RED Resolution....

F

FXMaster2442

Carbonite Member
Here's a post of mine on the myspace film boards, and then the reply I got. RED is indeed 4k right?; 2540p to be exact?
____________________________________________________

I wrote:

​
With RED (Digital 4K) at 17, 500; every camera's going to have to come in price or they're not going to sell.
____________________________________________________

Reply:

I checked, RED is only digital 2k, not 4k. You count the vertical lines, not the horizontal, hence HD is 1k.

What I am most curious about is where is RED getting it's sensor, as only 3 fabs in the world can manufacture it, and none of them have a contract to do so.

____________________________________________________

And then my next reply:

Check that again:


Acquisition Formats: 2540p (4k+)
4K
2K
1080p
1080i
720p

Red ONE Digital 35mm Camera

2540p is basically double 1080p and as of right now 1080p is damn close to a 2k image alone (size-wise).
____________________________________________________


So who is right here?

Here's the topic if you want to read, me and this guy going back and forth for 8 or so posts.

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&groupID=0&page=1&EntryID=1637107&CategoryID=98&get=1&adTopicId=12&keyword=films&xargstringp=&xargstringn=&lastpagesent=2&Mytoken=48C20968-BF72-49C9-97C37F1BB7D2FB7A9682736

(Scroll to the 10th post on there, I'm Andrew; the other guy is Nate).




​
 
The problem is when people hear the term 4k or 4k+ , some think that it is 4000p or more than 4000p. So they are comparing it to 1080p. But once they realize it is 2540p they think that "well it is not that much".
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Initiatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution#Television.2FMovies

RED ONE will do:

4520 x 2540 (2540p or 4.5K or 4K+)
4096 x 2304 (4K)
2048 x 1152 (2K)
1920 x 1080 (1080p) "HDTV"
1280 x 720 (720p) "HDTV"

So yes, while the TV standards tell vertical resolution you switch to counting
horizontal for the higher resolution ([digital] cinema) modes. The vertical
resolution is even a bit higher (since it is in 16:9 for 2K/4K instead of 1.85)
than "standard".
 
yes your friend is misguided.. and is just wrong since he uses the term 2k... nobody has ever used 2k to describe a 2048 verticle resolution.
 
And Jarred is spot on right! Interesting point about the sensor - that they seem to be "in the know" enough to know about sensors, but can't figure their horizontal from their vertical!!!

Graeme
 
2K and 4K count horizontal resolution and 1080p and 2540p count vertical resolution. Hence 1024 x 512 is 1K. If you want a "vertical 4K camera", look no further than NHK's 4320p or Ultra High Definition, you'll just have to downsample a little. It's sensor is actually lower resolution than the RED ONE though.
 
Last edited:
"No, you count vertical regardless of aquisition form. If you do not know this, then how is anyone to take you seriously as a camera designer?

Video still has an analog component, even after over a deade of digital aquisition. Every horizontal line is, has been, and always will remain an analog raster. You cannot measure video by horizontal resoltuion as, fundimentally, horizontal is a potential infinity. Hence, to measure HD, SD, or ANY video, you must work by vertical lines of resoltuion. Hence, 1080i is called "1K"."

What a load of old tosh. Video formats are named after their vertical resolution, measured in number of horizontal lines that make up the image.
Hence 720p is 1280x720.

Film scans, are measured by the number of pixels horizontally. Hence 2k refers to 2048x?? where ?? changes depending upon the aspect ratio of the film and other factors. Similarly 4k is 4096 pixels. In the RED camera, it's 16:9, so 4k is 4096x2304 pixels.

The next comment about video remaining analogue and infinite resolution is pure bollocks. Digital video is made up of measureable pixels in both the horizontal and vertical direction, just like digital stills images. And even with analogue video, you can measure horizontal resolution in lines per picture height. And that has been done since the dawn of time.

And HD 1080i is never ever not in 1 million years referred to as 1k.

I don't know who it is on myspace who posted the false, and embarrasingly innacurate information, but they could very well do with picking up a copy of Charles Poynton's book on HD and reading it.
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
"The next comment about video remaining analogue and infinite resolution is pure bollocks
Click to expand...

A fine post Graeme, had me chuckling. You clearly remain a Brit.

Martin
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
I don't know who it is on myspace who posted the false, and embarrasingly innacurate information, but they could very well do with picking up a copy of Charles Poynton's book on HD and reading it.
Click to expand...

. . . Heck, all they'd really need to do is look ANYWHERE. It is kinda embarrasing. I'd say don't take alot of time responding to him anymore. It's like arguing with someone over whether inches are actually measured in centimeters.
 
This is the guy that says he sells Film Cameras.... Yes, that's his job, selling Film cameras. That's all he keeps pushing, he keeps saying that 35mm film can be scanned to 8k, so RED is already beaten. That really made me laugh.
 
You can scan film to whatever resolution you want, but..... It's not worth it. Film has somewhere between 3k and 4k resolution, but not much real data beyond 2k. However, due to the inherent grain structure and to avoid aliassing artifacts, it does make some sense to, say, scan at 4k and then downsample to 2k as an oversampling.

Graeme
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
" but they could very well do with picking up a copy of Charles Poynton's book on HD and reading it.
Click to expand...

Graeme, any other good books you suggest picking up for valuable information (besides reading these boards :) ?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top