A few questions/confusions about specs

[Daniel Cegla]

Hey guys - I'm new to the world of RED and had a few questions about the specs, as I am a little confused about some of them...


What is FF1080p and how is it different than 1080p?

Is "full HD" 1920x1080 referred to as 1K or 2K (ie does it go by 1920, for 2K, or 1080, for 1K)?

Why does the 2/3" scarlett do 120fps @ 3K but only 1-30fps @ FF1080p? Shouldn't 3K be a 1.5x-3x larger image than 1080p? This makes no sense to me.... :/

And then the Scarlett S35 which costs way more than the 2/3rd inch Scarlett doesn't do any over cranking? Shouldn't it at least do over cranking at 3K since the 2/3rd inch one does?

Also, I am a little confused. So if I shoot a 3K image on a 2/3rd in Scarlett VS an S35 model (I know the S35 doesn't do 3K, but theoretically if it did) would the images look the same? Or would the S35 offer much better latitude and shallower depth of field?

And finally, what is QuadHD? Isn't that just like... 4K? Or 8K?


Sorry for all the newb questions, the specs are just a little overwhelming... Thanks guys!

 

[Steven Hilder]

A few answers...

Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong!

What is FF1080p and how is it different than 1080p?

The FF1080p mode will result in normal 1080p footage, the point of the 'FF' is that the full frame sensor data (whether 3K, 5K, 9K, whatever) is being downsized to 1920x1080 instead of 'windowing' the middle 1920x1080 area.

Is "full HD" 1920x1080 referred to as 1K or 2K (ie does it go by 1920, for 2K, or 1080, for 1K)?

The 'K' numbers refer to the width of the frame, so 1920x1080 could be called '1.92K' but I've never seen it written like that. When people say '2K', they most probably mean 2K, not HD.

Why does the 2/3" scarlett do 120fps @ 3K but only 1-30fps @ FF1080p?

The full-frame to 1920x1080 downsize process takes considerable processing time/power so the brains can't do it at such high frame rates.

And finally, what is QuadHD? Isn't that just like... 4K? Or 8K?

QuadHD is 3840x2160, in other words four times the resolution of HD (not quite 4K, but not far off). This (should) result in cleaner resampling down to HD (ie. fewer artifacts).

 

[Daniel Cegla]

Thanks for the great help MisterHilder. That makes sense.

So Quad HD is very close to 4k, and exists solely for the purpose of easily scaling it down to HD resolutions? And 4k exists for matching film sizes?

What benefit would there be in shooting Quad HD for easy scale down to HD?

What is the exact resolution on "4k" or "2k" (ie 4000x2000 and 2000x1000, respectively?) And when would you choose to shoot 2k instead of 1920x1080?

Is there a way to just shoot standard 1080p so I could do very high overcrank, ie, 240fps overcrank at 1080p? That would be nice.

Also I am still wondering about these two things, which might be a question for the RED gurus who understand the engineering behind the brains:

And then the Scarlett S35 which costs way more than the 2/3rd inch Scarlett doesn't do any over cranking? Shouldn't it at least do over cranking at 3K since the 2/3rd inch one does?

Also, I am a little confused. So if I shoot a 3K image on a 2/3rd in Scarlett VS an S35 model (I know the S35 doesn't do 3K, but theoretically if it did) would the images look the same? Or would the S35 offer much better latitude and shallower depth of field?

I am wondering this because, what I would like out of a camera is something with the FULL lattitude of 35mm film + shallow depth of field and ability to use 35mm lenses, but I don't need the ability to shoot 5k or even 4k, let alone overcrank them. Basically, I just want the large sensor for image quality, but could do with 1080p with the ability to over crank a whole lot. (Although 3k would be nice so I could crop/stabilize/etc. shots a little bit, then downsize to 1080p (or is it better to not shoot 3k for this, but QUAD-HD, so it scales down more cleanly and then just gives even more room around the borders for camera stabilization/adding camerashake/reframing)?

Anyways I wonder because these features seem to be *almost* available on the $2,500 brain... but not quite, and then to get what I want it seems I would have to go all the way up to the $28,000, which is just out of the question.

Is there a way to make a brain that does 3K or Quad-HD resolution, and/or 1080p, and then can do those settings with a full frame sensor for the lattitude/DOF benefits, and high overcrank settings, without needing to pay for 4k, 5k, 9k, etc.? Its unfortunate that the S35 scarlet can't do overcranking as well as the cheaper brain, or even the FF35.

Now - this is all a moot point if the 2/3" Scarlett sensor has the same lattitude/DOF benefits of the S35, just without the resolution - but I am guessing that is not the case?


Thanks!

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

QHD is an extremely useful format for TV or straight to video productions, because, as stated it provides a cleaner downsample to 1080p because there is an exact 4:1 pixel ratio. 4k is better for cinema, because of high res for film out or a direct 4:1 pixel downsample for a 2k digital out. It should also be stated that there is a significant speed increase when downsampling from QHD to HD as opposed 4k because of the direct pixel correlation.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

"4K" in film scanning terms is 4096 pixels across for scanning Full Aperture (Super) 35mm, but when you're talking about scanning Academy / standard 1.85 / anamorphic, it's a bit under 4000 pixels actually.

The RED ONE in 4K recording mode is 4096 pixels across.

"2K" is 2048 pixels across for scanning Super-35, something less for scanning Academy / 1.85 / anamorphic, I think it is 1828 pixels across (and if so, it's 3656 pixels across for a "4K" scan), though still referred to as a 2K scan whether or not it is a scan of 35mm Full / Silent / Super vs. the Sound / Academy Aperture.

HD is a video format and is either 1920 x 1080 or 1280 x 720 pixels. So when talking about HD video, you'd generally refer to a video term like "1080P" or "720P" whereas when talking about file data, you'd use a term like "2K" or "4K", etc. Though it's actually a grey area, the difference between video and digital data these days -- it's all "data" to some extent, just that video tends to be packaged in a particular codec of some sort.

--

The thing to keep in mind that RAW recording is a handy form of data reduction (not compression) because it hasn't been converted yet to color, which triples the amount of data necessary -- converting 4K RAW to 4K RGB triples the number of 4K files, one for each color.

So don't necessarily think of shooting in 4K versus 1080P mode on a RED camera as the 4K being "bigger" or "more expensive" -- it's 4K RAW versus 1080P RGB, so the actual difference in data is not that great, you're not really saving yourself much data to record by converting 4K RAW into 1080P RGB in-camera.

You're just saving yourself from doing the conversion later in post, and in theory, doing the RAW conversion work in post is likely to look better than doing it in-camera... due to the fact that in a post environment, you can use computers with bigger processing power and the conversion doesn't necessarily have to happen in real time.

The other thing to keep in mind is that with a single-sensor camera using a Bayer pattern from which you have to generate a 3-color image... you need to start out with more total pixels in order to end up with decent resolution after conversion to color. So 3K RAW on the Scarlet is about the minimal size you want to go if you want to create high-quality 1080P RGB color images (though cameras with 2K RAW sensors manage to do it with OK results.)

 

[Daniel Cegla]

- So because this is not a three sensor camera, you need to have 3 times the resolution you want? IE, decent 1080p requires 3K RAW, and decent 4K requires 12K RAW?

- Does QuadHD record RAW, or RGB?

- When downsampling to a direct pixel ratio, how much does it affect speed in the downsampling task and how much does it affect quality (direct pixel ratio VS not)?

- This might seem obvious, but to confirm. A 2/3rd inch Scarlett will have far less latitude and greater DOF than the large sensored S35 Scarlett? And the FF35 Scarlett will beat the S35 in this department?

- Why don't the S35/FF35 Scarlett models do 3K?

- Why are the S35/FF35 Scarlett models incapable of any over cranking, even at the lower resolutions? I'd love an S35 or FF35 Scarlett, but over cranking is a must... and the price gap between that the Epic is just too much :/ What if it was even some basic 60-90fps overcranking, only up to 4k? Or even one more price point, maybe a couple thousand more, a Scarlett capable of overcrank?

- I see all the models offer "timelapse" but only some offer "ramping" - what is ramping?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The rough rule is that final line resolution is about 2/3's of the RAW pixel resolution, so 3K RAW would (theoretically) measure out at 2K in terms of measured resolution (even if the converted RGB files were 3K in size). And since HD is 1.9K across, you can think of it as 2K more or less.

The mosaic Bayer filter pattern has half the photosites filtered green and a quarter filtered red and blue. But a decent algorithm that creates separate red, green, and blue channels from the monochrome RAW image can make intelligent guesses as to the true color of a surrounding photosite, hence why you don't end up with half-resolution for green detail and quarter-resolution for red and blue detail.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_pattern

But like I said, there are single-sensor 2K and HD cameras that create decent HD images despite, in theory, not having enough resolution per channel after de-Bayering. Remember that what seems like acceptable resolution is somewhat subjective and cameras and post tricks can make lower-resolution images seem sharper than they really are. However, you are always better off with oversampling, hence why I'd try to shoot 4K on the RED even if I wanted an HD master.

The dynamic range of the 2/3" sensor and the S35 sensor may or may not be similar -- the issues are not just the size of the sensor, but the processing, etc. But generally you have a 2.5-stop difference in depth of field characteristics, i.e. you'd have to open up the iris by 2.5-stops on a 2/3" camera to match the depth of field of a S35 camera, once you've matched field of view & distance.

Basically the EPIC models have a bigger "brain" than the Scarlet cameras, bigger physically and bigger in terms of processing power, hence why it is more expensive and why it offers more options. If the smaller and cheaper Scarlet brain had the same features as the bigger and more expensive EPIC brain, then why would anyone buy the EPIC???

"Ramping" is the ability to change frame rates smoothly in the middle of a shot.

It's not like you have many alternatives on the market to the upcoming Scarlet in the same price range, for the same quality, but with extra features like overcranking that you want. At least, nothing has been announced that I've seen. It seems to me that RED has offered all of these amazing features at an incredibly low price... maybe one-third the prices of competing cameras... but there is always someone who wants more features but wants to spend less money getting them. The market would say that you are always free to go somewhere else, except there really isn't anything quite like these cameras on the market (even the Scarlet and Epic cameras don't exist yet.)

If overcranking is a "must" then I'd be saving your money up for a camera that can overcrank.

 

[Daniel Cegla]

David, thanks for the great and thorough info. No need to be defensive on the RED's specs as I am certainly not criticizing them or suggesting something better exists on the market. Not by a long shot, what you guys are delivering is nothing short of phenomenal.

That said, yes I am that guy who wants more features and wants to spend less getting them. But then again, that is the very heart of RED's business model, is it not And as we all know, in the technology world, that is the inevitable future.

Now, I am not suggesting you offer EPIC at the Scarlett price point. Not at all. I am merely suggesting that you guys perhaps consider ramping the price points a little more gradually. A $9,750 brain, and the next step up is nearly triple the price @ $28,000? Doesn't this leave some people in the cold? The buyer who can afford $15,000 or $20,000 on a brain?

The modular concept is FANTASTIC, and the main page says "trade off frame size against frame rate" when describing the modular sensor/brain. Yet, this is not really the case. There does not seem to be anyway for me to say "I don't need such a large frame size, but I do need more FPS." There only seems to be a way to get a larger frame size AND greater fps - which is not congruent with the way the modular sensor was described.

Now this isn't BAD per say - but I will offer a suggestion. As a consumer with a budget, if I were to buy a RED, it would probably be the Scarlet FF35 for just shy of $10k. But I am not "sold" on it - not because I am greedy, but rather because my style with music videos usually dictates that I can't do without 60p, and my budget says I can't spend $28,000 on the brain alone. This puts me a in a predicament - wait 3-4 years for prices to drop and competition to come up and make due with HVX200, or hope those at RED consider a few ideas.

Afterall, your page does state "subject to drastic changes" - so I figure my mere suggestions must have a chance at being heard, no?

Seeing as how $28,000 (or $33,000 to get full frame) is way out of budget, and all I need is another 30fps @ 3K (for HD masters)... it seems unfortunate that I would have to purchase a brain capable of amazing frame sizes of 5k with tremendous overcrank ability (up to 250fps!)

I would be willing to pay more for a currently umarketed segment. What if you offered something between the Scarlet and Epic? Or perhaps just another variation on the current Scarlet price point? Something capable of 4k max (so no 5k or 6k), but that could do 60 fps @ 4k and 90fps @ 3K? That way, I would be able to truly "trade frame size for FPS" and make a compromise. I'd lose 5k/6k, but I'd gain some basic over crank ability at 4k/3k.

Certainly this does not compete with 100fps @ 5k or 160fps @ 3K on the EPIC? And certainly this is not wanting to pay less for more, but rather, pay the SAME for something DIFFERENT - to make a trade-off between frame size and FPS.

Or depending on the camera's specs, you could market an "in between" model(s) at $12k, $17k, $22k that offer different trade-offs in frame size, sensor size, FPS capabilities, etc.

Please don't take offense at the suggestions, as I only mean to offer up my point of view. If I could afford the Epic, I would buy it in a heartbeat. And while the Scarlet is an amazing piece of equipment that I could afford, I will most likely refrain from purchasing it as it simply does not meet my needs. I know I would gain SO much in the visual quality and a million other benefits, but not having some basic overcrank options would make it tough for me (personally) to justify making such a huge investment on something that doesn't allow me to work with even some basic slow-motion (which is essential to my style).

I wish there was another option or way to customize the product to my specific needs, and it seems like the goal of RED with it's modular design is to make this possible. Please consider - and again - thanks for the great and thorough information. The world of RED is starting to make a bit more sense

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Does QuadHD record RAW, or RGB?

Probably RAW. QuadHD RGB would be a LOT of data and not in any way useful since you could do an RGB conversion in the comfort of a post suite. And nobody needs QuadHD RGB as a deliverable.

- When downsampling to a direct pixel ratio, how much does it affect speed in the downsampling task and how much does it affect quality (direct pixel ratio VS not)?

Dividing by 2n ensures you'll get no half pixel sampling which can soften the image. Then again I think I lost a candybar (which I still need to send. ) to this kind of talk. It's a very small but potentially noticeable difference.

- This might seem obvious, but to confirm. A 2/3rd inch Scarlett will have far less latitude and greater DOF than the large sensored S35 Scarlett? And the FF35 Scarlett will beat the S35 in this department?

DOF is a property of aperture and focal length. But yes. With a similar FOV the 2/3rds will have a deeper depth of field.

It's possible the FF35 and S35 will have different lattitudes. But there should be no difference between the 2/3rds inch and s35 since they're the same chip just cropped. The FF35 has larger* pixels so they can collect more light. *Based on my understanding of the MONSTRO chip.

- Why don't the S35/FF35 Scarlett models do 3K? Why are the S35/FF35 Scarlett models incapable of any over cranking, even at the lower resolutions? I'd love an S35 or FF35 Scarlett, but over cranking is a must... and the price gap between that the Epic is just too much :/ What if it was even some basic 60-90fps overcranking, only up to 4k? Or even one more price point, maybe a couple thousand more, a Scarlett capable of overcrank?

Limited processing power.

 

[Kenneth Elkington]

- So because this is not a three sensor camera, you need to have 3 times the resolution you want? IE, decent 1080p requires 3K RAW, and decent 4K requires 12K RAW?

Not exactly. A 3k Raw image roughly equates to a 2k output. Looking at just the horizontal resolution is deceptive in this respect, because sensor area grows geometrically rather than linearly. 1080p RGB is about 2 MP, and 3k RAW is about 6 MP, and you only need roughly 1.5x the number of raw to RGB to get a good RGB output. 4k is about 12 MP so you'd need about 18 MP, around a 5k sensor which has ~20 MP, to get a good 4k RGB output.

- Does QuadHD record RAW, or RGB?

QHD is RAW

- This might seem obvious, but to confirm. A 2/3rd inch Scarlett will have far less latitude and greater DOF than the large sensored S35 Scarlett? And the FF35 Scarlett will beat the S35 in this department?

2/3" will have the largest DOF given the same framing, then s35 is smaller, and FF35 is has the smallest DOF given the same framing because it is the largest sensor.

- Why don't the S35/FF35 Scarlett models do 3K?

I can't see why they wouldn't, it's probably just not listed. Remember though that a 3k mode will be windowed, thus giving a greater DOF for the same framing.

 

[David Morgan]

Now, I am not suggesting you offer EPIC at the Scarlett price point. Not at all. I am merely suggesting that you guys perhaps consider ramping the price points a little more gradually. A $9,750 brain, and the next step up is nearly triple the price @ $28,000? Doesn't this leave some people in the cold? The buyer who can afford $15,000 or $20,000 on a brain?...

...Now this isn't BAD per say - but I will offer a suggestion. As a consumer with a budget, if I were to buy a RED, it would probably be the Scarlet FF35 for just shy of $10k. But I am not "sold" on it - not because I am greedy, but rather because my style with music videos usually dictates that I can't do without 60p, and my budget says I can't spend $28,000 on the brain alone. This puts me a in a predicament - wait 3-4 years for prices to drop and competition to come up and make due with HVX200, or hope those at RED consider a few ideas.

Why not just buy a Red One? If you really need 60fps@3k, that's the camera you want. It also fits in the price range you talked about, right inbewteen the Scarlett and the Epic...oh, and it's available right now. :usd:

Keep in mind, like all things Red (with the possible exception of Epic X), the price is just the camera, and you'll be looking at even more money for the rest of the package.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

The 'K' numbers refer to the width of the frame, so 1920x1080 could be called '1.92K' but I've never seen it written like that. When people say '2K', they most probably mean 2K, not HD.

Wouldn't it be 1.875K, since each K in cinema resolutions is actually 1024, not 1000?

 

[Ryan Bedell]

I think the camera in the middle that's being searched for is. . .

FF Scarlet AND 2/3" Scarlet (possibly fixed lens)

Then you get the monstro latitude, frame rate (and FF/S35 DOF) and you also get the 2/3" overcrank when you need it.

Seems like for overcrank you don't really necessarily care about shallow DOF, and while you'd like that crazy latitude, you can't afford 30 thousand dollars for it. So for an additional $3000 you get some overcrank, but at a lower frame size.

Seems like a pretty good tradeoff to me. You also get a backup body for free.

Or you could buy 2/3" and rent FF EPIC for the overcrank days. There are so many options the mind boggles.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

First off, David doesn't work for RED. He is a very accomplished DOP.

Secondly, how many options do people need! There are eight frickn cameras purposed. (10 if you count the x and the R1) and they mix and match together.

If you want "just a 1080p RGB" camera that can over crank then look else where as that is not the RED game.

As Ryan said, buy the S35 scarlet and the 2/3". You get a nice pretty 35 DOF in 4k or 5k. You can even do a limited burst of 72fps at such rez. When you need your over crank pull out the 2/3" and go to town with 120fps in 3k.

Or as was said before, the camera you describe is already here in the form of the Red One.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I need one.

In my hands.

As soon as possible.