BMCC upscale to 4K ?

Has anyone tested RAW upscale to 4K with BMCC,would it hold up well enough given that camera is
real sharp shooter at 2,5K and the fact that film need not be too sharp and turn to video looking thing.

If so,would that be a 13 stop dynamic range future proof 4K option good enough for cinema?

I get the theory how it will suffer and it is not the same but interested if anyone did the test on real
4K monitor / projector?

2.5k Image: http://tommajerski.com/publicimages/2_5k.jpg
Debayered to 4k: http://tommajerski.com/publicimages/4k.jpg


Another example:

2.5k Image: http://tommajerski.com/publicimages/2_5k2.jpg
Debayered to 4k: http://tommajerski.com/publicimages/4k2.jpg

Thanks Tom,

either of these images are real sharp to my eyes,cant see resolution being an issue,
surely 4K BMPC will deliver lots of goodies but cant see BMCC being left in dust in next few years to come,just as 7D held its own for 5 years almost against many new cameras delivered up to recently.

Visually, no loss of detail.

Looking pretty good Tom, what have you used for debaiering to 4k?

Looking pretty good Tom, what have you used for debaiering to 4k?

Thanks Frank,
I used Adobe Camera Raw.

Thanks Tom,

either of these images are real sharp to my eyes,cant see resolution being an issue,
surely 4K BMPC will deliver lots of goodies but cant see BMCC being left in dust in next few years to come,just as 7D held its own for 5 years almost against many new cameras delivered up to recently.

Personally, I don't really have any desire for 4K at the moment, I am far more interested in it having the Global shutter- but the lower DR and sensitivity makes it a no go for me. I can work around a rolling shutter and the BMCC 2.5k ticks all the boxes for me right now.

I agree, DR was deal breaker for me as well,
BMCC deserves lot more then it gets , it is "New DVX100".

I agree, DR was deal breaker for me as well,
BMCC deserves lot more then it gets , it is "New DVX100".

+1

Thanks Tom,

either of these images are real sharp to my eyes,cant see resolution being an issue,
surely 4K BMPC will deliver lots of goodies but cant see BMCC being left in dust in next few years to come,just as 7D held its own for 5 years almost against many new cameras delivered up to recently.

Personally, I don't really have any desire for 4K at the moment, I am far more interested in it having the Global shutter- but the lower DR and sensitivity makes it a no go for me. I can work around a rolling shutter and the BMCC 2.5k ticks all the boxes for me right now.

This is why you come from a DSLR to 2.5K, When you say "I don't really have any desire for 4K at the moment"...REALLY!
This just gives me more reason to "desire" it, you either can not understand what you can do with it, or...Maybe you simply can not deal with it at the 4K acquisition?, Plus shooting and storage cost?
For whatever reason you decided you do not need or desire it, It is wanted Ten fold by many of us,
And for that reason I can accept a loss in DR..I can also accept a loss in low light performance, And I can work around those down falls,The global shutter is a gift, with or without 13 stops of DR and low Light performance, it's still a gift, When you need a camera like the production camera it will cost you BIG MONEY buying or renting the equivalent, and at $4000.00 it is a no brainer!

So your comment (like many others) is null and void for many of us who know what we want, and how we deal with any "pitfalls" from any camera.

Debayer by reducing resolution is enhancing the image more then just "getting it sharper". So when uprezing it's not going to get better, rather the opposite. You can never really futureproof 2.5K material for 4K, even the new 4K camera is not really going to be able to compete with a F65 or Epic downscaled 4K image in terms of the depayering process.

This is why you come from a DSLR to 2.5K, When you say "I don't really have any desire for 4K at the moment"...REALLY!

Yes really. I didnt get the BMCC for its increased resolution - I got it for its raw and dynamic range.

Also, I always finish in 1080p - and for me the quality of the scale from 2.5 to 1080p is plenty.

Furthermore, every cinema around me (and pretty much most if not all in the UK) are only 2k digital protections. If you check most filmed in 4k films - their DI is almost always a 2k one anyway. So I have no need for it in terms of oversampling or screening.

In terms of future proofing - I do not necessarily buy into the idea that we are all going 4k anyway. Not saying it will never happen - just that with diminishing returns with increased resolution, the jump from SD to HD is not comparable to the jump from HD to 4k. Even if we do - I am fairly sure that if I am doing my job properly, the slight increase in perceived resolution will not change my work in any drastic way.

... you either can not understand what you can do with it, or...Maybe you simply can not deal with it at the 4K acquisition?, Plus shooting and storage cost?

Try to sound less arrogant and patronising with your comments and perhaps you will have fewer warnings.

I know what one can do with 4k - oversampling, cropping etc - neither interested me. I want to compose my shots properly and not have them altered in post. As for oversampling, I have already addressed this point.

For whatever reason you decided you do not need or desire it, It is wanted Ten fold by many of us,
And for that reason I can accept a loss in DR..I can also accept a loss in low light performance, And I can work around those down falls,The global shutter is a gift, with or without 13 stops of DR and low Light performance, it's still a gift, When you need a camera like the production camera it will cost you BIG MONEY buying or renting the equivalent, and at $4000.00 it is a no brainer!

Not sure how one can want something "x10", but anyway, do what I did, speak for yourself. My post was very clearly my own opinion and what I want. I know some people do want it, in which case, they can buy the BMCC 4k. Unlike you -I have only spoken for myself and not others. I am not sure why its hard for you to appreciate that not everyone wants or cares for the same things you do.

So your comment (like many others) is null and void for many of us who know what we want, and how we deal with any "pitfalls" from any camera.

I know what I want too. How can my opinion be null and void? How arrogant of you to try and tell me that what I want is actually not what I want at all, it is what you want.

This is why you come from a DSLR to 2.5K, When you say "I don't really have any desire for 4K at the moment"...REALLY!

Yes really. I didnt get the BMCC for its increased resolution - I got it for its raw and dynamic range.

Also, I always finish in 1080p - and for me the quality of the scale from 2.5 to 1080p is plenty.

Furthermore, every cinema around me (and pretty much most if not all in the UK) are only 2k digital protections. If you check most filmed in 4k films - their DI is almost always a 2k one anyway. So I have no need for it in terms of oversampling or screening.

In terms of future proofing - I do not necessarily buy into the idea that we are all going 4k anyway. Not saying it will never happen - just that with diminishing returns with increased resolution, the jump from SD to HD is not comparable to the jump from HD to 4k. Even if we do - I am fairly sure that if I am doing my job properly, the slight increase in perceived resolution will not change my work in any drastic way.

... you either can not understand what you can do with it, or...Maybe you simply can not deal with it at the 4K acquisition?, Plus shooting and storage cost?

Try to sound less arrogant and patronising with your comments and perhaps you will have fewer warnings.

I know what one can do with 4k - oversampling, cropping etc - neither interested me. I want to compose my shots properly and not have them altered in post. As for oversampling, I have already addressed this point.

For whatever reason you decided you do not need or desire it, It is wanted Ten fold by many of us,
And for that reason I can accept a loss in DR..I can also accept a loss in low light performance, And I can work around those down falls,The global shutter is a gift, with or without 13 stops of DR and low Light performance, it's still a gift, When you need a camera like the production camera it will cost you BIG MONEY buying or renting the equivalent, and at $4000.00 it is a no brainer!

Not sure how one can want something "x10", but anyway, do what I did, speak for yourself. My post was very clearly my own opinion and what I want. I know some people do want it, in which case, they can buy the BMCC 4k. Unlike you -I have only spoken for myself and not others. I am not sure why its hard for you to appreciate that not everyone wants or cares for the same things you do.

So your comment (like many others) is null and void for many of us who know what we want, and how we deal with any "pitfalls" from any camera.

I know what I want too. How can my opinion be null and void? How arrogant of you to try and tell me that what I want is actually not what I want at all, it is what you want.

Just the opposite Tom, I know what I want, And I say "How arrogant of you" to try and tell others any different, After all we all strive for the next best camera,
and as far as many of "US" are concerned The 4K production camera brings almost everything we want for less.

Now stop trying to twist my words to sound like I flamed you!, I will retract the "Null and Void" comment since it seems to have offended you, but please do not tell the masses that a 4K camera @4K is nothing other than a gimmick!

WTF?
"Try to sound less arrogant"....Really?

I would suggest you do the same, My warnings are not for you to taunt me with.
Got it?

Just the opposite Tom, I know what I want, And I say "How arrogant of you" to try and tell others any different, After all we all strive for the next best camera,
and as far as many of "US" are concerned The 4K production camera brings almost everything we want for less.

Now stop trying to twist my words to sound like I flamed you!, I will retract the "Null and Void" comment since it seems to have offended you, but please do not tell the masses that a 4K camera @4K is nothing other than a gimmick!

WTF?
"Try to sound less arrogant"....Really?

I would suggest you do the same, My warnings are not for you to taunt me with.
Got it?

1: I didnt try to tell anyone what they wanted, I actually said "Personally, I don't really have any desire for 4K at the moment"

2:"a 4K camera @4K is nothing other than a gimmick!" is something I have never ever said.

The only thing I ever said was how I felt about 4k.

You want 4k, I do not. End of story.

Just the opposite Tom, I know what I want, And I say "How arrogant of you" to try and tell others any different, After all we all strive for the next best camera,
and as far as many of "US" are concerned The 4K production camera brings almost everything we want for less.

Now stop trying to twist my words to sound like I flamed you!, I will retract the "Null and Void" comment since it seems to have offended you, but please do not tell the masses that a 4K camera @4K is nothing other than a gimmick!

WTF?
"Try to sound less arrogant"....Really?

I would suggest you do the same, My warnings are not for you to taunt me with.
Got it?

1: I didnt try to tell anyone what they wanted, I actually said "Personally, I don't really have any desire for 4K at the moment"

2:"a 4K camera @4K is nothing other than a gimmick!" is something I have never ever said.

The only thing I ever said was how I felt about 4k.

You want 4k, I do not. End of story.

Fair enough, I read your post much differently, Maybe as you did mine? or maybe not, I guess that
time has passed it's point of no return, But the next member that mentions my warnings will get a tongue lashing since it has no baring on any current comment of mine period!

To offer something to the conversation,
I heard that Iron Man 3 was shot with an Alexa (2.8K) and upscaled 4K. I am not sure as to why that would happen, as 2K seems to be the standard for most theaters. Anyone know anymore about this?

I'm not sure if IM3 was mastered in 4k, I know it was delivered at 2k.

However, on Skyfall I know that the master was done at 4k from the 2.8k plates, even though VFX was delivered at 2k - and that was shot on Alexa so yes it has been done and I do personally think there may be a benefit to preserving that extra .8k if you have it, especially on a big screen. One reason it isn't done all that often is cost.

On the flip side though, as Tom points out - most Cinemas in the UK run at 2k. I'm lucky as my local has 4k Sony projectors, however most of the DCP's going through it are 2k sadly. Some shows I've worked on have been shot at 5k and looked stunning at that resolution, a lot is lost when scaled down to 2k which is marginally better than HD when you think about it - 2048x1080 vs 1920x1080.

To offer something to the conversation,
I heard that Iron Man 3 was shot with an Alexa (2.8K) and upscaled 4K. I am not sure as to why that would happen, as 2K seems to be the standard for most theaters. Anyone know anymore about this?

I'm not sure if IM3 was mastered in 4k, I know it was delivered at 2k.

However, on Skyfall I know that the master was done at 4k from the 2.8k plates, even though VFX was delivered at 2k - and that was shot on Alexa so yes it has been done and I do personally think there may be a benefit to preserving that extra .8k if you have it, especially on a big screen. One reason it isn't done all that often is cost.

On the flip side though, as Tom points out - most Cinemas in the UK run at 2k. I'm lucky as my local has 4k Sony projectors, however most of the DCP's going through it are 2k sadly. Some shows I've worked on have been shot at 5k and looked stunning at that resolution, a lot is lost when scaled down to 2k which is marginally better than HD when you think about it - 2048x1080 vs 1920x1080.

Well that was a much more informed reason for "I'm not interested in 4K at this time" than the last post, And I hear what you're saying Luke, But are any of you working on independent films world wide? or Am I missing something from the UK since I was 13 yrs old last time I lived there?
Yes I am British Born, no criticism please, I can't handle another warning!

Well that was a much more informed reason for "I'm not interested in 4K at this time" than the last post, And I hear what you're saying Luke, But are any of you working on independent films world wide? or Am I missing something from the UK since I was 13 yrs old last time I lived there? Yes I am British Born, no criticism please, I can't handle another warning!

I'm not saying I'm not interested in 4k, I was just attempting to answer Brooklyn's question about why you might scale 2.8k up to 4k.

I don't do a lot of work on independent projects to be honest, though the films I'm fortunate to work on do tend to be distributed worldwide.

=
Well that was a much more informed reason for "I'm not interested in 4K at this time" than the last post, =

you mean like when I said:

"Furthermore, every cinema around me (and pretty much most if not all in the UK) are only 2k digital protections. If you check most filmed in 4k films - their DI is almost always a 2k one anyway. So I have no need for it in terms of oversampling or screening."

Also, please do not use quotation marks to refer to something which is not an actual quote -as I never said "I'm not interested in 4K at this time". Especially when my initial comment was in response to someone else, and it was in regards to comparing the BMCC 2.5k and BMPC 4k - not 4k as an image resolution.

Yeah I miss quoted you, But in the end we all know what you really said Tom,
Here is what I don't understand...
How can you even say anything about the 4K production camera when we don't even know what the footage will look like? --->Insert quote from John Brawley here<---
You have made a (Some May consider Negative) statement and you need to live with it, Now let's move on.

Yeah I miss quoted you, But in the end we all know what you really said Tom,
Here is what I don't understand...
How can you even say anything about the 4K production camera when we don't even know what the footage will look like? --->Insert quote from John Brawley here<---
You have made a (Some May consider Negative) statement and you need to live with it, Now let's move on.

I can say that it films at 4k - and this is a feature which I have no desire for.

I can say that its has a lower DR, lower than the BMCC.

I can say that it has a lower native ISO - lower than the bmcc.

These are factual statements and not negative at all.

What I also said was that I was interested in the global shutter, but that for what I want in a camera, the BMCC ticks more of the boxes for me.

Since replying to someone else and giving them my personal opinion, all you have done is chime in and insinuate that I some how do not understand the format and that my opinion is based on nothing other than me being uninformed. Why do you feel the need to attack my opinion based on my own needs as a professional, just because your needs are different? You want 4k -thats fine and I understand why, just because I do not share your view or share your requirements as a film maker, that does not make me less informed or negative. Even after our discussed had ended, you still felt the need to further attempt to diminish my opinion. Instead of telling someone why they need something which they do not need, how about just bringing the discussion along by simply giving your opinion on why you would prefer the 4k bmcc and not the 2.5k.

Anyway,

back on topic,


Has anyone tried to debayer to 4k via Resolve? it seems to crash everytime I try it.

Does anyone have any other (perhaps better) ways to scale the 2.5k to 4k?

Anyway,

back on topic,


Has anyone tried to debayer to 4k via Resolve? it seems to crash everytime I try it.

Does anyone have any other (perhaps better) ways to scale the 2.5k to 4k?

I did previously but I can't remember what happened now. I don't have a full copy of resolve anymore as I no longer own a camera - bummer!

I usually do those sorts of reformats inside Nuke, with great results depending on the filtering used, but not ideal for resizing a batch of shots perhaps.

I'm not sure what kind of filtering After Effects would use, but perhaps for mass reformatting session you could import all your shots into AE, create an output preset which scales up to 4k, then add all to the render queue and go that route.

Anyway,

back on topic,


Has anyone tried to debayer to 4k via Resolve? it seems to crash everytime I try it.

Does anyone have any other (perhaps better) ways to scale the 2.5k to 4k?

I did previously but I can't remember what happened now. I don't have a full copy of resolve anymore as I no longer own a camera - bummer!

I usually do those sorts of reformats inside Nuke, with great results depending on the filtering used, but not ideal for resizing a batch of shots perhaps.

I'm not sure what kind of filtering After Effects would use, but perhaps for mass reformatting session you could import all your shots into AE, create an output preset which scales up to 4k, then add all to the render queue and go that route.

If I was going via After effects, I may as well just debayer it to 4k via ACR, no? I guess that really depends on which looks better in the end. Might get round to comparing the two.

I would love to see how it looks transferred onto 35mm and rescanned at 4k. Obviously there would not be any extra resolving, in fact probably less due to the transfers - but perhaps the scaling would look more natural. Doubt we will ever see it due to the cost of such a process.

If I was going via After effects, I may as well just debayer it to 4k via ACR, no? I guess that really depends on which looks better in the end. Might get round to comparing the two.

I would love to see how it looks transferred onto 35mm and rescanned at 4k. Obviously there would not be any extra resolving, in fact probably less due to the transfers - but perhaps the scaling would look more natural. Doubt we will ever see it due to the cost of such a process.

I suspect you'd get better results with ACR, but doesn't camera raw open individually for each shot though?

Grainy is how it would look! I think it would be hard to tell the difference between the BMCC scaled 4k & scanned print and the genuine (filmed) 35mm 4k because if you actually degrain and subtly sharpen 4k footage in Neat Video in Nuke you realize there's really not a whole lot of detail there compared to say 2K digital. I'm convinced the grain creates an illusion of more detail than there really is.

TOM lol

I'm convinced the grain creates an illusion of more detail than there really is.

I guess its like trying to measure the DR in digital footage also, there is no fixed point at which objectively an image is just noise or grain and not actual detail.

I am always intrigued by how varied peoples perceptions or appreciations are for such things. I don't mind a bit of grain, seeing a proper 35mm projection - even with its dust and hairs, somehow feels more special to me. I know others that hate it though. I am far more interested in the top end of the exposure range than the bottom, id rather noisy shadows but smooth highlights than clean blacks but harsher highlights.

I had a conversation with a non-film maker about HD tv and digital cinema - he was adamant that his HD tv looked miles better than his local cinema (which I also visit sometimes). When I looked at his tv it had sharpening turned right up with that 120hz smooth frame interpolation turned on - I felt sick haha!

Hi,

This what i have export from resolve ( Graded ), i made this test 3 month ago. I was impress

I have export this directly in 4k from the 2.5k Raw footage.

Hi,

This what i have export from resolve ( Graded ), i made this test 3 month ago. I was impress

I have export this directly in 4k from the 2.5k Raw footage.

wow that is lovely - looks nice and natural.

Hi guy's ,

I have ordered the 4k BMPC , but honestly it was just the wright moment course I had someone buying my old cam. I was about to purchase the 2.5 when the 4k just came out.
I will perhaps shoot at 4k but eventualy I will downscale it to 2k for postpro. There is no need for 4k to have the perfect image unless you shoot for 4k cinema budget feature film, and even then most cinemas around the world still projecting at 2K resolution. So the advantage of the 4k is just that you have some better quality at 4k format and downscaled it might slightly sharper. But I bed that there wont be mutch diference between in a 4k downscaled to 2.5 or shot on 2.5. the only major diference is the full frame sensor and global shutter. For the rest of what I saw from the 2.5 k footage is allready just amazing. Besides don't forget its not all just about the camera, but also about cast, crew , story, locations and directing to make good film
Also lets face it once you shoot at 2.5 k people are not busy figuring out what the sharpest spot is on the screen unless the background of your film is more interesting then the story, so that wouldn't be good wright

Hi,

This what i have export from resolve ( Graded ), i made this test 3 month ago. I was impress

I have export this directly in 4k from the 2.5k Raw footage.

wow that is lovely - looks nice and natural.

Thank you Tom

Cool, but what is this process doing at the photosite level?

Can it help reduce moire?

Jules

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but I'm not digging the look of the 2.5k upscaled to 4k. Viewing these stills on a Retina MBP, I would not feel like I was watching a 4k+ or IMAX quality image.

I understand that film prints resolve less than 1080p and most digital projections are still 2k, but if these images were shown on a 4k projector, this would bug me if I sat on the front row. With film prints, you have a smoothness in terms of the image that is pleasing. With this upres, I can see a lot of jagged edges.

In my mind, it increases the "digital" look.

An interesting experiment for sure, but to my eyes, this version of an upres to 4k wouldn't work for me.

Hi Guys,
Just a personal opinion: I think we should compare the upscaled 4k image with the original 4k image shot by BMPC 4k, of course this will happen only after the launch.

Hi Guys,
Just a personal opinion: I think we should compare the upscaled 4k image with the original 4k image shot by BMPC 4k, of course this will happen only after the launch.

There will be several folks here who own both cameras so a comparison at 4K will be very interesting even if we are reduced to examine stills (I don't have a 4K TV) on our monitors at 1:1. I'd also like to see both cameras generating 2K and HD versions as well to complete the comparison. That should be a popular thread. Just hope none of us are bloodied and slain in the battle of words that may ensue.

Rick Lang
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but I'm not digging the look of the 2.5k upscaled to 4k. Viewing these stills on a Retina MBP, I would not feel like I was watching a 4k+ or IMAX quality image.

I understand that film prints resolve less than 1080p and most digital projections are still 2k, but if these images were shown on a 4k projector, this would bug me if I sat on the front row. With film prints, you have a smoothness in terms of the image that is pleasing. With this upres, I can see a lot of jagged edges.

In my mind, it increases the "digital" look.

An interesting experiment for sure, but to my eyes, this version of an upres to 4k wouldn't work for me.

I don't see any jagged edges there? Have you got your resolution set right on your MBP? I have found that you can get aliasing if you deviate from the default resolution. Also are you looking at the image at 1:1? If it is scaled to fit your monitor your graphics card may be introducing those edges you're seeing.

Of course it won't look like Imax, its only a 2.8k image scaled up to 4k. Imax is much higher resolution. I think if you saw it with film grain on a 4k projector it would be hard to tell the difference.

Scaling up like this does mean you're scaling up digital noise, so in that respect it may look more digital.

The main benefit here is that you get to keep your extra 500 pixels or so of resolution rather than throwing it away when you scale down to 2k. If you compared it to 4 or 5k footage shot on a camera like the RED for example, it certainly wouldn't feel as sharp, but it may look better than it would have at 2k.

Never sit in the front row when watching anything, especially film - all you'll see is artefacts lol.

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but I'm not digging the look of the 2.5k upscaled to 4k. Viewing these stills on a Retina MBP, I would not feel like I was watching a 4k+ or IMAX quality image.

I understand that film prints resolve less than 1080p and most digital projections are still 2k, but if these images were shown on a 4k projector, this would bug me if I sat on the front row. With film prints, you have a smoothness in terms of the image that is pleasing. With this upres, I can see a lot of jagged edges.

In my mind, it increases the "digital" look.

An interesting experiment for sure, but to my eyes, this version of an upres to 4k wouldn't work for me.

I don't see any jagged edges there? Have you got your resolution set right on your MBP? I have found that you can get aliasing if you deviate from the default resolution. Also are you looking at the image at 1:1? If it is scaled to fit your monitor your graphics card may be introducing those edges you're seeing.

Of course it won't look like Imax, its only a 2.8k image scaled up to 4k. Imax is much higher resolution. I think if you saw it with film grain on a 4k projector it would be hard to tell the difference.

Scaling up like this does mean you're scaling up digital noise, so in that respect it may look more digital.

The main benefit here is that you get to keep your extra 500 pixels or so of resolution rather than throwing it away when you scale down to 2k. If you compared it to 4 or 5k footage shot on a camera like the RED for example, it certainly wouldn't feel as sharp, but it may look better than it would have at 2k.

Never sit in the front row when watching anything, especially film - all you'll see is artefacts lol.

Hey man, thanks for the response.

1. My resolution is set to the correct native resolution. It's not scaled.
2. I am viewing the images 1:1 within Chrome, to be specific. Look at the blonde eyelashes at the corner of the (model's) left eye, and you will see what looks like jagged edges to me.
3. Until recently, the only way the layman would be able to view higher than 2k footage anywhere was IMAX. If you were watching a 35mm film print, you are looking at sub-2k. If you are watching a digital 2k projection, you are looking at 2k at a maximum (depending on acquisition format). Before the advent of 4k projection, it really didn't matter if you shot higher than 2k unless you were showing your film on an IMAX film print. If we are going to talk about 4k projection, let's talk about what is typically shown at 4k+. 35mm film, Red, F65, etc will all resolve to that detail just fine. We should be comparing this 4k blow-up to these other cameras and formats, not only to the vanilla 2.5k footage from the BMCC.
4. 2.5k footage will certainly blow up to 4k better than 1080p/2k. The omission of an OLPF filter increases apparent sharpness, so that also is an added benefit to the BMCC when it comes to a 4k blow-up.
5. I never sit on the front row, but if you shoot a popular theatrical film on your BMCC @2.5k, then blow it up to 4k, and a theater is crowded, I can guarantee you that you will have some people on the front row. Will the audience notice? Probably not. But if we're going to pixel peep here, let's pixel peep. Let's not say this is something it isn't.

Overall, it doesn't look nearly as bad as I thought it would, but based only on these 2 still frames (I should see more before passing judgement), it takes the filmic joy of the BMCC image and turns it into an ordinary "digital" looking image to my eyes.

Hey man, thanks for the response.

1. My resolution is set to the correct native resolution. It's not scaled.
2. I am viewing the images 1:1 within Chrome, to be specific. Look at the blonde eyelashes at the corner of the (model's) left eye, and you will see what looks like jagged edges to me.
3. Until recently, the only way the layman would be able to view higher than 2k footage anywhere was IMAX. If you were watching a 35mm film print, you are looking at sub-2k. If you are watching a digital 2k projection, you are looking at 2k at a maximum (depending on acquisition format). Before the advent of 4k projection, it really didn't matter if you shot higher than 2k unless you were showing your film on an IMAX film print. If we are going to talk about 4k projection, let's talk about what is typically shown at 4k+. 35mm film, Red, F65, etc will all resolve to that detail just fine. We should be comparing this 4k blow-up to these other cameras and formats, not only to the vanilla 2.5k footage from the BMCC.
4. 2.5k footage will certainly blow up to 4k better than 1080p/2k. The omission of an OLPF filter increases apparent sharpness, so that also is an added benefit to the BMCC when it comes to a 4k blow-up.
5. I never sit on the front row, but if you shoot a popular theatrical film on your BMCC @2.5k, then blow it up to 4k, and a theater is crowded, I can guarantee you that you will have some people on the front row. Will the audience notice? Probably not. But if we're going to pixel peep here, let's pixel peep. Let's not say this is something it isn't.

Overall, it doesn't look nearly as bad as I thought it would, but based only on these 2 still frames (I should see more before passing judgement), it takes the filmic joy of the BMCC image and turns it into an ordinary "digital" looking image to my eyes.

Yes I do see some aliasing in the image you're talking about now you point it out, I was looking at the one with the flower. I'm not suprised to see aliasing on fine detail like that, scaling up the lower res details, those hairs can't have been much more than 1 or 2px wide in the original frame. In native 4k they'd probably have been double that.

You'd be suprised how many Imax prints are just blow-ups from a 2/3K master. Skyfall (Alexa), Iron Man 3 (Alexa), John Carter (35mm) just to name a few... Essentially they're doing exactly what we're talking about here.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that it would be a good idea to shoot a feature film on the BMCC and scale it up to 4k - I'm certainly not.

I think we're on the same page. Just to clarify, when I say IMAX, I mean IMAX acquisition and a distributed film print. Not the fake kind that's out there.

After considering the BMPC am glad I have chosen for the 2.5 BMCC workflow. After some investigation and discussion with some marketeers 4K seem not be the wright choice for the near future , not even the for the upcoming years. First of all , no network today is able to transfer 4K for television, not even Full HD for the moment? Second, BluRay DVD sales has never been the success they expected and is still in minor to DVD when it comes to sales. Lots of people still don't own a BluRay player so why would they buy a 4K player in the future , if there would be one, and even if there are 4k players , how are they gone transfer the format ' super BluRay ?. Third , the workflow is huge' triple storage' , mass 'ram' and CPU's and Graphic cards are needed. Only for some exceptional occasions this will be a benefit, but obviously not for the indie film producer. Also the regular audience does not care about a sharper pixel more or less, some are now already complaining that the Full HD image is to sharp. Statistics has been pointed out that some households switch back to regular HD instead of full HD for some reason. So therefore it seems clear to me now. 4K is a marketing product of the major company's to sell their products. Except for the full frame sensor and global shutter of the camera, you don't need it to make a good and quality 2k film unless you have tons of money for a big budget film to waste just because you can

True, I did a production last year and did the the lot, Film, Edit, Cover design and disc production. That order was for 84 DVDs and 2 Blu-ray discs! People still see HD as something for the purists Movie watchers unfortunately and this is a real pain in the ass as those who know when shooting in HD, Editing in HD and grading in HD only to see the final down converted to SD for DVD is heart breaking! This is what I could never understand that 4K was going to be the next big thing when HD is still trailing in DVDs wake. Marketing ploys aimed at the mainstream consumer, the market needs the gimmick (3D Vision).

Don't get me wrong I can see 4K has it's place as it always had, in the Movie industry and thats mainly for post production (CGI Compositing) but I can't see me pushing 4K to my clients when they are not even asking for HD. Internet viewing is the way to go for me at the moment and it's no surprise that Adobe has stop Updating it's Encore Bluray creation program. But I think personally 4K over the net is also a long way off.

By the way has anybody down scaled the BMCC footage down to SD?

True, I did a production last year and did the the lot, Film, Edit, Cover design and disc production. That order was for 84 DVDs and 2 Blu-ray discs! People still see HD as something for the purists Movie watchers unfortunately and this is a real pain in the ass as those who know when shooting in HD, Editing in HD and grading in HD only to see the final down converted to SD for DVD is heart breaking! This is what I could never understand that 4K was going to be the next big thing when HD is still trailing in DVDs wake. Marketing ploys aimed at the mainstream consumer, the market needs the gimmick (3D Vision).

Don't get me wrong I can see 4K has it's place as it always had, in the Movie industry and thats mainly for post production (CGI Compositing) but I can't see me pushing 4K to my clients when they are not even asking for HD. Internet viewing is the way to go for me at the moment and it's no surprise that Adobe has stop Updating it's Encore Bluray creation program. But I think personally 4K over the net is also a long way off.

By the way has anybody down scaled the BMCC footage down to SD?

Darn wright I have not downscaled footage to SD yet for DVD , but am sure it will be side to side with a hollywood blockbuster quality, and even on full HD no common audience will notice difference. I have seen a 4K projection on a BARCO projector in a local cinema course I know the owner very well and he just buy the 4K projector for festival rentals , we tested good quality Alexa 2k comparing 4K in the theater and you could not tell the difference, only when your 5meters close to the big screen and a nerdy pixel freak you might think you see some difference, so to me , bye, bye 4k as workflow for indie film, unless they offer me a huge budget to waste That doesn't mean I wouldn't buy the 4K BMPC in the future , but when I do, it would only be for the full frame and the global shutter and it should have a down convert in the camera to 2k taken full advantage of the full CMOS. That would be nice !