2k or 1080p when aiming for festivals/35mm

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10 October 2005   #1
2k or 1080p when aiming for festivals/35mm

Hi guys.

I am trying to work out if it is worth to render my shortfilm in 2k rather than 1080p.
I am aiming at filmfestivals and the end result will most probably have to go on 35mm (amongst other mediums such as DVD).

Is there any real reason to go for 2k, is the difference in quality noticable?

Thank you for your comments.
 
Old 10 October 2005   #2
Originally Posted by mindsample: Hi guys.

I am trying to work out if it is worth to render my shortfilm in 2k rather than 1080p.
I am aiming at filmfestivals and the end result will most probably have to go on 35mm (amongst other mediums such as DVD).

Is there any real reason to go for 2k, is the difference in quality noticable?

Thank you for your comments.


also how does the difference in image/pixel ration come into consideration when aiming for different mediums such as 35mm and dvd ?
 
Old 10 October 2005   #3
'Toy Story' was rendered at 1,5k = 1536 pixels and the upsampled to 2k which blurs the image a bit. It is important to add any fance film look stuff like grain after scaling up.
bye
G.
__________________
there's never enough time to do all the nothin' you want (Calvin/Bill Watterson)
http://lagrandequest.blogspot.com/
 
Old 10 October 2005   #4
Sin City was done at 1080p. If that quality is good enough for you then I think you shall have your answer.
 
Old 10 October 2005   #5
Originally Posted by mindsample: Hi guys.

I am trying to work out if it is worth to render my shortfilm in 2k rather than 1080p.
1080p pretty much IS 2k. It's 1920 pixels wide, whereas 2k is 2048. Not much difference. For animation though you can usually get by with uprezzing 1k. The less photoreal it is, the more you can get by with an uprez.

Fred
 
Old 10 October 2005   #6
Originally Posted by mindsample: also how does the difference in image/pixel ration come into consideration when aiming for different mediums such as 35mm and dvd ?


i'd strongly recommend always rendering square pixels. if your end product is ntsc, you can render at 720*540, and when you're all done with everything(compositing, etc...) scale down to 720*486. this allows you to see the correct aspect ratio as you are working and also makes it easier if you wish to convert to a different format later on. as far as image ratio goes, that is an artistic choice.
__________________

 
Old 10 October 2005   #7
Originally Posted by mindsample: Hi guys.

I am trying to work out if it is worth to render my shortfilm in 2k rather than 1080p.
I am aiming at filmfestivals and the end result will most probably have to go on 35mm (amongst other mediums such as DVD).

Is there any real reason to go for 2k, is the difference in quality noticable?

Thank you for your comments.


Most of the festivals will accept HDCAM, BetaSP, or DigiBeta.
__________________

 
Old 10 October 2005   #8
I'm opperating a DP100 digital cinema projector in our cinema daily. Its a 2k projector... but we only have a max. of 1920x1080 programmed in our presets resolution. Starwars was 1920x893 (something like that), that is ofcourse a stange format... but it seemed beautifull on screen. The standard most time is 1920x1080.

Oh, and there is really a noticeble difference between beta and 2k! 2k rocks the sh!t!
__________________
Check out a collection of my work.
Mad Max Fury Road | Gods of Egypt | Saints & Strangers | Deepwater Horizon
 
Old 10 October 2005   #9
Originally Posted by gawain: 'Toy Story' was rendered at 1,5k = 1536 pixels and the upsampled to 2k which blurs the image a bit. It is important to add any fance film look stuff like grain after scaling up.
bye
G.


thanks everyone for your replies.

1080 should be easily enough then and will save a lot of rendering time compared to 2k.

as regarding the upscaling of things, any experiences what 1k or 720p looks like on 35mm? How drastic is the difference between 1k and 1080p for a non photo realistic full cg animation (without any live action footage)?

I know the formats from watching them on my computer screen, and I know the numbers, but they dont mean much to me when I am thinking big cinema screens, thats why I am asking!

Last edited by mindsample : 10 October 2005 at 01:41 PM.
 
Old 11 November 2005   #10
Originally Posted by mindsample: any experiences what 1k or 720p looks like on 35mm?


blurry and a little pixelated.
 
Old 11 November 2005   #11
Originally Posted by jbo: i'd strongly recommend always rendering square pixels. if your end product is ntsc, you can render at 720*540, and when you're all done with everything(compositing, etc...) scale down to 720*486. this allows you to see the correct aspect ratio as you are working and also makes it easier if you wish to convert to a different format later on.

Good information (had been wondering about that issue for a while).
__________________
My eyes are open, yet I continue on dreaming
 
Old 11 November 2005   #12
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.