4.5k forgotten?

[cinemano]

Hello

I was just wondering, does anyone know if the 4.5k upgrade has been totally scrapped for the RED one? Is it now just for sensor upgrade monstro?

[Mark Pugh]

It would appear to be a broken promise. Disappointing for anyone shooting for cinema screens.

[Miltos Pilalitos]

4.5K would be very useful for clients who want frames for print from the shooting. I have been asked about it many times but 4K does the job for now.

[David Mullen ASC]

You'd lose one of RED's biggest advantages over most HD cameras -- a lookaround area in the viewfinder for the operator.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Should still have look-around area above and below the recorded frame. To me, I don't see the 4.5K mode being all that flexible or useful for more than narrative cinema applications. Possibly wide-format advertising. It may be 4.5K in width, but it has a 2.40:1 aspect ratio.

I wouldn't call it a broken promise as Mark calls it. RED has announced it, along with many other things, and they made no promises as to just how and when we would get it. When we do, it will be nice to have another tool in the toolbox, but I'm surprised it's as high on everyones' list of desired features as it often seems to be.

[Warren Kommers]

You'd lose one of RED's biggest advantages over most HD cameras -- a lookaround area in the viewfinder for the operator.

Just on the left and right though, correct? Booms come in from the top! Kidding it is nice to have. I think the biggest thing would be getting the S35 field of view on the left and right instead of resolution.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

RED One "4.5K" was said to be 4480x1866. So that's an additional 384 pixels of width for the frame compared to 4K. Not a huge deal there in terms of resolution. It does provide for almost the whole S35 frame width, whereas RED One 4K is a bit of a crop from S35, R1 4K is pretty much the same size as 35mm Academy.

I will welcome the 4.5K mode with open arms once it arrives, but it would be a lot more interesting to me if it were a 2:1 aspect or, even better yet, 16:9, but I don't think the camera can chew on that much data.

[Joe Walker]

I used to be one of those who would chime in quite a bit about 4.5K. But to be honest, what I'd really like is to scrap 4.5K and get 4K @ 60fps! That would solve the whole bouncing out of 4K to 3K or 2K for slow-mo shots. I know it's more resolution for the cinema crowd, but to me getting good juicy 60fps slow-mo shots in 4K is something that would be far more useful to a whole lot more people.

[Jay A. Kelley]

"A broken promise" is very harsh language.

Jay

[Ivan G]

I'll settle for 4K at 48fps. I'll also take the 4.5K when it's released.

[Brandon Kraemer]

Having over-cranked footage at 4k would be a huge advantage, and with the speed and size of equipment getting better, faster, smaller, cheaper... it's only a matter of time, but it would be my pick of priorities over marginally greater resolution.