First Epic Shipped
- Thread starter Jeremy_Sawatzky
- Start date
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Funny, I thought that was yesterday...
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
I'm not sure I am ready for hand-held 3d. 
Just kidding, but then again, a Bourne film in 3d might actually make me sick.
The future of cameras is even crazier. Soon we'll just be adding a little box to the back of a PL mounted lens. IE, look at the little Sony that was announced. Nuts.
Just kidding, but then again, a Bourne film in 3d might actually make me sick.
The future of cameras is even crazier. Soon we'll just be adding a little box to the back of a PL mounted lens. IE, look at the little Sony that was announced. Nuts.
I'm pretty positive Pirates went Red because of the need for digital because of 3D. Needing so many cameras, the Alexa wasn't out yet and there aren't really enough Genesis's or F35's to support a working industry AND a huge film like Pirates 4 3D... requiring double the amount of cameras.
Not trying to knock RED or Digital for that matter, but many celluloid peoples who find themselves shooting 3D HAVE to go digital and must choose something... ala Bob Richardson and Alexa's for Hugo.
Cost and availability will cause people who must go digital 3D to go RED. Renting that many genesis or F35's is expensive. Red's are available in numbers and in price. Red for the economical win.
Then again, RedOneMX is a fantastic camera, and people are switching to digital all the time without the necessity of 3D.... ala Roger Deakins and arri alexa.
O'Hara for congress.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Funny, I thought this is today. But here are the second generation of cameras, so it won't surely be tomorrow ;-)
Batutta
Major Contributor
I'm pretty positive Pirates went Red because of the need for digital because of 3D. Needing so many cameras, the Alexa wasn't out yet and there aren't really enough Genesis's or F35's to support a working industry AND a huge film like Pirates 4 3D... requiring double the amount of cameras.
I saw the Pirates trailer in IMAX 3D in front of TRON. The 3D looked very, very good, as did the image. I didn't know it was RED so I am impressed.
Tomas Riuka
Well-known member
Not to be whining... i read the whole thread regarding 4k, and the image i got is that most of the reduser.net forum members, who of course mostly happen to be red owners, are like over believers in religion, who believe in what they want to believe and will step over anything to do what their reiligion tell forgetting real sense of life.
Sure, Jim is a great guy, he had the idea, he made affordable digital movie camera, but come one... 4k is the only way to go? I sense here more personal ambitions, that sensible reality. Yes, industry goes forward, everything develops, but wait... i don't think consumers will ever need a 4k TVs. They can't tell the difference on 50 inch plasma between 720p and 1080p, what are we talking about? If i remember correctly , even youtube had some 4k footage? so what? it's not only about pixels.
'The future lies only in 4k' fantasy for me is something similar to those, who always wait for the perfect camera and never shoot anything. Even more, quality 1080p even on 100' lcd looks fantastic from 8-10 feet, not sure if we need 4k on that.
Yes, there are theaters, which would benefit from that, but not sure if a viewer needs that. Again, to me it's seems like the philosophy 'i have red, so 4k is the only way to go and there are no movies without it' does not stand with reality. When i watch 50 year old movie re-release on bluray, don't think it's missing anything.
Those, who at the age of cheap digital cameras should be concentrating on craft , concentrate on technical stuff... but they, RED is a business, can't imagine Steve Jobs saying that the future lies in Windows mobile 7, not iOS.
Just sayin'...
Sure, Jim is a great guy, he had the idea, he made affordable digital movie camera, but come one... 4k is the only way to go? I sense here more personal ambitions, that sensible reality. Yes, industry goes forward, everything develops, but wait... i don't think consumers will ever need a 4k TVs. They can't tell the difference on 50 inch plasma between 720p and 1080p, what are we talking about? If i remember correctly , even youtube had some 4k footage? so what? it's not only about pixels.
'The future lies only in 4k' fantasy for me is something similar to those, who always wait for the perfect camera and never shoot anything. Even more, quality 1080p even on 100' lcd looks fantastic from 8-10 feet, not sure if we need 4k on that.
Yes, there are theaters, which would benefit from that, but not sure if a viewer needs that. Again, to me it's seems like the philosophy 'i have red, so 4k is the only way to go and there are no movies without it' does not stand with reality. When i watch 50 year old movie re-release on bluray, don't think it's missing anything.
Those, who at the age of cheap digital cameras should be concentrating on craft , concentrate on technical stuff... but they, RED is a business, can't imagine Steve Jobs saying that the future lies in Windows mobile 7, not iOS.
Just sayin'...
Last edited:
sorry what is that?
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Couldn't agree more.
Jannard's "1080P is the new VHS" was ridiculous.
Jannard's "1080P is the new VHS" was ridiculous.
Darky Mikado
Active member
You COMPLETELY missed his point... it wasn't about 4K being "the only way". Hell, he even explained his stance on Scarlet being 3K and that "as long as your happy" it really doesn't matter, does it? No. The point was that he felt there wasn't any worthy FILM REPLACEMENT in 1080p and that 4K and higher is the only one worthy as a film replacement in terms of resolution. Then there is everything else (colour palette, dynamic range, feel etc.) - and Jim surely knows that "everything else" is just as important as resolution. But come on, 5K at 5-10lbs - doesn't that sound like something worth marketing? REDUser is, after all, their primary marketing tool. So of course it will sound like "people believe what they want to believe"! It's like asking a Panasonic rep. if they think their cameras is the greatest thing since sliced bread -- the standard reply is just how the game is played.
And certainly, there is money to be had in re-releases (blu-ray) of old movies so yeah... he does have a point. Whether he is right on 4K in the home? That's anyone's guess.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
I am actually inclined to agree on his point that 4K-5K being the tipping point of where digital resolution starts to be a good approximation for film. 1080 sure isn't it. But the whole thing just read a little funny to me.
Last edited:
Tomas Riuka
Well-known member
Edited about the religion, didn't want to insult or offend anyone, sorry about that. what i wanted to say is basically fanatism may not line up with reality or common sense and from Jim's posts you can see something similar regarding resolution. But as noticed, it's marketing, so he can't say 1080 is enough.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Well, if we are to make 35mm celluloid film as a standard of the past, 1080 is clearly below it. However that is professionally. As for distribution outside of the theater (aka consumer bought playback) it is much greater than VHS and DVD, thus many of us are happy with it as of now. Jim is right in the fact the future will hold larger formats, but Blu-Ray isn't that old yet, and there is a threshold a public will not tolerate when it comes to constantly making their new purchases obsolete.
So many people who just bought into blu-ray HD televisions, are going to be mad as hell if the new thing is quickly 4k or etc. 4k will be better, I think so. But we need an acceptable time to pass within the consumer level before continuing to advance. The professional realm, however, is different. We can continually shoot, capture and project in higher formats because that is the luxury and game we play. We can fill theater seats because of it.
Believe me, Sony is already gearing up for what will come after 1080 blu-ray... but right now, they don't (and won't) push another completely different format on the consumer just yet. We need more time. Making large format changes (SD-HD) requires large infrastructure changes, but even more prevalent, it needs to be accepted by 'the people'. Many of which right now are new to high-def, and don't want to spend thousands more to get another new thing. Remember trying to get people off broadcast analogue?
Last edited:
Yak
Well-known member
Did you ever see a nitrate film print, well it will blow away anything shot on cellulose safety film, nitrate had one problem it could easily catch fire which could not be put out. So now we have cellulose film, the image is not as good as the older nitrate stock but most would say the advantage of a safer film out ways the lower image quality. Does 4k look better than 1080 yes, will it see mass distribution other than select theaters any time soon I doubt it. Most productions will be lucky to be seen higher than 2K. With more and more viewers watching programing on ipads, netflicks, compressed satellite transmission ect... the issue of 4K over 1080 seem a bit mute too most audiences. Lets not forget content is king and not get too bogged down in debating the pros and cons of 4k over 1080.
One of the reasons I heart David Mullen posts...
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=695132&postcount=270
He cuts through bullshit and hype.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=695132&postcount=270
He cuts through bullshit and hype.
The presentation format is not the major reason for shooting 4k or higher resolutions. Matching or exceeding the highly evolved capabilities of film as an acquisition medium in every meaningful way is what drives Red's push for higher resolutions and greater dynamic range. It is about capturing as much information in a frame as possible to allow greater creative latitude. There is much to like about massive oversampling. It is a major reason film is still the gold standard for quality.
Yak
Well-known member
OK well said thank you
Oh, I see what I did there! Hah-hah! How highbrow of me!