What is the recommended editing system for doing 4K on the red one?

[James Whitmoore]

What is the recommended mac based editing system for doing 4K on the red one? What are the specs? Does it have to be intel? What about a 2004 G5 power mac two gigahertz 4 gigs of ram 256 mb vram etc... will that work?

[Clint Johnson]

In the off chance that this isn't a troll, I'll point out that if you took the the most pimped out octo Mac you could buy from Apple today, overclocked it and water cooled the hell out of it... it would still breath hard working with 4K material.

[Michael Moreno]

is this true

you wont be able to edit 4k on a super mac tower with the newest final cut

then on what?

and what software?

where are all the pro answers when you need them?

this is a scarey halloween for me

i figured red was working with apple and fcp on a solution

jim? jarred? graeme? gibby? jay? evan? brook?

ahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

happy halloween

but seriously any answers.

[Clint Johnson]

I said that the latest and greatest would be working hard, not that it wouldn't be working. It is just that 4k material means pushing a hell of a lot of bits around and it will be a while before the hardware does it with ease. Remember it wasn't that long ago hardware was struggling to real time DV footage with something like 1/30th the demands of 4k. Even now it is still huffing and puffing with HD material at less than a quarter the demands of 4K.

[Mark L. Pederson]

Well ... rest assured ... Michael Kahn will cut 4K RED on a Moviola - in real time.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Well ... rest assured ... Michael Kahn will cut 4K RED on a Moviola - in real time.

Fully uncompressed too

[Greg M]

we have been cutting 4K on a 2K Smoke system...a bit slow but its doable.

[I Bloom]

What is the recommended mac based editing system for doing 4K on the red one? What are the specs? Does it have to be intel? What about a 2004 G5 power mac two gigahertz 4 gigs of ram 256 mb vram etc... will that work?

-Unfortunately a G5 cannot be used to cut Redcode because the Redcode Quicktime component is only compiled for Intel processors. (Presumably it contains some core inner loop that is written specifically for Intel chips)

-It's possible that when Final Cut Pro fully supports redcode, it may run on a G5... Doubtful.

-A 512x256 pixel proxy of a 4096x2048 .R3D file can run in realtime on Quicktime player at 24fps on my Macbook pro from the internal drive. The 1024x512 version plays at 12 fps (this is skipping frames, so I think it's syncable). 2048x1024 at 4 fps.

-Batch downconversion to ProRes can be done today with Compressor (though their are some quality issues).

Cutting in realtime while watching an actual 4K image is a ways off but in my book 4K proxy realtime cutting is literally already a reality on a laptop now. But I think you need the intel chip.

IBloom

[MikeCurtis]

EDIT - Yeargh, I was tired and cranky when I wrote this, I've gone back and edited a bit:

PEOPLE.....4K (EDIT - 4K FINISHING, I'm all for 4K acquisition) is, at present, the very, very, very highest end of the bestest of the bestest professional, Hollywood work.

You're thinking way, way way too hard about this.

Based on my own experiences working with the Red One cameras so far, and from knowing what the likely scenarios are for distribution....CHILL OUT about posting at 4K.

The ONE AND ONLY time you'll NEED to post at 4K is IF you get theatrical distribution for your project and WANT, NEED, AND CAN AFFORD the best possible filmout.

For most stuff, an 1080p (or 2K) finish will be sufficient if not overkill.

Cross that with the fact that getting optimal focus, even with lenses like Cooke S4, Ultra Primes or Super Speeds, is HARD. (Factor in the early Red built PL mount issues, which I have faith will be addressed correctly, and it is even harder).

So if you didn't have a very still subject, AND a total badass pulling focus for you....even if you shot 4K, you still wouldn't have 4K worth of image in there. A LOT of the footage posted to date has 1 to 1.5K to MAYBE 2K worth of detail in the images....some of that is inferior glass, a LOT of that is imperfect focus pulling...and some of that has been PL mount issues that are TEMPORARY. I trust Jim when he says the new PL will be a "religious experience." I know how much this stuff matters to him, he'll get it right.

SO....if you aren't Soderbergh or somesuch, 4K is something you probably couldn't afford anyway.

NOT TO SAY that you shouldn't shoot 4K, I DEFINITELY advocate that. I can see the difference between 2K and 4K, it IS worth having.

But SHOOT 4K, then FINISH at 2K or HD (and 1920x1080 is awfully convenient and affordable for most of us out there) and you'll still get outstanding results, moreso for the money.

EDIT - having 4K to work with for certain shots that you want to reframe (in Redcine) or pull keys from (in any decent compositing app), and then rendering out to 2K/HD is a great option as well. If I had to roto, key, repo, stabilize, etc., I'd want to work from 4K and deliver as 1080p or 2K.

FYI, I've posted some footage from our first night's shoot in Spain on hdforindies.com at

http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/10/my-spain-red-shoot-first-nights-shoot.html

...and, much as I wish it weren't so, it is soft. Even with Zeiss Super Speeds, it isn't as sharp as I'd like to be, not by a long shot. BUT...the shots do still show off the low light performance admirably in VERY challenging shooting environments. EDIT - and they are soft likely because of the known backfocus issue - not a permanent problem with the camera or its imaging ability.

We have some sharper stuff coming up as soon as I can get it all organized and tweaked to my satisfaction, so check in next day or so.

So anyway, quit geeking out about 4K finishing - 99% of us can't afford to finish at 4K for most of our projects, and I'd say 60-80% of footage posted to date wouldn't be discernable between 2K and 4K once filmed out at this stage...not to say that'll be the case long term, but it is for a lot of what is out there right now (and I'm including the footage I've posted as well, I'm not saying I'm anything special).

The Red One is an outstanding piece of gear IN DEVELOPMENT, that isn't quite done yet, as Red is forthcoming about. WHEN (not IF) it gets all the I's dotted and T's crossed, it'll be an outstanding implement...that requires a skilled operator to get the maximum results out of. Think of a fine Porsche. Anybody can mash the accelerator and wring the wheel, but who knows how to deftly heel/toe and lift throttle oversteer just so through that tricky off camber corner?

Precision tool for precise results. If you drive it like a Camry, you'll still get functional results...just not as good.

As for 4K post....biggest baddest Mac processor setup that is available when you buy (and don't buy till your camera is about to land), generous but not ridiculous RAM, whatever graphics card Graeme recommends (and the super high end current one is actually SLOWER for our purposes), and lots of high speed storage if you want to do DPX stuff for best results in Color or the like.

EDIT - the folks it'll make sense to do 4K post all the way through will the ones who:
a.) had a True Professional pulling focus for them - you can shoot all the 4K you want, but if out of focus, you don't have 4K WORTH of picture
b.) nice glass. REALLY nice glass. More soon on that topic.
c.) a LIKELY filmout, and a nice one at that. Price of 4K post will change over time, but for now, still pricey (unless working with Scratch, and see note below)
d.) BUDGET for 4K post
e.) NEED for that filmout - again, if you aren't going theatrical, you DO NOT NEED a 4K master AT THIS TIME. The cost of having that 4K master is significant in terms of insurance. Having a process that will let you go back and re-render to 4K with minimal fuss? SERIOUSLY worth considering (another nod to Scratch)

Aside - somebody told me they were doing a 4K finish on HDV shot material. Seemed like a total waste of time to me - there isn't 4K worth of info in there, there's no benefit I'm aware of to doing so. I said why bother, he said what if he could get a 4K finish for same price as HD, I could tell he was so in love with the idea I didn't want to say to him that there would be no discernable difference between that and a good uncompressed HD finish with good chroma artifact reduction....which his 4K finish may or may not have.

OK. End of rant, time to read The Book to The Girl....

-mike, Red realist

[I Bloom]

"Red realist",
You rock Mike.

Ian

[Noah Kadner]

Seriously with the amount you're going to spend for a properly outfitted camera, the cost of a tricked out Octomac is nothing....


Noah

[Mark Pugh]

PEOPLE.....4K is, at present, the very, very, very highest end of the bestest of the bestest professional, Hollywood work.

You're thinking way, way way too hard about this.

Based on my own experiences working with the Red One cameras so far, and from knowing what the likely scenarios are for distribution....CHILL OUT about posting at 4K.

The ONE AND ONLY time you'll NEED to post at 4K is IF you get theatrical distribution for your project and WANT, NEED, AND CAN AFFORD the best possible filmout.

For most stuff, an 1080p finish will be sufficient if not overkill.

Cross that with the fact that getting optimal focus, even with lenses like Cooke S4, Ultra Primes or Super Speeds, is HARD. (Factor in the early Red built PL mount issues, which I have faith will be addressed correctly, and it is even harder).

So if you didn't have a very still subject, AND a total badass pulling focus for you....even if you shot 4K, you still wouldn't have 4K worth of image in there. A LOT of the footage posted to date has 1 to 1.5K to MAYBE 2K worth of detail in the images....some of that is inferior glass, a LOT of that is imperfect focus pulling...and some of that has been PL mount issues that are TEMPORARY. I trust Jim when he says the new PL will be a "religious experience." I know how much this stuff matters to him, he'll get it right.

SO....if you aren't Soderbergh or somesuch, 4K is something you probably couldn't afford anyway.

NOT TO SAY that you shouldn't shoot 4K, I DEFINITELY advocate that. I can see the difference between 2K and 4K, it IS worth having.

But SHOOT 4K, then FINISH at 2K or HD (and 1920x1080 is awfully convenient and affordable for most of us out there) and you'll still get outstanding results, moreso for the money.

FYI, I've posted some footage from our first night's shoot in Spain on hdforindies.com at

http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/10/my-spain-red-shoot-first-nights-shoot.html

...and, much as I wish it weren't so, it is soft. Even with Zeiss Super Speeds, it isn't as sharp as I'd like to be, not by a long shot. BUT...the shots do still show off the low light performance admirably in VERY challenging shooting environments.

We have some sharper stuff coming up as soon as I can get it all organized and tweaked to my satisfaction, so check in next day or so.

So anyway, quit geeking out about 4K finishing - 99% of us can't afford to finish at 4K for most of our projects, and I'd say 60-80% of footage posted to date wouldn't be discernable between 2K and 4K once filmed out at this stage...not to say that'll be the case long term, but it is for a lot of what is out there right now (and I'm including the footage I've posted as well, I'm not saying I'm anything special).

The Red One is an outstanding piece of gear IN DEVELOPMENT, that isn't quite done yet, as Red is forthcoming about. WHEN (not IF) it gets all the I's dotted and T's crossed, it'll be an outstanding implement...that requires a skilled operator to get the maximum out of. Think of a fine Porsche. Anybody can mash the accelerator and wring the wheel, but who knows how to deftly heel/toe and lift throttle oversteer just so through that tricky off camber corner?

Precision tool for precise results. If you drive it like a Camry, you'll still get functional results...just not as good.

As for 4K post....biggest baddest Mac processor setup that is available when you buy (and don't buy till your camera is about to land), generous but not ridiculous RAM, whatever graphics card Graeme recommends (and the super high end current one is actually SLOWER for our purposes), and lots of high speed storage if you want to do DPX stuff for best results in Color or the like.

OK. End of rant, time to read The Book to The Girl....

-mike, Red realist
Mike, he didn't say anything about finishing. He was talking about editing.

[Bruce Allen]

As far as finishing / online edit is concerned, Mike hit the nail on the head.

For creative editing, you could use a frikkin' ancient iMac DV as long as you had someone with an Intel Mac transcode the footage for you...

I've worked on stuff which has finished in 4K but was edited at SD res on a G4 with OS9 running Media Composer.

Don't worry about specs. Talk to someone like Mike, get him to figure out a workflow to suit your project, then worry about doing a good edit.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Manfred Lopez]

Mike, he didn't say anything about finishing. He was talking about editing.


Yes he did. You have to understand the 'meta-mesage' here...

1. Capture at best posible format (4k) (and watch out for focus issues).

2. Edit in easy 1080P.

3. Deliver in 'easy 1080P' or, if you get lucky and someone wants actual film prints, in 'almost easy 2k'.

4. Save original 4k files for the future 're-release' version or 'completely remastered anniversary edition' .... possible in a near future when even iPods will be able to handle 4k.

[Clint Johnson]

I agree with Mike completely and will in all likelihood be shooting in 4k and editing and finishing in 2k with Adobe/CineForm for my own work. It's just that James sounded like he was wanting to edit in 4k and I figured I'd point out that might not be so good an idea with a G5... or even the latest OctoMac.

If he wanted to use the hardware he has, someone with a RedCine compatible platform would be able to output standard definition footage that his system can handle and he could then use the edit list to get the resulting cuts out of RedCine at anything up to the original 4k.

Not saying that I can see a reason for him to do this... just that he should be able to shortly.

[John Hunt]

who knows how to deftly heel/toe and lift throttle oversteer just so through that tricky off camber corner?

-mike, Red realist

Dead on perspective, Mike. I don't know many who can lift-throttle oversteer a Porsche in an off-camber corner without flying off the track - but the analogy is a good one...and luckily if you really screw up with a Red at most you only trash your career :)

[Mark Pedersen]

Great post Mike.

Curious about your critical focus experience... Have you compared the Red glass to Cookes and Ultraprimes? Do they hold up?

Or are you simply experiencing more critical focus pulling due to the resolution difference between 4K and HD?

[I Bloom]

Great post Mike.

Curious about your critical focus experience... Have you compared the Red glass to Cookes and Ultraprimes? Do they hold up?

Or are you simply experiencing more critical focus pulling due to the resolution difference between 4K and HD?

I had a similar experience. Even my sharp stuff is a little soft at 4K. I think we are pushing the limits of our lenses optically. Lense aberations on the open side (F 1.3) diffraction on the tight side (F11 or higher). It may be that the reality of 4K is it needs to be shot at around 4/5.6 to get it ultra sharp. Nothing to do with RED, everything to do with physics and glass.

IBloom

[Bruce Allen]

I had a similar experience. Even my sharp stuff is a little soft at 4K. I think we are pushing the limits of our lenses optically. Lense aberations on the open side (F 1.3) diffraction on the tight side (F11 or higher). It may be that the reality of 4K is it needs to be shot at around 4/5.6 to get it ultra sharp. Nothing to do with RED, everything to do with physics and glass.

IBloom

Maybe! Although a good Canon or Nikon DSLR shot seems to be more detailed at the moment? So it can't be just a lens issue. Maybe DSLRs can get away with a less-strong optical low pass filter than the Red because they are for stills? Certainly when rendering 3D animation that's the case - something that looks great as a still might have moire / chatter issues in motion, so you often use different (and softer-looking) anti-aliasing schemes for motion. Also, maybe you can't use the same color moire-removing schemes that you do for still camera shots because the moire-removal needs to be consistent from one frame to the other? So again, your OLPF needs to be stronger than the average still camera's? Also, I'd imagine with the Red One, they would err on the side of caution.

In either event I was disappointed by the pixel-per-pixel "softness" of the first digital still camera shots I took, when compared to scanned film... I think it's the combination of OLPF, Bayer sensor, etc. Also many early Red users don't seem to have their PL mounts properly shimmed / collimated / whatever? Hence the nice mount upgrade Red is talking about to make that whole process smoother?

Agreed that the Red is producing super stunning stuff when downsampled to 2K / HD though!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[I Bloom]

Maybe! Although a good Canon or Nikon DSLR shot seems to be more detailed at the moment?
At T1.3?

[Bruce Allen]

At T1.3?

At T1.3 / f1.2 it is marginal, but I'd say once you get into the f1.4 - f8 range with a decent lens, most good DSLRs are sharper than most of the Red images we are seeing so far - eg the Red is generally not lens limited, but limited by something else in the imaging chain - either sensor, OLPF, DeBayer algorithm, or the mount not being quite right. Maybe RedCode compression softens it a bit too? It's doing a great job but can't be totally lossless within the data rate confines.

I'd love to take a snap at f1.2 on a nice DSLR but that option isn't available to me right now, so here's some of the web examples I saw that led me to this conclusion. I am not saying I'm right, just want to show you some examples of why I think this way:

Ken Rockwell has some 100% zooms at f1.2 in his guide to the Nikon 50mm 1.2:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12-sharpness.htm#comaguide

Evin's f1.4 test of his Nikon 28mm shows greater per-pixel sharpness too:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2354

And here's a page I Googled that contains some examples of center and corner sharpness at different f-stops incl f1.2, with 100% zoom on a 5D, as well as a few full-res images (not sure if those are f1.2 but they look definitely 2.8 or faster):
http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm

EDIT: here's Ken Rockwell's Canon 50mm f1.2 page. Wow, sharp!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f12.htm

EDIT: and his 85mm f1.2 page:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm-f12-continued.htm

I'm not saying sharpness beyond what the Red does currently is necessary at all. I'm just trying to back up Mike's point that 4K post is not a particularly good thing to obsess about with the Red One.

Cheers

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Jason Wingrove]

Interested as to why the need for cutting in 4k?
and what are you going to monitor on?
ive been picking sharps off Std def for years and its even easier on 1080i
are you going to finish in 4k? when 99% of features output 2k
is not the difference in cost scanning out to 4k huge?

is anyone there anymore:-)
j

[Darwin]

PEOPLE.....4K is, at present, the very, very, very highest end of the bestest of the bestest professional, Hollywood work.

You're thinking way, way way too hard about this.

Based on my own experiences working with the Red One cameras so far, and from knowing what the likely scenarios are for distribution....CHILL OUT about posting at 4K.

The ONE AND ONLY time you'll NEED to post at 4K is IF you get theatrical distribution for your project and WANT, NEED, AND CAN AFFORD the best possible filmout.

For most stuff, an 1080p finish will be sufficient if not overkill.

Cross that with the fact that getting optimal focus, even with lenses like Cooke S4, Ultra Primes or Super Speeds, is HARD. (Factor in the early Red built PL mount issues, which I have faith will be addressed correctly, and it is even harder).

So if you didn't have a very still subject, AND a total badass pulling focus for you....even if you shot 4K, you still wouldn't have 4K worth of image in there. A LOT of the footage posted to date has 1 to 1.5K to MAYBE 2K worth of detail in the images....some of that is inferior glass, a LOT of that is imperfect focus pulling...and some of that has been PL mount issues that are TEMPORARY. I trust Jim when he says the new PL will be a "religious experience." I know how much this stuff matters to him, he'll get it right.

SO....if you aren't Soderbergh or somesuch, 4K is something you probably couldn't afford anyway.

NOT TO SAY that you shouldn't shoot 4K, I DEFINITELY advocate that. I can see the difference between 2K and 4K, it IS worth having.

But SHOOT 4K, then FINISH at 2K or HD (and 1920x1080 is awfully convenient and affordable for most of us out there) and you'll still get outstanding results, moreso for the money.

FYI, I've posted some footage from our first night's shoot in Spain on hdforindies.com at

http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/10/my-spain-red-shoot-first-nights-shoot.html

...and, much as I wish it weren't so, it is soft. Even with Zeiss Super Speeds, it isn't as sharp as I'd like to be, not by a long shot. BUT...the shots do still show off the low light performance admirably in VERY challenging shooting environments.

We have some sharper stuff coming up as soon as I can get it all organized and tweaked to my satisfaction, so check in next day or so.

So anyway, quit geeking out about 4K finishing - 99% of us can't afford to finish at 4K for most of our projects, and I'd say 60-80% of footage posted to date wouldn't be discernable between 2K and 4K once filmed out at this stage...not to say that'll be the case long term, but it is for a lot of what is out there right now (and I'm including the footage I've posted as well, I'm not saying I'm anything special).

The Red One is an outstanding piece of gear IN DEVELOPMENT, that isn't quite done yet, as Red is forthcoming about. WHEN (not IF) it gets all the I's dotted and T's crossed, it'll be an outstanding implement...that requires a skilled operator to get the maximum out of. Think of a fine Porsche. Anybody can mash the accelerator and wring the wheel, but who knows how to deftly heel/toe and lift throttle oversteer just so through that tricky off camber corner?

Precision tool for precise results. If you drive it like a Camry, you'll still get functional results...just not as good.

As for 4K post....biggest baddest Mac processor setup that is available when you buy (and don't buy till your camera is about to land), generous but not ridiculous RAM, whatever graphics card Graeme recommends (and the super high end current one is actually SLOWER for our purposes), and lots of high speed storage if you want to do DPX stuff for best results in Color or the like.

OK. End of rant, time to read The Book to The Girl....

-mike, Red realist Mike,
Did you forget your Ritalin?

Yes he did. You have to understand the 'meta-mesage' here...

1. Capture at best posible format (4k) (and watch out for focus issues).

2. Edit in easy 1080P.

3. Deliver in 'easy 1080P' or, if you get lucky and someone wants actual film prints, in 'almost easy 2k'.

4. Save original 4k files for the future 're-release' version or 'completely remastered anniversary edition' .... possible in a near future when even iPods will be able to handle 4k.
Well said.. I think this is the right track to take. 100% agree with you!

[I Bloom]

At T1.3 / f1.2 it is marginal, but I'd say once you get into the f1.4 - f8 range with a decent lens, most good DSLRs are sharper than most of the Red images we are seeing so far - eg the Red is generally not lens limited, but limited by something else in the imaging chain - either sensor, OLPF, DeBayer algorithm, or the mount not being quite right. Maybe RedCode compression softens it a bit too? It's doing a great job but can't be totally lossless within the data rate confines.

I'd love to take a snap at f1.2 on a nice DSLR but that option isn't available to me right now, so here's some of the web examples I saw that led me to this conclusion. I am not saying I'm right, just want to show you some examples of why I think this way:

Ken Rockwell has some 100% zooms at f1.2 in his guide to the Nikon 50mm 1.2:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12-sharpness.htm#comaguide

Evin's f1.4 test of his Nikon 28mm shows greater per-pixel sharpness too:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2354

And here's a page I Googled that contains some examples of center and corner sharpness at different f-stops incl f1.2, with 100% zoom on a 5D, as well as a few full-res images (not sure if those are f1.2 but they look definitely 2.8 or faster):
http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm

EDIT: here's Ken Rockwell's Canon 50mm f1.2 page. Wow, sharp!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f12.htm

EDIT: and his 85mm f1.2 page:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm-f12-continued.htm

I'm not saying sharpness beyond what the Red does currently is necessary at all. I'm just trying to back up Mike's point that 4K post is not a particularly good thing to obsess about with the Red One.

Cheers

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

I don't deny that there are some lenses that perform wonderfully wide open. It's just that in a PL mount they are hard to get your hands on. But according to your theory all RED footage would needs be equally softened, I'm not convinced that that is the case?

Ian

[Bruce Allen]

I don't deny that there are some lenses that perform wonderfully wide open. It's just that in a PL mount they are hard to get your hands on. But according to your theory all RED footage would needs be equally softened, I'm not convinced that that is the case?

Ian

I might be totally wrong. I'm basing this whole theory just on current footage that I've seen from Red... such as the comparisons in this thread (both the 2-way comparison at the top of the thread and the 4-way comparison posted lower down):
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5509

Just for now... if I were shooting with a Red tomorrow and had to choose between Cookes / Zeiss Standards / Zeiss Super Speeds / Ultra primes I would base that decision primarily on factors such as rental price, handling, bokeh, contrast, weight and max T-stop. The resolution you get out of them seems to be very similar so far...

Things that might change this:
1. Maybe the focus can be improved still?
2. Maybe something in the software DeBayer algorithm will change to make the resolution difference more apparent in the future (I can see this happening - just as improved algorithms got successively more and more detail out of DSLR RAW files, and found out how to do so while also reducing color moire issues)
3. Maybe the new lower-noise board Red is talking about will adding make a difference in the future (by having less noise, RedAlert / RedCine can do less agressive NR?).
4. Maybe Red will use a lower-strength OLPF at some point in the manufacturing process?
5. Change to RedCode algorithm (or record RAW)
6. ??? I don't know

That's just my 2c. I'd love to see someone post something that is tack-sharp 4K on a shipping camera and prove me wrong.

That said, I don't think we need footage that's sharper than what people are currently getting in order to compete with film and in order to make fantastic-looking movies with Red.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[I Bloom]

I might be totally wrong. I'm basing this whole theory just on current footage that I've seen from Red... such as the comparisons in this thread (both the 2-way comparison at the top of the thread and the 4-way comparison posted lower down):
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5509

Just for now... if I were shooting with a Red tomorrow and had to choose between Cookes / Zeiss Standards / Zeiss Super Speeds / Ultra primes I would base that decision primarily on factors such as rental price, handling, bokeh, contrast, weight and max T-stop. The resolution you get out of them seems to be very similar so far...

Things that might change this:
1. Maybe the focus can be improved still?
2. Maybe something in the software DeBayer algorithm will change to make the resolution difference more apparent in the future (I can see this happening - just as improved algorithms got successively more and more detail out of DSLR RAW files, and found out how to do so while also reducing color moire issues)
3. Maybe the new lower-noise board Red is talking about will adding make a difference in the future (by having less noise, RedAlert / RedCine can do less agressive NR?).
4. Maybe Red will use a lower-strength OLPF at some point in the manufacturing process?
5. Change to RedCode algorithm (or record RAW)
6. ??? I don't know

That's just my 2c. I'd love to see someone post something that is tack-sharp 4K on a shipping camera and prove me wrong.

That said, I don't think we need footage that's sharper than what people are currently getting in order to compete with film and in order to make fantastic-looking movies with Red.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

All right, I'm coming around to thinking you are right. Of course this brings up the holy grail of stuff we haven't seen... Uncompressed Red footage :ohmy:

I think you are right, especially that it doesn't need to be any sharper.

Ian

[Steve Sherrick]

I've asked about the uncompressed images before and if I remember correctly Graeme felt that the differences, although real would not be as obvious as it would seem. They feel very strongly about Redcode. I had asked before because I have some potential clients that would want to do some high end green screen work and I wondered if having the Raw Port would gain me a lot in this regard. But apparently there have been some nice keys pulled using Redcode.

Maybe Graeme can chime in on this again.

Steve

[I Bloom]

I've asked about the uncompressed images before and if I remember correctly Graeme felt that the differences, although real would not be as obvious as it would seem. They feel very strongly about Redcode. I had asked before because I have some potential clients that would want to do some high end green screen work and I wondered if having the Raw Port would gain me a lot in this regard. But apparently there have been some nice keys pulled using Redcode.

Maybe Graeme can chime in on this again.

Steve

I'm by no means a lense guy. Though I've been trying recently to move in that direction. I guess it would just be nice to know, exactly how sharp we should be shooting for.

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

PEOPLE.....4K is, at present, the very, very, very highest end of the bestest of the bestest professional, Hollywood work.

Precision tool for precise results.


THANKS . you gave me a strategic plan for who using Red.
But if we have our output in HD aspects .is it still we have the highest quality
cause we shoot 4k.cause what i am thinking of why we are running for 4k
and most of our jobs are done for TV commercial or series ..music clip..etc..
and all of them will be played through most of Tv channles that most of them
At maximum will support HD Broadcast ..

[Michael Moreno]

mike curtis thanks for all the useful information

much appreciated and i would love to learn more.

but in plain english i was asking one question and here it is more in detail

with an endless budget, what computer and software will get the 4k job done

why would i shoot 4k and not show the world a 4k final.

and why do you make it sound so hard to pull focus.

thanks.

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

I had a similar experience. Even my sharp stuff is a little soft at 4K. I think we are pushing the limits of our lenses optically. Lense aberations on the open side (F 1.3) diffraction on the tight side (F11 or higher)..

IBloom

I think Lens manufactures should rethink and Build new lenses Like Red to
follow up with Red 4k revolution.

[Bruce Allen]

with an endless budget, what computer and software will get the 4k job done


Paintthetownred - Mike has given you a great answer.

First, you don't want to use a 4K online system to do your creative edit. They are not designed for that. A $1300 Xpress Pro system probably beats a $100,000 Avid DS for creative editing.

Once you have your edit, then you finish on a great system. If I had unlimited budget I'd go with a fire / lustre / inferno setup with a gigantic Burn render array and a stack of drives powered by a massively strong network.

But that would depend on the artists I hire to help me finish it - if the preferred an Avid, Quantel or Scratch solution I'd go that way too. Presumably they're the best in the world, since we're talking about endless budget, so I'd want to keep them happy.

Heck, if I had unlimited budget I'd get a custom solution - hire the best programmers in the world, give them a few 16-core workstations with Quadro Plex'es hooked up, and get them to write me something designed from the ground up for it. I guarantee you it'd smoke anything on the market.



why would i shoot 4k and not show the world a 4k final.

Because you're going to do creative stuff to your footage and in the process lose data. So to make a pristine 2K 8 or 10-bit image, it helps to have a 4K 12 but source.

This is time-honored logic - eg:
1. people used to shoot effects plates at 65mm when the final was being printed to 35mm film
2. people shoot a HDR image but creatively make a standard dynamic range display image from it.
3. people shoot with a DSLR that probably has more megapixels than it needs for your final print.
4. people use a 35mm film package to shoot a standard-def TV commercial

All for the same reason.

Of course in the interests of full disclosure I should mention my regular camera is an HV20 with 35mm adapter so I am not totally following my own advice ;)

EDIT: Well, realistically my target display format is standard def TV (consumer high-def at a pinch) and Web portfolio and proof-of concept work... you know, standard wannabe-director stuff.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[MikeCurtis]

Mike, he didn't say anything about finishing. He was talking about editing.

OK, then that is even worse - NOBODY is editing in 4K, anywhere. You edit your offline and then do a conform to higher end media.

Red's plan to let you work with fractional resolution proxies that cull from the 4K is viable once they optimize their codec for best CPU/GPU utilization.

-mike

[MikeCurtis]

Great post Mike.

Curious about your critical focus experience... Have you compared the Red glass to Cookes and Ultraprimes? Do they hold up?

Or are you simply experiencing more critical focus pulling due to the resolution difference between 4K and HD?

We had (regretably) backfocus issues with a lot of our Spain footage - we manually recalibrated and remarked some stuff (walked by and saw Gabi Garcia doing this at Utopic whilst we prepped for another day's shoot) when we shot steadicam.

We shot some lens chart tests with Red 18-50, Cooke S4, Master Prime and Ultra Primes, all 50mm at T5.6. I need to double check with some folks to see if I can post/discuss, but if I can, will be up and discussed on hdforindies.com.

We were shooting Super Speeds and Master/Ultra Primes for our Spain stuff, but backfocus issues threw us off. Our remarked lenses were used for the steadicam stuff and it seems improved since we could accurately pull focus on that stuff.

So that shades my experience. But also just from watching a lot of our more dynamic footage - shooting from the back of a camera car at night, the Mercedes lunging and swerving around - a challenge in general, moreso with the fine focus 35mm requires.

But yeah - I think it is a challenge to focus well for 35mm DOF. As a post guy, I haven't been around enough sets on production to say. As a post guy, however, I feel back on comfortable ground to say I rarely see perfectly focused stuff. When I used to do Photoshop retouching for a living in the early nineties, I worked with a lot of 2 1/4 and 4x5 (we're talkin' inches of film here) shots and the occasional 8x10 (that is the film neg size, not a print to scan). I worked with a new client that wanted to shoot a magazine cover in still 35mm (which, do recall, runs more sprockets than 4 perf 35 - we're talking about shooting film "wide" vs "tall" orientation). He said it'd be tack sharp and fine (since that was his only camera), I didn't have the heart to get into how grainy and not smooth it would be as compared to a 4x5. So there's "pretty good" focus and then there is "down to the pixel" focus. I'm wanting down to the pixel focus, as comparable to the best, sharpest still photography. Obviously subjects (and often camera) are in motion which adds blur, but the innate source sharpness (and not edge sharpening/Unsharp Masking) and detail of a 4K image could in theory be down to the pixel - you just need a sensor and glass AND FOCUS to resolve it. Looking at our camera test chart shots, I wish we had:

a.) rolled focus back and forth a little rather than a few seconds of static focus, to be sure we found it, and/or
b.) leaned on the camera ever so slightly to move it ever so slightly, so if the lines are falling "on the grid" to make it appear sharper than reality we'd know it (Adam Wilt taught me this).

I'd really like to have a properly shimmed (or properly fixed PL, which is on the way) Red to play with for a few days. Actually, I'd rather be hanging around with an excellent 1st AC who can nail focus and then look at the results right there and redo as needed. On my own amateurish tests I did at Offhollywood in the back by myself, I'd roll focus a little bit to be sure I got it. At our test day at a facility, it was at the end of a long day after 10 days of 4 hours of sleep per night and wasn't on my best game to be making suggestions.

So I guess I don't feel qualified to REALLY say how hard it is to pull focus on a Red, but I'll simply say I'm seeing a lot of footage that isn't as sharp as the best focused stuff I've seen (and Mark, you know which one shot in particular is my Gold Standard, since I got to operate that day. : ) )

I've seen some AWESOMELY sharp shots out of the Red One with good glass (Cooke S4, Ultra Primes, etc.), but in the footage I've been involved with, it rarely nails it that well.

All this to say you can shoot a lot of stuff at 4K (or on film, one bitterly dissapointed client later that I helped to post work on his 35mm project) and not get as much resolution as the medium allows.

Time to focus and a critical eye certainly helps. I'd like to see even better focusing tools - if on set, and if I didn't 100% trust the shimming of the Red I was working on or the lens marks I was dealing with because of this, I'd want a large-ish monitor to evaluate focus. Someone whose knowledge I respect (Mark you know/were there) said you can only see when you're out of focus, not when you're in it by looking at a monitor and therefore working from marks with an experienced puller was the only way to go. Respectfully, I wanted to do a "Are you sure?" since I've been dealing with pixels for quite a while - I felt I could roll focus and quickly identify the optimal focus, even on the Red LCD. But for on set work with relatively static subjects, a tape, an experienced puller, or a BIG 1080p would be nice...

Red zoom is decent for the money, not an awesome lens for a variety of reasons - breathing only one of the reasons. The 300 is a decent lens and better deal for the money. I'm really looking forward to the 2nd Red zoom to see how it does.

-mike

[MikeCurtis]

Oh and Mike Curtis "get's it" but he thinks he's da man for it. None the less he is a great resource.

I would like to be "a" man for it, preferably on well budgeted projects...but I claim no singular title to "it."

: )

But that is for clients/the marketplace to decide.

There are certainly plenty of others out there who get it as well if not far better.

-mike

[MikeCurtis]

mike curtis thanks for all the useful information

with an endless budget, what computer and software will get the 4k job done

why would i shoot 4k and not show the world a 4k final.

and why do you make it sound so hard to pull focus.

thanks.

1.) If you have endless budget, congrats, I envy you. Sincerely! : )

2.) Even with super duper stupendously high end system, cutting in 4K doesn't make much sense. Cut offline (even 1080p offline) for speed and convenience and fluidity of creative process.

3.) Then do your online at best resolution/bit depth you can afford that gives sufficient speed and creative control.

4.) If you have the budget to make filmout from 4K or DCI projection at 4K, GREAT. But that's 0.05% or somesuch of projects created.

So for most folks that DO have a budget, and HOPE but can't count on high end theatrical distribution...a 1080p deliverable is maximum bang/buck in terms of likely deliverables. You can even make a passable (but by no means optimal) filmout from that. And when I say HD 1080p deliverable, to my mind that involves 10 bit 4:4:4 log DPX/uncompressed QT files. I'm talking HD res, not HDCAM compression.

Again all about scaling your efforts and resources towards best results of most likely scenarios, whilst leaving the door open to go up with minimal pain should the opportunity arise where you'd need it.

A balanced, scalable, flexible plan.

(that's what I try to help my clients do, and it varies job by job)

-mike

[I Bloom]

I think Lens manufactures should rethink and Build new lenses Like Red to
follow up with Red 4k revolution.

Well, not everybody is convinced its the lenses. Some say the lenses resolve 4K fine, but I'm seaching for a DPX or TIFF file that prooves it. We are kind of in a mysterious zone right now searching for some answers.

IBloom

[Warren Kommers]

I would like to be "a" man for it, preferably on well budgeted projects...but I claim no singular title to "it."

: )

But that is for clients/the marketplace to decide.

There are certainly plenty of others out there who get it as well if not far better.

-mike


Good answer all around.

[I Bloom]

Let me settle this debate. Mike Curtis is THE man, Schmollywood.

He talks, people listen. Many of us owe him alot for his efforts. Put me on the top of that list.

[Cory Mitchell]

What I find interesting is that I, for theoretical reasons, have wondered the exact same thing. The funny thing is that every time someone asks, instead getting answers they get judged.
I'm pretty sure we are all aware of the small odds of getting a movie printed out for theatrical distribution (since we're frequently being reminded).
Not only that, I'm sure it would be easier to play it conservative, and edit at lower resolutions.
But this camera isn't conservative, and I don't think there should be anything wrong with wondering about what a person would need to edit at it's native 4k resolution. Not that it's needed 99% of the time, but we can still wonder can't we?

I'm not a Mac guy, but I'd imagine only the later and greater systems would be able to tackle 4k reasonably. For me, the newest HP xw8600 with the ability to have 128 GB of ram, 8 cores, and one of those new FusionIO storage cards, might make editing and finishing 4k more realistic in the near future.
Now, about those unlimited funds and eager film distributors...:)

visionmind

[Mark Crabtree]

One of the great things about 2/3 inch HD shooting was the simplicity/sure fire way of setting back focus. HD lenses video lenses for 3 CCD's have a back focus adjustment. What about doing a test with a good HD zoom attached to the B4 adapter at 4K. Capturing 4K with this 2K lens set up so it will be all black around the sides, top and bottom with the image showing as a circle in the center. At one stop intervals from 1.6 to say f8, the question will be, with properly set back focus and with the issue of the extra softness coming from the B4 adapter, will it appear soft, as soft as what Mike described from shooting with great glass and still appearing soft. It would be an interesting experiment. Perhaps it can be done at LART. Test the B4 with good back focus adjustment and record 4K. If it appears sharper than the cine lenses we would have a good argument about back focus.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

If you want to show your 4k to the world, it means you have enough money to go in a 4k finishing suite for as long as it takes, that simple really…, so relax.

Emmanuel

[John Tissavary]

What I find interesting is that I, for theoretical reasons, have wondered the exact same thing. The funny thing is that every time someone asks, instead getting answers they get judged.
I'm pretty sure we are all aware of the small odds of getting a movie printed out for theatrical distribution (since we're frequently being reminded).
Not only that, I'm sure it would be easier to play it conservative, and edit at lower resolutions.
visionmind

This statement assumes that the format you edit in is the same as the delivery format.

It's not necessary to edit in 4k because it has relatively little to do with delivering 4k data to a filmout or digital distribution.

There are many steps involved in finishing your work AFTER the edit is done, and that's where the 4k tools come into play.

You can edit your redcode originals in ANY resolution today, and in a very short time conform to 4k either via proxy swap or using a tool like Scratch, or take your edl to a 4k capable facility for finishing by pros with the experience to do this extremely non-trivial work.

4k is possible. 4k is here now. But nobody said 4k was easy or cheap, and there is very little call for 4k finished material right now. As small as the odds are of getting a film distributed, it's microscopic to get one distributed with 4k projection. Chances are much larger, for the time being, that you'll be delivering 2k for a filmout or digital projection.

jt

[luis bustamante]

Hi, I thought that the softness of the Red images was due to the slow shutter speed used compared to still photography.

thanks,

[luis bustamante]

oh! and yes, mike is indeed THE man!

[Joel Kaye]

Hi, I thought that the softness of the Red images was due to the slow shutter speed used compared to still photography.

thanks,

If things are in motion (camera/actors) then there will be some blur due to the slow shutter. Especially on longer focal lengths. Many things can contribute to softness. You pretty much have to get them all right if you want the sharpest shot possible.

[MikeCurtis]

Mike,
Did you forget your Ritalin?

Never take it, and that is perhaps why my answers run so long.

: )

But "editing in 4K" is ludicrous - nobody has any valid reason to do so AT THIS TIME with the current state of available technology.

DEFINITELY worth revisiting as Red gets closer (or publishes any further details) on the 4K displays and projectors they announced at NAB 2007.

But was a sore spot, as I've seen this line of logic before.

Even FINISHING at 4K is only a viable option for a very small number of projects, and EDITING actually at full 4K res is not an option, period, for anybody right now.

Not meaning to jump down the original poster's throat, just that I felt it was time to say it all again.

-mike

[MikeCurtis]

One last bit - for those interested in editing at 4K...how/where would you monitor it? There's Quad HD res monitors out there for high end industrial applications, but those are all about resolution, NOT color reproduction - which is at LEAST half the battle.

Sony makes the only shipping 4K projector AFAIK, and the interface is a crapload (I think 8?) of HD-SDI cables - 4 quadrants of 2048x1080, each fed by dual link HD-SDI. Those 8 HD-SDIs are a special setup - no EDITING (color grading different category) setup in the world has that interface. Not AJA, not Avid, etc. So...you CAN'T do creative editorial at 4K right now anyway.

[Greg M]

We have cut 4k on our Smoke 2K system...it wont play in realtime, but you can actually edit...obviously not very practical but doable. The question though is what are you going to do with it short of sending for a film out?

We exported 4K DPX log files from Red Alert and brought those into Smoke, color corrected and output 1080p masters

[Rogelio Salinas]

So one of the better solutions may be, correct me if I'm wrong:

Shoot 4K or 2K (higher frame rates)
Downrez to 1080P in Redcine
Edit in 1080P or 1K
Output a 2K DI or 1080P for HD viewing

In the professional opinion of some of the redusers here, would a 2.4 Ghz Macbook Pro be sufficient enough for this workflow, or would it be necessary to move up to a Mac Pro with at least a quad or octo core?

[Elizabeth]

Good Thread.

Regarding Mike Curtis' post #9 ...

Well said and much appreciated, thank you Mike!
This is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for - simple, yet answering many, many question both complex and mundane.

However, I do have to say that much of the "geeking out" exibited in this tread and in the general case of the 4K question is DIRECTLY resulting from the level of forthcoming and disclosure displayed on RED's very own workflow page:

* Shoot 4K REDCODE RAW @27MB/sec.
* Load footage into REDCINE Do 1st light correction.
* Export to any number of output options.
* REDCINE is supported on Intel Mac and Windows XP only.

SO ... now it is perfectly clear that 4k is not quite as easy as RED makes it sound. Good to know. (LOL:bleh:)

[Dylan Macleod, CSC]

"In the professional opinion of some of the redusers here, would a 2.4 Ghz Macbook Pro be sufficient enough for this workflow, or would it be necessary to move up to a Mac Pro with at least a quad or octo core?"

This is my question too...I am pondering the purchase of a new laptop. I'd like to know that I can load my RED footage on to it and do a "first light" correction. Also be able to view some clips in real time.

I am not expecting to be able to edit 4k.

What are people using in the field right now?

Is anyone using a 2.6Ghz Intel? Is it burning a hole in your lap?

Dylan Macleod, CSC
Cinematographer
Toronto, Canada
www.dylanmacleod.com

[laguun]

4k isn´t typical in editing, but the same was said for 4k cameras not to long ago.

However editing and finishing at 4k (or above) is much more usual than many people think, especially outside of the cinema industry for special venues and installations.

our largest edit this year was at 5760*1080, a triple hd-width 22 minute dance performance for sasha waltz. recording was done with 3 hdcams, cinerama style, editing was done in premiere scaled to 4k. Worked fine, however not many edits, maybe ~150.
http://www.sashawaltz.com/

the largest edit we did in 2003 was a 8192*4096 for a mercedes benz special venue. editing was terrible back then. REALLY terrible and involved several discreet products.

for realtime 4k editing and finishing, the most powerful system in use i am aware of is the dvs clipster (~60.000).
http://dvs.de
Its multistream uncompressed 4k with realtime FX. It can also do 4K at 60p. Monitoring and i/o is 8 * HD-SDI or HD quad-monitors.

But for editing longform it requires LOTS of storage and the editing interface is not extremly powerful, rather a finshing than an editing system.
For shortforms you can edit fine on clipster, for longform i would recommend to go with a offline.

However it is extremly impressive to see that amount of power at work, imagine several speedgrades, lustre, scratches and filmmasters together.

its interface however *cough* is obviously designed from geman engineers for german engineers :)

I want to underline a point, speaking out of bad experience.
Never, never DI your 4k at 2K resolution. We were up for a surprise this april when we projected a movie of ours in 4K with a sony srx, which we only monitored in 2K. All the carefully removed / reduced noise/grain was too visible, it wasn´t in 2K and not in the 35mm film out copy.

For lower budgets: With the cineform product, editing 4K in Premiere pro seems pretty feasible. We didn´t find the time to give it a detailed testride yet, but will do so soon.