Suggestion to posters: encoded@H264_1k for the web in order to the best ratio

[Emanuel A.]

Please, follow the Shawn's example:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4570

We the reduser.net members waiting for the next upgrade in order to handle with the 4K workflow, we appreciate.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Yeah some of us have powerbook g4s.... or maybe only I do.

[Álex Montoya]

For the record, I prefer 2K mov's

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I'm all for that 2k option but It would be cool to have a 1k version for the people with less powerful CPUs.

[Mr. Paul White]

For the record, I prefer 2K mov'sMe not. Thanks Emanuel for the reminder!

[Álex Montoya]

There are many things that can't be judged in a 1Kmov

[Gordon Prince]

The 2k clips, seems to me stills. Not motion pictures... :)

[Häakon]

I prefer the 2K clips as well. Most stuff looks good shrunk down to 1K; it's where you can really see RED's resolution that it truly shines.

[Kurt A]

I wouldn't mind 4K. That's why we're here, right?

[Karl H]

2K movies, 4K stills :-)

my pc cant play them back smoothly either, but I'm always pausing the thing to look at noise and sharpness etc..

[Rune Hansen]

If you can't get 2K clips to play back smoothly on your compute, then you can very easily make your own 1K versions. Just tell QuickTime to export a lower resolution file. If you're going from a 2K master (even h.264), the 1K versions will still look quite OK for your purposes, plus we all get the benefit of higher quality footage being posted.

The 2K files that have been posted look awesome on a 30" Cinema Display at 1:1 pixels. The 1K files look quite a bit softer, definitely. The 4K stills that have been posted just blow me away completely.

I'd even go so far as suggest making 4K master footage files, but that's just me. I know they'd be heavier files, so it would put a strain on bandwidh.

Can't wait to go pick up #84 and #85...

-
Rune
Mexico

[Proteus]

I also prefer 2K. With 2K you can make useful comparisons (even mental) at least with 1080p footage you've seen which is what this forum is about.
With 1K you can't compare the definition of the image and also the noise, because it is filtered further by the downscale.

[Don King]

1k for now. 2k or even 4k after next November/December.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I also like 1k. It even doesn't have to be fantastic quality.
But that's me being selfish: in Belgium we still have a download/upload limit, for a standard internet connection 12 gigabyte per month - if you want more, you pay more.
So I have to watch that meter..
And I'm more interested in the complete picture instead of details and such, I'm more interested in the image created...

[Álex Montoya]

Wouldn't it be easier to put up a poll?

[Brook Willard]

4K H.264, baby!

[Häakon]

4K H.264, baby!

I'm guessing you're half-joking, but this option is a bit silly because we would all have to shrink the footage to see the entire picture. This is not only a waste of bandwidth but puts the oversampling duty up to the media player in question - which may or may not yield the best results for the footage. Many people have screens very close to 2K resolutions, though, which is why I think that option makes the most sense.

I also think that as more people get their hands on the cameras, we will find that (oversampled) 2K is really the "sweet spot" of the finished footage from RED; the HD pictures people will create with the camera are going to look phenomenal. Just like a dSLR, the images never look best at their native resolutions.

[Roberto B]

leave the elitist 2k, 1080p.. let it down..

4k shooting & workflow.. but 1k for web.. there's the way.. the only one..

[Don King]

I also think that as more people get their hands on the cameras, we will find that (oversampled) 2K is really the "sweet spot" of the finished footage from RED; the HD pictures people will create with the camera are going to look phenomenal. Just like a dSLR, the images never look best at their native resolutions.Why not?

[Mr. Paul White]

Just like a dSLR, the images never look best at their native resolutions.
Is this your guess for the Red?

[Häakon]

That's my guess for any camera, really. There's no question that if 4K projection is the ultimate goal, RED is going to smoke anything else out there. So don't get me wrong - it's a completely viable 4K tool. But oversampling by about 50% helps just about any image I've ever seen - that's why "100% crops" of stills you see online never look as nice as slices from the same area that have been resampled properly. You get the benefits of reduced noise, higher sensitivity, and pixels that lose their harsh edge because they've been blended and shrunken in relative size.

As much as everyone has this pipe dream of shooting material that they're somehow going to project worldwide and ensure that everyone who sees their amazing story sees it in its full 4K, it's my guess that in the next 2-4 years at the very least the vast majority of people shooting RED will be outputting to 1080. And it's going to be the best 1080 picture of any other camera you can get your hands on in the market - film included, if you take the workflow advantages into consideration.