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 :)

Off the chart...

I KNEW this day would come.

Thanks for turning my film world upside down, Jim and Company!

Dillon
 
Subhadip Sen said:
Do you have a source for the above? Considering 1K on an 3.5" iPhone 1 foot away...

There could be other applications like massive signage/hoardings Blade Runner style.
Click to expand...

I did the math a couple weeks ago. If you google resolving power of the human eye you can figure out how many lines we can resolve at a given distance. From there you can do the math for distance and TV sizes... and you get really f'n big TV at really f'n close viewing distance at 4K. Projection optics are probably a more practical concern. Recall Sony's new projection lens actually helped the guys at RED see 3.2K on their big movie screen on their big 4K projector better. Maybe the projection optics problem gets solved by theater sized LED TV's.

You actually can see the difference between 2K and 3K on a really big screen at semi-reasonable viewing distances - so there is reason to believe more than 2K matters. Most people have probably never seen a really good 2K digital projection in a theater though. It looks great. I think Red's 4k or 5K is going to be about right for quite a while.

If you were creating a printed mural then hi rez starts making some sense because viewing distances might be really, really close.

Also - the second you shoot at 1/48th of a second and anything moves it's the same second all that resolution gets destroyed.

Like 3D, if people don't see it people aren't going to pay for it. Filmmakers, other than complete technogeek fanboys who probably can't even do the math know that at SOME POINT more resolution is a ton more data, which means a ton more processing, which is a ton more time and money -> all in quest of something no one's ever going to be able to see.

Dynamic range always matters - this thread is really good news. :-)
 
RED just keeps getting better and better and better and better and better. And it's obvious this trend is going to be aggressively maintained. "Thanks" doesn't cut it!

Jannard said:
We just gave birth to RED HDRx last night and the results are jaw-dropping. There is still a ton of work to do to tune up the program. After talking to the engineers, it seems highly unlikely we can tie all this stuff up before we begin shipping EPIC... which is what I said in an earlier post. This is a feature that will be added to the camera when fully ready. It is complicated stuff. But very cool.
Click to expand...

But HDRx could be ready by Scarlet's release? Or soon thereafter?

/fingers_crossed
 
Joel Kaye said:
I did the math a couple weeks ago. If you google resolving power of the human eye you can figure out how many lines we can resolve at a given distance. From there you can do the math for distance and TV sizes... and you get really f'n big TV at really f'n close viewing distance at 4K. Projection optics are probably a more practical concern. Recall Sony's new projection lens actually helped the guys at RED see 3.2K on their big movie screen on their big 4K projector better. Maybe the projection optics problem gets solved by theater sized LED TV's.

Based on the math you actually can see the difference between 2K and 3K on a big screen at semi-reasonable viewing distances - so there is reason to believe more than 2K matters.

If you've ever seen a really good 2K digital projection in a theater it looks pretty amazing.

If you were creating a printed mural then hi rez starts making some sense because viewing distances might be really, really close.

Also - the second you shoot at 1/48th of a second and anything moves it's the same second all that resolution gets destroyed.

Like 3D, if people don't see it people aren't going to pay for it. Filmmakers, other than complete technogeek fanboys who probably can't even do the math know that at SOME POINT more resolution is a ton more data, which means a ton more processing, which is a ton more time and money -> all in quest of something no one's ever going to be able to see.

Dynamic range always matters.
Click to expand...

I agree - that said our Red would be the best digital camera we have ever had even if it were only 2K - it's not the res that made us feel we got away with something, paying so little for it, it's the color quality and the post-production ease + lattitude of adjustment possibilities, and the S35 sensor. We master in 1080p because that is what our buyers want, but all those other awesome qualities make RED something we never cease to be excited about.

That said I'll admit I've done a few recrops and saved my *&^% that way, so I'm thankful for the 4K too.
 
Joel Kaye said:
I did the math a couple weeks ago. If you google resolving power of the human eye you can figure out how many lines we can resolve at a given distance. From there you can do the math for distance and TV sizes... and you get really f'n big TV at really f'n close viewing distance at 4K. Projection optics are probably a more practical concern. Recall Sony's new projection lens actually helped the guys at RED see 3.2K on their big movie screen on their big 4K projector better. Maybe the projection optics problem gets solved by theater sized LED TV's.

Based on the math you actually can see the difference between 2K and 3K on a big screen at semi-reasonable viewing distances - so there is reason to believe more than 2K matters.

If you've ever seen a real
Click to expand...
 
Jim, can you guys make this variable HDR so that you can turn a little physical dial (redmote?) to crank it up?? HAHAHAH.

Can you imagine? Your blue sky is blown out. No problem, just crank the HDR knob up a couple stops... MUAHAHAHA!!!
 
I think the solution is lot simpler then we think. The key word(s) I believe is "READ-RESET". If You can separate the two - here comes HDRx. You could simply "READ" the (highlight) values very shortly after initiating exposure to the photosites without "RESETING" them. Complete the exposure according to Your shutter setting and do (final) READ (for midtones and shadows) followed by master "RESET". Repeat for next frame... With READ-RESET times bellow 5 ms You could do this even at 120 FPS and 180˚ shutter.

While the concept sound simple - the actual implementation must be extremely difficult - especially since You need to combine the two READ values into single frame. This, rather then the READ-RESET, could limit the maximum FPS in HDRx mode...

Also - with this solution You could adjust how soon after the exposure you initiate the first (highlight) READ cycle - which will allow for "VARIABLE" HDRx mode...

Just my two cents...

In the end, as few have mentioned already, I really do not care HOW. I care that they DID IT. And I care that we can USE IT...

Congratulations to the whole RED team, I can only imagine the energy flowing around RED right now...

Peter
 
Peter Majtan said:
In the end, as few have mentioned already, I really do not care HOW. I care that they DID IT. And I care that we can USE IT...

Congratulations to the whole RED team, I can only imagine the energy flowing around RED right now...
Click to expand...

Yes! :cheers2:

I'm so glad I went with my gut and plunked down the cash for a Stage 2 Epic.
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
isnt HDR a "look"
i dont see why you would use it 24/7, but maybe im missing something
Click to expand...
I think you're referring to "tone mapping", which is one possible application of HDR images. (and quite frankly, I think it looks ugly most of the time, but that's just my opinion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_mapping

But an HDR image is just a very flat image which you can grade as you like, it's much more than just tone mapping.

So the only reasons I would see that someone would like to turn it off are if there are unwanted artifacts tied to it, or if it needs a really much bigger amount of disk space... Did I miss something ?
 
I think its less about a "look" than it is about flexibility in production and in post. Don't like the way a scene was exposed? With HDRx, you can re-expose your shot after the shot with far more flexibility than with non HDR imagery. To what degree, I don't know.
 
Peter Majtan said:
I think the solution is lot simpler then we think. The key word(s) I believe is "READ-RESET". If You can separate the two - here comes HDRx. You could simply "READ" the (highlight) values very shortly after initiating exposure to the photosites without "RESETING" them.

Peter
Click to expand...

See #1 in "Ways we know that they aren't doing it." :D
 
Nils Ruinet said:
So the only reasons I would see that someone would like to turn it off are if there are unwanted artifacts tied to it, or if it needs a really much bigger amount of disk space... Did I miss something ?
Click to expand...

My guess is that it takes extra processing power so the highest frame rates may not be available.
 
graeme, you're the man! I'll have myself a t-shirt printed in your honour as soon as I get my HDRx...

are YOU over 18 yet?

or

must be over 18 to enter

I'm looking forward to your magic, pixel-wizard!
 
Kellan O'Connor said:
That is what I was thinking as I tried to explain the Technique. Noise could be an issue as well as heat from the (literally) millions of processes required by the processor to dynamically control each pixel. I guess this would have to start at a small level of resolution, like VGA, and once you perfect that level move up the Pixel count over time as the technology catches up with the methods.

It was just an idea I came up with about a month ago when I was trying to figure out how HDR could work with motion... I guess I still don't know how it could work on a technical level. Can anyone explain to me how HDR is captured on the RED? Do you capture multiple frames with different exposures? What accounts for the motion that happens between frames? I am confused now...:001_unsure:
Click to expand...

Haha, you and everybody else! :) We'd all love to know how they are doing it! I've thought about this topic A LOT and there are many ways to approach it. We'll just have to wait and see!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top