Any takers for 2.5K?

[Campbell Goodwille]

We've been loving our Epic-Ms so far... can't say how much fun it is shooting full frame 96fps (or 120fps with a small vertical crop)

Whilst the 300fps at 2K 2.35.1 is a fantastic achievement, it is far too niche for most of our jobs (and particularly for 3D work)

What would really make a huge difference for us is the fastest frame rate at a resolution that works really well for 1080p. After some testing we feel a 2.5k (16:9 or 2:1) resolution would work. It would be a perfect compromise between frame rate and versatile resolution. It's noticeably sharper than a 2K extraction.(The icing for us would be 3d sync-ability)

Anybody have any thoughts? ;-) I would imagine that it should be possible to reach 200fps??

Jim/Jarred - any plans in the pipeline?

[David Mullen ASC]

Isn't 2.5K a bit hairsplitty with 3K? 3K RAW also makes a good conversion to 2K RGB...

[Campbell Goodwille]

Not at all, David. 3K is an extra 30% in resolution over 2.5K - that's going to make a considerable difference to the maximum fps...

[David Wyatt]

Would be interesting to see what kind of max frame rate 2.5K would get - after the de-bayer process it's not too far off 1920x1080 compared to 2K...

[Michael Lindsay]

Isn't 2.5K a bit hairsplitty with 3K? 3K RAW also makes a good conversion to 2K RGB...

Hi David

'3k makes a good conversion'? Absolutely it does... with an 1080 output it can be very difficult to tell the difference between 4k and 3k....

However I'm 100% behind the idea of Red considering offering a 2.5k (or what ever the Red guys deems the perfect number) output for high speed work. 2k @2.35/1 is an exciting teck miracle but for many situations it is a bit niche and tricky to cut it up (and especially after a 16:9 extraction) against 4k or 5k footage.

Now that Epic can effortlessly shoot 120fps at 4k or 5k (in the wider screen ratios) I'm perhaps getting spoilt. I'm looking to have to jump to Phantoms nearly never.

Michael (epic is spoiling me) Lindsay

[Jannard]

2.5K 16:9 would be 192fps and 2.5K 2.40:1 would be 240fps. We can add this sometime down the road.

Jim

[Michael Lindsay]

David M

Perhaps you are right once we get "3k 2.40 @ 200fps" we can pop in custom frame guides for 2:1 and 16:9...

I believe frame rate upper limits are defined by how much is read out verticlly. Therefore the extra horizontal makes no difference (Graham please correct me if I am wrong here).

Anyway I'm thankful for Redcode with all these overcranking options... 5k @ 120 is tempting and I realy wouldn't want that coming out uncompressed.

regards

Michael

[Michael Lindsay]

2.5K 16:9 would be 192fps and 2.5K 2.40:1 would be 240fps. We can add this sometime down the road.

Jim

Thanks for jumping in...

and am I correct in thinking 3k 2.40:1 will be 200fps?

Michael L

PS all these different high speed frame rate options are appreciated and will get used...

[Campbell Goodwille]

2.5K 16:9 would be 192fps and 2.5K 2.40:1 would be 240fps. We can add this sometime down the road.

Jim

Great news, Jim. I appreciate there 'may' be one or two items on the to-do list already!

[Jeff Kilgroe]

More options! Yay! :)