Jump to content

RED ONE footage


Emanuel A Guedes

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

> Are you really worried that the industry as a whole is really so ignorant as

> to be 'duped' into buying a camera that's really only 1/2 or 1/3 what it's being advertised as?

 

Yes, precisely.

 

I would not have believed it if I had not watched it happen.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 463
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Personally I feel that at some point a line in the sand has to be drawn on this sort of thing. Either you are interested in upholding technical standards, or you're willing to forego them for convenience, but either way don't lie about it. I stand for cutting the crap, but other people may feel differently. But fine, okay, nobody's interested. Dismiss it as noise. I'm clearly fighting a losing battle here; Red is being discussed on the 2K-444 list of CML, a place known for the rigidity of its rules, even though the compressed output is neither 2K nor 444 nor anything like.

 

This is the beginning of a slippery slope down which producers would just love us to slide, towards a point where manufacturers can sell their products to us as anything they like, with or without reference to reality, and where the balance between cost and technical standards is hopelessly upset. This balance has been jealously guarded by generations of scientists and engineers, and it's an insult to every one of them that we are so eager to roll over for a guy who's trying to sell us a 2K camera as 4K the same way he used to persuade us that ten-dollar sunglasses are worth a hundred. I'm dismayed that Mr. Nattress, a man who I'd previously have esteemed as among those keepers of technical excellence, is willing to be involved.

 

All I can say is stand by for a plummeting of standards elsewhere, too. The precedent set here is lethally dangerous. This is an immensely sad moment; it makes me feel as if the principles I've always worked for are being dismissed out of hand.

 

Phil

 

You are trying to be funny... right? Is the back of your hand up to your forehead?

 

So I have a question for you. I know you will talk around the answer and not give a direct response, but I'll ask it anyway. If unsharpened compressed REDCODE RAW 4K has more resolution than 35mm film scanned to 4K and projected on a 60' screen, how is it possible that your technical understanding differs so much from the reality of what everyone is seeing with their own eyes?

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> If unsharpened compressed REDCODE RAW 4K has more resolution than 35mm film scanned to 4K and projected on

> a 60' screen, how is it possible that your technical understanding differs so much from the reality of what everyone is

> seeing with their own eyes?

 

It doesn't.

 

I have spent many, many months working with 2K film scans as a QC engineer, and I know very well that many varieties of 35mm don't resolve 2K, let alone 4. One particularly good example of this was a super35 production shot on 500ISO stock, which was later nominated for the academy award in cinematography. The 2K bitmap were much higher res than the target image was. You do not need to be a true 4K device to outresolve film. None of my commentary has ever been connected to comparisons with film. I don't particularly enjoy working with film and I dispute interpretations which unconditionally hold it up to be a gold standard.

 

What I am complaining about is not even the fact that you're selling a twelve megapixel device as "4K"; I understand your use of the metric. What I am complaining about is what you've done to people to make them believe it. You have legitimised a degree of number-fudging which I consider to be completely iniquitous. And once that's done, it's impossible to take it back. You may sell your camera, hundreds of them I don't doubt, and they may or may not be excellent.

 

But never again will anyone in this industry be able to look at a "speculative" or "forward looking" press release and say "hang on, that's bullshit," because you have now legitimised more or less anything.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
> You have legitimised a degree of number-fudging which I consider to be completely iniquitous.

The Red folks aren't the only ones or the first to do that kind of number fudging. They all count photosites and call them pixels. When the viper was new, they talked about 8 megapixel chips. And it's not just cameras -- go buy a shop vac, you can find some that claim 6.5 horsepower, and yet I can plug it into a 15 Amp 120 Volt circuit.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If unsharpened compressed REDCODE RAW 4K has more resolution than 35mm film scanned to 4K and projected on

> a 60' screen, how is it possible that your technical understanding differs so much from the reality of what everyone is

> seeing with their own eyes?

 

It doesn't.

 

I have spent many, many months working with 2K film scans as a QC engineer, and I know very well that many varieties of 35mm don't resolve 2K, let alone 4. One particularly good example of this was a super35 production shot on 500ISO stock, which was later nominated for the academy award in cinematography. The 2K bitmap were much higher res than the target image was. You do not need to be a true 4K device to outresolve film. None of my commentary has ever been connected to comparisons with film. I don't particularly enjoy working with film and I dispute interpretations which unconditionally hold it up to be a gold standard.

 

What I am complaining about is not even the fact that you're selling a twelve megapixel device as "4K"; I understand your use of the metric. What I am complaining about is what you've done to people to make them believe it. You have legitimised a degree of number-fudging which I consider to be completely iniquitous. And once that's done, it's impossible to take it back. You may sell your camera, hundreds of them I don't doubt, and they may or may not be excellent.

 

But never again will anyone in this industry be able to look at a "speculative" or "forward looking" press release and say "hang on, that's bullshit," because you have now legitimised more or less anything.

 

Phil

 

Late last year you wrote...

 

"Say the sensor is 4096 pixels across (it's something like this, I can't be bothered to look it up). Given the standard Bayer pattern, the green-channel "virtual sensor" is at one half that resolution, and the red and blue channels are at one quarter. The highest resolution data is at one half the total size of the sensor. One half. Zero point five. OK?

 

That's 2K.

 

The red and blue channels are at half that.

 

That's 1K.

 

So, you could consider that the picture off this sensor has a similar amount of real information to a 4:2:2 subsampled 2K image.

 

This is perfectly legitimate; it's how most DSLRs work, but if you're not upfront about it, you're being deceitful."

 

Phil

 

If you want to call RED a 1K (or a 4:2:2 subsampled 2K) camera that has more resolution than S35mm film scanned at 4K projected on a 60' screen, then I guess Graeme really is a genius!

 

Phil... call RED whatever you want. Now, do you have anything productive to add?

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jim,

 

Quick question. With regards to high speed capabilities, what would it take to be able to shoot 4k 120ish fps to redcode raw? That's probably a ways off, but I'm just curious if that's something you guys plan on tackling somewhere down the road.

 

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very glad that the RED camera is finally available. Hopefully, this will mean the end of the pointless arguments that have blighted this forum for the last year.

 

The footage I've seen looks very impressive - I have a feature coming up, and if there were more than 25 RED in the world, I would definitely be testing them.

 

Congratulations Jim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to call RED a 1K (or a 4:2:2 subsampled 2K) camera that has more resolution than S35mm film scanned at 4K projected on a 60' screen, then I guess Graeme really is a genius!

I would actually love to see test charts from demosaiced REDCODE RAW footage and from a Northlight scan of 50 ASA film shot Super 35. You may say 50 ASA is not a fair comparison, but if we are saying the Red has more resolution than 4K S35, let's see if that holds true under a best case scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Jim,

 

Quick question. With regards to high speed capabilities, what would it take to be able to shoot 4k 120ish fps to redcode raw? That's probably a ways off, but I'm just curious if that's something you guys plan on tackling somewhere down the road.

Jay

 

Our sensor is only capable of 60fps at 4k. It is also capable 100fps at 2k windowed this month, with more 2k speed possible in the future.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would actually love to see test charts from demosaiced REDCODE RAW footage and from a Northlight scan of 50 ASA film shot Super 35. You may say 50 ASA is not a fair comparison, but if we are saying the Red has more resolution than 4K S35, let's see if that holds true under a best case scenario.

 

Good idea.

 

Several RED reservees are holding quite an extensive test in LA sometime this fall (October / November, I believe?). I'm sure they'll be shooting quite a few test charts, so at least we'll have something properly shot that can be examined closely and objectively. I doubt they'll be shooting side-by-side with film, but someone else might be able to supply the scan for comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I'm very glad that the RED camera is finally available. Hopefully, this will mean the end of the pointless arguments that have blighted this forum for the last year.

 

The footage I've seen looks very impressive - I have a feature coming up, and if there were more than 25 RED in the world, I would definitely be testing them.

 

Congratulations Jim.

 

Hi Stuart,

 

50 have been delivered to date, another 50 by the end of the month, not forgetting 25 working prototypes. Thomson took 4 years to deliver 50 Vipers, although they have sold over 100 now.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would actually love to see test charts from demosaiced REDCODE RAW footage and from a Northlight scan of 50 ASA film shot Super 35. You may say 50 ASA is not a fair comparison, but if we are saying the Red has more resolution than 4K S35, let's see if that holds true under a best case scenario.

 

Thomas... that sounds like a test that I'm sure someone will do. We are busy building cameras. BTW, you posted earlier stills from the PJ shoot. Please understand that we have come a long way since then. Both in demosaic quality and compression. Is there any way to post 4K images from current shoots on the forum? If you want to analyze something, it should at least be current.

 

My best,

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our sensor is only capable of 60fps at 4k. It is also capable 100fps at 2k windowed this month, with more 2k speed possible in the future.

Jim, would it be possible to utilize the increased bandwidth of the RAW PORT option to shoot higher frame rate / image resolution combinations in the future? That is, if the user was able to supply their own recording device capable of keeping up with the data? If so, that would be a very compelling reason to opt for the RAW PORT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, you posted earlier stills from the PJ shoot. Please understand that we have come a long way since then. Both in demosaic quality and compression.

Oh I don't doubt it. In fact, if it is true that you compress only the raw Bayer data, this allows the use more advanced demosaicing algorithms in the future (or different "types" of algorithms, for different situations). This could mean that the picture quality could increase gradually, even long after the footage has been shot.

 

Is there any way to post 4K images from current shoots on the forum? If you want to analyze something, it should at least be current.

Yes, that would be great! I'm dying to see. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I find you have more drop-off on the sides than on top and bottom, at least with primes. Zooms are another matter.

Very interesting -- So big anamorphic zooms today are still soft enough to mask the 2:1 ratio between vertical and horizontal resolution at the film plane. It would be interesting to shoot some charts. It also goes to show how silly the Bayer/2k/4k arguments really are.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> If you want to call RED a 1K (or a 4:2:2 subsampled 2K) camera...

 

What I call it is irrelevant. I'm interested in what you call it.

 

> that has more resolution than S35mm film scanned at 4K projected on a 60' screen,

 

I would first suggest that the size of the projected image has no bearing on its overall resolution. This suggests, if any further suggestion were required, that you're more interested in wow factor than facts.

 

But as I've shown, it's very easy to outresolve film.

 

> then I guess Graeme really is a genius!

 

No, Graeme is mediocre. You're mediocre. I'm mediocre. Most of humanity is. The principal distinguishing factor is that you're rich and mediocre, while I am poor and mediocre. This matters. You have, in this case, even been able to redefine the nature of truth to your own will. Read any Orwell?

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, would it be possible to utilize the increased bandwidth of the RAW PORT option to shoot higher frame rate / image resolution combinations in the future? That is, if the user was able to supply their own recording device capable of keeping up with the data? If so, that would be a very compelling reason to opt for the RAW PORT.

 

The size/speed constraint is the clock speed of the sensor.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So theoretically, you could introduce a new chip upgrade later on that could handle 120+ frame rates in 4k redcode raw?

 

Are you guys looking into better ways to recover highlights? I remember reading somewhere on reduser about redcine offering ways of doing this. I understand right now it's best to expose for the highlights, and then bring the exposure back up in post. It'd be nice to not have to worry about doing that in the future.

 

Jay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If you want to call RED a 1K (or a 4:2:2 subsampled 2K) camera...

 

What I call it is irrelevant. I'm interested in what you call it.

 

> that has more resolution than S35mm film scanned at 4K projected on a 60' screen,

 

I would first suggest that the size of the projected image has no bearing on its overall resolution. This suggests, if any further suggestion were required, that you're more interested in wow factor than facts.

But as I've shown, it's very easy to outresolve film.

 

> then I guess Graeme really is a genius!

 

No, Graeme is mediocre. You're mediocre. I'm mediocre. Most of humanity is. The principal distinguishing factor is that you're rich and mediocre, while I am poor and mediocre. This matters. You have, in this case, even been able to redefine the nature of truth to your own will. Read any Orwell?

 

Phil

 

I would suggest that you are not thinking straight. Again. It is much easier to see (which is how people view motion pictures) resolution differences the larger you project an image. It is very difficult to see a difference on a one foot screen, very easy to see on a 60' screen. And that represents the screen size that most love to see in a theater.

 

You may be mediocre (Geoff B. might agree with you), but Graeme is exceptional. No matter how much you would like him to be at your level...

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graeme is really exceptional, I've enjoyed trying to wrap my head around the technical knowledge that man possesses. That's all I want to say on this crazy thread though. This sh!t has gotten way too personal.

 

I so sick of reading all of this bickering all the time. I left this forum for a while and now I'm back and the same arguing crap is still here.

 

 

 

It's old now. Really old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
He's already big brother - how long before Jim's compared to Hitler?

 

Well, you have to admit, REDs colors are Red and Black like the Third Reich... :P

 

Seriously though, this Phil vs Jim thing is getting tiring. I keep coming to this board when I see new posts because I actually believed something worthwhile would be said...my bad apparently.

 

Here is my advice: Phil, give it up man. If the image looks good, it does. I highly doubt that people in the theaters viewing movies shot on RED are going to care whether or not RED outresolves film and how accurate their resolution approximation is in light of their Bayer pattern, dohickey, whatchamacallit. They want to know how good the movie is and if it looks good on the big screen. That's it!

 

Jim, I assume you're a smart business man. Being such, I would think you would understand the phrase "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still?" Take my word for it on that one. Also, I for one am a little tired of hearing how Graeme is the second coming. He's just a man, albeit a smart one. Keep up the good work, enjoy the fact that you've largely silenced the naysayers, and give me a call when you've dropped the price of the RED to the level where a poor single dad as myself can afford it.

 

Just my .02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> It is very difficult to see a difference on a one foot screen, very easy to see on a 60' screen

 

Yes Jim.

 

But that's not what you said.

 

The apparent or desirable resolution for a given display is unrelated to the actual resolution you're hitting it with.

 

Or, in simpler words, wishful thinking doesn't work.

 

I'm sure you and Boyle would get on. Both of you are experts at making things sound good, while taking no responsibility whatsoever for them being good.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Are you guys looking into better ways to recover highlights?

One way to do that, if they go for a whole new chip, would be to intersperse two sets of photosites: One set of big ones for the toe through mid range, and another set of smaller ones, with ND in addition to the color filtration, for the mid range to high end -- sort of like woofers and tweeters in audio. Of course, you'd have to solve the crossover problem, just like with audio. And the high end would be severly undersampled. But who knows, you might be able to come within a couple stops of doubling the dynamic range. Interesting?

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No, Graeme is mediocre. You're mediocre. I'm mediocre. Most of humanity is. The principal distinguishing factor is that you're rich and mediocre, while I am poor and mediocre. This matters. You have, in this case, even been able to redefine the nature of truth to your own will. Read any Orwell?"

 

Yeah come on Phil buddy, you can ease up a bit.

 

And this coming from a former Red tormenter who got under Jim's skin, and a whole lot of people over at the "other" forums, which shall remain nameless.

 

I mean calling Jim "rich and mediocre," bit of a low shot. And like I said, I was part of the reason Jim used to get upset with this board. So no one needs to remind me, or give the, "pot calling the kettle black" speech.

 

And no I did not order Red and Jim has not sent me a free one :D

 

Still love ya Phil, when I come to the UK I'm going to e-mail you before I come. I want to meet the famous and infamous Phil Rhodes in person. I'll just have to bring my dictionary to talk to you :blink:

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...