Joel said:
negative1 said
:there's no point in shooting at higher megapixels, because the
disk space, and rendering time, along with resizing and scaling
make it much harder. also the difference when you render down
to 1080p isn't really that noticeable.
I agree that bit depth is a bigger factor than pixel resolution in this process.
RE: Capturing at 1080p vs downscaling to 1080P - maybe this is true using the method you are using currently? Usually, video downscaled from 4k captures looks signifcantly better.
The only thing I would do differently here, with all of the time involved, as well as this expensive/rare film and equipment, would be to capture it in as high-res a format as possible -at least film-grain resolution- to have the highest quality material to start with. Isn't that kind of the point of capturing the 35mm print in the first place?
we are saving the 4k scans, for future proofing the video when the time
comes. that is what we are using as our source, not 1080p or 2k.
we've done some quick tests with 4k video and
resampling it down to 1080p, and did not notice an
improvement over just using the 2k/1080p downsamples. of course we
don't really have a 4k monitor to see what it would look like at
native resolution. i'm sure there will be some higher resolution
monitors/tv coming out that will support that. but that's a moot
point as most people can't take advantage of it.
check out thorr's WQHD (2560x1600) trailer.. not too many
people can even view video at that resolution and compare
it to the 1080p version. it might be possible for a very large
screen.
----------------------------------------
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Thorrs-35-mm-Star-Wars-Trilogy-SE-Trailer-WQHD-Restoration/topic/13086/page/1/
although there are people that have HD projectors, we are
also creating a full frame 1920x1080 version that will not be
squeezed or letterboxed. you will have to correct for that
yourself using the projector.
later
-1