What we CAN do...NEW

[Jannard]

OK, I spent some time with Graeme today and we do, in fact, have the options I spoke about yesterday under development. It is premature (sorry for last night) to add them to our CAN do list without proper testing and final development.

The good news is you are looking deep into the interactive development process. The bad news is you are seeing some of the communication issues that should probably be behind closed doors. Oh, well. I still like it better this way.

Here is the list for today:

4K REDCODE RAW @ 1-60 fps to RAW Port
4K REDCODE RAW @ 1-24 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive

2K REDCODE RAW scaled @ 1-60 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive (Under development)
2K REDCODE RAW cropped @ 1-100 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive

Our final decisions of what we will enable still rely on 1080P and 720P as well as success of development. Specs subject to change as always. All features will not be enabled at time of 1st deliveries...

Jim

[Emanuel & Co]

And the 25 fps?...

Cris

[Steve Gibby]

Excellent news Jim...thanks to RED Team for all the hard work, and thank you for keeping us in the info loop.

[SF Geek]

Sorry, still too vague. What would we have to lose to keep 1080 or 720, half of the afore mentioned options, one? I'll lose 60fps RAW out the high speed port and keep all the others plus 1080p and 720p. Is that an option?

[Keith Nealy]

Well, that's great because you at least answered the question that it is possible to scale 2K RAW from the full sensor-Well done Graeme.

Thank's for letting us into the inner sanctum. By the way you put it I'm sure you mean it will be a future upgrade but to know it's coming is great news - thanks Jim (Now, you got you work cut out for you Graeme).

Aloha,

Keith

[Michael Hastings]

The bad news is you are seeing some of the communication issues that should probably be behind closed doors. Oh, well. I still like it better this way.

4K REDCODE RAW @ 1-24 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive

Jim

Jim: I like it better this way too. We're grownups and we understand.

question one: the format options table has always listed S35 REDCODE RAW up to 30 fps. Is that not correct? (sure would be nice to have mild slow mo and/or 30 fps compatibility for TV without pull down). I know you were more focused on the 2K scaling issue, so could you confirm or double check that.

PS Full framed scaled at 60 solves all issues for me in the do we dump 1080P 720P rgb debate - that is I vote for 2K scaled and eliminate RGB.

Final question: some people have asked if eliminating 1080P would eliminate the HD-SDI out. My understanding is that is a separate component and would be there with any of the formats. Could you also confirm that for us. (HD-SDI out is still very important to allow use with live events/switchers)

[Brice Ansel]

Wish 2K REDCODE RAW scaled @ 1-60 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive (Under development) will b a sucess MR Jannard

[Jack Wester]

My vote (not that I'm claiming to have one) would be to shoot 4K at 24 fps and overcrank using the whole sensor and 2K using my Red Lenses with the same characteristics (part from resolution).

The rest has good workarounds.

[Jannard]

There are other 4K and 2K options under development, but the risk is too high to mention at this point. Please remember that we are looking at a long road together. We will continue to develop features and capabilities well after the camera ships. And as long as they are software driven (most will be)... you will upgrade N/C.

When I have time, I'll do a comparison of the specs we presented at NAB 2006 and where we are now. We said then that specs would change. I think they have changed dramatically for the better.

Jim

[Andrew Benz]

Thank you Jim for the update. I am a small owner/operator who is eagerly awaiting the what the transcoding "time" considerations may be in the near future. However, the fact this camera has grown so much in it's abilities--ie-- originally only 2k onboard recording, 4k was relagated to a tethered mini fridge just to name one big one. The issues that we are all dealing with today are great "problems" to have... and you basically kept the price the same... Thanks again for the $2500 consideration, it will be quite helpful.

Cheers

Andrew

[Emanuel & Co]

Emanuel has actually taught us on the advantages of REDcode RAW over RGB. We salute them.


But... again, where's the 25 fps?


Cris

[Michael Hastings]

There are other 4K and 2K options under development, but the risk is too high to mention at this point. Please remember that we are looking at a long road together. We will continue to develop features and capabilities well after the camera ships. And as long as they are software driven (most will be)... you will upgrade N/C.

When I have time, I'll do a comparison of the specs we presented at NAB 2006 and where we are now. We said then that specs would change. I think they have changed dramatically for the better.

Jim

That's beautiful. I don't know if you saw these questions, wondered if we could get some confirmations.

question one: the format options table has always listed S35 REDCODE RAW up to 30 fps. Is that not correct? (sure would be nice to have mild slow mo and/or 30 fps compatibility for TV without pull down). I know you were more focused on the 2K scaling issue, so could you confirm or double check that.

PS Full framed scaled at 60 solves all issues for me in the do we dump 1080P 720P rgb debate - that is I vote for 2K scaled and eliminate RGB.

Final question: some people have asked if eliminating 1080P would eliminate the HD-SDI out. My understanding is that is a separate component and would be there with any of the formats. Could you also confirm that for us. (HD-SDI out is still very important to allow use with live events/switchers)

[Jaime Vallés]

2K REDCODE RAW scaled @ 1-60 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive (Under development)
If this is possible, then it would be ideal. If not, then 2K RGB scaled @ 60fps is fine by me.

[Graeme Nattress]

25fps should be in that list after, but not before, testing. Please don't think we're forgetting that most of the world is PAL. 25fps does take more data rate than 24fps, so I'm sure we're just being cautious over what will and will not fit on the compact flash card safely. Your concern about 25fps is noted.

Graeme

[Steve Gibby]

"And as long as they are software driven (most will be)... you will upgrade N/C." - Much thanks for that...

Specs have changed for the better throughout the development cycle...again much appreciated.

[Emanuel & Co]

That's beautiful. I don't know if you saw these questions, wondered if we could get some confirmations.

question one: the format options table has always listed S35 REDCODE RAW up to 30 fps. Is that not correct? (sure would be nice to have mild slow mo and/or 30 fps compatibility for TV without pull down).

Yes, same wonder here.

Cris

[Emanuel & Co]

25fps should be in that list after, but not before, testing. Please don't think we're forgetting that most of the world is PAL. 25fps does take more data rate than 24fps, so I'm sure we're just being cautious over what will and will not fit on the compact flash card safely. Your concern about 25fps is noted.

Graeme


Thank you very much for your concern and care on your answer, Mr. Nattress.


Cris

[Priyesh P.]

Emanuel has actually taught us on the advantages of REDcode RAW over RGB. We salute them.


But... again, where's the 25 fps?


Cris

My question, too.
I understand that the 25 fps speed will be between the "under development" features, right?
24 fps max @ 4K will be a nightmare for pal users like me.

[Jannard]

That's beautiful. I don't know if you saw these questions, wondered if we could get some confirmations.

question one: the format options table has always listed S35 REDCODE RAW up to 30 fps. Is that not correct? (sure would be nice to have mild slow mo and/or 30 fps compatibility for TV without pull down). I know you were more focused on the 2K scaling issue, so could you confirm or double check that.

PS Full framed scaled at 60 solves all issues for me in the do we dump 1080P 720P rgb debate - that is I vote for 2K scaled and eliminate RGB.

Final question: some people have asked if eliminating 1080P would eliminate the HD-SDI out. My understanding is that is a separate component and would be there with any of the formats. Could you also confirm that for us. (HD-SDI out is still very important to allow use with live events/switchers)

4K REDCODE RAW @ 30 fps is still a planned spec and is in development. It will not ship with the 1st cameras.

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

[Nils Ruinet]

25fps should be in that list after, but not before, testing. Please don't think we're forgetting that most of the world is PAL. 25fps does take more data rate than 24fps, so I'm sure we're just being cautious over what will and will not fit on the compact flash card safely. Your concern about 25fps is noted.

Graeme

Hopefully you will manage to do 25fps at 4K...
Not being able to do that would be a big issue for all the PAL people...
Even if you have to compress a tiny little bit more so that it fits...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This all looks great, especially if the 2K scaled RAW does happen. The only thing I see missing (and I hate to complain) is I'm still hoping that 4K REDCODE RAW at 25-30fps can be recorded. Even if it won't work to CF, if it will do that to the RED DRIVE or RED RAM, that would be great.

[Jannard]

My question, too.
I understand that the 25 fps speed will be between the "under development" features, right?
24 fps max @ 4K will be a nightmare for pal users like me.

We will try to make 4K REDCODE RAW @ 25 fps to CF and RED Drive live as soon as possible. I should have said that in the original post.

Jim

[Stephen Webb]

24 fps max @ 4K will be a nightmare for pal users like me.

Well, you can always speed up 4%.

If you're shooting for TV though, you may as well use the 2K scaled @ 25fps. Gives you the benefits of the full sensor area with a lower data rate and still at a (slightly) higher resoultion than your final deliverable will need to be (assuming 1080p).

[Martin Ludwig]

25fps should be in that list after, but not before, testing. Please don't think we're forgetting that most of the world is PAL. 25fps does take more data rate than 24fps, so I'm sure we're just being cautious over what will and will not fit on the compact flash card safely. Your concern about 25fps is noted.

Graeme
thanks for not forgetting us PAL user

[Paul Hazlett]

4K REDCODE RAW @ 30 fps is still a planned spec and is in development. It will not ship with the 1st cameras.

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

With that news I could see dropping RGB since I already have decks to record
to for those clients that need it.

Thank you sir.

[Emanuel & Co]

We will try to make 4K REDCODE RAW @ 25 fps to CF and RED Drive live as soon as possible. I should have said that in the original post.

Jim


No worries if PAL users won't be neglected as 2nd market in your timeframe.


Cris

[roryhinds]

4k 25fps and 30fps are really important

[redhead]

I'm sorry if this is a dumb question . . . . but isn't 4K RAW and 2K RGB the same thing? Since a square consisting of four RAW pixels actually consists of 1 red, 2 green, and 1 blue pixels, if you treat the four as one RGB pixel (perhaps taking the average value of the two green pixels), you end up with 2K RGB, right?

Or am I missing something?

[Jannard]

4k 25fps and 30fps are really important

hehe... EVERYTHING is important. We are working as fast as we can. Please keep in mind what we are doing from scratch in an impossible timeframe.

Jim

[Gbabymogul]

Whew. Go away for a bit and the whole camera is under revision :)

Speaking as someone who wanted to buy this cam (and still will regardless of RED's decision) partly for the 1080p RGB option...

There are specific projects that 1080p RGB is better suited for, like ones where the producers don't want RAW footage. You may ask why, but there are projects that are better suited for it. And even though there may be transcoding required that is a far cry from a complete RAW demosaic, scale, LUT, wb etc,. Then you have the sissue of single cameraman shooting. Focus will be easier with 1080p RGB, especially for sports event shooting etc... Alot of the people here advocating for no 1080p may not be aware of the focus issue with regards to perceived DOF.

And then we have the great NLE debate. IMO, Avid will never let full scale editing in 2K/4K with full scale previewing to a grading projector/monitor happen - however, true 1080p seems to be around the corner. Maybe i'm an optimistic pratt but i had hoped to edit direct 1080p redcode in Avid. No transcoding, no processing the footage. And that brings us to the last question and most important - What other format/resolution allows you from the set previews too the home studio set up to see pixel for pixel (monitor -projector) your focus, color profiles, artifacting, etc... to be 100% sure that you have the best pic you can? Answer :1080p You can tell me all about themagic focus assist but as my most recent Cinematographer told me (paraphrasing) alot of these dudes are going to be surprised if or when their films are projected at 2K/4K. Affordable projectors at 2K/4K are a ways off, so unless you don't care about going to the marquee or don't care if the potential of the aforementioned that good on ya. I, for one, prefer to have the option to guarantee the modularity RED has so long of spoken about.

That's my 3 pence. And i won't say anything about it again...I think it's a mistake to forgo 1080p and a more cynical man would say that it's too hard for them to accomplish...Hope that didn't come off as too harsh, but the cam (although aheadof it's time) should still serve as a tool until the industry adopts the 4K RAW workflow.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Awesome news Jim! 2K scaled @60fps solves many peoples problems as does the 96fps windowed mode.

Things really do just keep getting better.

[Nils Ruinet]

Yes, 2K scaled is great news !

It's cool to be able to shoot at 60fps using the full sensor.

But this feature is also interesting if you are working on a project that doesn't require 4K, this way you can dramatically reduce the datarate. The difference between 27 MB/s @4K and 7 MB/s at 2K is huge !
This is even much less than DVCPRO-HD (which is about 12 MB/s) !!
Awesome !

[CJ Roy]

If 2k 60fps Scaled Redcode Raw is an option, I change my opinion and would now be up for losing 720/1080.

Thanks.

-CJ

[Gbabymogul]

Graeme, is the scaled RAW option true?

Someone wake him up. Pour some REDbull on him. :)

[Poi Boy]

Mucho mahalo Jim !
-A

[Graeme Nattress]

I'm sorta awake.....

Scaled RAW is R&D. There's some "things" we can do, but I'd prefer not to discuss further until we've had the chance to do proper testing in hardware.

Graeme

[Alexander Nikishin]

I wish all the extra brain molecules in the world to you Graeme! :sorcerer:

[Jeff Kilgroe]

But this feature is also interesting if you are working on a project that doesn't require 4K, this way you can dramatically reduce the datarate. The difference between 27 MB/s @4K and 7 MB/s at 2K is huge !
This is even much less than DVCPRO-HD (which is about 12 MB/s) !!
Awesome !

I hope this can happen. 2K @ 24fps from the full sensor, scaled RAW, would allow for about 17 minutes record time on a single 8GB CF card vs the ~5min with 4K 24fps. Definitely some advantages there if the project doesn't need the full resolution.

[Robert Berger]

4K REDCODE RAW @ 1-24 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive,

In europe we shoot a lot on 25 fps because of sound/editing/dvd's/50 hz
Could you manage up to a 25 fps. for compact Flash and Red Drive??

thanks Robert

[Jay A. Kelley]

I hope this can happen. 2K @ 24fps from the full sensor, scaled RAW, would allow for about 17 minutes record time on a single 8GB CF card vs the ~5min with 4K 24fps. Definitely some advantages there if the project doesn't need the full resolution.

This is amazing!

Jim,

As I said in anothe thread.. I don't think the real question for us is really resolution.. I'd be hard pressed to find someone that does NOT want it... The real trick here is time.

How much time are we looking at transcoding a 1min 2k scaled file to a codec our client's can edit, vs. a 720 or 1080p file that needs transcoding from RGB to a codec our clients can edit.

If the time difference is not that major, then this decision is a no-brainer.

Jay

We can already have any resolution we want via REDCine. So the real question is "how much longer will it take?"

[Jay A. Kelley]

I would take this in a heartbeat.. It would also mean that a 16gb flash card would hold up to 20min of footage.

I sure hope this comes through.

This is depending of course, on the fact that it will not take forever to transcode.

Jay

[Anders Holck]

Graeme, with the death of on-board RGB recording on the horizon, will you still pursue the quicktime RGB codec?

[Nils Ruinet]

I hope this can happen. 2K @ 24fps from the full sensor, scaled RAW, would allow for about 17 minutes record time on a single 8GB CF card vs the ~5min with 4K 24fps. Definitely some advantages there if the project doesn't need the full resolution.

It also means more than 10 hours of 2K footage on a RedDrive ! Especially for people working on documentary projects, this could make a big difference.
It also means shorter transfer and backup times.

And as Jay said, we still need to hear about transcoding times. At least a rough estimate would be great, just to get an idea. I understand that every computer is different, but for example how long would it take to convert 10 minutes of 4K RAW to 1080P RGB on a Macbook Pro ?

Nils.

[Karl H]

Thanks for listening (over the 25p issue).

I feel much happier today.

[Roberto B]

yeah, 25 frames rules but where's the former thread??..

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Jarred deleted it.

[Roberto B]

by the way, where's the man?.. he has been away.

[Stuart English]

Thanks for listening (over the 25p issue).

This thread is in the context of what will work for both a CF card as well as RED-DRIVE, and CF cards are getting faster. What can be done on a CF card today could not be done a few months ago. Its pretty exciting when solid state recording technology is evolving in parallel with the RED-ONE.

[Roberto B]

good news.. i think you'll have more shooters on the 25 side than everything else.. scaling 2k instead windowed too..

[number6]

Just was wondering, will anything being worked on now be enabled in time to ship to the set in Spain? Wouldn't THAT be a test!

[Häakon]

Since the other post was deleted I'll just re-add my personal outlook on this one and then be done with it. It seems most people are in favor of a 2K solution, and I concede that doing what the majority of users feels best may be the right way to go for RED.

I still maintain that a 1080 scaled image will look better at 1080 than a 2K one which has been slightly shrunk to 1080. Since there is a far greater chance that people will be finishing in 1080 than 2K, I'd like to have the best quality image for my final project in that form. That's really the only point I was trying to get across.

I think perhaps there is a psychological event happening here as it relates to the difference between 4K, 2K, and 1080p. Just looking at those numbers, it would seem like, hey... 4 is twice as big as 2... and 2 is twice as big as 1... so 2K must be a lot bigger/better than 1080! Maybe this is just my hunch, but then again we all know $499.99 is only a penny away from $500 and yet we continue to perceive it as a much better deal. Otherwise, why is everyone so much more excited over a 2K solution than a 1080 one - especially if they're both RAW?

The other problem is that in the higher digital formats (2K, 4K) we have switched focus of the lines of resolution from the vertical to the horizontal, and that causes a lot of confusion too. 720p is 1280x720. 1080 is 1920x1080. 2K, however, is 2,048 x 1,152 - yet we call it 2K, not "1152p."

Here's a great image from Brook's FAQ:


http://www.haakondazs.com/5_1184983969.jpg

Note the extremely subtle difference in size between 2K and 1080; they're nearly identical. But to shoot at 2K and then downres ever so slightly is just going to soften your picture more than anything. David Newman made an excellent comment about this here (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=64346#post64346).

Please understand that I am not trying to fight anyone on this issue and to be honest, I will do 90% of my shooting in 4K so it won't effect me a whole lot to begin with. I just thought I would help clarify, if anyone wasn't understanding, that the difference between 2K and 1080 is quite small and if your end goal is to finish at 1080 (which I suspect many, many peoples' will be), then it's better to shoot at 1080 than to shoot at 2K. Even if there isn't a noticeable quality hit, you're still going to have to resize each and every frame before you finish. To me, that seems like a total waste of time - especially when that step can be spared. So before you destroy the format altogether, take one last look at what you're asking. Because of this, I would be in favor of keeping 2K windowed, but 1080 scaled.

In other news, the announcement that Graeme may indeed be able to get scaled RAW into the camera is fantastic, and will certainly give either of those options some new legs. I don't see much of a compelling reason to shoot windowed anymore for my uses, but some will appreciate the ability to push a few more fps out of that format and/or use existing 16mm/B4 lenses they may already own. This of course will be more important to some users than others given that we can already get 60p out of the scaled RAW option, but it's important and necessary to have these options available.

[Robert Berger]

4K REDCODE RAW @ 1-24 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive,

In europe we shoot a lot on 25 fps because of sound/editing/dvd's/50 hz
Could you manage up to a 25 fps. for compact Flash and Red Drive??

thanks Robert
camlight is online now Report Post


Sorry did not read page 3 with the right answer for my question by Jim.
Problem solved in the near futher by RED

[Martin Drew]

Häakon. Why not just crop to 1080 when required rather than scale? That would seem to address your point about maintaining ultimate sharpness

M

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

If the 2K RAW Scaled from the 35mm Sensor is possible, I also change my opinion to loosing the HD resolutions.
This 2K RAW Scaled option would be great and really make the HD resolutions not really worthwile.

Great job from the REDteam in keep making the camera better with such a positive attitude!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think there's two possible solutions for the 1080p crowd. One is to go along with the 2K movement and the camera will show 1080p frame lines on the EVF and LCD to aid in framing to a 1080p raster. In post instead of scaling, just crop to 1920x1080, this will give a 6% overscan on all sides to work with for re-framing too.

The other possibility and I'd definitely be interested in this... Is 1080p scaled from the full sensor in addition to 2K scaled. If it turns out possible to scale RAW, would it be a big deal to also offer 1920x1080 RAW scaled from the full sensor? I can't pretend to know the internal workings of the camera, but it seems to me that FPGA space shouldn't be impacted too much by this. Afterall, there should be some headroom available if the RGB modes are eliminated.

[Martin Drew]

Assuming the scaled RAW is by combing pixels to create a super pixel, could we also have a 2.25K scaled RAW from the 4.5K full sensor. That would allow for a slightly wider FOV when needed.

M

[Adrian T.]

Häakon. Why not just crop to 1080 rather than scale?

M

Good point! Transcode from 2K to 1080P should be done by cropping.

I think it should be possible to have 1080P frame lines in the EVF and LCD display while shooting in 2K.

[Häakon]

Häakon. Why not just crop to 1080 rather than scale?

M
Hi Martin,

My answer is the same as David's reasons I linked to in my post:


One reason to support 1080p RAW is to avoid a 2048 to 1920 down-scale, this 6% downres is not ideal, as most scalers would soften the image as compared to a 1080p crop. If you're going to crop in post, why not crop in camera? Of course shooting 2048 does offer some subtle re-framing options if you're going to crop, but based on my experience with the SI-2K, I shoot 2K when I want that and 1080 otherwise -- it speeds up the post the post to avoid any re-framing or scaling. 1080p RAW is a fine option if that can happen.

[Alexander Nikishin]

On the same token, I'm sure many people see their projects being deilvered digitally on either 2K Christie's or possibly 4K Sony projectors.

So 2K and 4K is preferable in those situations.

[Emmanuel Decarpentrie]

Why not just crop to 1080 when required rather than scale?

That's exactly what I had in mind. :) All we need is some sort of guide on the LCD screen to frame for 1080 instead of 2K. Should we need a 1080 footage, we would always shoot for 2K but frame for 1080 and then crop in post... That is the best solution in my humble opinion.

[Häakon]

One is to go along with the 2K movement and the camera will show 1080p frame lines on the EVF and LCD to aid in framing to a 1080p raster. In post instead of scaling, just crop to 1920x1080, this will give a 6% overscan on all sides to work with for re-framing too.
This is a logical solution, except that the difference in area is so slight that if you get something like a boom pole in your shot, it's unlikely that having 40 or so pixels of bump room on each side is going to help you much. And it mandates that EVERY shot you take must be cropped in post - whether you've framed them how you intended or not - which means a necessary extra step (and potential significant increase of render time) in post. The difference in size between the two formats is just not enough to warrant a tiny bit of extra framing room at the expense of having to crop every shot in post, in my opinion. It also means that you're sacrificing viewing area on your LCD/EVF in order to see the framing you're really intending - and doesn't the camera offer some kind of "expanded view" already?


The other possibility and I'd definitely be interested in this... Is 1080p scaled from the full sensor in addition to 2K scaled. If it turns out possible to scale RAW, would it be a big deal to also offer 1920x1080 RAW scaled from the full sensor? I can't pretend to know the internal workings of the camera, but it seems to me that FPGA space shouldn't be impacted too much by this. Afterall, there should be some headroom available if the RGB modes are eliminated.
Now this of course would be a fantastic answer if it could be provided. It seems that all which has been mentioned is "one or the other," but with the advent of scaled RAW entering the picture, your suggestion could well be a possibility - and one which would seemingly appeal to most (if not all) users.

[Martin Drew]

Hi Martin,

My answer is the same as David's reasons I linked to in my post:

I don't find Davids reason especially compelling. whether the crop is in camera or in post doesnt seem to be a huge issue. That isn't to say I can't see the point for having it in camera, but it seems a subtle one.

M

[Adrian T.]

The other possibility and I'd definitely be interested in this... Is 1080p scaled from the full sensor in addition to 2K scaled. If it turns out possible to scale RAW, would it be a big deal to also offer 1920x1080 RAW scaled from the full sensor? I can't pretend to know the internal workings of the camera, but it seems to me that FPGA space shouldn't be impacted too much by this. Afterall, there should be some headroom available if the RGB modes are eliminated.
Now this of course would be a fantastic answer if it could be provided. It seems that all which has been mentioned is "one or the other," but with the advent of scaled RAW entering the picture, your suggestion could well be a possibility - and one which would seemingly appeal to most (if not all) users.

I'm not sure if scaling RAW from 4K to 1080P will be possible. 4K to 2K on the other hand is a nice 2:1 ratio which simplifies the algorithm tremendously.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Again, isn't some post cropping work to go from 2K to 1080P preferable to losing an extra 36fps in the over cranking dept?

Also, 2K full sensor 60fps over cranking as well....

I think the latter is much more of a benefit than the former.

[Häakon]

On the same token, I'm sure many people see their projects being deilvered digitally on either 2K Christie's or possibly 4K Sony projectors.

So 2K and 4K is preferable in those situations.

Sure, and as I addressed, if your project is intended for the theater or you have the means to deliver to a 2K or 4K projector, you really should be shooting 4K with your 12MP RED, not a scaled format of any kind. In my opinion, that's a different application of the camera - one which is incredibly valid - but one that already has a solution. The other option of course is to shoot 16mm 2K windowed, which is also equally valid (and as I mentioned) is absolutely necessary to keep around. Both of these differ from a scaled solution, however.

I believe the scaled options will be utilized far more by EFP shooters and by users who are interested in a 1080 final delivery. As there is no consumer-based 2K delivery medium/spec in practice anywhere, my guess is there will be a significant number people interested in this.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Well Haakon, as you know, we sadly can't have both, so I still see the 2K overcrank route to be much more appealing than 1080P only.

[Häakon]

I don't find Davids reason especially compelling. whether the crop is in camera or in post doesnt seem to be a huge issue. That isn't to say I can't see the point for having it in camera, but it seems a subtle one.

M
Well, it's just a matter of time savings in post. I prefer to compose my images in the camera how they're intended to be viewed, I don't want to have to go back after I've shot and crop every frame just to get it down to the resolution I originally intended in the first place. But I understand this is just subjective.

[Häakon]

Well Haakon, as you know, we sadly can't have both, so I still see the 2K overcrank route to be much more appealing than 1080P only.
What overcrank route? You gain no fps by shooting in 2K scaled over 1080p scaled - they're both scaled from the full sensor which maxes out at 60p. You do gain fps by shooting windowed, but that has nothing to do with this discussion - we're talking about justifying a 2K scaled solution over a 1080p scaled one.

[Alexander Nikishin]

You can't just brush aside windowed 2K @96fps.

Many people have been dying for slow mo that's above the norm rate of 60.

[Adrian T.]

I brought up an idea in the other thread:


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:

This should eliminate the transcode pass in REDCINE if time is an issue. Could also be used for "quick and dirty" dailies on a 1080P projector.

[Martin Drew]

Well, it's just a matter of time savings in post. I prefer to compose my images in the camera how they're intended to be viewed, I don't want to have to go back after I've shot and crop every frame just to get it down to the resolution I originally intended in the first place. But I understand this is just subjective.

Fair enough, though if you have a 1080 frame marking on the EVF your first point shouldnt be an issue and if you are going through RedCine anyway for the debabyer I would hope the time hit for a crop would be insignificant.

M

[Antoine Baumann]

Graeme, with the death of on-board RGB recording on the horizon, will you still pursue the quicktime RGB codec?

I would be also interested to know the answear?

antoine.

[Häakon]

You can't just brush aside windowed 2K @96fps.

Many people have been dying for slow mo that's above the norm rate of 60.
I'm not brushing that aside at all. I've stated, repeatedly, that the windowed solution is valid and of course should remain. I've never seen any talk of getting rid of the windowed format.

This is a discussion of what form of scaled option to implement - 1080 (as the spec stands now) or 2K (which they already previously got rid of). Which one of those they decide upon should have no effect on the 2K/96fps issue.

[Martin Drew]

I brought up an idea in the other thread:



This should eliminate the transcode pass in REDCINE if time is an issue. Could also be used for "quick and dirty" dailies on a 1080P projector.

Hurrah! Problem solved.

M

[Alexander Nikishin]

So we should eliminate 2K scaled @60fps in favor of 1080P @60fps?

Reverse thinking if you ask me.

[Häakon]

So we should eliminate 2K scaled @60fps in favor of 1080P @60fps?

Reverse thinking if you ask me.
They've already done this, and it was the right decision to make in my opinion. 2K is a digital cinema format, 1080 is a hi-def deliverable format. You already have two solid digital cinema formats in the camera: 4K REDCODE RAW and 2K windowed REDCODE RAW. I do not see that it makes sense to destroy the only remaining hi-def resolution format as you gain zero fps by shooting 2K and you are simply adding additional steps for yourself in post. If anything, 1080 will be smaller file sizes than 2K ones, so that should be another bullet point for keeping it around.

[Gbabymogul]

So we should eliminate 2K scaled @60fps in favor of 1080P @60fps?

Reverse thinking if you ask me.

I'd probably lean towards 2K scaled but the rush to judgement is what some of us are trying to debate. For example, with 1080p oversampling didn't Graeme mention (awhile ago) that the s/n would be much better and that with increased dr we may have gotten another full stop or two out of the camera? I know recent tests have been aaight, but going from 11 1/2 to 13 stops may be worth the loss in resolution...

IMO, Extra resolution is only one factor in balancing what formats to include. Having 1080p may be worth having...who knows? Without render times, and image, dr comparisons we don't know ...

[Nils Ruinet]

One more question :
when playing back a quicktime 4K RAW file on a computer, will we be able to automatically apply a LUT and whitebalance to the 2K / 1K proxy in realtime, or will we only see the original RAW image ?
This may be an important point, as RAW footage is very low contrast, and not white balanced...
So what happens when you edit it in FCP ? Is it able to use the meatadata to apply a LUT and whitebalance ? Realtime or not ?

Nils.

[Alexander Nikishin]

For example, with 1080p oversampling didn't Graeme mention (awhile ago) that the s/n would be much better and that with increased dr we may have gotten another full stop or two out of the camera?
...

If 13 stops we're obtained in 1080P I think we would have heard that announcement by now. That would be quite a significant jump worth bragging about.

[Rodrigo Lizana]

Great news Jim. Scaled 2K from full sensor all the way up to 60 fps is the best alternative for me since 4K 60fps onboard recording.
I don´t mind if we get rid of 720 and 1080, only wish that Redcine does this kind of downconversion fast enough.
Also wonder how noticeable will be the mix of 4K material with 2K full sensor scaled footage when projected on the small screen (SD and HD) ?.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Also wonder how noticeable will be the mix of 4K material with 2K full sensor scaled footage when projected on the small screen (SD and HD) ?.

If by small screen you mean home viewing on either projectors or HD/SD TV's, you won't notice the difference at all.

You'll need to downconvert the footage to 1080P for home viewing anyway.

[Rodrigo Lizana]

Yes that´s exactly what I mean but my experience with film is that the bigger the negative is and the bigger it gets scanned the better the downconversion will look. The question also points to how good will this realtime/on board downcoversion will look like when compared to 4K downcoverted using RedCine. BTW, I really love ANow too.

Regards.

[Häakon]

You'll need to downconvert the footage to 1080P for home viewing anyway.

Unless of course you shoot in 1080, which means absolutely no additional downconversion is necessary. :-) (Hey, what a concept!)

[Thom Steinhoff]

Okay here's something I haven't heard yet;

2k scaled raw vs 2k scaled rgb. In rgb each pixel represents an rgb value but in raw it is red or blue or green. I know the flexability of raw will be better but wouldn't the rgb look sharper and mix better with full 4k raw?

I'm very happy to have the fps and the flexability of raw just concerned with 2k raw vs 2k rgb and are we giving up resolution?

[Alexander Nikishin]

Unless of course you shoot in 1080, which means absolutely no additional downconversion is necessary. :-) (Hey, what a concept!)

That's like being offered a California king sized bed but choosing a single instead.

Invite a lady friend over, your single ain't gonna cut it, go with the ca king on the other hand and you're ready for any situation.

My point is, why cripple our higher quality recording options (2K scaled 60fps) when all we have to do is crop in post?

My mentality has always been......

Start off with the best quality, finish off with the best possible quality while you're at it, not vice versa.

[Häakon]

My mentality has always been......

Start off with the best quality, finish off with the best possible quality while you're at it, not vice versa.
That's my mentality too. And the best quality (the "California king sized-bed") is 4K.

The option is NOT between a camera that can only shoot 2K or 1080. It's a camera that shoots 4K, and potentially has the option to scale that down to 2K or 1080 in-camera. The only time you need this is when you want faster framerates than the unscaled full sensor can provide onboard, or when instant turnaround is of critical importance. If the goal is "highest quality no matter what," you shoot 4K.

If the end goal is 1080HD, it makes no sense to resize to 2K in-camera just to turn around again and resize to 1080 in post. Not only does this require an additional step, but having to go through a resize process twice (and only a minimal one the second time) means compromising the quality of your final picture. You gain nothing by making a 2K intermediate, and as you said, quality should be your primary concern.

[Alexander Nikishin]

as you said, quality should be your primary concern.

Hence 2K scaled not 1080P for my over cranked footage which will obviously be inter-cut with 4K 24fps footage.

[Häakon]

Hence 2K scaled not 1080P for my over cranked footage which will obviously be inter-cut with 4K 24fps footage.
I do not believe that double-scaled 2K footage will look better than once-scaled 1080 footage for a 1080p delivery. And I care about the quality of my final output.

[Alexander Nikishin]

I do not believe that double-scaled 2K footage will look better than once-scaled 1080 footage for a 1080p delivery. And I care about the quality of my final output.

And I care how my footage will look on the big screen preferably, not on my blu ray home theater projector.

Remember the good old saying, "If you haven't seen it on the big screen, you truly haven't experienced Star Wars." :biggrin:

[Häakon]

And I care how my footage will look on the big screen preferably, not on my blu ray home theater projector.
Please pick an argument. For theatrical projection, you shoot 4K. For 1080p home delivery, it makes more sense to have a singular 1080p option than creating the process of having to shoot 2K and resizing it again. If your projects are so big that they are going to be theatrically distributed across the country and quality cannot be sacrificed, buy/rent the optical raw port and get the framerates you need. Or, since the highest fps possible seems to be your individual primary concern, shoot windowed and get the most juice out of the camera you possibly can. But scaled 2K offers no higher framerates than 1080 does. Period. The resolution difference is so small it's moot, and both formats would be RAW so the elasticity of the image isn't even an issue. The only thing you gain by shooting scaled 2K with the intention of scaling again to 1080 is a headache from the extra steps you have to take to get there.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I do not believe that double-scaled 2K footage will look better than once-scaled 1080 footage for a 1080p delivery. And I care about the quality of my final output.

Actually double scaled RGB usually turns out a bit better than single scaled if you have the proc cycles to spare.

[Joe Aurili]

I'm sure the best quality option for 1080P would be to shoot in 4K RAW and down convert to 1080P in post. You get the most oversampling and the benefit of non-real time processing power to get the best quality scale.

[Häakon]

Actually double scaled RGB usually turns out a bit better than single scaled if you have the proc cycles to spare.
Depending on the size between scales, I would agree. But I'm not so sure that going from 2K to 1080 is advantageous or desired.

[Häakon]

I'm sure the best quality option for 1080P would be to shoot in 4K RAW and down convert to 1080P in post. You get the most oversampling and the benefit of non-real time processing power to get the best quality scale.
There's no question about that; it's what most of us will do. The only problem is deciding how you want to overcrank with the camera as 4K will only go up to 30p onboard. Our only solutions at that point are shoot windowed or shoot scaled to get more fps out of the camera.

[Alexander Nikishin]

If your projects are so big that they are going to be theatrically distributed across the country and quality cannot be sacrificed, buy/rent the optical raw port and get the framerates you need.

Theatrical distribution is not something that is guaranteed, it's luck of the draw nowadays.

I need 4K @24fps, 2K scaled for all overcranked shots up to 60fps, and 2K windowed for all shots over 60fps, not 1080P.

Shooting with these formats allows me the best quality under the budget constraints I'll be shooting in and still allows for my work to be shown at all 4K/2K digital projection venues.

Sure it might not be picked up by Lionsgate, or it might, who knows. But I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot by thinking small with straight to Blu Ray feature films, why would you doubt your talent like that?

In regards to the RAW Port, I don't see the slow mo recording fridge rolling onto many of my sets anytime soon.

[Jack Wester]

...buy/rent the optical raw port and get the framerates you need.
If not being able to deliver your harddrive directly to a customer is such a pain, why isn't having to go to a rental house to change the framerate even more painfull?


Or, since the highest fps possible seems to be your individual primary concern, shoot windowed and get the most juice out of the camera you possibly can.
And how would this look using the same lense? Mixing full sensor and windowed?

[Häakon]

I need 4K @24fps, 2K scaled for all overcranked shots up to 60fps, and 2K windowed for all shots over 60fps, not 1080P.

Shooting with these formats allows me the best quality under the budget constraints I'll be shooting in and still allows for my work to be shown at all 4K/2K digital projection venues.

In regards to the RAW Port, I don't see the slow mo recording fridge rolling onto many of my sets anytime soon.
It seems to me like you are approaching the camera with a very singular vision; ie, making general decisions based upon the way only YOU would use the camera. I am trying to offer that in addition to 4K onboard recording and 2K windowed recording up to 96fps, 1080 scaled provides the most well-rounded list of options and flexibility for RED ONE. These choices will meet the needs of the broadest range of shooters, while maintaining the highest quality possible and preventing from obsolescence in the future. These are the fundamentals from which RED was built: to be versatile and modular, not niche or specialized.

This conversation feels like it's gotten a little elementary school to me; I've put forward the best information as I can and I am now going to go out and enjoy my evening. I am confident that the Red team is making the most well-informed decisions they can and will give us a RED ONE that is aligned with the objectives they have put out from the beginning.

[Alexander Nikishin]

It seems to me like you are approaching the camera with a very singular vision; ie, making general decisions based upon the way only YOU would use the camera.

I do mainly feature length and short films, my clients want top quality.

All I am requesting is a top quality cinema camera, don't treat me as though I am narrow minded, I find that insulting.

I only wish to have the best camera for my dollar, can you blame me for that?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

One more question :
when playing back a quicktime 4K RAW file on a computer, will we be able to automatically apply a LUT and whitebalance to the 2K / 1K proxy in realtime, or will we only see the original RAW image ?

It shouldn't be an problem. RAW data must be issued a whitepoint and LUT in order for it to be displayed anyway. So the ability to tweak and assign LUTs and ref points for WB is just gravy. Theoretically, we could create LUTs to match or approximate certain film stocks or other camera systems like the Cine-Gamma curves on Panasonic HVX/HPX and Varicam systems. By default, I think the colorspace was REC 601 or 709 or something along those lines for in-camera scaled RGB modes. When dealing with RAW footage in post, just assign the desired LUT and set your WB and there you have it. I think LUTs will be loadable to the camera too so that we have something to apply for output over HDMI, SDI and the EVF/LCD. This LUT could theoretically travel within the metadata or clip file headers as the default color spec for that footage shot using it.

[Brook Willard]

Man, I can't log in for a few days because of some account hackage shenanigans and all hell breaks loose in here! It looks like there have been some pretty exciting changes going on REDside. The prospect of 2K scaled at 60fps is fantastic... particularly considering it's RAW [something I thought was impossible]. I can't wait to hear all the technical details... and I really can't wait to shoot it.

As for generic moderator crap... people have been getting a little testy at points in this [and other] threads. Let's all remember to find a non-jackass way to phrase things when the temptation arises. :)

[Scot Olson]

If the end goal is 1080HD, it makes no sense to resize to 2K in-camera just to turn around again and resize to 1080 in post. Not only does this require an additional step, but having to go through a resize process twice (and only a minimal one the second time) means compromising the quality of your final picture. You gain nothing by making a 2K intermediate, and as you said, quality should be your primary concern.

Häakon think about this total workflow for a second and tell me where the extra step is and where the extra scale is. All we need to shoot 1080 with no extra steps and no extra scale is to have a mode in the camera that shows the 1080 frame-line instead of the 2k frame-line and adds a metadata flag that you are shooting for 1080.

The camera can still record a RAW Scaled 2k frame, which is FAR easier to derive in a RAW scale because all you are doing is combining 4 sensor pixels into 1. Now when you open this file in an application it sees the 1080 flag and crops the 1080 frame. I see no reason this workflow should cause any quality loss (you are cropping a 1080 frame from a 2K frame) or any extra steps in post. You simply have a few extra pixels in your 1080 flaged file that that the software can ignore unless you choose to use them to reframe.

I agree that a simple path to 1080 post is essential, that will be my primary workflow. I also think that Jim is right that the camera does not need to record 1080 or 720, we just need direct paths to those frame sizes for post. The Camera is better if there are FEWER modes IMO.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Based on comments from big lebowski, Haakon and Scot, I'm thinking that my suggestion of an additional 1080p scaled mode may not be all that practical. If it's do-able, then it probably should still be investigated... However, it seems to me that a REDCODE proxy or output mode to display a 1080p crop from 2K footage seems the way to go. Not that I'm trying to waffle on my own point of view, just the more I think about it, it just makes more sense to me this way.

Oh, and the last several posts are getting a little childish and offensive. I'm "this close" to closing this thread.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Agreed.

[Joe Aurili]

True, if you need more FPS, the next best option for quality would be to shoot as high of a resolution as the camera will allow and downsize that in post. If the camera can scale from 4K to 2K in raw, that would/should only improve the quality of the source and keep the 4K specs so it will match other 4K shots.


There's no question about that; it's what most of us will do. The only problem is deciding how you want to overcrank with the camera as 4K will only go up to 30p onboard. Our only solutions at that point are shoot windowed or shoot scaled to get more fps out of the camera.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Was there ever word from the RED team as to whether or not REDCINE would allow for unlimited licenses?

[Brook Willard]

So Scot, you're just looking for a metadata flag that tells your post operations to ignore ~13% of the file and just crop to 1080p based on some frame lines? Just to make sure I'm reading you right.

Or are you actually looking for the RAW-scale-and-then-crop operation to happen in camera? So you end up with a 1080p file natively instead of a 2K file with metadata flags?

[Storyline]

I suppose some of the difficulty in evaluating these choices stems from a big unknown - how fast will RedCINE be? If taking 4k or 2k and putting it through the RedCINE software is very fast, then the extra step to get to 1080p shouldn't be too terrible. If it's a slow render on a reasonably fast machine, then it's a bigger issue.

1080p is rapidly becoming the de facto standard for now for non-cinema projects. Personally, I want to shoot at 4k, use my Red lenses all the time, and then have a fast transcode to get 1080p into my editing system for non-cinema projects or to share with other editors. Theatrical documentaries, which we also make, are another matter and better suited for 4k throughout - and a film out to 35mm at the end.

Cropping in NLE software, or scaling, is not going to be so pretty - is it doable now to take 2k footage into a 1080p timeline and crop? Is it real time?

In any case, a 1080 frameline in the EVF and LCD is crucial.

[Häakon]

Scot, thank you very much for your well thought-out post and willingness to provide an alternative. It does sound like a compelling option.

The problem with your scale-then-crop solution is that it takes the middle portion of the 2K area and scraps the rest to acheive the 1080 frame. This to me is worse than just scaling directly to 1080, because then at least we have the full 4K sensor available and that's very important.

I also find it difficult to understand how anyone who really feels the minimal resolution difference between 2K and 1080 is significant enough to warrant a 2K scaled option in the first place would find cutting that extra resolution out of the frame to acheive a 1080 picture acceptable. Why not just shoot to 1080 in the first place?

It's a good start, and perhaps it will depend upon how the scaling to RAW will be effective or feasible in the first place. Until we hear more from Graeme, however, I feel like we're just running around in circles.

Best,

Häakon

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Until we hear more from Graeme, however, I feel like we're just running around in circles.

That's for sure. So many unknowns and it's hard to say which option will be the most practical and work for the largest portion of the user base.

[Brook Willard]

"We want to shoot RED 35mm."
"Ok, I'll bring my gear, the rate is $____ per day."
"Fine. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."
"I'll give you 4K files and you can convert it to whatever you want."
"Perhaps you didn't understand. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."
"You'll save time and money if you do it on your own, and you'll future-proof yourself with the 4K files."
"Sounds technical."
"Ok, 1080p DVCPRO HD will be another $___ per hour of footage. Or free if you have your editor do it on his own. It'll take less time [this is 100% a guess] than it would to log and capture tapes."
"Why can't you just do it for us?"
"I can [/my DIT can]. For $___ per hour of footage."
"Right."
"Right."

Then the conversation goes one of several ways:

"Ok, we'll pay you."
"Ok, we'll do it ourselves."
"You're fired, we're shooting tape instead." :)

[albert rudnicki]

If not being able to deliver your harddrive directly to a customer is such a pain, why isn't having to go to a rental house to change the framerate even more painfull?


And how would this look using the same lense? Mixing full sensor and windowed?

CROP IS CRAP

[Jeff Kilgroe]

"Fine. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."
"I'll give you 4K files and you can convert it to whatever you want."
"Perhaps you didn't understand. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."

Hmmm....

Here's how I would approach this conversation:

"We want to shoot RED 35mm."

"Ok, I'll bring my gear, the rate is $____ per day."

"Fine. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."

"Not a problem. This camera also shoots 2K and 4K resolutions... Would a master copy of the footage at greater than HD resolution interest you?"

"I don't think we need that..."

"Think of it as a way to future proof this footage or a means to producing higher quality output for film transfers or high-resolution projectors in theatrical venues. The additional cost is very minimal. "

"I'm not sure... Probably not."

"That's fine, you don't have to make that decision now. I archive all footage shot for clients for ____ amount of time. Just as a photographer maintains negatives, we can discuss this at a later date. I also offer additional archival and editing services if you're interested. Rates are very competitive."

[Scot Olson]

So Scot, you're just looking for a metadata flag that tells your post operations to ignore ~13% of the file and just crop to 1080p based on some frame lines? Just to make sure I'm reading you right.

Or are you actually looking for the RAW-scale-and-then-crop operation to happen in camera? So you end up with a 1080p file natively instead of a 2K file with metadata flags?

I am just looking for the metadata flag that notes the 1080 crop. That way you or the editor that gets your footage does not even have to think about it, it just comes out 1080.

[Brook Willard]

Hmmm....

Here's how I would approach this conversation:


Heh, your way is probably better. I'm too quippy for my own good when I make these little conversations.

[Jannard]

It wasn't too long ago when many asked for SD recording (well, maybe it was last year...).

Jim

[I Bloom]

Hmmm....

Here's how I would approach this conversation:

"We want to shoot RED 35mm."

"Ok, I'll bring my gear, the rate is $____ per day."

"Fine. We want 1080p DVCPRO HD."

"Not a problem. This camera also shoots 2K and 4K resolutions... Would a master copy of the footage at greater than HD resolution interest you?"

"I don't think we need that..."

"Think of it as a way to future proof this footage or a means to producing higher quality output for film transfers or high-resolution projectors in theatrical venues. The additional cost is very minimal. "

"I'm not sure... Probably not."

"That's fine, you don't have to make that decision now. I archive all footage shot for clients for ____ amount of time. Just as a photographer maintains negatives, we can discuss this at a later date. I also offer additional archival and editing services if you're interested. Rates are very competitive."

I think that's an interesting flip Jeff. Are you saying you will charge more for 2K or 4K than for transcode? In which case, what if they really don't want it. Then don't you eat that labor cost?

Here's how my conversation goes:

"We want to shoot RED 35mm."

"What format would you like and what system will you be cutting on?"

"We need ___ so we can cut on ___."

"Ok, I'll bring my gear, the rate for ____ is $____ per day. Your going to need ___ media at a cost of ___ per drive."


I don't know at this point if I would charge more for a RED native codec. I might.

In any case, I don't know who's strategy is the best, I think its more a matter of who your clients are, and how much you want your hands in post.

I have an important question regarding this though: Can clients do their own transcodes?? In other words is what is the licensing for REDCine and the various quicktime tools, such that there isn't a large cost for them to do that?

IBloom

[Brook Willard]

See, I'm just excited about that youtube option. Will there be a web-cam mount for the camera, too? ;)

[Scot Olson]

The problem with your scale-then-crop solution is that it takes the middle portion of the 2K area and scraps the rest to acheive the 1080 frame. This to me is worse than just scaling directly to 1080, because then at least we have the full 4K sensor available and that's very important.


Thanks for thinking about this option. Although I note your desire for the absolute best quality, it MAY not even be possible. Then think about what we might be getting. Go back to your original post in this thread and look at the huge size of the sensor that is forming the image in a scale-then-crop 1080 image compared to a crop 2K or 1080 frame.

[Brook Willard]

The scale-then-crop frame is 87.89% the area of the original 4K frame.

[Alexander Nikishin]

It wasn't too long ago when many asked for SD recording (well, maybe it was last year...).

Jim

Thank goodness it didn't go that route.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think that's an interesting flip Jeff. Are you saying you will charge more for 2K or 4K than for transcode? In which case, what if they really don't want it. Then don't you eat that labor cost?

Actually, I keep changing my mind on that... Not sure. I guess I won't know until the camera is in my hands and I do a couple real jobs with it. I think most jobs will have to be approached and quoted on an individual basis anyway, so this discussion isn't very likely to come up in this way. If the client wants a DVCPROHD transcode of the footage, that's fine, I'll just incorporate that into the bid for the project and not make any specific issue over it.

But on small projects or where clients are nit-picking every aspect of the job, I'm thinking that I will probably charge more for the 2K / 4K master. I'm looking at it as if that's the "negative". 99% of the time I will have to copy the data over to a hard drive and most likely convert to a format they want as part of the job anyway. So may as well figure my rates based on that and charge them a few extra bucks to have the 2K/4K footage as well.

Someday when everyone wants the 2K/4K footage, I'll adjust my rates accordingly. Or maybe it makes more sense to just give the 2K/4K footage and include one transcoded copy in the price as well -- price is the same whether they take advantage of that service or not.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I like the scaled to 2k with the 1080 crop flag. Why?

1) It leaves the door open for some really nice "smooth cam" or motion tracking in post when needed.

2) The crop should avoid any of the potential softening of 1152 to 1080 and cropping should be much faster than re-scaling.

3) The simple math and increased light sensitivity of the "4 to 1" super pixel makes sense to me but as has been stated several times that's a Graeme question.

4) The crop flag hides any "technical complexities" from the editor who is finishing for HD.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I only wish to have the best camera for my dollar, can you blame me for that?

I agree. Every customer for themselves! It's red's responsibility to deliver a camera that appeases as many customers as possible. It's each of our responsibilities to ask for what *we* need not what we *think* someone else *might* need.

Only problem is EFP and High-End Cine seem to be under represented. So.... ummm... Gibby gets his opinion multiplied by x10 and each of the beta tester's crews get x20. And me.... divide mine by 5 because I'm only a renter.

2c.

[I Bloom]

4K REDCODE RAW @ 1-60 fps to RAW Port
4K REDCODE RAW @ 1-24 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive

2K REDCODE RAW scaled @ 1-60 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive (Under development)
2K REDCODE RAW cropped @ 1-100 fps to Compact Flash or RED Drive

Jim

Jim,

I really appreciate your candor. I have given a great deal of thought to this issue since you first introduced it. I was initially in favor of keeping 1080pRGB and 720pRGB because I felt these formats would be important for non-cinema RED applications. I've been persuaded otherwise.

Once I had realized that RGB would not be helpful as an in camera format I was worried because I saw no in camera format that sufficiently reduced the amount of data to something near to current HD formats while still giving us a 35mm FOV.

The introduction of 2K Scaled REDCODE RAW has changed this. If this new format can deliver 24fps at around 7MB/sec then it fills the gap.

I want to clearly state that I now support RED dropping all RGB formats (including 1080p RGB and 720p RGB) in favor of only recording RAW. I believe this will lead to a more streamlined system that will best serve users on both the cinema and EFP sides of the debate.

By dropping RGB and focusing on RAW we also open up the possibility of greater performance gains as RED continues to update their processors and FPGAs and possibly faster turnaround time on camera developement with fewer formats to deal with. If we dump RGB now we won't be stuck with it in years to come.

2K Scaled RC RAW will also most likely intercut well with 2K Windowed RC RAW making a 2K only pipeline a very viable and flexible option for many productions, in particular documentaries.

Thanks again for including us in this process,

Ian Bloom

[Michael Brennan]

Please pick an argument. For theatrical projection, you shoot 4K. For 1080p home delivery, it makes more sense to have a singular 1080p option than creating the process of having to shoot 2K and resizing it again.

Here Here.
If possible enable 1080p and 2k.
Otherwise 1080p as that often requires fast turnaround.
4K for large screen presentation where fast turn around is usually not an issue.



Mike Brennan

[Alexander Nikishin]

H
If possible enable 1080p and 2k.

It is possible to enable both 2K and 1080P, but not without losing 2K windowed at 96fps, which is a major selling point to the cinema oriented shooter.

60fps just doesn't cut it for many shots.

And if you can have 2K scaled (meaning the full 35mm frame of the 4K sensor) then why would you complain when you can just convert that to 1080 (possibly) in camera or in Redcine, after all, you will need to go through Redcine at some point anyway.

[Stephen Webb]

2) The crop should avoid any of the potential softening of 1152 to 1080 and cropping should be much faster than re-scaling.

You're downressing from 4096x2304 to 2048x1152 already, and you're worried that going from 2048x1152 to 1920x1080 will soften the image???

Still, the idea of a metadata tag to crop to 1080 (complete with guides in the viewfinder) is a good one.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

This is a 1:1 crop of my experiment in photoshop. There's a candybar in it for the first person who can identify which got rescaled twice and which got rescaled once (with proof!). :gun:

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n134/im_thatoneguy/2k2k2k1080.png

Good luck.

[Häakon]

I'll play, since I feel like I'm the one who got us into this mess and I think people are really tired of going back and forth on this.

The one on the left looks much better to me... assuming you did the test in the same way we've discussed and there's no other variables going on, do I win a candybar or a nice glass of "you may now shut the f*ck up?"

[Peter McCully]

I'm a leftist too.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Left is double sampled. But I'll send you a hershey's chocolate bar for trying. PM me your address.

Partly because I'm only 90% certain. I had a little jingle to help me remember but there is that nagging doubt the jingle wrong.

One way to know for certain... one sec...

Edit: Whoops. I lose. Left is 1 rescale. Choose your poison Haakon what'll it be? Crunch? Butterfinger?

[Häakon]

Hey, I was all ready to offer my humility if I stood corrected! :)

The one on the left is clearly retaining more resolution than the one on the right, which is why I chose it. The one on the right exhibits the exact kind of softness I was worried about in being sampled twice.

I would gladly concede ditching 1080 if my instincts were wrong, but this demonstrates exactly the fears I was having. And 2K is just not enough of a difference in resolution to justify wanting it simply because it's bigger on paper. I know this may not be what people want to hear (and granted, this was just one informal test), but at least I know that my educated gut isn't steering me wrong. Besides, Pete is a leftist too. :-)

Feel free to bring my Twix to the LART. :-P

[Gavin Greenwalt]

<errata>In 2k's defense I did use the "wrong" bi-linear for downscaling and there are algorithms that are tuned to down-rezing but they'll probably begin to introduce the almight sin all re-samplers bring: sharpening.

Speaking of which. Greame how can you guys claim to "not speak of sharpening" but then use any sort of rescaling algorithm? They all sharpen to some extent just usually very very very subtley.
</errata>

-- Twix it is.

[tj williams]

Jim
If we have built in crop to 1080 or 720 then we can also have SD all you have to do is give us another set of viewfinder scribe lines?

[Rob Lohman]

I'm sorry if this is a dumb question . . . . but isn't 4K RAW and 2K RGB the same thing? Since a square consisting of four RAW pixels actually consists of 1 red, 2 green, and 1 blue pixels, if you treat the four as one RGB pixel (perhaps taking the average value of the two green pixels), you end up with 2K RGB, right?

That would produce artifacts. You need to do a proper down sample or different debayer form.

[Rob Lohman]

Graeme, with the death of on-board RGB recording on the horizon, will you still pursue the quicktime RGB codec?

What do you mean by this? QuickTime codec will still decompress your footage to RGB/YCbCr. For the moment we are focussed on the decompressor side of the codec.

[krd]

Only problem is EFP and High-End Cine seem to be under represented. So.... ummm... Gibby gets his opinion multiplied by x10 and each of the beta tester's crews get x20.

There's another multiplier (or is it divisor?) here: independent film (or independent D-cinema) in the U.S. does not make money.

What keeps the "business" going is successive waves of aspiring filmmakers and financiers, hopeful or deluded, who are likely to buy or rent their Reds from previous waves of Red owners who've already failed. The 2000 or so(?) Reds already on order may be enough to supply the 800-1000 American independent features which get submitted to Sundance every year, for years to come.

Maybe Red should listen to Gibby, for the sake of continued cashflow and expanding market base.

[planet e]

i really don't get where you are coming from, alexander. not a single movie that you've worked on, from your imdb database listing, illustrates a need for 2k at 96fps, and yet you are the loudest proponent of dropping the bread and butter format of *my* business (which consists primarily of DVD and TV delivery), for some pie-in-the-sky that may (or may not, for all we know) be in your future. for you to make your dream martial arts film, you are willing to cheerlead for dropping the ax on dozens, perhaps hundreds, of thriving, existing businesses.

i'm not entirely averse to dropping 1080p RGB, if 2K scaled RAW is the alternative, but this characterization of 1080p as a "loser" format or as backward-thinking is the height of ludicrous. the vast majority of delivery systems *still* don't support 1080p output. until everyone in the country is tuning into their blu-ray player every night, until Apple starts supporting blu-ray output in DVD Studio Pro (duh, this should have been a no-brainer by now....), the 1080p is still largely the future. maybe when jim revolutionizes the nation's broadcast system (not being facetious here....) and, then that will change. that could take some time.

but shouldn't there be some testing of conversions or cropping or something, before such a radical move is made? this choice has the potential to break a long-standing promise to reservation holders to "make obsolescence obsolete" --a promise to make high-end HD accessible to lots of EFP and corporate shooters. i'm not saying this is the outcome, i'm saying this is *the possibility*. i think the options should be explored (thank you, haakon, for keeping this conversation civil and on-task....), before a crucial move is made.

if jim wants to make the camera that jim wants to make, that's his prerogative, and i have nothing but gratitude for the grand experiment and the amazing ride that he has taken all of us on. whether i complete this purchase or not, i have the utmost respect for the transparency he has brought to this process--it's truly remarkable and at least as revolutionary as the camera itself. but my responsibility, before i drop $55-60K on camera gear, is to make sure the final incarnation of this camera serves the purposes of my business. i guess LART will tell. i really want to complete this purchase. but i have to be sure that it is the best use of these funds, period. i don't have that kind of money to throw around, unless i can feel confident that it will return itself.

i have had nothing but confidence in RED, until this conversation started. now i feel quite uncertain about the direction this camera is headed and its efficacy for the type of shooting my studio does.

[Steve Gibby]

Firstly, I’d like to again congratulate RED Team on the unbelievable amount of planning, R &D, and development work they’ve been able to pull off on RED One – in a time frame that many simply thought impossible.

Secondly, I’d like to again say that I know each of the RED Team members and they have my utmost respect – and nothing has changed or will change that.

The outer layer of this discussion, to use an onion analogy, is the technology in question. But the inner layer, and the heart of the matter, is business. RED is a business, movie production is a business, television production is a business, all motion media genres are businesses, and each of us has a business to run.

In terms of pure volume of productions each year worldwide cine-style production is the tip of the iceberg, but the rest of the iceberg beneath the water is EFP (electronic field production). ENG is just a tiny sub-genre within EFP. EFP isn’t just B4 2/3” production. Vast amounts of EFP productions use cine lenses, accessories, and techniques – a natural market for RED. As a business, RED has generated a lot of promotional attention in the indie world (RED User and beyond) and features world (Jackson, beta testing, etc.), and yes RED One has been positioned from the beginning as a D-cinema camera that can also be used for EFP work, but I feel RED as a business would be best served by paying close attention to the cine market (the marquee market) and EFP market (the cash cow) as they finalize their camera system specifications. Its best for RED as a business.

What’s best for us as RED adopters? Thinking like a businessperson is what’s best. If we’re so intent on just working in a narrow niche of production, functioning as a “starving artist”, and then go bankrupt, how does that get us to our final goals? If we’ve already “made it” in the motion media industry, we know we have to fight every day to stay on top. This is a dynamic industry – every day we’re either climbing or dropping.

As RED One was initially described, and has been ever since, it was intended to be a scalable, utilitarian, flexible, and affordable system that could be quickly re-lensed and re-accessorized for use across multiple cine style and EFP style genres and sub-genres. Cutting edge technology enables RED One, and the potential result of that tech package is the enabling of massive revenue generating potential for RED One adopters (if they maximize the system’s potential) and RED One (if they keep feature sets that satisfy the needs of both the cine and EFP industries). That’s good business my friends – a win/win situation for everyone concerned.

RED User is a great board and an excellent central info source for “all things RED”. I love this board! That said, the professional demographic of the membership of RED User is heavily weighted with indie cine types, and not representative of the overall market for RED’s products (see iceberg analogy above). If you indie guys will open your minds, spread your skill sets to multiple genres of production, and thus generate exponentially higher revenue with your RED camera systems, you just might then enable your achieving your main goal of doing only high-level features. If RED will pay close attention to their largest market for the RED One system (EFP, not ENG), they will sell tons more products overall.

The days of just working in a narrow niche of production genres are rapidly coming to a close, enabled by two factors: technology and market. We all need to keep our ear to the rails – there’s a freight train approaching. It’s “jump on and ride” or “or keep walking and get mowed down”.

Now that we’ve established that it is business we’re talking about here, let’s specifically talk about the technology in question. I think what RED has proposed, with the scaled 2k RC RAW @60fps is awesome. I produce/direct/shoot across multiple cine and EFP genres, and a big portion of what I’ll shoot will be 4k RC RAW in camera, and the new 2k RC RAW scaled (if it makes the final spec). I shoot DSLR projects extensively and I’m used to a RAW workflow – I love it and I’m excited to use it with RED! That said, I also work in multiple genres of EFP production for national television and high-end business media. That’s the largest single industry market for me and for RED, and the rest of you guys if you’ll bring yourself to work in those industries. Now that RED has verified that scaled 2k RC RAW is possible and potentially in the spec, and we know that transcode and/or processing speed and ease of delivery to clients is the crux of the issue, I think that RED needs to pay close attention to a workflow that will satisfy the delivery speed to clients issue and we’ll all be fine. If the final solution to that conundrum entails a spec of scaled 2k RC RAW @60fps and scaled 1080p RGB @60fps, that will be a business decision that RED needs to make. Like wise, if a 1080p crop from a scaled 2k RC RAW frame is the final solution, then it’s workable. Quickest delivery to clients is the X factor that must be addressed. If it is – voila! I see some preliminary speed tests are already being conducted by RED User members – very cool, but more extensive speed tests need to be done and analyzed before hard conclusions can be reached.

Let’s heal the division that this “drop 1080p/720p” subject has raised. We’re all part of the overall motion media industry family. Outwardly this debate has been a tech discussion – but the core issue is that it is really a business discussion – and rightly so, because we’re all in businesses of various sizes. My position is that I simply want what’s best in a business sense for all of us, including RED, because a fiscally strong RED filters down to all of us adopters.

The entire RED Team has my deepest respect – these guys are actually doing what many thought impossible.

[redhead]

That would produce artifacts. You need to do a proper down sample or different debayer form.

Thanks.

[I Bloom]

There's another multiplier (or is it divisor?) here: independent film (or independent D-cinema) in the U.S. does not make money.

Well even if the films aren't making money one can definitely make money in independent film just not on the backend. In that sense as a camera provider you can pay for your RED in that market, just make sure you get paid upfront.

IBloom

[Jaime Vallés]

There's another multiplier (or is it divisor?) here: independent film (or independent D-cinema) in the U.S. does not make money.
Says who? :wink:

[Alexander Nikishin]

RED is a business


RED is not just a business, it's one man's dream.....one man's wish to create the ultimate digital cinema camera.

I think you're seeing Jim's vision all wrong, he's building the RED for himself and the people in the industry who have the same needs and wants as he does.

If he were building the camera just for business reasons, don't you think RED might cost a bit more?

Or possibly lower with a smaller feature set to capture the HVX crowd?

I just don't think it's right to categorize Jim's motives as "business only".

[Craig Schober]

RED is not just a business, it's one man's dream.....one man's wish to create the ultimate digital cinema camera.

I think you're seeing Jim's vision all wrong, he's building the RED for himself and the people in the industry who have the same needs and wants as he does.

If he were building the camera just for business reasons, don't you think RED might cost a bit more?

Or possibly lower with a smaller feature set to capture the HVX crowd?

I just don't think it's right to categorize Jim's motives as "business only".

i can't speak for jim but am assuming he's using his passion for the ultimate digital cinema cam to drive his business decisions. those decisions concern all of his employees, his reputation and his customer base. he didn't get this far by ignoring the business angles and he wouldn't risk all those things just to get the ultimate toy all to himself. besides, what could be better than the ultimate toy than sharing the ultimate toy with the world?

[Alexander Nikishin]

besides, what could be better than the ultimate toy than sharing the ultimate toy with the world?

I totally agree, but I still see Jim's initial motive when creating the RED ONE to be more of an f you Panavision and Sony for ripping soo many people off with your inflated prices, let me show you how business is done with passion, not just the quest for TOP DOLLAR.

[Steve Gibby]

RED is not just a business, it's one man's dream.....one man's wish to create the ultimate digital cinema camera.

I think you're seeing Jim's vision all wrong, he's building the RED for himself and the people in the industry who have the same needs and wants as he does.

If he were building the camera just for business reasons, don't you think RED might cost a bit more?

Or possibly lower with a smaller feature set to capture the HVX crowd?

I just don't think it's right to categorize Jim's motives as "business only".

Who said his motives were business only? I said, RED is a business, and yes, RED is a business. You're going to school me on Jim's vision in view of the following?:

1)I've known Jim since the mid-1980's, all through the years he built Oakley.

2)Oakley sponsored many of the professional sports tours I was involved with televising for the past three decades. They didn't pay for the shows themselves, but rather sponsored the tours that we televised.

3)I was an invited attendee to the first RED One camera specification meeting at Oakley in December 2005

4) I did the first published interview with Jim where he described the RED One project, and in that interview he described his motivation for developing the camera was his passion for images and the lack of the camera he wanted being made yet.

I could keep going to a list of about 50 reasons I know that Jim's motivation for making RED One was his passion for imaging and his desire to make a camera sytem he wanted. I'm exactly the wrong person to try and school about Jim's motivation for making RED One. I have a full handle on that.

Now, RED is a business, and beyond all of Jim's imaging passion motivation, he's a very successful businessman who is challenge oriented. His first motivation is his passion, but he obviously wants RED to succeed as a business, but he's definitely not greedy about it - hence the very reasonable prices. I'm seeing Jim's vision all wrong? As I illustrated above, there's probably few people in the world who see Jim's vision for RED and his motivation for establishing RED more accurately than I do.

My long post on this thread was a healing post, designed to heal the differences here that have risen over the past few days of debate. If you knew Jim, you'd know that he is an assertive man - he lets people around him know how he feels about things. He also started this thread and obviously has posted on it periodically. I assure you if he had a problem with anything I said in my long post he would have posted a rebuttal here. My post was designed to help the entire board and RED. You're the only one who has expressed dissatisfaction with it Alexander, and then by ignoring all the positive, constructive observations I made, and then making a post accusing me of somehow not understanding Jim or his motivation for making RED.

If you want to play tennis here Alexander, bring it on. I'm real good at it and I'll play until you quit.

[Alexander Nikishin]

4) I did the first published interview with Jim where he described the RED One project, and in that interview he described his motivation for developing the camera was his passion for images and the lack of the camera he wanted being made yet.

Bingo. :detective2:

[Steve Gibby]

Bingo. :detective2:

Ahhh..yeah bingo, and do you understand the fact that I was the one who did that interview, thus I knew his motivations long before you did? Add to that all the other solid points I made, which you conveniently overlooked, and I just think you better find someone else to question than me, because yes, I have the answers. OK?

[Brook Willard]

Now I have to lock another thread.