5K is alive...

[Antoine Fabi]

Chris,

I have not measured, but I mix 3K (for slow motion footage) with 4K for 1080 output, and i can assure you it works superbly. Do the test...you'll be impressed.

Antoine

 

[Kyle Mallory]

Uhm... yeah, keep the digital zoom to yourself. If I need it, I'll deal with it in post... Digital Zoom is meant for people who's definition of "post" is doing a straight transfer from MiniDV to DVD.

 

[Phillip Gibb]

Thanks for the updates
living the buzz and loving it.

Phill
http://www.synapticlight.com/

 

[Justin Anderson]

There will be an "auto-everything" button and a "run/stop button". You should be OK.

Jim

As long as you have an "Instant Roger Deakins" button, I'll be fine. :blush:

 

[Daniel Browning]

Digital Zoom is meant for people who's definition of "post" is doing a straight transfer from MiniDV to DVD.

Or for people who don't want to waste bitrate and compression quality on something they're going to crop out anyway.

 

[Kyle Mallory]

Or for people who don't want to waste bitrate and compression quality on something they're going to crop out anyway.

Instead that bitrate and quality is wasted on redundant data, duplicated over multiple, identical pixels. You're still storing X.Y frame size and Z bits of color, even if the Imager area sampled is 1/100th of X.Y. Without D-Zoom, you still have information... information you may not want in the end, but information nonetheless. DZoom stores the same 1/100th of information in 100x the data area necessary. You might get a some savings after compression does its thing, but, personally, I'd rather keep the original framing instead.

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

I want more Mysterium X pictures! I just now found out that Jarred's "Serious Face" picture was shot with Franky 2.

 

[fde101]

Instead that bitrate and quality is wasted on redundant data, duplicated over multiple, identical pixels. You're still storing X.Y frame size and Z bits of color, even if the Imager area sampled is 1/100th of X.Y. Without D-Zoom, you still have information... information you may not want in the end, but information nonetheless. DZoom stores the same 1/100th of information in 100x the data area necessary. You might get a some savings after compression does its thing, but, personally, I'd rather keep the original framing instead.

Since most cameras won't be able to scale the image as well as can a high-quality computer algorithm, you're giving up some quality too...

If someone is really interested in this, a better option might be to store the "digital zoom level" as metadata with the frame and apply it in post, like ISO/ASA is stored now...

 

[Chris Newman]

Beg to differ... Graeme's demosaic magic yields over 2K of resolution (measured) from 3K acquisition. Read several tests that have demonstrated his magic on the RED ONE.

Jim

My point was that even with a 2x digital zoom, it would still have over 1K resolution, or about 720p (720x1280), which is still very usable, even on a big screen. It would be up to the marketing people to figure out how to explain that this is just as good as an optical 16x zoom on ordinary HD cameras. (Assuming you will need marketing people someday)

Uhm... yeah, keep the digital zoom to yourself. If I need it, I'll deal with it in post... Digital Zoom is meant for people who's definition of "post" is doing a straight transfer from MiniDV to DVD.

I am assuming the fixed Scarlet is still supposed to have some easy-workflow (A.K.A. "Soccer Mom" (sorry Jim)) features, like auto-everything and 1080p RGB. All of these features will be disable-able of course.

 

[Billy Gedney]

While I hate to be 'That Guy'

While I hate to be 'That Guy'

While I hate to be 'That Guy,' are we going to get to see some 5k footage?

Thanks,
Billy

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I guess the question here is whether we should educate the efx guys that (say) 3:1 or 4:1 compression REDCODE is absolutely as good for their purpose as uncompressed... or just let them waste time and money because nobody told them.

Jim

Or the fx guys weren't fully satisfied with REDCODE 20 and are remembering the less than ideal quality that it produced.

With REDCODE 50 and 60 I would say we're well into the "As good as Uncompressed" territory. But people have long memories and decades of people telling them "XYX" is "as good as uncompressed" only to come up short. It is an educational process but even RED was a bit over zealous in initially marketing early REDCode builds as just as good as uncompressed.

I've had DPs tell me that 4:2:2 is "as good as uncompressed for fx work because that's how the eye sees." This isn't directed at David Mullen. He has an excellent grasp of the technical aspects of imageing but not all DPs are as technically savvy and many assume what looks good in a daily is great for the FX people too. A potentially misguided assumption.