Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

What do you do with 2540p?

J

Jeremy Hughes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Now I'm not saying that 2540p is a bad thing. It's a good thing! But if you're recording RAW uncompressed 2540p directly to your... Well, I can't even think of what will handle that bit rate.

But anyway, how are you going to edit it? Are you going to project it? Is it really that much higher resolution than 4k? Was it made just for downsampling? I simply don't understand why it's a feature. Can someone tell me some uses for it?

P.S is it officially called 4.5K now?
 
We don't specifically know what one would record to right now. We know that RED is working on a significant RAID to handle the data. A day's worth of shooting will require a significant amount of storage - I doubt shooting uncompressed RAW will be reasonable without a camera truck. That said, I'm speculating. I'm sure there will be 3rd party options as well.

As for editing, I expect that the workflow will be nearly identical to REDCODE RAW with the exception of the added storage and processing power required. I expect you'll one-light in REDCINE, edit offline, punch an EDL through REDCINE and get your online files. Those online files will go through some high-end final color correction [think SCRATCH] and continue on its way.

It was included because 4.5K utilizes the entire super 35mm sensor area. It's also a great thing to have... why not squeeze every pixel out of the camera that is possible? They could've kept the extra .5K for themselves, sure, but what good would that do? The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

But what are the uses? Super 35mm sensor area. Extra resolution. Even if you don't ever use it [if you shoot 4K REDCODE RAW, for example], that extra sensor area will be very useful for a lot of people [particularly at the studio level].
 
OcularLimpidity said:
Now I'm not saying that 2540p is a bad thing. It's a good thing! But if you're recording RAW uncompressed 2540p directly to your... Well, I can't even think of what will handle that bit rate.

DataDirect Networks ( USA ) can deliver up to 3 GB/s of sustained ultra-high performance, while providing up to 720 TB of non-disruptive storage in a two rack system Ð offering the highest performance and most dense solution with the smallest footprint in the industry.

Stewart
Click to expand...
 
What do you do with it. You look really smug. That's what you do with it!

Well, actually, it gives you more pixels to crop for wider aspect ratios. It gives you more room to reframe, or more pixels to scale down.

Graeme
 
Brook Willard said:
As for editing, I expect that the workflow will be nearly identical to REDCODE RAW with the exception of the added storage and processing power required.
Click to expand...

Possibly less processing power. You've got more pixels, yes, but you don't have to do any decompression. You still have to demosaic, though.

But, yes, lots more storage. You're looking at ~400 MB/s. For a 100 minute feature at a 7:1 shooting ratio, you'll need ~17 TB of storage to hold your footage. Ouch. Of course if you do the math on how much that costs, even with backup, it's still cheaper than shooting 35mm.
 
Hypothetically could you convert uncompressed 2540p to REDCODE RAW using REDCINE? To take the pain of archiving away?
 
Chris Kenny said:
But, yes, lots more storage. You're looking at ~400 MB/s. For a 100 minute feature at a 7:1 shooting ratio, you'll need ~17 TB of storage to hold your footage. Ouch. Of course if you do the math on how much that costs, even with backup, it's still cheaper than shooting 35mm.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

Unless you need a 35mm print for projection.

Stephen
 
Brook Willard said:
If the 35mm project went to DI, lasering costs would be the same between the shows.
Click to expand...

Hi Brook,

Sure if you went to DI that is true, but that assumes you have ane extra $100,000 in the budget. If you need a 35mm print then shooting Anamorphic or Acadamy 1:1.85 will tend to be cheaper than shooting S16 or Digital.

Stephen
 
Brook Willard said:
Oh, of course. I suppose I tend to assume a digital post workflow.
Click to expand...

Hi Brook,

You can still use an offline digital workflow, then take the EDL & cut the negative.

Stephen
 
I'm not saying the following will happen, but there's also a thing called lossless compression.

Recording happens to RED-RAID or possible other future products.

One of the big advantage is the higher frame rates. 4.5K at 60 fps and 2K up to 120 fps.
 
Chris Kenny said:
Sure, but for indies, that's a cost which can probably be deferred until you have a distribution deal.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

Sure its a deferred expense, but the producer does have to pick up the cost, it's not paid for by the distributer.
FWIW I know of 35mm features that have been made for as little as $40,000, spending $100,000 on a D.I. would then IMHO be foolish!

Stephen
 
Stephen Williams said:
Sure its a deferred expense, but the producer does have to pick up the cost, it's not paid for by the distributer.
FWIW I know of 35mm features that have been made for as little as $40,000, spending $100,000 on a D.I. would then IMHO be foolish!
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised to learn that distributors never picked up this cost. Of course, they'd bill it to the producer against future earnings, but they do that with everything. With Hollywood bookkeeping, the movie was probably going to lose money on paper anyway....
 
Chris Kenny said:
I'd be surprised to learn that distributors never picked up this cost. Of course, they'd bill it to the producer against future earnings, but they do that with everything. With Hollywood bookkeeping, the movie was probably going to lose money on paper anyway....
Click to expand...

Hi,

Exactly the distributors are making an advance against future earnings, so the film has to make $100,000 more before the producer sees a dime towards the original production costs!

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top