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 :)

3K...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jarred Land said:
bullshit.... the last thing 3k is is a compromise. I can see if someone said 720p was a compromise.. but 3k, come on guys.
Click to expand...
ehehehehe..
 
You'll be surprised at the things we still have up our sleeves...

Jim
 
albert rudnicki said:
"Faster framerates was never an option for scaled."

Are you sure?
Click to expand...

Jannard said:
Yes. I went back to the original published spec (1st NAB) when 2K scaled was a consideration and it was 60fps max. That's all it could have ever been given the clock speed of the sensor.
Click to expand...
No offense, but what on earth? The most we can get right now out of 4K is what... 30p?

60p *IS* faster framerates!!
 
Häakon said:
No offense, but what on earth? The most we can get right now out of 4K is what... 30p?

60p *IS* faster framerates!!
Click to expand...

Don't know if you're still missing it or what but yes today's fastest is 30p and if you had 2k scaled you know what your maximum frame rate would be? 30p! If its using the full sensor then 2k scaled would never be faster than 4k, that would be impossible. Scannning the full sensor to get 4k, or scanning the full sensor and then downrezing to 2k, either way you're relying on the maximum scan rate of the sensor. 2k cannot be faster than 4k (unless it's windowed, which is why windowed 2k and 3k can have faster frame rates than 4k).

Red One has always been planned to be 4k at 60fps hasn't it? Isn't the 30p limitation a temporary one (just like no audio was a temporarly limitation or only one video out is a temporary limitation)?
 
redrum said:
Red One has always been planned to be 4k at 60fps hasn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes. From day one. But out the RAW Port recording at 1GB/sec. You heard correctly.

Our job is to find ways to record more on less. From the original spec that DID NOT include 4K to compact Flash at 30 fps, we have come a long way. Give us some more time and I'm sure we can do better.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Yes. From day one. But out the RAW Port recording at 1GB/sec. You heard correctly.

Our job is to find ways to record more on less. From the original spec that DID NOT include 4K to compact Flash at 30 fps, we have come a long way. Give us some more time and I'm sure we can do better.

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim, which brings up the issue of the Raw Port. Is that still a possibility? Or has that been sent to the back burner. Apologize if this has already been answered.

If it turns out that it's difficult to get 60P to CF or maybe even to the Red Drive, then perhaps those who really need it would go for the Raw Port and fast drive arrays.

At what point do you start to sacrifice quality for more frame rates? In other words, if the best we can get is 30P to the current recording media, I'd rather that quality was maintained rather than compromising it to hit a number. Or perhaps Graeme has more magic up his sleeve which wouldn't completely surprise me.

Steve
 
48 fps is very cool, but I think 60fps might be the Holly Grail. 60fps is a flicker safe speed in North America, 48 is not. My concern is city streets and the ever growing use of fluorescent lighting in the real world!

(Then again 1,000fps is very cool. :sarcasm: )
 
redrum said:
Don't know if you're still missing it or what but yes today's fastest is 30p and if you had 2k scaled you know what your maximum frame rate would be? 30p!
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Jim *just* clarified in his post that the original scaled information indicated that the rate would be 60p, not 30p:

Jannard said:
I went back to the original published spec (1st NAB) when 2K scaled was a consideration and it was 60fps max. That's all it could have ever been given the clock speed of the sensor.
Click to expand...

He is even repeating that the system clock speed max is 60p, so that is what the full frame sensor readout is capable of. At 4K, 60p was only possible through the optical RAW port. They can't compress that data fast enough to serve it in REDCODE to the drive or cards. But that's precisely what the scaled mode(s) were for: to give us 60p from the full sensor, at the expense of not recording 4K's worth of resolution to the drive. Most of us agreed that this was a better solution than shooting scaled and losing FOV, relative DOF, gaining noise, and effectively losing the advantages of oversampled resolution.

If scaled is completely off the boards now... at least in 2K form, I think that's a shame (and I think many seem to agree). But it is what it is... that's RED's choice. That being said, let's get the information correct so that everyone is on the same page here.
 
This may have already been covered and if so, apologies for bringing it up again.

There was earlier talk that RED wasn't a "true" 4k camera because for some reason only 3.5k of the pixels were being used... or something. But of course the images come out at over 4k resolution.

So, when shooting only on the 3k portion of the sensor, does one get fully 3k of resolution or is it proportionally reduced the same as 4k?

If not, then technically speaking isn't 3k just about the same thing as shooting 4k, especially if you are going to output to 2k? Wouldn't shooting in 3k give you about the same advantage as shooting in 4k?

Just trying to figure out the best way to go.
 
number6 said:
So, when shooting only on the 3k portion of the sensor, does one get fully 3k of resolution or is it proportionally reduced the same as 4k?
Click to expand...
It's windowed, so it's proportionally reduced the same. I would still wager it's higher resolution than the native 1080 cams out there though, and 3K is definitely better than 2K. For 2K/1080 finishes it allows the option for reframing in post as well as slight oversampling to the finished format if you use the full frame you shoot. The disadvantage to shooting windowed (be it 2K or 3K) is loss of FOV on the wide-angle side. Again, 3K is better than 2K in this situation.

As for your resolution question, I'd say that 4K is still going to give you a better picture than 3K even when they're both downsampled to 2K, but the good news is that 4K should cut with the 3K much better than the "native" windowed 2K in a 2K finish.
 
Häakon said:
It's windowed, so it's proportionally reduced the same. I would still wager it's higher resolution than the native 1080 cams out there though, and 3K is definitely better than 2K. For 2K/1080 finishes it allows the option for reframing in post as well as slight oversampling to the finished format if you use the full frame you shoot. The disadvantage to shooting windowed (be it 2K or 3K) is loss of FOV on the wide-angle side. Again, 3K is better than 2K in this situation.

As for your resolution question, I'd say that 4K is still going to give you a better picture than 3K even when they're both downsampled to 2K, but the good news is that 4K should cut with the 3K much better than the "native" windowed 2K in a 2K finish.
Click to expand...
Thanks Häakon,

This pretty much covers what I was needing to know. I'm thinking now that I will stay with 4k and if higher frame rates are needed, drop doun to 3k with little fear that the difference in the "look" of the data will be noticeable in a 2k finish.
 
number6 said:
I'm thinking now that I will stay with 4k and if higher frame rates are needed, drop doun to 3k with little fear that the difference in the "look" of the data will be noticeable in a 2k finish.
Click to expand...
I think that is a good plan. :-)
 
Häakon said:
At 4K, 60p was only possible through the optical RAW port. They can't compress that data fast enough to serve it in REDCODE to the drive or cards. But that's precisely what the scaled mode(s) were for: to give us 60p from the full sensor, at the expense of not recording 4K's worth of resolution to the drive.
Click to expand...

But I think the devil is in the details. We can't currently have 4K @ 60fps onboard because the camera's processors can not cope with or process that much information. So.... How can we expect the camera to take that amount of information and do a high-quality scale of that 4K data down to 2K, while preserving the benefits of the acquired RAW image, and then compress that into wavelet form?

If 2K scaled RAW from 4K @ 60fps were really practical and possible to do onboard the camera with good results, they would give it to us. But the way I'm reading this is that given the requirements to give this to us, we can't reach the full 60fps and therefore 2K scaled provides us with no benefits other than potentially longer record times. ...Buy a RED DRIVE.

Anyway, that's my take on this.
 
So for 4K@60fps (aka, the Holy Grail), it seems like there are two options:

1. Faster processor onboard.
2. Some type of CF card RAID thingy that attaches to the 1/GB port with a fast enough capture speed to record the RAW data.

Does that sound about right? If we apply Ockham's Razor, it seems the faster processer upgrade is the simpler answer, considering that processing power doubles every year and a half or something like that.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
We can't currently have 4K @ 60fps onboard because the camera's processors can not cope with or process that much information. So.... How can we expect the camera to take that amount of information and do a high-quality scale of that 4K data down to 2K, while preserving the benefits of the acquired RAW image, and then compress that into wavelet form?
Click to expand...
The point is that they *can* process that information - they just can't compress it to REDCODE fast enough. That's why 4K/60P is available through the optical RAW port and not to the drive or the cards. It was my understandng that taking the 4K image and downsampling it to a smaller size before compressing it was the way around the bottleneck - that's why the scaled options were on the board to begin with. Otherwise, if we could do 4K/60P onboard, there would be no point to shoot scaled. Perhaps the scaled options proved more difficult than they imagined; I agree that if they could give it to us in a reasonable way they would.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top