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 :)

Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

Status
Not open for further replies.
3k Scarlet is the minimum for 1080p / 2k. It should make for really great looking HD, and as we know from the RED One, 3k works well. It's not quite as nice as 4k or 4.5k, but it's more than fine. We can certainly accept 3k in the form factor / featureset / price that Scarlet offers. I know I'll be carrying a Scarlet with me everywhere.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Sensor is 3.5k just as RED's is 4.9k - not all of it is recorded. 1080p is made from 2.8k, so it's 2.8k compared to 4k. That's why it's not enough. It's just enough to get 1080p luma. And of course, we're going way beyond 4k, with EPIC at 5k and moving onwards.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Going off of Jim's statements of the R1's 3.2k effective resolution, what would you say is the the cut off point is for ideal 1080/2k, in terms of post-debayered resolution?

Also, you are saying we should see a visible difference between the Red & Alexa @ 1080/2k, correct?

Thanks.
 
It's algorithm dependent - I'd not go below 2.5k for 1080p, so 2.8k is right on the edge. 3k is fine and 4k great.

Yes, I think a visible difference of RED 4k and Alexa downsampled to 1080p.

Graeme
 
Martin Stevens said:
Graeme,

For a minute there I thought you were slightly and inadvertently
suggesting that the Scarlet 3k sensors would not have the best MTF
for down-conversion to 2K or 1080p. This is not the case......right?

You were talking about up-conversion then?
:confused1:
Click to expand...
As Graeme said and beyond the Steve's post, for some kind of work such as Indie features for instance, 3K will be more than enough (I wouldn't dare to say the same concerning the small 2/3" chip though ;-)

Take a look on those old classics that have made the film history, for example. You won't see nobody wondering if they are or not "future-proof" built-in... Got it?
 
My point is simple: high resolution gives two benefits - future proofing and better MTF at lower resolutions.

Graeme
 
Emanuel A. said:
As Graeme said and beyond the Steve's post, for some kind of work such as Indie features for instance, 3K will be more than enough (I wouldn't dare to say the same concerning the small 2/3" chip though ;-)
Click to expand...

Hopefully the Scarlet sensor is larger than 3k. Otherwise that would yield a 2.4k effective resolution, post-debayer. And that's below's Graeme's specs for ideal 1080 output.

I have no idea what resolution Scarlet is supposed to be aside from hearing 3k a long time ago.
 
CJ - you're mis-reading me. Scarlet is 3k, with a measured resolution of around 2.4k, making it absolutely fine for 1080p /2k output.

Graeme
 
Last edited:
With a prototype of the prototype.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
CJ - you're mis-reading me. Scarlet is 3k, with a measured resolution of round 2.4k, making it absolutely fine for 1080p /2k output.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Graeme- My apologies for my misunderstanding. I'm a little confused by previous comment of not going below 2.5k (measured resolution?) for ideal 1080/2k output.

Graeme Nattress said:
It's algorithm dependent - I'd not go below 2.5k for 1080p, so 2.8k is right on the edge. 3k is fine and 4k great.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help.
 
I'd not go below 2.5k pixel count for 1080p, so 2.8k pixel count is bare minimum and 3k pixel count is fine.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
1) turn it on
2) point at resolution target
3) take movie
4) measure movie image

:-)

Graeme
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if a prototype of a prototype of a prototype of a Scarlet is news worthy, but it gives me a strange comfort on the inside.

Also thanks for the link CJ, I hadn't seen that.
 
CJ Roy said:
With entering the stock footage game myself recently, I agree with you that you'd want the highest quality possible.

But that really is a niche market compared to most commercial production, which I think Gavin is referring to.
Click to expand...

I totally get that producers of commercials, doing projects for various clients, won't be working the stock footage market - but their clients or whoever owns the copyright to that commercial footage should seriously think about leveraging appropriate portions of it out as stock.

Stock footage isn't the first objective of any production entities business plan, but it can be an important additional revenue stream for anyone who owns the copyright to well-shot footage, and takes the time to mine its marketing possibilities. I call it "mailbox money", because its way cool when you go to the mailbox and find a nice royalty check there.

I don't view stock footage as a niche market per se, because a wide range of production entities market their stock, from studios, to networks, to large production companies, right down to small owner/operators. Its a sub-market for just about everyone who owns footage.

Beyond TV commercials there's a wide array of producers of multiple genres of longform productions who submit their footage out as stock - such genres as wildlife, sports, travel, music, nature, tourism, industry, cultures, food, and many more genres.

Beyond stock licensing, any entity which owns a library of good, higher resolution footage, and also produces longform programs, will regularly re-package footage out of their library into new programs, or portions thereof. Networks like Discovery, Nat Geo, History, ESPN, and many others regularly cut new programs from their library footage, and stock footage they license from other entities. Independent producers do the same, and self syndicate the programs for airing on various networks. Having footage that is evergreen and has "long legs" is critical to the success of that scenario.

Having high quality Raw footage in a library is a major plus. Good RGB footage is valuable too, but Raw gives footage library owners a lot more options for re-purposing of footage and footage licensing - thus some exceptional revenue generation potential.

A close business associate of mine, a very good independent cinematographer who owned a comprehensive library of excellent 1080 footage, recently sold the entire library for several million dollars. Now he's shooting with Red One and looking forward to Epic. I'm guessing he will build a fat library of high-quality 5k and 4k footage, then sell it off for another big payday. The library of Red 4k and 3k footage I've shot and own full copyright to dates back to August 31, 2007. It's high quality, multi-genre footage from around the world - about 50 terrabytes in size. Shortly I'll start shooting 5k with Epic - much of it at high frame rates. Sometime in the future I'll probably sell my library off and just start over building a new library, like my friend did.

Raw-shooting cameras like Red One, Alexa, Epic, and Scarlet open some really cool avenues to leverage out footage libraries. Obviously there are some more hoops to jump through in processing Raw footage, but I think the increased utility and revenue potential of Raw footage justifies shooting it whenever possible.

As you obviously know, all of these new cameras provide some really cool tools and options for those of us like me and you who're putting them to daily use out in the field. To me its a really exciting time to be in the motion media business, with lots of good equipment options to choose from :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top