Whats the use of 4k in a budget camera?

[Andreas Mendritzki]

I think part (or perhaps ALL) of the issue here is in expectations. Scarlet is NOT a 'budget' camera. Jim has said repeatedly that it is a PRO camera intended for a PRO market.

So infact, what you have is NOT an overachieving (4k vs. HD) overpriced (15k vs. 3k) 'budget' camera, but an EXTREMELY UNDERPRICED Pro cinema camera.

 

[Michael Dalton]

Hey guys,

I've been checking out these forums ever since i heard about scarlet project. I used to be a photog and now i find myself doing more and more video. I currently use Nikons D3s and D7k. Don't be too hard on me, its an honest question

I don't see any use in 4k resolution in a (relatively speaking) budget video camera. Let me elaborate.

1. "Its great now" 99.999999% of final viewing is happening in 1080 or less afaik. Where do you need higher then 2k delivery format? In the very latest digital cinemas or imax (correct me if i missed any). All of these are high budget productions. It does not matter if the camera is 10k or 50k. Nobody is going to use scarlet instead of epic on a 50M (or 200M) budget. MAYBE as a b cam, but hostly, how many digital higher-then-2k productions do you know of??

2. "I like to be future-proof" This totally doesn't apply to big budgets, so we are talking small productions, i.e. hobby, low-bud films, music videos etc. For how many years ahead do we want to be "future-proof"? And how much money are we willing to spend on that? And how much money our clients wish to add to our paycheck for that? Its often a dead draw to try to be future-proof with any semiconductor-based technology. The only way to future-proof your work is to create a masterpiece. 2k is just fine for that. And will be for some more years to come. And in 5 years scarlet will be an old and obsolete camera anyway.

3. "Just set scarlet to 2k or downsample" And use what lenses? Or make my workflow twice harder? They can be made to work, but these are half-baked solutions.

Yes, it is important. I've made about 45 documentaries now. The first 7 are in SD, the next 20 in 720p. I fear that as content in 1080p grows that there will be zero market for these films. Now I'm beginning to wonder about 1080p. I know that format will be around for a long time, but because of the fact a lot of what I shot is in Africa, where there is no technology present to date my stuff, scarlet has become a time machine, letting me work 5 years into the future. Anything I shoot will be able to last 40 years. I can see anyone going beyond theatrical screens at home.

The slight cost in working with a 2k workflow down converted from 4k, means I can at some point up it to 4k. By then tape will be dead, and my job easier.

Somebody pointed out that 4k raw is compare in size to Proress HQ. So really there is no reason not to shoot 4k except for higher frame rates. For that purpose I'm going to pick up one wide angle APS-C lens to use to along side my L-Series set.

Great thing is, I'm planning to shot a feature next year, so any footage I shoot in my series (which share many of the same locations) can later be used in the film saving me a lot of 2nd unit time shoot generics.

As much as I like the idea of the 2/3 fixed.... I LOVE scarlet being 4k.

If the cost of the camera is what's bothering you, the proposed Canon C DSLR 4k seems awsome!!! Get that when it comes out and keep shooting HD till then if it does not matter to you. There are plenty of a great video cameras out there. Also you may want to consider a used Red One, they will be a lot cheaper in the near future I think. Red is a professional camera company, not a budget one.

 

[Lliam Worthington]

I think part (or perhaps ALL) of the issue here is in expectations. Scarlet is NOT a 'budget' camera. Jim has said repeatedly that it is a PRO camera intended for a PRO market.

So infact, what you have is NOT an overachieving (4k vs. HD) overpriced (15k vs. 3k) 'budget' camera, but an EXTREMELY UNDERPRICED Pro cinema camera.

This.

Yes, it is important. I've made about 45 documentaries now. The first 7 are in SD, the next 20 in 720p. I fear that as content in 1080p grows that there will be zero market for these films. Now I'm beginning to wonder about 1080p. I know that format will be around for a long time, but because of the fact a lot of what I shot is in Africa, where there is no technology present to date my stuff, scarlet has become a time machine, letting me work 5 years into the future. Anything I shoot will be able to last 40 years. I can see anyone going beyond theatrical screens at home.

The slight cost in working with a 2k workflow down converted from 4k, means I can at some point up it to 4k. By then tape will be dead, and my job easier.

Somebody pointed out that 4k raw is compare in size to Proress HQ. So really there is no reason not to shoot 4k except for higher frame rates. For that purpose I'm going to pick up one wide angle APS-C lens to use to along side my L-Series set.

Great thing is, I'm planning to shot a feature next year, so any footage I shoot in my series (which share many of the same locations) can later be used in the film saving me a lot of 2nd unit time shoot generics.

As much as I like the idea of the 2/3 fixed.... I LOVE scarlet being 4k.

If the cost of the camera is what's bothering you, the proposed Canon C DSLR 4k seems awsome!!! Get that when it comes out and keep shooting HD till then if it does not matter to you. There are plenty of a great video cameras out there. Also you may want to consider a used Red One, they will be a lot cheaper in the near future I think. Red is a professional camera company, not a budget one.

And this. Great post Michael.

 

[Cedric Akins]

I have been shooting video since S-VHS in the 90s the first sony VX100 1994 i think, HVX200, Canon 305, Sony FS100 at present, and many cameras in between. Year on year my clients get improved image and quality for little increase in cost, the end product gets better and better year on year, its a lesson in history! you keep shooting 1080 at 8 bit, then when in 6months or 12 months you find your clients liking the guys shooting on 4k and down res to 1080p. Then ask the same question again. I think you don't see the point or just don't want to keep up, its your choice.

Valery there is no way to argue this. You will have to keep improving on camera image quality if you want to keep clients happy. I understood what you were saying and thought the same way as well. I had to look at my desire for the 3K fixed lens Scarlet and realize this was on par with many huge budgeted films. I would have the same capability as the huge movie studios. So for what its worth this may not what we wanted it is in many ways much better.

 

[David Battistella]

So what you are saying is that films like Clockwork Orange, Space Odyssey, Alien, Starwars and even newer MEGA budget productions like Dark Knight are caught with their balls in their hands?

And what are you going to do in 10-15 years time when you'll have to blow your 4k four times to 8k and maybe higher?

Im not saying your argument is invalid, but its also not as clear cut as you try to present it.

I hope you get my slightly cheeky nature.

I'll put it a different way. Given the choice, in this market and at this time I prefer to shoot the highest resolution motion images available to me. That means RAW and that means 5k (or 4k for scarlet).

To me it would defeat the purpose of owning RED to (for example) get super 16 pl glass and shoot on a windowed 2k sensor.

I just think shooting the best available protects your images for the longest time against not being usable.

When 4k is the norm hd will be pretty unusable. You can think short or think long term. It's totally up to you. If the work ain't that important shoot on a 5d.

David

 

[David Battistella]

On my 50" 1080p Plasma?

Absolutely.

Bring it all up to 4k and then render out that 1080p movie.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

For image quality, I like Scarlet (or I probably will when I see some actual footage not just "it will look like Epic!").

Two main things. One, post production. Green screen, FX, post zooms, ridding of camera shake, color grading, all hold up extremely well in 4k. That's a big plus for the price of a Scarlet.

Two, if you're doing even no budget features, they have a good chance of making it to a big screen, even if it's just an indie film festival, or the local theater in your home town. 4k downsampled to 2k looks very nice on a big screen.

I do not buy the "future proofing" argument. Who is going to show your 5 year old documentary on a big screen? No one. Streaming 1080p looks good enough that the vast majority of viewing audience won't care about the difference in that and streaming something originally shot in 4k.

Captain America is shot on 1080p. After the initial theater release, the only time you're going to see it again is on DVD or streaming from the net. People watching Captain America on DVD or streaming are never going to say, this looks like crap because it wasn't shot in 4k! That is never going to happen.

There is no "future" to show your work on the big screen. Either you get a theatrical release after it's made, or you don't. That doesn't happen 5 or 10 years later. Once you put it on a TV or computer screen, the benefits of 4k are a lot less, so much less that the average viewer, not the pixel peeper, won't care.

I think the "future proofing" thing is just baloney. Still like the Scarlet though, adn think it's worthwhile to shoot in 4k, but not for "future proofing".

 

[David Battistella]

So what you are saying is that films like Clockwork Orange, Space Odyssey, Alien, Starwars and even newer MEGA budget productions like Dark Knight are caught with their balls in their hands?

I'll ask you this question.

Who knows they are shooting a masterpiece on the first day of principle photography?

You kill your own argument. The zapruder film was one of the most important pieces of film ever recorded. Are we talking about the importance of films or the quality in which we set out to make them?

 

[Eric Rodemann]

I hope you get my slightly cheeky nature.

I'll put it a different way. Given the choice, in this market and at this time I prefer to shoot the highest resolution motion images available to me. That means RAW and that means 5k (or 4k for scarlet).

To me it would defeat the purpose of owning RED to (for example) get super 16 pl glass and shoot on a windowed 2k sensor.

I just think shooting the best available protects your images for the longest time against not being usable.

When 4k is the norm hd will be pretty unusable. You can think short or think long term. It's totally up to you. If the work ain't that important shoot on a 5d.

David

well, you know what John Meynard Keynes said.

In the long run we are all dead.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

I'll ask you this question.

Who knows they are shooting a masterpiece on the first day of principle photography?

You kill your own argument. The zapruder film was one of the most important pieces of film ever recorded. Are we talking about the importance of films or the quality in which we set out to make them?

Look at Birdemic.

Who knew it would eventually get a limited theatrical release?

 

[Dan Kanes]

Do you want me to send you a .r3d still from a project I shot, along with a tiff created from a canon 5D video ?

I can send it to you and then you tell me what the point is?

 

[Eric Rodemann]

I just dont' get the "future proof" argument. What do you think is going to happen in the future? Everyone will have a 4k projector with a screen in their backyard?

Act of Valor is shot on a 5d mark II. What's going to happen to it in the "future"? It will get sold on DVD, and probably end up on netflix.

I still like the Scarlet, would still want to shoot with a Scarlet over the 5d for lots of other reasons, but again, what is going to happen to Act of Valor in the "future"? It's gotten it's theatrical release, it will make some money overseas and on DVD and online with netflix, then what? 10 years from now no one will watch it because it was shot with a 5d? Would people watch it 10 years from now because it was shot with a Scarlet or Epic?

 

[Dave Blackham]

I think the point your missing is there are aquisition formats and deliverable formats. Also Scarlet is not a budget camera, its a very high quality camera at affordable price. Both Epic and Scarlet can use a windowed sensor to crop an image which may increase frame rate or perhaps use a different aspect ratio or frame size so perhaps an S16 or 2/3 lens can be used on the camera. Theres a whole raft of possibilites. Think of work flow like a big funnel you need to start of with more data then you ultimately deliver so you can crop, key, colour grade and so on. Then you create deliverables from your master which may be HD, 2K or 4K or even 720 x 576 or 720 x 486. Then theres tomorrow's new standards.

What I can tell you with certainty is one client of ours has transfered a film archive incorrectly from film only to find the transfer facility didnt transfer using a Telecine up to the task of capturing all there was available on the film so the archive wasnt future proof. Had they done so they would have avoided a re transfer cost of many millions. Now we are able using Red's cameras to capture data in a relatively pristine manner which does assist in future proofing the content to a much better extent.

 

[Philipe Ratton]

The key here is, it's not a video camera, it's a high end digital cinema camera.
And I think this answers a lot of threads here.

 

[Marcos Montenegro]

Eric:

Good point, we still watch old movies, right? The content is what matters the most. However, can you imagine if the original Star Wars movie was shot on a 4K format? It would have prolonged the future releases without spending the millions to digitally re-master them like they did, and it would have looked much better at 4K.

Marcos

I just dont' get the "future proof" argument. What do you think is going to happen in the future? Everyone will have a 4k projector with a screen in their backyard?

Act of Valor is shot on a 5d mark II. What's going to happen to it in the "future"? It will get sold on DVD, and probably end up on netflix.

I still like the Scarlet, would still want to shoot with a Scarlet over the 5d for lots of other reasons, but again, what is going to happen to Act of Valor in the "future"? It's gotten it's theatrical release, it will make some money overseas and on DVD and online with netflix, then what? 10 years from now no one will watch it because it was shot with a 5d? Would people watch it 10 years from now because it was shot with a Scarlet or Epic?

 

[Erich Ocean]

The key here is, it's not a video camera, it's a high end digital cinema camera.
And I think this answers a lot of threads here.

Agreed. Red is a lot easier to take if you multiply the brain cost by 4, and then just assume that's how much it's going to cost to actually use, day to day, in a production capacity, for the life of the camera (and stay current with upgrades).

At least, it's helped my blood pressure a lot. (For instance, I just found out that a 3 year extended warranty on the F3 body is $360 and a 5 year is $880, thought "FML" at the Epic-X's $2850 for 3 years cost with draconian restrictions on accessories, cables, and batteries – and then realized that I haven't yet spent enough on Red yet to get frustrated if you count the multiplier, which kinda, sorta, helped.)

 

[Jon Thomasberg]

Where do you need higher then 2k delivery format? In the very latest digital cinemas or imax (correct me if i missed any).

There are many 4k projectors and Home Theatre monitors / TVs coming to market now. So while the use case for "Why 4k" is somewhat valid in 2011. It won't be for long. So if you are shooting news footage that will be forgotten about by Monday, I can see your point. However, knowing that 4k viewing is on its way, do you want to be behind the curve so your footage is no good in 5 years (based on your opinion about Scarlet's obsolescence) or still usable and relevant for at least the next decade?

All of these are high budget productions. It does not matter if the camera is 10k or 50k. Nobody is going to use scarlet instead of epic on a 50M (or 200M) budget. MAYBE as a b cam, but hostly, how many digital higher-then-2k productions do you know of??

If you are talking capture, then I would say MOST; if you are talking output, very few. But I remember hearing the same argument ~10 years ago about Blu-Ray and 1080p -- "Who needs any more than HD (720)?" And even still ~20 years ago -- "Sure those skinny panel TVs are new and cool looking, but those are only for someone that has a million dollars (back when $1M was significant), no one at home watches more than 480. Besides, I have a huge VHS collection and my (480i) rear projection works just fine thank you.

2. "I like to be future-proof" This totally doesn't apply to big budgets, so we are talking small productions, i.e. hobby, low-bud films, music videos etc. For how many years ahead do we want to be "future-proof"? And how much money are we willing to spend on that? And how much money our clients wish to add to our paycheck for that? Its often a dead draw to try to be future-proof with any semiconductor-based technology. The only way to future-proof your work is to create a masterpiece. 2k is just fine for that. And will be for some more years to come. And in 5 years scarlet will be an old and obsolete camera anyway.

I agree totally with your futureproofing by 'creating a materpiece', but 2k is exactly 'just fine' for that -- not great, not exceptional, just fine.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

Eric:

Good point, we still watch old movies, right? The content is what matters the most. However, can you imagine if the original Star Wars movie was shot on a 4K format? It would have prolonged the future releases without spending the millions to digitally re-master them like they did, and it would have looked much better at 4K.

Marcos

I think that's a self defeating argument. Why was it digitally re-mastered? Because it was a mega hit that made billions. With that kind of profit, what's a few million to digitally re-master it?

If it wasnt' a mega hit, who cares about digitally remastering it? Probably no one.

Look at Inland Empire, shot in 2006 by David Lynch with a Sony DSR-PD150.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460829/technical

It is what it is, made it's money when it was released. Does it need to be digitally re-mastered? I don't think so.

If Lynch was worried about it being "future proof" he probably would have stuck with film at that time.

There's a lot of great reasons to shoot with the Scarlet. Worrying about what's happening 10 years from now isn't one of them, IMO.

Shoot for now. You might be dead 10 years from now. I wouldn't spend time worrying about what's going to happen 10 years from now when deciding what camera to shoot with now.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Look at Inland Empire, shot in 2006 by David Lynch with a Sony DSR-PD150.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460829/technical

It is what it is, made it's money when it was released. Does it need to be digitally re-mastered? I don't think so.

If Lynch was worried about it being "future proof" he probably would have stuck with film at that time.

Pointing out that not everything needs to be future proofed does not mean that nothing needs to be future proofed.
There will always be exceptions, on both sides. You're right - not everything needs to be captured in 4K.
By the same token, not everything can be shot on a PD150.

Scarlet is a fantastic tool for many projects... just because it's not the right tool for ALL projects doesn't negate the value of having the option of a 4K master.

 

[Stacey Spears]

Run a simple test take a frame from Alexa and blow it up to 4k. You'll have your answer.

Compare this season of Fringe to all previous seasons. You will notice a complete lack of detail this season compared to all previous and this is on a 720p broacast. I wish they would go back to 35mm or go EPIC.