Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Whats the use of 4k in a budget camera?

If you only need 1080p and want it to look the best, then the best way to get that is to start with 4k or more. The only reason a market will miss out on Scarlet is that they care only about price. The 5D2 etc. were never used because of their image quality - they were predominantly used because of price or form-factor. The resolution of the camera is irrelevant if you can't afford it. The price only becomes a factor once it's in the range of affordability, then all the other image specs come into it too. If the only spec that matters is 1080p, then an iPhone will do that for you at a very cheap price.

Chroma sub-sampling is mostly irrelevant. Why? Because it only matters if the viewer sees a negative from it. Unless you're watching something and spy - ooh a 4:2:0 artifact, it matters not. If you're doing VFX on the footage, and this is an area where the REDs excel, chroma sub-sampling matters if it makes your keying harder, or in the grading suite if it makes you take longer to pull your secondaries. Not to mention RAW doesn't fit in chroma-sub-sampling (which is a codec / transmission property)- we reconstruct the RAW to a fully sampled RGB (what you'd call 4:4:4) image.

So my point is - for that market the only factor is price, and we can't meet that price while doing things "properly" (like no line skipping, raw recording to a decent codec etc.). And as we've seen others have met that price, but it has been paid for elsewhere with a cheap distribution codec used rather than an acquisition one, 8bit rather than 12 or more bits, line skipping and slow read-reset etc. etc. And I'm sure as hell not about to start taking those kind of short-cuts after evangelizing the dangers of poor compression, aliasing, etc. etc. all these years....

Graeme
 
If you have the money, then there's no reason not to go with Epic or Scarlet, I don't disagree with that. But 4K is no way near future proof. I am a strong believer in floating point resolution, don't know if that is a name that exist or if I "invented" that term, but that is a point where digital resolution isn't measured by points or pixels but by amount of detail in a dynamic frame data size.

So 4K is not future proof, nothing digital are future proof.

I understand you Graeme, it's not that I disagree with the reasons why, I'm just pointing out that the market who went missing, the ones who wanted the 3K for 3K are the ones shooting on DSLRs and the ones who should not be underestimated, just saying.
 
4k is not future proof, but the upgrades that RED does in the cameras is what makes them future proof. If you have the money, then there is a reason to go with RED. You said that there is no reason, and I am fairly certain that everyone here disagrees with you. I'm not going back to my ole' hacked panny...
 
The only true future proof is to create great work that audiences are passionate about over a long period of time.
 
Jon Jones said:
4k is not future proof, but the upgrades that RED does in the cameras is what makes them future proof. If you have the money, then there is a reason to go with RED. You said that there is no reason, and I am fairly certain that everyone here disagrees with you. I'm not going back to my ole' hacked panny...
Click to expand...

The upgrades doesn't make what you already shot future proof. It's shooting 4K that is considered future proof, not that your camera is up to date.

The only true future proof is to create great work that audiences are passionate about over a long period of time.
Click to expand...

My point exacly and giving better tools to people who can't afford high priced equipment enables everything to come down to that.
 
I perceive that someone is just wanting to have arguments.... And that nothing is going to soothe the savage beast of bitterness over a lost 3k SCARLET... I'm sorry buddy, no one here is going to be able to give you a hug, except maybe a virtual one, lol.
 
Jon Jones said:
I perceive that someone is just wanting to have arguments.... And that nothing is going to soothe the savage beast of bitterness over a lost 3k SCARLET... I'm sorry buddy, no one here is going to be able to give you a hug, except maybe a virtual one, lol.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm happy that you are happy with your camera. Unfortunately, not everyone is as fortunate to have the money to buy a Scarlet and the loss of the 3K scarlet has nothing to do with what it had, but about the price. I do take offense in you just dismissing what I say with "oh are you crying, here have a hug", I am not alone in my opinions and for the last time, I'm not against 4K or Scarlet as it is today, you just don't seemt o see my point, you just won't see the bigger picture.

The market, the real world outside of your world does NOT share the same vision as us or Jim. And there is a huge market that is missed out by the change of the Scarlet.

The revolution starts with a price point, that is a fact. The fortunate will always have the best and latest equipment, that doesn't equal to a cinema revolution.
Speaking of how good something is doesn't contradict what I say, it does not have anything to do with that. I'm speaking of the edge point in price where camera equipment isn't going to appeal to a large portion of those who in the past was considered "prosumers". Those who bought a DVX100 and a 35mm adapter. Those people who then went over to DSLRs but really wanted better equipment but didn't have the money for it. The old Scarlet concept was going to change this in a revolutionary matter, but now it's back to "normal" again. The new Scarlet is over the edge, it's not for those people.

Which brought me to my other point... for whom is the new Scarlet really for? It's too expensive for most and not ideal for those who have money who rather go with an Epic. rental becomes a better deal for productions when speaking Scarlet so again, who?
 
I tell you what, I have been the less fortunate before, I used to be the guy many years ago, that made $4.25 an hour, on less than full time, and didn't have enough food to feed my family, I was that guy that had to take part in welfare and all of the stigma, and looks from others that it comes with, I have been the guy. Ask Jannard about being that guy too... He knows what it is like to start out with nothing. Do you know that 80% of the millionaires in the US are first generation rich? I worked hard, and gave, and invested, till now I don't have to do what I used to. Don't be bitter because you can't afford it, be better because of it. I couldn't afford a whole lot of anything for a lot of years, but you know what I did? I wasn't bitter, no... I pushed past all of the looks, and all of the emotions, and said, no... No... I will be better than this one day. And now I am.
 
Mark Toia said:
Silly thread... :(

I new I shouldn't have dropped into it. Just wasted 15mins of my time that I wont be able to get back.. grrrr...
Click to expand...

Sorry Mark - many apologies, but the internet is what it is and threads are what they are... :-) It's the modern day equivalent of going down the pub with your mates, and having one of "those" discussions. Except the price for the drinks is cheaper and you have to type rather than speak. But other than that, the quality of discussion is often somewhat similar :-)

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Sorry Mark - many apologies, but the internet is what it is and threads are what they are... :-) It's the modern day equivalent of going down the pub with your mates, and having one of "those" discussions. Except the price for the drinks is cheaper and you have to type rather than speak. But other than that, the quality of discussion is often somewhat similar :-)

Graeme
Click to expand...

Hi graeme on the topic of the use of 4k, is scarlet 4:4:4?
 
Ok, my opinions and observations are now considered "silly". Let's just leave the forum to those who just give praise and glory all the time...
I never understand how the "pro-something" people put themselves in a position where if you criticize what they like they will mark you as "stupid" or "silly" or "lesser" something.

I just gave my thoughts on this and my view upon the market of the camera, what you bought and what you are happy with... really, I don't care, good for you, I wasn't speaking about you.
I was speaking about the thousands of people who love DSLR cameras. Those who still put the world in 1080p land.


My core point is once again, if Red want to push for 4K, own the 1080p world first. People in here are already "blessed" but if we think that we, in here are the only ones working with cinematography, then I'm sorry to say it's hubris.
 
Roshdi Alkadri said:
Hi graeme on the topic of the use of 4k, is scarlet 4:4:4?
Click to expand...

First, terminology:

4:4:4 (4:2:2, 4:2:0, 4:1:1, 3:1:1, etc.) are chroma sub-sampling notation. 4:4:4 can refer to RGB and YCBCr, but the rest refer to YCbCr only. They're used to describe how in a code or transmission protocol (like over HD-SDI) chroma is sub-sampled as compared to luma. Chroma sub-sampling notation is not used to refer to RAW (as it's neither RGB nor YCbCr) nor to sensors (they're neither a codec nor a transmission protocol).

With all our cameras we record the RAW sensor data, compress it with the lovely REDCODE codec, then produce a full RGB image from that when asked to decode the R3D file. That RGB data is full 4:4:4 at that point. At no point do we transform to YCbCr and reduce the chroma resolution compared to the luma resolution.

See my above comment: "Chroma sub-sampling is mostly irrelevant. Why? Because it only matters if the viewer sees a negative from it. Unless you're watching something and spy - ooh a 4:2:0 artifact, it matters not. If you're doing VFX on the footage, and this is an area where the REDs excel, chroma sub-sampling matters if it makes your keying harder, or in the grading suite if it makes you take longer to pull your secondaries."

And remember just reading a chroma sub-sampling notation doesn't mean much - some methods of achieving 4:2:0 say, are better than others. Some will look better, some behave better, key better etc. It's like when we talk about resolution - it's easy to say 4k, but what does that mean? What is the MTF like? Well, in the case of the REDs it's very good. What about aliasing and moire? Well, again, superb performance. Other cameras may claim 4k but how do they measure? Do they employ proper optical filtering, or do they visibly alias on fine detail?

A simple question can often get a long answer here!

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
First, terminology:

4:4:4 (4:2:2, 4:2:0, 4:1:1, 3:1:1, etc.) are chroma sub-sampling notation. 4:4:4 can refer to RGB and YCBCr, but the rest refer to YCbCr only. They're used to describe how in a code or transmission protocol (like over HD-SDI) chroma is sub-sampled as compared to luma. Chroma sub-sampling notation is not used to refer to RAW (as it's neither RGB nor YCbCr) nor to sensors (they're neither a codec nor a transmission protocol).

With all our cameras we record the RAW sensor data, compress it with the lovely REDCODE codec, then produce a full RGB image from that when asked to decode the R3D file. That RGB data is full 4:4:4 at that point. At no point do we transform to YCbCr and reduce the chroma resolution compared to the luma resolution.

See my above comment: "Chroma sub-sampling is mostly irrelevant. Why? Because it only matters if the viewer sees a negative from it. Unless you're watching something and spy - ooh a 4:2:0 artifact, it matters not. If you're doing VFX on the footage, and this is an area where the REDs excel, chroma sub-sampling matters if it makes your keying harder, or in the grading suite if it makes you take longer to pull your secondaries."

And remember just reading a chroma sub-sampling notation doesn't mean much - some methods of achieving 4:2:0 say, are better than others. Some will look better, some behave better, key better etc. It's like when we talk about resolution - it's easy to say 4k, but what does that mean? What is the MTF like? Well, in the case of the REDs it's very good. What about aliasing and moire? Well, again, superb performance. Other cameras may claim 4k but how do they measure? Do they employ proper optical filtering, or do they visibly alias on fine detail?

A simple question can often get a long answer here!

Graeme
Click to expand...

Nice explanation i appreciate it, i gather that the "science" applied into the technology is key here. An example is like HD manufacturers who claimed HD resolution but realistically it wasn't. Good to know, i got 4 partners overseas who got the Red's/Epics for that reason and a few scarlets on order.
 
Brian Iannone said:
Hmm... I've noticed an increase in hostility around the forum during the past two weeks... Or is it just my imagination? I think everyone just needs to relax a little...
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be hostile, actually I only argued about the market and about how Red could dominate the world even more, people took that as a notion that I hate the new Scarlet....
Weird to say the least.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
First, terminology:

4:4:4 (4:2:2, 4:2:0, 4:1:1, 3:1:1, etc.) are chroma sub-sampling notation. 4:4:4 can refer to RGB and YCBCr, but the rest refer to YCbCr only. They're used to describe how in a code or transmission protocol (like over HD-SDI) chroma is sub-sampled as compared to luma. Chroma sub-sampling notation is not used to refer to RAW (as it's neither RGB nor YCbCr) nor to sensors (they're neither a codec nor a transmission protocol).

With all our cameras we record the RAW sensor data, compress it with the lovely REDCODE codec, then produce a full RGB image from that when asked to decode the R3D file. That RGB data is full 4:4:4 at that point. At no point do we transform to YCbCr and reduce the chroma resolution compared to the luma resolution.

See my above comment: "Chroma sub-sampling is mostly irrelevant. Why? Because it only matters if the viewer sees a negative from it. Unless you're watching something and spy - ooh a 4:2:0 artifact, it matters not. If you're doing VFX on the footage, and this is an area where the REDs excel, chroma sub-sampling matters if it makes your keying harder, or in the grading suite if it makes you take longer to pull your secondaries."

And remember just reading a chroma sub-sampling notation doesn't mean much - some methods of achieving 4:2:0 say, are better than others. Some will look better, some behave better, key better etc. It's like when we talk about resolution - it's easy to say 4k, but what does that mean? What is the MTF like? Well, in the case of the REDs it's very good. What about aliasing and moire? Well, again, superb performance. Other cameras may claim 4k but how do they measure? Do they employ proper optical filtering, or do they visibly alias on fine detail?

A simple question can often get a long answer here!

Graeme
Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to always give long answers! You explain things so clearly that it all becomes so easy to understand. I know that may sound a little strange, but it honestly is quite difficult sometimes to find answers on Google involving topics like this. I'm sure that people who go to film school understand all of this, but for 17-year-old's like me, it's fantastic to be able to learn so much directly from the people at RED! =)
 
I think the 1080p market has existed and been dominated for quite some time now. Getting into it now, as Ivy Bridge finally provides 4k consumer support is not great timing for any camera makers I think. It would be the equivalent of releasing an SD camera 6 months before broadcast turned HD. I too cannot afford a Scarlet X, I feel your pain. I just need to work harder to figure out a way to get where I want. With a will there is a way, used Red One packages on ebay are looking quite affordable these days, and only will get cheaper with time. That and canon is releasing a 4k DSLR supposedly and hopefully it will be in the price range that suits your needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top