Red camera, Obsolescence Obsolete, or Obsolescence overboard?

[James Gardiner]

This is a post from my blog, but I wanted to post it here to get feed back from some RED users.

Please no "religious" responses. Educated, example driven comments appreciated.

Thanks,
James

POST follows.


The Red Digital Cinema tag line is “The Red Camera Makes Obsolescence Obsolete.”

As a DCI digital cinema expert and past owner of a Film and TV production studio and facility, unfortunately, this comment is a little miss-leading.

Let me explain why.

I am involved in the installation of DCI projectors within Australia. As such, I am well informed of technical roadmaps and installation numbers. Currently the DCI equipment being installed is 2k, general projecting SCOPE as 2048×858 and FLAT (1.85) as 1998×1080. The DMD, or DLP chips are 2048×1080 in total.

At the current rate, we will not see large penetration of DCI in all cinemas, especially in non-US cinemas, for quite some time to come. Even in the US the change over is not near 50%.

Current roadmap for 4k DLP support? Not even being talked about yet.

Life span of a DLP projector. Expected 10years, however, Cinemas are use to 40 years lifespan on a traditional projector, so expect them to run them into the ground, 15-20 years.

I would expect the world to be fully DCI in about 5-10 years.

If we add all these time frames up, etc. Don’t expect to see 4K cinema for 20 years. Maybe more.

Now lets look at who can tell the difference between 2k and 4k. From many people I have spoken to, even trained pros have a hard time telling the difference is at a reasonable distance from the screen. Sure, if in the front row it is much easier. In general, however, it is expected that the general cinema goer, 99% would not tell the difference.

As a cinema owner, can you justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just to keep 1% a little happier?

What I am trying to point out here is that 2k is pretty much it. Doing production in more then 2k is a good way to simply spend more money on Post with no real way to get it onto a cinema screen for a very long time to come.

RED1 queasy 4K bayer as opposed to real 4k (when you say 4k you mean 4k of resolution. 4k baye, DLPr is not 4k resolution.) the RED1, in a 2k workflow is most likely the best bang for $$$ camera currently available.

RED cry the “Obsolescence Obsolete” tag line, but this is more hype then reality of what is involved in real production.

Cost, destination format, qualified workflow. This is what you as a producer should be excited about. Not how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

SideNOTE: Over sampling or more then 2k aquisition is very useful for certain post requirements. Mainly CGI, but in general, it has no bearking to the final result in a 2k workflow.

[Jason Ing]

I would expect the world to be fully DCI in about 5-10 years.

If we add all these time frames up, etc. Don’t expect to see 4K cinema for 20 years. Maybe more.

I'm no expert in this. But I think your predictions (and anyone else) are suspect in today's technology (especially if you're talking in decades). Just 2-3 years ago (less?), people didn't believe a camera like Red could exist. You and even the most expert of experts can't see what may be just around the corner or developing in a secret labratory that will be a game changer.

If you want to have a serious discussion without religion, then discuss all factors and give them fair consideration without subjective criticism.

You mention 2k vs 4k, dancing angels, etc. etc. But what about dnr, color fidelity, etc.? Viewers will see that difference.

You seem critical of OO, but I don't get your point. What does OO have to do with production? OO has more to do with the users of the camera. I like a modular system that I can use the majority of parts for a long time or upgrade at a smaller cost then buying an entire camera again. I like the fact that I'll be able to trade in my R1 or upgrade to a better sensor. That's "OO" to me. Maybe it has something to do with production like you said (I don't see it, but okay, I'll keep an open mind).

And as far as hype, overboard, etc. What about it? All companies market and advertise. How many claims by Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. sounded great but didn't pan out?

So far Red has delivered after all the "overboard hype".

[David Mullen ASC]

The point of the post seems to be that 4K is not necessary for cinema applications.

Just remember that the RED ONE is a 4K RAW Bayer camera, and 4K Bayer is not the same thing as 4K resolution.

Personally, I think that if 2K RGB is the final goal for cinema presentation... you need to start out with 3K to 4K minimum if shooting RAW with a single-sensor Bayer-filtered camera.

But while I think shooting in 4K RAW mode is necessary for cinema applications, whether one needs to finish to a 4K RGB master versus a 2K RGB master, I can see the arguments both ways. Although I just did some quick tests of RED material finished to 4K and 2K for film-out, and I preferred the look of the 4K version. It wasn't really a question of sharpness, for some reason, the 4K version seemed "fuller" and more "well-rounded" in how detail fell-off in the shadows and highlights. Hard to explain and even the post house didn't really have an answer. But it was close, the 2K vs. 4K film-out.

I think the original post is confusing two issues -- whether 4K RGB will become a standard for cinema presentation and mastering, and the fact that the RED ONE is a 4K RAW camera, as if you don't need to shoot in 4K mode for a 2K presentation. When you're trying to generate three colors from a single sensor with a Bayer filter, you need to have more pixels in the original sensor than you need in the final RGB files. It solves a number of problems, aliasing one of them. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing

[Albert Armes]

This forum has been a great source of information for me. From what I was reading, it doesn't matter what kind of sensor you're using, if it's a bayer sensor or a 3 chip, that to get 2k resolution without aliasing, you need to have more than 2k. Is that the case? If so, red is going in the right direction by going for higher and higher resolutions.

[Tom Lowe]

Trying to judge future technology trends based on a linear view of the last 10 or 20 or 50 years is flawed. Technology adoption is taking place in most cases at an exponential rate. The CPU you buy this year will be 1/2 the speed of the CPU you buy 11 months from now.

It took 25 years for landline phones to be adopted nationwide. It took 5 years for cell phones. 1080p overtook DVD as the "gold standard" in only a couple of years. 4K is next.

[Häakon]

I think David hit the nail on the head, but I'd take it one step further than that. And that is that while you probably want a 4K (Bayer) sensor to properly *resolve* for a 2K finish, that is without taking any oversampling into the equation. Myself and countless others have pointed out many times over that the larger the acquisition format, the better the delivery result will be. Of course there is a law of diminishing returns involved and thus there is a point where too big truly is too much, but we haven't gotten there (as it relates to digital cinema) yet. In the simplest of analogies, it's the same reason you would want an 8MP digital still camera rather than a 1MP one - even if your finished image is just a 1MP image for the internet. My personal feeling is that for an absolutely pristine 2K/1080p finish, you probably want to be aiming around the 6K range for acquisition with a Bayer sensor. And of course there are many, many other variables in the mix besides resolution (but that is what we are discussing here). So while the original poster is probably very right in his deductions that 4K digital cinema is a long way off being a norm as far as projection is concerned, in no way is RED's approach overkill, exorbitant, or baffling. In fact, by the time 4K projection is a commonplace reality, you'd better hope that there's an 8 or 9K camera out there with which to acquire your content. Be thankful that RED is already laying out the blueprints, because without them it would be another 20 years.

[NateWeaver]

As long as pixel sizes are not so small were taking backwards steps in latitude and noise, then I'll take the oversampling that 4k/5k/6k provides.

James, it's about oversampling, not delivering 4k.

[Häakon]

As long as pixel sizes are not so small were taking backwards steps in latitude and noise, then I'll take the oversampling that 4k/5k/6k provides.

...and that is precisely the reason that bigger sensors are necessary to go hand-in-hand with the larger resolution requirements. :-) I'm glad someone else gets it!

The problem with larger sensors, of course, is that you get into a whole different category of "non standard" lenses, which many people are extremely hesitant to accept. "What we have now has worked for 100 years" or whatever. It takes time to break tradition. But it won't be until we get cameras that bust through the s35 sensor size and current resolutions that we have now that there will be any merit to the "film replacement" argument. What RED is doing with the 645, for example, I think is light years beyond what any other company is offering and if I had the money, that is the camera I would snatch up in a heartbeat.

[Craig Ryan]

Hi James,

Welcome to the forums!

I think if you spend a bit more time around the forum, even run a few searches you may notice that a lot of these sentiments about the adoption of technology, and RED's role and place in the digital transition has been talked about in depth many times.

You make some good points about 2k VS 4k, and coming from someone who is directly involved in the DCI, they are well taken. It's true that in the traditional cinema layout, most aren't going to see the difference. A 2k image is generally agreed upon here as a standard for 35mm cinema.

I personally don't see the majority of 35mm theaters as optimized for higher resolution. More resolution in most cases means a larger screen, otherwise you would need to be craning your neck back in the first few rows to even notice the difference. This is why I don't see 4k becoming a standard soon enough for 35mm theaters. It just doesn't seem to have enough of a benefit in most set ups. (there are exceptions...the AMCs around here have pretty large screens..I recall the screen I saw Star Wars Episode III on was massive...now THAT could use 4k projection..)

Also, RED's "Obsolescence Obsolete" is taken out of context here a bit...I don't believe their intention is to describe anything below 4k as obsolete...it's merely referring to their customer relations philosophy of not needing to buy an entire new camera package every 2 years for one small change.

[androbot2084]

Also let's not forget that by the beginning of the next decade 2010 you will see the introduction of the 4K television which will be fueled by the simple fact that since conventional HD televisions are mainstream and dirt cheap something will have to be introduced as the high end alternative. And yes of course you will have to sit closer to it in order to see the difference but the difference will be there. At first regular HD content will be upconverted to match the native resolution capabilities of the 4K display and eventually consumers will have access to native 4K content.