Thread: We who prefer 2K Super 16 over 4K+ Super 35 - The *unofficial* Super 16 RAW thread

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 169
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Tomas Stacewicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy Cook View Post
    You don't want 4K, but you want RAW files, and you want S16 HD but not Prores. People argue Prores vs RAW because they feel RAW is unnecessary and just eats up to much drive space for what it gives you. The same argument people use for 4K, unnecessary and eats up to much space for the resolution bump it gives you. (Which I disagree with
    Thank's for raising the question. Yes file size. If you shoot Super 16 in 1080p or 2.5K and lossless CinemaDNG, you will have more managable files compared to 4.6K lossless CinemaDNG. You will have to compress the RAW capture "lossy" to get down the size. The logic here is that I rather "sacrifice" resolution over compressed RAW. So there is no actual contradition. What I want is virtually uncompressed RAW.

    Also, as DPStewart has pointed out. I prefer the somewhat softer or diffused image of faces coming from a 1080p or 2.5K sensor over the hyperdetailed and ungly-making 4.6K sensor. Here I agree with Michael Plescia's and Kurt Lancaster's arguments against higher resolution above 3K (see Cinema RAW). This is the same urge that drives celluloid filmmakers to prefer the Super 16 image over the Super 35 film stock image (which starts to look "digital" in their minds).
    Last edited by Tomas Stacewicz; 01-30-2017 at 07:05 AM. Reason: Typos and clarifications
    https://guerillafilmsoldier.wordpress.com/

    Camera
    Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
    Zenit Meteor 5-1 f/1.9 17-69mm
    LOMO 16 OKS 3-10-1 f/2.1 10 mm
    Krasnogorsk-3 pistol grip with telescopic shoulder stock
    Fancier FC-270A Tripod with FC-02H Fluid Head

    Workstation
    Windows 10 Pro
    Resolve 12.5.4.019
    ASUS X99-A
    Intel Core i7 5820K 3.3 GHz 15MB
    16GB RAM Corsair DDR4 2133MHz CL13 Vengeance
    ASUS GeForce GTX 1060 Dual OC 3GB
    Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD
    Seagate Desktop 2TB HDD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Timothy Cook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    844
    Very valid and I definitely see your point. I'll check out that link you posted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomas Stacewicz View Post
    Thank's for raising the question. Yes file size. If you shoot Super 16 in 1080p or 2.5K and lossless CinemaDNG, you will have more managable files compared to 4.6K lossless CinemaDNG. You will have to compress the RAW capture "lossy" to get down the size. The logic here is that I rather "sacrifice" resolution over compressed RAW. So there is no actual contradition. What I want is virtually uncompressed RAW.

    Also, as DPStewart has pointed out. I prefer the somewhat softer or diffused image of faces coming from a 1080p or 2.5K sensor over the hyperdetailed and ungly-making 4.6K sensor. Here I agree with Michael Plescia's and Kurt Lancaster's arguments against higher resolution above 3K (see Cinema RAW). This is the same urge that drives celluloid filmmakers to prefer the Super 16 image over the Super 35 film stock image (which starts to look "digital" in their minds).
    You can compress 4.6K raw down to a size similar to the Pocket and it will look as good when delivered at 1080p. Actually it will look better, cause there will be much less aliasing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Tomas Stacewicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by cpc View Post
    You can compress 4.6K raw down to a size similar to the Pocket and it will look as good when delivered at 1080p. Actually it will look better, cause there will be much less aliasing.
    This is the school that goes contrary to the less (compression) is more philosophy of the Super 16 2K proponents. These will probably never be recociled. As I belong to the latter, allow me to be highly sceptical of your thesis. And we will probably never convince each other until we meet in a 2K theatre, looking at the same scene (or film) shot on a BMPCC (or BMMCC) mounted parallell with a URSA, fed directly from Resolve in RAW (or at least in DCP/JPG2000).
    https://guerillafilmsoldier.wordpress.com/

    Camera
    Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
    Zenit Meteor 5-1 f/1.9 17-69mm
    LOMO 16 OKS 3-10-1 f/2.1 10 mm
    Krasnogorsk-3 pistol grip with telescopic shoulder stock
    Fancier FC-270A Tripod with FC-02H Fluid Head

    Workstation
    Windows 10 Pro
    Resolve 12.5.4.019
    ASUS X99-A
    Intel Core i7 5820K 3.3 GHz 15MB
    16GB RAM Corsair DDR4 2133MHz CL13 Vengeance
    ASUS GeForce GTX 1060 Dual OC 3GB
    Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD
    Seagate Desktop 2TB HDD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    I was watching the queen last night (2006)
    Great example of how the two (film) formats can work together for narrative effect. Sequences were shot in both 35mm and s16mm

    I'm a big fan of digital s16 sensors and have expressed my interest in keeping th format alive directly with BM on a couple of occasions

    Currently (due to technology) I would favour 2.5k over 4K simply for the cheaper workflow. The s16 sensor is great for handheld work due to the increased depth of field and cheaper lenses. SLR magic has done a FANTASTIC job of putting cine lenses in the hands of artists for an excellent price. Ive said this before many times, the wrestler and black swan were shot on s16 to great effect and only a couple lenses were used on each movie.

    But I'm not "against" 4K in any shape or form. I think digital projection in the theatres must move toward 4K projection asap. For a screen that size you need the extra res, and for something I'm shooting myself, if I had a budget, and the type of film called for it (lots of landscape photography for instance) I would absolutely go with a higher resolution camera

    Based on my amateur internet reasesrch about film scanning and obtainable resolution from film negatives
    70mm - 11-12k
    35mm - 6k
    16mm - 3k

    That's scanning. Delivery for those formats inbelive would be 8k, 4 and 2

    I was at a Lawrence of Arabia presentation where the guy who restored it introduced the film,he said the negative was scanned at 11k for a 4K delivery. It was projected in 4K and I was very very pleased with the sharpness

    I think IMAX would be amazing projected in 8k

    And finally I think the s16 format is the best way for young people starting out to learn about Narrative filmmaking. That's what's so cool about the bmpcc, the Asa instead of ISO

    This is a repeat of older posts I've made lol. But have to do my part in case BM is listening
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomas Stacewicz View Post
    This is the school that goes contrary to the less (compression) is more philosophy of the Super 16 2K proponents. These will probably never be recociled. As I belong to the latter, allow me to be highly sceptical of your thesis. And we will probably never convince each other until we meet in a 2K theatre, looking at the same scene (or film) shot on a BMPCC (or BMMCC) mounted parallell with a URSA, fed directly from Resolve in RAW (or at least in DCP/JPG2000).
    Not sure why you can't be convinced, because there is no magic involved, neither rocket science, so there is no need to be mystical about this. If the files contain approximately the same amount of color information, you've captured approximately the same amount from the scene. Additionally, perceptual based compression attenuates high frequencies which is basically a type of a low pass filter, which is exactly what you want to do before downscaling images from high resolution to a lower resolution.

    Also, a 2K s16 Bayer raw image contains less color info than an s16 high res film frame (for example, Kodak 50D). This is because each sensor pixel only samples one color component (R, G or B), unlike the film emulsion which records spectral information in depth, so you essentially have three samples per location (it is more complicated than that, but the analogy holds true).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Tomas Stacewicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    290
    Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbylupo View Post
    Currently (due to technology) I would favour 2.5k over 4K simply for the cheaper workflow. The s16 sensor is great for handheld work due to the increased depth of field and cheaper lenses.
    Agreed. 4K would force the camera to compress the CinemaDNG files in a unwanted "lossy" manner, instead of uncompressed or losslessly compressed.

    But I'm not "against" 4K in any shape or form. I think digital projection in the theatres must move toward 4K projection asap. For a screen that size you need the extra res, and for something I'm shooting myself, if I had a budget, and the type of film called for it (lots of landscape photography for instance) I would absolutely go with a higher resolution camera
    Definitely. When it comes to projection, 4K is definitely the way to go, in particular when showing old celluloid classics. When it comes to capturing landscapes, I defintely can see a good point in using higher resolution cameras and Super 35 sensors. Personally, I would probably settle for a BMCC for extreme wide shots on landscapes, as it blends so well with the BMPCC. I'm more a friend of intimate cinematography.

    Based on my amateur internet reasesrch about film scanning and obtainable resolution from film negatives
    70mm - 11-12k
    35mm - 6k
    16mm - 3k

    That's scanning. Delivery for those formats inbelive would be 8k, 4 and 2
    I once did my own research on the Net of the equivalent digital resolution natively, which is always a approximation as celluloid film resolution is based on the size of chemical grain not pixels, and grain not only lays itself haphazardly but varies in size within the same frame as well. However, I came to the following conclusion:

    8 mm film = 2K (1-5 Megapixels)
    16 mm = approx. 4K (10 Megapixels)
    35 mm = circa 6K (20 Megapixels)
    65/70 mm = approx. 8K (30-40 Megapixels)

    This more or less confirms the standard of scanning. Good!


    And finally I think the s16 format is the best way for young people starting out to learn about Narrative filmmaking. That's what's so cool about the bmpcc, the Asa instead of ISO
    Very cool. However, it was a while back that the ASA was removed from the camera after a firmware update; everything is now ISO. But they are interchangable standards.

    But have to do my part in case BM is listening
    I really hope they do.
    https://guerillafilmsoldier.wordpress.com/

    Camera
    Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
    Zenit Meteor 5-1 f/1.9 17-69mm
    LOMO 16 OKS 3-10-1 f/2.1 10 mm
    Krasnogorsk-3 pistol grip with telescopic shoulder stock
    Fancier FC-270A Tripod with FC-02H Fluid Head

    Workstation
    Windows 10 Pro
    Resolve 12.5.4.019
    ASUS X99-A
    Intel Core i7 5820K 3.3 GHz 15MB
    16GB RAM Corsair DDR4 2133MHz CL13 Vengeance
    ASUS GeForce GTX 1060 Dual OC 3GB
    Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD
    Seagate Desktop 2TB HDD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,760
    I'm with cpc on this one.

    Fact: A 4k S16 sensor downscaled to 2K is going to give better color sampling, less aliasing, and a finer noise pattern.

    Opinion: It's going to look more organic and less digital.

    If you (the royal you) don't like crispy sharp images, who does, use softer glass, diffusion, or open up the stop. 4K isn't simply about eye cutting sharpness and resolution though most opponents of the technology often reduce it to such.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    USA N. CA
    Posts
    2,256
    Exactly, this was my point about he Micro Studio 4K (S16), Even though it currently is Video output only, it can still create some nice image downscalled to 2K or HD, and as Howie pointed out, less alliasing and greater color depth. Add a classic vintage (S16) lens to the Micro camera, and you get a nice classic looking image.
    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Tomas Stacewicz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by cpc View Post
    Not sure why you can't be convinced, because there is no magic involved, neither rocket science, so there is no need to be mystical about this.
    if it was that easy, there wouldn't exist a school contrary to yours. I didn't invent it, and I am probably its worst proponent (being a technical ignorant). The guys and gals who designed the Ikonoskop A-Cam dII and the Digital Bolex did, as well as cinematographers such as Michael Plescia, Kurt Lancaster, et al. As with statistics, you may prove anything with mathematics. It finally comes down to how you subjectively perceive the image. When looking at the URSA, I think "nice image". But I still prefer the ALEXA with its 2.8K Super 35 sensor anytime over the 4.6K of the URSA. The fact is that I find the image coming from the BMCC, BMPCC and BMMCC speaking to me more than that of the URSA. I prefer the colour science of these cameras over that of the URSA, however better the latter's is on paper. Then there is the issues of small form factor, cheaper cameras and vintage lenses (that create as wonderful images as those of Super 35 for much less price). Peraps I'm dillusional after all. But I like it

    Quote Originally Posted by Howie Roll View Post
    Fact: A 4k S16 sensor downscaled to 2K is going to give better color sampling, less aliasing, and a finer noise pattern.
    I hear you. You all make good points. But, only if downscaling isn't affecting compression, other than reducing file size because of lessening the resolution; colour space compression is a big no-no. Because, somewhere inside of me it nags, knowing that something is "lossy" compressed, with big chunks of information removed, although officially named "CinemaDNG RAW". Something ain't right here

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Smith View Post
    Exactly, this was my point about he Micro Studio 4K (S16), Even though it currently is Video output only, it can still create some nice image downscalled to 2K or HD, and as Howie pointed out, less alliasing and greater color depth. Add a classic vintage (S16) lens to the Micro camera, and you get a nice classic looking image.
    Cheers
    Only with CinemaDNG RAW, provided that it is losslessly compressed. If so, best of both worlds. I would settle for 2.5K or 2.8K though.
    Last edited by Tomas Stacewicz; 01-30-2017 at 01:08 PM. Reason: Expanded post
    https://guerillafilmsoldier.wordpress.com/

    Camera
    Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
    Zenit Meteor 5-1 f/1.9 17-69mm
    LOMO 16 OKS 3-10-1 f/2.1 10 mm
    Krasnogorsk-3 pistol grip with telescopic shoulder stock
    Fancier FC-270A Tripod with FC-02H Fluid Head

    Workstation
    Windows 10 Pro
    Resolve 12.5.4.019
    ASUS X99-A
    Intel Core i7 5820K 3.3 GHz 15MB
    16GB RAM Corsair DDR4 2133MHz CL13 Vengeance
    ASUS GeForce GTX 1060 Dual OC 3GB
    Samsung 750 EVO 500GB SSD
    Seagate Desktop 2TB HDD
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-26-2015, 09:18 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-02-2015, 07:23 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-14-2015, 08:23 PM
  4. WTB: zeiss super 16mm super speed lens(s)
    By JLdp in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 12:32 PM
  5. Super Takumars
    By SuperWhiteFlame in forum Lens Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-11-2013, 09:46 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •