Why does RED not recommend shooting principle photography in 2k?

[Morisato]

I was reading the white papers and came across this quote:

"While 2K is well suited for slow motion cinematography, RED does not recommend 2K as a primary shooting mode for principal photography."

But following that, there was no real explanation as to why 2k is not recommended. Does anyone know why?

 

[Dancsó Péter]

I was reading the white papers and came across this quote:

"While 2K is well suited for slow motion cinematography, RED does not recommend 2K as a primary shooting mode for principal photography."

But following that, there was no real explanation as to why 2k is not recommended. Does anyone know why?

From what I've read it's because the sensor only uses the half of its size to get the half resolution, and you'll get a crop factor and deeper DOF. You should always record in the highest resolution and crop in post.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

You should shoot the highest resolution you can to get the sharpest picture - when you shoot on most digital cameras, you lose detail from the optical low pass filter (OLPF) (basically a frosted piece of glass in front of the sensor that stops aliasing) and since Mysterium uses a bayer pattern, you lose a little detail from that as well (although not much since you still have luminescence values for all the pixels - it's just that the colour values are interpolated from the surrounding pixels in the demosiac process).

Anyway, it just means that your picture will be a little softer at 100% resolution than the theoretical maximum detail the image could have. It will look sharper (and it also reduces noise) if you downscale from 4K to 2K instead.

 

[Morisato]

That's what I figured as well, but I think if that is the case, it's a bit harsh to straight out say that it is not recommended without a proper explanation. Sure, in comparison the 2k image will be inferior to a 4k image... pretty much in every situation... that's a given, but when comparing a 2k image to another camera that shoots 2k or HD, I'd expect the results to be similar as the sensor is cropped to the size that a 2k camera would have. Obviously, shooting 2k has it's advantages as well with it's more manageable file sizes and the lack of need for the debayering process, so simply saying shooting 2k is not recommended is like saying shooting 16mm is not recommended with 35mm as an option. Anyways, thanks for the information.

 

[Stephen Williams]

That's what I figured as well, but I think if that is the case, it's a bit harsh to straight out say that it is not recommended without a proper explanation. Sure, in comparison the 2k image will be inferior to a 4k image... pretty much in every situation... that's a given, but when comparing a 2k image to another camera that shoots 2k or HD, I'd expect the results to be similar as the sensor is cropped to the size that a 2k camera would have. Obviously, shooting 2k has it's advantages as well with it's more manageable file sizes and the lack of need for the debayering process, so simply saying shooting 2k is not recommended is like saying shooting 16mm is not recommended with 35mm as an option. Anyways, thanks for the information.

Hi,

Perhaps they realise that 2k dabayered is not really enough resolution & looks disappointing. Probably why the entry level Scarlet will be 3k.

Stephen

 

[Frank Mirbach]

It´s a creative decision in the first place. If you want a shallow depth of field which for me is one of the most beautiful aspects of shooting in 35mm, you have to go 4K. Anything below that will cause the depth of field to increase causing a different look. But one might want to achieve that for artistic reasons, of course.

Shooting slomo is a different matter. To achieve the higher frame rates, the R1 has to work with just a part of the sensor. That´s a technical necessity right now.

Other than that, working in the highest quality the camera has to offer certainly does make sense no matter what your final delivery will be. From 4k, even a small QT H264 looks great.

Frank

 

[Mitch Gross]

when comparing a 2k image to another camera that shoots 2k or HD, I'd expect the results to be similar as the sensor is cropped to the size that a 2k camera would have.

Then you would be wrong. 2k is just a number, and there are a lot of steps along the way as to what makes for a quality image. The RED One's 2k image suffers considerably when compared to many other 2k or 1920x1080 cameras.

 

[Stuart English]

2K ?

2K ?

I was reading the white papers and came across this quote:

"While 2K is well suited for slow motion cinematography, RED does not recommend 2K as a primary shooting mode for principal photography."

This really revolves around your defnition of "principle photography"

We mean of quality comparable to 35mm, so in that sense 2K isn't recommended - because of the DOF and because of absolute resolution.

 

[PatC]

2048×1152 vs 1920x1080 I have to imagine is not noticeable to the average human eye. The windowed recording of 2k makes it so that you are not using the full gambit that mysterium has to offer. Also, I believe you are basically doubling all your 35 lenses focal lengths. I am on the same page with Mitch and Stuart

 

[Stuart English]

2K

2K

I disagree with Mich's comment about RED's 2K quality compared to other cameras btw, I'd just say its best to do your own tests....


A key advantage of 2K RAW is 100 - 120fps, while the majority of 720p HD cameras offer 60 fps, and 1080p HD cameras offer 30 fps.

You can also shoot 35mm and 16mm, and also B4 lenses via an opical adaptor.


If your max acceptable frame rate falls into the 50 to 60 fps range, then you can also elect to shoot in 3K RAW.

Image quality at this resolution is truely excellent and offers a more cinematic DOF - something between what 2/3" optics.

 

[Stephen Williams]

2048×1152 vs 1920x1080 I have to imagine is not noticeable to the average human eye. t

Hi,

The Red @ 2k is nowhere near 2k, it's very obviously less resolution than a high end 3 chip HD camera. The human eye can see more than you can imagine.
Testing is the best way to determine if it's good enough for your use.

Stephen

 

[J. Eric Camp]

I'd expect the results to be similar as the sensor is cropped to the size that a 2k camera would have. Obviously, shooting 2k has it's advantages as well with it's more manageable file sizes and the lack of need for the debayering process, so simply saying shooting 2k is not recommended is like saying shooting 16mm is not recommended with 35mm as an option.

This is all incorrect.

Just because it's 2k does not mean it gets to forgo the debayer process. It is a bayer pattern sensor, period. 2k, 3k, 4k does not matter.

The bayer pattern sensor has roughly a 72% effective resolution / sharpness.
When comparing a 1920 camera versus the 2k mode in RED (2043) with an effective MTF of 1471.

Better than 720... questionable when compared to 1920.

In my opinion there is never, ever a good reason to shoot 2k unless it is off speed. Period. The "savings" of disk space and render time are overshadowed by the image gains of 4k.

 

[Ace]

Heres the thing. The Genesis is a 2k camera and the images look absolutely stunning. *But* that 2k image is coming from a pixel array equivalent to red (12 megapixels) whilst still being a 2k image (and you pay a brazillian dollars for it). So you would be wrong to assume the numbers work and area comparable in this absolute sense. There's a reason why the manufacturer recommends shooting at 4k. Trust them.

 

[Tim Sutherland]

I shot a short for the web in 2K because we were hiking into a wooded location (almost a mile hike) so I didn't want to change lenses, or have a huge heavy zoom, and we were going to do some high speed, so we shot the whole thing at 2K and used a 16mm 8-64 canon lens.

I was expecting to get about 720p resolution or a bit more, with some noise compared to the 4K I'm used to, but when I opened up the full 2K files, they look incredibly sharp. I was very surprised. We were shooting in daylight, which was the difference I think, because most of the previous 2K shooting I'd seen was in tungsten.

Normally I would recommend shooting 4k if at all possible, but in our situation I'm more than happy with the great 2K image we got.

Tim

 

[keicol]

see this thread

see this thread

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31529

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

That's what I figured as well, but I think if that is the case, it's a bit harsh to straight out say that it is not recommended without a proper explanation. Sure, in comparison the 2k image will be inferior to a 4k image... pretty much in every situation... that's a given, but when comparing a 2k image to another camera that shoots 2k or HD, I'd expect the results to be similar as the sensor is cropped to the size that a 2k camera would have. Obviously, shooting 2k has it's advantages as well with it's more manageable file sizes and the lack of need for the debayering process, so simply saying shooting 2k is not recommended is like saying shooting 16mm is not recommended with 35mm as an option. Anyways, thanks for the information.

You asked a question with an agenda - therefore not an authentic question, since you had the answer "figured" in advance.

You received very straightforward answers in a public forum. The "search" button would have yielded this exact information, which has been discussed openly over the years - so there is really nothing hidden. Somehow accusing RED of hiding information while cloaking an agenda within in a question seems rather hypocritical...

 

[Mitch Gross]

Suart, we can agree to disagree. I did say many other cameras, not all. The Phantom HD is a 2K camera and there is no way that the RED at 2K compares with the Phantom at 2K. But then there are other camera with which RED at 2K does quite well. But we all should understand that it is not the optimal use of the camera.

 

[Häakon]

Hi,

Perhaps they realise that 2k dabayered is not really enough resolution & looks disappointing. Probably why the entry level Scarlet will be 3k.

Stephen

All you have to do is shoot with it once to know this. Then again, the "1080" 1/3" cams are just as bad or worse. Just depends on where your personal threshold lies. Thankfully, RED's is pretty high.

 

[Stuart English]

2K wrap

2K wrap

In summary.

Our 2K RAW mode is fundamentally there to give an option to shoot with B4 or S16 lenses at better than 720p HD delivered quality at up to 120 fps.

Its great for sports, wildlife and general "for TV" use, and also pretty respectable for some aspects of cinema use, especially if using RED primes.

But if you are needing true cinematic release image quality, no question we would suggest 4K - or 3K if you need frame rates around 50 - 60 fps.

 

[J. Eric Camp]

I suppose I would like to add that some of my favorite RED shots do have some level of slow motion on them and therefor are windowed shots. It's not that the footage becomes ugly or unusable, it's just that the image quality gains in 4k are worth every 1 and 0 you can throw it it.