I'm just wondering why full Super35 frame 4.5K isn't offered as a REDCODE compressed option to REDFLASH or RED-DRIVE onboard. It's only offered so far as uncompressed to external disk array. According to Graeme's numbers, 4K REDCODE RAW@30fps will be around 33.75 MB/sec (1.125MB/frame x 30frames). 4.5K compressed through REDCODE @24fps would, I'd guess, be around 32.85MB/sec (1.369MB/frame (estimate/guess) x 24frames). Anyone feel free to correct my math if it's wrong. I'm just basing my numbers on the info on the HDforindies site. Anyway, I don't mean to get greedy or anything, but it'd be nice to have the option of at least 24fps in full sensor 4.5K REDCODE RAW in camera without having to use an external array. If the numbers are correct it certainly seems possible.
4.5K REDCODE RAW in Camera?
- Thread starter parisrem
- Start date
ZaneIsNumber1
Well-known member
I think this is a wait and see feature.
There has been much some speculation here, and Mike mentioned it in his recent article, about recording in 2.35:1 at 4.5K. This "in theory" would be result in less data for the camera to compress, while utilizing the maximum field of view. Red have said very little in response to this...
They are very strategic with there announcements, and they also don't want to promise anything until they know they will be able to deliver on it. Remember that the day before IBC there was no way to shoot 4K on camera or compress RAW.
I think having a Super35 size sensor, but not being able to use it, is kind of odd, especially as Red don't seem to be presenting a solution for uncompressed recording at the moment. For me it's more about field of view than resolution. I'd take the 4.5K downrezzed to 2K as a solution if nothing else!
Like I said, wait and see and take comfort in the fact the Red team read these threads.
Zane
There has been much some speculation here, and Mike mentioned it in his recent article, about recording in 2.35:1 at 4.5K. This "in theory" would be result in less data for the camera to compress, while utilizing the maximum field of view. Red have said very little in response to this...
They are very strategic with there announcements, and they also don't want to promise anything until they know they will be able to deliver on it. Remember that the day before IBC there was no way to shoot 4K on camera or compress RAW.
I think having a Super35 size sensor, but not being able to use it, is kind of odd, especially as Red don't seem to be presenting a solution for uncompressed recording at the moment. For me it's more about field of view than resolution. I'd take the 4.5K downrezzed to 2K as a solution if nothing else!
Like I said, wait and see and take comfort in the fact the Red team read these threads.
Zane
Stephen Williams
Well-known member
ZaneIsNumber1 said:
Hi Zane,
With respect there is still no way to shoot 4K & record on camera today. Hopefully in 6 months time it will be possible!
Stephen
briferg
Red Team
I guess your asking why not 4.5k onboard, in Redcode Raw and not just 4K? There is no post workflow that I know of for 4.5k, no way to project it etc.
Red has always mentioned being able to see outside of the frame line in the view finder. It seems to me that is the real usfulness of the oversized sensor. Seems like most people never use the full apeture on any 35mm format as well always cropping for different aspect ratios etc.
Red has always mentioned being able to see outside of the frame line in the view finder. It seems to me that is the real usfulness of the oversized sensor. Seems like most people never use the full apeture on any 35mm format as well always cropping for different aspect ratios etc.
MikeCurtis
Well-known member
I agree with Brian's point, and as to whether it can be done - it is a wait and see. The compression hardware SOUNDS LIKE it is pretty nailed down at this point, and they'd need to test to see whether the suggested 4.5K @ 2.35 aspect might be doable - while the disk throughput seems in line, we don't know about the nitty gritty of the compression pipeline onboard.
But definitely a wait and see - they know it is out there as a requested feature, I'm kinda goosing them by mentioning it in the article.
And as somebody alluded to, new features keep appearing.
But the ability to see outside/beyond the framing lines is definitely a major feature, and if you go 4.5K wide you lose that ability.
One thing I keep remembering every time I do one of those massive long write-ups - there are SO MANY unique, new, and/or cool features being implemented in Red - it is waaaaaay beyond anything in its price range, and if they ship a reliable camera with these specs at the stated price point anywhere close to their guesstimated ship dates, it'll be a huge win for Red and their buyers/renters/users.
-mike
But definitely a wait and see - they know it is out there as a requested feature, I'm kinda goosing them by mentioning it in the article.
And as somebody alluded to, new features keep appearing.
But the ability to see outside/beyond the framing lines is definitely a major feature, and if you go 4.5K wide you lose that ability.
One thing I keep remembering every time I do one of those massive long write-ups - there are SO MANY unique, new, and/or cool features being implemented in Red - it is waaaaaay beyond anything in its price range, and if they ship a reliable camera with these specs at the stated price point anywhere close to their guesstimated ship dates, it'll be a huge win for Red and their buyers/renters/users.
-mike
Kjetil Haugen
Active member
In the event of a 2:35/2:40 aspect ratio option, wouldn't it make more sense to use these saved pixels for something more useful than MORE resolution? Like more fps onboard if that is possible?
Jaime Valles
Veteran
I agree. I'd much rather have 4K 2.35:1 scope running at 48p than 4.5k running at 24p. When you think of how much bigger 4K is than freakin' SUPERMAN RETURNS, having slo-mo recoded on-board is definitely the more useful feature.Kjetil Haugen said:
That said, the best option would be to have BOTH at the same time! Or, more realistically, maybe choose one or the other, depending on the needs.
billy fattey
Active member
My preference is resolution over fps. I realize there is no way at the moment to project more than 4k, but I feel the captured resolution shines through even when reduced in post or filtered through the air before hitting the screen.
Yeah, I 'm not concerned about resolution. I'm more interested in the best way to get scope from the sensor and having a RAW digital negative. The 2.35/2.40 REDCODE RGB crop sounds great. But RAW is a big draw for me and as I see it, one of the biggest features of the camera. Not that the specs aren't groundbreaking and great as they stand, but they've always advertized the camera as a full Super35 sized sensor with the same FOV and DOF, which it will be tethered... I just really like larger formats, and yeah, it's not that much of a crop for the 4K RAW that will be offered, it's actually about the same as 2-perf 35mm like the Aaton Penelope will have, but every little bit helps, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'd still be happy if it turned out that only half of the advertized specs were possible, I realize how hard all of this is. I guess I'm just wondering if leaving out the full frame RAW had to do with data throughputs or just a conscious choice and it seems like it's probably a choice.
Graeme_Nattress
Red Team
It's only 12% more resolution though - hardly noticible I'd guess. Resolution is not the be-all and end-all of picture quality. There are so many factors that make up picture quality!
Kjetil Haugen said:
Ideally you would have a choice between 2.35 @ 4.5K (less fps) or 2.35 @ 4K (more fps).
I don't know what kind of headache it would be for RED (more shooting options!!!!) but it was once suggested to be able to program in your desired shooting aspect ratio which would be recorded within a 1.78 frame (4K, 2K, 1080p, whatever). The top and bottom would be black pixels (not scanned from the sensor, not recorded to drive) and would therefore take up little or no bandwidth.
Personally I'd be much more comfortable shooting 2.35 at a 2.00 aspect ratio to be cropped in post for the final presentation ratio to allow for repositions North & South. I learned this lesson from shooting 3 perf film - a bit more risky as you can't repo the image very much. I know the RIGHT answer is to "just frame it perfectly in camera", but it is often difficult to guarantee perfect framing for action scenes, car chases, etc.
ZaneIsNumber1
Well-known member
I think we all know what I meantStephen Williams said:
