ChrisLyon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 719
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Shreveport, LA
- Website
- www.redrelay.net
Hahaa.... Frutiger forever!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
I just want the COMIC SANS font changed on the camera menu and I'm all good.
If the screen can be made as thin as it currently is, metal wouldn't bother me too much. I just hate those 8" Panasonics that are two inches deep and weigh five pounds. I also think that we should be able to use the same LCD screen (just a larger cut) to give us higher resolutions at the same pixel density. There's not much sense in making a 10" 720p monitor when we already have a 5" one.Häakon, the prototype metal LCD case at NAB didn't add any significant weight to the design... but it added a ton of rigidity. I'd love to get one of those older LCDs in my hands to see how my memory is.
I'm in with this. 1.34x anamorphics would be welcome, but I would still personally like to have a 4:3 recording mode available using the windowed center of the sensor. (I don't know software development, but I would assume this would be "easier" than building a brand new lens.)It would actually 3.5:1. The reason to use a conventional 2x anamorphic on RED would be to retain the full optical effects of "classic" anamorphics. In most situations you would end up cropping quite a bit off the sides of the stretched image in post to maintain your 2.35:1 ratio or whatever you might be shooting for. Which this would be a good argument for having various record modes like 2880x2304 (instead of the full 4096x2304) in order to not record that extra info that will just be thrown away in a 2.35:1 presentation. Thus allowing for longer record times vs. using the full 4K frame and/or potentially higher frame rates than if we were shooting the full 4K frame.
It would actually 3.5:1. The reason to use a conventional 2x anamorphic on RED would be to retain the full optical effects of "classic" anamorphics. In most situations you would end up cropping quite a bit off the sides of the stretched image in post to maintain your 2.35:1 ratio or whatever you might be shooting for. Which this would be a good argument for having various record modes like 2880x2304 (instead of the full 4096x2304) in order to not record that extra info that will just be thrown away in a 2.35:1 presentation. Thus allowing for longer record times vs. using the full 4K frame and/or potentially higher frame rates than if we were shooting the full 4K frame.[/B]
OTOH, the 1.34X anamorphic approach would allow for use of the full 4K frame (without cropping the sides) to stretch in post to a 2.35:1 aspect. And David's suggestions of the 1.34X for this reason as well as potentially being easier and cheaper to manufacture, still providing some of the classic anamorphic look and filling an open niche in the market are all great reasons. So, while I was kinda hung up on the 2X anamorphics before, the 1.34X anamorphics do make a lot of sense when considering RED.
You mean a 4K display in your editing suite after you've converted the RAW footage through REDCODE? Or an on-set live de-Bayered 4K image? Because there isn't much need for live display resolutions on set to exceed 1080P. I'm trying to think of a practical reason for looking at a live 4K image. Maybe catching a dead pixel, that's the only one I can think of.
Brook your list was very very good.
I hope red goes through it with a fine tooth comb.