Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

anyone else?

P

Priyesh P.

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
836
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I`ve talked and thought about this and would like to know if there are others who have the same thing in their minds.

I don`t need any resolutions over 2K, actually, the highest resolution I worked on was / is 1080 HD. The highest speed I shot was 100 fps on super 16 and 150 fps on 35 mm.

In postproduction this is what I did/needed so far was:
progressive PAL, square pixels = 768 X 576
1080 HD = 1920 X 1080

Actually there`s even no demand for 2K for me (but it`s nonetheless cool to have it, since there`s quite no overhead needed from 1080 HD). I would say that 90% of all Red One shoots only require SDTV or HDTV at max, but have to go the tedious route of downconversion and handling of 4K data...
 
3k is twice the resolution of 2k. 2k is 6% more resolution than 1080p. As per Graeme Nattress' debayer figure of 78%, then footage shot in 3k debayers out to around 2.34k, significantly higher resolution than 2k or 1080p. You don't need to shoot 4k to get a clean over-saturated downconvert to 2k (or 1080p), 3k is also great for that - plus though the field of view is narrower in 3k than 4k, you gain higher frame rates (if you want/need them), and your data storage demands are less. If your projects are destined for HDTV or on-screen business media use, 3k is an excellent option for the above mentioned reasons. We shoot a lot of 4k when its the best choice for the intended distribution use, but we also shoot a lot 3k when we know it is destined for our TV programs and other smaller screen distribution.
 
All good comments.

Just one thing to add if you're thinking about broadcast, and that's that a lot of HD broadcast is currently 720p - for that, 2K does become a viable option, in turn allowing even higher framerates and the use of 16mm optics to get your wide FoV's back...
 
What we need at this moment should not be the driving factor of what RED provides. Many people might say "we do not need more resolution", but it seems like RED has made it a point to innovate and push the envelope.

In the end we all benefit from that drive.

David
 
Thanks for your great comments, especially Gibby and David.

I don`t want to offend Red, but isn`t it a bit strange being strictly bound to 4K in order to be able to use the full sensor (= optimal lens coverage)? I know that it`s going to increase complexity of the onboard processing system and subsequently increase the price, but I would prefer a camera that does downscaling internally rather than in a second step on the editing machine which takes 1. more time for transfer 2. more time for downscaling and 3. gives me less recording time per CF card or SSD or whatever I`m using as memory...
 
could someone tell me how many lenses they have on a typical shoot?...lenses that are wide enough to shoot on 4K jus dont work on lower res. do u have extra wide lenses when you shoot higher speeds (8R, 10mm etc.)
 
I think we've discussed a number of times the problem with doing real-time, in-camera RAW to RAW downscaling due to the Bayer pattern in the monochromatic RAW image.

And doing an in-camera conversion from 4K RAW to 2K RGB sort of defeats any advantages in recording time, etc. because while 2K is one-quarter the data of 4K, RGB is three-times the data of RAW, so the file sizes for 2K RGB are not much smaller than 4K RAW.

As for how many lenses you carry, as many as you need... modified by as many as you can afford. A set of five or six primes plus one zoom is not uncommon on single-camera features, that's sort of basic if you don't also need specialty lenses.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I think we've discussed a number of times the problem with doing real-time, in-camera RAW to RAW downscaling due to the Bayer pattern in the monochromatic RAW image.
Click to expand...

Totally forgot about this. Sorry.
 
This are extremely good short explanations.
Make sticky?

Steve Gibby said:
3k is twice the resolution of 2k. 2k is 6% more resolution than 1080p. As per Graeme Nattress' debayer figure of 78%, then footage shot in 3k debayers out to around 2.34k, significantly higher resolution than 2k or 1080p. You don't need to shoot 4k to get a clean over-saturated downconvert to 2k (or 1080p), 3k is also great for that - plus though the field of view is narrower in 3k than 4k, you gain higher frame rates (if you want/need them), and your data storage demands are less. If your projects are destined for HDTV or on-screen business media use, 3k is an excellent option for the above mentioned reasons. We shoot a lot of 4k when its the best choice for the intended distribution use, but we also shoot a lot 3k when we know it is destined for our TV programs and other smaller screen distribution.
Click to expand...



David Mullen ASC said:
3K RAW Bayer seems ideal to generate 1080P 4:2:2 for HDTV broadcast. 4K RAW doesn't hurt, of course... 2K RAW is cutting it closer in terms of final HD resolution.

2K RGB and 1080P 4:4:4 are rather close (2048 versus 1920 across.)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top