Slo-Mo and REDCODE RAW questions...

Stuart English said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're making a good point here. I've scaled down the posted 4k stills to 2k in photoshop. Detail wise there isn't a huge amount lost, and they uprez back to 4k nicely too. Perhaps this is due to the bayer pattern chip only yielding around 3k of actual resolution, so a 2K image ain't such a drop in rez.

You lose the ability to manipulate the RAW image, otherwise the compromises of shooting 2k RGB for 60fps aren't too bad.
 
It's more to do with that the image is smooth, noise-free and no sharpening applied - all of which can make scaling problematic.

Graeme
 
Haakon said:
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?" :)
Click to expand...

I could go on and on about anamorphic or Super35. Basically, it gives the artist a different canvas to work on, which allows use of compositional elements and underscores camera movement. Primarily, it's the use of space and movement. My favorite director (Wong Kar Wai) uses the S35 frame to envelop the viewer, while using open and closed frames, color and the natural environment (or mise-en-scene) to create poetic resonance ( I know, that sounds arty ;p ) .

Here's a couple of quick examples :

1162950113.jpg


A Very Long Engagement


1162950140.jpg


2046

Now try to imagine what the difference would be in 1.85. There are elements of visual communication that are in the frame that would be lost if it wasn't 2.39 (2.35). That's not to say that 1.85 is any less effective, it's just that different choices would have to be made to achieve the same purposes...

The 2K scaled option could be the ticket, depending on the project (or 4K, where shooting RAW may outweigh the fps, for example). Lots of choices.:beer:

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but I'd like to work out a rough idea of shooting S35 -> distribution, both with a filmout and digital exhibition in view(ex. safe range for specs, and deliverables). Hopefully, when we've got our cameras in our hands, those who are interested (in T.O) can do what I did with the HVX - get a group together who's interested (each tosses in a little lettuce) we shoot a variety of scenes and go to filmout. There's absolutely no substitute for seeing theory proven (or not) on the big screen. Maybe someone with RED would like to be involved , if we do it :)

[size=-2]I've got to do those three sentence posts like Hudson :grin:[/size]

:beer:


RED# cautiously optimistic
 
D_and_G, it's quite nice to watch those samples instead so much techie talk. :dankk2:

BTW, Wong is :thumbsup:! What did you do with that gorgeous avatar? I don't have any against the guy (Is that you? Or anyone of your characters? He seems that british singer Rob Williams...) but I miss the girl with the hat. When will we see the braz?
 
Maybe I've missed something, but you can crop 2.40:1 aspect out of any of Red's shooting modes (all 16:9). I'm a big fan of this ratio too.

4.5k gives you a wider field of view than the slightly cropped 4k, but you can compensate with a wider lens.

As I suggested earlier in this thread, in camera 4.5K wide 2:40:1 recording would be nice for the maximum field of view possible with your given lens/camera combo. The image would still be smaller than a 16:9 4k frame, but there may be other factors I haven't considered. We'll just have to wait and see.
 
Emanuel said:
D_and_G, it's quite nice to watch those samples instead so much techie talk. :dankk2:

BTW, what did you do with that gorgeous avatar? I don't have any against the guy (Is that you? Or anyone of your characters? He seems that british singer Rob Williams...) but I miss the girl with the hat. When will we see the braz?
Click to expand...

Haha. Lol.

It's good to be reminded what all these numbers and tech talks purpose is for. :)

I switched the avatar in honor of my company's next project -> doing some work for Robbie Williams Inc. Haven't spoken with the geezer personally, but who knows ? At the very least it will remind me not to procrastinate on here too much.

I promise I'll PM you when my girlfriend lets me put her up as my avatar :beer: I guarantee you, I'm going to be putting some RED footage of her on here when the cam is delivered...;)

Obrigado :)


RED# cautiously optimistic
 
Jarred Land said:
you better not be gone for long.. we need you here :)
Click to expand...
:dankk2: No worries, mate.

Once Ireland runs out of Guinness, I'll be back with some freshly laundered lame jokes :grin:

Naw, I can't stay away too long. :beer:

Obrigados muchachos...

RED# cautiously optimistic
 
Last edited:
D&G, I add my voice to Jarred's.

Congrats man! Following your pop wave, next time I hope to see my countryfellow Nelly @your_book... With a condition: I fly to Canada and you... :beer:
 
ZaneIsNumber1 said:
Maybe I've missed something, but you can crop 2.40:1 aspect out of any of Red's shooting modes (all 16:9).
Click to expand...
Right, that's... what I'm not quite understanding from D_and_G. (Don't worry, I'm not attacking you - I think you're great! I just think perhaps there are some terms getting confused)? The examples that were posted were 2.35 frames, and sure, you can crop Super 35 to be whatever ratio you like. The native size of the 4.5K (Super 35) sensor, however, is 4520x2540 - which is 16:9 (or 1,77:1), not 2.35:1. So while I agree, 2.35:1 can be a very nice shooting ratio, I'm not sure what that has to do with shooting in 4.5K or 4K with RED... they both have to be cropped. :)
 
Last edited:
Emanuel said:
Haak,

Are you talking about the 1:2.39 ratio, right?

Emanuel :)
Click to expand...
Kinda. :)

I talked about it a little bit earlier in the thread, but for all intents and purposes, 2.35, 2.39, and 2.40 are all so close and talked about interchangably (rightfully or wrongfully) at this point that in my mind, they're all valid cinema widescreen aspect ratios. The fact is, most cinematographers still compose for 2.35 and the film plane is still exposed at 2.35, so that is still probably the "true" ratio. The 2.39 and 2.40 specifications were created for projection, where the projector aperture was closed off a bit to prevent visible splicing between frames. So while the theatrical ratio of most widescreen films right now is 2.40 (and that's what you're likely to see when you go to the cineplex), one could just as easily argue that if the cinematographer framed for 2.35, that's the ratio of the frame that he/she intended to display. And really, when it all boils down to it, can you tell the difference between 2.39 and 2.40 anyway? Even the difference between 2.35 and 2.39 is so minor that it isn't worth debating.

That being said, and most importantly in my book, with digital there is no splicing or physical celluloid to deal with and you can pretty much shoot in whatever ratio you like! 4K will hold plenty of enough resolution to make a beautiful picture even if you crop it up quite a bit in post. I would even go so far as to say that it would be rather refreshing to see some new filmmakers break out of the box a little bit and try some new shooting ratios. I look at the frame as my blank canvas... should I be forced to paint my picture on one of two predefined easel sizes? That's silly!

Standards can be a great thing, and I think both 1.85 and 2.35 are fantastic ratios which each have their own strengths and weaknesses for different material. But these standards have developed out of physical limitations. Bear in mind that the aspect ratio of HDTV is 16x9 - which is neither 1.85 or 2.35, so some kind of letterboxxing or cropping is going to have to take place to watch your movie at home - even if you shoot at one of the "standardized" aspect ratios! So the point of all of this is, I think the important thing is to have a reason for selecting the ratio you choose to shoot your films, frame your scene the way you think most effectively tells your story, and don't worry about 2.39 this or 2.40 that. For what it's worth, I'm planning to shoot my next movie at 2:1 - a ratio that is virtually never used, but I think is strikingly attractive for dramatic content. What ever will Hollywood have to say about that?? :)
 
Haakon makes some good points.

On a side note as well with his last point.. 2:35 is gonna be the new 16:9.. the way 16:9 looked on 4:3 sets with letterboxing, 2:35 will share a similar feeling viewed on a 16:9 set.
 
Understood but the point is to know how much pixels we must handle, for instance, in the 4K equation (exactly): 4520 per 1xxx?
 
what does "onboard" mean?







...what? Don't give me that "use the search feature" look. Some things are just unsearchable, dang it!
 
FatBird19 said:
what does "onboard" mean?
Click to expand...
Onboard has been defined as using the built-in flash module (capacity still TBA), or recording to the RED-DRIVE or REDFLASH digital media magazines. This is as opposed to recording to RED-RAID (or other external disk array) out the high speed data port or by using the HD-SDI connection. The difference is that essentially one is a tethered workflow while the other is not (even though the RED-DRIVE and REDFLASH units are technically external devices).
 
Haakon said:
Onboard has been defined as using the built-in flash module (capacity still TBA), or recording to the RED-DRIVE or REDFLASH digital media magazines. This is as opposed to recording to RED-RAID (or other external disk array) out the high speed data port or by using the HD-SDI connection. The difference is that essentially one is a tethered workflow while the other is not (even though the RED-DRIVE and REDFLASH units are technically external devices).
Click to expand...

oh.

meh, it happens. 30p is still groovy.
 
Haakon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would say "4K is significantly larger than 2K" instead of the other way around. If your production needs 4K then you probably have the budget and the crew size to do recording to the RED-RAID unit.

Haakon said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, when looking at uncompressed data RGB is 3 times as much as RAW. However, 2K RGB is less than 4K RAW (which is what we're working out first).
 
Can somebody from Red confirm that I am reading the format options chart correctly, and it is possible to record 720p RGB (windowed) at 120 fps onboard using REDCODE? Some quick calculations show that 720p RGB is lower data rate than 4k RAW, so I suppose it makes sense.

I would be happy to put up with the resolution compromise for the over-cranking ability. Since 720p RGB would be oversampled, I would think the quality would be high enough to scale up and intercut ok with 1080p or 2k footage.

Any comments? Rob?

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