What we CAN do...NEW

[Jay A. Kelley]

2k Scaled is a VERY big deal

2k Scaled is a VERY big deal

I would take this in a heartbeat.. It would also mean that a 16gb flash card would hold up to 20min of footage.

I sure hope this comes through.

This is depending of course, on the fact that it will not take forever to transcode.

Jay

 

[Anders Holck]

Graeme, with the death of on-board RGB recording on the horizon, will you still pursue the quicktime RGB codec?

 

[Nils Ruinet]

I hope this can happen. 2K @ 24fps from the full sensor, scaled RAW, would allow for about 17 minutes record time on a single 8GB CF card vs the ~5min with 4K 24fps. Definitely some advantages there if the project doesn't need the full resolution.

It also means more than 10 hours of 2K footage on a RedDrive ! Especially for people working on documentary projects, this could make a big difference.
It also means shorter transfer and backup times.

And as Jay said, we still need to hear about transcoding times. At least a rough estimate would be great, just to get an idea. I understand that every computer is different, but for example how long would it take to convert 10 minutes of 4K RAW to 1080P RGB on a Macbook Pro ?

Nils.

 

[Karl H]

Thanks for listening (over the 25p issue).

I feel much happier today.

 

[Roberto B]

yeah, 25 frames rules but where's the former thread??..

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Jarred deleted it.

 

[Roberto B]

by the way, where's the man?.. he has been away.

 

[Stuart English]

CF card recording

CF card recording

Thanks for listening (over the 25p issue).

This thread is in the context of what will work for both a CF card as well as RED-DRIVE, and CF cards are getting faster. What can be done on a CF card today could not be done a few months ago. Its pretty exciting when solid state recording technology is evolving in parallel with the RED-ONE.

 

[Roberto B]

good news.. i think you'll have more shooters on the 25 side than everything else.. scaling 2k instead windowed too..

 

[number6]

Just was wondering, will anything being worked on now be enabled in time to ship to the set in Spain? Wouldn't THAT be a test!

 

[Häakon]

Since the other post was deleted I'll just re-add my personal outlook on this one and then be done with it. It seems most people are in favor of a 2K solution, and I concede that doing what the majority of users feels best may be the right way to go for RED.

I still maintain that a 1080 scaled image will look better at 1080 than a 2K one which has been slightly shrunk to 1080. Since there is a far greater chance that people will be finishing in 1080 than 2K, I'd like to have the best quality image for my final project in that form. That's really the only point I was trying to get across.

I think perhaps there is a psychological event happening here as it relates to the difference between 4K, 2K, and 1080p. Just looking at those numbers, it would seem like, hey... 4 is twice as big as 2... and 2 is twice as big as 1... so 2K must be a lot bigger/better than 1080! Maybe this is just my hunch, but then again we all know $499.99 is only a penny away from $500 and yet we continue to perceive it as a much better deal. Otherwise, why is everyone so much more excited over a 2K solution than a 1080 one - especially if they're both RAW?

The other problem is that in the higher digital formats (2K, 4K) we have switched focus of the lines of resolution from the vertical to the horizontal, and that causes a lot of confusion too. 720p is 1280x720. 1080 is 1920x1080. 2K, however, is 2,048 x 1,152 - yet we call it 2K, not "1152p."

Here's a great image from Brook's FAQ:

Note the extremely subtle difference in size between 2K and 1080; they're nearly identical. But to shoot at 2K and then downres ever so slightly is just going to soften your picture more than anything. David Newman made an excellent comment about this here.

Please understand that I am not trying to fight anyone on this issue and to be honest, I will do 90% of my shooting in 4K so it won't effect me a whole lot to begin with. I just thought I would help clarify, if anyone wasn't understanding, that the difference between 2K and 1080 is quite small and if your end goal is to finish at 1080 (which I suspect many, many peoples' will be), then it's better to shoot at 1080 than to shoot at 2K. Even if there isn't a noticeable quality hit, you're still going to have to resize each and every frame before you finish. To me, that seems like a total waste of time - especially when that step can be spared. So before you destroy the format altogether, take one last look at what you're asking. Because of this, I would be in favor of keeping 2K windowed, but 1080 scaled.

In other news, the announcement that Graeme may indeed be able to get scaled RAW into the camera is fantastic, and will certainly give either of those options some new legs. I don't see much of a compelling reason to shoot windowed anymore for my uses, but some will appreciate the ability to push a few more fps out of that format and/or use existing 16mm/B4 lenses they may already own. This of course will be more important to some users than others given that we can already get 60p out of the scaled RAW option, but it's important and necessary to have these options available.

 

[Robert Berger]

4K REDCODE RAW @ 1-24 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive,

In europe we shoot a lot on 25 fps because of sound/editing/dvd's/50 hz
Could you manage up to a 25 fps. for compact Flash and Red Drive??

thanks Robert
camlight is online now Report Post


Sorry did not read page 3 with the right answer for my question by Jim.
Problem solved in the near futher by RED

 

[Martin Drew]

Häakon. Why not just crop to 1080 when required rather than scale? That would seem to address your point about maintaining ultimate sharpness

M

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

If the 2K RAW Scaled from the 35mm Sensor is possible, I also change my opinion to loosing the HD resolutions.
This 2K RAW Scaled option would be great and really make the HD resolutions not really worthwile.

Great job from the REDteam in keep making the camera better with such a positive attitude!

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think there's two possible solutions for the 1080p crowd. One is to go along with the 2K movement and the camera will show 1080p frame lines on the EVF and LCD to aid in framing to a 1080p raster. In post instead of scaling, just crop to 1920x1080, this will give a 6% overscan on all sides to work with for re-framing too.

The other possibility and I'd definitely be interested in this... Is 1080p scaled from the full sensor in addition to 2K scaled. If it turns out possible to scale RAW, would it be a big deal to also offer 1920x1080 RAW scaled from the full sensor? I can't pretend to know the internal workings of the camera, but it seems to me that FPGA space shouldn't be impacted too much by this. Afterall, there should be some headroom available if the RGB modes are eliminated.

 

[Martin Drew]

Assuming the scaled RAW is by combing pixels to create a super pixel, could we also have a 2.25K scaled RAW from the 4.5K full sensor. That would allow for a slightly wider FOV when needed.

M

 

[Adrian T.]

Häakon. Why not just crop to 1080 rather than scale?

M

Good point! Transcode from 2K to 1080P should be done by cropping.

I think it should be possible to have 1080P frame lines in the EVF and LCD display while shooting in 2K.

 

[Häakon]

Häakon. Why not just crop to 1080 rather than scale?

M

Hi Martin,

My answer is the same as David's reasons I linked to in my post:

One reason to support 1080p RAW is to avoid a 2048 to 1920 down-scale, this 6% downres is not ideal, as most scalers would soften the image as compared to a 1080p crop. If you're going to crop in post, why not crop in camera? Of course shooting 2048 does offer some subtle re-framing options if you're going to crop, but based on my experience with the SI-2K, I shoot 2K when I want that and 1080 otherwise -- it speeds up the post the post to avoid any re-framing or scaling. 1080p RAW is a fine option if that can happen.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

On the same token, I'm sure many people see their projects being deilvered digitally on either 2K Christie's or possibly 4K Sony projectors.

So 2K and 4K is preferable in those situations.

 

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

Why not just crop to 1080 when required rather than scale?

That's exactly what I had in mind. All we need is some sort of guide on the LCD screen to frame for 1080 instead of 2K. Should we need a 1080 footage, we would always shoot for 2K but frame for 1080 and then crop in post... That is the best solution in my humble opinion.