2K Scaled Is Vital

[Hans von Sonntag]

This is a R&D request that I humbly bring up because I came over it in a real world situation

As Matt Uhry mentioned somewhere there is some serious need for 2K scaled. Yes there is and we badly need it.

The reason:

2 days ago I shot a commercial on 35mm with 50fps all day. Delivery format will be Pal 576i. HD for broadcast is not there yet, an won't be in the next 5 or even 10 years at least here in Pal-World-Europe. Things are interlaced and sometimes need interlaced footage.

1. Often pans (range pack shots for instance) have to be smooth and for that reason they need in PAL world interlaced footage. 35mm is frames only and so is RED. If you want interlaced/fields you have to shoot 50 fps.

2. Some action has to be shot in 50 fps for slow-motion shots, you need that every day on a commercial shoot.

3. Depth of field of 35mm is compulsory.

Now, shooting 4k is great for quality and depth of field but cannot over-crank up to 50 fps. 2K windowed can do 50fps but does only use a portion of the sensor, hence the DOF of S16 which is not an option for serious commercial work.

As an extra benefit there will be more runtime and transcoding will be faster.

We need badly scaled 2K!

Please make this happen, for me personally much more important than on-board sound for instance... nothing against on-board sound though.


Hans

[Tom Lowe]

2K scaled with higher FPS is what many would love to see.

[Hans von Sonntag]

2K scaled with higher FPS is what many would love to see.

As Tom said,

Hans

[Nick Shaw]

I believe you can shoot 2k in camera with 35mm lenses that will fill the 35mm sensor but it will save it as 2k

Not at the moment you can't. That is what this thread is requesting. Currently 2k in camera is derived from a 'window' in the centre of the sensor, the size that would be covered by a S-16 lens, even if you are using a 35mm lens.

[Ethan Cooper]

How many times does Red have to say that 2K Scaled higher than 30fps IS NOT POSSIBLE due to the processing power needed to pull it off. It's not going to happen on Red One according to them. Red Two maybe?
________
BUY SILVERSURFER VAPORIZER (http://vaporizers.net/silver-surfer-vaporizer)

[jbeale]

Well, but 4k does not work at 50 fps which is what he wants to generate the interlaced PAL video (50 interlaced fields per sec).

Interesting to think of shooting 4096x2304 pixel frames and scaling down to the PAL field which is 720x288 pixels! That would be an oversampling ratio of 45:1. A bit less if you're cropping the 4k for 4:3, even a bit more if you're broadcasting 16:9 letterboxed.

[Álex Montoya]

the DOF of S16 which is not an option for serious commercial work

Well, it is for movies like Zodiac.

[Obin Olson]

As a commercial Director and shooter I could not agree with what Hans is saying more. I have said it before, I would take scaled 720p if that is all we could get to have more framerates with the full sensor size.

thanks Red team I know you guys are listening.

If you need to bin sensor photosites do it, whatever it takes to get a clean 720p or higher image with full sensor size.


This is a R&D request that I humbly bring up because I came over it in a real world situation

As Matt Uhry mentioned somewhere there is some serious need for 2K scaled. Yes there is and we badly need it.

The reason:

2 days ago I shot a commercial on 35mm with 50fps all day. Delivery format will be Pal 576i. HD for broadcast is not there yet, an won't be in the next 5 or even 10 years at least here in Pal-World-Europe. Things are interlaced and sometimes need interlaced footage.

1. Often pans (range pack shots for instance) have to be smooth and for that reason they need in PAL world interlaced footage. 35mm is frames only and so is RED. If you want interlaced/fields you have to shoot 50 fps.

2. Some action has to be shot in 50 fps for slow-motion shots, you need that every day on a commercial shoot.

3. Depth of field of 35mm is compulsory.

Now, shooting 4k is great for quality and depth of field but cannot over-crank up to 50 fps. 2K windowed can do 50fps but does only use a portion of the sensor, hence the DOF of S16 which is not an option for serious commercial work.

As an extra benefit there will be more runtime and transcoding will be faster.

We need badly scaled 2K!

Please make this happen, for me personally much more important than on-board sound for instance... nothing against on-board sound though.


Hans

[jbeale]

How many times does Red have to say that 2K Scaled higher than 30fps IS NOT POSSIBLE due to the processing power needed to pull it off. It's not going to happen on Red One according to them. Red Two maybe?
If you had the RAW port, you could supposedly shoot 4.5k up to 60 fps, and do the processing elsewhere. I just can't imagine anyone finding it worthwhile to do so.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Well, it is for movies like Zodiac.

Yes, for Zodiak and many other film shot in S16 or 2/3 Video. But not for most commercial work. Horses for courses.

Hans

[Nick Shaw]

You could shoot 25fps and then interlace that into 50i.....

You can't reproduce the motion characteristic of 50i by shooting at 25fps, at least not without doing optical flow interpolation in post, which is less than ideal.

[Hans von Sonntag]

You could shoot 25fps and then interlace that into 50i.....

You can. Actually that happens when you dump your 35mm stuff from telecine onto Digital Betacam. But every 2 fields will be the same. Nothing accomplished unfortunately. Sorry.

Hans

[Nick Shaw]

How many times does Red have to say that 2K Scaled higher than 30fps IS NOT POSSIBLE due to the processing power needed to pull it off. It's not going to happen on Red One according to them. Red Two maybe?

I am not aware that Red have EVER said that. The full sensor can be clocked at up to 60 fps. It is only 4k REDCODE that the processing limits to 30 fps (currently 25 fps).

They have said in the past that they are considering the possibility of scaled 2k at higher frame rates, just not immediately. Scaled RAW was mooted at one point, but has not been mentioned for a while. I suspect that scaled 2k will not come until RGB recording is enabled.

[Hans von Sonntag]

I am not aware that Red have EVER said that. The full sensor can be clocked at up to 60 fps. It is only 4k REDCODE that the processing limits to 30 fps (currently 25 fps).

Yes, that's what I recall,

Hans

[Matt Uhry]

Here's an interesting project for 2k scaled nay sayers. Try taking the 4k tiff on HDFORINDIES.COM from Spain into Photoshop, Save a copy of the image and scale one of the clones from 4k to 2k and then back to 4k. Compare the images at 100% in Photoshop. Try it with other 4k images.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Hans von Sonntag]

I am in no way an engineer. But thinking how easy RED is creating 2k reference movies off the 4K Raw data I am pretty hopeful that RED will pull this off.

My concern is: Does RED really know how useful 2k Scaled is?

In my point of view 4K is brilliant to have but in reality we are talking about 1080p for high definition and 576i/486i for standard definition. How many HD DVDs are currently made (I am not talking about Hollywood blockbusters). Most TV work, commercials and corporate stuff will end up in SD.

2K is the format to go with. Do a pan/can crop and you get 1080p with some room for stabilizing/reframing and do further down-converts for DVD or broadcast.

Hans

[Damien Molineaux]

How many times does Red have to say that 2K Scaled higher than 30fps IS NOT POSSIBLE due to the processing power needed to pull it off. It's not going to happen on Red One according to them. Red Two maybe?


I am not aware that Red have EVER said that. The full sensor can be clocked at up to 60 fps. It is only 4k REDCODE that the processing limits to 30 fps (currently 25 fps).

They have said in the past that they are considering the possibility of scaled 2k at higher frame rates, just not immediately. Scaled RAW was mooted at one point, but has not been mentioned for a while. I suspect that scaled 2k will not come until RGB recording is enabled.

Red did at one point say 2k Raw scaled was no possible. Later it has been mentioned, by both Jim and Graeme, they were working on 2k Raw scaled; sorry for not posting the references, but if you do a little research you'll find them. As has been mentioned a few times "Everything subject to change, count on it". I'm sure we'll get some form of scaled recording, maybe many : ie. 2k raw and 1080p RGB. I vote for 2k raw.

Cheers,
Damien

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Here's an interesting project for 2k scaled nay sayers. Try taking the 4k tiff on HDFORINDIES.COM from Spain into Photoshop, Save a copy of the image and scale one of the clones from 4k to 2k and then back to 4k. Compare the images at 100% in Photoshop. Try it with other 4k images.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

Careful I lost a candybar with that kind of talk. :sheep:

Here's a question. Is 50p possible over the HD-SDI @ 1080p? If the REDCode compression is the bottleneck perhaps a good hold-over would be to enable higher framerates out to HDCAM SR.

[Álex Montoya]

Matt, this has been already discussed: the footage at hdforindies isn't top notch. They had a problem with backfocus. Many posted footage suffers from the same issue.

There is some footage though that shows a significant resolution boost from 2K to 4K.

Under ideal conditions RED can offer an effective resolution of about 3000X1500 pixels, which to me is reason enough to shoot 4K.

[Hans von Sonntag]

The data-rate of 2K Raw is much less than 4K Raw. 50p 2K Raw will not need faster CF (even less) than 4K at 25p

Hans

[David Mullen ASC]

The data rate should be 1/4 less for the finished scaled image, but you have to factor in the processing to scale it from 4K to 2K. But once it is scaled, recording it at 2K to CF cards should be no different than recording 2K windowed material. So I don't think it is a recording issue, high frames for 2K scaled, but a processing issue, since you are essentially really shooting 4K at high-speed, then scaling it down to 2K in real time.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Matt, this has been already discussed: the footage at hdforindies isn't top notch. They had a problem with backfocus. Many posted footage suffers from the same issue.

There is some footage though that shows a significant resolution boost from 2K to 4K.

Under ideal conditions RED can offer an effective resolution of about 3000X1500 pixels, which to me is reason enough to shoot 4K.

There is no doubt that in ideal circumstances 4K resolves much better than 2K (obviously). Additionally the colour information is much better. Shooting 4K for green screen is a no-brainer.

But in real-world environments no one wants to do a 4k post production as long one is not forced to (Hollywood blockbusters) and has the budget to do this. Currently there are only a few 4k theatres around and a conventional 35mm projection resolves around 720p. Most stuff is DVD, broadcast anyway. Resolution is nice but not everything at all. 2K is plenty enough - but with 35 DOF please and 50 fps...

Hans

[Álex Montoya]

Yeah, sure. I was reponding to Matt.

Anyway, I don't really see the need to shoot 50 fps for "commercial work". Most things you'll shoot with RED will be asking for a filmic quality, be it commercials, tv fiction or whatever. For that 24 or 25 fps is ideal.

[Hans von Sonntag]

The data rate should be 1/4 less for the finished scaled image, but you have to factor in the processing to scale it from 4K to 2K. But once it is scaled, recording it at 2K to CF cards should be no different than recording 2K windowed material. So I don't think it is a recording issue, high frames for 2K scaled, but a processing issue, since you are essentially really shooting 4K at high-speed, then scaling it down to 2K in real time.

Since the sensor is capable of 60fps I am still pretty hopeful. Would be brilliant wouldn't it?

Hans

[Álex Montoya]

It would be nice, no reason to deny it.

Is that your real name? Hans Von Sonntag?

[Hans von Sonntag]

Yeah, sure. I was reponding to Matt.

Anyway, I don't really see the need to shoot 50 fps for "commercial work". Most things you'll shoot with RED will be asking for a filmic quality, be it commercials, tv fiction or whatever. For that 24 or 25 fps is ideal.

Yes, your right 24/25p looks much more "filmic". But probably you never had the problem in PAL-Land with pans that shutter badly and an client asking you why the range pack is so screwed up? For interlaced broadcast you need the option for interlaced footage, therefore 50fps.

Hans

[TimPipher]

Here's a question. Is 50p possible over the HD-SDI @ 1080p? If the REDCode compression is the bottleneck perhaps a good hold-over would be to enable higher framerates out to HDCAM SR.

There is no HD-SDI output. I suspect when more people realize that, they won't be happy.

[Hans von Sonntag]

It would be nice, no reason to deny it.

Is that your real name? Hans Von Sonntag?

Apparently, yes.

What's yours?

Kind regards,

Hans

[Hans von Sonntag]

Careful I lost a candybar with that kind of talk. :sheep:

Here's a question. Is 50p possible over the HD-SDI @ 1080p? If the REDCode compression is the bottleneck perhaps a good hold-over would be to enable higher framerates out to HDCAM SR.

Apart from the fact that there is unfortunately no HDSDI 1080p the beauty is the fact that RED lets you work untethered with a comparable small camera. Additionally you need a whole HDCAM SR post workflow that is expensive and cumbersome compared to REDs workflow. In this case it would be cheaper for PAL/NTSC work to shoot 35mm. Seems like 35mm isn't dead at all...

Hans

[Hans von Sonntag]

There is no HD-SDI output. I suspect when more people realize that, they won't be happy.

Yes. Me.

[Patrick Tresch]

35mm projection resolves around 720p.
Hans

Whhatttt's this???????

35mm neg on 35mm contact print??? NNoooo way 720p of resolution.

:waaa:
Patrick

[Hans von Sonntag]

Whhatttt's this???????

35mm neg on 35mm contact print??? NNoooo way 720p of resolution.

:waaa:
Patrick

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

I must say I was astonished myself when I read it. But it does make a lot of sense and the ITU is someone at least...

One reason why selective focus is so important or why long-shots with 35mm adaptor/DV camera look soft and unattractive and close-ups with narrow DOF and the same set up nice and comparably sharp. Its all perception.

Hans

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, there is also the option of doing the digital equivalent of what most 35mm shoots using something like a Panaflex Millenium (50 fps max) or Arricam ST (60 fps max) do when they get an Arri-III or Arri-435 for a lot of slow-motion work -- rent a high-speed 2K camera like the Phantom HD for your slow-motion work if there is a lot of it, especially if you're going to need to go higher than 60 fps.

In fact, I used to shoot low-budget features on 35mm sync-sound cameras that maxed-out at 36 to 48 fps (Panaflex GII, Arri-BL4, etc.) so renting a high-speed camera now and then was unavoidable, if annoying.

The thing is about switching to 2K windowed for high-speed work is that the depth of field difference from 4K isn't always going to be obvious if you are working on longer lenses or have the option of opening up the aperture.

In fact, normally there is a loss of depth of field when doing high-speed work because you have to open up the iris to compensate for the exposure loss from running faster, and thus there is often a mismatch in depth of field compared to the 24 fps stuff. So in some ways, switching to 2K windowed actually is a solution to that particular problem -- you effectively gain two stops of depth of field to compensate for the 1 1/2 stops lost by going from 24 fps to 60 fps.

--

Regarding the whole resolution of projection issue, I think we need new ways of thinking about sharpness because generally 720P and 1080P photography look softer, less detailed, compared to 35mm on the big theater screen, despite what the numbers tell you. Maybe it's the whole "oversampling" notion that it's always better to start out with more resolution even if the final display format has less. For example, I've seen 65mm footage on an HD monitor that looks amazingly detailed, yet you'd think that on an HD monitor, anything from HD to IMAX would end up looking about the same. Or consider 35mm on an NTSC monitor, which still looks better than 16mm or even some HD, despite the low resolution of NTSC.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Well, there is also the option of doing the digital equivalent of what most 35mm shoots using something like a Panaflex Millenium (50 fps max) or Arricam ST (60 fps max) do when they get an Arri-III or Arri-435 for a lot of slow-motion work -- rent a high-speed 2K camera like the Phantom HD for your slow-motion work if there is a lot of it, especially if you're going to need to go higher than 60 fps.

In fact, I used to shoot low-budget features on 35mm sync-sound cameras that maxed-out at 36 to 48 fps (Panaflex GII, Arri-BL4, etc.) so renting a high-speed camera now and then was unavoidable, if annoying.

The thing is about switching to 2K windowed for high-speed work is that the depth of field difference from 4K isn't always going to be obvious if you are working on longer lenses or have the option of opening up the aperture.

In fact, normally there is a loss of depth of field when doing high-speed work because you have to open up the iris to compensate for the exposure loss from running faster, and thus there is often a mismatch in depth of field compared to the 24 fps stuff. So in some ways, switching to 2K windowed actually is a solution to that particular problem -- you effectively gain two stops of depth of field to compensate for the 1 1/2 stops lost by going from 24 fps to 60 fps.

Yes. This is the reason why I keep my S16 Zeiss Highs-Speeds. But in the end it is a work around, surely manageable. No reason for rejecting RED but it would be nice...

On the other hand there are pros for shooting windowed. Shooting wide open with 35mm on a night exterior is not always desirable. Switching to 2k windowed will give you the right amount of DOF you probably want...

There are always pro and cons but its nice to have the option and not to bring in a new system that needs a complete new workflow. Renting a MOS 35mm for slow-motion does not generate a new workflow, a Phantom does. Although I must admit I haven't worked with it yet and RED neither.


Hans

[Patrick Tresch]

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

I must say I was astonished myself when I read it. But it does make a lot of sense and the ITU is someone at least...

Hans

Good that ITU test did not take in consideration s16mm/Di in 2k/ output to 35mm and interneg/interpos/APrint...

But 35mm neg is rich/powerfull/handels highlights beautifully and is great to work on it on DI post. It's a huge shortcut to say that it handles 720p even if the quality is lowered by a lot of intermediates.

But who cares if a block buster only resolve 720p!

Patrich

[Dominic Jones]

That's just the point though - 2k scaled will not be the same datarate as 4k - it will be 1/4 of that datarate for the same framerate, hence why 2k scaled would allow for higher fps shooting (both in terms of the encoding FPGA bottleneck and recording media bottleneck, which should be ever growing in any case).

That's assuming we're talking about 2k scaled RAW, not RGB (which would only yield a ~25% decrease in datarate over 4k RAW). But Red have certainly in the past mooted the possibility of 2k scaled RAW - whether or not this is still on the cards I do not know. The proposed max fps was the full 60fps of the sensor (at 35mm size), although I would imagine that without real-world testing that's a theoretical limit that may not be possible, in practice, to reach.

Any and all 2k scaled overcranking options would certainly be very welcome though, and I will certainly add my vote to those calling for a 2k scaled RAW mode...

[Hans von Sonntag]

Regarding the whole resolution of projection issue, I think we need new ways of thinking about sharpness because generally 720P and 1080P photography look softer, less detailed, compared to 35mm on the big theater screen, despite what the numbers tell you. Maybe it's the whole "oversampling" notion that it's always better to start out with more resolution even if the final display format has less. For example, I've seen 65mm footage on an HD monitor that looks amazingly detailed, yet you'd think that on an HD monitor, anything from HD to IMAX would end up looking about the same. Or consider 35mm on an NTSC monitor, which still looks better than 16mm or even some HD, despite the low resolution of NTSC.

Yes, resolution is not a measure for a picture. Its a number. I found 35mm from a PAL master printed on Film much nicer, richer as you say than any other footage from a PAL master that was printed on film for the big screen. It's not in the numbers it's the secret of film. RED seems to be something of its own in this context.

Hans

[Troy Smith]

Hans,
Quick question for you, when you say shoot 50fps for 25i
would you run the 50 fps through some process to get
25i, or would you just bring your 50 fps footage into
a 25i timeline and make sure the 50 fps footage is being
scene by the editing programme as 50, so its not playing at
half speed.

Please let me know if my question is not clear, and I appreciate
any response.

Thanks
Stricko

[Andrew Walker]

First off 2K RAW scaled would be awesome.

As far as resolution projected. I've seen tests of 4K vs 2K with features that started off on 35mm. Yeah, there's a little bit of a differance in the quality of the picture. At the end of this test they showed this little bit of a show called Mystic India and that was shot on 65mm and converted to 4K and that was the most amazing example of 4K I've ever seen. Would be nice to project some 4K stuff easily but I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

[Warren Kommers]

Well, it is for movies like Zodiac.

The lack of DOF in that movie is a problem. There are certain shots you can't tell which actor David wants you to be looking at when racking back and forth. And that was on the big screen. They must both look in focus on the small screen.

[Antoine Fabi]

Regarding the whole resolution of projection issue, I think we need new ways of thinking about sharpness because generally 720P and 1080P photography look softer, less detailed, compared to 35mm on the big theater screen, despite what the numbers tell you. Maybe it's the whole "oversampling" notion that it's always better to start out with more resolution even if the final display format has less. For example, I've seen 65mm footage on an HD monitor that looks amazingly detailed, yet you'd think that on an HD monitor, anything from HD to IMAX would end up looking about the same. Or consider 35mm on an NTSC monitor, which still looks better than 16mm or even some HD, despite the low resolution of NTSC.

SO TRUE.

I dont know if it makes any sense, but i always feel that with oversampling,
each pixel of the destination screen looks sharper AND smoother at the same time, like if each pixel was representing its own value plus the value of surrounding pixels from the source. ( I know...my english is bad...)

[Warren Kommers]

Full frame high speed is basically the only topic I bother to post on. Why? Because the camera is kicking ass on all the other fronts. Full Frame high speed is essential for commercial and music video work. Especially when shooting 4:3 (still a common format for commercial and mv) and we have to crop inside the 16:9 3 perf rather than shoot 4-perf 35mm Big TV.

Has the RED team ever said that 60fps 4k REDCODE is impossible? CF probably can't handle it.

[Tom Lowe]

Another epic 2K scaled thread! hahahaa!

[mezmo]

That's just the point though - 2k scaled will not be the same datarate as 4k - it will be 1/4 of that datarate for the same framerate, hence why 2k scaled would allow for higher fps shooting (both in terms of the encoding FPGA bottleneck and recording media bottleneck, which should be ever growing in any case).

That's assuming we're talking about 2k scaled RAW, not RGB (which would only yield a ~25% decrease in datarate over 4k RAW). But Red have certainly in the past mooted the possibility of 2k scaled RAW - whether or not this is still on the cards I do not know. The proposed max fps was the full 60fps of the sensor (at 35mm size), although I would imagine that without real-world testing that's a theoretical limit that may not be possible, in practice, to reach.

Any and all 2k scaled overcranking options would certainly be very welcome though, and I will certainly add my vote to those calling for a 2k scaled RAW mode...

Hi Dominic,
It still seems to be on the cards (no pun intended) but on the back burner.
You would tend to leave the camera on 2K SCALED RAW for
most Hi Def television work, potentially making Red the first HD Digital Acquisition
Camera (for sale) with 35mm DOF/FOV and framerates up to 60fps.
That's worth celebrating I think, new features over and above what the
HD competition have to offer.
2K scaled and a few other minor (Redcine) things are the only reasons I would
seriously hold off considering Red for purchase in my small rental business.
I think Red is hobbled with 25fps max framerate in 4k RAW 35mmDOF/FOV
mode and other options need to be considered. Add my vote as well.
Mezmo

[Dalibor Fencl]

Yes the datarate of 2K is 1/4 of 4K so the datarate of 2K 60FPS is 1/2 of 4K at 30FPS (respectively 50FPS an 25FPS). Hence the CF card is not the bottleneck.
BUT.
1) You have to handle twice more data from the CMOS in given time,
2) at the same time COMPUTE them to create scaled 2K
(It's not the same as create 2K reference movie - it doesn't affect the 4K RAW data.)

Simply: it may be (maybe not - we don't know yet) bit too much load for in-camera computer.

[David Mullen ASC]

You'd think though that the faster frame rate happens first before the scaling processing step happens -- i.e. it would have to take 4K at 60 fps and then scale it to 2K for recording. If that's true, then basically it is still limited to the processing speed of 4K at 60 fps.

I don't think the scaling can happen first, before the 4K sensor is firing 60X a second, so that the camera is only dealing with 2K at 60 fps in the processor.

[Dominic Jones]

Hmmm... Interesting point David.

You seem to be pretty up on the technical side of stuff, so I'm loath to disagree, but I'm sure I remember posts from the Red team to the effect that 2k scaled could potentially achieve higher framerates than 4k - perhaps it was the recording bottleneck that they were discussing and I've confused the two...

Or, perhaps (you may know better than me and this may not be plausible, I'm really not too confident on the nitty-gritty tech) it's possible that there is a less FPGA intensive way to scale which then allows the encoding FPGA cycles to achieve a faster speed. Or maybe we're just hoping!

In some ways I think that the Red team are victims of their own success - they've delivered so much that seemed so highly implausible at the start of the project that now we all seem to believe they can achieve anything!!!

Still, it would be great to have higher fps shooting from the full chip. That said, if circa 75fps in windowed mode is the best it gets, that's still pretty damn good compared to what else I can afford.

Out of curiosity, how much emphasis (disregarding the equipment required to achieve it) do you put on the importance of off-speed shooting for dramatic effect? I see it as a very important tool for a cinematographer, but my background is very indie, and so I don't usually get the chance to play with framerates as much as I'd like, and perhaps I'm over-emphasising the importance of the technique simply because, for me, it's a relatively rare tool to have access to - care to share any thoughts on that?

[Thom Steinhoff]

...but I'm sure I remember posts from the Red team to the effect that 2k scaled could potentially achieve higher framerates than 4k - perhaps it was the recording bottleneck that they were discussing and I've confused the two...

What I think you are remembering was that 4K Redcode was limited to 30fps (currently 25) but if they scaled 4K they could potentially get faster framerates with a hard cap at 60fps as that is as fast as the full sensor could handle.

The only way to get faster than 60 was to window the sensor.

[noclip]

You'd think though that the faster frame rate happens first before the scaling processing step happens -- i.e. it would have to take 4K at 60 fps and then scale it to 2K for recording. If that's true, then basically it is still limited to the processing speed of 4K at 60 fps.

I don't think the scaling can happen first, before the 4K sensor is firing 60X a second, so that the camera is only dealing with 2K at 60 fps in the processor.

The RAW port is supposed to be able to output 2540p at 60fps, but that may be "true" raw sensor data (not REDCODE) with no compression or processing done in-camera whatsoever.

That being said, I vaguely remember seeing somewhere on these forums that the camera can support 4K@60fps internally, and that the inability to record 60fps 4K is a flash memory/HDD transfer rate issue. If that's true then 2K scaling is just a question of programming and could probably be added in a firmware upgrade.

[Dominic Jones]

What I think you are remembering was that 4K Redcode was limited to 30fps (currently 25) but if they scaled 4K they could potentially get faster framerates with a hard cap at 60fps as that is as fast as the full sensor could handle.

The only way to get faster than 60 was to window the sensor.
That's certainly correct as far as my memory goes Thom - thanks for helping me regain clarity!!

What I imagine is the question is whether (a) the scaled mode is still on the cards and (b) what it's practical top fps would be, i.e. whether the bottleneck would end up being the sensor clock speed or the FPGA processing/data throughput...

I guess we'll find out in time!

BTW, your sig is great!

[Dominic Jones]

Hey noclip,

You're certainly correct that 2540p @ 60fps (uncompressed - i.e. no RedCode) is (or rather, will be) possible through the RAW PORT.

I'm pretty sure though, that even if recording options were available, > 30 (currently 25) fps RedCode RAW is not possible due to the processing overheads - I think those FPGA's have got their work pretty well cut out encoding 4k @ 24 fps!!

[David Mullen ASC]

Out of curiosity, how much emphasis (disregarding the equipment required to achieve it) do you put on the importance of off-speed shooting for dramatic effect? I see it as a very important tool for a cinematographer, but my background is very indie, and so I don't usually get the chance to play with framerates as much as I'd like, and perhaps I'm over-emphasising the importance of the technique simply because, for me, it's a relatively rare tool to have access to - care to share any thoughts on that?

Well, I haven't done too much of it in my narrative features, but that's partly due to the limitations of some sync-sound 35mm cameras, plus a time issue - you mostly shoot sound scenes in a narrative feature, since, unfortunately, most screenplays are loaded with dialogue. So on a short schedule, it doesn't leave much time to shoot off-speed versions of set-ups except for obvious stuff, like an action scene with explosions or gunfire, etc. which is when you'd bring in an MOS high-speed camera.

However, when I've worked with sync-sound 35mm cameras capable of 50 to 60 fps, I've used the effect more liberally as a result. I don't find much reason to run faster than 60 fps though. In fact, my favorite slow-motion rate is 48 fps.

[Dalibor Fencl]

You'd think though that the faster frame rate happens first before the scaling processing step happens -- i.e. it would have to take 4K at 60 fps and then scale it to 2K for recording. If that's true, then basically it is still limited to the processing speed of 4K at 60 fps.

I don't think the scaling can happen first, before the 4K sensor is firing 60X a second, so that the camera is only dealing with 2K at 60 fps in the processor.

You mean something like the sensor itself would send just quarter of the pixels out?

I doubt it. First it suppose some kind of intelligent on-chip controller that would be able to omit 3/4 of data, and secondly there is a Bayer mask, so it's not just like omitting 3 pixels, sending the fourth.

I'm afraid it's work for controller (or computer - whatever it's called) after the sensor outputs all the data .... just at twice the speed.

[Dominic Jones]

In fact, my favorite slow-motion rate is 48 fps.
As you bimble around the forum today, you'll notice I'm going to be well on your case, I'm afraid!

Thanks for the reply - any particular reason why you're so partial to 48?

[David Mullen ASC]

Just that 48 fps is not so slow that it takes up a lot of screen time, yet it is visibly slowed-down action, and it's a nice and neat one-stop exposure correction.

Most features spend a lot of time in the editing room trying to tighten the pacing, which gets hard if the director has fallen in love with shooting everything at 60 fps...

[Thom Steinhoff]

I think the sensor could send all 4K pixels out, and scale before doing the compression (getting a speed advantage so it is compressing 2K instead of trying to compress 4K) It may not reach the full 60fps but maybe David's magic 48.

I played around a little in photoshop, trying to think this through. Maybe I'm oversimplifying it (I'm sure I am) but sometimes the simple solution actually works.

I"m sure Graeme already tried this and has a better looking, more complex solution, in the works--but it is fun to speculate.

If I had more time, I would poke around in a Canon Raw file and see if I could see how it would scale. Scaling the R3D file would be a bit unfair as it is already compressed and I think it would be better to do the reduction prior to compression.

Its pretty obvious, so who knows who has the patent on it, but it may work.

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/rocketbaby/bayerScaling.png

[Brook Willard]

I wonder how the moiré characteristics of such a scale would be...

[Thom Steinhoff]

I wonder how the moiré characteristics of such a scale would be...

I don't know. It's essentially a direct 1/4 scale in place, ending up with the same ratio of RGB, so it may be pretty good.

Of course, there is really only one way to find out... :)

But As I said, I'm sure Graeme has already got something cooking...

[Dalibor Fencl]

Yes that's it. It's simple on the picture, but quite complicated task for sensor itself. I'm afraid it wouldn't be possible to achieve such an effect just by addressing the rows and columns of pixels. (In principle CMOS sensor is just CMOS memory array exposed to the light).
Note that on the picture above it's operation over the complete 4K data. So I still think, the sensor has to deliver all the 4K data to the RED's on-board computer that is due to execute them to receive 2K data and, of course, compress them at the end.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm wondering how such a scale would actually work out too. I don't see any other way that it would work. Thom's example is pretty much it, I suppose the algorithm could expand and sample overlapping sections for more detailed averaging and weighted results.

There's always a moire pattern when resolving an image to a grid of pixels or photosites and that has to be dealt with in the processing / demosaic. But I'm curious too if this will amplify such an effect, scaling like this or what sort of effect this may have on edge details or fine details in general. Obviously, it isn't simple or we'd have it already. :)

[Dalibor Fencl]

......... Obviously, it isn't simple or we'd have it already. :)

Not only it isn't simple, but may be quite a computing load at 60fps.

[Thom Steinhoff]

From a processing standpoint at normal 4K Redcode, the pixels are coming in anyway in an ordered fashion and compressed at, currently, up to 25fps.

Now, with scaled Raw, the same 4K pixels come in in their ordered fashion, and a semi simple matrix manipulation is performed to turn an 8x8 pixel into a 4x4. Now you have a 2K ordered pixel array that can be put through the same 2K compression that currently exists that is now running up to 80fps.

I would think that simple offset averaging would be very simple and fast. Come on--"visually lossless compression" flies and this is nothing compared to that. Maybe not the full 60fps the sensor is capable of but certainly more than 25fps.

As Brook said the moiré charactaristics of shifting the pixels may be a problem, but then again--maybe not.

If the sensor is capable of 120fps 2K Raw, but the overhead of compression brings it to down to a current max of 80fps, then a max 60fps scaled 2K Raw should get at least 40fps if if was a linear relationship of Raw FPS to compressed FPS, but I think the slower the fps the closer to real time it would be so I think it could get much higher.

[Thom Steinhoff]

...Also, remember, there are other factors limiting the 80fps of 2K such as write speed/bandwidth.

[Dalibor Fencl]

From a processing standpoint at normal 4K Redcode, the pixels are coming in anyway in an ordered fashion and compressed at, currently, up to 25fps.

Now, with scaled Raw, the same 4K pixels come in in their ordered fashion, and a semi simple matrix manipulation is performed to turn an 8x8 pixel into a 4x4. Now you have a 2K ordered pixel array that can be put through the same 2K compression that currently exists that is now running up to 80fps.

I would think that simple offset averaging would be very simple and fast. Come on--"visually lossless compression" flies and this is nothing compared to that. Maybe not the full 60fps the sensor is capable of but certainly more than 25fps.

As Brook said the moiré charactaristics of shifting the pixels may be a problem, but then again--maybe not.

If the sensor is capable of 120fps 2K Raw, but the overhead of compression brings it to down to a current max of 80fps, then a max 60fps scaled 2K Raw should get at least 40fps if if was a linear relationship of Raw FPS to compressed FPS, but I think the slower the fps the closer to real time it would be so I think it could get much higher.

I definitely believe the "visually lossless compression" is far most complicated than downscaling pixels. But in this case the processor has to do BOTH - downscale AND compress. At twice the speed.

Yes, it may be quite fine and it might not. We don't know.


...Also, remember, there are other factors limiting the 80fps of 2K such as write speed/bandwidth.

The write bandwidth at 2K 60fps is just half the one of 4K 30fps

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Not only it isn't simple, but may be quite a computing load at 60fps.

I've wondered that too... If the scaling of 4K RAW down to a 2K "RAW" approximation and then encoding that to REDCODE is about as computationally expensive as the processing of 4K to REDCODE, then what would be the point? I hope that's not the case.

[Mikael Lubtchansky]

Without knowing much about the real technical issues involved, I think Thom suggestion is not practical unless the RED one has HUGE processing power to be able to analyze and integrate new pixels values from an oversampled 4K image @ 60 fps... just to be able to satisfy the CF card / RED drive bottleneck.

a more 'real life' 2K scaled image (with 35mm depth of field @ 2K "windowed" datarate) would be to use only 1/4 of the sensor data (I suppose they do a similar operation when creating an instant 2K QT proxy)...
That would still requires some processing power to be able to receive 4K@60fps and deliver 2K@60fps (and maybe it is not possible to do while keeping the RAW format etc) but it seems much more a realistic "in camera" 2K scaled model (you do loose the nice 'oversampling' from Thom model) :

[Hans von Sonntag]

Hans,
Quick question for you, when you say shoot 50fps for 25i
would you run the 50 fps through some process to get
25i, or would you just bring your 50 fps footage into
a 25i timeline and make sure the 50 fps footage is being
scene by the editing programme as 50, so its not playing at
half speed.

Please let me know if my question is not clear, and I appreciate
any response.

Thanks
Stricko

Sorry for replying so late but I had to bring my kids to bed...

Yes, you shoot 50fps, put the 50p footage on a 25fps/50i timeline and speed the whole thing up (200%). You've got now PAL20fps interlaced footage.

Hans

[Floris Liesker]

Without knowing much about the real technical issues involved, I think Thom suggestion is not practical unless the RED one has HUGE processing power to be able to analyze and integrate new pixels values from an oversampled 4K image @ 60 fps... just to be able to satisfy the CF card / RED drive bottleneck.

a more 'real life' 2K scaled image (with 35mm depth of field @ 2K "windowed" datarate) would be to use only 1/4 of the sensor data (I suppose they do a similar operation when creating an instant 2K QT proxy)...
That would still requires some processing power to be able to receive 4K@60fps and deliver 2K@60fps (and maybe it is not possible to do while keeping the RAW format etc) but it seems much more a realistic "in camera" 2K scaled model (you do loose the nice 'oversampling' from Thom model) :

I think the Redraw compression that is being done in real time is much more complicated than the scaling Thom suggested, so it wouldnt need a lot of computing power at all. Maybe Thom's scaling method could work even faster if he didn't use 5 pixels for each green pixel but only 4.

To just throw away 3 of the 4 sections would make it look nasty. Try scaling a detailed shot (preferrably with a lot of pattern) in Photoshop with 'nearest neighbour' interpolation. You'll get an idea of what this method result will look like.

[Brent J. Craig]

There is no HD-SDI output. I suspect when more people realize that, they won't be happy.


Huh? What's making the pictures on my Panasonic 8.4" monitor then?!?

[Rodrigo Lizana]

In fact, my favorite slow-motion rate is 48 fps.

32-36 fps is also very nice speed when you want to slow things down a little but without being so evident.

[TimPipher]

Huh? What's making the pictures on my Panasonic 8.4" monitor then?!?

My post quoted this post:

"Here's a question. Is 50p possible over the HD-SDI @ 1080p?"

There is no HD-SDI 1080 output -- but I'd love to be wrong.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

I'm a bit confused. When we were discussing high frame rate recording some months ago Jim was very confident that 2K scaled would happen and the argument was about what fps it would max out at: 75 or 100 I seem to remember..
I have been assuming that we would be using 2K scaled to capture 40 minutes of footage to a 16GB flash card, for broadcast or SD work. So 2K scaled is essential for flash to be useful.
Jim was very confident about it, so I'm sure it will happen eventually.

[Dominic Jones]

I'm a bit confused. When we were discussing high frame rate recording some months ago Jim was very confident that 2K scaled would happen and the argument was about what fps it would max out at: 75 or 100 I seem to remember..
That'd be windowed - the sensor maxes out at 60fps for the 35mm part of the sensor, so that's a hard limit on 2k scaled.

I agree, though, that it's very important functionality for a lot of people - I would certainly use it regularly and would love it to be available...

[Thom Steinhoff]

I think the Redraw compression that is being done in real time is much more complicated than the scaling Thom suggested, so it wouldnt need a lot of computing power at all. Maybe Thom's scaling method could work even faster if he didn't use 5 pixels for each green pixel but only 4.

Thinking what they were planning to do, 1080p, RGB at higher speeds, not only would they have to scale and compress they would have to debayer as well, I really think that simple single number averaging is really no cycles as compared to debayering.

I have no doubt in my mind the processor can handle simple pattern averaging with little overhead, but it really goes back to the visual artifacts and patterns this may introduce.

If Graeme hasn't chimed in by now, it's because he's got something in the works--that likely involves way more math, but works 10x better and is faster than we can imagine.

[Dongfang Hong]

This is a R&D request that I humbly bring up because I came over it in a real world situation

As Matt Uhry mentioned somewhere there is some serious need for 2K scaled. Yes there is and we badly need it.


I totally agree for the same exact reasons. Actually I requested this feature from way back (in RED Year, that is) in less than perfect English. I just want to add my voice here again, hoping the RED team would put more weight on our wishes.

Back then, I gave one more reason for my request. While 4K 4:4:4 is all good, but coming from 35mm film and Sony CineAlta background who has done some filmout from 24psf 4:2:2 HDCAM tape, I would say 2K is "plenty" good for 90% of what I (we?) do. All I need from RED ONE is the depth of field look and significant overcranking capabilities. High end digital cinema projector may do justice to 4K footage with richest color detail, but print stock projected from traditional film projectors? I doubt it.

Honestly, how many of us actually need to do filmout. If RED stops taking orders today and every camera they ship will make one film for theatrical release per year. There will be 3000 more movies each year, mostly from independent producers who want to make a professional looking film at lower cost. Can the market really consume that much supply (without big names attached and unbelievable production scale)?

This might not be a popular thought around here. But that's OK. I just want to speak my mind. On the other hand, RED ONE will certainly make prime time TV shows in other regions of the world look a lot better, knowing what some Asian TV drama series look like today. But that doesn't require all the data in a 4K 4:4:4 image. Besides, lower data rate would also make storage and post work a lot easier and faster, possibly eliminating offline/conform steps all together.

While on this topic, I remember reading an earlier debate in this forum about dropping certain "video" recording formats from the camera because the RED team believed (or was contemplating) that they were "not needed". I want to take this opportunity to respond by saying: please keep all the options available to us—the end users. We need choices for different occasions. Choices won't hurt anyone.

To give you an example, recently a poster in the Lens Tests forum was wondering if he should get the 12 pound Cooke 18-100mm lens, a heavy, bulky 5.5:1 cine zoom with slow aperture of T3, for his interview and corporate communication work, huh?! Quite obviously, he is not too familiar with the "film world" that RED ONE is leading us into, but he is a user after all and he deserves to have his choices.

Please, please keep all the formats in the camera and make the 2K scaled, hopefully capable of higher than 100fps if technically possible, happen soon.

Thank you in advance.

[Tom Lowe]

If Graeme hasn't chimed in by now, it's because he's got something in the works--that likely involves way more math, but works 10x better and is faster than we can imagine.

Graeme, report in!

[Harry Clark]

All In One,
Spot on! The scalability originally promised (subject to change) in this camera was one of its best assets. 4K, 2K, 1080, 720, 480(why?) all SCALED.
Hopefully we'll be able to boot into different modes eventually...
Cheers,
Harry

[DSPographer]

Thom's Bayer scaling is not quite right. His method results in unevenly spaced green pixels:

G B G B G B G B
R G R G R G R G
G B G B G B G B
R G R G R G R G
G B G B G B G B
R G R G R G R G
G B G B G B G B
R G R G R G R G

becomes:
......................
...G B......G B....
...R G......R G....
......................
......................
...G B......G B....
...R G......R G....
......................


The correct scaling averages 4 nearest green pixels to make each resulting green pixel. Here the X is the averaged result:

...G
G X G
...G....G
......G X G
.........G

So that:

...G.........G
G B G B G B G B
R G R G R G R G
...B G B G B G B G
R G R G R G R G
G B G B G B G B
R G R G R G R G
...B G B G B G B G
R....R G R....R G


results in:

..G..........G........
......B..........B.....
...R....G....R.....G.
........................
..G..........G........
......B..........B.....
...R....G....R.....G.
........................

[David Groundwater]

All In One,
Spot on! The scalability originally promised (subject to change) in this camera was one of its best assets. 4K, 2K, 1080, 720, 480(why?) all SCALED.
Hopefully we'll be able to boot into different modes eventually...
Cheers,
Harry

agreed.

high frame rates with full sensor are completely essential - 1080p would be fine as far as i'm concerned.

a 35mm camera that can shoot high frame rates is much more important to me than being able to record 4k.

can we please hear from red about progress on this?

cheers,

david

[Thom Steinhoff]

Thom's Bayer scaling is not quite right...

I certainly could be wrong, (happens almost every day! :) ) but at this point--I don't see it by your example.

The resultant image needs to be a proper Bayer pattern. As you demonstrated in showing my sample--it still looks to me like it is. As I see it, what we are trying to do is reduce a 4x4 section to a 2x2 one.

Each 4x4 square has 8 greens, 4 blues and 4 Reds, my resultant 4 pattern maintains the same ratio.

To me, as long as I represent the area with a bayer pattern with the same ratio and maintain the same bayer pattern--it should properly maintain the color representation.

When I look at your example, your resultant image doesn't seem to be a proper bayer pattern --or am I missing something?

I attached another image to explain what I'm thinking...

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/rocketbaby/bayer2.png

Remember: the collapsing of the sections into the middle is just to show how the pattern is just representing a view of the overall image. The true reduction goes directly from step 1 to step 3.

I certainly enjoy this type of discussion and look forward to learning if my theory somehow corrupts the pattern of throws off the relationships.

Best Regards,

Thom

[DSPographer]

Thom,
The green pixels in your final image do not represent evenly spaced locations on the original sensor, removing the unoccupied rows and columns from step 2 to step 3 means that the green pixels which all have the same spacing in the final image did not come from evenly spaced locations on the original sensor. You are correct that the final image after my scaling is not a Bayer pattern (but it can be stored as one, just place the blue pixels in their proper spot). But it is a pattern where the pixels of a given color are uniformly spaced which is the critical feature needed for reconstructing a proper RGB image. It also averages the closest set of 4 green pixels which is important for minimizing aliasing. Of course other more involved spatial filtering could be used before down-sampling for even better anti-aliasing performance.

[redicule]

back to the original discussion...

Hopefully scaled 2K will be an option soon. Having said that 4K will still be the prefered shooting mode. Its all about quality of aquisition, which is why a 35mm film that has been through a 2K DI can look so great - because it was captured at very high resolution in the first place.

Getting 4K off-speed up to double the base frame rate under normal circumstances would really be an advantage to the camera, as that is what most sync 35mm cameras can achieve. (48-50fps as double the "cinematic" frame rate, although I guess 60FPS could keep a lot of NTSC folk happy)
Under normal circumstances = by setting the frame rate, not by having to attach external recording devices, reconfiguring the camera physically.

Take for example a film shoot with a millenium XL as sync camera and a 435 for high speed. The first version of the millenium XL could only do 40fps, where as the new version can do 50fps. A lot of the time high speed is either double frame rate or really highspeed (as in 96/100fps ++, = 435) So by making the new XL 50fps capable, suddenly the 435 is needed only for really high speed setups (a lot less)

With the first XL, if the camera was on steadicam and the director wanted an option of a take at double framerate, you would have to do a complete rebuild using the 435 to achieve that. On the new XL its a matter of seconds to reset the camera frame rate.

This results in massive time saving and cost for a production.

The point here is at the moment, (talking framerates only) the Red can only match older sync film cameras that can only do 25fps, but can't match any modern high-end cameras, including the genesis, milleniums/XLs, Arricams, etc.

However having scaled 2K would be vary useful, most of which revolves around retaining the DOF. (also consider the FOV change, meaning you will loose wide angle from your lens package).

Another consideration would be the amount of data produced by 4K. Imagine a TVC were you wanted to shoot 2-3 hours per day for a week, for a fast turnaround spot. This would be much more suited to a tape format because the Red would be producing massive amounts of data that would take too long to process to a usable format. Scaled 2K would make the Red a more viable option.

BTW why can you not shoot 4K variable speed UNDER 25fps?

[Thom Steinhoff]

DSPographer,

Okay, thank you--and thank you for your patience--I see your point and since you really sound like you know have far more experience than me on the topic--I'll defer to your experience.

In the end, as you said, the result really needs to maintain the color representation and placement on the sensor as if it had 1/4 the image sensors to alias properly, but still come out the other end with a bayer pattern so it fits in to the same redcode raw workflow.

I've always lived with the concept of vocalising my ideas loudly--so even if I'm wrong I learn faster and maybe the discussion sparks someone to coming up with the right answer.

Since Graeme has remained quiet on this topic--I assume it's because he's sitting on the answer, giggling quietly, waiting to release his raw scaling magic on the world in the form of a working camera.

[Dalibor Fencl]

I wouldn't say Graeme need to think so much about those bayer pattern principles as the downscaling already works fine in REDCINE. The problem is the pretty fast implementation of it inside the RED ONE camera.

[David Mullen ASC]

Does REDCINE downscale 4K RAW Bayer image to 2K RAW? I thought it first converted it to 4K RGB before downrezzing it to 2K RGB.

[Graeme Nattress]

I understand all what you're talking about. The problem with "simple" scaling techniques, raw or otherwise, is the evil that is aliasing.

I know the need for 2k scaled, for high fps full sensor DOF. I know what I have to do.... That's about all I can say.

Graeme

[Greg M]

I think we have the man that can meet the challenge!!

[Larry McKee]

Thanks, Graeme. It helps knowing you are working on it. 4K is very cool, but most of my clients have shown more of an interest in 2k windowed and especially 2K scaled for most of their projects.

[Matt Uhry]

I understand all what you're talking about. The problem with "simple" scaling techniques, raw or otherwise, is the evil that is aliasing.

I know the need for 2k scaled, for high fps full sensor DOF. I know what I have to do.... That's about all I can say.

Graeme

Hi Graeme, Some posts have tried to paint 2k Scaled RAW @ 60P as unimportant and not a priority. Thanks for understanding that it is.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[Dongfang Hong]

I understand all what you're talking about. The problem with "simple" scaling techniques, raw or otherwise, is the evil that is aliasing.

I know the need for 2k scaled, for high fps full sensor DOF. I know what I have to do.... That's about all I can say.

Graeme

Graeme, thank you for acknowledging our need and its importance to us.

[albert rudnicki]

Thank you Greame
and sorry, we can be quite annoying bunch....

[mezmo]

Go Graeme,
Thanks for the reply.
Mezmo.

[David Groundwater]

I understand all what you're talking about. The problem with "simple" scaling techniques, raw or otherwise, is the evil that is aliasing.

I know the need for 2k scaled, for high fps full sensor DOF. I know what I have to do.... That's about all I can say.

Graeme

great to know you appreciate the importance of this issue.

thanks,

david

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

I know what I have to do.... That's about all I can say.

Graeme

May The Force be with you :matrix:

[Dominic Jones]

I understand all what you're talking about. The problem with "simple" scaling techniques, raw or otherwise, is the evil that is aliasing.

I know the need for 2k scaled, for high fps full sensor DOF. I know what I have to do.... That's about all I can say.

Graeme
Well - that's that discussion over! Good to know it's still in the pipeline, cheers Graeme...

[Dominic Jones]

Does REDCINE downscale 4K RAW Bayer image to 2K RAW? I thought it first converted it to 4K RGB before downrezzing it to 2K RGB.
I'm not sure whether the conversion from 4k -> 2k happens before or after the RAW -> RGB conversion (I imagine it happens after the colour conversion - see below), but what we do know is that RedCine is not a RAW conversion tool - there are no RAW outputs, only RAW inputs.

So, with that said, it seems sensible that the RAW -> RGB conversion would happen first, simply as my understanding is that it's easier (or at least more understood) to scale RGB images...

[Obin Olson]

I understand all what you're talking about. The problem with "simple" scaling techniques, raw or otherwise, is the evil that is aliasing.

I know the need for 2k scaled, for high fps full sensor DOF. I know what I have to do.... That's about all I can say.

Graeme

I think that if we all KNEW you are working on it that would shut a few mouths around here. I have never heard if RED is planning on this...or not?

[Graeme Nattress]

All I can say though, is what I've written above. There are reasons for my precise words, that I only hope will become clear in the future....

Graeme

[Hans von Sonntag]

All I can say though, is what I've written above. There are reasons for my precise words, that I only hope will become clear in the future....

Graeme

Thanks for letting us know that 2K scaled ist not off the list. You are all doing a magnificent job - the spirits that I have cited...

Thanks again,

Hans

[Blue]

All I can say though, is what I've written above. There are reasons for my precise words, that I only hope will become clear in the future....

Graeme

Cheers Graeme. Appreciate your efforts.

[Brian@202020]

Although not perfect, but there is a solution to get 2K with 35mm DOF. Ether the Pro35 (b4) or the Letus Extreme, which will soon have a b4 option. I know nobody wants to put an adapter on the RED camera, especialy the RED team, but the fact is this will work for now. 35mm DOF in 2K windowed.

[Obin Olson]

An adapter on the red is like spinner hubcaps on a Porsche!
:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:

[Brian@202020]

An adapter on the red is like spinner hubcaps on a Porsche!
:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:

Very true, but it will work for those who have to do it..

[Jim McKinney]

An adapter on the red is like spinner hubcaps on a Porsche!
:sick: :sick: :sick: :sick:

Yes, very true. But a 35mm production without slo-mo, is well . . .

[Gunleik Groven]

that's gonna be really funny -;)

Reds with Pro35.
I thought it was part of the point to get rid of those -;)

g

[Patrick Tresch]

The problem with "simple" scaling techniques, raw or otherwise, is the evil that is aliasing.
Graeme

Sorry to take your time... But

Why should aliasing be more problematic when the same amount of pixels (2k) are used on a 4x larger (film) plane? (If these pixels are evenly placed).

Would'nt it be like if you would put a magnifying glass on your 2k windowed frame? Bluring due of lowered DOF would alos help tu diminish the alisasing problem...

Thanks for your explanations...

Patrick

[Graeme Nattress]

If you sample an image at 4k and crop out a 2k, then all is good as you're just cropping and cannot add aliasing artifacts.

To scale to 2k from 4k, you must reduce the frequency content of the 4k image as you scale so that no "illegal" frequencies appear in the 2k image. If you don't, that leads to nasty aliasing.

Good downsampling filters are not simple. They need many taps, and a simple box filter won't do it. It would look nasty.

Graeme

[I Bloom]

If you sample an image at 4k and crop out a 2k, then all is good as you're just cropping and cannot add aliasing artifacts.

To scale to 2k from 4k, you must reduce the frequency content of the 4k image as you scale so that no "illegal" frequencies appear in the 2k image. If you don't, that leads to nasty aliasing.

Good downsampling filters are not simple. They need many taps, and a simple box filter won't do it. It would look nasty.

Graeme

I see the difficulty.

Just for the sake of voting, I say keep 2K scaled in the spec. My most recent project would have benefited from it. Too much data can be a problem. If Red doesn't include 2K scaled, I won't cry. But I just got my first taste of turning in footage and feeling a little bit like I gave them too much data. I need something lesser from the same sensor characteristics.

IBloom

[chuckt]

I am in no way an engineer. But thinking how easy RED is creating 2k reference movies off the 4K Raw data I am pretty hopeful that RED will pull this off.

My concern is: Does RED really know how useful 2k Scaled is?

In my point of view 4K is brilliant to have but in reality we are talking about 1080p for high definition and 576i/486i for standard definition. How many HD DVDs are currently made (I am not talking about Hollywood blockbusters). Most TV work, commercials and corporate stuff will end up in SD.

2K is the format to go with. Do a pan/can crop and you get 1080p with some room for stabilizing/reframing and do further down-converts for DVD or broadcast.

Hans
Can't you use a camera more suiatble to do this kind of work?
RED is for 4K movie stuff. For SD stuff for TV, use a Panasonic HVX 500.

[BASSAM MSSALATIE]

yes i agree .ehy you purchase 4k camera and you can not ouput 4k
go for HD or i think HDV.:sorcerer:

[Nils Ruinet]

Can't you use a camera more suiatble to do this kind of work?
RED is for 4K movie stuff. For SD stuff for TV, use a Panasonic HVX 500.

Definition is just one reason why you would want to use a Red One.

There are lots of other reasons why you'd want to use a Red and not an HVX 500.
Image quality, latitude, the ability to use 35mm lenses and get shallow Depth of Field, shooting RAW, the Redcode codec, slow motion, versatility, lots of cool functions coming, great color EVF, etc....
So I still see some pretty good reasons to use this camera, even if you finish only in SD...

Resolution isn't everything, just because you don't need the extra pixels doesn't mean this camera isn't suitable for your needs.

A lot of TV shows have been (and continue to be) shot on 35mm film, even if they didn't need the extra resolution because it was only brodcast in SD. So in you opinion they should just have used video cameras ?

Honestly, within the 3000 people who already ordered this camera, how many will really be doing 4K filmouts or 4K projection on a regular basis ? Even most of hollywoods actual blockbusters are currently scanned and post-produced in 2K...

And I don't think Red would have sold so many cameras if they were only intended to be used on 4K features.

Red is all about versatility : you can use it on a 4K feature, but on the next day you could also use it for some run and gun EFP work, corporate film or documentary film. All with the same camera.
THAT in my opinion is the real revolution.

Nils.

[Hans von Sonntag]

Can't you use a camera more suiatble to do this kind of work?
RED is for 4K movie stuff. For SD stuff for TV, use a Panasonic HVX 500.

Video cameras don't have the shallow DOF of 35mm, except RED.

Hans

Edit: As Nils said.

[David Mullen ASC]

Definition is just one reason why you would want to use a Red One.
<snip>
Resolution isn't everything


Isn't that a contradiction?

I think some people are saying that they want a 2K RED with a 35mm sized sensor, that depth of field characteristics matters more than resolution or definition.

[Jaime Vallés]

I think some people are saying that they want a 2K RED with a 35mm sized sensor, that depth of field characteristics matters more than resolution or definition.
Simple. Rent a Genesis. :wink:

[David Mullen ASC]

Or the Phantom HD... :glare:

[Nils Ruinet]

Isn't that a contradiction?
Well it wasn't supposed to be, but english isn't my native language, so maybe I didn't phrase it well.:wink:

Let me try again :
"Definition is just one reason why you would want to use a Red One."
= The 4K definition that the Red has to offer is only one of many reasons why someone would choose to shoot with this camera.

I don't see that being a contradiction with "Resolution (4K) isn't everything" ?

Or did I miss your point ?

And don't get me wrong, it's fantastic to have the ability to shoot 4K, it will make our footage more future proof and give us the ability to rescale / stabilize shots if needed, + oversampling is always a good thing. I know that.

What I am saying is that there will be projects where you just won't need all those pixels, and where shooting 4K will just make things much more difficult to handle (small crews, fast turnaround, remote locations, limited storage, etc...). For these situations, I would love the ability to shoot 2K while keeping everything else, including DOF. It would make this camera even more versatile than it already is. This discussion is all about having more options, not about dropping 4K...

So if Graeme is able to do some magic and can make it happen, 2K scaled would be a great feature to have. If not, well then too bad, we'll have to deal with 4K footage on every project or shoot 2K windowed when storage is an issue...

Nils.

[Jaime Vallés]

Or the Phantom HD... :glare:
Exactly. For me, the point of RED is 4K. If people want 2K or 1080 with 35mm DOF, there are other alternatives out there, some of which produce excellent results. There are workarounds using RED, but it's main purpose is 4K source material, and then Redcine conversion to any size you want.

[Darren Orange]

Red is smart they built a camera thats future proof! Sure 4K takes up alot more space but other than that what is the issue with it? 10 years from now you'll be happy you shot with 4K. Its a 4K camera as Jim has talked about before the real goal is to get 4K Redcode Raw to CF or to Red-Drive at 60P. Its all a mater of the write speed of the CF or Red-Drive, if its fast enough I get that once it is fast enough we will be able to put 4K at 60P to CF or Red-Drive. Space is getting cheaper and faster, as direct result soon (2 years) 2K will be a thing of the past.

[Eddie]

Resolution is also important for documentaries in SOME situations, because it gives people the possibility of getting close-ups simply by cropping, which makes a second camera less necessary. But in other situations it is less needed, if you don´t plan on cropping. Secondly, some kind of low storage solution, would benefit the use of CF cards enormously, because more often than not 8 minutes just don´t cut it. Leaving you with numerous half-full cards... even cine-shooters have to appreciate this.
if one where allowed to dream a little, some kind of raw-high-compression and a dual slot CF option would turn RED into a dream of an efp camera.
but don´t get me wrong... I am already a very satisfied customer.

[chuckt]

Red is smart they built a camera thats future proof! Sure 4K takes up alot more space but other than that what is the issue with it? 10 years from now you'll be happy you shot with 4K. Its a 4K camera as Jim has talked about before the real goal is to get 4K Redcode Raw to CF or to Red-Drive at 60P. Its all a mater of the write speed of the CF or Red-Drive, if its fast enough I get that once it is fast enough we will be able to put 4K at 60P to CF or Red-Drive. Space is getting cheaper and faster, as direct result soon (2 years) 2K will be a thing of the past.

I am planning to shoot a feature film for distribution on film stock. I need at least 825 lines of resolution to make the conversion to film stock. So, I was looking at a Panasonic HD (1080i) camera.
One of the DPs I was talking to suggested that I use Canon H1 and P+S 35mm adapter, manual lens, etc. He told me about the 5M budget movie "Signal" coming to Big Screen, that was shot entirely using this camera.
( http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/thesignal/hd/)

The cost of the total set up was similar for RED. So, I decided to go with a RED.
DOF is a function of the Lens, not the sensor.
RED is only a camera. It is a tool. Camera does not make a good movie. Many classics were made on grainy low quality cameras.

RED is not future proof either. 4K is only a pixel count. 20 years ago 2mega pixel cameras were future proof and cost over $50K. Now, we have 2MP cameras on cell phones. Future is evolving. Panasonic is coming out with 4K camera next year. Sony is testimg 8K cameras and projection systems. Nobody knows what the future holds.

KODAK came out with 12 Megapixel 35 mm camera for $10K using a sensor made in Israel. But people preferred $8K, 10 MP Canon camera because of high picture quality. KODAK could not move their camera even for $5K. So they discontinued it.
(incidentally, I would not be surprised if Mysterium is the same sensor. Specs are similar. KODAK also had endless firmware tweaks, until they gave up on it.). Or, in other words, Pixel count is not picture quality and it does not guarantee anything.

Some posts have said something like this: "I am soon getting two REDs. I do not know what am I going to do with it."
Exactly. If they are thinking of flipping these for profit because of the initial enthusiasm, it is not going to be easy. RED will soon fill all the back orders. Everybody and their cousin will be walking around with a 4K Movie camera. It is like buying a sledge hammer to be future proof, for the mundane chores of pounding nails on the wall.

World will continue to turn. Millions of Film cameras and High End Sony, Panasonic and other camers that are currently in use will continue to be profitably used. (I still listen to my vinyl records!). Those who walk around with future proof 4k movie cameras will have a hell of a time putting content on You Tubes and cell phones and whereever else future content will be needed.

Even for High Budget HD movies, 2K is more than adequate for excellent projected quality. There are many non-35mm lenses that have adequate DOF. (again DOF requirements depend on the purpose of the shot.). I would put my money into a good script than into unusable excessive pixels.

[Nils Ruinet]

DOF is a function of the Lens, not the sensor.

.../...

There are many non-35mm lenses that have adequate DOF.

DOF depends on the focal length AND on the size of the sensor. The bigger the sensor, the shallower the DOF. So in a way it is sensor related.

[Stephen Williams]

DOF depends on the focal length AND on the size of the sensor. The bigger the sensor, the shallower the DOF. So in a way it is sensor related.

Hi,

DOF depends on the image magnification on the sensor and the F stop. The focal length of the lens is irrelevantly.

Stephen

[Nils Ruinet]

You're right Stephen, thanks.

[Sanjin Jukic]

What is DOF?!?!

For all interested in DOF and to get an idea how it works just have a look at

1. Depth of Field Calculator / DSLR (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

2. Depth of Field: One of the most important elements in photography. (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/fototech/htmls/depth.html)

3. Panavision - DOF calculato (http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/reference/calcFOVform.asp)r

4. Understanding Depth of Field (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm)

[tj williams]

Thanks Graeme for your continued efforts to extract a clean 2K full sensor scaled image without aliasing problems. This is a huge part of my business plan for my camera and for many of us. I hope this has the priority it deserves given the many reasons and number of customers who regard this as important!!