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

[Tom Lowe]

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.

 

[stats79]

Have you ever actually looked at 35mm motion picture film "full-rez"? Grainy as hell. Red 4k image is pristine in comparison.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Have you ever actually looked at 35mm motion picture film "full-rez"? Grainy as hell. Red 4k image is pristine in comparison.

Yes indeed. I agree. A lot of 35mm barely holds up at 1080p. When you look at the Bluray of a picture like "Basic Instinct", it barely cuts mustard at 1080, so you have to wonder what it will look like at 4K.

My point is not that 35mm is better.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Interesting! Thankfully most people are going to see RED films at 2K and lower resolutions. Well, that is until 4K projectors get more widespread.

 

[killfilm]

35mm only looks good because our eyes take the whole image in, but if we truly zoom on a spot, 35 is poop.

 

[Nathan Garofalos]

I agree with Jack, there are only like 140 4k projectors around the world, or possibly more, I forget the last number I heard.

 

[donatello b]

forget showing me a still camera image ..
show me the test with RED ...

 

[Nathan Garofalos]

Has anyone transferred 4k RED footage to film, or just 2k RED to film? Was Jumper transferred as a 2k or 4k image? What about the screening that was in Canada by a REDUSER, what were his specs on the film out?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Interesting! Thankfully most people are going to see RED films at 2K and lower resolutions. Well, that is until 4K projectors get more widespread.

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.

 

[Craig Ryan]

These aren't the droids you're looking for...move along -->

 

[Tom Lowe]

forget showing me a still camera image ..
show me the test with RED ...

Yes.

The sensors are similar, but the shots I posted are the types of shots I was hoping would come out of LART. Can anyone post REDCODE RAW images and do a similar comparison?

 

[Jon Corcuera]

Tom,
I understand your point, and obviusly you will most certainly have a better 4k image from a 6k or 8k sensor.
But I agree with killfilm if you look at that size to a 35 mm brrrrr you will step back.
At this point we are comparing everything with film as i see it it won´t pass to much time until we compare with 4k (5 years). Resolution will be an important matter in near future as we get us to so much information and learn how to play with it.
Jon Corcuera

 

[Mike Prevette]

wow those frame grabs are amazing. Are you sure they weren't the on set photos?

 

[reality]

or heavily degrained and enhanced for bluray. grain doesn't compress well so degraining is an important step for compression.

 

[diskojerk]

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

If you zoom in 1200% on any image on a computer, whether it was shot on film or shot in HD you are going to see noise and flaws. If you sit 1 foot in front of your TV while watching a Blu Ray disc it is very likely that you may see noise and grain in the images. The reality is that most people don't watch a movie with the image magnified 1200% and they don't sit a foot from the TV screen while watching it. And furthermore, i'd say 99.9% of the people who go see movies will never in their entire lives be able to tell the difference between a movie screened in 2K or 4K. And, I bet they wouldn't care either way. The .1% who can tell the difference and who cares will just have to suffer.

 

[Craig Ryan]

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.

 

[Craig Ryan]

If you zoom in 1200% on any image on a computer, whether it was shot on film or shot in HD you are going to see noise and flaws.

Tom is only saying that at 100%, a 4k image wouldn't be as sharp/noiseless as the same image down sampled to 2k. This is something that's been pretty much agreed by most; oversampling always leads to a better result.

Now I agree most audiences probably don't care about the difference between 2k-4k..but if the image filled the appropriate viewing angle in their field of vision, then they would very much appreciate the difference between 2k and 4k. It's all about viewing distance relative to screen size. All Tom was saying is that at 4k, a down sampled 8k image would look just as impressive at 4k as RED 4k does at 2k.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Thank you, Craig.

 

[donatello b]

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 ?

 

[stats79]

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

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.