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 :)

waiting for scarlet

Wow, never did the math but you're right. As a simple comparative measurement, if the sensor was 9x9, they skip two out of every three rows, so only 3 rows. Then, skip 2 out of every 3 pixels. 3x3 = 9, so the used pixels in this example are 9/9x9 or 1/9 = 11% used out of the sensor.

Two things that are important to realize here:

For the 7D to even have the raw data of all pixels to do a full down convert to 1080p, it has to work with almost 9x the amount of data. That is ALOT. Given the fastest you can aquire I think is 8fps, in reality they need 3x to 4x minimum faster speed whatever the limit is (could be the sensor, could be the processors) to get to 24 or 30fps.

Now think of this, the scarlet fixed can do 150fps burst and 120fps sustained!
 
It seems very difficult here to put a point across without it become a RED v whatever debate. I'm on this forum becuase I want a RED, no one needs to convince me otherwise.

What I am saying is that if you take pristine 4k footage and allow a broadcaster to down-rez and compress it, then send it via the internet... you will get unpredictable results, it is not a simple case of 4k to 1080p is great.... because there are things out of your hands (of course, this is also applicable to film, 7D, EX3, insert camera name here to avoid RED battles)... The M-X showreel, when 1st posted, contained aliasing and moire because someone hadn't downscaled it as well as it could have been.... it's not too hard to imagine less controlled downscales causing more severe problems.

Also, let's not forget this technology will allow people to view youtube/vimeo etc on their tv.

When people start getting used to watching poor, compressed quality footage... it can become the norm (mp3 being the audio equivalent). That doesn't mean that we should stop making things as best we can.... but it does mean that some people will get away with cutting corners and some broadcasters will show things that were not considered "broadcast quality" beforehand, as people dumb down.
 
Last edited:
To me, it seems there are two different points being made here and they are getting intertwined and it is causing confusion. Namely...

Point 1) The pictures we will all be seeing in the future (thanks to video over IP, bandwidth limitations, compression, etc) will be generally lower quality and people, in getting used to it, just won't care.

Point 2) Whether you acquire a very high quality image (vis a vis Scarlet) or a much lesser quality image (7D, etc) won't matter because the actual visual image delivered will of so much lesser quality that the original acquisition quality is completely lost and is, therefore, irrelevant.

As for the first point, I personally don't buy it (and it has been discussed elsewhere on this forum). But I'll admit, it is an un-winnable argument either way simply because it means predicting the future and no one seems to agree as to who does that best.

As for the second point, I don't see how the quality of the original image doesn't have a huge impact on the final image, even if the final image is highly compressed. Conventional wisdom even today says to start with the best image you can acquire because, while it will be degraded by compression, you will still be better off at the end. After all, compressing video that is already highly compressed with bad artifacts, is only going to get REALLY bad the more it is processed and compressed. At least if you start of with a pristine image, you have a chance of retaining as much of that quality as possible when preparing it for "broadcast."

I know there are those who make the point that people don't care about the quality of the visual experience but, personally, I don't buy that. Given a choice, everything else being equal (story, acting, etc), I believe people will gravitate toward the "better picture."

Terry
 
Terry touched on more accurately what I was trying to say. My misunderstanding was why would the artifacts of vDSLR's go away on the web where 4k would acquire artifacts, just didn't make sense to me. Now not to say that badly compressed 4k can do that, it was just the vDSLR looking better in the same situation that made no sense to me. Perhaps I misunderstood you and if that was the case I apologize, this thread is already far enough off the topic already no need for me to make it worse.

as others have said still waiting for scarlet, but in the meantime enjoying my hd-100u/pentax k-x (oh yeah I'm rockin' all the top end tech)
 
Exactly, and to make a great analogy, look at MP3 audio files.

If you take an MP3 audio file then make another MP3 file of that, it sounds horrible (go test it).

If you take a 16-bit WAV file and make an MP3 out of it, it sounds decent.

The point is, when you use a lossy compression, you are losing something. When you compress again, you are taking that distortion, and applying additional distortion to it.

With a 4K image, you are starting with a much higher quality full resolution picture. This will ALWAYS yield a better result than starting with an already modified image that has been through a lossy process.

Bringing up the Moire or Aliasing issue because someone didn't use the software right isn't really a fair argument. That's user error. Why? Not to mention that the 7D would have had the Moire and aliasing in it from the beginning. That's like saying just because someone bumped the fader up on the mixing board and distorted the output means that the results are unpredictable and I should avoid the technology? Nope, not buying it.

This is just a silly argument. The FACT is that the 7D and many other DSLRs out right now are using lossy compression and have moire/alias artifacts straight out of the camera. This will ALWAYS present more of a problem down the road. And let's not forget that the 7D also has color banding in the Moire as well. Like I said, I love my 7D, but a camera that line skips is going to be inferior to one that doesn't ALWAYS. No OLPF will solve that problem and not lose the sharpness in the image because of the amount of dead space where the image is ignored on the sensor (~90%)

And let's not forget about the jello problem (rolling shutter) of current DSLRs.

The issue is this, there are hardware limitations in all of the DSLRs available today that translate into real world limitations. It is these limitations that the Scarlet (in theory) overcome. Resolution is ONE ISSUE. There are many issues. Just focusing on one is not the whole story, and those limitations are where people are going to HAPPILY move to another camera (even other than Scarlet) that doesn't suffer from those issues. It's that simple.

I cannot tell you have frustrated I get when I get home and dump the card off my 7D and see a bunch of aliasing on a window sill on a building and I didn't even notice it and had no way of noticing it because I don't currently own a field monitor.

I'l agree, a lot of this is opinion and speculation, but I stand behind higher quality source material will work in more instances both upsized AND downsized that lower quality.
 
Sure, i've worked in and around the audio industry since 97 or so and know the old saying "put s**t in, get s**t out"......

But when you put content in the hands of the end user.... and they can grab it from anywhere off the net... youtube, vimeo, films ripped from a theater etc (the link posted was not talking directly about TV over IP, governed by a network) then you have to expect a big dumbing down of what people find acceptable.... lower than SD.

Anyway, i'm not suggesting anyone here start dropping their standards because they "might" be able to get away with it and save some $.... i'm just saying it is worth keeping in mind... because people will do it and it will be out of the hands of networks sooner or later.
 
I see you what your saying. Unfortunately, things like jello and aliasing and moire are so bad on some of these cameras that what ends up happening is that when you shoot, you have to limit your creativity our freedom of the shot to stay within that realm where even when shrunk or compressed to hell, it won't still look bad.

Currently, we work inside this smaller range. We can't do fast pans, we can't run around with the camera. Our urban shots have to be VERY careful or we see rainbows in the buildings. But, we love the easy to get shallow DoF we are willing to work with it for now.

So in essence, we are doing just what you say. But of course, that's because I want to work up to an S35 eventually which will be MY holy grail camera. And given I can just swap brains with the scarlet, I will keep the Fixed Cinema for REAL DEEP focus and slo mo. I can't wait.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
To me, it seems there are two different points being made here and they are getting intertwined and it is causing confusion. Namely...

Point 1) The pictures we will all be seeing in the future (thanks to video over IP, bandwidth limitations, compression, etc) will be generally lower quality and people, in getting used to it, just won't care.

Point 2) Whether you acquire a very high quality image (vis a vis Scarlet) or a much lesser quality image (7D, etc) won't matter because the actual visual image delivered will of so much lesser quality that the original acquisition quality is completely lost and is, therefore, irrelevant.

As for the first point, I personally don't buy it (and it has been discussed elsewhere on this forum). But I'll admit, it is an un-winnable argument either way simply because it means predicting the future and no one seems to agree as to who does that best.

As for the second point, I don't see how the quality of the original image doesn't have a huge impact on the final image, even if the final image is highly compressed. Conventional wisdom even today says to start with the best image you can acquire because, while it will be degraded by compression, you will still be better off at the end. After all, compressing video that is already highly compressed with bad artifacts, is only going to get REALLY bad the more it is processed and compressed. At least if you start of with a pristine image, you have a chance of retaining as much of that quality as possible when preparing it for "broadcast."

I know there are those who make the point that people don't care about the quality of the visual experience but, personally, I don't buy that. Given a choice, everything else being equal (story, acting, etc), I believe people will gravitate toward the "better picture."

Terry
Click to expand...

Im 29 i dont own a tv ... i am watching all the march madness i can handle free on the internet ..how much would that cost me to have a "package" through cable..

my step children have never complained once

they dont care if there is a tv ..their friends never say a word because its all myspace, facebook or youtube for them

now, when my adult friends walk in first thing they say is "wheres your tv?"

its kind of funny .. they are the future and they have already made their choice

of course streaming speeds will increase and resolution will catch up but then again people probably said the same about mp3's
 
chrislancaster said:
Im 29 i dont own a tv ... i am watching all the march madness i can handle free on the internet ..how much would that cost me to have a "package" through cable..

my step children have never complained once

they dont care if there is a tv ..their friends never say a word because its all myspace, facebook or youtube for them

now, when my adult friends walk in first thing they say is "wheres your tv?"

its kind of funny .. they are the future and they have already made their choice

of course streaming speeds will increase and resolution will catch up but then again people probably said the same about mp3's
Click to expand...

So... the relationship between my previous post and yours is...?

Terry
 
chrislancaster said:
youtube>mtv

if your a teen .. see the relationship??
Click to expand...

Seriously, I really don't see how your comment relates to mine. To try and repeat in a very shortened form what I was discussing:

1) When given a choice, people prefer better quality over poor quality and,
2) Technically, it makes no sense to rationalize shooting poor quality just because it will get degraded in the distribution. You always want to start with the best signal possible.

How does that relate to not having a TV, YouTube and teens? I don't think the fact that people view YouTube more than MTV is much of an argument, if that's where you were going. There are just way too many additional variables to suggest... what... people prefer the poor quality of YouTube?

And please note that I stated my belief that the argument regarding preferences was pretty much un-winnable (for either POV) since it is subjective and requires a level of prescience that I, for one, don't have. So I leave you to your opinion on this one and respectfully disagree. I still believe people will prefer a higher quality experience over a lesser quality one, assuming everything else to be equal. I guess the key thing here is that the trend for a better visual experience (e.g. RED's pursuit) will continue and those who create that better visual experience will get rewarded.

FWIW I have a son and a daughter who only just recently exited the "teen years." So, no, I am not a teen. :smile:
 
chrislancaster said:
Im 29 i dont own a tv...
my step children have never complained once
they dont care if there is a tv ...their friends never say a word because its all myspace, facebook or youtube for them
now, when my adult friends walk in first thing they say is "wheres your tv?"
its kind of funny .. they are the future and they have already made their choice
Click to expand...

youtube to facebook to myspace to twitter to..... yet again boredom

Those are all passing fads that last couple of years..teens grow out
of those and out of stupid (friendships?) based on nothing more
than who said what 3 hours ago in third period...all such nonsense.

Kinda confused thread...it's titled "Waiting for Scarlet"...waiting for
scarlet to do what..? Make a movie for you ? Scarlet is just a tool...
..you have to bring something to it...not the other way around.

Scarlet is waiting for you to bring something(idea..concept..story) to it.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Seriously, I really don't see how your comment relates to mine. To try and repeat in a very shortened form what I was discussing:

1) When given a choice, people prefer better quality over poor quality and,
2) Technically, it makes no sense to rationalize shooting poor quality just because it will get degraded in the distribution. You always want to start with the best signal possible.

How does that relate to not having a TV, YouTube and teens? I don't think the fact that people view YouTube more than MTV is much of an argument, if that's where you were going. There are just way too many additional variables to suggest... what... people prefer the poor quality of YouTube?

And please note that I stated my belief that the argument regarding preferences was pretty much un-winnable (for either POV) since it is subjective and requires a level of prescience that I, for one, don't have. So I leave you to your opinion on this one and respectfully disagree. I still believe people will prefer a higher quality experience over a lesser quality one, assuming everything else to be equal. I guess the key thing here is that the trend for a better visual experience (e.g. RED's pursuit) will continue and those who create that better visual experience will get rewarded.

FWIW I have a son and a daughter who only just recently exited the "teen years." So, no, I am not a teen. :smile:
Click to expand...

Certainly many of us who shoot prefer higher quality acquisition if we can afford it and have access. If not to serve the needs of today, then to future proof our valuable footage so it remains marketable as distribution formats and quality improves.
Even YouTube is moving gradually towards higher quality content. I don't think internet bandwidths will hinder HD presentation quality on normal home sized TV's and computer monitors in the near future. Many current gen HD TV's are equipped to stream network based broadcast quality content directly. Internet video quality today is potentially far better than it has ever been and improves continually.
 
It's just a silly statement to make anyways. MTV vs YouTube is a CONTENT argument, it's like Apples to Oranges. I use youtube all the time, but not to watch quality content. I ignore MTV because when I was young, it was MUSIC television, with videos. Now it's all reality shows, and I get enough reality in real life.

And I'll even go one further to say the quality of cable where I live was SO bad that I just stopped watching television altogether. The artifacting and glitching were horrible, couldn't stand it. Now I just wait and buy whatever show I want on DVD.
 
Rick Burnett said:
It's just a silly statement to make anyways. MTV vs YouTube is a CONTENT argument, it's like Apples to Oranges. I use youtube all the time, but not to watch quality content. I ignore MTV because when I was young, it was MUSIC television, with videos. Now it's all reality shows, and I get enough reality in real life.

And I'll even go one further to say the quality of cable where I live was SO bad that I just stopped watching television altogether. The artifacting and glitching were horrible, couldn't stand it. Now I just wait and buy whatever show I want on DVD.
Click to expand...


i owe you nothing.. dont think anyone owes you an explanation


all im trying to do is make a case that internet will have more viewers than cable tv on most events


you dont buy it ..i dont care
 
chrislancaster said:
i owe you nothing.. dont think anyone owes you an explanation
...all im trying to do is make a case that internet will have more viewers than cable tv on most events
...you dont buy it ..i dont care
Click to expand...

Well you're on a public board..think you owe everyone a civil tone at
the least...and if you as you say " i don't care"...why be here...?
 
chrislancaster said:
i owe you nothing.. dont think anyone owes you an explanation


all im trying to do is make a case that internet will have more viewers than cable tv on most events


you dont buy it ..i dont care
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I looked back and see that you started this thread. If you didn't want comments and discussion, why bother?
 
First, where in that did I ask a question or say that someone owes me something? I made a few statements, I suggest you reread them since you didn't comprehend them.

Second, quantity of viewers is not indicative of quality of content. Where did I say that internet won't have more viewers? Why does that even matter? The quality of cable I just turned off a few weeks ago was WORSE than the quality of material I can find on the internet, like Youtube HD, Vimeo, Netflix, Exposure Room, or Hulu. I was tired of paying for inferior service when I can stream better over the INTERNET.

In MY opinion I see internet and television service continuing to converge into the same 'devices' and being offered through the same communication technologies. Obviously people want higher quality material or things like Bluray, which is MORE expensive than DVD, would have failed from the get go. I just switched to AT&T Uverse and if I wanted cable television, it would be delivered over my IP connection to them (TVIP).

So in essence, since cable can come over the internet, I'd have to agree with that statement! :) But it's still not indicative of quality. Just because someone buys a Red Scarlet camera doesn't mean the video they shoot isn't going to look like total crap because they don't know how to shoot good video, even at 3K! :) Nothing in the camera is going to prevent you from shooting garbage.

Are you under the impression that I think you can't get good video with the DSLRs? Because I KNOW you can get good video with them. You can get material that I have viewed at 1080p and looks beautiful. I've seen it projected. I've seen it compressed. I love the look of the camera. Some people will argue that you cannot get video out of them, but in my opinion, and that of the people who've paid me to shoot on the 7D, would disagree. That said, these cameras have more limitations and those limitations start to look really bad if you try to push the camera to far into realms that it does not perform well.

Want a real world example. What if you want to mount a DSLR camera on a motorcycle and record it for the movie or short you are making. All available DSLRS employ a slow rolling shudder and will suffer from jello:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEaDrS-yzIE

Go ahead and watch that clip at ANY of the resolutions (up to 1080p) and see how much it makes a difference...none.

Or better yet, I have the HV30 which has a MUCH BETTER performance in the rolling shudder department than my 7D, have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qC0_nIUq9s&feature=related

You think people are going to accept that? I doubt it. My point is there are limitations in these DSLR cameras that are beyond resolution differences. Showing in lower def isn't going to hide these problems. A camera like Red has worked to reduce these issues and that means acquisition is going to be easier.

In my opinion of course :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top