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 we CAN do...NEW

Status
Not open for further replies.
Häakon said:
If the end goal is 1080HD, it makes no sense to resize to 2K in-camera just to turn around again and resize to 1080 in post. Not only does this require an additional step, but having to go through a resize process twice (and only a minimal one the second time) means compromising the quality of your final picture. You gain nothing by making a 2K intermediate, and as you said, quality should be your primary concern.
Click to expand...

Häakon think about this total workflow for a second and tell me where the extra step is and where the extra scale is. All we need to shoot 1080 with no extra steps and no extra scale is to have a mode in the camera that shows the 1080 frame-line instead of the 2k frame-line and adds a metadata flag that you are shooting for 1080.

The camera can still record a RAW Scaled 2k frame, which is FAR easier to derive in a RAW scale because all you are doing is combining 4 sensor pixels into 1. Now when you open this file in an application it sees the 1080 flag and crops the 1080 frame. I see no reason this workflow should cause any quality loss (you are cropping a 1080 frame from a 2K frame) or any extra steps in post. You simply have a few extra pixels in your 1080 flaged file that that the software can ignore unless you choose to use them to reframe.

I agree that a simple path to 1080 post is essential, that will be my primary workflow. I also think that Jim is right that the camera does not need to record 1080 or 720, we just need direct paths to those frame sizes for post. The Camera is better if there are FEWER modes IMO.
 
Based on comments from big lebowski, Haakon and Scot, I'm thinking that my suggestion of an additional 1080p scaled mode may not be all that practical. If it's do-able, then it probably should still be investigated... However, it seems to me that a REDCODE proxy or output mode to display a 1080p crop from 2K footage seems the way to go. Not that I'm trying to waffle on my own point of view, just the more I think about it, it just makes more sense to me this way.

Oh, and the last several posts are getting a little childish and offensive. I'm "this close" to closing this thread.
 
True, if you need more FPS, the next best option for quality would be to shoot as high of a resolution as the camera will allow and downsize that in post. If the camera can scale from 4K to 2K in raw, that would/should only improve the quality of the source and keep the 4K specs so it will match other 4K shots.

Häakon said:
There's no question about that; it's what most of us will do. The only problem is deciding how you want to overcrank with the camera as 4K will only go up to 30p onboard. Our only solutions at that point are shoot windowed or shoot scaled to get more fps out of the camera.
Click to expand...
 
So Scot, you're just looking for a metadata flag that tells your post operations to ignore ~13% of the file and just crop to 1080p based on some frame lines? Just to make sure I'm reading you right.

Or are you actually looking for the RAW-scale-and-then-crop operation to happen in camera? So you end up with a 1080p file natively instead of a 2K file with metadata flags?
 
1080 Options

1080 Options

I suppose some of the difficulty in evaluating these choices stems from a big unknown - how fast will RedCINE be? If taking 4k or 2k and putting it through the RedCINE software is very fast, then the extra step to get to 1080p shouldn't be too terrible. If it's a slow render on a reasonably fast machine, then it's a bigger issue.

1080p is rapidly becoming the de facto standard for now for non-cinema projects. Personally, I want to shoot at 4k, use my Red lenses all the time, and then have a fast transcode to get 1080p into my editing system for non-cinema projects or to share with other editors. Theatrical documentaries, which we also make, are another matter and better suited for 4k throughout - and a film out to 35mm at the end.

Cropping in NLE software, or scaling, is not going to be so pretty - is it doable now to take 2k footage into a 1080p timeline and crop? Is it real time?

In any case, a 1080 frameline in the EVF and LCD is crucial.
 
Scot, thank you very much for your well thought-out post and willingness to provide an alternative. It does sound like a compelling option.

The problem with your scale-then-crop solution is that it takes the middle portion of the 2K area and scraps the rest to acheive the 1080 frame. This to me is worse than just scaling directly to 1080, because then at least we have the full 4K sensor available and that's very important.

I also find it difficult to understand how anyone who really feels the minimal resolution difference between 2K and 1080 is significant enough to warrant a 2K scaled option in the first place would find cutting that extra resolution out of the frame to acheive a 1080 picture acceptable. Why not just shoot to 1080 in the first place?

It's a good start, and perhaps it will depend upon how the scaling to RAW will be effective or feasible in the first place. Until we hear more from Graeme, however, I feel like we're just running around in circles.

Best,

Häakon
 
Häakon said:
Until we hear more from Graeme, however, I feel like we're just running around in circles.
Click to expand...

That's for sure. So many unknowns and it's hard to say which option will be the most practical and work for the largest portion of the user base.
 
"We want to shoot RED 35mm."
"Ok, I'll bring my gear, the rate is $____ per day."
"Fine. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."
"I'll give you 4K files and you can convert it to whatever you want."
"Perhaps you didn't understand. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."
"You'll save time and money if you do it on your own, and you'll future-proof yourself with the 4K files."
"Sounds technical."
"Ok, 1080p DVCPRO HD will be another $___ per hour of footage. Or free if you have your editor do it on his own. It'll take less time [this is 100% a guess] than it would to log and capture tapes."
"Why can't you just do it for us?"
"I can [/my DIT can]. For $___ per hour of footage."
"Right."
"Right."

Then the conversation goes one of several ways:

"Ok, we'll pay you."
"Ok, we'll do it ourselves."
"You're fired, we're shooting tape instead." :)
 
Jack Wester said:
If not being able to deliver your harddrive directly to a customer is such a pain, why isn't having to go to a rental house to change the framerate even more painfull?


And how would this look using the same lense? Mixing full sensor and windowed?
Click to expand...

CROP IS CRAP
 
Brook Willard said:
"Fine. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."
"I'll give you 4K files and you can convert it to whatever you want."
"Perhaps you didn't understand. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."
Click to expand...

Hmmm....

Here's how I would approach this conversation:

"We want to shoot RED 35mm."

"Ok, I'll bring my gear, the rate is $____ per day."

"Fine. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."

"Not a problem. This camera also shoots 2K and 4K resolutions... Would a master copy of the footage at greater than HD resolution interest you?"

"I don't think we need that..."

"Think of it as a way to future proof this footage or a means to producing higher quality output for film transfers or high-resolution projectors in theatrical venues. The additional cost is very minimal. "

"I'm not sure... Probably not."

"That's fine, you don't have to make that decision now. I archive all footage shot for clients for ____ amount of time. Just as a photographer maintains negatives, we can discuss this at a later date. I also offer additional archival and editing services if you're interested. Rates are very competitive."
 
Brook Willard said:
So Scot, you're just looking for a metadata flag that tells your post operations to ignore ~13% of the file and just crop to 1080p based on some frame lines? Just to make sure I'm reading you right.

Or are you actually looking for the RAW-scale-and-then-crop operation to happen in camera? So you end up with a 1080p file natively instead of a 2K file with metadata flags?
Click to expand...

I am just looking for the metadata flag that notes the 1080 crop. That way you or the editor that gets your footage does not even have to think about it, it just comes out 1080.
 
It wasn't too long ago when many asked for SD recording (well, maybe it was last year...).

Jim
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Hmmm....

Here's how I would approach this conversation:

"We want to shoot RED 35mm."

"Ok, I'll bring my gear, the rate is $____ per day."

"Fine. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."

"Not a problem. This camera also shoots 2K and 4K resolutions... Would a master copy of the footage at greater than HD resolution interest you?"

"I don't think we need that..."

"Think of it as a way to future proof this footage or a means to producing higher quality output for film transfers or high-resolution projectors in theatrical venues. The additional cost is very minimal. "

"I'm not sure... Probably not."

"That's fine, you don't have to make that decision now. I archive all footage shot for clients for ____ amount of time. Just as a photographer maintains negatives, we can discuss this at a later date. I also offer additional archival and editing services if you're interested. Rates are very competitive."
Click to expand...

I think that's an interesting flip Jeff. Are you saying you will charge more for 2K or 4K than for transcode? In which case, what if they really don't want it. Then don't you eat that labor cost?

Here's how my conversation goes:

"We want to shoot RED 35mm."

"What format would you like and what system will you be cutting on?"

"We need ___ so we can cut on ___."

"Ok, I'll bring my gear, the rate for ____ is $____ per day. Your going to need ___ media at a cost of ___ per drive."


I don't know at this point if I would charge more for a RED native codec. I might.

In any case, I don't know who's strategy is the best, I think its more a matter of who your clients are, and how much you want your hands in post.

I have an important question regarding this though: Can clients do their own transcodes?? In other words is what is the licensing for REDCine and the various quicktime tools, such that there isn't a large cost for them to do that?

IBloom
 
Häakon said:
The problem with your scale-then-crop solution is that it takes the middle portion of the 2K area and scraps the rest to acheive the 1080 frame. This to me is worse than just scaling directly to 1080, because then at least we have the full 4K sensor available and that's very important.
Click to expand...

Thanks for thinking about this option. Although I note your desire for the absolute best quality, it MAY not even be possible. Then think about what we might be getting. Go back to your original post in this thread and look at the huge size of the sensor that is forming the image in a scale-then-crop 1080 image compared to a crop 2K or 1080 frame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top