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 :)

Good enough...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd buy one, but it would eat into my Scarlet budget. :biggrinjester:
 
Robert Frank said:
I hear you on this Harry. I've been on many gigs where the footage needs to get handed to the producer in the format of their choosing at the end of the shoot.

A good example of this was a regular job shooting the CEO of a huge, well known corporation, who did "message to the troops" segments that were extremely time sensitive with the latest information, and needed to get edited and uploaded by their production team the same day.

Clearly this falls into the ENG/EFP category but having the capability to give clients the highest quality images in a familiar (to them) format is necessary to get and keep certain clientele.
Click to expand...

Maybe in that particular case the RED ISN'T the right tool for the job then.
 
Matt Gottshalk said:
Maybe in that particular case the RED ISN'T the right tool for the job then.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this be a prime example of one instance where the RED Proxy Module would be of use?

Seems like a "high quality scale" of 1080p to CF card would be a very handy step in the right direction to handling that type of request. Not ideal, perhaps, since it is H.264....but a lot better than handing off 4.5K .r3ds?
 
Matt Gottshalk said:
Maybe in that particular case the RED ISN'T the right tool for the job then.
Click to expand...

The way it is now your probably right.

BUT, I see no reason why it couldn't, or shouldn't be the right tool. After all, isn't the advantage to the modularity of the RED Epic system is being able to adapt to various shooting scenarios with different requirements?
 
Michael Olsen said:
Wouldn't this be a prime example of one instance where the RED Proxy Module would be of use?

Seems like a "high quality scale" of 1080p to CF card would be a very handy step in the right direction to handling that type of request. Not ideal, perhaps, since it is H.264....but a lot better than handing off 4.5K .r3ds?
Click to expand...

No no no no no, please don't even consider using the Proxy Module for deliverables, that is not its purpose and would just fuel the people who would detract from the use of RED on set.
The Proxy Module is for proxies, please don't consider using it for anything else.
 
Elsie N said:
Meryem, I think this is an important point. The R-1 has held almost its full value for its entire current production run, save for possibly a little loss due to warranty running out or a larger devaluation from people not taking care of their equipment. Part of this was because of RED guaranteeing its trade in value, but mostly I think because no other company could deliver the same output for anywhere near the price of a new R-1.

A lot of people got some really good deals on used R-1s in the frenetic "dash for cash" that occurred just before the cutoff for getting into Stage 2. It took RED Epic to temporarily devalue the R-1 and I think Epic will hold value even better, longer, than the R-1 has.
Click to expand...

I think this devalue is very temporary. This week prices are back up.
 
Matt Gottshalk said:
Maybe in that particular case the RED ISN'T the right tool for the job then.
Click to expand...

That's silly. There is little stopping the Red from being the right tool for ANY job. A prores module is very simple stuff compared to all the rest of what's in the cam.
 
Even as a tool for immediate delivery -- gotta deliver the footage to the producer right after the shoot type jobs. RED usually serves just fine in those jobs since many cameras require some form of transcoding or media duplication or ingestion before editing begins anyway. That's what the RED Rocket is for...

IMNSHO, the only jobs that the RED One is not good for are those where its physical size becomes a liability. Can't wait to get my hands on Scarlet and Epic for that reason, and many, many more.

When someone chooses a camera for a particular job, it should not be only the camera that is considered. It should be the entire workflow under consideration and I think all too often the camera comes first these days. Nearly any camera can fit nearly any job if the right set of workflow practices and tools are used along with it.

As a simplistic example, the RED One would be worthless in an immediate delivery system if the data is being managed on a Macbook Pro with only a FW800 CF reader and a single eSATA drive for offloading when the producer wants to immediately edit in ProRes 422 on FCP6.

On the other hand, the RED One could be the perfect camera for the same job... If the media is being handled properly on a Rocket-equipped Mac Pro with a fast RAID with a good DIT. Transcoded on the fly and offloaded to an eSATA drive for delivery after the shoot.
 
David M, what are you talking about?
 
Charles Angus said:
Depends on your post workflow. Compositing 4k takes 4x the render time, 4x the RAM, 4x the storage, and 4x the storage bandwidth, when compared to 2k.

You only get the benefits of the low data rate of REDCODE RAW if you do the digital equivalent of a contact print - just go straight from editorial to grading. Once you need to alter the image, you're looking at creating uncompressed RGBs and buying into some crazy storage solutions. Or taking a class in being very, very patient.

That said, I totally agree about scaling up vs. down. If handling 4k is not possible in your workflow, it is easy to simply render all your shots to 2k and work with that. It's still nicer to have the clean image of downscaled 4k than having 2k to start with.

It would be great if 4k really was as easy to work with as 2k, but computers (and even more so storage speeds) just aren't there yet.
Click to expand...

Cineform Neo. It's far too pricey but it does the trick and the in-development DPX wrapper will be schnazzy.

What we need is a wavelet codec that is GPU accelerated or very light on the CPU that can act as an intermediate RGB codec that can stand up to multiple generations and is tileable so that renderers can pull only the section of the image they need without loading the entire image into memory.

We need small EXRs.

My current workflow is to immediately render out an uncompressed EXR sequence from the r3d file frame range I need. r3d is far too heavy to be in a comp. The uncompressed is faster even on a 2 disk raid than a full Q debayer without a rocket.

I asked Ted at NAB if RED had any intermediate codec plans and he sort of waffled saying it's a problem they're aware of but had no announcements to make. :D

It's a very important point though that r3d is great if you don't change a single pixel. One power window and you're back to uncompressed. Which is why I shrug when people say that uncompressed 4k is unmanageable. Maybe. But I already am dealing with it. I might as well get uncompressed quality in addition to the data I'm wrangling.
 
David M said:
that's only a bit more than TWICE the resolution of HD.
Four times as many PIXELS maybe, but not four times the resolution!
Click to expand...

You may find yourself rather alone in that thinking. You could say that it's only a bit more than twice the resolution, because you are only multiplying each linear dimension by about 2X.... OTOH, you can display FOUR 1920x1080 images simultaneously and still have pixels left over. Pixels are resolution, 4 simultaneous full HD images. Perhaps I should ask you how this is not four times the resolution of HD?
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
You may find yourself rather alone in that thinking. You could say that it's only a bit more than twice the resolution, because you are only multiplying each linear dimension by about 2X.... OTOH, you can display FOUR 1920x1080 images simultaneously and still have pixels left over. Pixels are resolution, 4 simultaneous full HD images. Perhaps I should ask you how this is not four times the resolution of HD?
Click to expand...

Square mathematics (or whatever it's called in english...) was never easy to understand....
Let alone cubes (most relevant for 3d I guess... :001_tongue: ) or those difficult curves...
 
Gunleik Groven said:
Square mathematics (or whatever it's called in english...) was never easy to understand....
Let alone cubes (most relevant for 3d I guess... :001_tongue: ) or those difficult curves...
Click to expand...

The marketing people understand it very well. Four times sounds so much better than two times. We would not have had a megapixel race if the numbers had been listed in horizontal K pixels like we do here.
 
David M said:
"JVC’s DLA-RS4000 delivers a 10 megapixel image with a native resolution of 4,096 x 2,400—more than four times the resolution of HD"

I know I'm :beatdeadhorse5: here but
that's only a bit more than TWICE the resolution of HD.
Four times as many PIXELS maybe, but not four times the resolution!
Click to expand...

Twice the resolution in EACH axis, for a total of four times overall.

Otherwise how would you characterize a 4096x1080 (i.e - twice the resolution on one axis only) display?

-sc
 
Pascal Scheffers said:
The marketing people understand it very well. Four times sounds so much better than two times. We would not have had a megapixel race if the numbers had been listed in horizontal K pixels like we do here.
Click to expand...

Or we would have had a 28k camera, but it would have been 28.672 x 4 pixel ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top