5K 9K come on whats going on!?

[Allan Legarth Nielsen]

Allan. This is the best 1080 camera there is. There is no other way to to shoot full frame than by shooting 4k. Only 1 percent will end up using 4k in the end but it's necessary to shoot 4k to get the 35mm DOF and the oversampling makes the 1080 look better. This 9-28k stuff puzzles me a bit but would be great for VFX. Any less DOF than FF35 will be so tricky to pull focus on.

So why doesn't the Genesis and D-21 record more than 1080. Panavision and ARRI are still the oldest and leading companies in this area.....

 

[Joseph Ward]

Also, Down scaling is better than the other way around. If you blow up an image it looks blurry, distorted, faded color etc. And down scaling is better on image than just whatever straight output size you want. If you want to re size an image or crop, fix, its better to have more resolution to work with. Plus you never know what the future will be as far as picture resolution is concern.

It seems silly, but important if you want to prevent some problems for editing/grading, and want the best final result for your hard work.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

why increasing K numbers?

Yes, in your post I think the interesting point to argue on is :

WHY INCREASING K NUMBERS (PIXELS) TO 9 OR TO 28?

Honestly I don't know... I think I could find a use for 5k or 6k today but who knows what future holds in the highend market (not the hvx200 market where "most" of reduser come from).

But while we are on it let's make a small brainstorm...

9k could find new artistic expression that where not possible with lesser resolution. Not as end format but it could be used as pan/zoom and scanning for narrative purpose in video clips and why not in features or documentaries...

Artistic developement has always been hand in hand with technological development...

This technological development could also be a break through for us creatives.

Patrick

 

[Warren Kommers]

They should. Thats why RED is all the talk right now because they(sony/arri) had their heads stuck in a HD world. RED looks better resolution wise than a D21 on a 50ft screen fo sho. It also costs far less and takes far less data.

 

[Casey Green]

Allan,

I do admit that RED does excel in marketing, but there is always much more in the technical details than meets the eye.

With larger and more advanced sensors comes the ability to use professional glass and have shallower Depth of Field and better dynamic range.

The RED ONE is being used on many Indie productions and commercials, but more and more, it is being used on Feature Films, which definitely require the higher resolution and framerates that SCARLET and EPIC will offer.

It always seems that when new technology emerges, there are those people who always are saying, "What do you need this for?" - as if they have not witnessed this before in many other examples throughout their lifetime.

I remember back in 1987, there was a computer trade show and some of the first demos of 24-bit "digitized" movies playing off of a hard drive full screen in real-time. My friend turned to me and said the same old thing... "What do you need this for?"

...It seems as if digitized video playing from computer drives kinda caught on.

Keep an open mind, my friend. This is only just the beginning.

 

[Warren Kommers]

Panavision and ARRI are still the oldest and leading companies in this area.....

I'm a critical guy like you as well Allan and I challenge RED, Jim and Jarred sometimes but believe me.... This quote above is losing traction significantly everyday and the key word is "oldest".

 

[Warren Kommers]

Yeah the 28k baffled me quite a bit for many reasons. I can now see how it would be useful for VFX plates. I still say 500fps capability is more useful but I hope I discover new ways to use 9k+ besides stills and VFX plates.

 

[diskojerk]

Al,

There was a time, long before any of us were born, when someone had this crazy idea to record the actors voices and have sound in movies. And of course, like anything else, there were critics and nay sayers. To make a long story short, things progress, new technology comes into the picture and older technology becomes obsolete. How many film editors still edit on a flatbed? How many sound mixers mix off old mag tape? It is true that only a very small percentage of anything shot on these camera will reach a large screen. But the same goes for movies shot on film. A lot of TV shows are shot on 35mm. Why? They're not going to a theater. They will rarely see a screen larger than 42 inches. That doesn't stop them from being shot on film. When you say that 1080 or 720 is good enough for what most people are going to do, you're probably right. It is good enough. But why stop at good enough if you know something can be better. The first motion picture camera was hand cranked. Someone looked at that design and said, i know I can make that better. And that went on for a hundred years until someone said, wait a minute, do we even really need film anymore(which is a whole other discussion)? And then someone made a digital camera, and then someone else said, you know what, I bet I can make that even better... Anyhow, I think you get the point.

 

[Benni Diez]

"Why increasing K numbers..."

I think it's not primarily about having more pixels. What people want at first are large chips and high dynamic range.
But your photosites can't just grow along with the chip size because bigger photosites are less sensitive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Monstro's dynamic range and readout speed sure has a lot to do with a certain pixel size. So, grow the chip -> increase the pixel count. If you want less resolution, downsize it. You'll get a great s/n ratio and thus maybe a stop or two more to play with in color correction.
The brains are still at a reasonable price, even if you use them for 'just' 2k or 1080.

 

[Alex.Mitchell]

You'll never be sorry that you have too much data. 'Sides, just render it out as 1080p ProRes and edit/finish with that if you're not going to use it.

 

[Allan Legarth Nielsen]

Al,

There was a time, long before any of us were born, when someone had this crazy idea to record the actors voices and have sound in movies. And of course, like anything else, there were critics and nay sayers. To make a long story short, things progress, new technology comes into the picture and older technology becomes obsolete. How many film editors still edit on a flatbed? How many sound mixers mix off old mag tape? It is true that only a very small percentage of anything shot on these camera will reach a large screen. But the same goes for movies shot on film. A lot of TV shows are shot on 35mm. Why? They're not going to a theater. They will rarely see a screen larger than 42 inches. That doesn't stop them from being shot on film. When you say that 1080 or 720 is good enough for what most people are going to do, you're probably right. It is good enough. But why stop at good enough if you know something can be better. The first motion picture camera was hand cranked. Someone looked at that design and said, i know I can make that better. And that went on for a hundred years until someone said, wait a minute, do we even really need film anymore(which is a whole other discussion)? And then someone made a digital camera, and then someone else said, you know what, I bet I can make that even better... Anyhow, I think you get the point.

I see exactly what you mean. But for that other discussion I can only say, I'm still a 110% on film, no doubt about it. If you want the digital look for a creative reason, fine with me, a lot of stuff is better shown with that clean and (don't get me wrong) "artificial" effect, but again not always. See for example Minority Report, it takes place in this nice clean future, then obvious would have been to shoot it in HD, but film still looks better (but let's not get into this one, as I'm sure we can find tons of other discussion on forum about it).

And you say a lot of tv shows is shot on 35, even though it never goes to the cinema. 35 doesn't only deliver high resolution (or what you might call when we talk film), but also a, guess what, filmlike picture (du'h). But some tv shows like Friends and Will and Grace, yeah don't really see any reason why they shoot that on 35. But then you have other shows like Sopranos and Into the West, it would be a shame not to shoot that on film.

 

[Stuart English]

Resolutions

Resolutions

Exactly, so why do it then, thats my exact point. Its pointless!

With respect, it is NOT pointless...and if you are interested in understanding why, there are plenty of people that can explain why.

 

[diskojerk]

I see exactly what you mean. But for that other discussion I can only say, I'm still a 110% on film, no doubt about it. If you want the digital look for a creative reason, fine with me, a lot of stuff is better shown with that clean and (don't get me wrong) "artificial" effect, but again not always. See for example Minority Report, it takes place in this nice clean future, then obvious would have been to shoot it in HD, but film still looks better (but let's not get into this one, as I'm sure we can find tons of other discussion on forum about it).

And you say a lot of tv shows is shot on 35, even though it never goes to the cinema. 35 doesn't only deliver high resolution (or what you might call when we talk film), but also a, guess what, filmlike picture (du'h). But some tv shows like Friends and Will and Grace, yeah don't really see any reason why they shoot that on 35. But then you have other shows like Sopranos and Into the West, it would be a shame not to shoot that on film.

It's the 35mm sensor, giving me the closest approximation of film available in a digital camera at an affordable price that appeals to me. I own a 35mm camera, but I can't shoot a single roll of film without spending hundreds or even thousand(s) of dollars in processing and telecine fees.

I think the Scarlet is going to allow people to be creative in ways, that up until now was never accessible in the past. I think the quality of work is only going to progress and come from a much larger pool of people than ever before, which is only going to push the envelope further and further. Twenty years from now we will all probably look back at something like 28K and snicker.

 

[Christian Tanner]

beyond 4k

beyond 4k

i'd like to quote michael ragen again, stating this a few posts ago, because i got the impression the info didn't sink in with everyone...

"You have to remember too, that the idea is that these cameras can be used for stills as well."

epic is part of the dsmc system now. meaning they have to serve dp's AND stills photographers. print media asks for MUCH higher resolution than us dp's are.

tanner

 

[Lee Jay]

Well, I've never been to a normal movie theater and seen good quality visuals. The only theater that I've been to that impresses me visually (actually, sonically as well) is the IMAX in town. If, say, the 645 version allows common theaters to eventually produce decent visuals, that might attract me back to the movies again. But I suspect film as the final distribution medium will have to be replaced by super high res digital projectors first, or the film is going to have to be IMAX (too expensive). So these cameras seem far out in front of projection technology (hmmm...opportunity for RED?).

 

[Casey Green]

I don't know everything in details, but working as a 1st AC I know a thing or two, and I have also worked with the RED ONE a couple of times.

By the way, just curious, which RED productions have you worked on?

 

[Daniel Browning]

Well, I've never been to a normal movie theater and seen good quality visuals. The only theater that I've been to that impresses me visually (actually, sonically as well) is the IMAX in town.

Our local theater, Cinetopia has a very nice Christie 2K projection and audio system and only charges $7.25, so I haven't been to a 35mm film projection theater since they opened in ~2004. Do you have a nice 2K theater nearby?

 

[Lee Jay]

How would I find out?

 

[Daniel Browning]

How would I find out?

GFY.

Google For Yourself. (I didn't mean the other common acronym, "Good For You". )

I suggest maps.google.com and "Cinema near <my city>", then check each one for likely options. Maybe there is a website somewhere with better info, but the above procedure is exactly what I did to find an IMAX theater near Portland that was showing Dark Knight. (I didn't realize we had two of them.)

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Allan, understand your question on a fundamental level, but I'd advise doing some testing and fact gathering on this one, especially in regards to Red One. If you shoot something with 4K and then with 2K on Red, you will see why people here are advocating the 4K. Generalizations don't work when you compare the Red with other cameras you mentioned. They are different beasts. The better question to ask yourself is, how do I get my hands on a Red, shoot my own tests, project them on a large screen, and then come to a conclusion based on your own eyesight, rather than numbers on a piece of paper? Don't go all Rian Johnson on us. (just kidding Rian)