1080p/24 Best way to achieve it?

[Jagger Christian]

Noob question here, sorry.

If my final product is going to be 1080p/24 is it just better to shoot that way from the beginning to save hard drive/CF space or is the quality of shooting in 4K (5k Epic or 3K Scarlet) then bringing it down to 1080p always deliver superior results, that it is worth the storage space and the possible hassle of working with bigger files?

If that is true why would anyone shoot in anything less than the "Best K" possible? Is it because of the reason I asked about or because of wanting to shoot in higher fps (ie 120fps) if 3/4/5K couldn't capture that? Or because of other factors that I am not aware of?

Thanks, HardRockCA aka "THE NOOB"

[donatello b]

based on Red one ... for my projects
1st choice is 4k ...
2nd choice is 3k ...
today i don't do 2k ! ..i'll test again when build 16 arrives ...

[Chris Kenny]

Noob question here, sorry.

If my final product is going to be 1080p/24 is it just better to shoot that way from the beginning to save hard drive/CF space or is the quality of shooting in 4K (5k Epic or 3K Scarlet) then bringing it down to 1080p always deliver superior results, that it is worth the storage space and the possible hassle of working with bigger files?

Whether it's worth it for a specific project depends, of course, on the project. But the quality difference is fairly substantial. Particularly the noise reduction that occurs when scaling from 4K to 1080p. You also, of course, get a sharper image and 35mm-format shallow depth of field.

And while 4K does take up more disk space, it can, ironically, be faster and easier to work with in post for a 2K or 1080p deliverable. This is because from a 4K raw file, Red's tools can extract 2K or smaller images without having to go through a full debayer process, whereas to get anything over 1K from a 2K original, you do need to go through a full debayer.

While the quality of a fast 2K extraction from 4K isn't as good as as full 4K debayer followed by scaling, it's still good enough for many HD deliverables. And, while I haven't done side-by-side comparisons, my impression is that it's a fair bit better than a full debayer of material shot in 2K, despite requiring much less processing. And, of course, you always have that 4K original if you want to spit out higher quality 2K or 1080p later (or, eventually 4K).

Given that the hard drive space to record an hour of 4K Red footage costs about what the tape stock required to record an hour of HD footage costs for some other professional cameras, I see little reason not to shoot 4K for most projects.

[Jagger Christian]

Thanks Chris! Very Informative!

[Mat@imageWork]

Yes 4K is better because you are using the entire CCD of the camera. If you are shooting in HD, you are loosing hudge part of the possibility, and you can not use the 35 mm lenses. Much better DOF (in fact less DOF). work in 4K 23,97 P, offline in 2K. Give the xml to REDCINE and output a 1080 23,97P and relink the media, Or output direclty in 1080 23,97P from final cut.

Chris what software you are using for your side-by-side comparison? Could you give us the technical spec? My experience is different but it depends of the setting (debayern setting) used during the output on REDCINE.