PDA

View Full Version : Enough "K" already!



Joe VanDalsem
11-20-2008, 05:00 PM
Seriously guys! 9K?! That's just too many K. Stop it. Too much K. Just stop. I'm serious.

Matthew Bennett
11-20-2008, 05:04 PM
I like how your avatar, your screen name, and your signature are in perfect alignment.

Great 'online presence' direction!

Joe VanDalsem
11-20-2008, 05:06 PM
ok, ok. 28K? Christ. Seriously. That much K is enough to make me flip my lid. So stop it. I need my lid firmly attached please. Thank you.

Joe VanDalsem
11-20-2008, 05:09 PM
I like how your avatar, your screen name, and your signature are in perfect alignment.

Great 'online presence' direction!

Thank you Matthew. It's important to stay consistent.

Simon Valderrama
11-20-2008, 05:22 PM
yeah, enough K.
gimme DR, never enough of that!

Mark L. Pederson
11-20-2008, 05:26 PM
More K please. Never enough K ... never enough cow-bell.

Radoslav Karapetkov
11-20-2008, 05:29 PM
Seriously guys! 9K?! That's just too many K. Stop it. Too much K. Just stop. I'm serious.


Why man?

Don't you just love to have an awful lot of K ?! :tongue:

Joe VanDalsem
11-20-2008, 05:48 PM
Why man?

Don't you just love to have an awful lot of K ?! :tongue:

NO! 4K is plenty of K! Somebody tell them to stop it.

Eirik Tyrihjel
11-20-2008, 05:52 PM
NO! 4K is plenty of K! Somebody tell them to stop it.

STOOOOOP IT!

seriousy... More K´s and More DR please! (Just make sure the computers keep up... it´s been a long time since processor power doubled every year....)

Andrew McCarrick
11-20-2008, 06:08 PM
NO! 4K is plenty of K! Somebody tell them to stop it.

Well 4k isn't 4k... it's 3.2k... The filtering cause the resolution to drop by about 20%. So 5k = 4k.... 9k = 7.2k. IMax is 10k, so the 9k camera is meant as a digital IMAX cam. 28k (maybe different filtering) should be 22.4k

Radoslav Karapetkov
11-20-2008, 06:08 PM
NO! 4K is plenty of K! Somebody tell them to stop it.


You might not, but Christopher Walken does need more K.

And I need more K,.. the world needs more K...

Give me more K !... I need more K...

Joe VanDalsem
11-20-2008, 07:40 PM
Well 4k isn't 4k... it's 3.2k... The filtering cause the resolution to drop by about 20%. So 5k = 4k.... 9k = 7.2k. IMax is 10k, so the 9k camera is meant as a digital IMAX cam. 28k (maybe different filtering) should be 22.4k

Your fancy numbers are just aimed to confuse me. Well congratulations sir. Now I'm belligerent AND confused. Too many K's that aren't actually K but slightly less K than advertised and .4 = .1.7.8K. and I just found out I was adopted. GREAT!

:tongue:

Mark L. Pederson
11-20-2008, 07:54 PM
I got a FEVER for more K -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4royOLtvmQ

Craig Ryan
11-20-2008, 08:27 PM
^ He beat me to the punch.

No Seriously...why on earth would you say no more K? Ks are good!

David Rasberry
11-20-2008, 08:40 PM
More K is more better.
Red K is Special K!

Peter McCully
11-20-2008, 08:52 PM
Well 4k isn't 4k... it's 3.2k... The filtering cause the resolution to drop by about 20%. So 5k = 4k.... 9k = 7.2k. IMax is 10k, so the 9k camera is meant as a digital IMAX cam. 28k (maybe different filtering) should be 22.4k

IMAX 10k? In theory maybe but to actually work with it in digital is another thing. I have never heard of any film scans of IMAX done at 10k, ever. For The Dark Knight they were working in 6k and in some cases 4k in VFX. Can't remember what the film output does (8k?). But I think you're quite right about the 9k epic being suitable for IMAX. Now, all we need is......some way to work with it in post!

Graeme Nattress
11-20-2008, 08:54 PM
Sure, the optical filtering does lower the measured rez a little, but when you watch RED 4K as 4K, on a nice screen, as I did today, it looks like 4k. It looks superb. I am so impressed with the images you all are making. There's a beautiful smoothness and seemlessness to the images that is just stunning. I can't wait to see what the higher resolutions bring to the image. I can only think of positive things that more resolution will produce.

Graeme

Rick Darge
11-20-2008, 09:23 PM
Ketamine?

hunterrichards
11-20-2008, 09:46 PM
This is the best reduser post I have ever seen.

Justin Kirchhoff
11-20-2008, 10:15 PM
IMAX 10k? In theory maybe but to actually work with it in digital is another thing. I have never heard of any film scans of IMAX done at 10k, ever. For The Dark Knight they were working in 6k and in some cases 4k in VFX. Can't remember what the film output does (8k?). But I think you're quite right about the 9k epic being suitable for IMAX. Now, all we need is......some way to work with it in post!


They did The Dark Knight film out to IMAX at 4k.

Darren Orange
11-20-2008, 10:28 PM
About 39 to 50 seconds in.....

I dont know why this came to mind but it did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KakinPNRiDc&feature=related

Radoslav Karapetkov
11-21-2008, 07:25 AM
Gotta have more Kay. :biggrin:

JohnF
11-21-2008, 07:39 AM
More K?

I'll tell you why?

Because I want it! The hairs on the back of my neck stand up just thinking about what I could achieve with the RED 28K 617 camera.

Though it does need decent DR to make it really work... hint, hint!!!

JohnF

Priyesh P.
11-21-2008, 07:54 AM
Jim should either found a new company for faster CPUs or stop increasing the Ks :-D Vanawesome, I can hear ya bro!

martinnoweck
11-21-2008, 09:16 AM
More K please. Never enough K ... never enough cow-bell.

i need more cowbell ... where is there full clip?

Nuno Rocha
11-21-2008, 09:39 AM
Seems people only care about kuantity... I would trade in a minute some Ks for more fps and DR.

Jeff Kilgroe
11-21-2008, 09:55 AM
More K... Gimme, gimme, gimme!

I want 5K+ so I can get pristine, oversampled 4K images.

Kyle Mallory
11-21-2008, 10:13 AM
I'm good for 5k, even possibly 6k, but let's stop there and work on DR and FPS. I'm all about that 617. It makes me moist... on the lips... from the drooling, you sick bastards... but 617 would be just dandy at 6k, but 3x the well size. Though, I suppose for still photography, that 28k is all kinds of cool for large prints.

Jeff Kilgroe
11-21-2008, 10:23 AM
I think one thing people are overlooking when looking at "the K" is the sensor size and how the photosite sizes compare. Mysterium Monstro is supposed to have a 6 micron photosite size. That is larger than Mysterium and mysterium X. The FF35 Monstro sensor will only have a ~4.5K imaging area when shooting with S35mm glass, so no more K than the current R1. In fact, it will be less per mm of sensor area, but should provide for capturing the full S35mm frame.

On 645 and 617 size sensors, pushing them back down into lower K numbers does not make a whole lot of sense. They are physically very large sensors and for a digital medium to be comparable to film of that size, it needs every bit of this resolution. For the 617, the 28K size makes absolute perfect sense for panoramic and large-format photo and print work. The possibility of shooting up to 25fps on that format is just mind-blowingly cool.

Kyle Mallory
11-21-2008, 10:36 AM
Word. Also, there is a lot of cool potential for serious background plates and hard-core VFX work with the 617 at 28k and 24fps. I likely won't be doing any of it, but I can imagine it being done.

Gunleik Groven
11-21-2008, 10:47 AM
I will take more of both, thank you very much, at least untill 8k effective resolution and 16 stops DR.

From there I will take improved signal chain.

Craig Ryan
11-21-2008, 10:55 AM
To open up a can of worms potentially; I've heard on here before (forgive me for forgetting on what thread) that having more resolution does also provide more dynamic range because when you down sample (say 5k to 2k finish), you lose noise and can get away with more shadow detail?

Billy Summers
11-21-2008, 11:35 AM
Even with the "More than 4K" cams coming out, most of us will still be shooting at 4K anyways...windowed, scaled, whatever...Currently the K's aren't the issue, it's the other "stuff"
like: DR, FPS and Configuration....

...oh yeah, did mention workflow? or "deliverables"?

Brian J.M. Rytel
11-21-2008, 12:13 PM
Increased photosite count is fantastic. And as mentioned above, the 28K can really aid in motion and still background plates for FX/Post work.

Now I present the issues that need to be solved.

1) Downsampling. Kilgroe mentioned downsampled 5/6k for silky smooth 4k images. This is good, but on a 4k projector I'd put money down that inter-cut downsampled and pure 4k would have noticeable image quality differences. Some attention should be paid to developing a downsampling algorithm that will match edge sharpness, gradient quality, etc. to a native 4k image. While the downsampled might be just a tad 'cleaner' in the noise department, I don't think it will be noticeable to most like the line characteristics.

2) Computing technology. RED has a great sensor program, I have full faith in that. It seems that while Canon, Nikon, Sony may have a whole lot of people working on their sensors, the RED team has made a lot of progress with a leaner development group (Although I am not privy to precise headcounts at any of the companies).
Computers, dual quad-cores (regardless of Mac/PC status) and 1-2Gb workstation cards, aren't happy when dealing with full-rez 4k. They can do it, but it reminds me of where we were with HD 5-10 years ago. The newest generation is catching up, and now with the release of 5-28k motion imaging, the computing power isn't there to make these practical for a wider audience.
I'm looking at Intel's processor development and we'll get to the point where this data will flow well. Also, the shift in processing from scalar to parallel will greatly help 2k+ imaging as well as the spread of 64-bit architectures. I'm yammering now, and seeing s I've lost half the readers will shut up now.

Harva Raj
11-21-2008, 12:25 PM
Sure, the optical filtering does lower the measured rez a little, but when you watch RED 4K as 4K, on a nice screen, as I did today, it looks like 4k. It looks superb. I am so impressed with the images you all are making. There's a beautiful smoothness and seemlessness to the images that is just stunning. I can't wait to see what the higher resolutions bring to the image. I can only think of positive things that more resolution will produce.

Graeme

and when you watch red and HVX 200* footage side by side on a barco projector, as i did today, you wonder why the DR of a 4k camera is comparable to a HD camera. I doubt more "K" will never bring more DR to an image, as many "professionals" claim.



(with m2 adapter and nikon lens)




They did The Dark Knight film out to IMAX at 4k.


Real 4k footage. Not pseudo 4k footage,FYI

Brian Harbauer
11-21-2008, 12:25 PM
If they're bringing more DR, why not more k? Why not both? Why do we have to choose one over the other if both are possible?

I hope there are some projectors planned that will be ably to playback all this k? :love:

Andrew McCarrick
11-21-2008, 12:50 PM
If they're bringing more DR, why not more k? Why not both? Why do we have to choose one over the other if both are possible?

I hope there are some projectors planned that will be ably to playback all this k? :love:

Because you really can't have both.... More dynamic range calls for larger photosites... larger photosites = less photosites = less resolution. A 5.4 micron photosite captures less light (and thus less dynamic range) then a 6 micron photosite.

Which you clearly see stated in the new cameras brochure.

http://makethemoviehappen.com/red.bmp

Graeme Nattress
11-21-2008, 12:56 PM
Say you have an image of a particular resolution and dynamic range. You can always trade some resolution for more dynamic range. You can't trade the dynamic range for more resolution...

Graeme

Eki Halkka
11-21-2008, 01:07 PM
You can't trade the dynamic range for more resolution..

Sometimes adding noise to an image makes it appear sharper - i guess the noise gets mistaken for textural detail by our in-brain processor.

This doesn't add true resolving power, but hey, sometimes "it looks nice" is enough ;-)

Mike Harrington
11-21-2008, 01:13 PM
Eki....
you by any chance the author of those nifty little lightwave plugins?

Jonas Nyström
11-21-2008, 01:52 PM
For us CinemaPhotographers, 9K and above open a whole new landscape, a beautiful Schlaraffenland of possibilities, the promised land of film/photo merge. I Could not be more happy. Already today I use the RED ONE 4K clips for stills. 9K is like two times better. Just bring it on (the K:s).

I enclose Schlaraffenland by Brueghel, so you can get the feel.

Justin Kirchhoff
11-21-2008, 03:56 PM
Real 4k footage. Not pseudo 4k footage,FYI

I know...I was letting everyone else know what the film out was...

PatrickW
11-21-2008, 04:26 PM
k-hole...

Billy Summers
11-21-2008, 04:41 PM
I Could not be more happy. Already today I use the RED ONE 4K clips for stills. 9K is like two times better. Just bring it on (the K:s).





Dude...what lenses are you going to shoot 9k on!?!

What format is the project delivering in???

Radoslav Karapetkov
11-21-2008, 05:17 PM
More K for da people.

Tim Naylor
11-21-2008, 07:44 PM
Why more K when RED still hasn't gotten the effective ASA higher?

Check out my thread:
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22618

Jeff Kilgroe
11-21-2008, 08:07 PM
Tim,

We don't know what the effective ISO of the new sensors will be. As for the sensitivity of the RED One's Mysterium chip, it's pretty darn good for current CMOS technology. Most DSLRs have a native ISO level lower than the ~320 of the Mysterium sensor.

To me, of more importance than native ISO, would be improved response on the blue channel. Lower sensitivity and range on the blue channel is just a characteristic of digital sensors, more so with some types than others.

I run across a lot of DPs and operators who are familiar with film or HD and the RED One will throw them a curve ball when it comes to lighting with tungsten. There are many ways to handle it, but when lighting with tungsten, the apparent ISO is lower because of the decreased amount of blue in tungsten lighting and poor blue-channel sensitivity. RED thrives best with lighting balanced at 4900 to 5500 K. When lighting with tungsten you have to dump more light onto the set and be more careful about protecting highlights or better yet, use an 80 B/C/D filter and plan to lose 1 to 2 stops with the color filtering... So once again, more light.

Another consideration on ISO is to decide at which point the native ISO becomes too high. Just as artificial gain or exposure compensation can be used to approximate higher ISO values, the inverse must be done for lower values. Just how effective would the camera be if its native ISO were 800 to 1000 and yet a large number of people find they need to be shooting in the 300-500 range most of the time?

With proper exposure and shooting techniques, I get clean images out of RED, even bumping ISO up as high as 800 at times. It's sweet spot is 320 in most cases, but I find shooting for ISO 500 can be better for some purposes and can offer more highlight protection.

Radoslav Karapetkov
11-21-2008, 11:33 PM
It will be cool when camera companies start offering easily-exchangeable sensor modules, similar to different filmstocks:

Daylight optimised, tungsten optimised, high-ASA sensors, sensors optimised for black and white.

Switch them like film stocks.

RED's new modulairty is a step towards that future.

Imagine a whole lineup of different RED "brains", similar to the Kodak pricelist. :biggrin:

Jonas Nyström
11-22-2008, 01:08 AM
Dude...what lenses are you going to shoot 9k on!?!

What format is the project delivering in???

I won't deliver film on 9K. I will downsample to 2K most of the times. I need the 9K for stills. Medium format still lenses like Mamiya, Hasselblad/Zeiss, Pentax 6x7 lenses will cover the sensor. And I assume Red will have some as well at the time.

If you don't want 9K, just don't buy the Epic 645, dude.

Priyesh P.
11-22-2008, 01:50 AM
Imagine a whole lineup of different RED "brains", similar to the Kodak pricelist. :biggrin:

I think this ends when you have to face the prices. Not speaking of torn interfaces of the chip/processing modules that will come at some point sooner or later.

Benni Diez
11-22-2008, 07:15 AM
Forget K. I want M!

Graeme Nattress
11-22-2008, 07:28 AM
Judi Dench?

Graeme

Jonas Nyström
11-22-2008, 09:21 AM
Forget K. I want M!

I also want money.

combatentropy
11-22-2008, 10:07 PM
If you have more K but no one is close enough to see it, does it add more detail?

Stuart English
11-22-2008, 10:10 PM
"yes" because it adds more contrast when you down convert to your viewing resolution.

Nathan VanderByl
11-25-2008, 02:24 AM
Please. This thread should have been "only 28K?" It's surprising just how many people are anti-resolution. I can't wait to see the back end of 4K!

George Wilcox
12-26-2008, 04:40 AM
Seriously guys! 9K?! That's just too many K. Stop it. Too much K. Just stop. I'm serious.

I'm afraid you are suffering from a lack of imagination. 9K is a digital IMax camera and there are far more applications for both the 645 and the 617 than you have imagined. It's not just about making movies at that resolution. Jim means it when he talks about DSMC - It's about catching everything that happens on a sports field of play with the high quality required for print - crop it to where the action you want is. It's about the best platform for crowd surveillance in homeland insecurity applications, it's about aerial photo mineral exploration, crop health monitoring, forestry monitoring, environmental monitoring, and much more, using the most powerful camera for the job.

Wildlife to weddings to architecture to remote sensing to sports to crowd surveillance to anything else your imagination is up for. That's what these cameras are all about and they are going to be absolutely fantastic. At least, I imagine they will....:bleh:

Radoslav Karapetkov
12-26-2008, 04:54 AM
More K is great for acquisition [giving possibilities for post work], but I doubt that more than 4K would be ever needed for screening.

Merry Christmas! :sorcerer:

Clint Childers
12-26-2008, 05:27 AM
I'd like to have the option of having a 645 with 6k Rez with 10 micron pixels and tons of DR and sensitivity. Cause until computer systems catch up, everything will be downrezzed to 4k or smaller anyways. You probably won't see huge improvements, until that stuff is projected 6k and up. Maybe we could have two sensor designs to choose from.
1. 9k 645 with 6 micron pixels
or 2. 6k 645 with 10 micron pixels and a Sh*t load more Sensitivity/DR/ FPS

Oliver Koeppel
12-26-2008, 06:55 AM
I also need more K!
And how about a front- and backspoiler for my RED?????

Peter Majtan
12-26-2008, 09:23 AM
Please. This thread should have been "only 28K?" It's surprising just how many people are anti-resolution. I can't wait to see the back end of 4K!

Not everyone has the kind of storage required for extreme high resolutions. I have just installed 64TB fiber SAN for a client in Florida, who's projects are "only" in HD (the 1080 kind). That was just under $60K. While there is certainly space for high-res cameras, I believe there is equally space for lower-res cameras. Especially indies and others with extremely limited budgets would certainly welcome an addition of a brain with 3K (resolution) in S35/FF35 sized sensor, destined for 2K workflows. This would permit the use of affordable, yet high quality still glass without the need for PETA-BYTES of storage...

I am not saying anything against the current line-up - not at all. I am personally looking forward to the 617 Epic. I will, however, use it only for stills. I own a 617 film camera and I can only imagine the landscapes I can photograph with the 617 Epic...

But on the other side of the spectrum I would love to see the addition of such a brain and I believe many others would. Until then I will be happy with the fixed-lens Scarlet, when it comes out...

Just my two pesos...

:) Peter

Radoslav Karapetkov
12-26-2008, 10:03 AM
3.K. is O.K. :)

Billy Summers
12-27-2008, 09:34 PM
I won't deliver film on 9K. I will downsample to 2K most of the times. I need the 9K for stills. Medium format still lenses like Mamiya, Hasselblad/Zeiss, Pentax 6x7 lenses will cover the sensor. And I assume Red will have some as well at the time.

If you don't want 9K, just don't buy the Epic 645, dude.

...Okay?

If you want 9k stills, (today) you can shoot Hasselblad with a digital back!

As far as I know Cinema glass doesn't exist for those formats...
ask your AC how they feel about pulling focus in 9k, WFO on a still lens (still lens mechanics?!):)

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the REDvolution we're all a part of and I'm not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to wrap my head around putting these ideas into "practical physical action" (Production)

...anyways

Priyesh P.
12-28-2008, 01:22 AM
It´s not only the unneeded data overhead I`m afraid of, but also processing power. The amount of time required to downres all of that footage you shoot over the life of a camera sums up tremendously. Backup issues were discussed lots and lots of time, so I won`t repeat - but I am already fed up with the "bit" I have to deal with. It makes me mad that I can`t keep all of the raw footages of past projects online due to their volume and with 9K as a starting point it`s just going to be a way bigger hassle...I would accept 2K at any time as archive files.

Robin Balas
12-28-2008, 01:59 AM
...Okay?

If you want 9k stills, (today) you can shoot Hasselblad with a digital back!

As far as I know Cinema glass doesn't exist for those formats...
ask your AC how they feel about pulling focus in 9k, WFO on a still lens (still lens mechanics?!):)

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the REDvolution we're all a part of and I'm not trying to offend you. I'm just trying to wrap my head around putting these ideas into "practical physical action" (Production)

...anyways

Try capturing anything moving hand held with a Hasselblad without flash and you realize how extremely difficult it is to use a 645 mirror box house shooting 0,5-0,75 fps and having the mirror slamming force you into the 1/500sec speeds on low ISO. There is a lot of room for improvement in that field and new equipment is required to break into new grounds - today not possible or hampered by the technical equipment issues.

I see vast opportunities with a 645 (and also 617) fast fps camera for new uses. (fast fps in this size is 1fps or faster by today's standards) If you don't need 9K don't buy it, if you don't think you can put it to good use you don't need it. But please let the others decide for themselves how to use it and if they need it or not. There is a world outside motion film which also awaits the EPIC's and SCARLET's. The fact that many user on this forum fails to recognize that have up until now not affected Mr. Jannard's visions, and I hope it never does.

Quantum leaps in technology and creativity almost never ends up where the creators and current users anticipated. Time will show what the new uses for this awesome technology will be, and I am so extremely grateful to be able to be around when it happened. And I am sure this equipment will see a lot of use outside the motion film industry as the cost including optics is comparable or less than Hasselblad, Leaf, Sinar and PhaseOne is charging me for 645 equipment today.

MHO.