720P and 1080P... losers

[Columbus]

In the UK the majority of music videos and commercial are broadcast in sd, so if you need to shoot higher frame rates and want to match 4K's 35mm depth of field and resolution then 1080p is the only way to do it. 1080p is scaled from 4k so will have a higher resolution than 2k when broadcast in sd. If you only shoot for cinema release then I agree there is no need for 720p as it is windowed from 2K anyway. It's a tough decision but personally I plan to shoot for tv and cinema so I vote for 1080p to stay.

 

[Häakon]

I believe scaled 2k has been scratched a long time ago. The only options besides 4k, if you want to use the whole sensor, is 1080p or 720p.

Cheers,
Damien

I actually just made a post in the poll topic and it's clear to me why that makes sense. There really is no point in having a 2K scaled image when most people's final HD deliveries are going to be 1080 at best, and shooting 2K scaled would just mean having to take another step in post to shrink the footage ever so slightly to 1080 resolution. So I've no problem with 2K scaled not being an option. 1080 scaled at 96fps would be extremely interesting to me, however, but either way I don't believe it's possible to have a scaled image (which is taking information from the whole sensor) and record it 96 times a second. If they could do that, they would just offer 4K at 96fps and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Because a 4K-scaled image comes from the whole sensor, the only thing you really gain from it is a time savings in post. And this may help some users (which is why I support keeping a 1080 scaled option - not a 2K scaled one), but I don't think this will enable us to get higher framerates as a result. If it does, then that changes things. But when Jim said "would you like 2K at 96fps" I am taking this to mean 2K windowed, which I'm not really interested in to begin with. I'd rather they focus on 4K, the REDCODE RAW workflow, and cranking as many frames per second from that combination as they possibly can.

 

[Nook Kim]

Open 4K or 2K in a FCP timeline and output what ever you want.

Or open in REDCINE and output whatever you want.

Just saying...

Jim

Will FCP support those two when your camera ships? Feel like you know
something.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Changing my mind?

Changing my mind?

I forget who it was, forgive me, but someone on here really summed up the issue when he asked "What's the difference in speed in the post pipeline with 2k vs. 720p or 1080p RGB?"

That's the kicker. If we're able to have a Apple laptop (or PC)on set, and use RED CINE to output our RedCode drives in REALTIME OR FASTER to another drive, then I am not very concerned about losing 720 and 1080 in the camera.

Look, it's gonna come off my RED Drive and go somewhere ANYWAY.. I'm not giving the client my RED Drive. So let's say RED Cine has some presets (Or I can make some). I plug in RED DRIVE, plug in Client's Hard drive, open up red cine, select all my 3200 shots, apply my present (Which also includes Rez 480, 720, 1080, and or cropping), then select all my 5600 shots, apply my preset, select my/client's output codec, select their drive and hit EXPORT.

As I said, if this can be done in Real Time or Faster then there would be no real point to keep 720 or 1080 in camera. Of course I still need it to come out the HD-SDI ports for other reasons, but I don't need it on REDDRIVE.

So my vote is a direct result of the Speed of REDCine. Real Time or better? Lose 720 in camera... Not real time? Keep it.

Jay

 

[Antoine Baumann]

Will FCP support those two when your camera ships? Feel like you know
something.

yes because it is already working on FCP 5.1 or any video software that support qt codecs.

antoine.

 

[Andrew Benz]

So my vote is a direct result of the Speed of REDCine. Real Time or better? Lose 720 in camera... Not real time? Keep it.
Jay

Exactly... I was the first to bring up the speed issue twice and was blown off ... I will just wait for LART.

 

[Rocco Schult]

I'm just wondering if all these options are really necessary. We can't ever think of why we would shoot 2K (except for high frame rates), let alone shoot 720P or 1080P (ugh!)...We can certainly give our customers these options. Just seems dumb to me..

Hi,

yeah, I wonder especially who invented that crappy format, hell, who invented 16:9 ? Theres no film format as far as I am aware of thats 16:9.
BUT: We have it. Its there. And I think if I am asked and am on a heavy job with no reserve but hectic, I might want to save the time for the convert and record directly to 1080. Its just there and hence will be requested.
Drop 720 yes, absolutely. The crappiest among crap.
But keep that one, crap.. I mean 1080.

 

[Rocco Schult]

..someone on here really summed up the issue when he asked "What's the difference in speed in the post pipeline with 2k vs. 720p or 1080p RGB?"
...
As I said, if this can be done in Real Time or Faster then there would be no real point to keep 720 or 1080 in camera. ..
So my vote is a direct result of the Speed of REDCine. Real Time or better? Lose 720 in camera... Not real time? Keep it.

My point. Save time. I doubt the export will be realtime. And if it should (especially scaling is fast in wavellet codecs): in which quality ? We should be able to compete with HDcamSR then.

 

[Finner]

As far as I see it frame rate is key and I am pretty sure I would prefer 120 fps at 720. If however a future upgrade of 2k at 120fps is seen as a foreseeable option I would then choose the 2k. Not sure what kind of upgrades as far as FPS are seen as possible but the main way I see it 150fps is the magic number. Agency's and Producers of all film use fields have become use to the 150 FPS option being a common thing and by the look of the red camera footage so far I see only faster FPS being the reason someone would want to choose film over digital cinema. I do agree with the thought that 720 & 1080 are a video creation that I would be more then happy to see the red camera distance itself from as long as it is a quick redcine downconversion option. I really do see 150 FPS being the magic number though as it is the traditional top overcrank most viewers are use to seeing.

 

[Dan Blanchett]

my 2 cents

my 2 cents

I vote for 2K @ 96FPS, with the hope that we get 120 in the near future. I am even more excited about overcranking 4K when it becomes viable.

I don't see using 720p (even it that becomes the only 120fps option) as it likely won't integrate very well into my 4K sequences.

 

[gcaussade]

Wow! I can't believe no one jumped on the YOUTUBE portion of his comment!

I want YouTube at 350 fps!

-Jerry

 

[Finner]

I don't see using 720p (even it that becomes the only 120fps option) as it likely won't integrate very well into my 4K sequences.

I've been suprised with what you can intergrate together. It just takes a little creativity and a strong I was going for that unique look kind of attitude.

 

[Jeff Tanner]

I've always thought that 720 or 1080 was a bit silly for this camera...for the exact reason that Jim mentioned, being able to output either format later on down the line in post. I thought about inquiring the reason for such resolutions but figured that if it's going to be included in the camera anyway, why take options away.

I'm totally on board with losing 720 and or 1080. We have two Varicams that shoot 720 already so for my purposes, the RED will never shoot below 2K.

And with 96fps at 2K? There's no question about it! Drop 720 and 1080! Since we're buying two RED's, can I vote twice?

Respectfully,

Jeff Tanner

 

[Dan Blanchett]

Well, it's true that I've never tried integrating 720 with 4K, but the difference in resolution seems enormous. Especially if my projects are targeted for big screen projection (which they are).

 

[Camille Herren]

Definitely go for 2k at 96fps!

 

[Columbus]

So at present on board recording options are:
for 35mm dof
4K raw(max 30fps)
scaled 1080p redcode rgb(max 60fps)

for 16mm dof
2K raw(max 60fps)
720p windowed(max 120fps)

new options
35mm dof
4K raw(max 30fps)

16mm dof
2K raw(max 96fps)

I can see that by being able to shoot 2K raw at 96fps it would be easy to get rid of 720p, but at present the only way to get over 30fps with 35mm dof is by shooting 1080p rgb. So please can we please keep this option.

 

[Rodrigo Lizana]

...but my interest with the camera is 4K, REDCODE RAW. I'll pick and choose my deliverable flavors in post.

Same here. I want the full 35mm area. In fact I rather have 60fps@4K Redcode than 120 or 96fps@2K.

Anyway I´m wondering...if you select to window the sensor to 2K, this image will be magnified to be shown using the whole EVF area ?.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Bottom line
Jim Jannard and the rest of the RED Team are friends of mine, and they know I am always good for an honest professional opinion. I respect the heck out of those guys for their concepts and hard work (...)

If RED was to totally eliminate 1080p, and a 2k/B4 adaptor/B4 lens setup turned out to not work well, that would effectively eliminate B4 2/3” lens use on RED One – which would preclude lots of guys from using their 2/3” HD lenses, and also eliminate a lot of the EFP market potential from RED One sales, including most television networks and independent television production companies (packagers/self-syndicators)

2k RC RAW @96fps would be very cool, keeping 1080p, but eliminating 720p if that’s what it takes to get the added 2k frame rate. As Matt Uhry pointed out, losing 720p120 would eliminate some of the “bread & butter” project capability with RED One. From the beginning and for 20 months now RED One has been stated as a D-cinema camera that was also capable of being re-lensed and re-accessorized for extensive EFP work. IMO any move that erodes the scalability, utility, and flexibility of RED One would be a move backwards in terms of marketability of the camera for RED and revenue generating potential of the camera system for adopters.

There's no point against!

 

[baro]

Just to clarify (in case anyone is confused), you can get 2K, 1080, or 720 from your 4K image in post. Eliminating 720 or 1080 from the camera doesn't mean you can't deliver a 720 or 1080 project.

It doesn't mean if you want only 24 or 30 fps. If you want an 1080i or 720p project with smooth motion, you have to use the 2K mode.

 

[Mark B.]

Ideally, I'd like to see firmware options to implement whatever option we want whenever we want. But, if I absolutely had to vote... well, read the rest of this message:

My projects are likely to go Straight to DVD. For that media, 2k is no better than 720p. Frame rates, on the other hand, will still matter. Slow-mo at 120fps versus 96fps is a noticeable difference (5:1 versus 4:1 speed change).

Also, 720p won't consume as much storage space, allowing for longer shoots without as many media swaps. That's really useful if the end product is destined for DVD and there are no plans to ever move it to HD media. Consumer wedding/event videos for instance. As media gets cheaper in the future this will become less of an issue.

If I am proposing a resolution to go straight to DVD, then why are we using 720p for that? Instead of continuing support for 720, maybe we should have something smaller and faster that fits the resolution of DVD... something like 480p at 240fps. That would be an extremely useful resolution for going straight-to-video.

But I also am wondering... what's the difference in slow-mo software rendering if a 720p frame sequence is analyzed versus a 2k frame? I'd hedge bets that the 2k frame has enough extra detail to squeeze out a slower slow-mo than what you'd get if you processed the 720p. In which case, why shoot 720p@120 when 2k@96 can get post-processed to the same super-slow speed? True, it's an artificial slow motion, but most people won't notice the difference.

I guess given my musings, I'd like to see 2k@96fps, preferably with 480p at 240fps to fill the high-speed DVD void.