Keep 720p and 1080p

[Intelsat]

I feel that it is important to understand that this camera can replace almost all video and motion picture cameras. Don't think for a second that this camera will only be used for digital cinema. We can't even imagine all the ways this camera will be used. It's a beautiful thing. How will this camera fit into existing productions standards? It should support standards for video, 720p and 1080p and for film, 2k and 4k. If we are being honest with ourselves we can all see times when 720p would be the best match for a client while for another client, 4k would be the best match. Any additional rendering slows down the process and creates potential confusion for the client. We have always had choices in the past (DigiBeta, HD, 16mm or 35mm), lets keep them in the future as well, but this time all in one camera!.


I've ordered two Red ones and a friend of mine has ordered one Red camera based on this pragmatic model.

[Tonaci Tran]

"FPGA space... imagine what we are giving compared to the competition. Think of the box size. Just think about it for a moment. There is a limit to what we can do. I know that seems an impossible concept since we are offering so much, but trust me... there is a limit.

Jim"

"We don't have to change anything... it was just a thought. But we don't have the space to do everything. We can leave the spec as it is OR we can get creative at the last minute. I don't really care either way. I'll shoot 4K at 24fps to CF or either 720P @ 120fps or 2K at 96fps to CF. My personal preference is 2K @ 96fps, but I'm just one customer. If the majority wants 720P @ 120fps... that's what we'll do. We can't do both. In hindsight, we would have put in a bigger FPGA (not available when we started) but then the price of the camera would be $4K more expensive. Choices... choices.

Jim"

Due to the reasons Jim stated above, there isn't enough room to have all the options.

[Georg Misch]

Hi,

Redcine gives you all the options you need - and more... No need to have all formats in camera.

Best

Georg

[Emanuel A.]

I've ordered two Red ones and a friend of mine has ordered one Red camera based on this pragmatic model.I hope Jim may have the same feeling. RED should be the 1st democratic digital cinema camera of the history. This will actually be truly revolutionary.

Granted this, no worries. As it has been said, you can guarantee whatever you want via REDCINE.

[Stephen Gentle]

I don't really see a need for 720p and 1080 - as long as downconverting REDCODE to HD formats doesn't take too long.

Shooting 720p on RED is like shooting 8mm through a 35mm camera...

[Darren Orange]

If am missing something correct me but, should we not all expect the best Digital Cinema camera?

After all they do call themselves "Red Digital Cinema Company"

Should anyone be surprised that the camera only support Digital Cinema formats and do the best it can at those formats.

Digital cinema formats start, to my understanding at 2K.

It makes perfect sense for Red to scrap anything sub par to Digital Cinema.

if you want less do it in post, it'll look better any way.

Just my 2 cents, I could be wrong but I am sticking to it.

[Rocket]

I don't really see a need for 720p and 1080 - as long as downconverting REDCODE to HD formats doesn't take too long.

Shooting 720p on RED is like shooting 8mm through a 35mm camera...

Exactly, that's what I think too. First and foremost it's a d-cinema camera, I think that should come first. As everyone has pointed out all the HD formats can be derived through REDCine.

Unless there can be two RED One models to choose from, one biased towards broadcast and the other toward d-cinema, then I don't think we are going to reach a conclusion on this one.

There are plenty of good broadcast HD cameras out there, and those wanting to only use the windowed sensor and output 720 or 1080 might as well have a 2/3" sensor on a Sony.

However, if I was them, I'd still buy RED, shoot 4K or 2K and get my HD afterwards.

Otherwise, I think they should just leave the camera as is when everyone made reservations.

[Antoine Baumann]

If Time is money then record through the HD-SDI port to a HD Deck might be the best optioin. You still have the adventage of 35mm DOF (if you want, or 16mm DOF if you choose so), sensitivity of the RED camera, etc... and you have a tape with standard HD codec/format straight at the end of the shooting.

However we definitely need more infos on rendering time in REDCINE...

antoine.

[Priyesh P.]

The breaking point stays like this: if conversion times for 2K & 4K are acceptable (near realtime or faster), it'll be ok to kick all intermediate formats. Then it's like shooting in 35mm an doing the telecine into the required formats afterwards.

[Stokestack]

Guys, the HD resolutions are RGB. Based on info we've been given, the space savings over 4K Redcode Raw are negligible. The final delivery format for your client is immaterial, unless you're delivering un-color-corrected, cuts-only Redcode QuickTime or AVI files on a hard drive.

"How will this camera fit into existing productions standards? It should support standards for video, 720p and 1080p and for film, 2k and 4k...we can all see times when 720p would be the best match for a client while for another client, 4k would be the best match."

I disagree with this kind of reasoning. When JVC introduced HDV at a data rate of 19 measly megabits, using tape stock and tape speed that was proven to handle 25 percent more, I asked their rep at NAB what the hell they were thinking. "Well," huffed the rep defensively, "that's the broadcast HD standard!"

Are you kidding me? First of all, who is going direct to air from an HDV camera? If you make one edit that doesn't fall on a GOP boundary (which is 83 percent likely), you have to recompress anyway, so there goes your camera original. Second, anybody airing anything is going to add captions, their annoying "bug" logo in the corner, whatever. Again, recompression. Third, few broadcasters are actually delivering anywhere near the full 19 mbps. Again, recompression. The relationship of the original recording's format to the final broadcast's is essentially zero after just one step of post production (with frame rate and interlace as the only exceptions I can think of).

Compromising quality or sacrificing camera features for end-users' viewing technology is a bad idea. This is like saying musicians in the '80s should have gone into the studio and recorded on cassette tape, because that's what most listeners were going to be listening to.

If the HD resolutions on the Red offered considerable storage savings and they downscaled the 35mm FOV, then they'd be worthwhile. Otherwise, they're just another operation that clearly doesn't belong in the camera. You're going to be transcoding with Redcine or something else in just about any realistic scenario, so not a single byte of code in the camera itself should be dedicated to operations that you can do then.

[Häakon]

Stokestack, I largely agree with your point of view for the most part, but currently the only way to get 60p from the entire sensor is with overscaled 1080p RGB. It may not be a huge data savings, even, but just to have that option there is going to make a difference for many people. Without the 1080 option, the best you can get from the 35mm DOF/FOV combination is 30p - and that's not a lot of flexibility compared to what else is already out there.

[Emanuel A.]

Hey Häak, my friend, how long... How are you?

I've read and paid attention to your post(s) as usual. I couldn't understand yet why isn't 2K@60fps -- 48fps range possible?
Being the step so short: 6.6% if compared with 1080p.

E.

[Ken Willinger]

If the HD resolutions on the Red offered considerable storage savings and they downscaled the 35mm FOV, then they'd be worthwhile. Otherwise, they're just another operation that clearly doesn't belong in the camera. You're going to be transcoding with Redcine or something else in just about any realistic scenario, so not a single byte of code in the camera itself should be dedicated to operations that you can do then.

When I give product to broadcast networks like ESPN (who are 720P), they will not want anything other than the footage in 720P. If I can give them a hard drive (which in itself will be tough) that is material already in 720P, the whole digital scenario may fly. That is a realistic scenario. If they have to do anything more than just plug the HD in and use the data as is...I might as well just use a Varicam.

Broadcast clients want what they want. They don't want to start messing with down-resing, especially with time sensetive material.

I think to not include the HD video formats in the camera may be a mistake for the crossover clientelle the EFP people on this board work with. I've been pushing this camera at many of my clients with the claim they can get their material on site as they want it. Without the HD video options, it changes that claim and possibly hurts the bottom line in that they will still want it now...as in tape.

BTW, I can't just walk away from these clients. This is how many of us make the donuts.

[Häakon]

Hey Häak, my friend, how long... How are you?

I've read and paid attention to your post(s) as usual. I couldn't understand yet why isn't 2K@60fps -- 48fps range possible?
Being the step so short: 6.6% if compared with 1080p.

E.
Well 2K at 48-60p is possible, but 2K is windowed only. 1080p is scaled. That's the primary difference - I don't want to lose 60p from the full sensor onboard. 96fps is definitely cool, but unfortunately it's only possible with 16mm lenses, DOF, and FOV. It's not a compromise I'm personally willing to make (though I realize there are plenty of applications where that would be more than acceptable, and there are many people who would take advantage of those applications). That's why I don't favor eliminating options - especially 1080p - because it's the only place to get *full sensor* 60p onboard.

At least for now... :)

[HD Hildebrand]

Lose 720 for sure - if you deliver HD most broadcasters want and demand 1080. But 1080p could still be handy. Personally, I favour the idea of shooting 2k and 4k then downrezzing to 1080.

[Jeremy Hughes]

What ever happened to the "Not ready for 4K? Dial it back. All the way down to 1080i and 720p." that was on red.com?

[Emanuel A.]

That's why I don't favor eliminating options - especially 1080p - because it's the only place to get *full sensor* 60p onboard.

At least for now... :)Yep !

[Jason Murphy]

Though I don't think they meant "1080i", I think they meant "1080p".

I think 1080i was in the specs a long time ago, but it got axed early on. Good thing, too. Interlacing is evil.

[HD Hildebrand]

I think 1080i was in the specs a long time ago, but it got axed early on. Good thing, too. Interlacing is evil.

Yes, I look forward to the day I never have to deal with interlaced again.

[Jannard]

Guys, the HD resolutions are RGB. Based on info we've been given, the space savings over 4K Redcode Raw are negligible. The final delivery format for your client is immaterial, unless you're delivering un-color-corrected, cuts-only Redcode QuickTime or AVI files on a hard drive.

"How will this camera fit into existing productions standards? It should support standards for video, 720p and 1080p and for film, 2k and 4k...we can all see times when 720p would be the best match for a client while for another client, 4k would be the best match."

I disagree with this kind of reasoning. When JVC introduced HDV at a data rate of 19 measly megabits, using tape stock and tape speed that was proven to handle 25 percent more, I asked their rep at NAB what the hell they were thinking. "Well," huffed the rep defensively, "that's the broadcast HD standard!"

Are you kidding me? First of all, who is going direct to air from an HDV camera? If you make one edit that doesn't fall on a GOP boundary (which is 83 percent likely), you have to recompress anyway, so there goes your camera original. Second, anybody airing anything is going to add captions, their annoying "bug" logo in the corner, whatever. Again, recompression. Third, few broadcasters are actually delivering anywhere near the full 19 mbps. Again, recompression. The relationship of the original recording's format to the final broadcast's is essentially zero after just one step of post production (with frame rate and interlace as the only exceptions I can think of).

Compromising quality or sacrificing camera features for end-users' viewing technology is a bad idea. This is like saying musicians in the '80s should have gone into the studio and recorded on cassette tape, because that's what most listeners were going to be listening to.

If the HD resolutions on the Red offered considerable storage savings and they downscaled the 35mm FOV, then they'd be worthwhile. Otherwise, they're just another operation that clearly doesn't belong in the camera. You're going to be transcoding with Redcine or something else in just about any realistic scenario, so not a single byte of code in the camera itself should be dedicated to operations that you can do then.

This post deserves to be read twice.

Jim

[Paul Hazlett]

When I give product to broadcast networks like ESPN (who are 720P), they will not want anything other than the footage in 720P. If I can give them a hard drive (which in itself will be tough) that is material already in 720P, the whole digital scenario may fly. That is a realistic scenario. If they have to do anything more than just plug the HD in and use the data as is...I might as well just use a Varicam.

Broadcast clients want what they want. They don't want to start messing with down-resing, especially with time sensetive material.

I think to not include the HD video formats in the camera may be a mistake for the crossover clientelle the EFP people on this board work with. I've been pushing this camera at many of my clients with the claim they can get their material on site as they want it. Without the HD video options, it changes that claim and possibly hurts the bottom line in that they will still want it now...as in tape.

BTW, I can't just walk away from these clients. This is how many of us make the donuts.

Well said sir, well said. We in the Electronic media side of things need to make
the transition to Red very easy for our clients so we can give them the stellar
images Red is capable of and create new markets within the confines of there
workflows.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

When I give product to broadcast networks like ESPN (who are 720P), they will not want anything other than the footage in 720P. If I can give them a hard drive (which in itself will be tough) that is material already in 720P, the whole digital scenario may fly. That is a realistic scenario. If they have to do anything more than just plug the HD in and use the data as is...I might as well just use a Varicam.

I don't think this is going to be an issue. Once RED is out there and people see what it can do, digital delivery is going to be no big deal. Broadcasters who currently want 720p or 1080i only and typically on common tape formats like HDCAM or DVCPRO are going to continue wanting that initially anyway. So when shooting with RED, there's already necessary conversion involved unless you're recording right to a deck via SDI. Out of the gate, these broadcasters aren't going to accept REDCODE, so what matters if the RED One can shoot 720p and 1080p? We'll all have to convert our footage to an accepted format anyway for such delivery. I guess I'm confused as to where being able to shoot 720p/1080p into a new format that broadcasters aren't going to initially accept is going to solve delivery concerns. REDCODE creates 1K and 2K proxies in real-time from 4K media, so rapid playback or down-res for delivery doesn't seem to be a huge obstacle.


Broadcast clients want what they want. They don't want to start messing with down-resing, especially with time sensetive material.

I'll agree with the first sentence there. Broadcasters are well known to up/down rez and butcher footage at will. But they do want specific things for delivery and I don't see where 720p or 1080p REDCODE RGB is going to be something they just magically start accepting or where that would be any more likely to happen vs. 2K or 4K REDCODE RAW.

The point is that broadcasters are going to have to change delivery requirements in order to work with RED no matter what. If they start accepting HDD deliveries with REDCODE format on them, then what matters if it's 720p or 4K since REDCODE has provisions for realtime playback at lower resolutions? Until the day comes where broadcasters universally accept such deliverables, then we're still going to need to convert our REDCODE footage to other formats before we deliver. What matters if we shoot 4K then? Massively oversampled 720p is going to look so awesome compared to the excrement that comes from a Varicam.

[Paul Hazlett]

Are you kidding me? First of all, who is going direct to air from an HDV camera? If you make one edit that doesn't fall on a GOP boundary (which is 83 percent likely), you have to recompress anyway, so there goes your camera original. Second, anybody airing anything is going to add captions, their annoying "bug" logo in the corner, whatever. Again, recompression. Third, few broadcasters are actually delivering anywhere near the full 19 mbps. Again, recompression. The relationship of the original recording's format to the final broadcast's is essentially zero after just one step of post production (with frame rate and interlace as the only exceptions I can think of).

If the HD resolutions on the Red offered considerable storage savings and they downscaled the 35mm FOV, then they'd be worthwhile. Otherwise, they're just another operation that clearly doesn't belong in the camera. You're going to be transcoding with Redcine or something else in just about any realistic scenario, so not a single byte of code in the camera itself should be dedicated to operations that you can do then.


I cannot control my clients workflow. If they want to work in 720P as
ESPN does then they will work in that workflow and find someone who will shoot 720P for them. Revenue lost for my Red. This might change is there were a significant amount of Red owner operators pushing the benefits, but the switch to Red is not like to the switch from SD to HD, we are a much smaller minority.

As for space savings, unless I missed something, this discussion is not about
space savings on disk for one format or another its about format options, Native to the camera, not through Redcine.

As for HDV, That is an abomination all to itself, I have yet to here of a Broadcast outlet requesting this format.

[Stephen Webb]

I cannot control my clients workflow. If they want to work in 720P as
ESPN does then they will work in that workflow and find someone who will shoot 720P for them. Revenue lost for my Red.

How will they ever know?

Fact is, you'll have to do the conversion to whatever their editing format is anyway - whether you're going from 720p REDCODE RGB or 4K REDCODE RAW makes no difference, they're never going to see it.

[Paul Hazlett]

The one issue I would like to raise again is if I can record from the HD SDI
ports. preferably with embedded audio then alot of this issue for broadcast
goes away. record to tape and you hand it over, do some broll in camera
and come back and play it out to tape and the client walks with it.

If I could get that, then I say 4k all the way

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I cannot control my clients workflow. If they want to work in 720P as
ESPN does then they will work in that workflow and find someone who will shoot 720P for them. Revenue lost for my Red. This might change is there were a significant amount of Red owner operators pushing the benefits, but the switch to Red is not like to the switch from SD to HD, we are a much smaller minority.

Yes, but what matters if RED shoots 720p or not? If RED did shoot 720p, you still couldn't hand ESPN a hard drive containing 720p REDCODE RGB.

[Harmonica]

Well 2K at 48-60p is possible, but 2K is windowed only. 1080p is scaled. That's the primary difference - I don't want to lose 60p from the full sensor onboard. 96fps is definitely cool, but unfortunately it's only possible with 16mm lenses, DOF, and FOV. It's not a compromise I'm personally willing to make (though I realize there are plenty of applications where that would be more than acceptable, and there are many people who would take advantage of those applications). That's why I don't favor eliminating options - especially 1080p - because it's the only place to get *full sensor* 60p onboard.

At least for now... :)

I know the results wouldn't be the same, but what's to stop you from using 35mm lenses? The sensor plane doesn't change... right? You would just get the look of cropped 35mm dof and fov.

[Jesper Holmström]

I can drop 1080p and 720p...But I'm going to be a P.I.A and ask for 2K RC RGB scaled@50-60fps instead.

Jesper Holmström
Dagsljus Filmequipment

[Rob Powell]

To clarify. I assume from this discussion that we are talking about removing the "recording options" for 720p and 1080p while maintaining the dual link HD-SDI outputs.

[Paul Hazlett]

To clarify. I assume from this discussion that we are talking about removing the "recording options" for 720p and 1080p while maintaining the dual link HD-SDI outputs.

I believe this is the case and I would be fine with this if in fact we can
record off the hd sdi to a deck and be able to transcode quickly in Redcine

[Dexter Gregoire]

I don't need something like 720p and 1080p -IF- it is possible to get it transcoded from Red software. I'll get it in post.

87.66% of people were in favor of dropping 720p & 1080p for 2K at faster frame rates. They must have been thinking of the benefits.

[Antoine Baumann]

I can drop 1080p and 720p...But I'm going to be a P.I.A and ask for 2K RC RGB scaled@50-60fps instead.

Yeah, why not having 2K scaled @60fps and drop 1080p? Is that possible?

antoine.

[Antoine Baumann]

I believe this is the case and I would be fine with this if in fact we can
record off the hd sdi to a deck and be able to transcode quickly in Redcine

if you are recording to tape, what would you use REDCINE for?

antoine.

[Brice Ansel]

Yeah, why not having 2K scaled @60fps and drop 1080p? Is that possible?
antoine.

I'm with Antoine on that one.

[Paul Hazlett]

if you are recording to tape, what would you use REDCINE for?

antoine.

Just as an option for people who dont need a tape right away.

its all about the options.

[Antoine Baumann]

Just as an option for people who dont need a tape right away.

its all about the options.


ah sorry I didn't get it. Completely aggree with you.

antoine.

[I Bloom]

If the HD resolutions on the Red offered considerable storage savings and they downscaled the 35mm FOV, then they'd be worthwhile. Otherwise, they're just another operation that clearly doesn't belong in the camera. You're going to be transcoding with Redcine or something else in just about any realistic scenario, so not a single byte of code in the camera itself should be dedicated to operations that you can do then.

What we need we actually can't have. Stokestack convinced me.

What we need is a standard HD Codec option. We need the drive off the camera to be deliverable as is to just about any client in a baked LUT form. If they aren't ready to change or be flexible in their post pipeline then that is what they want.

RAW makes the most sense when transcoding is an option. A standard Codec like DVCProHD or HDCAM makes the most sense when its not. RGB has no place in a Bayer Pattern world.

The problem: Panasonic and Sony own these standard codecs. They have our clients on lock. So their really is no solution. If you are going to RED you are not just adopting new technology you are switching from one established proprietary system to a new one. If your clients are stuck on one system then they can't have RED footage that isn't transcoded, until they leave it behind as well.

We can't skip transcoding and that's what we want.

Bright future:
*Final Cut Pro, now has format independant timelines and is supporting RED. I guestimate that opens up about a quarter of our clients.

Dark ages:
*AVID
*Tape delivery and archiving.

So now that I know we may always have to transcode, what else am I thinking about.

Well 4K is too much data for many applications. RED gains alot of ground by compressing the RAW Bayer pattern. The problem is that that system doesn't scale down well. As soon as we start scaling down we need to switch to RGB and that triples the data per pixel. 2K windowed is part of the solution but it negates the fact that we want more selective focus even for jobs where the "quality" of the image is low.

Often on this forum I think we measure "quality" in terms of bit depth, colorspace, compression, and resolution. But when we are shooting we are thinking about "qualities" like selective focus, highlights that don't blow out, lack of noise all of which RED is going to give us regardless of the format it is encoding.

Perhaps what we need is all of the "qualities" of RED, in an image of lower quality, lower resolution, bit rate, bit depth, perhaps with baked in LUT's etc. We need less data with the same qualities.

(Maybe this is an argument for keeping 720p scaled off of the whole chip and dumping 1080p)

Don't flame me on this one, its an active thought process in my head right now and I'm opening up to a lot of different points of view.

Part of what scares me about the current discussion is that I don't see a lot of justification in terms of business on the cinema side. And that makes me wonder who is it that is in a position to buy this thing that doesn't have to make business a priority.

I haven't shot over 60fps for something like two years. Even with film cameras that could do more. 96fps is not a feature that is going to pay for itself, and if its at the cost of some other features that are going to make money, then it doesn't make sense to do it. It doesn't even make sense for RED, because cameramen who are making larger returns on their camera are going to buy more accessories and updated bodies and by next summer they'll have a larger FPGA and higher framerates.

IBloom

[I Bloom]

I can drop 1080p and 720p...But I'm going to be a P.I.A and ask for 2K RC RGB scaled@50-60fps instead.

Jesper Holmström
Dagsljus Filmequipment

Right but now you might as well take 1080p because 2K RC RGB scaled is only 3/4 the bit rate of 4K Bayer pattern. A huge loss in sharpness for a small gain in bitrate.

[Jesper Holmström]

I'm fully aware that 2K RC RGB is not far from 1080 and that the beef is scaling and RGB recordings. But I think that if you want to compete with film cameras in commercials, dramas, promos, musicvideos etc. you would need at least 50-60 fps from the full sensor. Otherwise we are going to see red one's with Abakas B4 adapter and an P+S technik PRO-35 on top of that shooting 2K for commercials.....crazy!

Jesper Holmström
Dagsljus Filmequipment

[Häakon]

Yeah, why not having 2K scaled @60fps and drop 1080p? Is that possible?

antoine.
I'd rather have 1080 scaled than 2K - because I'm most likely going to be finishing in 1080. If I'm shooting a cine-style project, it will be 4K without question. For HD industrials, commercials, and the like, a client is going to want an HD format, not 2K. Shooting in scaled 2K (although better than windowed) would mean I still have to take another step of downsizing in post. The resolution difference is so negligible that I really don't see it worth the extra time.

Also, there is great benefit in oversampling between large sizes - say a 4K image to a 1080 one - but much less so between images of similiar size. Try it in Photoshop; going from 10MP to an 800 pixel image for the web looks fantastic, but going from 800 pixels to 750 pixels, not so much. In fact, it works better in powers of 2, where there is a much more solid way to interpolate pixels.

The other problem is that if they nixed the 720 and 1080 RGB options, I highly doubt they'd go back and add a 2K one. But truth be told, I'll be happy with whatever option lets me get 60p from the full sensor.

[REDHKSC]

Intesat ?

do you know the gentleman @ASIASAT ?

4K Satellite Channel is not a bad idea ? Hey Jim, are you with me ?

Mr. Jackson

Cheers,

STEWART



I feel that it is important to understand that this camera can replace almost all video and motion picture cameras. Don't think for a second that this camera will only be used for digital cinema. We can't even imagine all the ways this camera will be used. It's a beautiful thing. How will this camera fit into existing productions standards? It should support standards for video, 720p and 1080p and for film, 2k and 4k. If we are being honest with ourselves we can all see times when 720p would be the best match for a client while for another client, 4k would be the best match. Any additional rendering slows down the process and creates potential confusion for the client. We have always had choices in the past (DigiBeta, HD, 16mm or 35mm), lets keep them in the future as well, but this time all in one camera!.


I've ordered two Red ones and a friend of mine has ordered one Red camera based on this pragmatic model.

[Andy Jackson]

I'd rather have 1080 scaled than 2K - because I'm most likely going to be finishing in 1080. If I'm shooting a cine-style project, it will be 4K without question. For HD industrials, commercials, and the like, a client is going to want an HD format, not 2K. Shooting in scaled 2K (although better than windowed) would mean I still have to take another step of downsizing in post. The resolution difference is so negligible that I really don't see it worth the extra time.

Also, there is great benefit in oversampling between large sizes - say a 4K image to a 1080 one - but much less so between images of similiar size. Try it in Photoshop; going from 10MP to an 800 pixel image for the web looks fantastic, but going from 800 pixels to 750 pixels, not so much. In fact, it works better in powers of 2, where there is a much more solid way to interpolate pixels.

When going from 2k to 1080p, don't downsample... just crop. Of course the other solution would be to just shoot 4k all the time. Unless you need higher framerates, there would be no real advantages to doing otherwise.

[Häakon]

When going from 2k to 1080p, don't downsample... just crop.
Could work, except then you're throwing away pixels which negates any resolution improvement you've gained by shooting 2K. Plus, there's no provision for a 2K scaled image right now, so the whole thing is pretty moot.


Of course the other solution would be to just shoot 4k all the time. Unless you need higher framerates, there would be no real advantages to doing otherwise.
Many of us will do this. :-) The problem is that 4K currently maxes out at 30p, which doesn't leave much room for offspeed shooting. It all becomes a question of which part of the equation you're willing to take a hit on - framerates (4K is limited), resolution (1080 is limited), or DOF/FOV (2K is limited). As of right now, there is no one format that will do all three (at least onboard). The RAW element enters the mix as well... although you can shoot higher framerates with the entire sensor in 1080, you're stuck in RGB. Which option you choose is subjective and will probably depend on many factors.

[Michael Hastings]

But truth be told, I'll be happy with whatever option lets me get 60p from the full sensor.

amen.

[Curran Giddens]

I'd rather have 1080 scaled than 2K - because I'm most likely going to be finishing in 1080. If I'm shooting a cine-style project, it will be 4K without question. For HD industrials, commercials, and the like, a client is going to want an HD format, not 2K. Shooting in scaled 2K (although better than windowed) would mean I still have to take another step of downsizing in post. The resolution difference is so negligible that I really don't see it worth the extra time.

Also, there is great benefit in oversampling between large sizes - say a 4K image to a 1080 one - but much less so between images of similiar size. Try it in Photoshop; going from 10MP to an 800 pixel image for the web looks fantastic, but going from 800 pixels to 750 pixels, not so much. In fact, it works better in powers of 2, where there is a much more solid way to interpolate pixels.

The other problem is that if they nixed the 720 and 1080 RGB options, I highly doubt they'd go back and add a 2K one. But truth be told, I'll be happy with whatever option lets me get 60p from the full sensor.

There is one other point about the scaling of 4k to 1080p:

You can probably get a better quality scaling/demosiacing in Redcine then in-camera. I think there will be different settings....

[Häakon]

You can probably get a better quality scaling/demosiacing in Redcine then in-camera. I think there will be different settings....
That's a very good point, and I've thought about that too. We don't know what the in-camera options are going to look like at this point (and RGB isn't even going to be enabled right off the bat as it is, right?). I just don't want to lose my framerates... but maybe I'm just fighting a losing battle. Believe me, I *love* the RAW workflow and 4K is the cat's meow. I just do too much work where offspeed shooting is important to me (music videos, largely, but not exclusively). I don't need anything crazy - 60p is just fine - but to stop at 30 leaves a little for me to be desired. And at this point I still think I'd rather scale than window, but that's just me...

I think I've beaten this one to death :) and I've explained the process enough times... I will take a step back and see how things play out. I know that Jim & Co. are listening, so hopefully in the end we will get the best featureset that they see possible. I really have no reason to doubt them at this point in the game.

[Simon Dunne]

Jim, Guys, Gals and others,

I've been trying to keep up with the developments over the past week, but there are just too many threads and posts to read and keep up with, but i've done my best. Here is my take on the whole situation.

Jim wanted to and has, so far, created the camera of his dreams. A digital camera that can record in almost any format you desire. Also, the camera is priced so that is available to so many more people than is generally possible by other companies. This camera is the Red ONE.

I found out about this camera about a year ago and have been following the progress since. I'm looking to shoot 1080@50p. The great thing about this camera though, is that if required, i could also shoot 720p, 2k or even 4k!! This is a great bonus to me, as a; i'd never thought i'd have been able to shoot 2k or 4k and b; i just wouldn't have been able to afford too. This camera changes all of this.

Alot of the talk recently has been of higher frame rates. To have a camera that does everthing would be great, but you can't expect the earth, yet! When shooting F1 a few years ago, we'd have 8 cameras. 7 digis and 1 Sony MAV superslowmo. The reason for having the MAV is because it is specifically for Slow Motion and generally dealing with higher frame rates.

Personally, i think that the spec of the camera is perfect at the moment. Why not get this one out on the market and start working on the Red TWO. This could be the version of the red that is amazing at high frame rates??

I think it's too late in the day to start changing things now. If you got rid of 720 and 1080, you'll have lost a customer. Ok, there is the Sony range and others but for price and quality, i feel the Red is going to kick ass and do everything i, and others, need it too do.

Also this camera can be used for live studio too. You can set it to 1080 and take the HD-SDI output and hey presto, you have your own HD channel!!

Just some thoughts i had, Si

[Jeff Tanner]

I've read all of the posts about keeping 720/1080...well most of them anyway :wink:

Even after reading the opinions of those who want to keep these formats as part of the RED, I still don't see a reason that makes much sense. It reminds me of a discussion I had with a client years ago about aquisition formats. This client could not understand why shooting a commercial on 35mm would produce "better" results than shooting on BetaSP because in his mind since the spot aired NTSC/525i, shooting with any higher resolution was a waste. He could not grasp the fact that everything done after aquisition degraded the image so it was critical to have the most resolution, information, dynamic range, etc. as possible to begin with.

This same theory applies to the RED. Sure the footage is now digital instead of film, and sure the image holds up better as transferred digital files instead of telecine transfers to tape but the lessons are the same. Why record on an inferior format (and 720/1080 are inferior to 4K/2K. That's what makes RED special. If 720 or 1080 were as good as 2K or 4K, what would be the need for a RED camera)? There are plenty of other cameras out there on the market today that will give you 720/1080 so why insist on having the RED camera do it? I don't hear people asking Panasonic to make the varicam record NTSC because the final product that they're shooting will air as an SD show. That just doesn't make sense. People shoot with Varicam's because they offer better images in 720P and what happens downstream in post is another issue altogether.

This camera's greatest technical advancement is the ability to record 4K straight to drives. That is why this camera system is making waves. If you want 720 or 1080, output that way. Shoot 4K and whatever you want to do in post will be the better for it.

Respectfully,

Jeff Tanner

[Gbabymogul]

Even after reading the opinions of those who want to keep these formats as part of the RED, I still don't see a reason...

Respectfully,

Jeff Tanner

Let's say that you want the easiest most feasible way to shoot, edit and finish 1080p within a budget. You'll be able to have an easier time with focus, preview your final image on set and/or back at a mini-studio (with a 1080p projector) and it leaves room for clients who don't want RAW footage (still don't know how close the proxies will be to the final image). What shooting RAW does is force many clients and indies into a film type workflow, while in itself is fine, it sort of obviates some of the benefits of shooting digital in the first place. If you're on a limited budget with a small allocation for reshoots (don't forget some locations and scenes have to be verified on the day) then having a focus, color, artifact etc.. check on set or at least post day dailies is more cost effective then some perceived great benefit of extra resolution. In a way it comes down to workflow versus resolution.

IF Jim and Graeme can come up with scaled 2K RAW fps and the windowed option then
it might be worthwhile, but their are valid workflow reasons why 1080p is still needed in todays production environment.

Anyway, there will be those that lose business if 1080p isn't included in the camera, at least at the start, until the client, small crew, render time, preview questions are answered.

Theoretics is great but just wait until you can't confirm that your footage is good because of overnight or longer render times because your proxie didn't show focus/color shift at the dailies stage, AND your actor is flying to London for another shoot AND your location permits can't be renewed until so and so date etc...Sometimes you only have one take to get it, whether it be in a single cam (no fp) on a sports event, or a flick without reshoots.

I realize i'm in the minority here so i'll let Jim and Co. answer and decide. For me, i'm leaning towards the scaled 2K IF it can be done perfectly and i won't have to wait months to get it in an update:construction: That doesn't mean i don't see good reasons for the original specs :)

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm not really sure why shooting RAW would be a problem. The way I understood it is you can still load color looks or LUTs into the camera to control output over HDMI and SDI as well as the LCD and EVF. This LUT can also be applied directly to the RAW footage in post without the need to do any cc if you don't want.

Transcodes to RGB should go pretty quick.. Demosaic shouldn't be that demanding on newer systems, same with scaling of the image if necessary. And both should be accelerated by the GPU within REDCINE, possibly within the REDCODE codec itself for proxy display.

All that said, if 1080p scaled RGB can still fit in the camera without sacrificing any of the features mentioned in the "What we CAN do" thread, then I'm all for it.

[Gbabymogul]

I'm not really sure why shooting RAW would be a problem. The way I understood it is you can still load color looks or LUTs into the camera to control output over HDMI and SDI as well as the LCD and EVF. This LUT can also be applied directly to the RAW footage in post without the need to do any cc if you don't want.

Transcodes to RGB should go pretty quick.. Demosaic shouldn't be that demanding on newer systems, same with scaling of the image if necessary. And both should be accelerated by the GPU within REDCINE, possibly within the REDCODE codec itself for proxy display.

All that said, if 1080p scaled RGB can still fit in the camera without sacrificing any of the features mentioned in the "What we CAN do" thread, then I'm all for it.

Seeing the dailies (aside from the other plus') is what it's about. If render times are super fast, then the only other question is the perceived benefits of focusing in 2K vs. 1080. There are challenges that can be addressed, like previewing LUTs with clients in preproduction (and charging more for a 1 light). But, the focus benefits in certain situations for 1080p and the preview issue (for certain budgets like those that can't afford a home 2K projector) are format predicated...

I'd probably be aaight with 2K only, but there are questions. What render times? How high quality are the proxies? Will the focus assist and RED tech allow for single person cam in 2K ? If not maybe keeping 1080p as an option is better ?

[Adrian T.]

If the customer is not ready to pay for the transcode to 1080P and whatnot then the RED ONE is the wrong camera for the project. Use any other 1080P camera in tight budget situations.

It's "RED DIGITAL CINEMA" and not "RED DIGITAL TV" :innocent:

EDIT - By the way, if you know you will transcode to 1080P you don't need to focus for 2K. So there's no real difference here.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Good points. As far as focus, I think the difference between 2K and 1080p will be negligible (12% more pixels in 2K).

I too am definitely interested in the quality of REDCODE proxies and what sort of control we'll have over them.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Will the focus assist and RED tech allow for single person cam in 2K ? If not maybe keeping 1080p as an option is better ?

Focusing will be the same in either 2K or 1080P in the context that your AC will have his or her marks, and if they hit them, good, if not, let's have another take on the slate please.

Also, I doubt we'll have a 2K set monitoring option anytime soon, at an affordable cost anyway, so we'll be limited to 1080P monitoring anyway.

[Gbabymogul]

If the customer is not ready to pay for the transcode to 1080P and whatnot then the RED ONE is the wrong camera for the project. Use any other 1080P camera in tight budget situations.

It's "RED DIGITAL CINEMA" and not "RED DIGITAL TV" :innocent:There are two situations - client and indie feature. My above posts were mostly for the small crew indie producer where focus, dailies and verification believe it or not are more important than 1080p vs. 2K resolution.

For clients, transcoding does not equal delivering final format. It merely is a preview of the final format. Depending on the project a small crew may be just delivering footage. It's a misapprehension to think that all projects will be shot, edited, mixed and then delivered in final format to the client.

How many here have talked to some production houses (especially advertising) to see if they want you processing their RAW footage instead of their established partners? You might be surprised. Eventually, it'll be adopted everywhere but for now? 1080p.

[Gbabymogul]

Focusing will be the same in either 2K or 1080P in the context that your AC will have his or her marks, and if they hit them, good, if not, let's have another take on the slate please.

Also, I doubt we'll have a 2K set monitoring option anytime soon, at an affordable cost anyway, so we'll be limited to 1080P monitoring anyway.Hahaha. I knew i'd open a whole debate on DOF and focus... I won't get into it too much but i'm talking about perceived focus/DOF. It's a debateable topic but people i've talked to mentioned that the images show more than the technical specs, that 1080p is (format wise) perceptibly easier to focus, especially when matching FOV to 2K, and that the resolution does give you more room for manouevering (with regards to composing for the big screen and audience perception) in post. Anyway, the advantage of the softer resolution (and format DOF's) is what i'm talking about.

And viewing the format that the final image will be shown on, on the day, is what we've all be wanting. With 1080p projectors, seeing exactly what you've shot (not a proxie) is possible. 2K projectors/dailies are commonplace on larger films.
I just think the rush to lose 1080p needed some balance.

Btw Alexander, what if there is no focus puller? Or do you think that even at 1080p you'd need one? I hope it'll be possible to use this cam without a fp;)

[Adrian T.]

Graeme to the rescue! :help:

What about a cropping 1080P proxy based on 2K and 4K files? This shouldn't be too hard to implement. :nerd:

[Häakon]

Btw Alexander, what if there is no focus puller? Or do you think that even at 1080p you'd need one? I hope it'll be possible to use this cam without a fp;)
The resolution you're shooting at isn't the issue, it's your sensor size and lenses. The 1080 format is scaled from the full 35mm sensor, so it brings with it the exact same DOF challenges that shooting in 4K does. You will actually have an easier time focusing with windowed 2K than in scaled 1080. In either case, however, critical focus will be far more significant than shooting a 1/3" or even 2/3" chip camera. With great power comes great responsibility... :)

[Alexander Nikishin]

Btw Alexander, what if there is no focus puller? Or do you think that even at 1080p you'd need one? I hope it'll be possible to use this cam without a fp;)

You will undoubtedly need a focus puller.

Try grabbing an old Nikon 35mm slr, point it at an object outside, and walk forward toward it while pulling focus....all soft eh?

Shooting with a 35mm dof brings on the NEED for a dedicated focus puller.

If you're worried about focus pulling and a shallow dof, you'll either have to shoot with 35mm or lower lenses, or shoot in 2K windowed mode which will give you the dof of S16mm....much more forgiving on marks.

[Gbabymogul]

The resolution you're shooting at isn't the issue, it's your sensor size and lenses. The 1080 format is scaled from the full 35mm sensor, so it brings with it the exact same DOF challenges that shooting in 4K does. You will actually have an easier time focusing with windowed 2K than in scaled 1080. In either case, however, critical focus will be far more significant than shooting a 1/3" or even 2/3" chip camera. With great power comes great responsibility... :)This is something i've been wondering about. Equivalent FOV and perceived DOF. So you're saying that the full format 4K focus challenge will be the same as the scaled 1080p one ? You're reducing the 35mm frame to a less than 16mm one, so wouldn't that give you a better DOF if comparing the exact same FOV of as 4K vs. 1080p?

hmmm

[Häakon]

This is something i've been wondering about. Equivalent FOV and perceived DOF. So you're saying that the full format 4K focus challenge will be the same as the scaled 1080p one ? You're reducing the 35mm frame to a less than 16mm one, so wouldn't that give you a better DOF if comparing the exact same FOV of as 4K vs. 1080p?

When you scale the image down you're losing resolution, so sure... some of the image is going to be smoothed out and slightly more forgiving. But it's not going to be enough of a difference to fix the fact that you're not focused properly on a subject. When you're shooting in a scaled mode from the full sensor (whatever it ends up being), you're shooting a 4K image - with 35mm DOF - and then shrinking it after the image is recorded. This is different from shooting an image with a native 1080 imager, which is using different lenses to achieve a similar FOV and which records much greater DOF. That's why it's the size of the imager itself and not the recorded resolution which is making the difference.

[liquidigital]

This camera's greatest technical advancement is the ability to record 4K straight to drives. That is why this camera system is making waves. If you want 720 or 1080, output that way. Shoot 4K and whatever you want to do in post will be the better for it.

Respectfully,

Jeff Tanner


Absolutely agree. Unequivocally, lose 720 and 1080p. We're moving forward here, not backwards. And if your clients want 720, you can still give it to them.

Best, Mike

[Gbabymogul]

When you scale the image down you're losing resolution, so sure... some of the image is going to be smoothed out and slightly more forgiving. But it's not going to be enough of a difference to fix the fact that you're not focused properly on a subject. So, to get Viper-type focus you'll still be using the 2K RAW windowed option. For me, it's hard to picture 35mm DOF in a 1080 format. With the reduction in size and resolution and the subsequent uprez to 2K or 4K i was thinking that it may give more latitude for focus. :(

[Häakon]

For me, it's hard to picture 35mm DOF in a 1080 format. With the reduction in size and resolution and the subsequent uprez to 2K or 4K i was thinking that it may give more latitude for focus. :(
Think of it like this: compare a movie shot on film and one with a 1/3" chip HDV camcorder, both mastered to 1080p Blu-ray. I guarantee you haven't lost all of those wonderful 35mm characteristics in the oversample compared to the one shot with infinite DOF - and yet they're both 1080 pictures. :-) In fact, the difference is clear even on standard def DVD.

[Jack Wester]

But I think that if you want to compete with film cameras in commercials, dramas, promos, musicvideos etc. you would need at least 50-60 fps from the full sensor. Otherwise we are going to see red one's with Abakas B4 adapter and an P+S technik PRO-35 on top of that shooting 2K for commercials.....crazy!

Jesper Holmström
Dagsljus Filmequipment

Good post and the best point in this debate. That crazy scenario you just described will be a reality if the wrong decision is made. Please start a new thread based on this argument.

[Brook Willard]

Since there's already talk of REDCODE RAW 2K scaled at 60p... I don't see a reason to make that new thread. They've said that they may be able to do it [at some point via software update]. If they pull it off... why is there still a problem?

[Michael Brennan]

Also, I doubt we'll have a 2K set monitoring option anytime soon, at an affordable cost anyway, so we'll be limited to 1080P monitoring anyway.

Are you sure 1920x1080 derived HDSDI will be an option if they drop 1080p and 720p recording?


Mike Brennan

[Password Expired]

Are you sure 1920x1080 derived HDSDI will be an option if they drop 1080p and 720p recording?


Mike Brennan

Hi Mike,

The monitoring option will remain even if 1080p or 720p is dropped unless I've misread the following from Jannard:





HD-SDI 1080P will stay in the spec. It is working now and being used for monitoring on all features being shot on RED. If we decide to eliminate 1080P and/or 720P, it will be dropped as a record to CF or RED Drive option only. Our EVF will stay 720P.

Jim

[Gavin Greenwalt]

1080p through HD-SDI is comparatively easy because it involves no compression.

Wavelet compression isn't processor friendly.

[tj williams]

Ah well another day at the races. been shooting HDcam for Japanese TV. The deliverable was of course HDcam TApe.

Whats totally not clear to me is: if using the red and delivering to a producer who has their own editing system who usually accepts Panasonic or Sony HD tape. what is the least time consuming method I have to deliver similiar material in 720 or 1080 on a hard drive that they can put into the stream with their other shooters HDcam or Varicam footage, and later output to their choice of HD tape (probably HDCam) for broadcast.

This is a huge part of my business and I need to be able to deliver up to 2.5 hours of material the next day at the latest. I don't care if its scaled/windowed/RGB or Raw I just want to be able to deliver and not have to buy another tape camera to replace my current HD cam which is near the end of it's life!!!

[Mark L. Pederson]

Ah well another day at the races. been shooting HDcam for Japanese TV. The deliverable was of course HDcam TApe.

Whats totally not clear to me is: if using the red and delivering to a producer who has their own editing system who usually accepts Panasonic or Sony HD tape. what is the least time consuming method I have to deliver similiar material in 720 or 1080 on a hard drive that they can put into the stream with their other shooters HDcam or Varicam footage, and later output to their choice of HD tape (probably HDCam) for broadcast.

This is a huge part of my business and I need to be able to deliver up to 2.5 hours of material the next day at the latest. I don't care if its scaled/windowed/RGB or Raw I just want to be able to deliver and not have to buy another tape camera to replace my current HD cam which is near the end of it's life!!!

TJ -
There is NO WAY processing 2.5 hours of footage to 720 or 1080 (or anything for that matter) will take more than overnight to render. You will be just fine.

[Rocco Schult]

Graeme to the rescue! :help:

What about a cropping 1080P proxy based on 2K and 4K files? This shouldn't be too hard to implement. :nerd:

Thats basically what the HD-SDI do. AFAIK the outputs are cropped for an easy 2:1 scaling ratio from 4k (which would be more than 2:1)

[Rocco Schult]

... No need to have all formats in camera.


I don't really see a need for 720p and 1080 - as long as downconverting REDCODE to HD formats doesn't take too long.


However we definitely need more infos on rendering time in REDCINE...

It always comes down to the same ol' question of RedCine speed when resizing, no ?

[Jeff Coatney]

For what its worth...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=887&stc=1&d=1186314528

[Nik Manning]

I just think shooting what the client wants is faster. No matter how long the conversion takes it takes time. 4K is the future but we shouldn't have the future shoved down our throats. The vast majority of movies will never be scene in a theater or on a 4K projector so everyone doesn't need to shoot 4K. I can't wait till I see a clip from TMZ shot on a Red cam in 4K. That will be the day.

I agree however that 2K at 96fps is major cool. :)

[donatello b]

"what is the least time consuming method I have to deliver similiar material in 720 or 1080 on a hard drive"

the least time consuming !!
1) buy/rent a AJA i/o and playback from RED thru HD-SDI into AJA i/o then from AJA firewire 800 to a Mac = real time conversion to ProRes HD codec ... can't remember if it is $3k or $4k
http://www.aja.com/html/products_Io_IoHD.html

or

2) buy/rent INDI recorder ..play back from RED to INDI ( it captures at your choice of compression ) - then transfer data to a hard drive ...approx $10k ...or if you have more $$ look at the ICON
http://www.colorspaceinc.com/

3) look for other portable products like the above ...

[David Battistella]

Ah well another day at the races. been shooting HDcam for Japanese TV. The deliverable was of course HDcam TApe.

This is a huge part of my business and I need to be able to deliver up to 2.5 hours of material the next day at the latest.

With RED it really might be best to RENT the deck of what ever format you need to record take the 1080P out the side of the Camera. I don't think it will be the 1080i 60 that the japanese love so much though.

Seriously, If a large chunk of your business relies on this type of work then you would have to really consider buying another tape based camera. Nobody wants to be tethered and a 320Gig transfer (without trans coding) is going to take HOURS not minutes or seconds.

You either establish a new work flow with your clients or have rent what you need on those days. If a high percentage of your business is what you are describing then any tapeless camera is going to have the same reaction from the client.

David

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I just think shooting what the client wants is faster. No matter how long the conversion takes it takes :)

Yeah but that's not REDCode. That's DVCPro, XDCam, HDCAM or one of those CAMs. The RED Camera does not natively capture to any of those formats. Which means it doesn't matter if you shoot 1080p... a transcode is in your future. A transcode that will *Not* be real-time. And with some GPU accelleration 4k -> 2k rescal can approach real time 24fps.

The simple fact of the matter seems to be if you want to deliver a conventional format you're going to be rendering overnight. What happens in that overnight render seems like a moot point to me. Unless you rent a tape deck and take the signal right off the HD-SDI.