Keep 720p and 1080p

[REDHKSC]

Intesat ?

do you know the gentleman @ASIASAT ?

4K Satellite Channel is not a bad idea ? Hey Jim, are you with me ?

Mr. Jackson

Cheers,

STEWART

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.

 

[Andy Jackson]

I'd rather have 1080 scaled than 2K - because I'm most likely going to be finishing in 1080. If I'm shooting a cine-style project, it will be 4K without question. For HD industrials, commercials, and the like, a client is going to want an HD format, not 2K. Shooting in scaled 2K (although better than windowed) would mean I still have to take another step of downsizing in post. The resolution difference is so negligible that I really don't see it worth the extra time.

Also, there is great benefit in oversampling between large sizes - say a 4K image to a 1080 one - but much less so between images of similiar size. Try it in Photoshop; going from 10MP to an 800 pixel image for the web looks fantastic, but going from 800 pixels to 750 pixels, not so much. In fact, it works better in powers of 2, where there is a much more solid way to interpolate pixels.

When going from 2k to 1080p, don't downsample... just crop. Of course the other solution would be to just shoot 4k all the time. Unless you need higher framerates, there would be no real advantages to doing otherwise.

 

[Häakon]

When going from 2k to 1080p, don't downsample... just crop.

Could work, except then you're throwing away pixels which negates any resolution improvement you've gained by shooting 2K. Plus, there's no provision for a 2K scaled image right now, so the whole thing is pretty moot.

Of course the other solution would be to just shoot 4k all the time. Unless you need higher framerates, there would be no real advantages to doing otherwise.

Many of us will do this. The problem is that 4K currently maxes out at 30p, which doesn't leave much room for offspeed shooting. It all becomes a question of which part of the equation you're willing to take a hit on - framerates (4K is limited), resolution (1080 is limited), or DOF/FOV (2K is limited). As of right now, there is no one format that will do all three (at least onboard). The RAW element enters the mix as well... although you can shoot higher framerates with the entire sensor in 1080, you're stuck in RGB. Which option you choose is subjective and will probably depend on many factors.

 

[Michael Hastings]

whatever option lets me get 60p from the full sensor

whatever option lets me get 60p from the full sensor

But truth be told, I'll be happy with whatever option lets me get 60p from the full sensor.

amen.

 

[Curran Giddens]

I'd rather have 1080 scaled than 2K - because I'm most likely going to be finishing in 1080. If I'm shooting a cine-style project, it will be 4K without question. For HD industrials, commercials, and the like, a client is going to want an HD format, not 2K. Shooting in scaled 2K (although better than windowed) would mean I still have to take another step of downsizing in post. The resolution difference is so negligible that I really don't see it worth the extra time.

Also, there is great benefit in oversampling between large sizes - say a 4K image to a 1080 one - but much less so between images of similiar size. Try it in Photoshop; going from 10MP to an 800 pixel image for the web looks fantastic, but going from 800 pixels to 750 pixels, not so much. In fact, it works better in powers of 2, where there is a much more solid way to interpolate pixels.

The other problem is that if they nixed the 720 and 1080 RGB options, I highly doubt they'd go back and add a 2K one. But truth be told, I'll be happy with whatever option lets me get 60p from the full sensor.

There is one other point about the scaling of 4k to 1080p:

You can probably get a better quality scaling/demosiacing in Redcine then in-camera. I think there will be different settings....

 

[Häakon]

You can probably get a better quality scaling/demosiacing in Redcine then in-camera. I think there will be different settings....

That's a very good point, and I've thought about that too. We don't know what the in-camera options are going to look like at this point (and RGB isn't even going to be enabled right off the bat as it is, right?). I just don't want to lose my framerates... but maybe I'm just fighting a losing battle. Believe me, I *love* the RAW workflow and 4K is the cat's meow. I just do too much work where offspeed shooting is important to me (music videos, largely, but not exclusively). I don't need anything crazy - 60p is just fine - but to stop at 30 leaves a little for me to be desired. And at this point I still think I'd rather scale than window, but that's just me...

I think I've beaten this one to death and I've explained the process enough times... I will take a step back and see how things play out. I know that Jim & Co. are listening, so hopefully in the end we will get the best featureset that they see possible. I really have no reason to doubt them at this point in the game.

 

[Simon Dunne]

Jim, Guys, Gals and others,

I've been trying to keep up with the developments over the past week, but there are just too many threads and posts to read and keep up with, but i've done my best. Here is my take on the whole situation.

Jim wanted to and has, so far, created the camera of his dreams. A digital camera that can record in almost any format you desire. Also, the camera is priced so that is available to so many more people than is generally possible by other companies. This camera is the Red ONE.

I found out about this camera about a year ago and have been following the progress since. I'm looking to shoot 1080@50p. The great thing about this camera though, is that if required, i could also shoot 720p, 2k or even 4k!! This is a great bonus to me, as a; i'd never thought i'd have been able to shoot 2k or 4k and b; i just wouldn't have been able to afford too. This camera changes all of this.

Alot of the talk recently has been of higher frame rates. To have a camera that does everthing would be great, but you can't expect the earth, yet! When shooting F1 a few years ago, we'd have 8 cameras. 7 digis and 1 Sony MAV superslowmo. The reason for having the MAV is because it is specifically for Slow Motion and generally dealing with higher frame rates.

Personally, i think that the spec of the camera is perfect at the moment. Why not get this one out on the market and start working on the Red TWO. This could be the version of the red that is amazing at high frame rates??

I think it's too late in the day to start changing things now. If you got rid of 720 and 1080, you'll have lost a customer. Ok, there is the Sony range and others but for price and quality, i feel the Red is going to kick ass and do everything i, and others, need it too do.

Also this camera can be used for live studio too. You can set it to 1080 and take the HD-SDI output and hey presto, you have your own HD channel!!

Just some thoughts i had, Si

 

[Jeff Tanner]

I've read all of the posts about keeping 720/1080...well most of them anyway :wink:

Even after reading the opinions of those who want to keep these formats as part of the RED, I still don't see a reason that makes much sense. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a client years ago about aquisition formats. This client could not understand why shooting a commercial on 35mm would produce "better" results than shooting on BetaSP because in his mind since the spot aired NTSC/525i, shooting with any higher resolution was a waste. He could not grasp the fact that everything done after aquisition degraded the image so it was critical to have the most resolution, information, dynamic range, etc. as possible to begin with.

This same theory applies to the RED. Sure the footage is now digital instead of film, and sure the image holds up better as transferred digital files instead of telecine transfers to tape but the lessons are the same. Why record on an inferior format (and 720/1080 are inferior to 4K/2K. That's what makes RED special. If 720 or 1080 were as good as 2K or 4K, what would be the need for a RED camera)? There are plenty of other cameras out there on the market today that will give you 720/1080 so why insist on having the RED camera do it? I don't hear people asking Panasonic to make the varicam record NTSC because the final product that they're shooting will air as an SD show. That just doesn't make sense. People shoot with Varicam's because they offer better images in 720P and what happens downstream in post is another issue altogether.

This camera's greatest technical advancement is the ability to record 4K straight to drives. That is why this camera system is making waves. If you want 720 or 1080, output that way. Shoot 4K and whatever you want to do in post will be the better for it.

Respectfully,

Jeff Tanner

 

[Gbabymogul]

Even after reading the opinions of those who want to keep these formats as part of the RED, I still don't see a reason...

Respectfully,

Jeff Tanner

Let's say that you want the easiest most feasible way to shoot, edit and finish 1080p within a budget. You'll be able to have an easier time with focus, preview your final image on set and/or back at a mini-studio (with a 1080p projector) and it leaves room for clients who don't want RAW footage (still don't know how close the proxies will be to the final image). What shooting RAW does is force many clients and indies into a film type workflow, while in itself is fine, it sort of obviates some of the benefits of shooting digital in the first place. If you're on a limited budget with a small allocation for reshoots (don't forget some locations and scenes have to be verified on the day) then having a focus, color, artifact etc.. check on set or at least post day dailies is more cost effective then some perceived great benefit of extra resolution. In a way it comes down to workflow versus resolution.

IF Jim and Graeme can come up with scaled 2K RAW fps and the windowed option then
it might be worthwhile, but their are valid workflow reasons why 1080p is still needed in todays production environment.

Anyway, there will be those that lose business if 1080p isn't included in the camera, at least at the start, until the client, small crew, render time, preview questions are answered.

Theoretics is great but just wait until you can't confirm that your footage is good because of overnight or longer render times because your proxie didn't show focus/color shift at the dailies stage, AND your actor is flying to London for another shoot AND your location permits can't be renewed until so and so date etc...Sometimes you only have one take to get it, whether it be in a single cam (no fp) on a sports event, or a flick without reshoots.

I realize i'm in the minority here so i'll let Jim and Co. answer and decide. For me, i'm leaning towards the scaled 2K IF it can be done perfectly and i won't have to wait months to get it in an update:construction: That doesn't mean i don't see good reasons for the original specs

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm not really sure why shooting RAW would be a problem. The way I understood it is you can still load color looks or LUTs into the camera to control output over HDMI and SDI as well as the LCD and EVF. This LUT can also be applied directly to the RAW footage in post without the need to do any cc if you don't want.

Transcodes to RGB should go pretty quick.. Demosaic shouldn't be that demanding on newer systems, same with scaling of the image if necessary. And both should be accelerated by the GPU within REDCINE, possibly within the REDCODE codec itself for proxy display.

All that said, if 1080p scaled RGB can still fit in the camera without sacrificing any of the features mentioned in the "What we CAN do" thread, then I'm all for it.

 

[Gbabymogul]

I'm not really sure why shooting RAW would be a problem. The way I understood it is you can still load color looks or LUTs into the camera to control output over HDMI and SDI as well as the LCD and EVF. This LUT can also be applied directly to the RAW footage in post without the need to do any cc if you don't want.

Transcodes to RGB should go pretty quick.. Demosaic shouldn't be that demanding on newer systems, same with scaling of the image if necessary. And both should be accelerated by the GPU within REDCINE, possibly within the REDCODE codec itself for proxy display.

All that said, if 1080p scaled RGB can still fit in the camera without sacrificing any of the features mentioned in the "What we CAN do" thread, then I'm all for it.

Seeing the dailies (aside from the other plus') is what it's about. If render times are super fast, then the only other question is the perceived benefits of focusing in 2K vs. 1080. There are challenges that can be addressed, like previewing LUTs with clients in preproduction (and charging more for a 1 light). But, the focus benefits in certain situations for 1080p and the preview issue (for certain budgets like those that can't afford a home 2K projector) are format predicated...

I'd probably be aaight with 2K only, but there are questions. What render times? How high quality are the proxies? Will the focus assist and RED tech allow for single person cam in 2K ? If not maybe keeping 1080p as an option is better ?

 

[Adrian T.]

If the customer is not ready to pay for the transcode to 1080P and whatnot then the RED ONE is the wrong camera for the project. Use any other 1080P camera in tight budget situations.

It's "RED DIGITAL CINEMA" and not "RED DIGITAL TV" :innocent:

EDIT - By the way, if you know you will transcode to 1080P you don't need to focus for 2K. So there's no real difference here.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Good points. As far as focus, I think the difference between 2K and 1080p will be negligible (12% more pixels in 2K).

I too am definitely interested in the quality of REDCODE proxies and what sort of control we'll have over them.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Will the focus assist and RED tech allow for single person cam in 2K ? If not maybe keeping 1080p as an option is better ?

Focusing will be the same in either 2K or 1080P in the context that your AC will have his or her marks, and if they hit them, good, if not, let's have another take on the slate please.

Also, I doubt we'll have a 2K set monitoring option anytime soon, at an affordable cost anyway, so we'll be limited to 1080P monitoring anyway.

 

[Gbabymogul]

If the customer is not ready to pay for the transcode to 1080P and whatnot then the RED ONE is the wrong camera for the project. Use any other 1080P camera in tight budget situations.

It's "RED DIGITAL CINEMA" and not "RED DIGITAL TV" :innocent:

There are two situations - client and indie feature. My above posts were mostly for the small crew indie producer where focus, dailies and verification believe it or not are more important than 1080p vs. 2K resolution.

For clients, transcoding does not equal delivering final format. It merely is a preview of the final format. Depending on the project a small crew may be just delivering footage. It's a misapprehension to think that all projects will be shot, edited, mixed and then delivered in final format to the client.

How many here have talked to some production houses (especially advertising) to see if they want you processing their RAW footage instead of their established partners? You might be surprised. Eventually, it'll be adopted everywhere but for now? 1080p.

 

[Gbabymogul]

Focusing will be the same in either 2K or 1080P in the context that your AC will have his or her marks, and if they hit them, good, if not, let's have another take on the slate please.

Also, I doubt we'll have a 2K set monitoring option anytime soon, at an affordable cost anyway, so we'll be limited to 1080P monitoring anyway.

Hahaha. I knew i'd open a whole debate on DOF and focus... I won't get into it too much but i'm talking about perceived focus/DOF. It's a debateable topic but people i've talked to mentioned that the images show more than the technical specs, that 1080p is (format wise) perceptibly easier to focus, especially when matching FOV to 2K, and that the resolution does give you more room for manouevering (with regards to composing for the big screen and audience perception) in post. Anyway, the advantage of the softer resolution (and format DOF's) is what i'm talking about.

And viewing the format that the final image will be shown on, on the day, is what we've all be wanting. With 1080p projectors, seeing exactly what you've shot (not a proxie) is possible. 2K projectors/dailies are commonplace on larger films.
I just think the rush to lose 1080p needed some balance.

Btw Alexander, what if there is no focus puller? Or do you think that even at 1080p you'd need one? I hope it'll be possible to use this cam without a fp

 

[Adrian T.]

Graeme to the rescue! :help:

What about a cropping 1080P proxy based on 2K and 4K files? This shouldn't be too hard to implement. :nerd:

 

[Häakon]

Btw Alexander, what if there is no focus puller? Or do you think that even at 1080p you'd need one? I hope it'll be possible to use this cam without a fp

The resolution you're shooting at isn't the issue, it's your sensor size and lenses. The 1080 format is scaled from the full 35mm sensor, so it brings with it the exact same DOF challenges that shooting in 4K does. You will actually have an easier time focusing with windowed 2K than in scaled 1080. In either case, however, critical focus will be far more significant than shooting a 1/3" or even 2/3" chip camera. With great power comes great responsibility...

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Btw Alexander, what if there is no focus puller? Or do you think that even at 1080p you'd need one? I hope it'll be possible to use this cam without a fp

You will undoubtedly need a focus puller.

Try grabbing an old Nikon 35mm slr, point it at an object outside, and walk forward toward it while pulling focus....all soft eh?

Shooting with a 35mm dof brings on the NEED for a dedicated focus puller.

If you're worried about focus pulling and a shallow dof, you'll either have to shoot with 35mm or lower lenses, or shoot in 2K windowed mode which will give you the dof of S16mm....much more forgiving on marks.

 

[Gbabymogul]

The resolution you're shooting at isn't the issue, it's your sensor size and lenses. The 1080 format is scaled from the full 35mm sensor, so it brings with it the exact same DOF challenges that shooting in 4K does. You will actually have an easier time focusing with windowed 2K than in scaled 1080. In either case, however, critical focus will be far more significant than shooting a 1/3" or even 2/3" chip camera. With great power comes great responsibility...

This is something i've been wondering about. Equivalent FOV and perceived DOF. So you're saying that the full format 4K focus challenge will be the same as the scaled 1080p one ? You're reducing the 35mm frame to a less than 16mm one, so wouldn't that give you a better DOF if comparing the exact same FOV of as 4K vs. 1080p?

hmmm