Whats the use of 4k in a budget camera?

[Mark Phelan]

You just gave me a great idea! This sounds like an administrative problem, maybe not a technical one! I think I have a new class to teach at REDucation!
"Professional Conforming & Prep using RCXPro."

It certainly would save you from all my emails about our project...

 

[David Battistella]

We think we all are insane!! how much more resolution cant the human eye really pic up every one is pushing for extemez in rez so much so you want it to look life like, and then so many ppl with 120hrtz tv say the 120 makes it look to clear and looks weird so where is this rez thing gonna end once again how much can the human eye really process..LOL LOL LOL LOL

I know. If people wear glasses or contacts they can't even see that resolution anywayz!.

 

[J Davis]

ninja instead of a rocket, r3d for problem shots

 

[J Davis]

the lower the price the wider the customer dynamic ... heh heh

scarlet hordes have arrived, ru will never be the same :smile:

 

[Brant Hadfield]

I know what a 4k scan of 35mm Kodak looks like on my 1080 monitor. True Grit. Any number of others. Detail does not mean sharpness. I love detail, I don't like the brutality of video sharpness. With what I can do with 4k Red Raw in post, and the 13 stops or so of latitude, it's simply the closest I am going to get at this point to film, if the raw is handled properly in post. Period. I don't need a 50' movie screen to see the difference between a 4k scan and a standard HD image. The quality of latitude and detail is passed down through the formats. Scarlet is the best bang for the $.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

it's not just a rendering issue, David - but an onset data management issue as well - since proxies have been discarded, having a Rocket for playback, while not absolutely essential - still makes a big difference.

 

[Darrin Taylor]

My 2 cents

My 2 cents

I come from a non film background. So take everything I say with that in mind.
What I have read is basically the following:

1) Why 4k when anyone who NEEDS 4k for movies will just buy an epic.
2) 1080p is good enough for now for all but Movies
3) 2k is good enough for movies

As an outsider looking in the appeal for me is not to play but to win. No one watches the olympics and dreams to be the guy who finishes last. No one wants to make a movie that sucks or a tv show that sucks or a documentary that sucks. Professionals can say use what you have because your movie will suck anyway and it will save you money. And they are partially correct, blair witch and El Mariachi come to mind as movies that had success despite using sub par camera equipment.
But the outsiders dream of winning. All the new aspiring movie makers see themselves as making the next super low budget mystery science 3000ish concept with no budget and a ticket to success.
What they need in a camera is as follows

1) Dynamic range regarding lighting. If you can film in ambient light then you eliminate a cost and a logistical issue.
2) Professional resolutions and professional outcomes. Is this 2k, 3k, 4k? I don't know. But its clearly not DSLR that only looks professional part of the time.
3) The ability to fix it in post. There are a lot of people saying you can't fix bad stuff in post but to anyone who has ever seen photo shop stills we know that isn't true. The ability to pan within a larger resolution frame may be cheesy but it gives the outsider tricks that can replace equipment and logistics that they just don't have.
4) Looks. The ability to color grade in pre instead of post holds real benefits to a documentary style or reality style mindset where the quality isn't as important as the ability to get the images and go. Imagine blogging via movies and you are starting to get a hint of the future. This will actually produce some very good work, see youtube for an example for how fresh ideas overcome.
5) Ease of shooting. This is probably the area that Red can make the most improvement in. Having as much freedom as the red has means that it costs in complexity of shooting and post. Consider the canon where they just said trust us to manage the oversampling you will always shoot in 1080p. I prefer freedom but I like the apple model of common things are easy and uncommon things are possible. Never shot red, never edited red in post but I think I am correct that this is the area Red can make the most inroads in the future.
5) outsiders are often poor. If I drop 20k on a camera I want to know I didn't waste my money 3 years from now.
6) Frame rates. The ability to make all the commercial frame rates out of the camera for movie, tv etc.
7) A camera and a post process that forgives transgressions. RAW, higher than necessary rez, dynamic range etc.

Red has done a very good job of giving the outsider everything for ~15k complete

Are you a good enough film maker that cropping isn't a plus for you?
Are you always going to color grade in post?
Are you always going to have professional lighting?
Are you realistic about the resolutions you need to sell your output today?
Are you good enough that you don't have nightmares that you fix in post?

Good for you.
You are an insider.
I am not.

The ability to take less than professional camera shots and make it look acceptable is what I need.

If most indy filmmakers were honest I think everything that applies 100% to me apples at least a little to them...

PS Imagine El Mariachi the $7000 original not the hollywood version, shot in 4k RAW on RED that is how this camera will change the world.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Ruben and Sheri, I have to think that if you weren't interested in RED, 4K, and oversampling you probably wouldn't be on this forum. I understand that a lot of people are upset about $3K for 3K. But the title of this thread almost says everything you need to know. If you question why you need 4K, you may not need 4K. Perhaps the projects one does do not need that kind of quality. Maybe they are short life projects, maybe they are super low budget projects, whatever the case may be. But as Michael Cioni just pointed out, there are many people that do need these cameras.

Once you work with the footage it's very clear to see why you would want this, even on 1080P finishes. Looking at it from afar, maybe it's less obvious.

Getting back to the budget camera part. Define budget camera? To me a budget camera is one that delivers the specs you need at the lowest possible price point. So, with that thinking, if all you need is a 1080P camera that is under $5000 aren't there a lot of cameras out there in that price range? And again, I'm am well aware of what RED initially touted. $3K for 3K. A lesson for everyone though. Unless it's in your hands at that price, never count on it. With that out of the way, I ask the question very respectfully - Aren't there a lot of options for 1080P under $5000? There are even really good ones for under $1500. When I see people getting upset at RED for not delivering a cinema grade camera for under $6000, it starts to walk that line of entitlement. But then I have to give people the benefit of the doubt about the original Scarlet marketing. In retrospect that was unfortunate. It certainly placed expectations perhaps in an unrealistic stratosphere. Then again, the camera that has surfaced is not the same camera and far exceeds the specs.

 

[Michael Cioni]

Meryem-
Remember: Quicktime Proxy files didn't go away at all! They just changed their container a bit.
Quicktime Proxy files are EXACTLY the same as using the free REDCine-X Pro software and setting your debayer settings to 1/2, 1/4, 1/8th or 1/16th on your laptop. That works the same as the old Quicktime way. The only difference is that you use CS5.5 as the tool for viewing these "proxy" files in an NLE.
m

 

[Mark Phelan]

The ability to pan within a larger resolution frame may be cheesy but it gives the outsider tricks that can replace equipment and logistics that they just don't have.

Good point.

When I read this line it made me think of Ken Burns. That's EXACTLY what he did in "The Civil War" and had to do with the thousands of black and white photographs because there was no other option for him to bring a static image to life. So much so, they named the effect after him. I dare say his work was anything but cheesy or "lame". And he did it on film.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I don't miss proxies, personally - I do think that a ROCKET is something I want to own, though...even with a ROCKET, I play back my clips at less than full speed most of the time, because full speed can be stuttery with a data-rich clip even with a ROCKET, at least on my slightly older Mac towers (c'mon Thunderbolt! do it, Apple!) - but you will want to be able to check data at full quality without your system crapping out, to toggle back and forth between resolution qualities. and still get playback.

if nothing else, it's frustrating to have an amazing acquisition system - and data processing that is "less than" the camera....

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I come from a non film background. So take everything I say with that in mind.
What I have read is basically the following:

1) Why 4k when anyone who NEEDS 4k for movies will just buy an epic.
2) 1080p is good enough for now for all but Movies
3) 2k is good enough for movies

As an outsider looking in the appeal for me is not to play but to win. No one watches the olympics and dreams to be the guy who finishes last. No one wants to make a movie that sucks or a tv show that sucks or a documentary that sucks. Professionals can say use what you have because your movie will suck anyway and it will save you money. And they are partially correct, blair witch and El Mariachi come to mind as movies that had success despite using sub par camera equipment.
But the outsiders dream of winning. All the new aspiring movie makers see themselves as making the next super low budget mystery science 3000ish concept with no budget and a ticket to success.
What they need in a camera is as follows

1) Dynamic range regarding lighting. If you can film in ambient light then you eliminate a cost and a logistical issue.
2) Professional resolutions and professional outcomes. Is this 2k, 3k, 4k? I don't know. But its clearly not DSLR that only looks professional part of the time.
3) The ability to fix it in post. There are a lot of people saying you can't fix bad stuff in post but to anyone who has ever seen photo shop stills we know that isn't true. The ability to pan within a larger resolution frame may be cheesy but it gives the outsider tricks that can replace equipment and logistics that they just don't have.
4) Looks. The ability to color grade in pre instead of post holds real benefits to a documentary style or reality style mindset where the quality isn't as important as the ability to get the images and go. Imagine blogging via movies and you are starting to get a hint of the future. This will actually produce some very good work, see youtube for an example for how fresh ideas overcome.
5) Ease of shooting. This is probably the area that Red can make the most improvement in. Having as much freedom as the red has means that it costs in complexity of shooting and post. Consider the canon where they just said trust us to manage the oversampling you will always shoot in 1080p. I prefer freedom but I like the apple model of common things are easy and uncommon things are possible. Never shot red, never edited red in post but I think I am correct that this is the area Red can make the most inroads in the future.
5) outsiders are often poor. If I drop 20k on a camera I want to know I didn't waste my money 3 years from now.
6) Frame rates. The ability to make all the commercial frame rates out of the camera for movie, tv etc.
7) A camera and a post process that forgives transgressions. RAW, higher than necessary rez, dynamic range etc.

Red has done a very good job of giving the outsider everything for ~15k complete

Are you a good enough film maker that cropping isn't a plus for you?
Are you always going to color grade in post?
Are you always going to have professional lighting?
Are you realistic about the resolutions you need to sell your output today?
Are you good enough that you don't have nightmares that you fix in post?

Good for you.
You are an insider.
I am not.

The ability to take less than professional camera shots and make it look acceptable is what I need.

If most indy filmmakers were honest I think everything that applies 100% to me apples at least a little to them...

PS Imagine El Mariachi the $7000 original not the hollywood version, shot in 4k RAW on RED that is how this camera will change the world.

Darrin, this post worries me a little bit. It screams of "I want a really good camera to make filmmaking easy". In my opinion, cinematography is about LIGHTING, composition, art direction, motivated camera movement, etc. Good lighting does not have to mean expensive. My RED One becomes a paper weight without good lighting. I know Steven Soderbergh has experimented with using no movie lights, but don't mistake that for not lighting. He places his actors in places where existing lighting gets him the results he needs. I have some shots taken on the Red One which I think defy your logic about fixing in post. This is a RAW camera which gives you options in post, but it won't miraculously save your butt, and in fact those shots I speak of are essentially worthless. I can make them look better but not useable. In my opinion, if you are moving towards a cinema-grade camera, the first thing you have to focus on is lighting. Unless you are incredibly lucky, setting up a shot in a room with existing light and hoping it looks like something great happens few and far between.

I honestly believe what I'm about to say. I would rather see a very well lit DVX100 movie than a poorly lit Scarlet film. And by well lit, don't mistake that for meaning Hollywood, polished, sometimes overlit lighting design. Natural lighting when used appropriately counts as lighting. Taking away light with various light control tools, counts as lighting. Using a couple of Cool Lights and achieving a nice look, counts as lighting. Bu I would encourage every Scarlet buyer to put heavy emphasis on lighting. I wish I had focused more on it years ago. It's the essence of what you'll do with your camera.

Rule #1 with RED and RAW. Get it right at camera and you will have endless possibilities in post. Get it wrong at camera and you will make it less bad in post.

Hopefully this helps in a constructive way.

 

[JR Smith]

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)))))

That's pretty closed minded thinking,,,,but I'm new here so give me some time ;P. You can't always capture the moment and shooting in 4K affords a little relief in post. It's one of reasons I'll be purchasing.

 

[Gary Paul Walker]

,Must be nice to not have to worry about money so much so that you treat your camera like a regular old camcorder at times we want what u have!! To be care free about owning a 60k plus cam, and everything is 1080p now days blurays, most movie theaters never project higher than 2k so not sure that 1080p is not good enough statement came from if it's the standard REZ right now for distribution, hell most ppl still don't own blurays they are still stuck on DVD's and SD tv's?? 4k is far from being standard no offense but look at all the hell we go through in post just to end up with a 1080p image so once again how is 1080p not good enough if that;s what we all export in the end LOL=)

VHS: 1974 (arguable) - 2008
DVD: 1996 - present
Bluray: 2003 - present.

(ok, there will be inevitable comments about dates etc - and yes, I just did a rudimentary wikipedia look)

My point is this. How long do you expect Bluray and 1080p to last? - 4k tvs on the way, 4k projectors in cinemas. Do you not think that the market will drive towards higher resolution?

As for being carefree about a 60k camera, let me ask you this - if you had an Epic close by, are you sure there isn't some life event that you would'nt want to capture on it? Personally, if I'm spending that amount of money on a camera, I'm shooting everything on it.

 

[Eric Rodemann]

PS Imagine El Mariachi the $7000 original not the hollywood version, shot in 4k RAW on RED that is how this camera will change the world.

Don't get me wrong. I would like to shoot a feature on a Scarlet.

But El Mariachi was shot on 16mm film. It would not be any better if shot in 4k IMO. I just watched it again a few days ago.

I'd shoot 16mm in a minute, but the budget for film, camera rental, developing and transfer adds up quick, plus you can't see what you shot till it comes back from the lab.

With a Scarlet you can shoot a bunch of El Mariachis.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I don't think good (by which I mean appropriate - the right camera for the job) cameras ever make movies better (perhaps with some exceptions like Samara / Baraka or certain high speed shots you'd not get another way).... But on the other hand the wrong camera can make a movie a lot worse. We can all think of our favourite movies, probably mostly shot on 35mm film, and imagine watching them shot on a sub-optimal video camera. Where would the art of cinematography be if all they had to use was a VHS camcorder? Where would the subtleties of light and shade and colour and texture be if they were all diminished to a mush, or visible only in a blaze of false colour and aliasing?

An even easier example is audio. If the audio is done well, nobody (well we do, but...) notices, but have poor mic technique or wrong mic choice that leads to muffled incomprehensible dialogue and the audience will walk out.

Graeme

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Best thread in a while. Absolutely reminds me of the early days of RED ONE!

I think we ALL have a responsibility to REDUCATE... or all these new Scarlet users are going to inadvertently undermine alll the work a lot of us have done to overcome
all these "misconceptions and FUD" that we battled the last 3 years.

@Cioni... Michael- I know you are busy, but I would go further and create an online video tutorial for the RED.com site... ASAP, not just for Reducation. I think RED should seriously consider fast tracking more of those types of videos as Scarlets head out to first time Red users.

 

[Darrin Taylor]

Darrin, this post worries me a little bit. It screams of "I want a really good camera to make filmmaking easy". In my opinion, cinematography is about LIGHTING, composition, art direction, motivated camera movement, etc. Good lighting does not have to mean expensive. My RED One becomes a paper weight without good lighting. I know Steven Soderbergh has experimented with using no movie lights, but don't mistake that for not lighting. He places his actors in places where existing lighting gets him the results he needs. I have some shots taken on the Red One which I think defy your logic about fixing in post. This is a RAW camera which gives you options in post, but it won't miraculously save your butt, and in fact those shots I speak of are essentially worthless. I can make them look better but not useable. In my opinion, if you are moving towards a cinema-grade camera, the first thing you have to focus on is lighting. Unless you are incredibly lucky, setting up a shot in a room with existing light and hoping it looks like something great happens few and far between.

I honestly believe what I'm about to say. I would rather see a very well lit DVX100 movie than a poorly lit Scarlet film. And by well lit, don't mistake that for meaning Hollywood, polished, sometimes overlit lighting design. Natural lighting when used appropriately counts as lighting. Taking away light with various light control tools, counts as lighting. Using a couple of Cool Lights and achieving a nice look, counts as lighting. Bu I would encourage every Scarlet buyer to put heavy emphasis on lighting. I wish I had focused more on it years ago. It's the essence of what you'll do with your camera.

Rule #1 with RED and RAW. Get it right at camera and you will have endless possibilities in post. Get it wrong at camera and you will make it less bad in post.

Hopefully this helps in a constructive way.

Steve

It was very constructive. Cheap cameras are about to totally change the movie industry. And I think cheap post effects even more. When I look at a movie like El Mariachi I see an example of what I am talking about.

"On the El Mariachi DVD, Rodriguez devotes both a DVD commentary and an "Extras" section to explaining the tricks of filming a feature-length movie with just $7,000. Rodriguez heavily stresses the need for cost cutting, "because if you start to spend, you cannot stop anymore."[5] This is why he cut costs at every possible opportunity, such as not using a slate (instead, the actors signaled the number of scene and number of take with their fingers), not using a dolly (he held the camera while being pushed around in a wheelchair), not using professional lighting (essentially using two 200-watt clip-on desk lamps) and not hiring a film crew (the actors not used in the scenes helped out).[5] Also, Rodriguez believed in filming scenes sequentially in one long take with just one camera: every few seconds, he froze the action, so he could change the camera angle and make the audience believe he had a couple of cameras at the same time.[4] Also, bloopers were kept in to save film: noted by Rodriguez were scenes when the Mariachi jumps on a bus, where Rodriguez is visible; the Mariachi bumping his weapon into a street pole; him failing to throw his guitar case on a balcony and Dominó twitching her face when she is already dead.[5] In the end, he used only 24 rolls of film[5] and only spent $7,225 of the $9,000 he had planned.[3]"

Clearly Rodriguez has far far far more in common with you than with me regarding movie making knowledge. But if you restrict lighting down to 2 200 watt clip on desk lamps it becomes possible for someone like me to play at the lighting game. There are only so many ways 2 identical lights can be applied. Furthermore with a camera with high enough dynamic range the lighting can to a degree be applied in post. With the advent of 3d allowing 3d mapping of the shot you may even find that complex lighting setups can be applied in post via syntheyes and lightwave or max3d. I am an engineer so I see things more from what can be done than what artistically flows. Even if only 1% of movies fall into this category there will still be an influx of outsiders into the movie industry in the near future. You will always be able to make the same shot better with more care. But if the movie can be made for $9000 you will see the forgettable feature fade from the box office because there are too many good movies made.

People like me think they can be Rodriguez with a camera. People like you know that 99.99% of us are wrong.
People like me all think we are the 0.01% lol.

And thus red has a market...

PS I never did see kiss of the spider woman but I heard at the time it was entirely shot in a single room. If true this is an example of how strength in one area can overcome extreme weakness in another. Its not like that movie will put location scouts out of business but it shows that in some contexts location is totally unnecessary. I believe there will be movies that do the same for all aspects of film making, even lighting.

PPS your comment was very constructive and I thank you for taking the time to respond and share your greater wealth of knowledge with me

 

[Paul Toth]

Interesting thread...

OK, I come from a TV background starting in the early 80's. So 4x3 SD video, 16mm and 35mm film were pretty much your only choices (ok, I suppose VHS camcorders 'could' be considered an option-let's not got there-shudder). Life was simple. These days, not so much, there's a plethora of formats, delivery destinations, etc. So which camera works for you? Which camera works for the project you are working on? Future proof?

I have to say that I think no camera (or anything) is truly future proof, but how abut long term proof? Ok, that's how I look at these newer cameras. When I look back at the 'production workhorse' Betacam of the 90's it was the 400a. These were ~$65k new without lens so add another 10k on. They shot great looking video, beautiful color. And I used it faithfully for many years and it paid for itself time and again.

A few years ago I sold mine (for a mere pittance, sadly) and bought the Panasonic HPX170 for $6k. And the image I purchased was in many ways better than the $65k 400a. For 10% the price. The HPX170 was always, for me anyway, an interim camera. I knew that the war over formats, etc. would change and will continue to change. I didn't want to invest heavily into a camera/format until the dust had settled a bit. When RED stormed onto the scene I was captivated and have followed the progress since day 1. And a few years back I just about bought a Red One. But when the announcements started to talk about the 3k for 3k I sat back & watched. I, like many here, waited patiently for the Scarlet to become a reality.

Now with the release of Scarlet-X, I can see that incredible quality video (for lack of a better word) can be had for $11k.

What? Yes, for ~$11k I can get a camera that can shoot incredible images, give me dynamic range that, when coupled with a RAW format, gives me options beyond my imagination. The options within this camera allow me to shoot however I need for almost any project I can think of. Whether it is my kids birthday party to a news/ENG shoot to a TV commercial to documentary to feature film, I can use this camera. I don't know about you, but I pre-build my rig to suit what I'm shooting prior to going out and shooting it. It's pretty similar most of the time but I always have on hand the other tools I may need in case I need them (handles, shoulder mounts, lenses, filters, matte box, etc.). My point is that I can use this camera and shoot for the next 10 years easily, comfortably and confidently because it has what I need, to shoot almost anything. Indeed it's not the camera that makes magic but its your skill set that creates magic. So, yes, one could make a multimillion dollar feature with an iPhone. I myself don't want to, but if you have the skill set you could.

Will I sell my HPX170? Maybe, maybe not, truthfully I think I will still use it in certain situations where I won't need high resolution, like a seminar or presser. I may even keep it nearby as a B camera. Or rent it out. If you are a stills guy and are starting to shoot video, your DSLR will work handily. I have a Nikon D7000 and love to shoot video with it. And of course the stills from it are fabulous. It doesn't a/b so well with the HPX170 but it does shoot very pleasing images. It'll be interesting to see how well the D7000 a/b's against the Scarlet-X, especially when using Nikon glass. I plan to do a comparison someday but my gut tells my I could use the D7000 as a decent b camera (obviously it doesn't shoot 3, 4 or 5k images but depending upon what you are trying to achieve/shoot it just may work).

So my point is this: Scarlet is one helluva camera for $11k! Shoot with an old Betacam then maybe you'll see why Scarlet-X, et al, are truly amazing & revolutionary cameras.

 

[M Most]

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.

The reasons for that have much less to do with the camera choice than they do with other issues and creative choices. I'll leave it at that.