Why 4K?

[Elsie N]

Peter, my personal thinking is that you capture in the highest resolution you have, depending on the importance of your work. Most everyone will use a lower resolution when the finish, but will want to keep that archived footage at the highest rez it was recorded. It's simply a matter of future-proofing, IMO. No need to uprezz prematurely. Just requires more storage size.

 

[Rick Burnett]

ok so I've got to ask.

You guys make it seem like 4k is such a big deal and everyone who's not at 4k is going to be missing out. That being said, I want to get the 2/3" cinema. Does that mean I should work on all my projects at full 3k inside something like premiere pro and then when I got to finish it I should uprez it to 4k?

I want the 3K so I have a little more freedom since my end product is going to be 1080p or less.

Right now I am doing everything in 720p and shooting at 1080p and I love having that extra freedom and still keeping a nice image.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

If the future is 4K but 2/3-inch Scarlet's 3K de-Bayers to about 2.1K to 2.4K (a lot less than the 3.2K of a 4K film scan or Red One output), isn't 3K sort of making obsolescence all but certain?

 

[Daniel Valle]

Isn't the 2/3 intended to be the end-all 1080p camera?

For its price range, that's what it seems to me.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

If the future is 4K but 2/3-inch Scarlet's 3K de-Bayers to about 2.1K to 2.4K (a lot less than the 3.2K of a 4K film scan or Red One output), isn't 3K sort of making obsolescence all but certain?

Seeing as 2k is often used for theatrical movies, it meets the standard. Of course 4k is worth pushing for, but there's nothing shabby at hitting the standard at Scarlet's price point.

The point is if you're spending more money (like gobs and gobs on a major motion picture), you should be aiming at a 4k finish, not a 2k one (like you would when using most other digital cinema cameras).

 

[David Rasberry]

If the future is 4K but 2/3-inch Scarlet's 3K de-Bayers to about 2.1K to 2.4K (a lot less than the 3.2K of a 4K film scan or Red One output), isn't 3K sort of making obsolescence all but certain?

Not that bad. Red's newest deBayer algorithms are hitting around 80% or better retained resolution. But that has nothing to do with the pixel map which deBayered is 3072 x 1620 RGB at 1.89:1 digital cinema format. It should handily resolve better than a 2k digital cinema image, which is still 1080p projection, just wider than HD. HD 1080p originated footage crops to 1016 vertical for 2k cinema format finish, then gets scaled up. 2/3" Scarlet should be a killer camera for shooting features on the smaller format as well as TV productions. Significantly better than shooting in HD.
4k will make inroads on major budget films as the whole work flow chain gets established. But you can bet most productions will finish 2k for quite a few years to come.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

If the future is 4K but 2/3-inch Scarlet's 3K de-Bayers to about 2.1K to 2.4K (a lot less than the 3.2K of a 4K film scan or Red One output), isn't 3K sort of making obsolescence all but certain?

I don't think the sentiment of the original post is that anything less than 4K is obsolete, but if you can afford to shoot 4K then you should always, to make your footage as future proof as possible.

The 3K Scarlet gives people who can't afford to shoot 4K a far better image than they would get with a 1080p camera, and will still be enough resolution for TV and internet distribution for perhaps the next ten years (a lot of people still don't have 1080p TVs, so 4K television is way off), and given that most movies still go through DI at 2K, the Scarlet image will still be good enough to go to film or to 2K cinema for quite a while.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I agree.
NHKs research has pointed them to 7k to create a life like view of the world.
Although in the past a lifelike view has not been necessary to tell a story its use wont be excluded in the future and I wonder if the audience will vote with the feet for the immersive experience, as they seem to be doing when faced with a choice of 2D versus 3d and film versus digital projection.


Mike Brennan

Well.... I've yet to hear anyone say "Gee I would have enjoyed that film so much more if it were lower resolution."

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

Youtube went 4K..

Youtube went 4K..

and now youtube is 4K.. hope this is not a very old news.. 4 days ago or something..
don't forget to switch the quality slider to Original..

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5BF9E09ECEC8F88F

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/09/youtube-moves-solidly-into-the-future-by-supporting-4k-content/

I liked the footage even that the compression is too harsh..

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

YouTube compression is way too harsh. And it looks much better if you don't have to scale it down on the viewer end in most situations. The 1080p feed looks a lot better to me when viewed on a 2K or smaller monitor. The 4K version does seem to have some resolution benefits on a 2.5K display like my 30" LCDs. But damn that compression, OMG. REDRAY to the rescue?

 

[Michael Olsen]

REDRAY to the rescue?

Vote yes. I really hope to see REDRAY used for streaming. That would be wonderful stuff.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

To be fair to Youtube, it is more internet speeds than their compression that is the barrier. They have to keep the bitrates in check to ensure maximum accessibility. Many developing countries are still stuck with sub-1 Mbps connections. You will probably need an uber-fast connection and a high spec PC to play back 4K, even with their compression. Having said that, their implementation of H.264 is inferior to an open standard like x264. "Future" codecs like WebM VP8 are also inferior to x264. x264 video at the same bitrates can produce a much more detailed image. Does anyone know what kind of codec Youtube will utilize for 4K? I am not sure their H.264 implementation supports resolutions beyond 1080p.

I have no idea about the compression efficiency and file sizes of RED RAY, but we can surely do with more efficient delivery codecs than VP8.

We are perhaps still some time away from high quality 4K streaming video on an average internet connection, though. Good news is, technology is moving forward rather fast.

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

we have 24Mbps connections available in our country, but, it is ridiculously priced high.. and I think there is a way long till they stop bounding the international connections.. mine is 1Mbps BTW.. ;-)

maybe technology can help in this situations.. as I think RED has some compression ideas to spare in the right time.. I read Jim writing about redcode 2 tests that looked good.. that's about 16 Mbps.. we also know nothing about RED's future RGB delivery codec which I expect to be something that will improve the delivery of 4K over any medium..

 

[Rick Burnett]

Yeah, the compression makes it pointless to me. Also, none of my displays are 4k so I cannot even see it at real resolution. I didn't find it pleasing on my 30" at all.

 

[Stuart English]

4K delivery

4K delivery

To be fair to Youtube, it is more internet speeds than their compression that is the barrier. They have to keep the bitrates in check to ensure maximum accessibility. Many developing countries are still stuck with sub-1 Mbps connections.

Which is why, for much of the world, implementing video streaming services rather than download services can cause a major headache.

I am not sure their H.264 implementation supports resolutions beyond 1080p.

Well it's either H.264 or some other codec.....

I have no idea about the compression efficiency and file sizes of RED RAY.

At 4K resolution, with no blocking artifacts, no banding artifacts, and a full suite of colors, the average data rate is 2MB/s (including muti-channel audio)

none of my displays are 4k so I cannot even see it at real resolution.

A 1080p display fed by the Preview Monitor output of RED RAY (2:1 downscale from 3840 x 2160) is probably the next best thing to viewing true 4K.

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

At 4K resolution, with no blocking artifacts, no banding artifacts, and a full suite of colors, the average data rate is 2MB/s (including muti-channel audio)

that's nice.. can be then viewed on 20+Mbps connections..
now all we need is affordable 4K displays/projectors for 4K to be the standard for delivery..

 

[H. Farberg]

At 4K resolution, with no blocking artifacts, no banding artifacts, and a full suite of colors, the average data rate is 2MB/s (including muti-channel audio)

Is the audio codec RED's creation as well, or is it one of the established ones (DD, DTS)?

Also, I think I read that Youtube's 4K is about 5 Mbps = 0.625 MB/s, which is a little low for that resolution and H.264 if that is what it is...

 

[Tom.Wong]

acquisition tends to always be much farther ahead than delivery method. We are just NOW in these past few years, as consumers able to see 1/3rd the quality FILM is capable of at home. and film has been around over a 100 years... it will come in due time.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

At 4K resolution, with no blocking artifacts, no banding artifacts, and a full suite of colors, the average data rate is 2MB/s (including muti-channel audio)

That is extremely impressive! Video codec technology has pretty much stagnated over the years - much like digital cinema was, before RED came in. Looks like RED is set to force some major improvements for delivery codecs, now. Can't wait for the RED RAY codec reaching a wider userbase. It could work wonders for video streaming sites like Youtube or Vimeo. Or even Hulu or Netflix instant watch.

x264 is a stellar codec, and under Placebo settings, high quality 1080p is about 2.5 MB/s (i.e. about 20 Mbps). So, the RED codec doing four times the resolution at the same bitrate is a big step forward. Though, x264 can produce decent results even at 5 Mbps. I expect the RED RAY codec to be more efficient per byte.

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

acquisition tends to always be much farther ahead than delivery method. We are just NOW in these past few years, as consumers able to see 1/3rd the quality FILM is capable of at home. and film has been around over a 100 years... it will come in due time.

I think the quality of the film itself have changed a lot over these 100 years..

That is extremely impressive! Video codec technology has pretty much stagnated over the years - much like digital cinema was, before RED came in. Looks like RED is set to force some major improvements for delivery codecs, now. Can't wait for the RED RAY codec reaching a wider userbase. It could work wonders for video streaming sites like Youtube or Vimeo. Or even Hulu or Netflix instant watch.

yes, and imagine.. they have the right to put the standard and force the market.. simply RED ONE is the only 4K digital cinema camera in the wilds..