Whats the use of 4k in a budget camera?

[Valery Latyshev]

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.

 

[Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig]

Exactly what I thought when I saw the Scarlet-X announcement.

Any big screen production will use an EPIC-X or EPIC-M, not a Scarlet-X.

About the future proof thing, I'm sure that's why the RED Dragon upgrade is planned : next year, a bunch of 4K and 8K (Sony F65) cams will be available.

I guess they'll use the old EPIC-X, Scarlet-X refurbished boards (from the RED Dragon 6K-8K upgrade) and the RED Dragon sensor R&D to make a smaller 2/3" cam with a new 4K 2/3" sensor.

The sensor crop and other problems are not worth the money if you plan to work at full HD or 2K. Just grab a native FHD cam for that.

 

[sam karr]

put some iPhone footage in HD vs a bad quality SD divx of an hollywood blockbuster and one looks like family footage, the other one like a big production. it's not about the size of the image, it's about its quality. RAW, dynamic range, grain, general feeling. i don't know any serious photographer who would shoot in jpeg, now it's raw. same for video.
I can see the advantage of downsizing from 4k to 1080p, sharp, less grain. and i really like the cropping aspect. you want 2/3 image style, just shoot 2k.

 

[David Battistella]

I'm only responding to the thread question.

Ask everyone who shot SD footage 20 years ago if they can use a frame of it now
Ask anyone who shot 35mm film if the shots are still usable.

If you want your images to endure shoot 4k.
If you want to be caught with your balls in your hands when you have a lifetime of 1080p that needs to be blown up 4x to be displayed shoot 1080p

The point is this, quality and future proofing.

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


David

 

[Mark Phelan]

One quick advantage is the ability to shoot in 4K and then reframe in 1080p. Or, you could shoot a static shot in 4K and then create a motion shot with pans and zooms all day long, while working in post. It's an amazing addition to a photographer's arsenal to have more information than needed, much like shooting RAW versus h.264 or some other half-baked solutions. Change is good!

 

[Valery Latyshev]

put some iPhone footage in HD vs a bad quality SD divx of an hollywood blockbuster and one looks like family footage, the other one like a big production. it's not about the size of the image, it's about its quality. RAW, dynamic range, grain, general feeling. i don't know any serious photographer who would shoot in jpeg, now it's raw. same for video.
I can see the advantage of downsizing from 4k to 1080p, sharp, less grain. and i really like the cropping aspect. you want 2/3 image style, just shoot 2k.

I don't think this in any way contradicts what I'm saying.

As a photog, i always shoot raw. But as a photog, my favorite camera bar none is D3s, which is 12mp. See what I'm hinting at?

 

[Felix K.]

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

David

On my 50" 1080p Plasma?

 

[sam karr]

I don't think this in any way contradicts what I'm saying.

As a photog, i always shoot raw. But as a photog, my favorite camera bar none is D3s, which is 12mp. See what I'm hinting at?

yes, but 12mp is a lot. and a lot of photographers using d3s have their photos finishing on the web and not using totally these 12mp too. or using medium format to finish in magazines. but it's about quality then. grain free pictures, more room to color correct, reframing, etc. i'm glad, as a photographer too, to be able to work my videos as i work my photos. and don't forget that the epic/scarlet is used for photos too.

 

[Valery Latyshev]

I'm only responding to the thread question.

Ask everyone who shot SD footage 20 years ago if they can use a frame of it now
Ask anyone who shot 35mm film if the shots are still usable.

If you want your images to endure shoot 4k.
If you want to be caught with your balls in your hands when you have a lifetime of 1080p that needs to be blown up 4x to be displayed shoot 1080p

The point is this, quality and future proofing.

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.

 

[Valery Latyshev]

yes, but 12mp is a lot. and a lot of photographers using d3s have their photos finishing on the web and not using totally these 12mp too. or using medium format to finish in magazines. but it's about quality then. i'm glad, as a photographer too, to be able to work my videos as i work my photos. and don't forget that the epic/scarlet is used for photos too.

I totally agree that its about quality!

But quality doesn't always mean resolution, and in fact some times it means LESS resolution.

Id rather see a 2k/1080 Scarlet with 35mm sensor, HDR, RAW, high frame rates and superior LOW LIGHT ability (which sometimes is VERY important for low budget)

IMHO that is more required in a 10-20k camera. BUT i really don't want to turn this thread into another "what i wanted from scarlet"

 

[J Davis]

Valery, in many ways I think the same as you but I'm reading between the lines. For me I see it as I get to shoot 13 stops of dynamic range and can fall back on raw for problem shots. I also see the economic sense in terms of manufacture and support for just one sensor. I still am bummed about the 3k interchangeable being scrapped but c'est la vie

 

[sam karr]

I totally agree that its about quality!

But quality doesn't always mean resolution, and in fact some times it means LESS resolution.

Id rather see a 2k/1080 Scarlet with 35mm sensor, HDR, RAW, high frame rates and superior LOW LIGHT ability (which sometimes is VERY important for low budget)

IMHO that is more required in a 10-20k camera. BUT i really don't want to turn this thread into another "what i wanted from scarlet"

well, i like the alexa image. it wouldn't bother me at all to have a 1080p scarlet. sometimes i think the epic footages are too sharp but then you can soften in post. but alexa is 5 times the price. so the only options to shoot raw in a budget are ikonoskop or scarlet. ikonoskop is limited and the footages i've seen so far didn't impress me at all. then there is the scarlet. and then i'm thinking of this 4k/5k (stills) things, and i'm seeing some advantages and ways to use it for. but the main point for me is raw and dynamic range.

 

[Valery Latyshev]

One quick advantage is the ability to shoot in 4K and then reframe in 1080p. Or, you could shoot a static shot in 4K and then create a motion shot with pans and zooms all day long, while working in post. It's an amazing addition to a photographer's arsenal to have more information than needed, much like shooting RAW versus h.264 or some other half-baked solutions. Change is good!

Again, i totally agree about RAW. But resolution is just not as simple as that. Shooting a static to make it move later in post is just lame its like in stills when you can't compose properly on the spot you need extra resolution)))))

 

[Marcos Montenegro]

Valery:

I had the same concerns, and very similar situation being a photographer in bed with Nikon glass, although I've been doing video for a couple of years now alongside photography. Anyways, to answer your questions, this is WHY I decided to make the jump to a Scarlet-X:

1) Play with some 4K RED files on your system and you will realize that all your video plugins, even those that you never used on your D7K footage, are actually USABLE now and don't overwhelm the image like a D7K/5D footage. The image is SO crisp and nice that it will seriously change the way you look at video for good. Another thing you as a photog have not considered is that 5K 12fps or 4K 25/30 can really help you capture THE moment, especially for kids photography or the like. I was actually surprised at the IQ of the RED EPIC, so I fully expect Scarlet-X to be on par with EPIC as far as still IQ goes. It isn't made for all still camera scenarios, mind you.

2) You are thinking in terms of Nikon/Canon. For example, Nikon will never allow us to upgrade our D3S/D7K sensors to be able to capture 60fps in 2K, RED will. Instead, Nikon/Canon will keep on releasing a new camera every 2-3 years, and you would have to keep buying new bodies that fit your changing needs, every time. And unlike the RED ONE platform, RED now seems committed to the EPIC/SCARLET hardware platform, partly because of what they've learned along the way.
Could they change their platform again? Sure. But this camera, along with the Dragon sensor, and whatever other upgrades get released along the way, will be good for years.

3) As far as lenses, I plan on shooting mostly with my Nikon trilogy (14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm), as well as some nice Zeiss glass, so I'm SO looking forward to RED releasing their Nikon mount. I'm also mainly interested in shooting at 4K, unless very specific needs determine I NEED the higher frame rates (like slow motion, etc). As far as the workflow, its actually not that different if you have the proper hardware. I realize that a fairly new gaming PC with an Nvidia GTX 580 card is more than enough to handle raw files. Check out Tom Lowe's posts for a workflow video using Adobe's PP. Keep in mind that starting in January, a monthly subscription to Adobe's PP CS5.5/6 will be only $49.95, so definitely cheaper than buying the software.

Anyways, I know Scarlet-X will not be for everyone, but if you are like me and appreciate image quality, there is no other camera out there that can do still and motion the same way as a RED does. Its a revolutionary equipment, so sure its not cheap, but I think its one of those things that I'll be talking to my grankids about.

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.

 

[sam karr]

Again, i totally agree about RAW. But resolution is just not as simple as that. Shooting a static to make it move later in post is just lame its like in stills when you can't compose properly on the spot you need extra resolution)))))

so it's probably not the camera that you need.
there is people here shooting commercials, narratives, events, sport, art, there is photographers, etc etc. if you ask them they would all create a different camera for their needs. i guess red did something that can please the majority of these people and they did something great at that price.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Even if you're going for a 2K/HD finish: oversampling.

A 2K image scaled down from 4K is almost definitely going to look a hell of a lot sharper than an image originated at 2K.

 

[Mark Phelan]

Again, i totally agree about RAW. But resolution is just not as simple as that. Shooting a static to make it move later in post is just lame its like in stills when you can't compose properly on the spot you need extra resolution)))))

I disagree! Nothing lame about it. Adjust your thinking and realize there are new abilities that can be harnessed. Maybe there might be a time when you want to repurpose a shot and it would be hard to recreate for some historical reason. Maybe another client likes the stock shot you have, but wants it to move. You're not thinking broadly enough! Life doesn't stand still and neither does technology. Perhaps it's why you find yourself shooting more motion than stills nowadays. Things change, it's good to have options.

 

[Vance Colvig]

Red code. Free firmware upgrades. Red team doing their best to make obsolesence obsolete. Fantastic dynamic range. Lots of lens options. 4K, 3K, 2K. If none of this is important enough, this is not the camera for you.

 

[Andrew Salter]

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.

 

[Lliam Worthington]

Very strange thread.

What's the use of a high quality digital cinema and stills camera that costs less? Really?
I've read so much disappointment about scarlet not meeting peoples specific shooting needs that maybe I'm going completely mad and I've really had it all wrong...

My understanding is that Scarlet's development was never intended to try and democratise or revolutionise, ENG, journalism and certainly not studio pictures. They're established sections of the industry already well catered for. Though of course they are always ravenously hungry for better tools. Scarlet's intent was to help democratise the low end of the film industry. Which has desperately needed it, and independent and aspiring film makers have been SCREAMING and PRAYING for for years. It's price point still hasn't perhaps managed to completely blow the doors off. But they're certainly only hanging by their hinges now. People want to talk about a costly RED workflow, in comparison to what? A landscape previously dominated by developing film?

Scarlet is an incredible offering and will undoubtedly be a flagship camera for Indie cinema.
Which is exactly what you would expect from RED's low end digital cinema camera. Isn't it??

It's hiqh quality and incredible flexibility it offers in Post will have many many people finding great uses for it.
I know some VFX people are going pretty nuts about it too. And brilliant innovators like REDuser Eric lange look set to do all kinds of incredible things with it's 3D imaging potential and the like. Not too mention that yes as a B cam and crash cam I'm sure it will find a very significant place in many large budget productions aswell....

So what's the use of a high quality "budget" cinema camera? Besides, errrm, high quality budget cinema....

Many things.

Best

Lliam