What do you do with 2540p?

[Jeremy Hughes]

Now I'm not saying that 2540p is a bad thing. It's a good thing! But if you're recording RAW uncompressed 2540p directly to your... Well, I can't even think of what will handle that bit rate.

But anyway, how are you going to edit it? Are you going to project it? Is it really that much higher resolution than 4k? Was it made just for downsampling? I simply don't understand why it's a feature. Can someone tell me some uses for it?

P.S is it officially called 4.5K now?

[Brook Willard]

We don't specifically know what one would record to right now. We know that RED is working on a significant RAID to handle the data. A day's worth of shooting will require a significant amount of storage - I doubt shooting uncompressed RAW will be reasonable without a camera truck. That said, I'm speculating. I'm sure there will be 3rd party options as well.

As for editing, I expect that the workflow will be nearly identical to REDCODE RAW with the exception of the added storage and processing power required. I expect you'll one-light in REDCINE, edit offline, punch an EDL through REDCINE and get your online files. Those online files will go through some high-end final color correction [think SCRATCH] and continue on its way.

It was included because 4.5K utilizes the entire super 35mm sensor area. It's also a great thing to have... why not squeeze every pixel out of the camera that is possible? They could've kept the extra .5K for themselves, sure, but what good would that do? The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

But what are the uses? Super 35mm sensor area. Extra resolution. Even if you don't ever use it , that extra sensor area will be [i]very useful for a lot of people [particularly at the studio level].

[REDHKSC]

[QUOTE=OcularLimpidity;3363]Now I'm not saying that 2540p is a bad thing. It's a good thing! But if you're recording RAW uncompressed 2540p directly to your... Well, I can't even think of what will handle that bit rate.

DataDirect Networks ( USA ) can deliver up to 3 GB/s of sustained ultra-high performance, while providing up to 720 TB of non-disruptive storage in a two rack system Ð offering the highest performance and most dense solution with the smallest footprint in the industry.

Stewart

[Graeme Nattress]

What do you do with it. You look really smug. That's what you do with it!

Well, actually, it gives you more pixels to crop for wider aspect ratios. It gives you more room to reframe, or more pixels to scale down.

Graeme

[Windjammer]

What to do with 2540p? First you may want to watch it in full resolution...

http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/09/ces2007_westinghouse_quad_hdtv/

[Chris Kenny]

As for editing, I expect that the workflow will be nearly identical to REDCODE RAW with the exception of the added storage and processing power required.

Possibly less processing power. You've got more pixels, yes, but you don't have to do any decompression. You still have to demosaic, though.

But, yes, lots more storage. You're looking at ~400 MB/s. For a 100 minute feature at a 7:1 shooting ratio, you'll need ~17 TB of storage to hold your footage. Ouch. Of course if you do the math on how much that costs, even with backup, it's still cheaper than shooting 35mm.

[Don Woods]

I stroke it... I hold it.... I tell it I love it..... I tell it I never want it to leave.....

[Alex Boothby]

Hypothetically could you convert uncompressed 2540p to REDCODE RAW using REDCINE? To take the pain of archiving away?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I stroke it... I hold it.... I tell it I love it..... I tell it I never want it to leave.....


...my precious.

[Stephen Williams]

But, yes, lots more storage. You're looking at ~400 MB/s. For a 100 minute feature at a 7:1 shooting ratio, you'll need ~17 TB of storage to hold your footage. Ouch. Of course if you do the math on how much that costs, even with backup, it's still cheaper than shooting 35mm.

Hi Chris,

Unless you need a 35mm print for projection.

Stephen

[Brook Willard]

Hi Chris,

Unless you need a 35mm print for projection.

Stephen

If the 35mm project went to DI, lasering costs would be the same between the shows.

[Stephen Williams]

If the 35mm project went to DI, lasering costs would be the same between the shows.

Hi Brook,

Sure if you went to DI that is true, but that assumes you have ane extra $100,000 in the budget. If you need a 35mm print then shooting Anamorphic or Acadamy 1:1.85 will tend to be cheaper than shooting S16 or Digital.

Stephen

[Brook Willard]

Oh, of course. I suppose I tend to assume a digital post workflow.

[Stephen Williams]

Oh, of course. I suppose I tend to assume a digital post workflow.

Hi Brook,

You can still use an offline digital workflow, then take the EDL & cut the negative.

Stephen

[Rob Lohman]

I'm not saying the following will happen, but there's also a thing called lossless compression.

Recording happens to RED-RAID or possible other future products.

One of the big advantage is the higher frame rates. 4.5K at 60 fps and 2K up to 120 fps.

[Chris Kenny]

Unless you need a 35mm print for projection.


Sure, but for indies, that's a cost which can probably be deferred until you have a distribution deal.

[Stephen Williams]

Sure, but for indies, that's a cost which can probably be deferred until you have a distribution deal.

Hi Chris,

Sure its a deferred expense, but the producer does have to pick up the cost, it's not paid for by the distributer.
FWIW I know of 35mm features that have been made for as little as $40,000, spending $100,000 on a D.I. would then IMHO be foolish!

Stephen

[Chris Kenny]

Sure its a deferred expense, but the producer does have to pick up the cost, it's not paid for by the distributer.
FWIW I know of 35mm features that have been made for as little as $40,000, spending $100,000 on a D.I. would then IMHO be foolish!


I'd be surprised to learn that distributors never picked up this cost. Of course, they'd bill it to the producer against future earnings, but they do that with everything. With Hollywood bookkeeping, the movie was probably going to lose money on paper anyway....

[Stephen Williams]

I'd be surprised to learn that distributors never picked up this cost. Of course, they'd bill it to the producer against future earnings, but they do that with everything. With Hollywood bookkeeping, the movie was probably going to lose money on paper anyway....

Hi,

Exactly the distributors are making an advance against future earnings, so the film has to make $100,000 more before the producer sees a dime towards the original production costs!

Stephen

[Brook Willard]

Hi Brook,

You can still use an offline digital workflow, then take the EDL & cut the negative.

Stephen

Ah, semantics. A fully digital workflow.

[Alvise Tedesco]

Hi Brook,

Sure if you went to DI that is true, but that assumes you have ane extra $100,000 in the budget. If you need a 35mm print then shooting Anamorphic or Acadamy 1:1.85 will tend to be cheaper than shooting S16 or Digital.

Stephen

Sorry for my ignorance, I'm not used to film. Talking about Academy 1:1.85 isn't talking about S16?
And, again sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly means DI? Is it the process of going from film to digital and back to film, no matter what you do with your "intermediate", or that term necessarily imply important color management and whatever you can do with those data?
Asking this cause I imagined RED workflow tend to be cheaper than film also when a 35mm print would be needed

Thanks.
Alvise

[Stephen Williams]

Sorry for my ignorance, I'm not used to film. Talking about Academy 1:1.85 isn't talking about S16?
And, again sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly means DI? Is it the process of going from film to digital and back to film, no matter what you do with your "intermediate", or that term necessarily imply important color management and whatever you can do with those data?
Asking this cause I imagined RED workflow tend to be cheaper than film also when a 35mm print would be needed

Thanks.
Alvise

Hi Alvise,

1:1.85 is the standard aspect ratio in the cinema. You could frame for it in any format S16 or 16mm included.

A D.I. is a Digita Intermediate. Not all Hollywood feature films go through a D.I. as the process is not transparent, and costs from $100,000 - $300,000. You get what you pay for!

For a Video or HD finish the RED workflow (or any digital camera) will clearly save you money.

Shooting in the format of final delivery i.e. 4 perf R35 1:1.85 for cinema distribution will be the cheapest workflow if a DI is not required. Shooting S35 3 perf will save some money, that can be used towards DI costs.

Shooting digital has cash flow advantages, i.e you don't need to find the money for a film out until you have a sale agreed.

Stephen