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 :)

720P and 1080P... losers

Status
Not open for further replies.
I dunno.
25% more frames vs. 260% resolution.
I'm thinking interpolated frames might be more efficient even if its cheating.
 
We're gonna shoot a minimum of 2K and standardize our workflow around that. I really cannot see any purpose in 1080p let alone 720p -- it's like using Panavision and cropping the neg right down. If people want to shoot 720p perhaps Red is not the camera for them. I believe the Red team should focus on delivering for the needs of professional film makers and strip out stuff that is irrelevant. Maybe Mini Red Two can be the super DV camera a very vocal section of these boards seem to asking for, but please, don't compromise an excellent tool to pander for things most of us don't want and don't need... just my 2c worth - it's not meant to cause offence

Best Wishes
Ziggx
 
2k @ 96fps!

Just please keep pushing hard for higher fps. I am looking forward to Red 2 not because of resolution (I don't care to EVER have higher than 4k), but I would just die happy to shoot with with like 250fps like on 300. So 120 is a golden step :-)
 
Tom said:
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Remember that the only way to 4K at 60fps is RAW (for now). 2K at 96fps "might" be recordable to CF. I'm just testing the waters to see how much effort we need to put towrds this.

Jim
 
Shawn Nelson said:
2k @ 96fps!

Just please keep pushing hard for higher fps. I am looking forward to Red 2 not because of resolution (I don't care to EVER have higher than 4k), but I would just die happy to shoot with with like 250fps like on 300. So 120 is a golden step :-)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a 300 is... how much is it?

This turned out to be a fun night...

Jim
 
Don't want to be a downer here, but a lot of people using the Red, including my clients in France, won't really care about HD as final delivery at first. They will actually ask for SD delivery and only care about the fps and the lattitude on which the Red clearly has a huge advantage IF it stays with 120fps.
 
Jannard said:
Remember that the only way to 4K at 60fps is RAW (for now). 2K at 96fps "might" be recordable to CF. I'm just testing the waters to see how much effort we need to put towrds this.

Jim
Click to expand...
Why not 2K 96fps scaled?
 
High speeds... in 30 years of film-making I've needed to over crank on a handful of occasions - if I want 250fps I would hire in a special camera built to do that. Common sense suggests that the vast majority will shoot at normal speeds for most of their working lives. The exceptions might be those shooting wild life films or the odd time when slo mo is needed.

Ziggx
 
Arno said:
Don't want to be a downer here, but a lot of people using the Red, including my clients in France, won't really care about HD as final delivery at first. They will actually ask for SD delivery and only care about the fps and the lattitude on which the Red clearly has a huge advantage IF it stays with 120fps.
Click to expand...

Our latitude is what it is... if you could shoot 2k @ 96fps you can downrez to either 1080P or 720P. This is a discussion. Nothing is locked down. I'm open to opinions.

Jim
 
Jim, again...scaled? ;-)

EDIT -- I'm sorry but I made a promise to myself that I won't shoot anymore unless from the 35mm glass... :)
 
Jannard said:
I'm not sure what a 300 is... how much is it?

This turned out to be a fun night...

Jim
Click to expand...

I think he means the film - "300".

Anyway, personally, I'd be hard-pressed to choose. Though it'd be rare for me to want to shoot 720p anyway. That won't intercut well with all the 4k footage I'd be shooting. 2k might do it though...

So, only because of that would I choose the 2k @ 96fps option. After all, if you REALLY need 120fps - get the optical out and a refrigerator.
 
96 vs. 120 frames

96 vs. 120 frames

I cannot image someone being angry with '120 fps at 720p' being included as an option. If you don't use it by choice that's fine. If you can't use it, because the option is excluded, that's a real bummer.

I don't like creating in-between frames. The more I could fine tune frame rates during recording, the better. I would sometimes gladly trade screen resolution for motion resolution.
 
How am I supposed to sleep now... 2:40 am
 
ziggx said:
High speeds... in 30 years of film-making I've needed to over crank on a handful of occasions - if I want 250fps I would hire in a special camera built to do that. Common sense suggests that the vast majority will shoot at normal speeds for most of their working lives. The exceptions might be those shooting wild life films or the odd time when slo mo is needed.
Click to expand...

We do it all the time, though rarely over 100fps.

Jim, "a 300" is a little film that came out a while ago. Made great use of ramping up to 250fps.
 
Jim, 4K @ 60fps recording onboard is the brass ring!
 
120fps is 5 times cranked, 96fps is 4 times cranked. 2K is 2.6 times the resolution of 720P. The math seems to support 2K @ 96fps. Just sayin'...

Jim
 
Keep Cranking

Keep Cranking

I can just hear Stuart in the background yelling "120FPS!!! what is he nuts... We'll be lucky if we can crank out 96!! YOU'RE DRIVING ME CRAZY!!!

JIM: " That sounds like a personal problem Stuart - KEEP CRANKING"

STUART: Arrghrrrghaaaa

CUT TO:
I think it's obvious that the higher the speed - the happier everyone will be because the camera, as a tool, will be much more effective and competitive.

CUT TO:
Jim, would not having 720p and 1080p affect any of the realtime output options?

DISS TO:...
 
It's a bit funny, I feel like negociating a basket of fruit in a souk.

Here is the thing Jim, I know 96fps is only 1 time faster than 120fps, but it would be like killing a magic number. Most of the slow motion film projects I worked on actually started to look good at 120fps. I guess we poor humans only start to be impressed when things move 5 times slower than reality :-)

Jim, would it be so hard to keep the 120fps 720p option even if you manage to include this extra 96fps 2k option?

Arnaud
 
This sounds great, but I'd just like to know: Will still be able to knock off something quick & dirty and drop it in to Final Cut without waiting for transcoding? And will I be able to edit multiple streams of REDCODE 2K on an old Laptop without trouble?

What if 720 is all the client needs. Do you really want to hang around waiting to hand over the DownRez?

Obviously 2K/120fps is a wildly compelling option, but couldn't we have both?
 
Jannard said:
120fps is 5 times cranked, 96fps is 4 times cranked. 2K is 2.6 times the resolution of 720P. The math seems to support 2K @ 96fps. Just sayin'...

Jim
Click to expand...
OK If we cannot have 2K scaled, at least 2K 100fps for the PAL guys, can it be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top