5K vs. 4K...

[Brigham Edgar]

Yeah 4K isn't 5K and I hear all the arguments and agree, but lets don't forget that RED sell cameras that are 'only 4K' so it's kinda a contradictory point to argue. Everyone knows Sony and what you get both good and bad, as with RED. But they have ticked a couple BIG boxes that RED have fallen behind in with technology. But this is what Jim wanted and asked for...let the battle resume!

 

[Nick Wernham]

We're in. We'll have our order to you guys this evening. I cannot wait to start shooting on it.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

uhm seriously?!

here is a thought: just let the camera and the picture quality & look speak for what is better or not .... really there should not be the need for this kind of d*** measuring ... ( and really if u look at the red footage - RED One 4k or RED EPIC 5k - there really is no need .... for real i mean it ... but so does ARRI ALEXA and even C300 sometimes - they all have the place and good and bad sides ....)

all that here feels really kinda like desperation ... sorry to say so .... i like RED Footage but this is just sad ..... oh well

Actually, there's a big need for this. Telling people, "There are 60% more pixels in a 5k image than 4k." is a fact that people will remember and can't really argue with. Especially now that other camera companies are moving to 4k (finally). It's good to remind people that RED has been there and done that...

 

[Michael P. Schmidt]

Actually, there's a big need for this. Telling people, "There are 60% more pixels in a 5k image than 4k." is a fact that people will remember and can't really argue with. Especially now that other camera companies are moving to 4k (finally). It's good to remind people that RED has been there and done that...

well why is there a need to tell ppl ...again and again ?

 

[Michael P. Schmidt]

I appreciate your loyalty to your home land product. As an American that builds most our stuff overseas... we cant expect you to understand. meantime... why are all these major motion pictures choosing Epic?
Because they look fucking incredible. Alexa is the Sony of film... their is a legacy brand loyalty that is more ferocious than early apple ... we all love Arri... but not "Arri-gance.".. so do please get off your attack
perch and lets project where Red is in 94 years... when she is the same age as Arri

... well actually it as nothing to do with loyalty ... really not at all ... and for me its not about where the cam is made ... as long as the cam works is usable and delivers great pictures/footage .... just saying

 

[Cid J Salcido Uyarra]

now that we have the resolution topic sorted out.....

When are we gonna start the death of 24p?

Peter Jackson got shut down pretty hard with all the 48fps buzz.

I don't know but last I checked higher frame rates played at realtime are sharper smoother brighter

all in all a better image

 

[Michael P. Schmidt]

now that we have the resolution topic sorted out.....

When are we gonna start the death of 24p?

Peter Jackson got shut down pretty hard with all the 48fps buzz.

I don't know but last I checked higher frame rates played at realtime are sharper smoother brighter

all in all a better image

yeah if you want to go for a Reality-TV look ... sure .... why not discuss the 200 Hz smooth motion option on/for 4k home TV's ... oh wait ....

 

[Jeffrey Loewe]

Yeah 4K isn't 5K and I hear all the arguments and agree, but lets don't forget that RED sell cameras that are 'only 4K' so it's kinda a contradictory point to argue. Everyone knows Sony and what you get both good and bad, as with RED. But they have ticked a couple BIG boxes that RED have fallen behind in with technology. But this is what Jim wanted and asked for...let the battle resume!

This is a good point...maybe that is changing today? Only reason I'd say that is because there was a post similar to this last Nov around this time with the Scarlet coming...which meant it went from 3K to 4K...

 

[Dane Henry]

now that we have the resolution topic sorted out.....

When are we gonna start the death of 24p?

Peter Jackson got shut down pretty hard with all the 48fps buzz.

I don't know but last I checked higher frame rates played at realtime are sharper smoother brighter

all in all a better image

oh no...please don't say this

-dane

 

[George Butterfield]

now that we have the resolution topic sorted out.....

When are we gonna start the death of 24p?

24p will go the way of the DoDo as soon as it is "economical" to do so. is it fair to say that right now 30p uses 25% more in resources? And to those who say 24p looks like shit, you can always say, "It's film like!".

 

[Cid J Salcido Uyarra]

its just kinda weird that we are so focused about resolution we forget about the other details

i'm just curious what Jim thinks now that we know how he feels about resolution.

i'll take a guess 96fps?

average persons house i go to usually always has the motion flow activated on their TV.

I personally think it looks like crap, it's like trying to up-res 2k to 4K IMO....sports its a little different I prefer it when i watch football and the lakers =) But on Movie or TV Show it drive me nuts

where you really see the difference is when you start shooting oh phantom cameras a ton, it becomes super apparent kinda like when you work with a POS 1080p DSLR then open up R3D on CineX. Night and Day

 

[Nick Morrison]

24p will go the way of the DoDo as soon as it is "economical" to do so. is it fair to say that right now 30p uses 25% more in resources? And to those who say 24p looks like shit, you can always say, "It's film like!".

Not sure if 24p will go the way of "the dodo". It is a LOOK that we have all culturally gotten used to. Will other frame rates become more POPULAR? As they become easier and more effortless to capture and play back? (ie 48, 60, etc).

SURE.

But 24fps will always be a creative choice. It has a certain "look", a certain degree of motion blur that will always be in demand. It won't ever go extinct in the same way that B/W is still relevant today, in an age dominated by color.

It will, however, eventually become one of MANY standards we get to realistically choose from.

 

[Cid J Salcido Uyarra]

+1

great answer Nick

I can't wait until Directors start experimenting with different speeds for different scenes characters etc.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

I can't wait until Directors start experimenting with different speeds for different scenes characters etc.

As soon as there are TVs, projectors and playback devices that can support it (REDRAY?) I'm sure people will. I would love to be able to do that.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Since a light hearted distraction might be in order... on the subject of frame rate. A bunch of us got together with Ted Schilowicz the other night and he described, from the conversations he has had with Jackson and Cameron, one of the major reasons why they are looking at 48 fps. I found it interesting.

One of the major audiences for movies, especially like The Hobbit, are teenage (~16 year old) boys. These days, that group spends a TON of time playing video games; which DON'T happen to refresh the screen at a mere 24 fps but many times more. So, they - the up and coming movie audience of the future - will be TOTALLY comfortable looking at 48 fps or even 96 or more - in fact, they prefer it. Ted said that it took him about 20 minutes for his "old" mind to adjus,t but eventually it felt comfortable to him as well.

So, those of us with "old" 24fps-indoctrinated brains may be slow to "get it" or maybe we never do. But, we aren't the target. Life, and culture, moves on.

 

[Elsie N]

Since a light hearted distraction might be in order... on the subject of frame rate. A bunch of us got together with Ted Schilowicz the other night and he described, from the conversations he has had with Jackson and Cameron, one of the major reasons why they are looking at 48 fps. I found it interesting.

One of the major audiences for movies, especially like The Hobbit, are teenage (~16 year old) boys. These days, that group spends a TON of time playing video games; which DON'T happen to refresh the screen at a mere 24 fps but many times more. So, they - the up and coming movie audience of the future - will be TOTALLY comfortable looking at 48 fps or even 96 or more - in fact, they prefer it. Ted said that it took him about 20 minutes for his "old" mind to adjus,t but eventually it felt comfortable to him as well.

So, those of us with "old" 24fps-indoctrinated brains may be slow to "get it" or maybe we never do. But, we aren't the target. Life, and culture, moves on.

That's interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Samir Patel]

Since a light hearted distraction might be in order... on the subject of frame rate. A bunch of us got together with Ted Schilowicz the other night and he described, from the conversations he has had with Jackson and Cameron, one of the major reasons why they are looking at 48 fps. I found it interesting.

One of the major audiences for movies, especially like The Hobbit, are teenage (~16 year old) boys. These days, that group spends a TON of time playing video games; which DON'T happen to refresh the screen at a mere 24 fps but many times more. So, they - the up and coming movie audience of the future - will be TOTALLY comfortable looking at 48 fps or even 96 or more - in fact, they prefer it. Ted said that it took him about 20 minutes for his "old" mind to adjus,t but eventually it felt comfortable to him as well.

So, those of us with "old" 24fps-indoctrinated brains may be slow to "get it" or maybe we never do. But, we aren't the target. Life, and culture, moves on.

Very interesting.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I finally shot some 5k timelapse on my Scarlet after shooting almost a year at 4k. I didn't think the difference would be that significant. But wow. Now I really want an Epic. My wife hates me.

This.

5k timelapse images off my Scarlet look gorgeous. Definitely gunning for an Epic.

 

[Antonio Ribeiro]

I think RED and Jannard are about to turn a very important cornerstone today when they confirm prices for Epic. Sony is for the first time offering a much greater competitor with the F5/F55 camera. No other brand has been able to come up with this in what appears to be a much lower price point than Alexa, if the figures advertised are anything to go by. What Red has to offer is undoubtably unique, so I think this will be very much a price-point and resolution game from this point onwards. What's interesting to note is that Sony's build quality and design seems to borrow much from Red in its modular nature and from Alexa in ergonomics/chassis design. And they have looked at filling in the gaps with the Global Shutter (F55), the different native codecs, inbuilt NDs and XLR inputs, etc.

I personally have placed my money with Red so have an invested interest in staying with the brand and have only positive experiences from using my Scarlet or rented Epic cameras. But what I'm seeing in front of my eyes is a mammoth brand like Sony really aiming for Red's jugular with this product.

 

[Noel R.]

Besides the camera it would be nice if RED could come down on the pricing for the RED Rocket. I'm not sure many are ready to handle a 5K work flow. That's going to be a huge argument against RED is that the 5K workflow is too demanding. Sony will say we can shoot 4K but when you don't need the extra resolution you can do 2K without the crop, which will help with workflow productivity.