Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

Red not true 4k

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still, it's not a true 4k camera.

It is if you define a "4K camera" as having a sensor with 4096 pixels horizontally. There are those at Red who have stated that their use of the term "4K" should actually be interpreted as "4K RAW," which somehow implies that there are simply 4K worth of pixels on the sensor in the horizontal direction, with a Bayer pattern on top of them. The problem with that definition is that it is misleading, since most of the camera world has long since defined a "4K Camera" as one that produces 4K worth of original information in the horizontal direction on all three primary color channels. In other words, Red has come up with their own definition of what 4K means, in much the same way they came up with a re-definition of the term "telecine." There is nothing really wrong with this as long as the general public is aware of the redefinition, but this is often not the case. Hence the notion that these terms are sometimes more about marketing and desired perception than they are about technical accuracy.

As for the article that seems to have started this thread, John Galt has many, many years of experience and accomplishment in the area of imaging and imaging science, and has done enormous amounts of research to come to the conclusions he has come to. His opinions are not borne of corporate loyalty, they are borne of knowledge, experience, and careful consideration of facts. He feels strongly about the products of which he speaks not because of who he works for, but because the designs of these products are largely based on what Panavision's clients have been asking for, both ergonomically and technically, and are built on a sturdy foundation of technology. Now, that doesn't mean one has to agree with everything that's said, but one should also consider that the person saying it is more than qualified to come to these conclusions. I can certainly appreciate that Graeme, for instance, has different views. But I have also stood between them in a conversation, and regardless of the views that were expressed, it was clear that Graeme and John have an enormous amount of mutual respect for each other. It would be nice if others here would feel the same way and realize the unique opportunity to benefit from the knowledge bases of both.
 
Mr Jay.

Calm down.
I meant to say I don't judge a camera ONLY by it's screen image. The sensor itself and the specs, and the workflow, it would be stupid to say those aren't important. I'm a DP. I like knowing how things work. Why they work. And why they'll work for me. alright? Is that so hard to understand? Marketing means nothing to me. 4 I can't take the fanboyism. That's the one problem with these boards. Because you all have spent 30k or more on a camera you feel the need to defend it as if it's your baby. It's alright to speak truthfully about it sometimes! I don't mean to be offensive.
 
John Galt has many, many years of experience and accomplishment in the area of imaging and imaging science, and has done enormous amounts of research to come to the conclusions he has come to. His opinions are not borne of corporate loyalty, they are borne of knowledge, experience, and careful consideration of facts.


Thank you sir, for being fair and pointing that out. No need to dismiss a man so knowledgeable, in any forum of discussion,
 
Alright guys come down, let's have good discuss rather then argument, Daniel just point out something's he might don't confirm, there's always good to know the real spec for any of Dop, I know we all looking for higher revolution Cine Camera, so, why don't give more times for Red Team? I believe they can make one suitable for us...

Perry Ho
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1660475/
 
My 2 cents...

I would like to be redundant and back what Leo said about inflammatory posts; this isn't a new topic on here. Advice: do some searching next time, read and then post something that is a question or a well thought out statement instead of repeating a sampling of an article that 80% of Red users have already read a month ago.

I too found the Galt article very interesting, he's fascinating and very smart guy, I'd love to pick his brain sometime for sure. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not he is biased, but I do not think the initial premiss of the article is at all biased; I think it seeks to be educational about how the terminology of "2k, 3k, 4k..." has been "hi-jacked" so to speak. I'm a bit of a techno-geek so I like the details of lexicon, others do not care so much. Do I still call Red 4K "4K"? Yes, but at least I have some perspective on the term.

Red makes a dam good camera for a lot of applications, and if you learn the tools that will get you the most out of the format, like Redcine for example, you will learn how to master the format in the post-production pipeline and work with, not against any perceived short comings of the format. Splitting hairs about specs does not do your end product any good, only educating yourself to the task will.
 
I seem to remember pixel shift couldn't get you above a root 2 improvement, but that was in the monochrome case of a single sensor over 2 positions.
 
Didn't know I'd start a firestorm here. Some of you seem truly knowledgeable and fair, others seem simply defensive. I was just stating a fact and citing an article. So lets all get along.

No one is doubting that the red isn't a great camera, even though I will say Che looked quite bad.

Lets just get out and shoot, putting the specs aside
peace!
 
Your point is red is not 4k, red and everyone agrees on that point, end of discussion.
 
No one is doubting that the red isn't a great camera, even though I will say Che looked quite bad.

Hi,

It's the man behind the camera that makes the images, the camera is just a tool.

Stephen
 
Again, sorry if I ruffled feathers, us DP's are aggressive types.


If I ever meet you guys I'll buy you a beer.
 
ruffled feathers come with the territory :) If people weren't having some level of fun with these discussions, they'd just ignore them.
 
Your point is red is not 4k, red and everyone agrees on that point, end of discussion.


No, RED ONE is a 4K camera. You are confusing our statements about the sensor pixel resolution with the camera's resolving power (~ 3.2K)

No camera will ever obtain a 100% match between those two...
 
To lay this to rest, we can all agree that Red is a 4k camera that resolves less than 4k after the bayer array. It's 4k pixels across, even there if there is not a direct relationship between those photosites and ones in the end image. :clown2:
 
4K

4K

To lay this to rest, we can all agree that Red is a 4k camera that resolves less than 4k after the bayer array. It's 4k pixels across, even there if there is not a direct relationship between those photosites and ones in the end image.

Well as long as you don't assume that if you had a 4K 3-sensor camera then you would have 4K resolving power, than yes ( ditto for 2K or 1080p 3-sensor etc)

An assumption like that would be very far from the truth.... bayer is just one of the factors in resolving power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top