Maybe it's best to consider RED a 2K camera?

[Craig Ryan]

Why are you pretty sure that these are stills pulled from the disk? Nowhere in the review does it states this. These look like production stills...taken with a digital camera.

I agree they do look like production stills; but there is also a grab of the CGI character Davey Jones, which in theory could be just a high res still...but its definitely not a production still which keeps my hopes up. I also recognize those shots from the movie too...though I am still skeptical.

EDIT: I'm starting to lean towards Production stills with the exception of the CGI one...btw sorry for hjing the thread.

EDIT: Okay I THINK I figured it out; maybe only the grabs with the copyright for Buena Vista are grabs from the film. So the ones I posted were indeed production stills; sorry folks. Wishful thinking I guess...but the ones that could be real grabs are still incredible if you want to check them out:
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=386

 

[Dylan Reeve]

I think the noise is irrelevant really. We never see an image close enough to see that level of detail.

To my eye the noise in RED 4K looks very 'natural' to me, not at all digital. It looks like grain, only not as obviously grainy as much of the 35mm I've seen (and I've never actually seen a 4K 35m scan, only 2K).

Yes, at a pixel level there is noise, but that is true of everything... Obviously oversampling reduces the visible effects of this, but is it necessary?

 

[stats79]

Okay I figured it out; only the grabs with the copyright for Buena Vista are grabs from the film. So the ones I posted were indeed porduction stills; sorry folks. Wishful thinking I guess...but the ones that are real grabs are still incredible if you want to check them out:

The actual screen grabs are grainy as hell and not particularly sharp. Wondering if pulled from disk or actual print of film. If from actual film, this gives you some idea of the current state of 4k technology.

 

[John V]

ahhh has anyone actually watched Crossing the line in 4k?

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

ahhh has anyone actually watched Crossing the line in 4k?

Yes, at NAB and it was absolutely beautiful. Like nothing I've ever seen before on film nor digital.

The words I would use to best describe the images from Crossing......

RED 4K.

:sarcasm:

 

[Craig Ryan]

...RED 4k + Peter Jackson and his post house.

 

[Uli Plank]

I think you are right. I have seen 4K projected at "Hands on HD" and it was like looking through a clean glass window onto a stage, kind of surreal (or should I say suprerreal?).

But even most of Hollywood movies end up in theaters where you wouldn't be able to tell if they came from a 4K or 2K DI.

Given the new accessability of a serious tool for Indies with RED, I couln't care less. When I started, most of my projects were shot on 16mm …

Having 35mm aesthetics from the RED sensor in 4K and an affordable, very intelligently planned workflow in 2K with gear as affordable as the camera itself insted of massive investments into storage and CPU power is nothing short of fantastic for now.

If RED will have the success it deserves,I don't doubt we'll get 8K once it's really needed for theaters around the globe.

Regards,

Uli

 

[Uli Plank]

Plus, may I put the question:
Which glass for cine is up to an 8K sensor by now?

Uli

 

[Phil D]

Personally I don't see the need to go beyond 4k for moving image acquisition. Hell, we have only just got here, why race off to ever higher resolutions. Lets just enjoy this view for a while, and let the rest of the world catchup!

Lets face it, release prints are going to be with us for a few more years yet. Cinema chains have dragged their collective feet about buying new digital projectors, and if its taken them the best part of a decade to start investing in 2K projectors, are they about to throw them out and replace them with the latest 4K ones any time soon?

 

[Phil D]

I think the noise is irrelevant really. We never see an image close enough to see that level of detail.

I agree.

If the story is good, the acting is fine, and the direction competent, are you really going to leave the theatre mid film because you saw noise in the shadows.

Film grain certainly never stopped anyone from buying a movie ticket.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I agree.

If the story is good, the acting is fine, and the direction competent, are you really going to leave the theatre mid film because you saw noise in the shadows.

Film grain certainly never stopped anyone from buying a movie ticket.

Here! Here! Do you kick Angelina Jolie out of your Vegas fantasy penthouse because you could see her freckles?

Where is this perfection that 35mm film is supposed to have? One of the big studio release prints I saw in a multiplex over the holidays was horribly scratched and the density was out of whack from one reel to the next and chemical staining at the tail-end of one of the reels. This particular film was an egregious example, but I see this type of thing all the time.

When it comes to threading film through a projector, they can't carve the headstone for the grave fast enough to suit me, I'd be happy with 1K projection as long as its digital.

 

[Bang WOW Bang]

I have to admit that other 4K camera is better than RED in term of
" Strobings ", 4K in 24 and 25fps and heavily compressed raw format need some improvements in now and future.

I watched both 4K images ( 60 foot cinema screen ) at IDIFF 2008 in Paris 3 weeks ago, and forget the Indies market.

Some Big studios are no doubt to go for their better 4K camera. Making is believing.

Cheers,

BWB
HKG -CHINA / Thailand

I've been thinking for a while now, in my own mind, that RED is essentially an awesome 2K cinema camera on par with cameras like Genesis, Arri's D20, etc, with the added bonus of RAW, simple portable capture like CF and Red Drive, and a price tag that rapes the competition.

But let's talk about 4K vs 2K.

Based on what we know about CMOS sensors in DLSR cameras, IMO, there is no way 4K moving images based on a 4K sensor are going to hold up pixel for pixel displayed at full res, especially in low light. Not even top-end DLSR sensors that are larger than RED's will hold up pixel for pixel, unless there is a ton of light and the thing is exposed perfectly, and maybe not even then. Most 8-16 megapixel cameras hold up best at 2K, IMO.

Let me give an example. Here is a low- to medium-light image taken with a top-of-the-line, 16-megapixel (4992 x 3328) Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II. (Original image from DPreview here.)

When you look at the image full res, pixel for pixel, it simply does not hold up. There is way too much noise.

However, once you downsample it (basic photoshop bicubic) by 100% (say, from 4K to 2K) all of a sudden, the image holds up rather nicely.

My point is, we might want to start thinking of this camera in terms of 2K as a final master. In that sense, it holds up marvelously. As others have said, if it's good enough for George Lucas, it's good enough for now.

Thinking ahead, I can't help but wonder how awesome it might be to have a 6- or 8k sensor pumping out 4K, or perhaps a 6- or 8K sensor with a chip size similar to a 65mm negative.

 

[mezmo]

I'll have film grain over digital noise anyday.
In some underexposed shots digital noise looks like dog's vomit.
Talk up digital as much as you want guys but film definitly has an edge
here, especially in low key tungsten balanced situations.
Vive la film.
Mezmo.

 

[Aiden Cornwell]

I am 100% convinced that 4K will replace 1080p as the gold standard in the next decade or so, probably faster than most people think. Video games will drive it, because people will be stoked to play PC games at 3K or 4K on their 4K LCDs, and we all know that 4K monitors are already on the way.

The problem is, most of the movies and content made in the last 100 years will not hold up at 4K, so it will be a new medium dominated by movies and content that were acquired somewhat recently.

Having said that, I think 4K will be the gold standard in about 5-10 years.

Maybe in the gaming and movie world but not in sat/cable relm. Currently they can't even do 1080p. On top of that the HD they offer is compressed to hell and although it looks far better then SD it is not great. While this will improve and even as providers start to do more fiber to the prem they will still be dictating how much of that bandwidth you get access to.

I work for a IPTV company as my day job and the trend is to compress the crap out of the signal in order to get more stb's into homes not provide a better quality picture.

 

[Ace]

I think a 4K projected picture will still look better than a 2k projected picture. Pixel for Pixel. If you're comparing a 4K image to a 4K still, you'd be mistaken. Your brain processes moving images quite differently to a still image. You should be comparing it to a much higher resolution image as you are displaying many consecutive frames in one second, delivering probably 10 times the detail than a still photograph would; due to the song and dance of grain, compression, camera movement, object movement etc.

I know what you mean though that the image looks better downscaled. I just don't think thats how it plays out when projected at the theater. Perhaps more so for screen delivery.

 

[Andrew M.]

maybe i'm having a senior moment ..
but how are the 3 images related ?
1) 4 k image
2) a 1-1 pixel section of image 1 - showing some noise
3) a downscaled image 1 to 2k - that you are stating is better then image 1 or 2 ? or both ?

shouldn't there now be another image from #3 blown up to the same sample as image 2 ? as it may have to be that size on the big screen ?

i agree the 4k looks very good ..
the 2k looks very good ..
but if you are saying that the 2k scaled will look better/same on a 40ft wide screen then the 4k image - dahhhhhhhh senior minutes here ...
kind of reminds me of those that shot 35mm - went to 16mm and are now telling me the 16mm blown back up to 35mm looks the same as the orginal 35mm ... i don't buy it ... i would buy that the 35mm down to 16 looks better then if it was shot on 16mm ... but then maybe i missing your point here ..gotta get some sleep ...

on 2nd thought - shouldn't images 1 & 3 be the same size to really compare ?

First of all I see we are mixing Ks with MPs with horizontal resolution etc.

RED 4K at 2:1 (let’s stay with this form factor for now) is 8MP and it is 8MP CMOS Bayer

So we need to compare it with 8MP DSLR not the 16MP one.

Second we need to take under account that digital cinema is coming so we will be watching final material on the digital screens. Digital screens are RGB pixel type not Bayer one.

Actually this is interesting observation, maybe large screens will look much better in the Bayer GRGB pixel format then RGB? There will not be much less conversion since for color editing and other post we have to convert to basic colors anyway.

3 sensors cameras looks like have advantage over single Bayer one but it is true only for low pixel count ones. Disadvantage of using prism for such sensors removes all advantages.

Asking the question if RED is really 4K camera is like asking if Canon D30 is 4K DLSR
Yes it is 8MP Bayer sensor camera for 4K 2:1 format and 9MP for 4K 16:9 format with not oversampled 4K capability. In spite that it is not oversampled 4K it delivers 4096 unique samples per each horizontal line of 2:1 or 16:9 format.

Now saying that we have 4K camera using 24MP Bayer sensor is like upgrading from Canon D30 to Canon 1Ds Mark III

Will 4K 3CCD sensor camera that is even not using RGB shifting perform better, I doubt it, prism and alignment problems will destroy everything, also lenses for prism based cameras are differently optimized then for single plain film or sensor camera.

 

[Karl H]

One thing I've noticed from early tests is that in motion the percieved resolution drops off to a point where you can't really tell between 2K and 4K. That's to say unless you have a pristinely focused image that does not move you won't be able tell the difference IMHO.

We often on Reduser scrutinise still images from Red like they are from a DSLR, but in most situations a movie is not seen like this, either the point of interest moves or the camera moves. I've been extracting frames from our test and it's really hard to find one that shows off the true resolution, simply because everything is moving at 1/50th shutter.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

So Red doesn't hold up "pixel for pixel" at 4k...who cares? The intended display for that much data is theatrical, so by very nature no one can see it that close.

If in a few years they develop 4k home displays at a price point people can afford, even then people will be 10ft back from the display and unable to make out single pixels. For no other reason than the 35mm glass, I hope we stay at this size for a long time. It was good for a hundred years, I think it can keep going. If you want more, then let there be a 6k sensor in the same size (smaller pixels) and downressing to 4k.

 

[Tracey Dunn]

Tom,
Just curious,
Was that picture of a Matilda shot at the Imperial War Museum, or
somewhere else?
T.

 

[Stephen Webb]

"Is it really 4K" seems a fairly nonsensical debate as far as I can see. What does "4K" actually mean anyway? Why is it important? Why should it be measured in x way and not y way? There was a very intelligent suggestion a while back by someone that maybe we should come up with a new standard that actually means something and apply that instead.

As I see it the only argument that makes much sense at the moment is relative comparison.

e.g. "Does it produce a more detailed image than the Panavision Genesis?" "Yes it does. And it's a load cheaper to hire. And it has a much cheaper workflow. And you have much greater control over the image."

That kind of argument tends to hold up well, stops you getting into a debate about "is it really 4K" and quantifies the issue in a way that people tend to understand!