Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

New Scarlet frame rates

Why would you NOT want an additional feature, even if it seems completely useless, to you?

It still adds value to the camera and as people have already stated... there is a use for it (vertical green screen and motion graphics are ideal examples). I know people in broadcast who still shoot SD, for certain projects (the majority of channels, in UK and most of Europe are still SD).

Not everyone here is in L.A or shooting for cinema.... Hell, I don't even make films or tv. I use cameras mainly for cool elements in web/app design projects, 1K is fine for alot of things I do.
 
PLEASE

2k faster with framrates ....no 1k

what should i do with 1k?

i bought a scarlet an wanna shoot more resolution than 1k.


greetings from germany

cheers:cheers2:
 
Jay Birch said:
Why would you NOT want an additional feature, even if it seems completely useless, to you?

It still adds value to the camera and as people have already stated... there is a use for it (vertical green screen and motion graphics are ideal examples). I know people in broadcast who still shoot SD, for certain projects (the majority of channels, in UK and most of Europe are still SD).

Not everyone here is in L.A or shooting for cinema.... Hell, I don't even make films or tv. I use cameras mainly for cool elements in web/app design projects, 1K is fine for alot of things I do.
Click to expand...


+1. If the feature, you can use it. Even if it's not optimal, you can GET it. If the feature is there, and you don't like it... don't use it.
Options are never bad, and I'm sure RED believes the same thing.
 
Maybe I'm the odd one out around here, but what I don't understand is the Scarlet 5K talk? Are we talking Dragon here? If so, apologies, I thought we were talking the firmware release. Otherwise why on earth would RED offer almost epic specs at a scarlet price point?

120fps @ 2k makes sense because it would serve many people and applications and still respects Epic's price differential with it's 120 @ 5K - and 300 @ 2k. It would also help position position the Scarlet against the FS700 and that seems like a smart move to me. PAL frame rates and HDR in 4K also seem reasonable to respectfully hope for I think. Though I barely have had need to use HDRX to be honest and slowmo is definitely the more useful tool creatively for me.

Good times regardless it must be said.

Best to all

Lliam
 
Hi Liam,

well, personally, I thought about it, because the Scarlet is now already able to do 5K 12fps.
Scarlet-X can now also do 30fps 4K. But RED said they were trying to get 4K HDR on the Scarlet. As that is the same as recording 2 streams, 2 times the data throughput, some of us were hoping that a 5K 24fps was in there somewhere, maybe only at very high compression settings.
 
I'll take anything that is not enabled yet, you never ever know what you might need, but 5K 24fps? if scarlet does 5K 12fps at 5:1 i am sure it capable of 24fps at higher compression rate;
but we need to be realistic :)
 
Lliam Worthington said:
Maybe I'm the odd one out around here, but what I don't understand is the Scarlet 5K talk? Are we talking Dragon here? If so, apologies, I thought we were talking the firmware release. Otherwise why on earth would RED offer almost epic specs at a scarlet price point?
Click to expand...

I read a few forum posts here speculating squeezing some kind of 5K@24fps out of the MX scarlet in a 2.4 crop. Off speed stuff isn't really my thing but more resolution never hurt anyone :)
 
Paramon Ivanovich said:
I'll take anything that is not enabled yet, you never ever know what you might need, but 5K 24fps? if scarlet does 5K 12fps at 5:1 i am sure it capable of 24fps at higher compression rate;
but we need to be realistic :)
Click to expand...

I am not sure this logic applies. Some of the limitations on Scarlet have to do with processing power. More compression takes more processing power. OTOH, less compression requires more data to be recorded in a given time frame. There are, no doubt, constraints on this capability as well. Somewhere there is the ideal tradeoff between these two. We don't know where it is and RED may have hit it, for now. If/when can squeeze more out of one side of the equation or the other, we'll get our new capabilities.
 
Lorenzo Straight said:
I don't know. Even Sony's Nex FS-700 does 240@1080p. 120@2.5K MAYBE;)
Click to expand...
Assuming 30@4K is the maximum the Scarlet-X can handle, 2.5K would probably top out at around 76fps (2560*1350 or 2.5K 1.9:1).

So staying realistic, it might be possible to see 24@5K 2.4:1, 50@3K 1.9:1, 75@2.5K 1.9:1, 120@2K 1.9:1.

Paramon Ivanovich said:
not exactly, converting analog to digital RAW (uncompressed) takes a lot of processing power, but image compression is a fairly simple algorithm that most cell phone video cameras do pretty well
Click to expand...
Cell phone cameras don't do wavelet compression.
 
Going with RED's current scheme of framerates and resolution, I would love 1.5K @ 96 fps. It would be good for web music videos and web action sequences at 720p.

That being said, I have never understood why 2K is at 60 fps. Should it not be at 96 fps? If 4K is 24 and has four times the data information why can we not get 96 fps @ 2K and 1K @ 384 fps. (and 1.5k @ 192FPS) The vodoo magic of compression eludes me. Does compression get more efficient with a larger amount of data?

P.S. I like the idea of the inbetween resolutions. 1.5K, 2.5K, 3.5K and 4.5K. I have an upcoming short film that I am going to shoot at 18 fps, then convert to black and white. I would love to shoot it in 4.5K.
 
Josh Negrin said:
@Louis, why are these not a possibility? Think about it, we can have 3k at 48fps and hdrx 24fps. Now, if they figure out 4k hdrx at 24fps that would also mean that 4k at 48fps is possible…. and therefore 5k at 24fps would be possible. Again, I say possible, because although they could technically do it, why would they? Which, I think is the argument that you're presenting.
Click to expand...

Well if they were actually going to give you 4k at 24fps HDRx, then it would seem possible that 5k 24fps and 4k 48fps would be possible and you could also use that data to show that we'd be able to get 96fps at 3k and 120 fps at 2k and 240fps at 1k...

However, that is simply not the case. When the discussion of 4k HDRx at 24fps was discussed, it was discussed by modifying the X-Track and trying to compress that track in a different manner in order to expand the dynamic range of 4k by allowing HDRx to be used . Doing so was to be done in a way that has not yet been explained but there have been some theories and suggestions over time since it was originally brought to light that RED was going to try to enable this feature. One way was explained earlier on in this thread where if you are shooting 8:1 4k A-Track then the X-Track might be 12:1 or 18:1. Other people have mentioned the idea of leaving all the non highlights out of the track, For example, If you are a shooting inside, and you have an over exposed window in the frame, the X-track would only record that window on it and leave the rest of the frame black and therefore not using any data.

If that latter was indeed the case, then increased frame rates due to increase in the HDRx would be impossible because it simply is not recording the frames you think it is. However, if it is the former, than those frames are indeed being recorded and in theory, you should be able to get 48fps at 18:1 if you are getting it in HDRx mode. The problem is, because of the speed of the Scarlet, it is probably not possible to achieve HDRx by simply recording the X-track in 18:1 so something fancier is going to happen under the hood, and that is why I really believe just because they increase the ability to have an X-Track at 4k 24pfs, doesn't mean they will give us higher frame rates in other resolutions.
 
If you just look at the data rates of the current options, the one with the highest rate is QHD at 30 fps. Assuming 16 bit per pixel that would make 498.000.000 B/s before compression. If I calculate right, that would put 3k at 50fps within reach and possibly 1080p at 96 as well. Compression may be another bottle neck, but 3k@50fps should be very close to the computational requirement of QHD@30fps. Aside from that I'd be very surprised to see other significant improvements in frame rates as speced. HDR is another question.
 
Ibrahim Abdulkarim said:
ummmmmmmmmm lets us not forget you cant view 4k footage over the web or cable tv. for those of us that shoot music videos and commercials 120 @ 1080p would be f**King awesome. and we dont make much money shooting music videos thus the reason we have scarlets and not epics.

if im not mistaken the phatom shoots 2k for no less than 1000 a day to rent one ummmmmmmmm yeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaa doesnt sound like a good idea to me. 120 @ 1k 24 @ 5k would be awesome
Click to expand...
You tube supports 4k right now. Search for 4k material, and click on "original" in the resolution bar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top