This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] FR: FrameFlex 1:1 warning zoom in on 4K (Was "more folks are panning")

That's generally true in all the tools I've used that have this ability -
you have to either do the math yourself, or just guess.

In practice I've never found it to be a huge problem, because even if you
do go past 1:1 you can usually get decent quality - just as we can usually
blow up HD footage to 120% or so without significant softening, we can go
past 1:1 in something like Frame Flex (I say "something like" because I've
not really played with Frame Flex much) and still get decent scaling
quality.

Dylan Reeve
http://dylanreeve.com/

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Steve Hullfish <steve4lists@veralith.com>wrote:

> Basically I've been trying this with the new MC7 FrameFlex functionality
> and that looks perfectly sharp when you push in 200% on an image that's 4
> times bigger than your output resolution.
>
> If you have MC7 and some footage that is natively 4K, you can try it
> yourself. (RED has some test footage on the web that's free to download, I
> think... and maybe stock footage houses have 4K materials.
>
> You HAVE to AMA the material into the Avid for it to work. If you
> transcode or import, then you've already downsized it to HD. But if it's
> AMA linked, then the FrameFlex option (right-click on the Source monitor to
> get Source Settings, then choose FrameFlex tab) you can zoom WAY in.
>
> My big problem with this FrameFlex feature is that the only real way you
> can tell if you are zooming in BEYOND 1:1 pixels is to select the check box
> marked "Same size as raster dimensions" which means that you want to output
> at 1080 essentially (most of the time). That makes the frame inside the 2K
> or 4K file exactly 1080 size. If you look at the size parameter, it will
> register (for a 4K image) something around 52%. As long as you don't zoom
> in any further than that, you shouldn't be soft. But I wish Avid gave you
> some other indication or way to determine how far in you can zoom.
>
> Steve
>
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 2:56 PM, johnrobmoore <bigfish@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > "Watching "Duck
> > Dynasty" (which is not shot 4K) I can see how it would be great to have
> a single
> > 4K camera that would allow me to shoot a medium shot and a close up with
> a
> > single camera. That show loves to do the cut to the close up on the
> punch line."
> >
> > I worked briefly on a popular series that had moved to netflicks. They
> were pushing in on the shots 200% on the Red footage and at the watchdown
> the execs asked why the blown up shots were soft focus compared to the
> surrounding shots. We were watching on a moderate sized screen LCD IIRC.
> These weren't the DP's but execs and they sent the show back to Resolve for
> more sharpening filters. This makes me aware that even with higher
> resolution the blow ups aren't seemless. Perhaps there was a flaw in how
> the resizes were being done but I don't know what that would be. Can
> someone tell me they have taken Red footage and blown it up 200% and have
> it look just as crisp as footage that was not resized? We were watching in
> HD.
> >
> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hullfish <steve4lists@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not denying that people are shooting 4K. I'm not denying that
> production professionals are ASKING for 4K cameras. The question is "Is it
> really necessary?" What does additional resolution buy you? I TOTALLY get
> what additional color space or additional exposure latitude gets you. I get
> what additional control over depth of field gets you. But when you get to
> the limits of the human eye's ability to resolve data, or to the ability of
> the informational infrastucture of the world to deliver that data, then you
> wonder how important the resolution is, unless you're doing special effects
> and it makes a better key. Or unless you're repositioning elements.
> Watching "Duck Dynasty" (which is not shot 4K) I can see how it would be
> great to have a single 4K camera that would allow me to shoot a medium shot
> and a close up with a single camera. That show loves to do the cut to the
> close up on the punch line.
> > >
> > > The other question is 4K delivery. Other than for archival purposes,
> there are few options for displaying 4K. You can't do it on the internet.
> You can't do it on TV. Most digital theaters are 2K and probably will be -
> for financial reasons - for the foreseeable future. People will pay extra
> to see IMAX (for now). People will pay extra to see 3D (for now). My wife
> and I get into arguments about whether to pay extra for HD instead of SD on
> on-demand movies. (I see the difference. She does not. I often am willing
> to sacrifice $1 to watch in SD, depending on the type of movie and my
> interest in really seeing it.) Will I pay extra to see a movie in 4K
> instead of 2K? Absolutely not.
> > >
> > > 4K production is a given at this point. I agree. But WHY? There really
> is an element of "the emperor's new clothes" to the argument. Can you tell
> a 4K production from a 2K production in HD? Can you tell a 4K production
> from a 2K production in 2K? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm asking an honest
> question. I haven't seen well-projected 2K and 4K side by side. My guess is
> that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they were both shot well.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > On Aug 24, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Scott <switthaus@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nope. HD. Point is that it's out there. Gonna be tough to put that
> genie back in the bottle. And yes, the director wanted to do all the repo's
> in post.
> > > >
> > > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Terence Curren" <tcurren@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you deliver 4K? Was it broadcast 4K? Did the home viewer have
> an option to omwatch 4K?
> > > > >
> > > > > Look at how many years we watched 35MM programming in SD.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" <switthaus@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hell, Epic 5k. Last two spots series. This guy is an ostrich.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sw
> > > > > > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Tony Quinsee-Jover <tony@>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Interesting perspective and persuasive argument but... I think
> he's wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Most of the jobs I'm quoting on these days are 2k or 4k. Just
> because Mr Bourbonais isn't being asked to shoot in 4k doesn't mean it's
> not already happening.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > SD is dead in my world. Even tiny corporate jobs destined for
> the web are HD.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4k is the new HD.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent by magic over t'interweb
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 23 Aug 2013, at 20:20, "Terence Curren" <tcurren@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/why-4k-wrong
> > > > > > > > <http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/why-4k-wrong>
> > > > > > > > I'm not feeling so alone anymore. :-P
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]