4K REDCODE RAW cropped/windowed = more FPS?

Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe

Well-known member
Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere.

I have seen several members here wondering if REDCODE RAW 4K could be windowed/cropped to a 2.40:1 aspect ratio, effectively cutting down the amount of data/pixels per second to a number the RED team has basically said they can compress and store onboard, ie, to the Red Drive, even overcranked. I can't remember the exact math, but logically it seemed to make sense.

This seems like it could be the holy grail, because it would allow filmmakers to shoot 4K and still retain the ability to overcrank, perhaps up to 48fps? By cutting down the number of exposed pixels, you could up the number of frames. Is that right?

One question, though: If this could be done, in theory -- windowing 4K -- would it effect lens choices or DOF?
 
I chugged the match on that recently - 4520x1883 (2.40:1 aspect ratio) is 8.5MM pixels. 4048x2304 (16;9 aspect ratio) is 9.32MM pixels - fewer, but not that many fewer. Will even that be possible? We'll have to wait and see. But give up thoughts of over-cranking at that size.

To directly answer your question:

4048x1686 is 2.40:1 at 4K square, is 6.82MM pixels

Assuming (large assumption) that it could be configured this way and clocked up accordingly, that would only allow for a mild increase - if 4K 16:9 caps at 30fps, then at best it would theoretically (and there's lots of assumptions in that statement) be capable of 41fps at 4K 2.40:1. So ther would be some benefit and increase, but not double.

-mike
 
MikeCurtis said:
I chugged the match on that recently - 4520x1883 (2.40:1 aspect ratio) is 8.5MM pixels. 4048x2304 (16;9 aspect ratio) is 9.32MM pixels - fewer, but not that many fewer. Will even that be possible? We'll have to wait and see. But give up thoughts of over-cranking at that size.
Click to expand...

But imagine: 4520x1883/2.4:1 @48frames. I cant, it just makes me weak. Can it PLEASE be arranged Jim? Delay release of the camera if necessary until it can be. Oh god...I've just been shot...twice!
 
Well it would make more sense to use 4096x1714 since that would still be 4K while giving you the 2.39:1 ratio of cinemascope.

If that could get to 48fps I think a lot of people would be very happy as it would provide at least a 2x seamless slowdown in post.

Fingers crossed this becomes an option, but I'll understand if it remains outside the processing power of the camera (for now!). CPU in camera upgrades in the future anyone? :)
 
I think the idea of a windowed cinemascope option would be great, with two options: full frame but only recording the cinemescope pixels (a pixel saved is a pixel earned: less to process, less to drop, less to store) at 24 fps and then have a windowed option that could be scaled down until 48 fps works.

So, as Mike said, if that is 4048x1686 (6.82MM pixels) or 3840x1600 (double HD: 6.1MM pixels ) or 3072x1280 (3.9 mm pixels) at some point it should be feasable to make it work, I would think.

But now that I explain it--forget about it. Red team, you have enough to do. What you are already giving us is way more than we asked for (before we knew of Red) so--get back to work figuring out a way to keep it from buring the set down!

Thom
 
Keep in mind that films are projected at 2.39 after the aperture matte; the film plane and the cinematographer are still working with 2.35. That is why most films are still listed as 2.35 on IMDB even though many are projected as 2.39.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top