Whats the use of 4k in a budget camera?

[Mathew Joki]

In the next year, we will be seeing Scarlet footage on a HIGH percentage of TV-Dramas, cable series, and local broadcast.
And it will only increase.
Just watch and see, Mathew, what this "crippled" little sister can do.

Doubtful that we'll se it in many local broadcasts, since it doesn't shoot native 29.97... Not to mention that most production houses are not going to want to waste time downscaling 4k to 1080p, not to mention harddrive space.

 

[Brian Iannone]

Doubtful that we'll se it in many local broadcasts, since it doesn't shoot native 29.97... Not to mention that most production houses are not going to want to waste time downscaling 4k to 1080p, not to mention harddrive space.

What doesn't shoot native 29.97? Are we still talking about Scarlet here?

 

[Mathew Joki]

My point is that Red would have killed the competition with a 3K camera at around 5K, because that is why the DSLR video was such a big hit, the new Scarlet is clearly not that revolutionary in this sense.

This future proof hunt for 4K has destroyed a great camera concept that would have killed all reason to use Alexa or now the Canon (even if Canons option is already obsolete).
The new Scarlet isn't really doing that, it's too pricy, it won't be what the DSLR-filmmakers gonna use because it's not priced as a DSLR. Understand who these people are, they who where going to buy it was the people who used DSLRs and wanted more quality. A huge community that is.

Who will buy the Scarlet? It's just out of reach for most people. I'm not rich, I cannot afford Scarlet, I could have afforded it if it was the old Scarlet.

My opinion is that Red lost a great oppurtunity to kill the 1080p market. Giving the same or better quality as Alexa to the people, the ones who won't pay a dime more then 8K for a working camera out of the box, would have killed the reason for anyone to use Alexa, canon, DSLR's etc. Jim is speaking about how people shouldn't use DSLR's, well, he and Red aren't delivering anything close to the price range of those cameras, so no one will listen to the arguments because at such high price it doesn't matter. DSLR's will still rule a large portion of independent filmmakers, because of the price.

Red could give out a camera that shoots ONLY 1080p but at 320 fps, HDRx, RAW etc. and it WILL KILL all the other cameras on the market. This is a fact, about how people think, not about how good the camera is. Do I make any sense?

Once again: If Red want to push for 4K resolution in the world, they cannot just speak about how good it is, they must kill and own the 1080p market first. They can only do that by giving out something at a pricepoint and quality that makes it unreasonable to buy something else. I know this for a fact because I have myself worked with DSLR's, I have worked with people who work with DSLR's and I know how they think. Scarlet is not something they are gonna buy, the old Scarlet was.

If you want to kill 1080p, own it's market. If you want to push 4K, dominate 1080p first.

Doesn't matter if you jump around screaming how good it is or how future proof, who listens to you when those who should listen get prizes for cinematography made by 1080p cameras that costs less?
Seriously, I question the logic of Scarlet. DSLRs revolutionaized a lot, because of it's price, not because it's the best camera.

I still wish for a camera from Red that has less resolution, but HDRx, 120 fps and all the picture quality you need for great images. There's too much focus on resolution, Red could dominate 1080p market and in that way push forward 4K technology, they choose not to and other companies will still dominate a large portion of the market.

Agree with this 100%!!

Most people in the pro-sumer price range market aren't looking for 4K. They want "bells and whistles" such as high frame rates, dynamic range, and flexibility in post.

I think RED knows this but they just aren't ready to corner this market in the right way yet. Hopefully they're ready soon. Especially since it's starting to look like Sony and Canon are quickly catching up in this area.

 

[Jon Jones]

This thread is dumb, it should be closed and deleted...

 

[Brian Iannone]

This thread is dumb, it should be closed and deleted...

I agree in that this thread should be closed. And deleted too...

 

[Mathew Joki]

What doesn't shoot native 29.97? Are we still talking about Scarlet here?

Yes, talking about Scarlet. North america TV (NTSC) broadcasts at 29.97 frames per second.
Scarlet only shoot 25fps at 4K.
Which is fine for PAL (Europe) broadcast @ 25p. Or for film asthetic @ 24p. But in order to convert for broadcast, certain conversions with frame multiplication need to be done.

 

[Brian Iannone]

Yes, talking about Scarlet. North america TV (NTSC) broadcasts at 29.97 frames per second.
Scarlet only shoot 25fps at 4K.
Which is fine for PAL (Europe) broadcast @ 25p. Or for film asthetic @ 24p. But in order to convert for broadcast, certain conversions with frame multiplication need to be done.

True, but you can shoot 29.97p in Quad HD 4K, which is only slightly smaller than true 4K.

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

it's easy to count pixels so people do it. What is important is what you do with those pixels.

Graeme, it's always a pleasure to read your posts, and I like very much this sentence of yours. Especially so as nowadays quite many cameras are marketed with pixels reminding of the past when cars were marketed mainly with horse power.

Speaking about pixels did not quite manage to figure out the rationale why the new CS300 has a 4K sensor but only 1080p output, until saw the names behind the concept. Some time ago these same people loudly phrased that the resolution of RGB images created by CMOS sensors is not the same as the amount of sensor pixels. Consequently, one of their (implicit) arguments was, Red One is not a 4K camera as information can't be created out of nothing. The issue was, how come 4K pixels create 3x4K amount of information.

Its tempting now to draw a conclusion this is why they've now designed the 3840x2160 sensor; The number of pixels neatly match with 1080p RGB images. If so, they've been very consistent with their initial argument and I raise my hat for that.

While saying this still felt all the time that their line of arguments does not hold water, just haven't known how to formulate the point in plain words. After the release of CS300, however, suddenly realized the point, and I think everything boils down into statistical methods; All images we shoot and want to show to other people are not random, but instead there is much structure in every single shot. As everybody knows from the experience of everyday life, if there are patterns and structure one needs not to sample everything up to the last detail to construct the big picture. For instance, in case of a parliamentary election (under some reasonable assumptions) one is able to predict the final results already after quite a small percentage of the votes are counted.

Accordingly, in case of image processing the whole art lies in designing hardware and software that predicts the big picture with high accuracy from the smallest amount of sampled information, and the point is indeed on what one does both hardware and software-wise with all those pixels one has in use. And yes, it is possible to create a camera and post system which reconstructed even pure noise beautifully, but nobody is interested in such images. Summing up, as a customer definitely want to pay only for those pixels that are needed and are useful!

 

[Mark Toia]

Ok, my opinions and observations are now considered "silly". Let's just leave the forum to those who just give praise and glory all the time...

I promised myself not to come back to this thread but a friend PM'd me laughing....

So Christoffer... Lets just put things into perspective for you. (non hostile)

RED make a 5k (4k) camera... they don't make a HD 8bit camera. thats it. Done.. finished... they don't need too.. there are heaps of HD options out there..

I work on huge TVC projects, with budgets bigger than a lot of feature films, not one of my projects goes past 2k out... Fact... We did a 4k out once, just for the fun of it. It looked amazing... but TV stations don't transmit 4k... fact... . Not my problem, don't really care.

The benefits:
The only reason i like 5k(4k) RAW over shooting a 8bit HD DSLR is RAW resolution is so I can do what ever I want when ever I want with my shot images.. thats it.. no other reason.
Every single TV commercial I have produced has had frame blow ups of 100 & 400%... I cant do that with HD video without massive image compromise. Most of my jobs have some sort of special effect.. Keys , tracking etc... I key human hair now, which I could never do successfully even with film.. let alone HD from a DSLR. There is no way you can key or track footage as good as you can with RED. thats a fact.. we have tried, we have failed...

If you only want to shoot a HD compressed 8bit video DSLR ... then thats great.. It's cheap and simple and quick... Ticks all the boxes you need then its perfect for you.

4k RAW ticks all the boxes for myself and may others so it's perfect for us.

There is nothing wrong with a Canon 5d or 7d... they are great cameras. but please don't try justify one against the other, or try to tell everyone we don't need 4k when in fact people like me do need 4k resolution or we couldn't do what I do...

Your not silly.... this thread is silly...

Have nice day.

PS.. I bet when canon brings out a cheap 4k DSLR, you will buy it.

 

[Mikael Wu]

I don't think good (by which I mean appropriate - the right camera for the job) cameras ever make movies better (perhaps with some exceptions like Samara / Baraka or certain high speed shots you'd not get another way).... But on the other hand the wrong camera can make a movie a lot worse. We can all think of our favourite movies, probably mostly shot on 35mm film, and imagine watching them shot on a sub-optimal video camera. Where would the art of cinematography be if all they had to use was a VHS camcorder? Where would the subtleties of light and shade and colour and texture be if they were all diminished to a mush, or visible only in a blaze of false colour and aliasing?

An even easier example is audio. If the audio is done well, nobody (well we do, but...) notices, but have poor mic technique or wrong mic choice that leads to muffled incomprehensible dialogue and the audience will walk out.

Graeme

really, really well said

To me, JUST A good storytelling doesn't make a good movie, although it weighs most

the aesthetic value of a movie exists in every frame of it, just treat the movie as a sequence of fine photos, the image itself is also an important part of the movie,
At first I was surprised by the richness of color in 5D, then I bought one, finding out the image quality is not good, to some extent, is bad for the resolution and detail all blurred out on my rubbish 13 inch desktop, not mentioning the 7D/60D/T2i etc
It also happened when I check the footage from FS100/AF100 from vimeo and they are much worse than their "promo footage" shot by experienced shooters with delicate lighting

So, to capture a good image from these camera, I have to use a lot of lights and pre-plan the shot otherwise the image is bad, and I can't really do some basic casual shot in daily life like people walking on the street, students reading books in a library,etc.

The footage from F3 is good, low light is very impressive, but god damn SONY I can't afford PL lenses! and in that case I have to use a special iris control ring for my EF lenses which also costs a lot and not easy to get! , what the hell are they thinking?! the s-log, SXS card and external recorder like kipromini, ninja, samurai adds weight and expense.

Then SCARLET came and blow my mind off, although I may have to upgrade my computer for editing, it is still a pleasure to see the shocking image quality from red, to feel the mobility of the compact-size, to talk with a bunch of nice guys from red community!

(BTW, a better computer can also run big games like Call of Duty&Battlefield at very high image quality,so it also benefits me! :-D )

 

[Ruben and Sheri O.]

Just always remember what may look bad to some can be art to someone else, as for the fs100 I have seen some really good stuff done with it very impressive for the price =)

 

[Graeme Nattress]

"Its tempting now to draw a conclusion this is why they've now designed the 3840x2160 sensor; The number of pixels neatly match with 1080p RGB images. If so, they've been very consistent with their initial argument and I raise my hat for that. " Well, that's a sort-of consistency. It's not completely consistent with their use of sensors on the stills side of things. The do do a similar "trick" for their sRAW modes, and I remember an interesting discussion with Tom Lowe about those modes which caused me to go and shoot and test with them to see what was going on, and what we saw was an increase in aliasing.

Although I can see exactly where they're coming from in modifying a Bayer sensor to work on a video camera, it still goes back to my point about being in violation of sampling theory if they expect to pull a full 1080p rez off the sensor. When you take a sensor (any sensor) and try to extract off it it's native rez (either because that is the native rez or you're doing a special read from a higher rez sensor that makes it a lower native rez) and expect to achieve that rez when measured you're up against the dangers of aliasing. The only way to safely do that is to start with a higher rez sensor, downsample electronically and properly. I always laugh at Larry's sensor talk where he goes on about the "dangers" of Bayer, while our friend John Galt praises another colour filter array pattern, the RGB stripe. The funny bit comes when you hear about the dangers of moire (which are pretty non-existent on a Bayer based RED) but are quite obvious on the RGB stripe based F35...

Graeme

 

[John Bellari]

"Its tempting now to draw a conclusion this is why they've now designed the 3840x2160 sensor; The number of pixels neatly match with 1080p RGB images. If so, they've been very consistent with their initial argument and I raise my hat for that. " Well, that's a sort-of consistency. It's not completely consistent with their use of sensors on the stills side of things. The do do a similar "trick" for their sRAW modes, and I remember an interesting discussion with Tom Lowe about those modes which caused me to go and shoot and test with them to see what was going on, and what we saw was an increase in aliasing.

Although I can see exactly where they're coming from in modifying a Bayer sensor to work on a video camera, it still goes back to my point about being in violation of sampling theory if they expect to pull a full 1080p rez off the sensor. When you take a sensor (any sensor) and try to extract off it it's native rez (either because that is the native rez or you're doing a special read from a higher rez sensor that makes it a lower native rez) and expect to achieve that rez when measured you're up against the dangers of aliasing. The only way to safely do that is to start with a higher rez sensor, downsample electronically and properly. I always laugh at Larry's sensor talk where he goes on about the "dangers" of Bayer, while our friend John Galt praises another colour filter array pattern, the RGB stripe. The funny bit comes when you hear about the dangers of moire (which are pretty non-existent on a Bayer based RED) but are quite obvious on the RGB stripe based F35...

Graeme

Therefore, by similar logic the Scarlet shot at 4K crop is really resolving a roughly 3K image?

Any detailed measurements yet?

 

[David Battistella]

Where is the canon, Panasonic, Sony, Arri, forum where you can bug the shit out if them for a five thousand dollar 3k raw camera?

Can someone send me the links so they can also be asked to create this dream product that is going to sell a berzillion units?

This is indeed the most whacked out, retarded, fun thread I have read in years.

David

 

[Erik Franzén]

Therefore, by similar logic the Scarlet shot at 4K crop is really resolving a roughly 3K image?

Any detailed measurements yet?

Roughly 3.2K, yes.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Therefore, by similar logic the Scarlet shot at 4K crop is really resolving a roughly 3K image?

Any detailed measurements yet?

Exactly! By properly optically filtering we minimize the danger of aliasing. By starting with a high resolution sensor we capture lots of detail too. But if we aimed instead to get a full measured 4k out, we'd be in danger. Instead from 4k we get about 3.2k out, which is about 80%, which is about right, and mostly due to the proper optical filtering. Both technically and artistically it's best to aim to get out about 80% of the rated pixel resolution of the sensor out as measured resolution. That is the case for Bayer sensors or for any other type of sensor too. If you don't do that you're heading into alias territory and it's also a contributor to "video look".

Graeme

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Where is the canon, Panasonic, Sony, Arri, forum where you can bug the shit out if them for a five thousand dollar 3k raw camera?

Can someone send me the links so they can also be asked to create this dream product that is going to sell a berzillion units?

This is indeed the most whacked out, retarded, fun thread I have read in years.

David

Don't Arri already make a 3k (2.8k is near enough) raw camera? I guess it isn't $5k on the price though..... The F3 is around 3k on the sensor is it not? But it's not RAW and it's more than $5k too...

Graeme

 

[David Battistella]

Don't Arri already make a 3k (2.8k is near enough) raw camera? I guess it isn't $5k on the price though..... The F3 is around 3k on the sensor is it not? But it's not RAW and it's more than $5k too...

Graeme

Your patience, grace and absolute willingness to share and teach in this thread is more than commendable. It's downright generous and the very essence of what RED strives to build in terms if attitude, community and commitment to users.

Thank your for being Graeme Natress.

David

 

[Graeme Nattress]

David, your contributions to forum threads really help us out here! Hope you're having fun in Italy!

Graeme

 

[Eric J Kosinski]

With all due respect and keep in mind we luv RED, but we have to defend film in this case. I hate to burst your bubble but RED will never be as good as actual FILM. That's a fact. Film catches a wider light spectrum than RED. So if you want to be truly professional as ppl claim, they should be shooting with film and not Digital. No offense just thought we would stick up for film this one time.
we responded to original post below something went wrong in post so had to do it this way,

QUOTE=David Battistella;873384]I'm only responding to the thread question.

Ask everyone who shot SD footage 20 years ago if they can use a frame of it now
Ask anyone who shot 35mm film if the shots are still usable.

If you want your images to endure shoot 4k.
If you want to be caught with your balls in your hands when you have a lifetime of 1080p that needs to be blown up 4x to be displayed shoot 1080p

The point is this, quality and future proofing.

Run a simple test take a frame from Alexa and blow it up to 4k. You'll have your answer.


David

[/QUOTE]

Just as film was ever evolving, so now is Digital Cinema. The Alexa captures close to the same latitude as film, apparently RED EPIC and future builds do as well. Lets not forgot film is not just as simple as film. There has been an ever evolving film development including new emulsion technology, newer chemistry inside a film frame, etc. For instance when I was in film school a Kodak rep came in and professed about Vision Stock which new speeds and grain technology was implemented, so while the emulsions from the past are still capable of producing nice images, the new films shot on REAL FILM will look much better than the past.

That being said, newer digital technology is so close to film at the current stocks that most digital cinema cameras produce much better images than film did years ago. I guess we are comparing films from today vs the past and digital technology new vs old, but my point is digital technology is so close it doesn't matter and so much better than film stock in the past.

Just pull up some older films we watched as kids, the quality of the stock, grain, emulsion is not anywhere near what Kodak is producing now. I wonder if Kodak & Fuji will continue to make negative stock improvements to meet the resolution and latitude of digital cinema cameras when they surpass the current stocks?