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 :)

POLL: How would you like to have the footage posted? 1K,2K or 4K?

POLL: How would you like to have the footage posted? 1K,2K or 4K?

  • 1K

    Votes: 61 36.7%

  • 2K

    Votes: 69 41.6%

  • 4K

    Votes: 36 21.7%
  • Total voters
    166
earthling said:
I'd would prefer footage be in HD (1080p) please. How else am I gonna view it ?

Cheers,
Damien
Click to expand...

1080 is extremely close in size to 2K. The problem is that the "lower" video formats focus on the vertical resolution (1920x1080 is commonly referred to as "1080," and 1280x720 is referred to as "720") while the digital cinema variants focus on the horizontal resolutions (a frame that's 4096x___ is called "4K," while 2048x____ is called "2K;" the vertical resolutions differ based on the aspect ratio of the chip). This leads some people to mistakenly think that 2K is twice the size of 1080, but 1K is really much closer to SD in size than anything else. If you want HD, you need to be looking at 1080/2K clips or above.

I'm with you, it makes little sense to be judging RED clips in near-SD resolutions.
 
hey concrete.. seems your poll has had an opposite effect.. ehehehehe
 
1k for me, for reasons already stated:
1. not everyone has a fast computer
2. smaller files come in handy for me, in Belgium there is still a maximum download/upload limit per month of 12 gigabyte, so the smaller the files, for me, the better. I want to get an idea of the image, I don't need to see every perfect details, but I can imagine that for other people, their preferences lie somewhere else.
 
Häakon said:
1080 is extremely close in size to 2K. The problem is that the "lower" video formats focus on the vertical resolution (1920x1080 is commonly referred to as "1080," and 1280x720 is referred to as "720") while the digital cinema variants focus on the horizontal resolutions (a frame that's 4096x___ is called "4K," while 2048x____ is called "2K;" the vertical resolutions differ based on the aspect ratio of the chip). This leads some people to mistakenly think that 2K is twice the size of 1080, but 1K is really much closer to SD in size than anything else. If you want HD, you need to be looking at 1080/2K clips or above.

I'm with you, it makes little sense to be judging RED clips in near-SD resolutions.
Click to expand...

What I meant is, 1k is small to judge the quality, and who has a 2k monitor or projector ? While I would think many have 1200x1920 monitors or TVs, or even an HDready TV will take an 1080 signal, so then we can look at the footage somewhat correctly.

So please, for those shooting out there, output and post at 1080p.

Which brings me to another topic about sensor resolution versus output resolution (measured resolution), but I think I'll post a new thread regarding this issue when I have a little time.

Cheers,
Damien

PS As things stand, the reality of it is, most Red footage will end up being viewed in 1080. 2K and 4K venues are still rare, and film output will only be done on big (relatively speaking) budget productions. So lets see the footage in a common viewing format, thanks.
edit : PPS I suddenly figured it out, of course, RedAlert doesn't offer 1080p output ! Red ! Any chance for an update to have 1080p output ?
 
2K (or 1080p) is the minimum for useful comparisons and conclusions.
As I said before you can't judge definition and noise in 1K because even the noise is filtered out with the downscale. Also you can't see minor sensor issues as we did in previous posts. I don't believe the samples here are just for entertainment purposes!

For those who keep complaining about not having a capable computer or monitor for 2k or 1080p I would say, no offence, but if I couldn't watch at least 1080p or my computer wasn't even able to resize it and play it flawllessly, I wouldn't bother with RED camera!
I'd prefer a standard definition NTSC or PAL camcorder instead. That would be perfect for me and my equipment, with no complaints at all!
Or I wouldn't complain to avoid being an obstacle to those who can watch it and are serious about the camera!

And I think that if all the RED customers that have ordered one would vote, the chart above would look quite different!


Concrete said:
We seem to agree that H264 is the best codec but at what resolution?
Click to expand...

Best codec if you ignore the banding issues! That has been proved even on this forum!
 
For web viewing, 2K/1080 or even 1K is fine.. Depends more on hosting abilities and bandwidth considerations, IMO.

Once everyone gets copies of REDCINE and/or RED Alert!, I would expect that we'll be swapping a lot of R3D files anyway. My poor server is already getting a workout with the few mirrors I've got. I might have to beef it up a bit in anticipation of what's to come.
 
earthling said:
What I meant is, 1k is small to judge the quality, and who has a 2k monitor or projector ?
Click to expand...

A 2k or even 2.5k monitor is rather affordable these days. Especially compared to a Red.
 
1080/720 h.264 at 15mbps or WMV/VC-1 for footage.
 
This is very greedy of us to ask of anyone but the company itself. Users will see this and see that people want "standards" and it will drive them away from posting any new footage/stills
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top