Red Dragon SSD Run Times

[Robert Ruffo New]

I was about to post the bit about field of view before I saw that you just mentioned it. Interesting to note, however, that you're trumpeting the importance of getting that wide field of view from the camera (I agree), but you're downplaying the importance of resolution - which with these cameras go hand in hand. In other words, the mode with the widest field of view on a RED also contains the most resolution. So while you may not personally feel that 6K is necessary (I would disagree there, but we all have our opinions!), you have no choice but to shoot it if you want the field of view you're after.

If there was a downsampling mode in-camera (which many, many have asked for), the story would be different, but alas this is not the case at the current time.

High res acquisition is another matter. It has many post-related benefits which we all know (green screen, re-framing, etc.) and others which are rarely mentioned (such as more information for secondaries color selection for grading, and more information for anything that tracks pixel movement, or anything that warps or bends the image, such as lens correctors or even the Warp Stabilizer - these would reveal a lower resolution master, as pixels become stretched out). I'm all for high resolution acquisition. That said, 6K is overkill - beyond lenses, beyond any Acs ability to keep focus, just overkill in almost any real-life shot.

Also that said, if you up-rezzed 2K to 4K, at a normal seating distance, most members here would likely not be able to tell the difference between that and "true" 4K, let alone the audience. Thats' just a studied fact. So thinking about true 1:1 resolution for 4K mastering is obsessing about something that virtually no human viewer of your work will ever be able to see or differentiate as meaningful or relevant, unless they are in an Imax theater which has you sitting very close to the screen vs its size (and who many here shoot for Imax, and how often?).

Sure the meaningful wider field of view comes with the meaningless, data clogging extra of 6K, but I wish it didn't, and I wish I could record that same view downscaled to 5K (for some shots, like green screen) or 4K (most things) and 1080p (when I know the shot will just be used "straight" without much post work done.)

 

[Ivan Kovax]

I also find it amusing that no one here has read the countless studies that show most viewers cannot tell the difference between 2K and 4K finishes or even between 2K and 4K displays- their eyes just don't have the ability. I'm sure at 1:1 zoom pressing your face against the monitor you can see differences, but for the most important criteria - what the vast majority of viewers will be able to see - what looks good in 2K looks good in 4K. Its' not about screen size, it's about size vs viewing distance - i.e. the eye's field of view within the image. Unless in a Imax theater (which has viewers much closer vs screen size) 2K and 4K simply LOOK THE SAME to almost all viewers. If they do look different, that difference is so subtle most viewers will not care. They are far more likely to notice everything else.

Rob. UHD standard is not merely about resolution. It is about improved colour space, it is about improved bitrates. It is about many things.

Even in theaters by saying that "studies have shown" most viewers cannot tell the difference between 2K and 4K finishes is a false analogy, as most people don't know what it 4K is to begin with. Additionally, what questions did the study ask the participants?

Which sharpness did you prefer? Which image was the better? Which gave the better viewing experience?

Additionally: Was the study a controlled study? Was it a double-blind study? What measures were they using? Were there any biometrics involved to see how the body and mind reacted? In fact, what are these countless studies you are referring by which you are amused we haven't read? As I would also like to read a few of them as well (despite our capacity to count them due to their uncountable nature).

I assure you the reverse is not true regarding 4K - a person who has only ever seen 4K will notice immediately when watching 2K much the same way that once you use an iPhone retina, looking at the 3GS is quite difficult. Realistically you can physically see the pixels of a 2K/HD projector from about 2/3 of the theater especially in solid colours. The same cannot be said of 4K.

 

[Mike Hechanova]

What Rob says makes sense and I believe his position is the same for the majority of people outside of this forum. Yes, I've heard results of such studies as well. I'm inclined to agree. But I dunno, I went to RED's 4k showcase a few months ago at the Sunshine theater in NYC. I sat around the middle of the theater, where I usually like to sit regardless of projection resolution. Maybe it was a tiny bit on the closer side of the middle. I still thought I wouldnt notice any difference, but then Ted queued that RED reel. I was pretty stunned. It was noticeable. Afterwards a guest presenter, who does great work, presented some of his own professional work shot on red, mastered in 1080, and the difference wasn't just slightly noticeable.

Ofcourse, since it wasn't the same material I'm comparing its not really fair, but an informal observation I experienced.

John, thanks for the chart. Lately I've been running 6:1 on Epic. Half an hour on 256gb doesnt sound great. I dont need 6k but I'll be damn sure running it primarily for FOV. I hate running 4khd on epic; it feels cropped (it is). I'm used to 5k fov. I'm sure the same thing will happen to me regarding 6k vs 5k.

 

[Häakon]

I'm all for high resolution acquisition. That said, 6K is overkill - beyond lenses, beyond any Acs ability to keep focus, just overkill in almost any real-life shot.

The number of pixels isn't a determining factor in depth of field (i.e., an AC's ability to keep focus). You can have a 6K ~s35mm sensor and a 4K full frame sensor (say, the EOS 1Ds), and the DoF is going to be more challenging on the 4K sensor. You're probably already aware of that, but it's important to clarify that 6K in and of itself does not make pulling focus more difficult. It just makes pictures more detailed (all other things being equal).

I don't subscribe to those online "viewing distance charts" that purport to show how close you have to be from a screen to notice a difference in resolution. Either I have world-class vision or everyone else's eyes just really suck if they're true. Obviously there are physical limits, but I think most of the time they are far too conservatively estimated. Also, obviously, everyone sees things slightly differently and there isn't a blanket rule for everyone. At any rate (as you pointed out), 6K is at this time primarily intended for acquisition and not distribution so it's a fairly moot point. Even if I'm going for 1080p delivery, I would still prefer to have that 6K master - because oversampling is king. Capturing at native resolution never provides you with the best results.

You're right that the file sizes (and let's face it, even the computer power required to chug through those files) does get a bit excessive at 6K. That's the obvious drawback of shooting in that format. But that sting will lessen over time like it always has, and the fact that working with 6K footage on a normal desktop computer is still possible (if just a bit slower) is a testament to how well RED's codec works.

Personally, I think larger sensors are the next logical step... even though there are a lot of people who resist the idea. Fortunately, I think technology will advance regardless - I'm just hoping RED still has the creative drive to make it happen sooner than later. It would be even more disrupting than their first cameras turned out to be, but would also be a paradigm shift in image quality in a way we haven't seen since s35mm became a standard decades upon decades ago.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I think you're saying the same thing that many, many people have said since the RED ONE came out... they love the FoV and image quality of the max-resolution formats but don't want to deal with the massive data rates and shorter record times when they don't need to. Unfortunately, in-camera oversampling is still not something that seems to be in the cards...

 

[Detlev Eller]

"I just can´t get enough" ...

6K, 8K ... 24K .... bring it on!

Some people, on the edge, will know how to make use of it ... ;-)

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Rob. UHD standard is not merely about resolution. It is about improved colour space, it is about improved bitrates. It is about many things.

Even in theaters by saying that "studies have shown" most viewers cannot tell the difference between 2K and 4K finishes is a false analogy, as most people don't know what it 4K is to begin with. Additionally, what questions did the study ask the participants?

Which sharpness did you prefer? Which image was the better? Which gave the better viewing experience?

Additionally: Was the study a controlled study? Was it a double-blind study? What measures were they using? Were there any biometrics involved to see how the body and mind reacted? In fact, what are these countless studies you are referring by which you are amused we haven't read? As I would also like to read a few of them as well (despite our capacity to count them due to their uncountable nature).

I assure you the reverse is not true regarding 4K - a person who has only ever seen 4K will notice immediately when watching 2K much the same way that once you use an iPhone retina, looking at the 3GS is quite difficult. Realistically you can physically see the pixels of a 2K/HD projector from about 2/3 of the theater especially in solid colours. The same cannot be said of 4K.

Study was simple: They had two projectors on the same screen. They would switch between them and then ask people to guess which was 2K and which was 4K. . Most people could not tell the difference between 2K upscaled to 4K (like just under 90%) The 2K projector they could tell more, as some people saw grid lines (even then, a still tiny percentage). Most people chose the higher contrast images, with deeper depth of field as 4K, even if it was in fact 2K, and said that the lower contrast images were 2K even though they were 4K.

It was a well done study, not by idiots.

As far as better color, that might be nice - but many P3 films are graded in Rec 709 - because it's a lot easier to upscale color than downscale it, and the vast majority of viewers of any content will see it on Rec 709 devices.

Outside this forum, no one cares about 4K much and really, client demand does not exist (as a deliverable). Be happy with high res acquisition and its oversampling and other benefits, but many of you would do well to realize that 4K is irrelevant for finishing, and might always be. It's not at all like SD, which was visibly lacking in resolution to the vast majority of viewers watching a 50 inch screen at comfortable distance, and which the focus-pulling abilities of most Acs and lenses could easily out resolve. WIth 1080p/2K this is simply not the case. No real human in the future will skip on watching a show because it is "only" mastered in 2K.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

"I just can´t get enough" ...

6K, 8K ... 24K .... bring it on!

Some people, on the edge, will know how to make use of it ... ;-)

I don't know about "the edge" but I do know about real clients paying real $$ for real projects in 2013-2014. They have no desire for even more computer-demanding/expensive post. Human vision is not about to improve because of technology.