Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • 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 :)

REDCODE 42...

Fun to watch, Red provides updates faster than users think!
 
Jannard said:
No. RC 225 is a massive amount of data. Probably a ton of overkill. But will be useful when shooting 5K at 100fps.

Think data rate divided by frame rate.

Jim
Click to expand...


So does that mean you can give us higher frame rates because the camera doesn't have to do as much work to compress the image... therefore freeing up resources for recording at the faster rates?
Or am I way off base?
 
Gregory Leno said:
So does that mean you can give us higher frame rates because the camera doesn't have to do as much work to compress the image... therefore freeing up resources for recording at the faster rates?
Or am way off base?
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying...

The amount of data that any camera can process per second divided by the frame rate tells you how large each frame can be. What I am saying is that the R1 can process just so much data. EPIC can process a whole lot more data in camera.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
No. RC 225 is a massive amount of data. Probably a ton of overkill. But will be useful when shooting 5K at 100fps.

Think data rate divided by frame rate.

Jim
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. I thought overcranked footage was supposed to be the same quality and the limit was only the fps the sensor could handle.

I wish there was a way to know when you left the sweet spot of the Red Code that was selected. That way you could know you were getting the best the camera can offer, like with film where the celluloid is the same no matter what.
 
Jannard said:
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying...

The amount of data that any camera can process per second divided by the frame rate tells you how large each frame can be. What I am saying is that the R1 can process just so much data. EPIC can process a whole lot more data in camera.

Jim
Click to expand...

Well, you managed to say quite clearly what I was attempting to get at, despite my poorly worded question. Thanks.
Looking forward the new chapter in RED's great story.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
I didn't know that. I thought overcranked footage was supposed to be the same quality and the limit was only the fps the sensor could handle.

I wish there was a way to know when you left the sweet spot of the Red Code that was selected. That way you could know you were getting the best the camera can offer, like with film where the celluloid is the same no matter what.
Click to expand...

You probably didn't know because it is hard to tell the difference.

Roberto... have you shot a RED ONE?

Jim
 
Jannard said:
You probably didn't know because it is hard to tell the difference.

Roberto... have you shot a RED ONE?

Jim
Click to expand...

You are right. I haven't compared 24fps 2k and slow-motion 2k side by side, nor have I felt the need. I only asked because I remembered a thread that popped up a while back where someone was questioning if the quality of slow-motion 2k was the same. I found it odd. I also believe that the thread died out without anyone agreeing with him.

I am not a shooter myself Jim. But I have been on sets shooting Red and I have CCed .R3D's a little. I have shot myself, with one of your Reds actually, once when Jarred invited me to try out the RPPs just before they started shipping! It was incredibly exiting to visit where it all happens. But I don't have much hands on experience.

Please don't take my incessant questioning as statements. I am merely trying to learn as much as possible about digital acquisition, and about your cameras in particular because they look the best. I understand you can't answer every question you are asked, and unfortunately I couldn't afford what your private tutor fees would be. I can only hope you are not bothered by my persistence and be grateful for the times when you, or other knowledgeable forum members, take the time to explain things to me.
 
Incessantly questioning things around here is perfectly acceptable. Keeps us on our toes. :-)

Jim
 
I don't understand this uncertainty about Redcode nomenclature vs. bitrate.

If it's called Redcode 80 or 225, why wouldn't it be after bitrate? Wouldn't that be pretty confusing then ? "Well it's called Redcode 250, but its actually 174.56 MB/s" ??
I don't get it.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
I don't understand this uncertainty about Redcode nomenclature vs. bitrate.

If it's called Redcode 80 or 225, why wouldn't it be after bitrate? Wouldn't that be pretty confusing then ? "Well it's called Redcode 250, but its actually 174.56 MB/s" ??
I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Because the actual bit rate varies from scene to scene. It is not fixed. That's why these are reference numbers... to give you something to hang your hat on.

Jim
 
Jason Wingrove said:
So if the 'full pixel array' is actually 5K (4900 x 2580) then i presume theres still room for 'look around' even at 4.5K (4520 x 2540)
Click to expand...

If memory serves the full gate outside the active area is hard-masked as a black reference.
 
Jannard said:
Because the actual bit rate varies from scene to scene. It is not fixed. That's why these are reference numbers... to give you something to hang your hat on.

Jim
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's exactly what I was thinking. Figures to give the idea of data rise. Average & variable part is logical.

The thing causing confusion for me were the responses which suggested that the naming doesn't necessarily represent the proportional increase in bitrate, compared to current Redcode.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
Thanks. That's exactly what I was thinking. Figures to give the idea of data rise. Average & variable part is logical.

The thing causing confusion for me were the responses which suggested that the naming doesn't necessarily represent the proportional increase in bitrate, compared to current Redcode.
Click to expand...

That's my question as well, Jim?
 
What is the 4.5k resolution?

What is the 4.5k resolution?

So I have read some numbers in this thread- but I have not heard a final answer, what will the 4.5k 2.33:1 resolution be? (4520 x 1937? Something else?)
 
Kenneth Elkington said:
I believe it was said earlier that the res is 4480x1880
Click to expand...

Thanks, I saw that number as well, but I didn't think that was the official word from Red- I thought it was just speculation, as that number would be easily divisible down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top