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

Although not perfect, but there is a solution to get 2K with 35mm DOF. Ether the Pro35 (b4) or the Letus Extreme, which will soon have a b4 option. I know nobody wants to put an adapter on the RED camera, especialy the RED team, but the fact is this will work for now. 35mm DOF in 2K windowed.
 
An adapter on the red is like spinner hubcaps on a Porsche!
:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:
 
Aliasing

Aliasing

Graeme Nattress said:
The problem with "simple" scaling techniques, raw or otherwise, is the evil that is aliasing.
Graeme
Click to expand...

Sorry to take your time... But

Why should aliasing be more problematic when the same amount of pixels (2k) are used on a 4x larger (film) plane? (If these pixels are evenly placed).

Would'nt it be like if you would put a magnifying glass on your 2k windowed frame? Bluring due of lowered DOF would alos help tu diminish the alisasing problem...

Thanks for your explanations...

Patrick
 
If you sample an image at 4k and crop out a 2k, then all is good as you're just cropping and cannot add aliasing artifacts.

To scale to 2k from 4k, you must reduce the frequency content of the 4k image as you scale so that no "illegal" frequencies appear in the 2k image. If you don't, that leads to nasty aliasing.

Good downsampling filters are not simple. They need many taps, and a simple box filter won't do it. It would look nasty.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
If you sample an image at 4k and crop out a 2k, then all is good as you're just cropping and cannot add aliasing artifacts.

To scale to 2k from 4k, you must reduce the frequency content of the 4k image as you scale so that no "illegal" frequencies appear in the 2k image. If you don't, that leads to nasty aliasing.

Good downsampling filters are not simple. They need many taps, and a simple box filter won't do it. It would look nasty.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I see the difficulty.

Just for the sake of voting, I say keep 2K scaled in the spec. My most recent project would have benefited from it. Too much data can be a problem. If Red doesn't include 2K scaled, I won't cry. But I just got my first taste of turning in footage and feeling a little bit like I gave them too much data. I need something lesser from the same sensor characteristics.

IBloom
 
Hans von Sonntag said:
I am in no way an engineer. But thinking how easy RED is creating 2k reference movies off the 4K Raw data I am pretty hopeful that RED will pull this off.

My concern is: Does RED really know how useful 2k Scaled is?

In my point of view 4K is brilliant to have but in reality we are talking about 1080p for high definition and 576i/486i for standard definition. How many HD DVDs are currently made (I am not talking about Hollywood blockbusters). Most TV work, commercials and corporate stuff will end up in SD.

2K is the format to go with. Do a pan/can crop and you get 1080p with some room for stabilizing/reframing and do further down-converts for DVD or broadcast.

Hans
Click to expand...
Can't you use a camera more suiatble to do this kind of work?
RED is for 4K movie stuff. For SD stuff for TV, use a Panasonic HVX 500.
 
chuckt said:
Can't you use a camera more suiatble to do this kind of work?
RED is for 4K movie stuff. For SD stuff for TV, use a Panasonic HVX 500.
Click to expand...

Definition is just one reason why you would want to use a Red One.

There are lots of other reasons why you'd want to use a Red and not an HVX 500.
Image quality, latitude, the ability to use 35mm lenses and get shallow Depth of Field, shooting RAW, the Redcode codec, slow motion, versatility, lots of cool functions coming, great color EVF, etc....
So I still see some pretty good reasons to use this camera, even if you finish only in SD...

Resolution isn't everything, just because you don't need the extra pixels doesn't mean this camera isn't suitable for your needs.

A lot of TV shows have been (and continue to be) shot on 35mm film, even if they didn't need the extra resolution because it was only brodcast in SD. So in you opinion they should just have used video cameras ?

Honestly, within the 3000 people who already ordered this camera, how many will really be doing 4K filmouts or 4K projection on a regular basis ? Even most of hollywoods actual blockbusters are currently scanned and post-produced in 2K...

And I don't think Red would have sold so many cameras if they were only intended to be used on 4K features.

Red is all about versatility : you can use it on a 4K feature, but on the next day you could also use it for some run and gun EFP work, corporate film or documentary film. All with the same camera.
THAT in my opinion is the real revolution.

Nils.
 
Slinnn said:
Definition is just one reason why you would want to use a Red One.
<snip>
Resolution isn't everything
Click to expand...

Isn't that a contradiction?

I think some people are saying that they want a 2K RED with a 35mm sized sensor, that depth of field characteristics matters more than resolution or definition.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Isn't that a contradiction?
Click to expand...
Well it wasn't supposed to be, but english isn't my native language, so maybe I didn't phrase it well.:wink:

Let me try again :
"Definition is just one reason why you would want to use a Red One."
= The 4K definition that the Red has to offer is only one of many reasons why someone would choose to shoot with this camera.

I don't see that being a contradiction with "Resolution (4K) isn't everything" ?

Or did I miss your point ?

And don't get me wrong, it's fantastic to have the ability to shoot 4K, it will make our footage more future proof and give us the ability to rescale / stabilize shots if needed, + oversampling is always a good thing. I know that.

What I am saying is that there will be projects where you just won't need all those pixels, and where shooting 4K will just make things much more difficult to handle (small crews, fast turnaround, remote locations, limited storage, etc...). For these situations, I would love the ability to shoot 2K while keeping everything else, including DOF. It would make this camera even more versatile than it already is. This discussion is all about having more options, not about dropping 4K...

So if Graeme is able to do some magic and can make it happen, 2K scaled would be a great feature to have. If not, well then too bad, we'll have to deal with 4K footage on every project or shoot 2K windowed when storage is an issue...

Nils.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Or the Phantom HD... :glare:
Click to expand...
Exactly. For me, the point of RED is 4K. If people want 2K or 1080 with 35mm DOF, there are other alternatives out there, some of which produce excellent results. There are workarounds using RED, but it's main purpose is 4K source material, and then Redcine conversion to any size you want.
 
Red is smart they built a camera thats future proof! Sure 4K takes up alot more space but other than that what is the issue with it? 10 years from now you'll be happy you shot with 4K. Its a 4K camera as Jim has talked about before the real goal is to get 4K Redcode Raw to CF or to Red-Drive at 60P. Its all a mater of the write speed of the CF or Red-Drive, if its fast enough I get that once it is fast enough we will be able to put 4K at 60P to CF or Red-Drive. Space is getting cheaper and faster, as direct result soon (2 years) 2K will be a thing of the past.
 
Resolution is also important for documentaries in SOME situations, because it gives people the possibility of getting close-ups simply by cropping, which makes a second camera less necessary. But in other situations it is less needed, if you don´t plan on cropping. Secondly, some kind of low storage solution, would benefit the use of CF cards enormously, because more often than not 8 minutes just don´t cut it. Leaving you with numerous half-full cards... even cine-shooters have to appreciate this.
if one where allowed to dream a little, some kind of raw-high-compression and a dual slot CF option would turn RED into a dream of an efp camera.
but don´t get me wrong... I am already a very satisfied customer.
 
Why Use a RED for SD TV commercials.

Why Use a RED for SD TV commercials.

Reactor88 said:
Red is smart they built a camera thats future proof! Sure 4K takes up alot more space but other than that what is the issue with it? 10 years from now you'll be happy you shot with 4K. Its a 4K camera as Jim has talked about before the real goal is to get 4K Redcode Raw to CF or to Red-Drive at 60P. Its all a mater of the write speed of the CF or Red-Drive, if its fast enough I get that once it is fast enough we will be able to put 4K at 60P to CF or Red-Drive. Space is getting cheaper and faster, as direct result soon (2 years) 2K will be a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

I am planning to shoot a feature film for distribution on film stock. I need at least 825 lines of resolution to make the conversion to film stock. So, I was looking at a Panasonic HD (1080i) camera.
One of the DPs I was talking to suggested that I use Canon H1 and P+S 35mm adapter, manual lens, etc. He told me about the 5M budget movie "Signal" coming to Big Screen, that was shot entirely using this camera.
( http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/thesignal/hd/)

The cost of the total set up was similar for RED. So, I decided to go with a RED.
DOF is a function of the Lens, not the sensor.
RED is only a camera. It is a tool. Camera does not make a good movie. Many classics were made on grainy low quality cameras.

RED is not future proof either. 4K is only a pixel count. 20 years ago 2mega pixel cameras were future proof and cost over $50K. Now, we have 2MP cameras on cell phones. Future is evolving. Panasonic is coming out with 4K camera next year. Sony is testimg 8K cameras and projection systems. Nobody knows what the future holds.

KODAK came out with 12 Megapixel 35 mm camera for $10K using a sensor made in Israel. But people preferred $8K, 10 MP Canon camera because of high picture quality. KODAK could not move their camera even for $5K. So they discontinued it.
(incidentally, I would not be surprised if Mysterium is the same sensor. Specs are similar. KODAK also had endless firmware tweaks, until they gave up on it.). Or, in other words, Pixel count is not picture quality and it does not guarantee anything.

Some posts have said something like this: "I am soon getting two REDs. I do not know what am I going to do with it."
Exactly. If they are thinking of flipping these for profit because of the initial enthusiasm, it is not going to be easy. RED will soon fill all the back orders. Everybody and their cousin will be walking around with a 4K Movie camera. It is like buying a sledge hammer to be future proof, for the mundane chores of pounding nails on the wall.

World will continue to turn. Millions of Film cameras and High End Sony, Panasonic and other camers that are currently in use will continue to be profitably used. (I still listen to my vinyl records!). Those who walk around with future proof 4k movie cameras will have a hell of a time putting content on You Tubes and cell phones and whereever else future content will be needed.

Even for High Budget HD movies, 2K is more than adequate for excellent projected quality. There are many non-35mm lenses that have adequate DOF. (again DOF requirements depend on the purpose of the shot.). I would put my money into a good script than into unusable excessive pixels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top