Topics

2048 x 858

Seth Goldin
 

I'm with Steve and Paul on this--I'd do a 2048x858 or 2048x1152 DI in case you ever want a true 2K DCI deliverable, but for a 1920x1080 deliverable, I'd crop it by dropping it into a 1920x858 sequence so that there's no chance of introducing artifacts. Resolve and Premiere might have OK scaling, but we really shouldn't try to fight the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem.

Seth

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Paul Curtis <paul@...> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2018, at 20:07, Ben Rowland, Yonder Blue Films <ben@...> wrote:
It can vary a bit depending on the camera settings and workflow, but one critical setting in Resolve is the “Resize Filter” found under the “Image Scaling” tab of your Project Settings. In our testing, using the “Smoother” option tends to work best. That gives us the most visually appealing results. It isn’t something we have mathematically measured. We just tried the different settings, then looked at them closely on a Flanders and a 65” Sony. “Smoother” looked the best to us, and gave us the results we wanted.
I suspect YMMV depending on the scene. IMHO i would crop down from 2048 to 1920 and use the space for reframing/stabilisation.

If i have to scale from 4K to HD for example i would tend to scale to 3840 first and then again down to 1920. I found that produces a better end result then going straight from 4096 to 1920.

Also the algorithm can make a big difference. Cubic can be very smooth but can also noticeably soften an image. Sinc and Lancos will produce sharper results but at the expense of some ringing and in extreme cases negative lobes (resulting in black edges in high contrast transitions). There's a trick that is still relevant today in that doing a scale in a log colourspace can produce a much better result than a linear or 709 one, especially in those high contrast transitions.

cheers
Paul

Paul Curtis, VFX & Post | Canterbury, UK

Paul Curtis
 

On 6 Feb 2018, at 20:07, Ben Rowland, Yonder Blue Films <ben@...> wrote:
It can vary a bit depending on the camera settings and workflow, but one critical setting in Resolve is the “Resize Filter” found under the “Image Scaling” tab of your Project Settings. In our testing, using the “Smoother” option tends to work best. That gives us the most visually appealing results. It isn’t something we have mathematically measured. We just tried the different settings, then looked at them closely on a Flanders and a 65” Sony. “Smoother” looked the best to us, and gave us the results we wanted.
I suspect YMMV depending on the scene. IMHO i would crop down from 2048 to 1920 and use the space for reframing/stabilisation.

If i have to scale from 4K to HD for example i would tend to scale to 3840 first and then again down to 1920. I found that produces a better end result then going straight from 4096 to 1920.

Also the algorithm can make a big difference. Cubic can be very smooth but can also noticeably soften an image. Sinc and Lancos will produce sharper results but at the expense of some ringing and in extreme cases negative lobes (resulting in black edges in high contrast transitions). There's a trick that is still relevant today in that doing a scale in a log colourspace can produce a much better result than a linear or 709 one, especially in those high contrast transitions.

cheers
Paul

Paul Curtis, VFX & Post | Canterbury, UK

 

Thanks all.

Much food for thought.

I’ve got five different clients and three other DPs around the world trying to make there mark on a project and it’s just very complicated for what seems very little gain...

Michael

Michael J Sanders: Director of Photography 
  
Reel/credits  www.mjsanders.co.uk   M:07976 269818   Linkline Diary: 020 8426 2200    twitter: @hackneydp 

On 6 Feb 2018, at 20:07, Ben Rowland, Yonder Blue Films <ben@...> wrote:

It can vary a bit depending on the camera settings and workflow, but one critical setting

Ben Rowland, Yonder Blue Films
 

It can vary a bit depending on the camera settings and workflow, but one critical setting in Resolve is the “Resize Filter” found under the “Image Scaling” tab of your Project Settings. In our testing, using the “Smoother” option tends to work best. That gives us the most visually appealing results. It isn’t something we have mathematically measured. We just tried the different settings, then looked at them closely on a Flanders and a 65” Sony. “Smoother” looked the best to us, and gave us the results we wanted. 

Hope that helps. 

All the best,
Ben Rowland 
Atlanta 

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:28 PM Sean Emer <seanemer@...> wrote:
> If you set up Davinci Resolve properly, it scales really well, 

Any particular tips for setting Resolve up properly?  

--
Sean Emer
Cinematographer - LA
732.539.6409
_._,_._,_


--
Ben Rowland

Steve Oakley
 

leave settings on Auto, or at least never put them on Sharper as that will cause edge artifacts.

Steve Oakley
DP / Editor / Colorist / VFX Artist
Madison & Milwaukee WI
920 544 2230


On Feb 6, 2018, at 1:28 PM, Sean Emer <seanemer@...> wrote:

> If you set up Davinci Resolve properly, it scales really well, 

Any particular tips for setting Resolve up properly?  

--
Sean Emer
Cinematographer - LA
732.539.6409

Luis Gomes
 

Sean Emer
 

> If you set up Davinci Resolve properly, it scales really well, 

Any particular tips for setting Resolve up properly?  

--
Sean Emer
Cinematographer - LA
732.539.6409

Ben Rowland, Yonder Blue Films
 

We shoot 2k 444 a lot for 1080 delivery.  If you set up Davinci Resolve properly, it scales really well, and is helpful as others have mentioned.

Steve Oakley
 

it depends on if you are scaling and what scaling algorithm . one could just be cropping the edges off with the option of some side to side repositioning. 

these days, Resolve, PP both use high quality scaling and problems from scaling are generally not an issue for typical corrections. I regularly rotate images that are slightly off level .5 to 1.5 deg typically and scale 5-10% to make up for it and good luck ever finding those shots amongst the rest.

Steve Oakley
DP / Editor / Colorist / VFX Artist
Madison & Milwaukee WI
920 544 2230


On Feb 6, 2018, at 8:07 AM, Mitch Gross <mitchgrosscml@...> wrote:

If you are finishing to 1920 width then why would you shoot in 2048 width?  It's a fractional downconvert that will only lead to artifacts. 

Mitch Gross
Cinema Product Manager 
Panasonic Media Entertainment Company
New York

On Feb 6, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Michael Sanders <glowstars@...> wrote:

Can anyone think of a reason to or not shoot 2048 x 858 or shoot 2048 x 1152 if your deliver is HD 1920 x 1080 for the web and you want the end result to be CinemaScope look (ie.  masking top and bottom).

Thanks 

Michael

Michael J Sanders: Director of Photography 
  
Reel/credits  www.mjsanders.co.uk   M:07976 269818   Linkline Diary: 020 8426 2200    twitter: @hackneydp 
_._,_._,_

Aleksei Vanamois
 

I typically shoot 2048 x 1152 and use the additional top and bottom to re-frame or allow for some extra edge for stabilization. You could even take a center extract in HD. An Alexa can have one frame guide with a HD safe area and a second set to 2.39 for full 2048 width.

Aleksei


Aleksei Vanamois
DOP - Cinematographer
--------------------------------------
M +61 (0) 405 679 291
E dp@...
--------------------------------------

Eugen Oprina
 

On the other hand, you can shoot a little bit wider and take advantage of the extra resolution in postproduction for stabilizing, reframing or small camera movements.
I would shoot maximum resolution with cinemascope guides on viewfinder and videoasist.
Eugen Oprina,
filmmaker

On 6 February 2018 at 16:07, Mitch Gross <mitchgrosscml@...> wrote:
If you are finishing to 1920 width then why would you shoot in 2048 width?  It's a fractional downconvert that will only lead to artifacts. 

Mitch Gross
Cinema Product Manager 
Panasonic Media Entertainment Company
New York

On Feb 6, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Michael Sanders <glowstars@...> wrote:

Can anyone think of a reason to or not shoot 2048 x 858 or shoot 2048 x 1152 if your deliver is HD 1920 x 1080 for the web and you want the end result to be CinemaScope look (ie.  masking top and bottom).

Thanks 

Michael

Michael J Sanders: Director of Photography 
  
Reel/credits  www.mjsanders.co.uk   M:07976 269818   Linkline Diary: 020 8426 2200    twitter: @hackneydp 




--
This is Linux Land.
In silent nights you can hear the windows machines rebooting.

Mitch Gross
 

If you are finishing to 1920 width then why would you shoot in 2048 width?  It's a fractional downconvert that will only lead to artifacts. 

Mitch Gross
Cinema Product Manager 
Panasonic Media Entertainment Company
New York

On Feb 6, 2018, at 7:00 AM, Michael Sanders <glowstars@...> wrote:

Can anyone think of a reason to or not shoot 2048 x 858 or shoot 2048 x 1152 if your deliver is HD 1920 x 1080 for the web and you want the end result to be CinemaScope look (ie.  masking top and bottom).

Thanks 

Michael

Michael J Sanders: Director of Photography 
  
Reel/credits  www.mjsanders.co.uk   M:07976 269818   Linkline Diary: 020 8426 2200    twitter: @hackneydp 

 

Can anyone think of a reason to or not shoot 2048 x 858 or shoot 2048 x 1152 if your deliver is HD 1920 x 1080 for the web and you want the end result to be CinemaScope look (ie.  masking top and bottom).

Thanks 

Michael

Michael J Sanders: Director of Photography 
  
Reel/credits  www.mjsanders.co.uk   M:07976 269818   Linkline Diary: 020 8426 2200    twitter: @hackneydp