Slo-Mo and REDCODE RAW questions...

macgregor said:
But again, if it is a speed processing issue, and 4K 30fps is possible, wouldn´t be possible 24fps at 4.5K?
Click to expand...
I have wondered about this, too, which is why I am always prefacing my comments with "things are always changing" and "there may be developments that we don't yet know about." There may be hardware limitations we don't know about, or perhaps some things just haven't been tested. I am sure they are considering all options; I think we just have to wait to see. At this time, however, 4.5K recording is not possible onboard.

Muttondraw said:
I had bought in to the S35 format option, it just hadn't dawned on me that it wouldn't be that viable in some permutation or other. Underlines how relevant your table is Haakon.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying and I agree. I think a lot of "key points" have been thrown around in many places, like "RED offers 4K onboard recording!" "1-60p in 4K!" "Super35 sensor!" and the like, but of course none of these options can in reality be utilized at the same time. For instance, it's possible to record 2K RAW footage up to 120p - which sounds awesome - but you have to also realize that you can only do that with a windowed sensor, and you can't do it without a RAID.

I think a lot of people got caught up in particulars, but weren't aware that a compromise had to be made somewhere else in the line. That's not really anyone's fault - it's just that there is a lot of information to deal with, and right now there isn't a very consice place to look it all up and understand it. With my table, I was trying to organize that data for everyone in one place (with many disclaimers that there were holes and probably inaccuracies!), so that people like Graeme, Rob, and Stuart could focus on their real jobs and not have to keep coming on here to answer questions every five minutes. The other thing to understand is that from their perspective, they have all of the information already - so it probably seems much less confusing from whey're they are sitting. It's obvious they know things that the rest of us don't (Rob made a reference to the internal flash being removable, but then didn't clarify when he was asked about it) :) so my guess is that there is a lot more to come and it's just a matter of them deciding when the best time to release that information will be.

The problem is that as some new details are released, they don't always gel with old data, and we're left with half a picture that doesn't always make sense. The format options chart on the RED website is outdated, for example, and many people are probably heading there to get "official" information. Obviously, that can be a problem.

Hopefully we'll have a more solid table of information available soon (I think this topic has helped them to be aware of the kinds of things we are really looking for), and more of our questions will be answered. Until then, remember that they are still working on the camera, after all, and that is (and should be!) the top priority! :)

Cheers,

Häakon
 
Haakon said:
I understand what you're saying and I agree. I think a lot of "key points" have been thrown around in many places, like "RED offers 4K onboard recording!" "1-60p in 4K!" "Super35 sensor!" and the like, but of course none of these options can in reality be utilized at the same time.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I know I just assumed that when they were mentioning a Super35mm sensor, and then combine that with S35 lens format chart, I assumed that there would be a S35 acquisition option. The D20 supports up to the Ansi Super35 width (24.9mm), so I assumed RED would follow suit.

Like you mentioned, there must be some limitations as to why they can't utilize the full sensor (S35width) area... The good news is that there should be enough resolution to shoot 4K Academy and crop/reframe in post. And if I'm not mistaken, RED is including Arriglow-type guides ??

Graeme mentioned this in a previous thread, and I thought it was apropos here ->
We can't get a higher resolution out of the camera than the native pixel count of the camera. To try to do so is cheating, it's called "subsampling" and really doesn't work.

The best we can give you is the full sensor. You can choose how you crop it or scale it in post. We can probably crop the sensor in camera so you can get longer record times too.

Cropping the 4k to a 2.35:1 aspect will give a higher resolution picture than in camera scaling or using non-square pixels.

Graeme
Click to expand...

I'm still going to throw an anamorphic lens on the camera to see what cool effects I can achieve :grin:

And this is well worth stating again :beer:

Until then, remember that they are still working on the camera, after all, and that is (and should be!) the top priority! :)

Cheers,

Häakon
Click to expand...



RED# cautiously optimistic
 
Last edited:
Interesting points and I hope someone from Red is reading this thread.

4K resolution totals about 9.4 million pixels

4.5K cropped to 2.40 aspect totals about 8.5 million pixels

So if Redcode Raw can compress a 9.4 million pixel image in camera, then surely an 8.5 million pixel image could be doable. Personally I like the idea of shooting the 4K full frame and cropping to 2.40 aspect in post, but for times when you want the maximum field of view possible with your camera and lens, this mode would be fantastic.

So maybe 4.5K in camera, but only in 2.40:1 (or 2.39 or 2.35, whatever it is)?
 
Last edited:
Not to dwell on a point (:happy:) but perhaps 4.5K cropped to 8.5 million pixels could be compressed and recorded onboard at something above 30fps? 48fps perhaps?
 
ZaneIsNumber1 said:
Maybe cropping 4K to 2.40 (about 7 million pixels) could get a decent increase in fps?

Where's Graeme?
Click to expand...
Good idea. Is 2.40 a legit aspect ratio? :)

Just to refresh my memory, cropping 4K does not have much effect on DOF and effective focal length, does it?
 
Frame width remains the same. Just chops off the top and bottom of the image for that nice widescreen look.

Super35 film gets cropped all the time.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Good idea. Is 2.40 a legit aspect ratio? :)
Click to expand...
In short, yes. :)

The standard for 35mm anamorphic (CinemaScope) was originally 2.35:1, but was changed twice in the 1970s. Because the height of the CinemaScope image on film leaves no room between frames, splices (both done in the lab and and in the theatre) would cause flashes of light at the top or bottom, or both, of the picture. Because of that, theatres took to masking the 2.35:1 frame down slightly to cover the splices. In 1970, the SMPTE set an "official" standard that reduced the height of the projector aperture to compensate for the visible splicing. It was lowered first to 2.39:1 and then later to 2.40:1. When projected with the new aperture plates, no splices are visible. Most cinematographers still compose for 2.35:1, however, and the camera apertures are still 2.35:1. The revised standards are for projection only. This (like everything else) :) has led to much confusion. Even stuff projected or outputted at 2.40:1 (onto DVD, for example) is routinely referred to as 2.35:1 due to convention.

Of course, when shooting digitally you aren't dealing with splices - so all of this is essentially moot in a modern workflow. My personal outlook is that you should choose the aspect that you think best fits your project, and shoot as such. Whether that's 1.85, 2.35, 2.40, or anything in between (or beyond), your film frame is your canvas. Standards help the mass production of any medium, but as an artist you shouldn't feel confined to create within a preset "box."

Also, cinematographers are more precise in their terminology than motion picture exhibitors are. For example, back in the days of Super Panavision 70, cinematographers would refer to the process as Panavision 65, which was correct for the film size they were were working with. So even when you're working with a standard, the standard may not be accurate. :) Isn't this fun?
 
Last edited:
I see. Yeah 2.35 is what a lot of people say, and I think that is how many movies are still listed on IMDB. I could be wrong.

So will this 2.40 crop work and deliver us some 4K overcrankage? :)
 
EDIT :

I'm talking with a post house, and digital cinema corp. to figure out the best approach (since scope screen projection theatrically, generally is wider) and I'm unsure how a 10bit wavelett will comply with DCI's 12bit bit depth)...

RED# cautiously optimistic
 
Last edited:
Tom Lowe said:
So will this 2.40 crop work and deliver us some 4K overcrankage? :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, really. I would be extremely happy if I could shoot with the following specs:

4K REDCODE RAW to on-board RED-DRIVE
35mm Academy windowed to 2:40 aspect ratio
Variable frame rates up to, maybe, 48fps? Maybe?? Pretty please???

My next feature will be shot on RED with 35mm still Nikon lenses with a 2:40 aspect ratio. If it could get up to 48fps overcranking, it would be a 50% slo-mo, which is quite acceptable for dramatic work. And this wouldn't require RAID setups to capture footage.

If it can't happen, it can't happen. But since they're still in development, it can't hurt to ask, right? :beer:
 
jrv3034 said:
Yeah, really. I would be extremely happy if I could shoot with the following specs:

4K REDCODE RAW to on-board RED-DRIVE
35mm Academy windowed to 2:40 aspect ratio
Variable frame rates up to, maybe, 48fps? Maybe?? Pretty please???

My next feature will be shot on RED with 35mm still Nikon lenses with a 2:40 aspect ratio. If it could get up to 48fps overcranking, it would be a 50% slo-mo, which is quite acceptable for dramatic work. And this wouldn't require RAID setups to capture footage.

If it can't happen, it can't happen. But since they're still in development, it can't hurt to ask, right? :beer:
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was thinking. :beer:

48fps would be great for cinema work. So many of us are spoiled now because of the HVX.
 
EDIT :

I'm talking with a post house, and digital cinema corp. (theatrical) to figure out the best approach.

RED# cautiously optimistic


Sorry for all the questions, but the S35 frame is a truly artistic choice, and one that is compositionally very needed in certain projects. Finding the best way to utilize RED + the S35 frame is a big possibility for excellent ART. :beer: :beer: :beer:
 
Last edited:
D_and_G said:
Sorry for all the questions, but the S35 frame is a truly artistic choice, and one that is compositionally very needed in certain projects. :beer: :beer: :beer:
Click to expand...
Well the s35 sensor is definitely larger, but the aspect ratio is near identical. What's on your mind in terms of being "very compositionally needed?" :)

For me, I think the 4K image will be big enough... I can get 24p out of that onboard and crop to taste. Seeing homer's chart reinforced just how much bigger that 4K frame is. My next film won't be in 16:9 or 2.35, but the cool thing is that with that much area to play with, you can crop to taste!

It's definitely a good time to be alive. :grin:
 
Format choices

Format choices

In all of these discussions also don't overlook the possibilities with our 2K RGB. As its scaled in-camera from 4K RAW, it has the same FOV and DOF with the advantage for s/n and dynamic range of being a 2:1 oversampled image. Its also recordable to a RED-DRIVE via internal REDCODE RGB compression at any frame rate between 1 - 60fps - including speed ramps.

Also note: The format options chart at http://red.com/formatoptions.htm has also been upadated today.
 
And with a high quality scaling algorithm, 2k RGB scaled to 4k should look good. It helps that scale is the only difference - FOV and colour being the same. And that you're progressive too - interlace is horrible for scaling.

Graeme
 
Thanks for updating the chart, Stuart.

I think that the 2K option is nice (because of the 60p), but you lose the wonderful RAW capabilities that you've all sold us on! :) That was one of the things I was looking forward to the most. Also, 2K is pretty significantly smaller than the 4K image and that can make a difference.

I know you haven't locked everything down yet, and it's still subject to change, and we won't quote your post as the gospel truth, but in the ballpark, how much difference is there in filesize (MB) between a 2K REDCODE RAW frame and a 2K REDCODE RGB one?
 
Thanks for the new format chart Stuart.

Am I correct in thinking that chart is the first mention I've seen of 120fps REDCODE (albeit 720p from a windowed sensor). It's good to see that there is an option for onboard 120fps recording.

Nick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top