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

[Antoine Fabi]

I made some tests today, encoded some 4K with basic CC in Redcine, and watched on my computer screens 3 feet away... i know i know, watching only part of the 4K, ...it's so big.

man...the camera pushes some seriously beautifull images !!!!!

 

[Petr Dvorak]

Yep only after I will see any 4K "moving" footage I can say what is good and what is not. Staring at static frame is something different.

 

[Davide B.]

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.

I think that the latest 4K DSLRs can hold up just fine in low light conditions. Just check out these frames from the Nikon D3: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/example-images.htm.

Even at ISO 1600 the camera is clean enough for projection. The ISO 400 and 200 photos are pretty much noise free in my book. Sure it's a lot harder to design a sensor for a video camera than a still camera. But if Nikon and Canon are getting this type of image quality then that bodes well for the future of video.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

I'm with Tom and this are the reasons:

1. 4K is currently not a widely spread production standard for many reasons and probabaly won't be for a long time. 1080p already is and will stay with us for TV and DVD for the next decades. Even 2K is a niche and used by feature films only, mainly because of the 4:3 ratio which anamorphic productions need.

2. As Graeme said, 4K pixel from pixel debayering is not accomplished yet (although almost 80% which is a great achievment, I suppose - I'm not an engineer), but most of the 1080p cameras don't deliver real 1080p neither. At least technically the 4K resolution is argueably.

3. The beauty of RED is the 35mm DOF, the convenient and secure data storage on CF Cards and the deep colour space. By scaling down to 2K/1080p oversampling enriches the colour space and reduces noise and makes the strong but intelligent compression almost invisible.

4. Sheer resolution is the most neclectable factor in perception. Story, acting, DOF, editing, grading are much more important not to mention sound. Please note that 35mm film procetion in well equipped cinemas resolves about 720p. 4K projection is in its infancy and most films that will be shown are probably 2K anyway and I doubt that most of the reduser will shoot with their camera 4K blockbusters.

Hans (who shot recently for the first time with RED and loves it!)

 

[Graeme Nattress]

2) and never will be as at the very least we have an OLPF in there to avoid the worst of aliasing, as all cameras should (but sometimes don't) that does put an upper limit on resolution, as it must, to work properly.

Graeme

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Understood. Thanks,

Hans

 

[antiquaeuropa]

Maybe Red One should be considered more than 4k. . .

Maybe Red One should be considered more than 4k. . .

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.

I do not know if the information is current, but Red.com claims that the active pixel array 4520*2540= 11,480,800. Perhaps I am confused, but it seems to me that shooting at 2540p 16:9 would already be more than 4k "pixel for pixel."

Also, I flat out disagree that an 8-16 megapixel camera can only "hold up" at 2K. (If you mean an image with <=2048 x <=1366 pixels.) I have a few recent DSLR's and am certain that I can regularly obtain better results than that. Perhaps, you are having a lens issue. . .

However, I generally do think that it would be beneficial to over-sample if one already has a limited, known delivery-format, i.e. 2k, 720p, or a 1600x1200 still image. Of course, a potentially higher quality solution would be to increase the resolution of the delivery format, which if increased to the original over-sampling rate would no longer be over-sampled.

 

[Andrew M.]

Talking about MP and Ks is always confusing.
8MP at 2:1 is different than 8MP at 2.39:1 or 16:9
RED is 12MP at full sensor surface but I don’t think full 12MP will be supported to obtain 16:9 output format. It is just safe area.

So again, as of now, based on current workflow the RED is 8MP at 4K 2:1 format and 9MP at 4K 16:9 exactly. Remember one MP is 1024X1024 not 1000X1000

So 4K or 2K at the end you can use RED to shoot full feature film and it is competing very well with the film camera and getting better by the hour.
If you think that RED is not up to your standard, use film camera but the difference is so small and advantages of flexibility in post so great that I think the gravity force will flip everybody away from film.
Like it happened in DSLR camera. At the beginning the advantages of post moved majority to digital, now with 21MP cameras out there I think only some special application photographer still stick to film.

Anybody have seen what is happening with Kodak shares price lately

 

[Tom Lowe]

Also, I flat out disagree that an 8-16 megapixel camera can only "hold up" at 2K. (If you mean an image with <=2048 x <=1366 pixels.) I have a few recent DSLR's and am certain that I can regularly obtain better results than that. Perhaps, you are having a lens issue. . .

That wasn't my photo. It was taken from DP review.

If you have full-res DLSR shots taken in low light, like a sunset, post them and we will take a look.

 

[antiquaeuropa]

Holding up

Holding up

That wasn't my photo. It was taken from DP review.

If you have full-res DLSR shots taken in low light, like a sunset, post them and we will take a look.

I was not specifically referring to the image that you posted but rather your assertions.

Perhaps if I have the time and you are able to specifically define when an images "holds up" and when it does not, then I will post some test photos for you.

In the meantime I would like to say that I think that the image that you posted is workable at full resolution. The downsized image that you felt "holds up" is too noisy for my taste.