Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Your 4k Workflow Specs...

Thank you David. Your knowledge is so much appreciated. As well, your products.
 
PaulClements said:
Too unsure about this all at the moment. I've heard that the Quad Core's aren't even going to be built into Vista, I can imagine Mac will start using them sometime in the next year but it'll be at a fair old price. I can see the worth in future proofing a Mac by buying a quad as and when they arrive but if I were to go the PC way I'd probably just opt for the cheaper Duo Core option with at least 8Gb of memory and a couple of highend graphic cards. Would also like either 2 24" monitors or one 30", Apple would be my prefered choice but Dell et al seem to be 2/3rds price so it depends on the budget.
Click to expand...

The amount of cores doesn't have to do anything with Vista, because how will you build a core into an operating system?
Even Windows XP Professional does support the Quad Cores. You can have up to 2 CPUs with unlimited cores each, in WinXP Pro. For more than 2 physical CPUs you need Win2k3 Server.

If you compare Dell and Apple prices, you have to look closer, as Apple uses the more expensive Xeons (Intel Server CPU) and Dell the cheaper Core 2.
The Xeons have some bigger cache and some more Pro features - like the ability the have more than 2 CPUs (not cores!) switched together.
 
freezer is right, Windows 2000, XP & Vista (except for Home Basic!) supports 2 physical processor packages. Doesn't matter how many cores are in those packages.

You can also get the Xeons from DELL, but I think they are only in there server line of products (not the workstation line).

For more information about Vista and CPU's & cores: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_02.asp
 
freezer said:
If you compare Dell and Apple prices, you have to look closer, as Apple uses the more expensive Xeons (Intel Server CPU) and Dell the cheaper Core 2.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Dell Precision workstation line is the one that uses the Xeons (on the website it's not in the consumer options, you have to go to the business divisions). You probably want to be looking at workstation class systems anyways. I have a Precision 690, an old 350 and an M90. Along with HP and Boxx they are probably the best professional windows based systems in my opinion. Aditionally, unlike their consumer division, their tech support for the business products is awesome.
 
Assuming you have the horsepower to work with 4k files, it seems to me that you'll need to invest in some pretty expensive gear to view it. This is a question which has been on my mind for awhile as I've been going through the Red threads. What kind of monitor do you need in order to view your 4k footage? What kind of video card? What do you need in terms of hard drive space and speed to do a feature length production?

It seems to me thus far that the suggested workflow is shoot at 4k, edit in 2k or less, which makes me think, OK just keep it to 2k then. For a closed loop indie production house looking to be based on Red, it seems like going to a full blown 4k system will be cost prohibative with a low ROI. For a bigger budget studio, I can see where the investment would make sense.
 
I would say for many productions 2k in the workflow will be enough. If you shoot 4k and process it down to 2k, you will benefit from the better source resolution. You could easily do a pan or zoom into the 4k if needed. For me this is the biggest benefit for working in post when going the 2k route.
 
Well said, Freezer.
 
Well those are pretty obvious benefits and well covered for anyone who's been reading these threads. I'd like to get back to the question of, what do you need to do 4k editing, or at a minimum be able to view the 4K footage? Is it the general consensus that you can view it with a 2K monitor and don't need to see the 4K footage displayed pixel for pixel? I was hoping someone would pipe in with some 4K editing equipment recommendations. If I missed the thread with that info, please point me there.
 
LMG Video said:
Is it the general consensus that you can view it with a 2K monitor and don't need to see the 4K footage displayed pixel for pixel?
Click to expand...

It's certainly true that a lot of HD edit suites (including mine) are set up with a CRT reference monitor which is not capable of displaying the full 1920 pixels of HD (no CRTs are). I use this CRT for colour correction, and only ocasionally feel the need to flip the image onto one of my 23" Cinema Displays to see it pixel for pixel. I guess the same applies to working with 4k. I've certainly been in a 2k grading suite where they only had a 1k (CRT) monitor.

Nick
 
LMG Video said:
Well those are pretty obvious benefits and well covered for anyone who's been reading these threads. I'd like to get back to the question of, what do you need to do 4k editing, or at a minimum be able to view the 4K footage? Is it the general consensus that you can view it with a 2K monitor and don't need to see the 4K footage displayed pixel for pixel? I was hoping someone would pipe in with some 4K editing equipment recommendations. If I missed the thread with that info, please point me there.
Click to expand...

It depends on what your 4k viewing needs are.

If you need to display pixel for pixel for dailies and vfx final reviews you probably want to get as high resolution monitor you can afford, view the whole image, then have the images showed 1:1 and move it around to see different sections. This is what I used to do for vfx reviews of 2k shots.

If you are editing, do you need to be looking at a 4k image all the time?

To be honest, there are no 4k editing equipment that anyone is using as far as I can tell.
 
Auto Render Mode? for less capable computers?

is it possible to "only" render in automatic mode (no editing) RedCode 4.5K on a slow computer ie iMac 2GHZ Core2DUO?

in camera downscaling option good for low low budget producers but then your stuck with low rez image.

a realistic option for people who are saving up their dimes to make do with what they have would be possible?
 
I'm not following what you mean with "auto render mode". Can you elaborate?
 
i will try :)

in basic terms, RedCine doing what the Red would have done in camera when shooting in downscaled mode.

as i understand when shooting raw, one would have better control over white balance , color enhancement, gain for different scenes hence the 4k workflow. and this requires a (minimum) $5000 PowerMac, but when shooting downscaled in camera one can make do (together with the aid of Sheer Video but thats another topic) with a low end system ie iMac Core2DUO, however not have control over the 4k raw workflow.

even if rendering times are unbearbly longer, it would give the option for the s35mm frame and future reworking of raw when quad cores become the norm.
 
based on TODAY - looks like cineforms Prospect HD/2k/4k is my likely workflow ... shoot either 4k/2k - use redcine and output to cineforms 2k raw clips ... and edit from there .... i will not commit till RED 103 is about to ship = things can change over the coming months ... guessing NAB should have some proposed/working solution to edit 2k/4k ...

as of today cineform appears to be a very good and very cost effective workflow ...
 
Don

That is of course assuming REDCINE permits RAW to RAW conversion. We know David Newman would (obviously) like this to be possible, and is petitioning Red to allow it, but we don't know if it will be.

Nick
 
Nick,

You are correct. However there aren't any good reasons not allow it given the benefits to the Red customer, and technically it is straight forward. If Red is a closed environment there are workarounds, but the open approach is better for everyone.
 
Akcelik: yes, REDCINE can do what the camera can also do internally with RGB.

So you can downsample to a lower resolution if you want to. No problem. The higher your machine specs the faster it'll all be. It will still work on lower end computers (REDCINE doesn't run on a PowerPC processor like in the G5 though)
 
thanks you Rob for clearing that one up for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top