Full-frontal insidious attack on Red, by indie director Rian Johnson (2008)

[Emanuel A.]

Ayz, a lot of us here at Reduser, like Haakon and myself, have been saying for a long time to basically consider Red a 2K camera.

Then why such label? 3.2K is always more accurate than 2K.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Then why such label? 3.2K is always more accurate than 2K.

But most films will finish at either 1080/2K or 4K. I have been interested and have been asking DPs like David Mullen who are currently shooting and posting major Red One features whether a 3K filmout might be an option, but so far people seem to be sticking with either 2K or 4K. That's why I mentioned 2K.

I do believe Graeme when he says 3.2K or whatever. The Red One has a lot of photosites, so it should hold up well at 3.2K.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

But most films will finish at either 1080/2K or 4K. I have been interested and have been asking DPs like David Mullen who are currently shooting and posting major Red One features whether a 3K filmout might be an option, but so far people seem to be sticking with either 2K or 4K. That's why I mentioned 2K.

I do believe Graeme when he says 3.2K or whatever. The Red One has a lot of photosites, so it should hold up well at 3.2K.

But then, this becomes a bit misleading too. You are referring to delivery format. I wouldn't call it a 2K camera.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Me either. Therefore, my post. I can even try to follow Tom POV though. Even though, apples to oranges. Delivering John Ford through Netflix hasn't changed the native 35mm footage.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I'm not saying Red One is a 2K camera. I'm just suggesting that it makes things a lot easier if you essentially "consider" it to be a really fantastic 2K camera with 35mm glass and DOF, RAW, non-linear recording, etc... for most intents and purposes.

Since no one is editing or filming out or delivering at 3K, then 3K is not really a "format," I guess is the best way to put it. At 4K, the image doesn't really hold up pixel for pixel (especially in low light conditions), so your best bet is to downsample the image, which will leave you with really beautiful, pristine 2K footage. You could work at 3K, but so far people don't seem to be doing that, for a number of reasons. If money is no issue, then go ahead and finish at 4k! By all means.

At 2K, you can use that extra 1.2K of resolution for reframing, image stabilizing, etc, if need be, but generally speaking, the benefits of downsampling all the way to 2K are nothing to shake a stick at. My guess right now is that most people will post Red One footage at 2K, and Epic footage at 4K.

I could be totally wrong about this.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Although the measured resolution is around 3.2k, it resides inside a 4k container. You can only move that image to another container format with a change in the image data. You could downsample it to 3k, 2k, 1080p etc. Downsampling can look good, but can also introduce artifacts if not done really carefully. What is best in terms of image with low artifacts is to view the RED 4k as 4k.

Most HD cameras don't measure a full 1920 across, but are routinely posted in 1920. Although you can downsample to SD, they tend to look best left as-is.

Graeme

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Although the measured resolution is around 3.2k, it resides inside a 4k container. You can only move that image to another container format with a change in the image data. You could downsample it to 3k, 2k, 1080p etc. Downsampling can look good, but can also introduce artifacts if not done really carefully. What is best in terms of image with low artifacts is to view the RED 4k as 4k.

Most HD cameras don't measure a full 1920 across, but are routinely posted in 1920. Although you can downsample to SD, they tend to look best left as-is.

Graeme

And, here is why:

Another way to look at the final output is calculating MTF of the entire image path.

Each element in the image path from what is in front of the lens right up to what reaches human eye has its own MTF. The final MTF is never greater than the MTF of the worst element in the path.

Some of these elements are
1. Filters
2. Lens
3. OPLF filter
4. Sensor
5. Quantization (A/D)
6. Processing and compression
7. Any Post manipulation
8. Mastering
9. Distribution master
10. Display device

etc...

Each of these elements have up to 100% MTF for a given frequency (detail). The total MTF is a multiplication of all MTFs of each element, and for a certain frequency (detail), like 50 lp/mm, it goes like

0.9 x 0.8 x 0.75 x ..... = say 0.5 = 50% MTF

Any step in processing, being up-scaling or down-scaling introduces another element and therefore always decreases the filmal MTF unless it is lossless (perfect 100% MTF) copy.

Sooooo, if the sensor is 4k Bayer pattern, it makes sense to process the entire signal using elements of the best matching MTF transfer of such signal right to the display. Even though, the limiting resolution of, say, only 3.2k detail is transferred at the final 10% MTF limit. The 3.2k (or whatever) limit is dictated by arbitrary 10% (or whatever) minimum MTF that we chose to discriminate between those details. At the limit of 4k detail at 4k resolution, the MTF will approach 0%.

The measured resolution (frequency) depends on the arbitrary MTF cutoff, beyond which we assume that the details can no longer be easily separated.

But, any way you look at it, it is a 4k camera with full 4k sensor and records full 4k images.

It is the same for anything else, like 1920 pixel screen can not resolve 1920 points (details) of an image simply because they will never be "aligned" at each pixel. The MTF of a frequency representing 1920 points (details) when displayed on a 1920 pixel screen is 0% except for computer graphics, which we do not consider as a proper image :w00t:

But, I can see why Rian is not the only one not understanding what MTF is and the difference between sample frequency (or resolution), which is full 4k, and perceived sharpness or detail transferred onto such frequency (resolution) which is always less than 4k and how much less depends on what arbitrary MTF (%) cutoff limit you pick It is a curve.

Disclaimer: as I am writing this I am under full influence of potent drugs (mostly pain killers) :waaa: , but maybe someone will understand my explanations anyway...

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Pawel, your explanations are good.

My thought experiment is to think about what looks better - RED left as 4k on a large screen via a 4k projector. Or same movie on the same screen and projector, but first downsampled to 3k (then back up to 4k for projection) or downsampled to 2k (then back up to 4k for projection).

Graeme

 

[Wayne D]

Disclaimer: as I am writing this I am under full influence of potent drugs (mostly pain killers) :waaa: , but maybe someone will understand my explanations anyway...

Pawel, your explanations are good.

ok.....now i know this thread is officially gone off the rails:bleh:

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel, your explanations are good.

My thought experiment is to think about what looks better - RED left as 4k on a large screen via a 4k projector. Or same movie on the same screen and projector, but first downsampled to 3k (then back up to 4k for projection) or downsampled to 2k (then back up to 4k for projection).

Graeme

Exactly, and if you downsampled to 3k, then the MTF for 3k detail over 3k resolution is 0%, which means 3072 individual points will be indistinguishable on the final image as this is the lowest MTF element in your path.

ok.....now i know this thread is officially gone off the rails:bleh:

...more drugs...and time for a snooze, I think :waaa:

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Red One spits out 4K frames that are amazing. It's Red's business how they get there. Therefore in my book it's a 4K camera. The techno-conjecture is entertaining and interesting when Graeme is taking us through it. But when someone constructs a straw-man argument for the purpose of keeping people from using it, it makes my blood boil. It is no different than saying "It wasn't the fall that killed him, it was the sudden stop."

Graeme and the rest of the great people at Red have worked day and night to give us the camera that we've all dreamed about and it bothers me that some people have gone out of their way to attack them for doing it. What they are doing to get to 4K is nothing short of magic and I really don't care how they do it, as long as they do it well.

The footage I've seen is amazing, the frames I've seen are amazing, I'm sold. I don't believe anyone is holding a gun to people's heads, making them use this camera, so don't use it. Shoot film. Be the last filmmaker on earth to shoot film, please. But don't assassinate the efforts of Red and all of us who love this camera, because you don't want to use it. You want a better camera? Come on this board and contribute honestly, like a man. Use your real name. Make suggestions. Put your crazy, stupid ideas on the table and give the people who are paying for this and doing the work YOUR BEST. And maybe, if they think your ideas have merit, they will use them. But don't whine and cry if they don't.

We owe it to the people sticking their necks out for our collective benefit to give them everything we have. Field experience, shooting preference, what works in production, under these conditions, under those conditions.

I'm growing tired of the self-appointed guardians of the craft, that think they know this camera better than the people who built it. There are people who like to stand on the sidelines and piss on everybody else and then there's the people who will actually influence this revolutionary line of cameras. Hurry, Jim is about to make changes. The time to make suggestions is yesterday.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yeah, I wish people would just go out and shoot great images, no matter what gear they're using. I wish I had the time to go out and shoot great images

Graeme

 

[Brandon Fraley]

I wish I had the time to go out and shoot great images

Graeme

yeah, too bad about that. GET BACK TO WORK!

 

[Zaphod]

Dumb question:

Do people actually do 4K film outs anymore?

All I ever hear about (including huge budget films) are 2K film outs from DIs.

 

[Lexicon]

Dumb question:

Do people actually do 4K film outs anymore?

All I ever hear about (including huge budget films) are 2K film outs from DIs.

For the most part, the only times you'll ever really encounter anything at 4K in Hollywood (if you don't include whatever people are shooting in 4K with RED or whatever other toys are laying around) are restoration jobs from the big boys. The cost difference between 2K and 4K post is fairly large and most VFX studios can't push 4K VFX out the door yet, at least not without serious strain on their computing resources, so anything done at 4K resolution is pretty rare outside of film restoration. Many theaters are still migrating or have moved to 2K DLP projectors so 4K is not a big priority for the industry.The next four years will likely bring major advances in 4K projector technology since 4K cameras are now a very real thing so I'm sure we'll see post-productions advancements that come along with those.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Soon enough, 4K DIs will be standard.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Disclaimer: as I am writing this I am under full influence of potent drugs (mostly pain killers) :waaa: , but maybe someone will understand my explanations anyway...

:biggrin: Actually, having been through the underwater dome, cineport discussions on the bubble blowers thread it may be more understandable under the influence.


Just kidding - get well, man.

 

[Johann Schulz]

Pawel, keep blowing bubbles, and keep whatever faith it is you have, because it's all from the same source. You're well taken care of. Believe it!

 

[Casey Pegram]

Hmm. Rian Johnson or Steven Soderbergh? Whose opinion means more to me? Soderbergh's one of the better American filmmakers working today, and Rian Johnson has so far directed a couple films, only one of which I've seen (Brick) and found to be utterly pedestrian and eventually rather grating on the nerves. I'm not just saying that because of this article, I genuinely did not like the film and was a bit dismayed to see it garnered such a following.

I can sympathize to an extent with Johnson's aggravation with people who don't know what they're talking about and who worship the Red One as a sort of be-all/end-all ultimate camera. No one at Red has suggested that; after all, there's the Epic and the Scarlet and whatever else they have on the way.

But the Red is an amazing camera with an unprecedentedly low barrier to entry, and that should make any genuine independent filmmaker smile.

 

[Caesar]

BTW - he is getting his 15 minutes of fame here.

we are all reading/talking about him and his new movie.........you'd pay a fortune for a PR campaing like that!!

Jim - send him an invoice:tongue:

He doesn't need these 15 minutes of fame.

Haven't these things been repeated countless times?