Man I love the Epic.

[Les Dittert]

TV sets display 3840 x 2160.
Posting 1080p seems silly these days. Post stills at UHD or 4K. It's a 4K camera , let's get with the program folks.

Well if it's shot on an epic, I would like to see more quality. "heavily compressed" is the issue. With a thread title of "Man I love the Epic" I would expect anyone posting to put up pictures in high quality to represent "why they LOVE their epic." The pictures should be awesome, right?

Why can't we see a 1080p slightly compressed image? Most people working with this material on a USER form should have a 1080p+ resolution monitor.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Great texture. Exceptional latitude. Simply my favorite camera ever.

5k at 96. Love it.

Me too!

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

TV sets display 3840 x 2160.
Posting 1080p seems silly these days. Post stills at UHD or 4K. It's a 4K camera , let's get with the program folks.

Except no real audience or potential clients have these TVs, or even computer monitors. These are imaginary viewers, except for maybe you and a few tech freaks.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

This would be a good thing for Red to put into the firmware - since it already offers to switch to the appropriate (best possible) compression for a high framerate, how about offering to switch back to the previously set lower compression when going back to normal framerate (a la relative shutter angle)?

Cheers,

Paul

I would LOVE this - every second on set is $$$ so a few clicks sometimes means a few $$

 

[Roy Rossovich]

nice tip, didnt know this either

Set your shutter to Relative in the menus, then it will adjust automatically coming back down as well.

HTH!

Cheers from Tokyo,

Paul

 

[Björn Benckert]

TV sets display 3840 x 2160.
Posting 1080p seems silly these days. Post stills at UHD or 4K. It's a 4K camera , let's get with the program folks.

Les, What 4k screen are you using and what graphics card? Is there any good way to drive a 4k screen today?

I always post native resolution pictures to show the quality of them. But I have not seen a good solution to run a 4k screen as my working screen/ computer screen. And I do not want 4k I want a 6.4k screen that can show dragon pix 1:1 not cropped. But that will take a while. I think buying into the UHD screens that are out now is a bit like when the first HD screens came, soon to be known as HD ready screens as they only had 1280p or such. My guess is that the 5k and even the 6k screens will hit the market even before this coming fall.

 

[Les Dittert]

Bjorn,

I have the Seiki panels. Driving it with Nvidia 670 and 480.
UHD shows a lot of details. Remember that a UHD monitor has 11520 RG and B pixels across.
Dragon has 6140 .
Different situation, I know, but something to thing about.
Sensor is demosaiced by software. Display is 'de-mosaiced' by your fuzzy eye ball being far enough away !

Mr Ruffo, clients may not have a UHD monitor now, but in this Red user forum, we share images with each other, many times for technical discussions or evaluations.
The 'switch has been flipped' to quote Mr Land. It's a camera that has been crying out for a display to actually view it on. That time is now. And it's cheap as well.
Posting full resolution stills is where the rubber meets the road.



Auto setting compression: Red has had that in firmwares for a while. It always tries to keep the compression at what you set, if it can't due to camera limitations it shows the number in yellow.
I always set it to 3 to 1, to get the best quality the camera is capable of.

Les, What 4k screen are you using and what graphics card? Is there any good way to drive a 4k screen today?

I always post native resolution pictures to show the quality of them. But I have not seen a good solution to run a 4k screen as my working screen/ computer screen. And I do not want 4k I want a 6.4k screen that can show dragon pix 1:1 not cropped. But that will take a while. I think buying into the UHD screens that are out now is a bit like when the first HD screens came, soon to be known as HD ready screens as they only had 1280p or such. My guess is that the 5k and even the 6k screens will hit the market even before this coming fall.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Bjorn,

I have the Seiki panels. Driving it with Nvidia 670 and 480.
UHD shows a lot of details. Remember that a UHD monitor has 11520 RG and B pixels across.
Dragon has 6140 .
Different situation, I know, but something to thing about.
Sensor is demosaiced by software. Display is 'de-mosaiced' by your fuzzy eye ball being far enough away !

Mr Ruffo, clients may not have a UHD monitor now, but in this Red user forum, we share images with each other, many times for technical discussions or evaluations.
The 'switch has been flipped' to quote Mr Land. It's a camera that has been crying out for a display to actually view it on. That time is now. And it's cheap as well.
Posting full resolution stills is where the rubber meets the road.



Auto setting compression: Red has had that in firmwares for a while. It always tries to keep the compression at what you set, if it can't due to camera limitations it shows the number in yellow.
I always set it to 3 to 1, to get the best quality the camera is capable of.

Mr. DIttert, I don;t have a 4K monitor, even though I have a very, very expensive monitor set-up with virtually perfect color, and I am among the most expensive color suites in the city. I don't think Mr Most works with a 4K monitor. The most expensive grading suites in NYC, as of last week, among almost all of them, I saw a single 4K monitor and they weren't using it for color because performance was disappointing in terms of color, and hardly anyone could actually see a resolution difference between that and a 2K monitor, or even a 1080p one.

It really is a matter of 4K having no real audience, even here.

 

[Les Dittert]

Color can be done without a 4k monitor using proxies , absolutely .
But seeing the visual impact of the footage in true 4k\UHD does make a difference. That detailed image, presented all at once without panning around is part of the the presentation.
Are you saying we don't need to see 4k during post ? I'm not sure what to make of this.

My post on this thread was to encourage people to post full resolution stills. It takes no more effort than posting low resolution.
I suppose there are a few out there shooting for web pages and the like. No need for them to bother.
If you can't see the difference between 4k and 2k , you are getting sub optimal sharpness. Might want to post examples to get feedback!

Mr. DIttert, I don;t have a 4K monitor, even though I have a very, very expensive monitor set-up with virtually perfect color, and I am among the most expensive color suites in the city. I don't think Mr Most works with a 4K monitor. The most expensive grading suites in NYC, as of last week, among almost all of them, I saw a single 4K monitor and they weren't using it for color because performance was disappointing in terms of color, and hardly anyone could actually see a resolution difference between that and a 2K monitor, or even a 1080p one.

It really is a matter of 4K having no real audience, even here.

 

[Phil Holland]

I agree with you for the most part Les. I don't mind posting full resolution images, 4K final grabs, or even .R3D test material.

The reality though is I can't even post about 90% of my work. I go through enough hoops to get releases for my reel and site. I've shot on a great deal of things where I actually don't have any of the source frames either. Babies are born they get rushed off to a DIT and I never see them again until a trailer is released. It ends up being the clients material in the end sometimes and that's my personal reality.

I also have some concern for posting 4K stills from any project I own the IP for, more of a copyright/protection thing. One frame doesn't make a movie, short, whatever; but, I want to entice folks to see the good stuff on something proper like say ODEMAX for instance

Don't mind sharing test or demo stuff. Been doing that for a good while. That's all gravy and in bounds.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Color can be done without a 4k monitor using proxies , absolutely .
But seeing the visual impact of the footage in true 4k\UHD does make a difference. That detailed image, presented all at once without panning around is part of the the presentation.
Are you saying we don't need to see 4k during post ? I'm not sure what to make of this.

My post on this thread was to encourage people to post full resolution stills. It takes no more effort than posting low resolution.
I suppose there are a few out there shooting for web pages and the like. No need for them to bother.
If you can't see the difference between 4k and 2k , you are getting sub optimal sharpness. Might want to post examples to get feedback!

yes that is what I am saying - that basically it's almost impossible to see much of a difference over 1080p, what with motion blur, depth of field, filtration etc. I'd rather have awesome color, like from a Dolby monitor (which is 1080p).

Acquisition at high res makes a lot of sense, as does compositing in super high res, but more than 1080p monitors not really. I can always loop into edges to see if they are clean, or whatever - real clients don't care.

Fact is it doesn't really look all that different unless you are pressed against the screen, which is not a comfortable viewing distance for moving images. Good color is much more important. I never use proxies for color (what the?)

 

[Phil Holland]

It really is a matter of 4K having no real audience, even here.

This will be a good quote to look back on.

 

[Les Dittert]

Phil,
Agreed.

Robert does indirectly bring up a point that I should highlight : Much of Red footage shot actually does not make much difference when viewed in 4K, the reason being that it is not 4K to begin with.
Red users must be reminded that shooting with a 4 or 5K camera does not automatically certify that you are making 4K in the end. Reasons are many, focus, vintage lens, OLPF, vibration, filters.

The Dragon upgrade will remedy much of that, and the images on a UHD monitor will be pleasing even to lay people.

This will be a good quote to look back on.

 

[Phil Holland]

At NAB 2013 I don't think I heard anybody sitting at a normal viewing distance from a 4K display saying they couldn' t see the difference from 1080p. In fact it was the exact opposite. There was actually a couch at the Red Booth too.

And more interesting than that, there seemed to be a behavioral effect on groups of people talking when they first approached the 4K displays and within about 20 or 30 seconds of watching any reel in 4K they became quiet with the occasional "whoa" or "wow". That to me told the whole story. I witnessed that over 12 times with random crowds over the first day of NAB. Saw it a few times on day 2, but at that point I focused on other things.

People like the feeling of "looking through a window" and that's going to be the #1 selling point of 4K for years to come.

 

[Tom.Wong]

just being objective here, but the panels at the redbooth were all 85 inch in size or more. and that's where 4k really shines from any normal viewing distance. but generally not a lot of ppl have panels that size. it usually lies within the 50-65 inch range, or even smaller. i'd really like to see a "blind viewing test" with equal size panels calibrated the same and putting your average consumer in front of them at a viewing distance that person is usually at, at home, and see if they can tell the difference. I think that would really propel 4k televisions as a whole if they can prove these real life results.