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 :)

2K Scaled Is Vital

The data rate should be 1/4 less for the finished scaled image, but you have to factor in the processing to scale it from 4K to 2K. But once it is scaled, recording it at 2K to CF cards should be no different than recording 2K windowed material. So I don't think it is a recording issue, high frames for 2K scaled, but a processing issue, since you are essentially really shooting 4K at high-speed, then scaling it down to 2K in real time.
 
Concrete said:
Matt, this has been already discussed: the footage at hdforindies isn't top notch. They had a problem with backfocus. Many posted footage suffers from the same issue.

There is some footage though that shows a significant resolution boost from 2K to 4K.

Under ideal conditions RED can offer an effective resolution of about 3000X1500 pixels, which to me is reason enough to shoot 4K.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that in ideal circumstances 4K resolves much better than 2K (obviously). Additionally the colour information is much better. Shooting 4K for green screen is a no-brainer.

But in real-world environments no one wants to do a 4k post production as long one is not forced to (Hollywood blockbusters) and has the budget to do this. Currently there are only a few 4k theatres around and a conventional 35mm projection resolves around 720p. Most stuff is DVD, broadcast anyway. Resolution is nice but not everything at all. 2K is plenty enough - but with 35 DOF please and 50 fps...

Hans
 
Yeah, sure. I was reponding to Matt.

Anyway, I don't really see the need to shoot 50 fps for "commercial work". Most things you'll shoot with RED will be asking for a filmic quality, be it commercials, tv fiction or whatever. For that 24 or 25 fps is ideal.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The data rate should be 1/4 less for the finished scaled image, but you have to factor in the processing to scale it from 4K to 2K. But once it is scaled, recording it at 2K to CF cards should be no different than recording 2K windowed material. So I don't think it is a recording issue, high frames for 2K scaled, but a processing issue, since you are essentially really shooting 4K at high-speed, then scaling it down to 2K in real time.
Click to expand...

Since the sensor is capable of 60fps I am still pretty hopeful. Would be brilliant wouldn't it?

Hans
 
Concrete said:
Yeah, sure. I was reponding to Matt.

Anyway, I don't really see the need to shoot 50 fps for "commercial work". Most things you'll shoot with RED will be asking for a filmic quality, be it commercials, tv fiction or whatever. For that 24 or 25 fps is ideal.
Click to expand...

Yes, your right 24/25p looks much more "filmic". But probably you never had the problem in PAL-Land with pans that shutter badly and an client asking you why the range pack is so screwed up? For interlaced broadcast you need the option for interlaced footage, therefore 50fps.

Hans
 
im.thatoneguy said:
Here's a question. Is 50p possible over the HD-SDI @ 1080p? If the REDCode compression is the bottleneck perhaps a good hold-over would be to enable higher framerates out to HDCAM SR.
Click to expand...

There is no HD-SDI output. I suspect when more people realize that, they won't be happy.
 
im.thatoneguy said:
Careful I lost a candybar with that kind of talk. :sheep:

Here's a question. Is 50p possible over the HD-SDI @ 1080p? If the REDCode compression is the bottleneck perhaps a good hold-over would be to enable higher framerates out to HDCAM SR.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that there is unfortunately no HDSDI 1080p the beauty is the fact that RED lets you work untethered with a comparable small camera. Additionally you need a whole HDCAM SR post workflow that is expensive and cumbersome compared to REDs workflow. In this case it would be cheaper for PAL/NTSC work to shoot 35mm. Seems like 35mm isn't dead at all...

Hans
 
Tresch said:
Whhatttt's this???????

35mm neg on 35mm contact print??? NNoooo way 720p of resolution.

:waaa:
Patrick
Click to expand...

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

I must say I was astonished myself when I read it. But it does make a lot of sense and the ITU is someone at least...

One reason why selective focus is so important or why long-shots with 35mm adaptor/DV camera look soft and unattractive and close-ups with narrow DOF and the same set up nice and comparably sharp. Its all perception.

Hans
 
Well, there is also the option of doing the digital equivalent of what most 35mm shoots using something like a Panaflex Millenium (50 fps max) or Arricam ST (60 fps max) do when they get an Arri-III or Arri-435 for a lot of slow-motion work -- rent a high-speed 2K camera like the Phantom HD for your slow-motion work if there is a lot of it, especially if you're going to need to go higher than 60 fps.

In fact, I used to shoot low-budget features on 35mm sync-sound cameras that maxed-out at 36 to 48 fps (Panaflex GII, Arri-BL4, etc.) so renting a high-speed camera now and then was unavoidable, if annoying.

The thing is about switching to 2K windowed for high-speed work is that the depth of field difference from 4K isn't always going to be obvious if you are working on longer lenses or have the option of opening up the aperture.

In fact, normally there is a loss of depth of field when doing high-speed work because you have to open up the iris to compensate for the exposure loss from running faster, and thus there is often a mismatch in depth of field compared to the 24 fps stuff. So in some ways, switching to 2K windowed actually is a solution to that particular problem -- you effectively gain two stops of depth of field to compensate for the 1 1/2 stops lost by going from 24 fps to 60 fps.

--

Regarding the whole resolution of projection issue, I think we need new ways of thinking about sharpness because generally 720P and 1080P photography look softer, less detailed, compared to 35mm on the big theater screen, despite what the numbers tell you. Maybe it's the whole "oversampling" notion that it's always better to start out with more resolution even if the final display format has less. For example, I've seen 65mm footage on an HD monitor that looks amazingly detailed, yet you'd think that on an HD monitor, anything from HD to IMAX would end up looking about the same. Or consider 35mm on an NTSC monitor, which still looks better than 16mm or even some HD, despite the low resolution of NTSC.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Well, there is also the option of doing the digital equivalent of what most 35mm shoots using something like a Panaflex Millenium (50 fps max) or Arricam ST (60 fps max) do when they get an Arri-III or Arri-435 for a lot of slow-motion work -- rent a high-speed 2K camera like the Phantom HD for your slow-motion work if there is a lot of it, especially if you're going to need to go higher than 60 fps.

In fact, I used to shoot low-budget features on 35mm sync-sound cameras that maxed-out at 36 to 48 fps (Panaflex GII, Arri-BL4, etc.) so renting a high-speed camera now and then was unavoidable, if annoying.

The thing is about switching to 2K windowed for high-speed work is that the depth of field difference from 4K isn't always going to be obvious if you are working on longer lenses or have the option of opening up the aperture.

In fact, normally there is a loss of depth of field when doing high-speed work because you have to open up the iris to compensate for the exposure loss from running faster, and thus there is often a mismatch in depth of field compared to the 24 fps stuff. So in some ways, switching to 2K windowed actually is a solution to that particular problem -- you effectively gain two stops of depth of field to compensate for the 1 1/2 stops lost by going from 24 fps to 60 fps.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is the reason why I keep my S16 Zeiss Highs-Speeds. But in the end it is a work around, surely manageable. No reason for rejecting RED but it would be nice...

On the other hand there are pros for shooting windowed. Shooting wide open with 35mm on a night exterior is not always desirable. Switching to 2k windowed will give you the right amount of DOF you probably want...

There are always pro and cons but its nice to have the option and not to bring in a new system that needs a complete new workflow. Renting a MOS 35mm for slow-motion does not generate a new workflow, a Phantom does. Although I must admit I haven't worked with it yet and RED neither.


Hans
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

I must say I was astonished myself when I read it. But it does make a lot of sense and the ITU is someone at least...

Hans
Click to expand...

Good that ITU test did not take in consideration s16mm/Di in 2k/ output to 35mm and interneg/interpos/APrint...

But 35mm neg is rich/powerfull/handels highlights beautifully and is great to work on it on DI post. It's a huge shortcut to say that it handles 720p even if the quality is lowered by a lot of intermediates.

But who cares if a block buster only resolve 720p!

Patrich
 
That's just the point though - 2k scaled will not be the same datarate as 4k - it will be 1/4 of that datarate for the same framerate, hence why 2k scaled would allow for higher fps shooting (both in terms of the encoding FPGA bottleneck and recording media bottleneck, which should be ever growing in any case).

That's assuming we're talking about 2k scaled RAW, not RGB (which would only yield a ~25% decrease in datarate over 4k RAW). But Red have certainly in the past mooted the possibility of 2k scaled RAW - whether or not this is still on the cards I do not know. The proposed max fps was the full 60fps of the sensor (at 35mm size), although I would imagine that without real-world testing that's a theoretical limit that may not be possible, in practice, to reach.

Any and all 2k scaled overcranking options would certainly be very welcome though, and I will certainly add my vote to those calling for a 2k scaled RAW mode...
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Regarding the whole resolution of projection issue, I think we need new ways of thinking about sharpness because generally 720P and 1080P photography look softer, less detailed, compared to 35mm on the big theater screen, despite what the numbers tell you. Maybe it's the whole "oversampling" notion that it's always better to start out with more resolution even if the final display format has less. For example, I've seen 65mm footage on an HD monitor that looks amazingly detailed, yet you'd think that on an HD monitor, anything from HD to IMAX would end up looking about the same. Or consider 35mm on an NTSC monitor, which still looks better than 16mm or even some HD, despite the low resolution of NTSC.
Click to expand...

Yes, resolution is not a measure for a picture. Its a number. I found 35mm from a PAL master printed on Film much nicer, richer as you say than any other footage from a PAL master that was printed on film for the big screen. It's not in the numbers it's the secret of film. RED seems to be something of its own in this context.

Hans
 
Hans,
Quick question for you, when you say shoot 50fps for 25i
would you run the 50 fps through some process to get
25i, or would you just bring your 50 fps footage into
a 25i timeline and make sure the 50 fps footage is being
scene by the editing programme as 50, so its not playing at
half speed.

Please let me know if my question is not clear, and I appreciate
any response.

Thanks
Stricko
 
First off 2K RAW scaled would be awesome.

As far as resolution projected. I've seen tests of 4K vs 2K with features that started off on 35mm. Yeah, there's a little bit of a differance in the quality of the picture. At the end of this test they showed this little bit of a show called Mystic India and that was shot on 65mm and converted to 4K and that was the most amazing example of 4K I've ever seen. Would be nice to project some 4K stuff easily but I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
 
Concrete said:
Well, it is for movies like Zodiac.
Click to expand...

The lack of DOF in that movie is a problem. There are certain shots you can't tell which actor David wants you to be looking at when racking back and forth. And that was on the big screen. They must both look in focus on the small screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top