1080p... Not a loser!

[PaulClements]

Jim's post about losing 720 and 1080p seems to indicate that he (or maybe Red) are mulling over the idea of 2k and 4k only in camera. Personally I like the idea of faster frame rates at 2k and 4k but I'm not too sure it would be worthwhile at the expense of losing 1080p. If 720p can be dropped and allow for 2k@96fps so be it. But here are a couple of reasons why I believe 1080p is worthwhile having:

• It is the largest format that we can actually see what we are shooting through the EVF or monitoring via HD-SDI. Therefore it's the only truly reliable format to shoot what you are seeing and I like the idea of working that way, especially when I know what I'm shooting will only ever be shown at 1080p or less.
  
  
• It is a standard format globally and will be for many years to come. If removed, anything shot on the camera automatically requires an extra stage of post to get it to 1080p.
  
  
• 1080p RGB uses the entire sensor meaning what you shoot 4k through a lens is the same at 1080p. 2k windowed means your lenses have different characteristics.
  
  
• 1080p should mean smaller filesizes allowing you to shoot longer on a single RedDrive or CF - ideal for field work where backing up is difficult and the shooting days are long.

There are more points that have been raised about 1080p such as B4 mounts, and if anyone thinks of anything extra feel free to add it on.

Fact is I don't rate extra frame rates at 2k windowed above 1080p scaled and the above are some of my main points why.

 

[Rocket]

I wonder if it's an option to have two possible camera configurations to choose from. One 2K/4K for digital cinematography, and one with the 1080p for those shooting for broadcast.

This could be a really stupid idea, I don't know, just throwing it out there. It seems that this issue has raised a lot of tension, and perhaps one camera body that caters for both d-cinema and broadcast may not be possible.

I don't see the point of any format utilizing a windowed sensor at all. The full 35mm sized sensor, 35mm cine lenses and associated d.o.f. is one of the main selling points of the camera. But then I want it to replace 35mm and that's all, so of course I am biased to one side. Just my 2c

 

[Tony Lorentzen]

Couldn't agree more!

 

[PaulClements]

...One 2K/4K for digital cinematography, and one with the 1080p for those shooting for broadcast.

This is the point though. Red ought to be bridging that gap between broadcast and cinema, especially with the modern drama's such as Soprano's, Lost, Heroes etc. They have the characteristics of a movie but weren't ever shot with the intention of being shown on the big screen. Cinema and broadcast are very much converging these days and Red in my opinion needs to be seen as the company making that convergence less painful!!!

 

[Jason Murphy]

I don't see the point of any format utilizing a windowed sensor at all.

While I agree with you about most of what you just wrote, the two reasons I can see for shooting with the windowed sensor are:

1) It could mean that you're working with a significantly lower data rate (which could mean higher frame rates).

2) You want the other advantages of RED while shooting with S16 lenses/DOF. Ridiculously shallow DOF, while incredibly useful for many applications, is not the be all, end all of image quality. I could see documentary shooters wanting to shoot in windowed S16 mode for increased DOF in run and gun situations.

 

[Jim Arthurs]

Two points, one leading to the other...

First, here we are with the talk of ditching a native 1080 record, when (other than HDCAM SR) we haven't even had access to a camera/field record system that can truly live up to the formats resolution potential! RED 1080p will be the best 1080p ever!!! Downsampled to perfection, excellent bit depth. Having this as an option is a way to directly compare and compete to the Sony high end line. Oh, but RED is so much better, right?

...sure, soaring past these mere HD cameras into the 4K stratosphere is exciting, but I can read the biased review right now... "While RED exceeds expectations in the still rarified digital cinema market, lack of true "out of the can" 1080 support still leaves the door open for Sony to shine in the current HD market." Or some such drivel.

Finally, having spent a year or so with the HVX workflow and the process of trying to give clients HVX footage, I've got to say anything that anything that can mean less processing time and is instant plug and play into their NLE is extremely important. The HVX has been out for a year and a half or so, and I've never had two clients in a row expect or want the footage in the same manner... some want HDRack AVI's, some want the raw MXF's (god bless them), others want DVCPRO 100 QT's... all mean WORK for me at the end of a shoot, usually as I want to pack up and get the hell out of the location. It's bad enough to have to copy the footage off to their media, but to think of adding additional processing on top of that... Now with the HVX it's been a year and a half, and still you see client confusion with the options. I predict RED will have the same sort of "client education curve". It would be nice to say, "Here's your RGB 1080P. Load it up in whatever NLE on whatever Mac or PC platform." and be done with it.

I love jobs where I monitor and control more than just the shoot aspect, and strive for them. But, sometimes you need to deliver and be out the door.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Jim's post about losing 720 and 1080p seems to indicate that he (or maybe Red) are mulling over the idea of 2k and 4k only in camera. Personally I like the idea of faster frame rates at 2k and 4k but I'm not too sure it would be worthwhile at the expense of losing 1080p. If 720p can be dropped and allow for 2k@96fps so be it. But here are a couple of reasons why I believe 1080p is worthwhile having:

• It is the largest format that we can actually see what we are shooting through the EVF or monitoring via HD-SDI. Therefore it's the only truly reliable format to shoot what you are seeing and I like the idea of working that way, especially when I know what I'm shooting will only ever be shown at 1080p or less.
  
  
• It is a standard format globally and will be for many years to come. If removed, anything shot on the camera automatically requires an extra stage of post to get it to 1080p.
  
  
• 1080p RGB uses the entire sensor meaning what you shoot 4k through a lens is the same at 1080p. 2k windowed means your lenses have different characteristics.
  
  
• 1080p should mean smaller filesizes allowing you to shoot longer on a single RedDrive or CF - ideal for field work where backing up is difficult and the shooting days are long.

There are more points that have been raised about 1080p such as B4 mounts, and if anyone thinks of anything extra feel free to add it on.

Fact is I don't rate extra frame rates at 2k windowed above 1080p scaled and the above are some of my main points why.

Beyond the new amazing 4K and 2K world, I'm surely second the plead. 1080p will be quite useful.

EDIT -- What's 2K anyway? 1080p + 6,6%. Resolution and the standards can be everything and nothing at the same time. What matters is the 35mm sensor size. I'd prefer 1080p RGB scaled than 2K windowed, definitely.

 

[Desert Rune]

Maybe 1080P is being reserved for the Red Pocket Professional version?

Even if it doesn't shoot 4K, but cost less and has the same 12-stops of latitude, then I'm all over it.

 

[donatello b]

"1080p should mean smaller filesizes allowing you to shoot longer on a single RedDrive or CF"

i was under impression that 1080p RGB was much larger files then RAW ?
if that is correct i think you would get more 4k raw on a CF card then 1080 rgb ? and alot more 2k raw on CF?

 

[Nils Ruinet]

"1080p should mean smaller filesizes allowing you to shoot longer on a single RedDrive or CF"

i was under impression that 1080p RGB was much larger files then RAW ?
if that is correct i think you would get more 4k raw on a CF card then 1080 rgb ? and alot more 2k raw on CF?

RGB takes much more space than RAW. If I remember well, 1080P RGB was about 2/3 of the 4K data rate.
So a 1080P file will surely be much bigger than a 2K RAW file, I guess like 2 or 3 times more...
Jim said 2K RAW would be around 7 MB/s.

 

[Emanuel A.]

i was under impression that 1080p RGB was much larger files then RAW ?

Here's a good argument pro 2K RAW though windowed doesn't make my day.

 

[martinnoweck]

I agree with many aspects mentioned in this thread:

e.g. Emanuel mentioned "What matters is the 35mm sensor size" - i would love to have the 35mm sensor size and the OPTION of shooting 4k redcode raw OR 1080p (i personally would also love to keep the option of 720p with 35mm Sensor size, but would still be happy to have the option of 1080p)

i personally don't think there should be two different configurations like "Cinema" and "Broadcast" to choose from - the cool thing about the RED ONE is / was (?) the fact, you can shoot 720p and 4K with the same camera not having to make a choice.

how long does it take to downrez 1 minute of 4k redcode raw to 1080p or 720p?

Martin

 

[Jason Murphy]

I haven't seen any info on this yet, but does anyone know what sort of a dynamic range hit the camera would take in recording Redcode RGB vs. RAW? I imagine there would be some.

 

[Ben Feuer]

The whole RED experiment has been about taking everything people want ... adding things they think they could have ... and giving them all of that for less than they thought they had to pay for the first thing.

I thought the original plan of waiting for firmware updates was a fine one. Give us whatever you can when the camera ships, and give us the rest later. But if the camera is physically capable of shooting a given res/spec, I want to have the OPTION of that res/spec. Options are good because you don't always know what situations will arise, what sort of needs will appear.

Throwing away features to differentiate products is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Throwing away features to differentiate products is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

While I agree in theory, at some point it seems obvious that designing a camera like this DOES become a zero-sum game, and to keep or add certain features, you need to lose others to keep the overall project feasible. Upgrades in the future will likely add significantly more functionality, but sometime it's gotta go out the door, and some features may have to be put on the chopping block (maybe to be reinstated later, maybe not).

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

More than one way...

More than one way...

The time and format imperatives of day rate EFP work are a challenge for the as yet untested data workflow of the RedOne's on board recording options.

My first thought is to hook up a Wafian to the HD-SDI outs
OR
the AJA IO/HD, laptop and external HDD to ProRes
OR
some other tethered option for immediate turnaround situations that will fit seamlessly into existing workflows.

Of course I will be traveling around in a camera van with an on board edit bay that makes copies and runs dubs for the clients all day long. To avoid a long end of the day wait, I plan to just rotate the RedDrives several times a day so only the last couple of takes need to be crunched during the strike.

Of course the tricked out van will cost me more than the RedOne kit and limits me to gigs within driving distance but I think the value add will give me market presence and ease producer concerns about the new paradigm.

 

[David Battistella]

Of course I will be traveling around in a camera van with an on board edit bay that makes copies and runs dubs for the clients all day long. To avoid a long end of the day wait, I plan to just rotate the RedDrives several times a day so only the last couple of takes need to be crunched during the strike.

Of course the tricked out van will cost me more than the RedOne kit and limits me to gigs within driving distance but I think the value add will give me market presence and ease producer concerns about the new paradigm.

I think you should paint the van RED.

David

 

[Steven Parker]

I thought the original plan of waiting for firmware updates was a fine one. Give us whatever you can when the camera ships, and give us the rest later. But if the camera is physically capable of shooting a given res/spec, I want to have the OPTION of that res/spec. Options are good because you don't always know what situations will arise, what sort of needs will appear

I agree. 720p? Bah! Gone in a couple years! 1080p? Ummm, I have several of those clients...

But it is a tough choice. Higher-rez, higher fps would be fantastic. But when I shot the release of the iPhone in San Diego, w/two HVXs, the AC was still backing up and verifying an hour after we wrapped. That was when I left and he still had work to do...

We MUST know what the time requirements of RedCine are on a decent computer system or it's all speculation.

 

[Priyesh P.]

At the beginning of the Red project I thought all those format options were just little software tweaks that use the same hardware. But like I understand it now, it seems that certain formats need special hardware in-camera. Is that correct? And is this some sort of new technical limitation Red wasn't aware of?

 

[David Battistella]

We MUST know what the time requirements of RedCine are on a decent computer system or it's all speculation.

EXACTLY! There must be enough 4K REDCODE footage flying around now to be able to do some simple tests. With actual results.

David