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 :)

Keep 720p and 1080p

I

Intelsat

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I feel that it is important to understand that this camera can replace almost all video and motion picture cameras. Don't think for a second that this camera will only be used for digital cinema. We can't even imagine all the ways this camera will be used. It's a beautiful thing. How will this camera fit into existing productions standards? It should support standards for video, 720p and 1080p and for film, 2k and 4k. If we are being honest with ourselves we can all see times when 720p would be the best match for a client while for another client, 4k would be the best match. Any additional rendering slows down the process and creates potential confusion for the client. We have always had choices in the past (DigiBeta, HD, 16mm or 35mm), lets keep them in the future as well, but this time all in one camera!.


I've ordered two Red ones and a friend of mine has ordered one Red camera based on this pragmatic model.
 
"FPGA space... imagine what we are giving compared to the competition. Think of the box size. Just think about it for a moment. There is a limit to what we can do. I know that seems an impossible concept since we are offering so much, but trust me... there is a limit.

Jim"

"We don't have to change anything... it was just a thought. But we don't have the space to do everything. We can leave the spec as it is OR we can get creative at the last minute. I don't really care either way. I'll shoot 4K at 24fps to CF or either 720P @ 120fps or 2K at 96fps to CF. My personal preference is 2K @ 96fps, but I'm just one customer. If the majority wants 720P @ 120fps... that's what we'll do. We can't do both. In hindsight, we would have put in a bigger FPGA (not available when we started) but then the price of the camera would be $4K more expensive. Choices... choices.

Jim"

Due to the reasons Jim stated above, there isn't enough room to have all the options.
 
Intelsat said:
I've ordered two Red ones and a friend of mine has ordered one Red camera based on this pragmatic model.
Click to expand...
I hope Jim may have the same feeling. RED should be the 1st democratic digital cinema camera of the history. This will actually be truly revolutionary.

Granted this, no worries. As it has been said, you can guarantee whatever you want via REDCINE.
 
I don't really see a need for 720p and 1080 - as long as downconverting REDCODE to HD formats doesn't take too long.

Shooting 720p on RED is like shooting 8mm through a 35mm camera...
 
well they are called...

well they are called...

If am missing something correct me but, should we not all expect the best Digital Cinema camera?

After all they do call themselves "Red Digital Cinema Company"

Should anyone be surprised that the camera only support Digital Cinema formats and do the best it can at those formats.

Digital cinema formats start, to my understanding at 2K.

It makes perfect sense for Red to scrap anything sub par to Digital Cinema.

if you want less do it in post, it'll look better any way.

Just my 2 cents, I could be wrong but I am sticking to it.
 
Stephen Gentle said:
I don't really see a need for 720p and 1080 - as long as downconverting REDCODE to HD formats doesn't take too long.

Shooting 720p on RED is like shooting 8mm through a 35mm camera...
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's what I think too. First and foremost it's a d-cinema camera, I think that should come first. As everyone has pointed out all the HD formats can be derived through REDCine.

Unless there can be two RED One models to choose from, one biased towards broadcast and the other toward d-cinema, then I don't think we are going to reach a conclusion on this one.

There are plenty of good broadcast HD cameras out there, and those wanting to only use the windowed sensor and output 720 or 1080 might as well have a 2/3" sensor on a Sony.

However, if I was them, I'd still buy RED, shoot 4K or 2K and get my HD afterwards.

Otherwise, I think they should just leave the camera as is when everyone made reservations.
 
If Time is money then record through the HD-SDI port to a HD Deck might be the best optioin. You still have the adventage of 35mm DOF (if you want, or 16mm DOF if you choose so), sensitivity of the RED camera, etc... and you have a tape with standard HD codec/format straight at the end of the shooting.

However we definitely need more infos on rendering time in REDCINE...

antoine.
 
The breaking point stays like this: if conversion times for 2K & 4K are acceptable (near realtime or faster), it'll be ok to kick all intermediate formats. Then it's like shooting in 35mm an doing the telecine into the required formats afterwards.
 
Guys, the HD resolutions are RGB. Based on info we've been given, the space savings over 4K Redcode Raw are negligible. The final delivery format for your client is immaterial, unless you're delivering un-color-corrected, cuts-only Redcode QuickTime or AVI files on a hard drive.

"How will this camera fit into existing productions standards? It should support standards for video, 720p and 1080p and for film, 2k and 4k...we can all see times when 720p would be the best match for a client while for another client, 4k would be the best match."

I disagree with this kind of reasoning. When JVC introduced HDV at a data rate of 19 measly megabits, using tape stock and tape speed that was proven to handle 25 percent more, I asked their rep at NAB what the hell they were thinking. "Well," huffed the rep defensively, "that's the broadcast HD standard!"

Are you kidding me? First of all, who is going direct to air from an HDV camera? If you make one edit that doesn't fall on a GOP boundary (which is 83 percent likely), you have to recompress anyway, so there goes your camera original. Second, anybody airing anything is going to add captions, their annoying "bug" logo in the corner, whatever. Again, recompression. Third, few broadcasters are actually delivering anywhere near the full 19 mbps. Again, recompression. The relationship of the original recording's format to the final broadcast's is essentially zero after just one step of post production (with frame rate and interlace as the only exceptions I can think of).

Compromising quality or sacrificing camera features for end-users' viewing technology is a bad idea. This is like saying musicians in the '80s should have gone into the studio and recorded on cassette tape, because that's what most listeners were going to be listening to.

If the HD resolutions on the Red offered considerable storage savings and they downscaled the 35mm FOV, then they'd be worthwhile. Otherwise, they're just another operation that clearly doesn't belong in the camera. You're going to be transcoding with Redcine or something else in just about any realistic scenario, so not a single byte of code in the camera itself should be dedicated to operations that you can do then.
 
Stokestack, I largely agree with your point of view for the most part, but currently the only way to get 60p from the entire sensor is with overscaled 1080p RGB. It may not be a huge data savings, even, but just to have that option there is going to make a difference for many people. Without the 1080 option, the best you can get from the 35mm DOF/FOV combination is 30p - and that's not a lot of flexibility compared to what else is already out there.
 
Hey Häak, my friend, how long... How are you?

I've read and paid attention to your post(s) as usual. I couldn't understand yet why isn't 2K@60fps -- 48fps range possible?
Being the step so short: 6.6% if compared with 1080p.

E.
 
Stokestack said:
If the HD resolutions on the Red offered considerable storage savings and they downscaled the 35mm FOV, then they'd be worthwhile. Otherwise, they're just another operation that clearly doesn't belong in the camera. You're going to be transcoding with Redcine or something else in just about any realistic scenario, so not a single byte of code in the camera itself should be dedicated to operations that you can do then.
Click to expand...

When I give product to broadcast networks like ESPN (who are 720P), they will not want anything other than the footage in 720P. If I can give them a hard drive (which in itself will be tough) that is material already in 720P, the whole digital scenario may fly. That is a realistic scenario. If they have to do anything more than just plug the HD in and use the data as is...I might as well just use a Varicam.

Broadcast clients want what they want. They don't want to start messing with down-resing, especially with time sensetive material.

I think to not include the HD video formats in the camera may be a mistake for the crossover clientelle the EFP people on this board work with. I've been pushing this camera at many of my clients with the claim they can get their material on site as they want it. Without the HD video options, it changes that claim and possibly hurts the bottom line in that they will still want it now...as in tape.

BTW, I can't just walk away from these clients. This is how many of us make the donuts.
 
Emanuel said:
Hey Häak, my friend, how long... How are you?

I've read and paid attention to your post(s) as usual. I couldn't understand yet why isn't 2K@60fps -- 48fps range possible?
Being the step so short: 6.6% if compared with 1080p.

E.
Click to expand...
Well 2K at 48-60p is possible, but 2K is windowed only. 1080p is scaled. That's the primary difference - I don't want to lose 60p from the full sensor onboard. 96fps is definitely cool, but unfortunately it's only possible with 16mm lenses, DOF, and FOV. It's not a compromise I'm personally willing to make (though I realize there are plenty of applications where that would be more than acceptable, and there are many people who would take advantage of those applications). That's why I don't favor eliminating options - especially 1080p - because it's the only place to get *full sensor* 60p onboard.

At least for now... :)
 
What ever happened to the "Not ready for 4K? Dial it back. All the way down to 1080i and 720p." that was on red.com?
 
Häakon said:
That's why I don't favor eliminating options - especially 1080p - because it's the only place to get *full sensor* 60p onboard.

At least for now... :)
Click to expand...
Yep !
 
Omnius said:
Though I don't think they meant "1080i", I think they meant "1080p".
Click to expand...

I think 1080i was in the specs a long time ago, but it got axed early on. Good thing, too. Interlacing is evil.
 
Stokestack said:
Guys, the HD resolutions are RGB. Based on info we've been given, the space savings over 4K Redcode Raw are negligible. The final delivery format for your client is immaterial, unless you're delivering un-color-corrected, cuts-only Redcode QuickTime or AVI files on a hard drive.

"How will this camera fit into existing productions standards? It should support standards for video, 720p and 1080p and for film, 2k and 4k...we can all see times when 720p would be the best match for a client while for another client, 4k would be the best match."

I disagree with this kind of reasoning. When JVC introduced HDV at a data rate of 19 measly megabits, using tape stock and tape speed that was proven to handle 25 percent more, I asked their rep at NAB what the hell they were thinking. "Well," huffed the rep defensively, "that's the broadcast HD standard!"

Are you kidding me? First of all, who is going direct to air from an HDV camera? If you make one edit that doesn't fall on a GOP boundary (which is 83 percent likely), you have to recompress anyway, so there goes your camera original. Second, anybody airing anything is going to add captions, their annoying "bug" logo in the corner, whatever. Again, recompression. Third, few broadcasters are actually delivering anywhere near the full 19 mbps. Again, recompression. The relationship of the original recording's format to the final broadcast's is essentially zero after just one step of post production (with frame rate and interlace as the only exceptions I can think of).

Compromising quality or sacrificing camera features for end-users' viewing technology is a bad idea. This is like saying musicians in the '80s should have gone into the studio and recorded on cassette tape, because that's what most listeners were going to be listening to.

If the HD resolutions on the Red offered considerable storage savings and they downscaled the 35mm FOV, then they'd be worthwhile. Otherwise, they're just another operation that clearly doesn't belong in the camera. You're going to be transcoding with Redcine or something else in just about any realistic scenario, so not a single byte of code in the camera itself should be dedicated to operations that you can do then.
Click to expand...

This post deserves to be read twice.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top