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 :)

REDCODE 42...

Before RED could do 16:9, and we had to use 2:1, I kinda fell in love with that format after a while. It's somehow wide enough, but not too wide, in contrast to anamorphic, that you would need to be careful.

Even on a 16:9 PAL DVD progressive encode, 2:1 is the true "cinematic shit" - at least for me :-d ;-D

So, now even better quality for my favorite 1:1 for each eye, Storaro-Vision. I can't wait to use it on the next project.

The 4.5K is certainly tempting for the super35mm evangelists, who like the 2,35 width created by prime lenses, without the "artifacts" of anamorphic lenses.

I tend to think however, if you go beyond 2:1, only anamorphic gives you what you seek.

I put a HAWK on a 4K 16:9 settings to get an insane 1:3.5 picture. How long will it take, till Mark from Offhollywood will show us a 4.5K image with 1:5,67 ?
At least a reason, to run those projectors parallel ... :-D
 
If you don't want 4.5k, then don't use it.

If you don't need or care for RC42 then don't use it.

I for one am happy to see things progressing. Yes, in low detail scenes you will have a terrible time trying to see the difference. Put a bunch of trees moving in the wind, behind a chain link fence as you truck side to side and you might find Waldo.
 
If there were any other company, it would be called a RED ONE_A and we'd all have to buy it.
Thanks Jim!
 
Jannard said:
I doubt that 8GB cards will be obsolete... it is very difficult to tell REDCODE 28 from RC 36. Even more difficult to tell RC 42 from RC 36.

Jim
Click to expand...

will we be able to shoot 4.5K RC36? on 8GBCF?

Colin
 
4,5K will be very usefull, even if you plan to master in 16/9

This gives you an option to Pan left/right in post.
It was the same when shooting 4:3 with 16mm. Don't use a "Normal16-Camera" that blanks off the right side of the neg.
Instead it was better to use a Super16-camera and frame it in the middle of the 1.66-frame, that gave you pan-posibiletys.

Will 4,5K have the same hight as 4K-16/9?

/carl
 
C_Skaff said:
4,5K will be very usefull, even if you plan to master in 16/9

This gives you an option to Pan left/right in post.
It was the same when shooting 4:3 with 16mm. Don't use a "Normal16-Camera" that blanks off the right side of the neg.
Instead it was better to use a Super16-camera and frame it in the middle of the 1.66-frame, that gave you pan-posibiletys.

Will 4,5K have the same hight as 4K-16/9?

/carl
Click to expand...

No. It is 2.33:1.

Jim
 
C_Skaff said:
4,5K will be very usefull, even if you plan to master in 16/9

This gives you an option to Pan left/right in post.
It was the same when shooting 4:3 with 16mm. Don't use a "Normal16-Camera" that blanks off the right side of the neg.
Instead it was better to use a Super16-camera and frame it in the middle of the 1.66-frame, that gave you pan-posibiletys.

Will 4,5K have the same hight as 4K-16/9?

/carl
Click to expand...

the frame height will not be the same

4096x2304 is 4k 16x9

so a 2.33 ratio of a 2304 frame height would require 5376 pixels wide which is wider than the sensor. We know that mysterium is 4520 X 2540 but that some of that area is used for look around.

4520/2.33=1937 pixels tall, so 367 pixels "shorter" than the 16x9 height of 4k (2304)
 
Hmm, so if it soon is possible to capture 4520x1937 (2.33) about 8,7 million pixels
And it is also possible to capture 4096x2304 (1.78) 9,4 million pixels
that might mean that the camera has the speed to maybe shot 4520x2087 (2.16) about 9,4 million pixels.

Although those extra 150 lines might not make to much difference.
But how come we can't go "full aperture", 4520x2540?
I know you use it for "look around" but I wouldn't mind having that recorded, if possible in the future :)

No complaining, just thoughts.
/carl
 
I believe RED One 4.5K is actually 4480x1920 or something like that and not the full 4520 sensor width. I know that a 2.40:1 mode of 4480x1866 was what was originally thrown out there a few months back, if I remember...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I believe RED One 4.5K is actually 4480x1920 or something like that and not the full 4520 sensor width. I know that a 2.40:1 mode of 4480x1866 was what was originally thrown out there a few months back, if I remember...
Click to expand...

4520 end up in fractional numbers as you half the resolutions down to 1/16. Same with 1866 so we chose the best fit (2.33) that lets you easily get a 2.35 or 2.40 out of it.
 
Jannard said:
....I doubt that 8GB cards will be obsolete... it is very difficult to tell REDCODE 28 from RC 36. Even more difficult to tell RC 42 from RC 36.
Jim
Click to expand...

Jim,
Will RC 42 will be equal to RC 225 when comparing 'pixel to pixel' compression quality?
 
Jason Wingrove said:
Always thought the extra .5K was the lookaround? so if you switch to 4.5K i presume you forego that?
jas
Click to expand...

Wow I was waiting till someone asked that. 4.5K means no more "silent aperture" left/right of the frame. I'm sure QUAD HD might be alittle different then Full Chip 2.33.

Is this not the case?

BTW Quad HD @ RC42 would be real nice:)

Great Work!
 
I bet you can see it when pushing the pi** out of an image in Scratch though?

just a guess...but I bet you can also see it on super low light stuff

Jannard said:
I doubt that 8GB cards will be obsolete... it is very difficult to tell REDCODE 28 from RC 36. Even more difficult to tell RC 42 from RC 36.

Jim
Click to expand...
 
david farland said:
Jim,
Will RC 42 will be equal to RC 225 when comparing 'pixel to pixel' compression quality?
Click to expand...

No. RC 225 is a massive amount of data. Probably a ton of overkill. But will be useful when shooting 5K at 100fps.

Think data rate divided by frame rate.

Jim
 
Pardon my ignorance in advance.

Beyond a bump in resolution what are the advantages of Redcode 42 when compared to Redcode 36?

As far as I understand: More bandwidth = less artifacting and more chroma information... but RED doesn't seem to suffer from artifacting and has plenty of color. So what will more bandwidth achieve in visual terms? Will it prevent the codec from getting weird under difficult circumstances (like backlit trees/leaves) ?

Will dynamic range or the signal to noise ratio be affected ?

thank you,
Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top