Zach Ashcraft Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Maybe not a simple question, but I am curious. Why does the market seem intent on going straight from 1080p to 4K? Why no 2.5K in between? Has this been out in the consumer market for a while and I've just been oblivious to it? Just curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 2.5K is a kind of random resolution I think. It's not really a standard and is there any camera except for the BMCC that shoots 2.5K?The difference with 1080p is small... 4K has been around for a long time. A step in between wouldn't make much sense imo. Germy1979 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 2.5k is a perfect format to shoot for 1080p/2k, since you get some extra room for stabilizing or reframing without resolution loss, but coming up with a 2.5k standard as the next big thing would be pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 If the Alexa doesnt need 4k, nothing does. Anything with a K after it is a Marketing gimmic. Germy1979 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enny Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 so 4 k is pointless unless you are shooting Hollywood blockbuster. So there is not much difference between 1080 and 2.5k? because i am thinking of BMCC 2.5k or 5d mk3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 The best camera right now is the ARRI Alexa. It shoots 2.5K (F65 is best for 4K; Red Dragon should also be competitive when released). If I could shoot 4K 10-bit 422 XAVC I would (as with F55): can downsample for excellent detail, reframe, zoom in post, stabilize, etc. The Sony FS700 will get reasonable cost 4K with the CD 7Q. 4K sampled down to 1080p will look much better than the in-camera 1080p (in camera downsample from the 4K sensor is lower quality than can be done in post). For the big screen, 4K is awesome- very noticeable improvement in quality- totally worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 I guess I'd have to see what 4k looks like on a 4k tv to know what the hell I'm talking about, but at 2.5k on my computer, all I see is just a bigger image. On its own, it doesn't look "better" to me than a 1080 image until you downscale it and compare it to a shot done natively at 1080. Most of the benefits it seems to me, are only beneficial for lower resolutions like reframing, post-stabilizing, better looking HD, and more room to play with FX. Maybe my mind will change when I stand in front of a 4k tv, who knows. Arri will more than likely do a 4k cam in the future. They aren't as balls out about resolution as Red, Sony, and the masses are though. You look at the character of anything shot on an Alexa and you understand why their priorities are just fine the way they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 If I could shoot 4K 10-bit 422 XAVC I would (as with F55): can downsample for excellent detail, reframe, zoom in post, stabilize, etc. The Sony FS700 will get reasonable cost 4K with the CD 7Q. 4K sampled down to 1080p will look much better than the in-camera 1080p (in camera downsample from the 4K sensor is lower quality than can be done in post). For the big screen, 4K is awesome- very noticeable improvement in quality- totally worth it. lol. The Alexa is the only camera anyone can rave endlessly over and not be labeled a "Fan boy". (Who's the elitist dick that came up with that term anyway?) It really is at the top of just about everybody's "Money is no option" camera list. So many other options with higher resolution. The F55 looks about as sterile to me as a cotton ball, I couldn't see spending that kind of money on an image I'd constantly be trying to add character to... but I like narratives. Everybody is different:) The C100/300/500 ripoff line actually has a beautifully detailed internal image scaled from the 4k sensor. That was one thing I couldn't complain about with my C100. Doing the Canon thing though with the typical 8-bit neutering on the other hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enny Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 ok guys i am at my comp with a credit card looking at black magic camera 2.5k and canon 5dmk3 i really don't care about picture taking i am all about video and main thing is the raw files so my brain is telling me black magic with canon lens attachment but then its also saying 5dmk3. and black magic cam is 1000 cheaper i am just wondering if i am making good choice here with black magic thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 ok guys i am at my comp with a credit card looking at black magic camera 2.5k and canon 5dmk3 i really don't care about picture taking i am all about video and main thing is the raw files so my brain is telling me black magic with canon lens attachment but then its also saying 5dmk3. and black magic cam is 1000 cheaper i am just wondering if i am making good choice here with black magic thanks I like mine, however it took me 3 times to get a BMCC that didn't have excessive noise in the green channel, infinity focus issues, rolling wave like noise in the blacks, compression artifacts and banding on the display, or cross stitch-like pattern noise in low light scenarios. Their support team will work with you until you get a proper cam, but I'm in Indiana and it was $60 + each time I had to send one to California. This is probably just my bad luck though dude. Plenty of footage online has shown this camera to be more than capable of good sex. Here's a video I did with it: http://vimeo.com/70249120 (Aside from all the "film look" footage coming from it, you can paint your ass off with the 12 bit files if you want. Beautiful color.) As far as the Mark 3, in my personal opinion, ML raw on the Mark 3 looks better, even being only 1080 most of the time... but that's my personal opinion. I know it does better in lowlight than the BMCC, and the hack is from what I understand reliable now if you have the right card... and that's the problem with it. Komputer Bay cards are cheap compared to the others, but they're a lottery in terms of a good one. The one ML seems to have endorsed as the one to get is the Lexar 1000x series CF card. A 128gb is $600 new. That is 25 minutes of 1080 raw on a Mark 3. I would think anything less would be a pain in the ass. Plus you need a workaround to review your footage on site, like a Ninja 2 recording simultaneously...because you can't review raw clips (in color at correct frame rate) - on the camera yet. However, ML raw last I checked was only working on the firmware PRIOR to the clean HDMI update from Canon, so you wouldn't have a clean backup shot. Just a reference with overlays I would assume until ML update with the new firmware. (Which would still just be a muddy 8-bit feed in 4:2:2) Man, I would take a few breaths, mentally put a muzzle on the little guy telling you "BUY NOW!", and try them out first. Lens Rentals has both for next to nothing on a couple of days. They even have an ML raw preinstalled Mark 3 with the Lexar cards. If neither set you off, you've saved for what looks to be an interesting year in terms of what's coming out. I wish I would've been patient Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enny Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Thanks for that reply germy you me spill my coffee with paint your ass off with the 12 bit files if you want. LOL well i got BMCC i gte 2.5k and ProRes 422 HQ i am, hobbyist and right now my cam is 60d so anything i get is better then 60d and price is right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 I guess I'd have to see what 4k looks like on a 4k tv to know what the hell I'm talking about, but at 2.5k on my computer, all I see is just a bigger image. On its own, it doesn't look "better" to me than a 1080 image until you downscale it and compare it to a shot done natively at 1080. Most of the benefits it seems to me, are only beneficial for lower resolutions like reframing, post-stabilizing, better looking HD, and more room to play with FX. Maybe my mind will change when I stand in front of a 4k tv, who knows. History repeating. The first HD cameras (consumers as well as professional cameras) made so many compromises, that we no longer consider them HD at all by current standards. Surely the resolution topped old SD cameras, but resolution wasn't everything. As soon as 4k will be a widely known standard, all current 4k cameras will lack either resolution or other shortcomings will become apparent. That will be - when? - 5 years, 10 years from now? If ever. Remember that UHDTV is pushed mainly by the japanese industry (like unnecessarily fast and big cars are promoted by the german industry and reasonable speed limits are anathema to german government, protecting this industry). So if resizing in post is the argument, go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbp Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 History repeating. The first HD cameras (consumers as well as professional cameras) made so many compromises, that we no longer consider them HD at all by current standards. Surely the resolution topped old SD cameras, but resolution wasn't everything. Not only is it history repeating itself, but I feel the difference between SD to HD is much greater to the average joe than HD to 4K/UHD will be. I haven't seen 4k content on a TV, so I could be wrong, but that's my gut instinct for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhessel Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 I have seen a 4K tv with 4k content and it is sharper and has more detail but a lot of that gets lost once you are sitting back at a normal viewing distance. Several people I know have gone and seen one and cannot tell the difference between 4k and HD. 4k is a logical next step since it is actually 2x HD and is not really 4k 3840 v 4096. Most people won't be able to see much of a difference between HD, 2.5k, and 4k on a 4k tv so I don't see tech needing to move away from 2.5k any time soon. For feature films on giant screens that may be a different story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 4K will become more interesting to consumers when affordable 100+" ultra-thin wall-mount TVs are available (OLED, etc.). For those with the room, 4K projectors will provide noticeable quality improvement over HD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntblowz Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Even phone camera can do 4K, I'd imagine more will follows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germy1979 Posted November 7, 2013 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Anybody know what ever happened with the development of that (I think it was called Vector) program? I don't remember the name of it, but there was an article here a while back on it and how it could emulate resolution.....er somethin... Kind of a post process that upscaled in its own unique way to higher resolutions without the loss of quality. ...yeah there it is. shit. Now I have to stalk the archives here or it'll kill me. EDIT: Here it is: http://www.eoshd.com/content/9585/pixels-to-be-superseded-by-vector-technology-in-new-video-codec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.