FXMaster2442
Carbonite Member
Right; but if you scale before the image gets to the sensor then the sensor is only picking up 1920 x 1080 pixels, but it still be getting the whole image from the 35mm lens.
120fps at 4K ?
- Thread starter FXMaster2442
- Start date
Nick_Shaw
Well-known member
An optical image scaler would compromise image quality, and that seems contrary to Red's philosophy.
You can of course get 120fps with 35mm lenses, by only reading the central 2k area of the sensor. That's what 'windowed' mode is, but that way you're using a 35mm lens as if it were a 16mm lens, so the FOV is smaller.
Nick
You can of course get 120fps with 35mm lenses, by only reading the central 2k area of the sensor. That's what 'windowed' mode is, but that way you're using a 35mm lens as if it were a 16mm lens, so the FOV is smaller.
Nick
FXMaster2442
Carbonite Member
Right, but that kind of sucks for people like me that already own 35mm lenses and want to shoot 1080p at 120fps and get the whole image from the 35mm lens. I'd think about it like a projector where it's take a piece of 35mm film and projecting that to larger screen, it just works in reverse on a much smaller scale. Projectors don't compromise a films image do they?
Last edited:
Rob Lohman
Red Team
You are comparing different technologies. This is the way digital (sensors) work. The best we can offer for 4K is 60 fps (through the external raid).
Since RED ONE is being build modular you can expect future upgrades that might allow for example higher framerates.
Since RED ONE is being build modular you can expect future upgrades that might allow for example higher framerates.
agwah
Well-known member
Rob Lohman said:
Modular rails and the rest of the external system looks great so far.
What are you planning to have modular on the inside of the camera. What will be upgradeable? The sensor? The CPU? The RAM? The ports? What else is possible to make modular?
If it is not time to answer yet, don't bother, it is just interesting and fun to see how you guys think.
Haakon said:You realize the RAID will likely be comprised of 10+ hard drives in a shell of some sort, right?
That will take a lot of AAs...
I was expecting it to cost around $10k too. This is the main reason why I really want to also be able to use it for a high-performance storage solution. I can't spend that much if I'm only going to use it a couple of times.
Jack_Felis said:
Maybe the RED-RAM or RED-DRIVE would work better for you in those situations where you don't absolutely need 4k 60fps or 2k 120fps.
Rob Lohman
Red Team
Not RED-DRIVE, that is what you record to "onboard" (yes I know this is a loaded and wrong term by now).
RED-DRIVE & REDFLASH (which slots into the side of the camera) are what you record REDCODE RAW/RGB to.
RED-RAID & RED-RAM for recording the data coming off the high-speed digital port.
RED-DRIVE & REDFLASH (which slots into the side of the camera) are what you record REDCODE RAW/RGB to.
RED-RAID & RED-RAM for recording the data coming off the high-speed digital port.
Right. I guess what I should have said was:
Maybe the RED-RAM would be better for ultra-portability when you need to use the high-speed digital port, and RED-DRIVE for situations where you don't need 4k 60fps or 2k 120fps.
I'm really hoping for a full-size (3.5" SATA) RED-RAID that can also be used as a high-speed storage solution for the desktop. Sorry for repeating myself, but this is the only way I will be able to justify the purchase (assuming the price is around $10k).
Maybe the RED-RAM would be better for ultra-portability when you need to use the high-speed digital port, and RED-DRIVE for situations where you don't need 4k 60fps or 2k 120fps.
I'm really hoping for a full-size (3.5" SATA) RED-RAID that can also be used as a high-speed storage solution for the desktop. Sorry for repeating myself, but this is the only way I will be able to justify the purchase (assuming the price is around $10k).
Rob Lohman
Red Team
jahlion: that sounds reasonable, especially since you need the connectors (eSATA or something) to pull the data off. I don't see why you would restrict write access.
All of this is still TBD and in development though! Rest assured that as always we are listening
All of this is still TBD and in development though! Rest assured that as always we are listening
Stuart English
Red Team
120fps 108p with 35mm FOV
120fps 108p with 35mm FOV
I "already own 35mm lenses and want to shoot 1080p at 120fps and get the whole image from the 35mm lens"
To do that, the only technology available to you is to shoot 35mm film at 120fps, and then telecine it to 1080p. Sometimes you just have to use more than one tool on a project. The important thing then is do the imaging tools match visually? With RED I think that we can reasonably expect that it will.
120fps 108p with 35mm FOV
I "already own 35mm lenses and want to shoot 1080p at 120fps and get the whole image from the 35mm lens"
To do that, the only technology available to you is to shoot 35mm film at 120fps, and then telecine it to 1080p. Sometimes you just have to use more than one tool on a project. The important thing then is do the imaging tools match visually? With RED I think that we can reasonably expect that it will.
Stephen Williams
Well-known member
Stuart English said:
Hi Stuart,
I was thinking of selling my Mitchell, but I think I need to keep it after all!
Stephen
Stuart English said:
But there's those people that can't stand film and are looking to RED as the way to get the Resolution without the process of film. I personally could never shot film, but....
I don't know about FXMaster, but I couldn't.
Ah well, I'm sure there's something that will come on along eventually.
P.S.: I noticed that FXMaster2442's usergroup name is Bronze Member whereas just about everybody elses is Junior Member or Member or Senior Member; what's with that?
Stephen Williams
Well-known member
A51Films said:
Hi,
Why do you hate film so much?
Stephen
It's to grainy, faded, and dirty looking...... people say they can't determine if something was shot on film or HD when projected on a theater screen. Personally, I can (Although, I have been fooled once or twice and some things shot on film came out pretty clean) tell what is Film or HD. For example I liked Spykids 2 over 1 picture-wise. I prefer Star Wars 2 and 3 over the Episode 1. And that's in the theater not on a TV. On a TV you can't really tell.
Plus with Film I always seem to catch the random black crap in the frames, with films shot digitally I don't see that. I didn't see that once in "Click", but it was all over the place in "Man of the Year".
Plus with Film I always seem to catch the random black crap in the frames, with films shot digitally I don't see that. I didn't see that once in "Click", but it was all over the place in "Man of the Year".
For me, it's about workflow and cost. There is just no substitute for being able to see exactly what you are capturing while you are capturing it, period. With film, there is always the chance that something can be off... something in the gate, a minor backfocus misstep, color temperature shift... things that as skilled professionals we are mindful of and always double-check, but nothing is ever full-proof. I can understand why seasoned veterans may feel intimidated by the incoming flux of digital technology, and I don't knock them for that. Not only is it brand-new to many in the business and will probably require a lot of additional education for some, but there are facets of it that are truthfully easier as well. What some people have spent 40 or 50 years doing is gradually being eclipsed. But that's what technology does; it simplifies as it improves. As one part of the process gets "easier," however, new components inevitably arise that will demand new skill sets and technical ability. The people who have a knack for those new processes may or may not be the same group of people who have a knack for all things film (and that's why I think some feel theatened by it). For me, however, having to take my footage to a processing house, get it developed and printed, then taking those prints to a telecine bay, and finally having to ingest all of that material into a computer to cut it up... that process is just arduous, inefficient, and frankly, antiquated. If the footage is going to end up on the computer anyway, you might as well acquire in that domain if you have the means to do so and there isn't a compromise in quality. That's where we are headed.
The other issue is cost, and although there are probably still some people who would say that an HD shoot is just as expensive as a film shoot, I just haven't seen it. Maybe it was that way for awhile, but things have changed - and they're continuing to change rapidly. The cameras don't cost $500,000 anymore, for one. Just look at what RED is doing. You have a glowing review from an ASC member saying that the "barrier" of 35mm resolution and clean color fidelity has been surpassed by a camera which costs $17,500. That's a pretty big deal! Factor in the savings you get from not having to buy stock, develop it, process it, make prints, do a telecine... the savings is huge. We're going to be able to store 4K footage onto a 2.5" hard drive in the field and transfer it to whatever storage vault we have at home; these days it's pennies per gigabyte. Once you make the initial investment in the camera body and whatever else you want to add on to it, you can create as much content as you wish. There isn't the continual cost of shooting that you incur with film. And for a lot of people - especially independent productions - that is going to make a huge difference.
I think all along Jim has said that RED will be an alternative to 35, not a replacement. It's not film, and doesn't pretend to be. Although some will continue try to "emulate" film in their digital projects, many will not, and my guess is that this practice will decline as time goes on. Remember, this is a brand-new medium, and we're all used to seeing the output of film for the last hundred years! It will take a little time to get used to something different. With that in mind, I welcome with open arms a grain-free, high-resolution picture that I can copy indefinitely with no degredation between generations. What I've seen from RED so far looks teriffic, and it's only going to get better from here.
The other issue is cost, and although there are probably still some people who would say that an HD shoot is just as expensive as a film shoot, I just haven't seen it. Maybe it was that way for awhile, but things have changed - and they're continuing to change rapidly. The cameras don't cost $500,000 anymore, for one. Just look at what RED is doing. You have a glowing review from an ASC member saying that the "barrier" of 35mm resolution and clean color fidelity has been surpassed by a camera which costs $17,500. That's a pretty big deal! Factor in the savings you get from not having to buy stock, develop it, process it, make prints, do a telecine... the savings is huge. We're going to be able to store 4K footage onto a 2.5" hard drive in the field and transfer it to whatever storage vault we have at home; these days it's pennies per gigabyte. Once you make the initial investment in the camera body and whatever else you want to add on to it, you can create as much content as you wish. There isn't the continual cost of shooting that you incur with film. And for a lot of people - especially independent productions - that is going to make a huge difference.
I think all along Jim has said that RED will be an alternative to 35, not a replacement. It's not film, and doesn't pretend to be. Although some will continue try to "emulate" film in their digital projects, many will not, and my guess is that this practice will decline as time goes on. Remember, this is a brand-new medium, and we're all used to seeing the output of film for the last hundred years! It will take a little time to get used to something different. With that in mind, I welcome with open arms a grain-free, high-resolution picture that I can copy indefinitely with no degredation between generations. What I've seen from RED so far looks teriffic, and it's only going to get better from here.
Last edited:
Tom Lowe said:
Q. "Where does RED-RAM fits in to this?"
A. RED-RAM is a second external recording device like RED-RAID. Some applications need completely silent operation / and other special characteristics. Think of RED-RAM as a compliment to RED-RAID in the same way REDFLASH is a compliment to RED-DRIVE.
I would assume RED-RAM will have the same throughput as the RED-RAID, but smaller, lighter, lower power requirements, and silent. I want the RED-RAM for location shoots, and a large capacity RED-RAID for the studio/greenscreen.