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?

ALLSTAR

ALLSTAR

REDuser Sponsor
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
736
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Age
47
Website
www.allstarcine.com
After search reduser and read build 14 guide, I don`t think we have 2K scaled on RED now. really hope RED can record 2K full sensor scaled image to keep 35mm lens angle of view & DOF in 2K RAW.It lets CF cards have more recording time, and we can use lower level of computer for editing.If the final is HD format, I`d like to use this kind of 2K RAW rather than 4K. thanks RED team.
 
I believe it was pulled due to how much processing power it would require to convert 4k down to 2k in camera..... you can still make 2k from 4k in RedCine; But I do get where your coming from. If you want 2k with 35mm DOF your options are RED 4k down to 2k in REDCine, or the PhantomHD camera from Vision Research (2500 daily rental or 117k for purchase); and that's about all you can get, right now.
 
I'm a little disappointed that this will never happen, I understand it's tricky and involves in camera processing on the fly. What I really wish we could look forward to is Slo Mo in 4K. I believe that at one time it was thought that 4K would eventually go to 60FPS. Is this true? What about the 3K frame rate max. we can expect?
 
2K scaling is more difficult for the camera to do than 4K at higher frame rates. Why don't we just stop asking for 2K scaled - which we know will never happen - and start asking for 4K at 50 frames instead?
 
yeah, i believe Jim's point was that you can always convert the 4k to 2k easily in post. There's just no justifiable need for scaled 2k.

as for 4k 60fps, that was using the raw port, which isn't available. Did I hear that they abandoned that?
 
Brook Willard said:
2K scaling is more difficult for the camera to do than 4K at higher frame rates. Why don't we just stop asking for 2K scaled - which we know will never happen - and start asking for 4K at 50 frames instead?
Click to expand...
What I really would like is 4K cropped to 2.40:1 in-camera to achieve even higher frame rates. I'd personally be happy with 48p at 4K.
 
Jaime Vallés said:
What I really would like is 4K cropped to 2.40:1 in-camera to achieve even higher frame rates. I'd personally be happy with 48p at 4K.
Click to expand...

That's a cool idea.

As far as 2K goes we basically get it free when we shoot 4K because it's already embedded in the stream. Sure it's a little more disk space and it's not scaled. Oh well. But you also get reframing capability with the 4K being available to work from if you choose.

For fast turnaround work I think RED may be able to implement 1080P out the HD-SDI... then we could record that to another device that supports whatever codec we want.

So RED is a raw 4K camera if you want 35mm DOF. It is what it is. (and it's stunningly good at that)
 
Jaime Vallés said:
What I really would like is 4K cropped to 2.40:1 in-camera to achieve even higher frame rates. I'd personally be happy with 48p at 4K.
Click to expand...

PictureSize, PictureQuality, FramesPerSecond ... pick two.

Given that the bandwidth to storage stays constant, going to 2.4 only gives you enough room to reach 36 fps ( 2.4/2.0*30fps). Is that a usable frame rate?

To reach 48 fps you would need to either crop some pixels (3544 x 1476 x 48fps) or increase the Redcode compression by about 33% to get a lower quality picture but at the frame size you want.

Edit: Bah math is hard.
 
We do only need ONE further format, no more!

We do only need ONE further format, no more!

Hey, guys,

please stop this invasion of formats!

Just ONE more format is required:

Custom format.

So you can get simply the format you like to have!
The frame rate will be approximately like 122880 lines/second / custom vertical resolution (this is approximately the read out speed of the sensor, from what we currently know).

So imagine a native 2.4:1 4096x1708y, with: 122880y/s / 1708y = 72 / 1s = 72 Hz.

Or 122880y/s / 1024y = 120 / 1s = 120 Hz, for any 1K vertical size mode.

Or imagine 1024x576y with 122880y/s / 576y = 213 Hz.

I do only, really only, need THIS mode. Nothing else.

I'd agree if there were limitations like x and y must be multiplications of 4 or 8, but I don't think that the codec is really limited that way at all.

I'd be surprise if anyone at RED is ready my post...

The only problem that I can see with this mode is how its handled with the live outs, EVF and LCD. But we might agree that faster rates should simply drop frames and should get display 1:1 or centre cropped etc.

Its not THAT much of a headache with CMOS, after all. But it requires some math...

Cheers,
Axel
 
May I add something I'd call

HyperNTSCope 4096x240y @ 512 Hz (~17:1) -> 1 NTSC field high!
HyperPALscope 4096x288y @ 426 Hz (~14:1) -> 1 PAL field high!
Decascope 4096x400y @ 307 Hz (~10:1) -> VGA
Octocope 4096x512y @ 240 Hz (8:1)
Hectoscope 4096x720y @ 170 Hz (5.6:1) -> 720p, but 3+ cams side by side...
Quadroscope 4096x1024y @ 120 Hz (4:1) -> you've seen 2K already, why not 4K, it does not really hurt the system theoretically...

You see, there are endless possibilities...

with ONE new custom mode :)

And now I'll drive home and go to bed and will have lots of fun reading your comments tomorrow.

Cheers,
Axel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top