Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

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

And is a 2k camera really a 2k camera? Is a 1080p camera really a 1080p camera? Measure and find out. Don't forget to check for aliasing at the highest detail to see how much is real and how much false! Keep and eye out for mis-alignment of the RGB channels (sometimes deliberate - pixel shift) as that doesn't work in 4:4:4.

And also remember the perfect upscale filter doesn't exist, and neither does the perfect downscale filter (unfortunately). All have compromises.

Also remember that at IBC on the 60ft screen, Jim and I had to stand practically on the stage to see what the individual pixels were doing and spot the odd dead one on Frankie. From a proper seating position, even at the very front, you couldn't see them - just a lovely picture. The debayer is 10 times better now. We can expose properly now, not guess. We can process to a much higher quality.

Graeme
 
Stephen Webb said:
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!
Click to expand...

I think that's what the F23 guys argue. They think they are giving more resolution at a wider latitude even though it's 1080P. It's $250k 2/3" 1080P - but from all accounts I've heard they are outdoing RED on latitude. But does the F23 aesthetic beat RED? Well, that's for everyone to decide on their own. The fact that RED is even in the running at 1/10th the money is impressive enough for me.
 
The issue here is what's being defined as "at 100%". In these sorts of discussions, it's generally defined as viewing an image pixel-for-pixel from a distance sufficiently close that one can resolve individual pixels.

The problem with this is that people aren't doing it on 4K screens. They're doing it on, typically, HD screens. If you do the same thing on a 4K screen, either the pixels are going to be about 1/4 of the size, or the screen is going to be about 4x the size (causing you to probably step back a couple of feet), or some combination of the two. In other words, you'd almost never view a 4K display from so close you could resolve every pixel. So whether an image holds up pixel-for-pixel at 4K is largely meaningless.

Should Red be considered a 2K camera? The answer to that is easy. No. Due to the need for an optical low-pass filter, any 2K camera -- even a three-chip design -- will actually resolve somewhat less than 2K (2048x1152 at 16:9). Testing over on CML suggests Red might resolve something like 1800 vertical lines, shooting 16:9. So, even if it doesn't quite have the resolution to generate a 4K image that holds up pixel-for-pixel, it's still a 3K+ camera, not a 2K camera. And if you view its 4K image on a 4K display, you should see quite a bit more resolution than you would viewing a 2K image on that display.
 
1800 lines / picture height, for a 16:9 image is 3.2k, which is, coincidentally, the same number as I measure, or a 78% factor of 4k. When all this started I stated >70%, then about 75%. Nice to know we're up to 78% and still don't have significant luma aliasing even out there....

Graeme
 
Sorry for my technical ignorance here and maybe simplistic thinking... but am I misunderstanding the faulty logic here?

4k has noise in it; therefore, it's not 4k.

...or maybe,

At 2k, the image has little or no noise in it; therefore, it is a 2k image.
 
Is "quality" a criteria for 4k classification? Or disqualification and a reclassification to 2k?
 
Regarding the F23 - anyone looked at the DPX files on CML from this camera? I see significant image anomalies when "pixel peeping", boosting saturation and sharpness just brings them into full relief. I don't have a zone plate from that camera, but on the trumpets, you can see some aliasing out from 700lpph up to the chart max of 1000lpph. No camera is perfect - it's just that you don't seem to get much footage or evaluation of other cameras on the net.....

Graeme
 
Well, 4K filmout seems to be out of reach for most people, anyway. And 4K projectors are not here yet, as others pointed out.

AFAIK, 2K is more than enough for theatrical release, either digital or via filmout.

If we already have the resolution that Hitchcock, for example, was counting on, that's good enough for me. :)

Nevertheless, it is a completely different question what Hitchcock would choose if he was alive today. Probably film.

I bet that by the time 4K delivery becomes a real option for a greater number of filmmakers, the RED guys will have figured something out about those problems.

And, BTW, I dunno about this obsession for higher and higher rez and super-mega sharp images.

I might sound lame but an image which is too perfect, clean and sharp isn't very filmic for me.

Sometimes I like the dirtiness of film, its organic softness and even noise and grain... all these could have storytelling value. It depends on the story, of course.

"The Matrix" for example. I believe they shot\graded the scenes from inside the Matrix so that they are super-sharp, clean, high-rez and... perfect. That way they look flawless technically, but a bit fake... and thus - visually fitting for the nature of the Matrix.
On the other hand, they shot\graded the "real world" scenes - dirtier, grainy, softer, more organic, more alive - in order to make this visual contrast of the two worlds.

So what seems to be imperfect technically, might actually work as a storytelling element.

And what looks amazing technically, might actually be a turn-off.

All depending on the story we're telling.

Even if the RED is practically a 2K camera, I would have absolutely no problem with that, cause that would be the best po$$ible way for me, anyway. And it will be a better 2K than any current HD or 2K camera can give, cause what is a problem for RED at 4K is a problem for any 2K camera at 2K. :)

But - different people, different needs. People with different mean$ than me would probably want more.

My actual and real problem is still - how the hell am I gonna live without kidneys? :help:

:clown2:
 
Craig Ryan said:
I'm pretty sure those are taken straight from the feature. There are a few more here if you scroll down.

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=386

EDIT: the only thing that I'm skeptical about is the fact that these are 16x9 when Pirates was shot Scope if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Pirates 2 and 3 were shot super 35 with a 2:40 taken from the upper third of the lens (shot on specially ground lens') - the dvds were then made by opening up the bottom of the shot to get to 1.778. So the top of the 2.40 stays the top, but the 1.78 shows more bottom. Not that this answers any questions other than the fact that the film was not anamorphic. So a 16x9 image from pirates is not impossible :)
 
jing said:
Sorry for my technical ignorance here and maybe simplistic thinking... but am I misunderstanding the faulty logic here?

4k has noise in it; therefore, it's not 4k.

...or maybe,

At 2k, the image has little or no noise in it; therefore, it is a 2k image.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean basically what I was saying is that once you downsample to 2K from a RED 4K image, a lot of noise gets lost. This is mainly the case with low light. When there is a lot of light, 4K might holds up better. But the weakest link is going to be a low-light shots.
 
But Tom, that's also the case with every other camera I've ever seen - film included. You can always trade noise for resolution, but before long, you've traded so much the image no longer looks good on the big screen. The key thing with RED is that you're starting with a much higher resolution, so you can make the trade "if you want". Or not, as the case may be.

Graeme
 
I understand what you're saying.

In terms of the big screen, yeah, you would probably want to keep the full 4K resolution, and project it at 4K. Why not? I mean it would be silly to bottleneck yourself at 2K if you have a real chance at 4K projection. But how many of our independent pictures will ever see the big screen? I guess I was thinking more in terms of Bluray and people watching these pictures at home, where you can really see every pixel of a 1080p movie.

Once people have 4K monitors at home, I think some of the low-light stuff won't hold up pixel for pixel, as in that DLSR photo I posted in the beginning of this thread. For that, we're going to need a 6K sensor or a 4K sensor with less noise.... I'm sure you guys at RED are already thinking about it. :)
 
Pirates 2 and 3 were shot super 35 with a 2:40 taken from the upper third of the lens (shot on specially ground lens') - the dvds were then made by opening up the bottom of the shot to get to 1.778. So the top of the 2.40 stays the top, but the 1.78 shows more bottom. Not that this answers any questions other than the fact that the film was not anamorphic. So a 16x9 image from pirates is not impossible
Click to expand...

Interesting...thanks!
 
Sure, the less light the more noise, but again, same with every camera. The pixel size on the RED is just slightly larger than what you get on a 3chip 2/3 CCD, so they could also be problematic at their native size too.

Also, motion hides a multitude of sins..... Looking at stills is giving the image more scrutiny than you'd normally see it as.

Graeme
 
Acehole made a great point too about how a moving image has much more perceived resolution than a still image does; so let's not forget that comparing a still of RED is not going to be the same at all to seeing it projected on a big screen in 4k. Also, once its professionally graded, the POP definitely makes a huge difference to a moving image.
 
One of the problems about labels like 4k and 2k is that no one has ever defined them as a standard and what they should mean so everyone has a different metric in mind. Some talk about pixels, some talk about perfect resolution, some relate it to scanable resolution from specific film stocks.

At the end of the the day it comes down to how it how much you like the image because if meets all the technical numbers you can still not be happy with it or vice versa.
 
Well if that is the case then RED would need to change the camera to a 2K if it didn't hold up to 4K? All we are shooting is RED 4K for 4K distributed projects. So anything less than a great 4K camera won't work or we would go back to 65mm. The 4K I have seen projected from Red Cameras looks pretty damn good and has a lot of room to improve or tweak the cameras image further in post.
 
so a 4k image is "improved" by making it 2k.

okay... maybe i'm going out on a limb here... but there is nothing wrong with your posted image at 4k. you look in the shadows, you see some noise. it's not ugly. it's not even distracting. to me.

personally, what i don't like is any kind of banding in soft, gradients.... beautiful skies at magic hour, gentle falloff on a beautiful actress' skin in northern light... does that happen in Red's 4k?

(and shadows should be lifted during production with lights, not in post if it can be helped)

frankly, if your general audience is seeing noise in the shadows at 4k and it's detracting from the movie, you fucked up your story anyway. any "quality" improvements should be in the script or director, etc. i personally think any audience member that sees the noise and makes a comment on it at 4k is going to be one of us. maybe i'm wrong.

and by the time we're actually projecting/viewing in 4k for the masses, Jim, Graemme and the Red Team will be at 20k. Right?
 
one more thought... why is red 4k to me? if i were to get a 2k camera, i would have to shoot and compose tight... right on the money. i have no leeway. if i'm in a closeup and thinking that I want the top of the frame to be a little above the actor's eyebrow, then that's where i need to be. but with 4k, i can back out, allowing the camera operator and the actor breathing room and not sacrifice "quality" because i'll be going to 2k. personally, this is invaluable to me. don't know about others.

and i can only get this with 4k and Red.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top