitles a good idea with something like that just to make google happy? is that the idea? ill do whatever lol

I would!

Google can provide you with auto captions (they do this on their end regardless if you enable it or not to determine what is in your video,) that you can edit.

Doing CC for sounds is going to be insanely tedious. Here's a quick guide on captioning sounds: https://www.gosub.tv/blog/2016/07/02/the-ins-and-outs-of-sound-effects-in-captioning/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kaylee said:

gotcha, thanks!

so, im making a short with no dialogue right now, is enabling subtitles a good idea with something like that just to make google happy? is that the idea? ill do whatever lol

Yeah put subtitles in it for sure. That way people at work can watch them and not get caught LoL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2018 at 9:05 AM, webrunner5 said:

Yeah I have a 2K 30" sIPS screen,. I went that big at my age I can't see the text in 4K. :blush: Yeah a 32" would work. Any wider than that I would want one of those curved ones.

Absolutely.  One of the decisions was between 16:9 content (YT / TV shows) or 21:9 (movies).  My previous 1080 display lasted 10 years before it died, making it economical even though I bought it early when it was really pricey.  I kind of went that way with my UHD display, hoping it would last a long time, but secretly I think that if they released a 21:9 monitor with enough resolution to fit a 4K frame in it without resizing then I might be tempted!  It would be a great editing resolution - in the same way that they market 5K displays to be 4K preview window plus menus.

23 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

A properly sampled 2K/1080p with enough bitrate can go long way. Most often I shoot 4K to get a proper 1080p image. Thats why I wish all companies offered something similar to what GH5/s offers. An oversampled 1080p intra-frame high bitrate file. 

Totally.  A wonderful way to see what quality is possible at various resolutions is to get a DSLR and shoot a time-lapse in RAW and then process it.  If you film something that moves slowly then you can even use an ND and small aperture to have a 180 degree shutter to replicate natural looking motion.

No cinema camera in the world will give you a better quality input to play with than an 18-24MP RAW 12-14+bit image sequence!

16 hours ago, cantsin said:

All those on Netflix' approved camera list (since Netflix only accepts 4K for its "Netflix Originals" productions):

  • ARRI Alexa LF / Alexa 65
  • Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K / URSA Mini Pro 4.6K
  • Canon C300 MK II / C500 / C700
  • Panasonic VariCam 35 / LT / Pure; EVA1
  • Panavision DXL 
  • RED Epic / Weapon / Dragon / Monstro / Helium
  • Sony Venice / F55/ F65 / FS7 / HDC-4300 / Z450

https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-and-Image-Capture

I'd look up these cameras actual resolutions in the EBU test database, but I can't quite be bothered enough right now :)

If someone else is keen to see the real resolution of these then have a look here: https://tech.ebu.ch/camera_reports_tech3335

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@webrunner5 @dbp - what about the 5D RAW footage makes it so desirable for you?

Considering it's RAW, we're bypassing colour science, codecs, compression, resizing, and most things that determine the 'look' from a camera.  I'm guessing that what is left is the sensor itself and how it responds to colour and luminance, and perhaps lenses.  But to play devils advocate a little bit, those don't seem (to me at least) to be killer things that would make 5D RAW footage better than any other flavour of RAW surely?

I'm not criticising, just trying to learn :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think the main reason for ML Raw on the 5D mk III is how sharp it can be. Other than the 1DC most all Canon video footage to me is Way too soft. Now I am not against soft video footage at times at all. I just want to be able to Control how soft it is, not be stuck with it for Everything.

I guess the next be thing about Raw is that if you goof up WB you can change it at your will. And I don't know about you but that is one of my hardest areas to really pull of even close let alone perfect. To make it consistent.

And there is no noise reduction, no baked in stuff like every manufacturer has. So a clean slate as they say. But if wanted you have killer Canon Color Science, and the AF is not shabby at all. Not DPAF, but..

And there is the 12 bit date rate. Hell that alone is worth the price of admission. Sure it is kind of a data hog but wow what you have the ability to be able to push, and push hard.

And I think it is the satisfaction that with Raw the finial output is what you created, your signature, your fingerprints are on all over it if you want to take it that far. You are not trying to Undo what someone else likes, it is what You like if you desire. And with a LuT you can just click on it and grade fast if needed. But it can be totally Your LuT if you want. You can stand out, not just be part of the same crowd as everyone else.

And I know I can go on but you are able to buy a camera for not a lot that can look as good or better than a 1DC, Canon C500. No you are not going to get full 4K, even the 1DC is not, not yet, probably Never with the C Fast card data rate, but it can do a easy 2K and more. That is impressive for the money. What the heck FF Cine looking camera can we afford. Eh none. Well the 5D ML can make that happen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kye said:

@webrunner5 @dbp - what about the 5D RAW footage makes it so desirable for you?

Considering it's RAW, we're bypassing colour science, codecs, compression, resizing, and most things that determine the 'look' from a camera.  I'm guessing that what is left is the sensor itself and how it responds to colour and luminance, and perhaps lenses.  But to play devils advocate a little bit, those don't seem (to me at least) to be killer things that would make 5D RAW footage better than any other flavour of RAW surely?

I'm not criticising, just trying to learn :) 

I believe this is a misconception. Certainly RAW gives you the ability to push colors around more after the fact, but it still seems like there's an innate look to each camera. Otherwise no one would ever bother with an Alexa, given RED's RAW capabilities. Even with massive budgets and top colorists, RED footage is not really hitting the same highs as the Alexa by most people's standards.

To answer your question with the 5D, for me it's the color science. The colors are just so damn pleasing with everything I see. I can't really dynamic range, because I don't think it's all that outrageous compared to current offerings. Certainly there are sharper cameras out there. The colors though, I definitely dig em'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dbp said:

I believe this is a misconception. Certainly RAW gives you the ability to push colors around more after the fact, but it still seems like there's an innate look to each camera. Otherwise no one would ever bother with an Alexa, given RED's RAW capabilities. Even with massive budgets and top colorists, RED footage is not really hitting the same highs as the Alexa by most people's standards.

To answer your question with the 5D, for me it's the color science. The colors are just so damn pleasing with everything I see. I can't really dynamic range, because I don't think it's all that outrageous compared to current offerings. Certainly there are sharper cameras out there. The colors though, I definitely dig em'. 

I get what you're saying about the RAW still having a look, and I would have thought this would come from the different sensors in each camera?

Isn't a camera something like this:

  • light hits the sensor
  • RAW data is read off the sensor (1)
  • the data is de-bayered into an image
  • the image is processed (colour science, resizing, white balance, etc)
  • internal capture: the image is compressed via a codec and the compressed file is saved to a media device
    OR
  • external feed: the image might have display information added, is encoded into HDMI/SDI/etc and output via a physical port on the camera
    OR
  • camera display: the image might have display information added, is resized to the display resolution, and passed to the screen

I would have thought that at (1) this was what was saved by ML or other RAW formats?  Maybe compressed via lossless compression.  Which would mean that the only difference between cameras would be the sensor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, mercer said:

And the filter stack. 

Of course!

And if I add in filters and lenses then we get:

  • filters on the end of the lens
  • lens (with coatings and glass chemistry)
  • filter stack
  • light hits the sensor
  • RAW data is read off the sensor (1)
  • the data is de-bayered into an image
  • the image is processed (colour science, resizing, white balance, etc)
  • internal capture: the image is compressed via a codec and the compressed file is saved to a media device
  • OR
  • external feed: the image might have display information added, is encoded into HDMI/SDI/etc and output via a physical port on the camera
  • OR
  • camera display: the image might have display information added, is resized to the display resolution, and passed to the screen

Did I put the filter stack in the right spot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked up a C100 again recently, I had dumped it previously after going 4K.. but shifted back after realizing i still deliver just about everything in 1080p and that the C100 gives one of the best 4K downsampled 1080p IQ (especially when externally recording to ProRes). 

Most TV channels around the globe still broadcast 720p / 1080i. And most hollywood movies today are still shot/projected in DCI 2K i believe.

I do appreciate 4K material when i find it worth it ( sci-fi blu-ray or a sports game on a big screen) and of course on monitors for editing but in most viewing cases i find 1080p/2K still perfectly adequate.

As for 5D3 ML Raw, it certainly has a great mojo.. let's not forget we're talking 14-bit lossless.. allows for some really good grading/pushing:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Django said:

I picked up a C100 again recently, I had dumped it previously after going 4K.. but shifted back after realizing i still deliver just about everything in 1080p and that the C100 gives one of the best 4K downsampled 1080p IQ (especially when externally recording to ProRes). 

Most TV channels around the globe still broadcast 720p / 1080i. And most hollywood movies today are still shot/projected in DCI 2K i believe.

I do appreciate 4K material when i find it worth it ( sci-fi blu-ray or a sports game on a big screen) and of course on monitors for editing but in most viewing cases i find 1080p/2K still perfectly adequate.

As for 5D3 ML Raw, it certainly has a great mojo.. let's not forget we're talking 14-bit lossless.. allows for some really good grading/pushing:

 

I have been there. It is beautiful just like the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...