RAW RULES and 720/1080 debate

[Stuart English]

Shooting larger than 1080p

Shooting larger than 1080p

As Graeme has previously commented, one of the big advantages of shooting larger than 1080p (i.e. 2K or 4K) is that in post you have pixels outside of the 1080p frame. This is really important for image stabilization or any filtering you apply, because those operations always run into edge of frame problems.

You won't have that issue if your frame is a bit bigger and you then can crop down to 1080p on output. It may take a little while for software apps to catch up with this added flexibility, but it is a real advantage to be exploited.

 

[beatniq]

Thanks Phil. Fear not, I'm gonna keep posting as long as this website exists and I am on this planet - unless you all vote me off - see below -

This is a Forum for people interested in RED. Jim made a choice based on the VOICE of Redusers. All those REDUSERS were not using REDs yet. Now some are. I just thought it was relevant to discuss again.

This forum lets us express our thoughts and experiences as RED ... USERS.

My personality is not for everyone. Some people don't like me. Some people don't like Jim Jannard. I can't speak for Jim, but personally, I am not going to loose any sleep because people don't want to hear what I have to say, or what I think.

As I said in my post, all the DEBATE was before ANYONE outside of Red and BETA testers were shooting REDCODE Raw. I chose to "REHASH" and express MY opinions, (free speech and all), because I had been giving demonstrations to all types of different clients. I actually expected that some would NOT want 4K. They ALL wanted 4K after I gave them a demostration of the power of the different workflows.

RED can make 100 firmware builds for all I care. It won't change my OPINION - which is - it's a WASTE OF TIME to enable 720 and 1080 record on this camera. I will NEVER EVER EVER use it.

I'm just sayin' - faster than any of you may think - your clients are going to INSIST on 4K RC archieved "camera negative".

PS - If a MAJORITY of you are sick of me posting - or sick of my "enthusiam" - all it will take make me go away is a POLL - REDUSERS around the world - you can always vote me off of this forum - I'll stop talking when you stop listening.

You better do no such thing.

 

[Steve Gibby]

I'll stop talking when you stop listening.

Don't stop talking Mark, but maybe you should stop SHOUTING (writing in caps)

 

[beatniq]

Don't stop talking Mark, but maybe you should stop SHOUTING (writing in caps)

Also greatly looking forward to L.A.R.T. Gibby.

I wish I knew all you guys so I could thank you properly for all the information you've provided to date and will continue to provide in my time lurking these boards.

Hopefully one day I am able to do so.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Also greatly looking forward to L.A.R.T. Gibby.

I wish I knew all you guys so I could thank you properly for all the information you've provided to date and will continue to provide in my time lurking these boards.

Hopefully one day I am able to do so.

LART will be awesome for sure! Most, if not all of the camera features should be enabled before we hold LART. We have a great team of guys assembled for that. We're all part of the RED family of adopters and enthusiasts. We're in a position to help everyone out - and we're happy to do so.

I'll look forward to meeting you some day...

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Don't stop talking Mark, but maybe you should stop SHOUTING (writing in caps)

Fair enough Gibby. I'll use LESS caps.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Am I missing something?

Unless something has changed, the reason to keep 1080p RGB is so we can shoot overcranked shots for our movies, music videos, etc. This way you can shoot most of your stuff 4K REDCODE, then shoot your overcrankage at 1080 RGB with the full-sized sensor. In theory, the 1080 RGB downsampled and overcranked footage would look beautiful, and you could use your same 35mm cine lenses without a crop factor.

 

[HD Hildebrand]

As Graeme has previously commented, one of the big advantages of shooting larger than 1080p (i.e. 2K or 4K) is that in post you have pixels outside of the 1080p frame. This is really important for image stabilization or any filtering you apply, because those operations always run into edge of frame problems.

You won't have that issue if your frame is a bit bigger and you then can crop down to 1080p on output. It may take a little while for software apps to catch up with this added flexibility, but it is a real advantage to be exploited.

It also allows you to Pan & Scan (adjust within the frame if framing is off, etc). You can also, for example, shoot a timelapse with a "large neg" or 4k in this instance, then pan or tilt within a locked off shot to give your locked off timelapse some movement (if you don't have some sort of motion control).

 

[planet e]

I don’t see the benefit to this community of re-hashing issues that were resolved a month ago on RED User, leading to the compromise mentioned by Jim of a two builds concept that simultaneously retained the utility and flexibility of RED One – and healed the divisions in this community over that issue.

...agree on all other points, except that i don't think that this is a re-hash...all of those threads occurred prior to the camera's release. now we're getting real world input. and, although most (though not all....) of my delivery will be either 1080p or various flavors of SD (beta, DVD, etc), i'm still interested in hearing feedback on the real world workflow, because 3 months from now, i will have to pick one of those 2 builds for 2 different cameras.

do i want one with build #1 and one with build #2? both build #1s? or both build #2s? if render times are inconsequential, then maybe there is compelling reason to go all 4K, all the time. if downsampling is a PITA, then maybe i should plan to enable the 1080/720 on both. or get one with max rez and one with max downrez features, as a compromise gesture towards both...to have every possible feature enabled.

the issue has moved from theory to actual practice, and i welcome the chance to hear from all of the early users...

having said that, i'm content to let the early adopters post render times and see how those issues evolve. rob lohman has already stated that RED Alert and REDcine may yield quite different results, but i still think having quick benchmarks from REDAlert would be at least a useful beginning for those of us still in the dark.

one of the main raisons d'etre for reduser.net is to enable us to play head games with ourselves about how we plan to trick out our new toys!!

the noise in my head gets a little quieter when i am on the receiving end of good information.

 

[Jim Perry Jr.]

Thanks Phil. Fear not, I'm gonna
keep posting as long as this website exists and I am on this
planet - unless you all vote me off...

PS - If a MAJORITY of you are sick of me posting - or sick of
my "enthusiam" - all it will take make me go away is a POLL -
REDUSERS around the world - you can always vote me off of
this forum - I'll stop talking when you stop listening.

hmm... Im not the majority, but no need for a poll.
I believe opinions from various mindsets are much
needed for us [as crafts people] to help improve
our skills\workflow. Especially for those of us
who are expecting their Red(s) mid to late
next year.

I know we are just sharing, but hope this doesn't
get ugly. Communication with the first 100 camera
owners will be invaluable to the moving picture industry!
This is what will help the revolution spread!

 

[Jarred Land]

play nice kids

 

[MikeCurtis]

Mike's Take

Mike's Take

I just wrote a long thing about Gibby and Mark talking past each other's points and not TO each other's points.

Then I deleted it and am writing this -

If I understand correctly (and please pardon and correct me if I don't!) Gibby wants 720p/1080p RGB codecs for easy deliverables to clients and "ready to roll" footage.

But unless the client has an editorial system that can read Redcode RAW or RGB natively, you'll have to go through Redcine to convert to something for their offline and online formats anyway - so acquisition format doesn't matter as much - you're still cookin' pixels for dinner.

And if shooting, you want maximum space efficiency - RAW beats up RGB any day. If you have native editing tools, (FCP 6.0.1 for now), the only foreseeable (and unproven) difference is that presumably the RGB footage will be less processor intensive to work with than the RAW formats - no deBayer involved.

At first I was in favor of the 720p/1080p modes, in support of ENG/EFP so Red would be more widely adopted in differing usage scenarios. And I'm REALLY in favor of highest speed possible in camera - I find, as a post person (pushing pixels for about 20 years now for a living), it is easier to interpolate pixels spatially rather than temporally. Meaning, Photoshop/After Effects/Final Cut/Shake/etc. can stretch pixels to be bigger with relatively decent, relatively few artifacts. It's just soft.

BUT...if you try to stretch out frames, unless you're using pixel motion vector type algorithms that are INCREDIBLY slow...stretching time produces craptastic results most of the time, and to get mediocre results is still verrrry slow in post.

Therefore, since once you go slo-mo, beyond minor retimings (shooting film 20-40fps, say), once you want to slow action down, IMHO I see my clients wanting to REALLY slow action down. And since most often deliverables are HD or lower, I'd rather have 120fps at lower res than what was once 60 but then bumped to 90 then 96 then 100 fps as the goal.

But is a horses for courses tradeoff. Now that we have both options purportedly coming in time, I'm ENTIRELY happy with the idea of 2K@100fps first, with 720p@120fps later as an option.

Mark's point was that with everyone he's talked to (filmmakers and commercial shooters, different than the EFP/ENG model Gibby wants to make sure is optimally supported), they LOVE the 4K, and didn't express any interest in shooting at lower resolutions, except for getting higher frame rates. If Red could provide 4.5K at 120fps, they'd love to have it.

That's not an opinion, that is market feedback (although from a particular slice of the market, not the entire market).

At this point, I'm happy with prioritizing RAW (if we get 2K@100fps), and in time rolling out the other firmware for 1080p RGB and 720pRGB @ up to 120fps.

Of course, Mark and Gibby are two different users with two differing usage scenarios and therefore different priorities. It is normal and healthy that they will disagree on what boils down to what they think Red's developmental priorities should be.

At this stage, with both firmwares planned, and a short switch (firmware updates presently take about 5 minutes from off with firmware A to on with firmware B up and loaded and ready to shoot), everybody will end up happy in the long run.

After initial concern about 2K@60fps looking like max vs 720p@120fps RGB, now with 2K@100fps RAW as a possiblity I'm entirely content with the wisdom of the current development plans...but that's just me.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather have RAW features fully enabled before Red spends time on RGB 720p/1080p solutions. I've argued vociferously for them in the past as important to the wider adoption of Red amongst as wide a possible of user bases, but where things stand now, current dev plans (focus on the RAW) makes me happy. Until I can be shown 720p/1080pRGB that gives me full hooks into the Red processing luv that edits considerably faster than the RAW...gimme RAW.

I could see situations where I'd want faster editorial access, on lower end machines (or more realtime performance on bigger machines), in situations where I didn't need every last inch of quality the RAW provides, THEN the 720p/1080p RGB would be nice to have as a secondary option. Nice, but not mandatory. We'll have to see how the reality actually plays out.

But after shooting 4K RAW for a week with Mark/Pliny/Aldey/Paul/etc., I like the 4K RAW workflow...for the stuff I want to do.

-mike

 

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Great post Mike;
But you seem to overlook the fact that 2k@100fps is only in windowed mode and therefore needs an other set of lens, and will have repercussions on the DOF of your shots.

Emmanuel

 

[Fix]

Im agreeing with Emmanuel Love your post Mike. And I do think you speak for quite many of us. I want to quote something of some concern though:

And if shooting, you want maximum space efficiency - RAW beats up RGB any day. If you have native editing tools, (FCP 6.0.1 for now), the only foreseeable (and unproven) difference is that presumably the RGB footage will be less processor intensive to work with than the RAW formats - no deBayer involved.

Are you sure about that? I mean think about it. If you have 4k RGB vs 4k RAW. Seem to me that RAW would be the less processor intensive or at least hard drive saving (Not thinking about space in this case btw). Ain't that some of the juice delivered from the RED code. Have the option to actually edit 4k even though it is deBayer? Its all about the code and be able to make it fast enough as I see it. Which I do believe they (RED team) have put quite a lot of resources at. Maybe someone else can elaborate this matter?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Can someone update me if something has changed. I was out of town for a month and maybe I missed something.

Is there any way other than 1080RGB to shoot overcranked (60fps+) footage onboard with the full 4K sensor?

If 2K scaled was possible, then I would say throw 1080 out the window, but if we are still talking abour 2K windowed, then please keep 1080 RGB.

 

[David Battistella]

PS - If a MAJORITY of you are sick of me posting - or sick of my "enthusiam" - all it will take make me go away is a POLL - REDUSERS around the world - you can always vote me off of this forum - I'll stop talking when you stop listening.

Mark.

Do not stop posting. There are too few users at this moment and your opinions are valuable.
Discussion is healthy and is probably the reason the camera that exists now, with it's present features, even exists.

I do not hink the camera should be a swiss army knife (in terms of formats) but the post production software REDCINE should be.

David

 

[I Bloom]

With a very open minded tone... I'd like to ask why some are in favor of implementing RGB modes. Here are some possible reasons I can think of:

1. We believe 1080p and 720p RGB are deliverables that can be handed off to clients, or will be at least more acceptable.
2. We believe that shooting 1080 or 720 are a good way to reduce the amount of recorded data.
3. We believe that scaling in post is very computationally intensive and going to a format like 1080p DVCProHD will take longer from 4K than from 1080p RGB.

Does one or more of these reasons match up with anyones thought process? Or is there another reason that I'm missing?

IBloom

 

[Fix]

I here you IBloom, got the same thing on my mind.

 

[Jannard]

I hate to chime in....... but I will. We are going ahead, although it will take some time, to do two builds. One is 4K and 2K. The other will be 1080P and 720P. You can upload either one and change builds whenever you want.

But.

Mark is right. Once you really shoot 4K and see how easy it is to deliver 4K, 2K, 4K stills, 1080P and 720P from the 4K (and keep a 4K master for future proofing), you will just not want to bother shooting a smaller format. That footage will not be RAW. And it will likely be throw-away. You won't have the creative flexibility you have shooting a larger format and RAW. Shooting 1080P or 720P may save space while recording, but then is that the driver of why you are spending the time and money to shoot on a system like this?

I further agree with Mark that you may not believe it until you start shooting. You'll shoot 4K footage, be blown away, then shoot 720P and wonder what you were thinking.

We are doing two builds to show we are listening to our customers. If you are one of the people that absolutely needs, wants and will use the HD options, then we have done our job. But a year from now, I'm going to bet $5 (cash poor right now) that these boards will be talking about... "remember when RED was a scam? And remember when we all wanted 720P? What were we thinking?"

I'm not the smartest guy on the block, and we are going to deliver what you asked for, but my crystal ball is pretty clear on this one.

I am not here to discredit anyone's needs or wishes. This was a debate that raged on for weeks a couple of months ago. And I don't want to resurrect another one. This is just my very strong opinion. From personal experience.

I'm shooting today on an island in Washington. I LOVE this camera. I would have to shoot myself in the back of the head if I ever thought about shooting this camera in 720P. At any frame rate. This is a pro tool. And 720P will no longer be considered a pro recording format in the very near future...IMHO. (I can hear the grumbling now).

Now everyone relax. We will deliver what you think you want. But 4K will spoil you. I know that for a fact.

Jim

 

[tj williams]

HI Jim
Welcome to WA, SanJuan Island? don't worry soon the sunny days will end and we will get our beautiful fog and rain back.
I'm not sure I understand these issues well. I hope someone at RED can make authoritive answers:

1. It seem no matter what we shoot it will have to be converted to another codec to fit onto the clients timeline. Will conversion of 1080 RGB or 2K convert more quickly with less computation time to one of the other codecs used on client time lines? (ie Panasonic/Sony/FC/ codecs.)

2. Will 2K Raw in the one build be both windowed and scaled? Will RGB be available only full sensor?

3. Will 2K raw actually use less Mb per sec than 1080 RGB at the same frame rates?

4. If we deliver 1080 RGB to a client how will he be able to preview the footage? Can this footage also be seen as Quick time?

5. If we deliver 2K raw will the client be able to preview the footage using Quick time?