Jump to content


Photo

4k outdoor grab


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
54 replies to this topic

#1 Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 03 November 2006 - 03:07 PM

Ok. I admit to be adding to the hype, but here it is...

http://red.com/gallery-still.htm

For a prototype camera, I think it's doing quite well.


Gunleik
  • 0

#2 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 November 2006 - 03:35 PM

Yep, it's viral.
  • 0

#3 Gavin Greenwalt

Gavin Greenwalt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 November 2006 - 03:39 PM

It looks like they were able to correct the chromatic variation in the midtones of the blue channel with this version. It makes the image look much much better.

- Gavin
  • 0

#4 Patrick McGowan

Patrick McGowan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • P.A.
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 03 November 2006 - 03:51 PM

I'm enjoying the not-so-subtle sexual innuendos in a lot of these pictures. Although it is a bit gross to see a magnified 4K version of someone's moles on your computer screen.
  • 0

#5 Gavin Greenwalt

Gavin Greenwalt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 November 2006 - 03:54 PM

Whitepoint seems a littttttle bit off. RED if you do a second take at this, watch that you don't warm up the highlights too much. There's a touch of magenta at your white point.
  • 0

#6 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 05 November 2006 - 09:42 AM

Ok. I admit to be adding to the hype, but here it is...

http://red.com/gallery-still.htm

For a prototype camera, I think it's doing quite well.
Gunleik


Yes, but it's not 4k. I hit the "properties" button, revealing every frame grab to be only 2k. I checked RED's website, and despite the claims of 4k, the websites details on the Mysterium chip continue to cite off 2K resolution.

Edited by Nate Downes, 05 November 2006 - 09:44 AM.

  • 0

#7 Chris Kenny

Chris Kenny
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 November 2006 - 10:11 AM

Yes, but it's not 4k. I hit the "properties" button, revealing every frame grab to be only 2k. I checked RED's website, and despite the claims of 4k, the websites details on the Mysterium chip continue to cite off 2K resolution.


Huh? It's 4096x2304, and the web site says the camera does 4K in about five different places.

Are you making some kind of joke I'm not getting?
  • 0

#8 Emanuel A Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Producer

Posted 05 November 2006 - 11:24 AM

Huh? It's 4096x2304, and the web site says the camera does 4K in about five different places.

Are you making some kind of joke I'm not getting?

Chris,

Maybe he is referring that REDCINE codec specs webpage not yet updated and its (up to) 2K mention?

Emanuel :)
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 05 November 2006 - 12:42 PM

Huh? It's 4096x2304, and the web site says the camera does 4K in about five different places.


Hi Chris,

It's 4096 x 2304 8 bit for sure.

Stephen
  • 0

#10 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 05 November 2006 - 02:36 PM

I'm enjoying the not-so-subtle sexual innuendos in a lot of these pictures. Although it is a bit gross to see a magnified 4K version of someone's moles on your computer screen.


You mean they are targeting a male audience with the famous "sex sells" routine.

Will there not be any female buyers for this camera?

Maybe Arri could sell more cameras if they had women in bikinis pose with them?

R,
  • 0

#11 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 05 November 2006 - 03:06 PM

Maybe Arri could sell more cameras if they had women in bikinis pose with them?

R,


Richard,

FWIW they can sell all the cameras they build, they have a long waiting list!

Stephen
  • 0

#12 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 05 November 2006 - 05:55 PM

Richard,

FWIW they can sell all the cameras they build, they have a long waiting list!

Stephen


That's good news. I want that 765 for my next shoot, I'm determined to try 65mm. How much data can I pull from a single 65mm frame?

R,
  • 0

#13 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11941 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 November 2006 - 05:58 PM

Oh look, it has that sort of never-quite-in-focus look of overoptimistically demosaiced bayer imaging.

Exactly like we all knew it would.

It's a 2K camera at best. Deal with your disappointment, people.

Phil
  • 0

#14 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 05 November 2006 - 11:06 PM

Hi Chris,

It's 4096 x 2304 8 bit for sure.

Stephen


Right. The only measurement for the 1K/2K/4K is the second number. 2304 is 2K.

Some RED supporters keeps trying to push the first number, but the truth remains, the only number that matter is the second one.
  • 0

#15 Chris Kenny

Chris Kenny
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 November 2006 - 11:27 PM

Right. The only measurement for the 1K/2K/4K is the second number. 2304 is 2K.

Some RED supporters keeps trying to push the first number, but the truth remains, the only number that matter is the second one.


What? 2K and 4K refer to horizontal resolutions. I assume because vertical resolution varies significantly with aspect ratio. Consult page 12 of the Digital Cinema System Specification. The 4K image container is 4096 x 2160. Red's 4K actually has a bit more vertical resolution. (And the camera can shoot up to 4520 x 2540, though apparently not unless hooked up to an external RAID.)
  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 November 2006 - 11:38 PM

Right. The only measurement for the 1K/2K/4K is the second number. 2304 is 2K.

Some RED supporters keeps trying to push the first number, but the truth remains, the only number that matter is the second one.


It's the other way around -- "2K", "4K", etc. refer to horizontal resolution. The vertical resolution depends on the aspect ratio, unless you are talking about a scan of a 2X anamorphic image, in which case the unstretched aspect ratio is more like 1.20 : 1.

The RED sensor is "4K" (more than 4096 actually) just as the Dalsa one is -- the debate, disagreement, whatever, as with all Bayer-filtered cameras, is what is the "true" or "effective" resolution after de-Bayering to RGB files, unlike scanning film at 4K for each color record. Some would say that it is more like 3K practically-speaking, but you also are getting into a bit of an apples-and-oranges grey area since effective resolution is dependent on many factors. A simple de-Bayering algorithm would get you more like 2K for green, and 1K for red and blue each, but the de-Bayering is generally more sophisticated than that.
  • 0

#17 jan von krogh

jan von krogh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Producer

Posted 05 November 2006 - 11:48 PM

Right. The only measurement for the 1K/2K/4K is the second number. 2304 is 2K.

Some RED supporters keeps trying to push the first number, but the truth remains, the only number that matter is the second one.


As You obviously have no idea and education regarding professional digital film processing of the recent 15 years, i recommend some to gain some basic knowledge before posting.

http://celco.com/For...tionTable4K.asp
might be a starting point to avoid speaking nonsense and mixing personal phantasm with industry standards.

35mm academy 4K@ 1.85 is 3612 X 1952 or 4096 X 2212, depending how you plan the DI.



You mean they are targeting a male audience with the famous "sex sells" routine.
Will there not be any female buyers for this camera?

Certainly not, Mr. boddington, certainly not. Not a single one.


Maybe Arri could sell more cameras if they had women in bikinis pose with them?

RED has a backlog of over 1000 orders right now. I doubt that ARRI will be able to catch that, maybe with the 416. The Arri D20 anyhow is <20 rental units after 3 years, so they have over 1% marketshare.
However, they won´t take orders for a longer time now.
  • 0

#18 Häakon

Häakon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2006 - 03:39 AM

It's the other way around -- "2K", "4K", etc. refer to horizontal resolution.

The common formats for discussion of this (and other) cameras are "4K, 2K, 1080p, and 720p," where the first two tags reference the horizontal and the last two represent the vertical. I have even seen people refer to 1080p as "1K," which is obviously quite wrong, but that's probably where the confusion stems from.
  • 0

#19 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2006 - 06:49 AM

Oh look, it has that sort of never-quite-in-focus look of overoptimistically demosaiced bayer imaging.
Exactly like we all knew it would.
It's a 2K camera at best. Deal with your disappointment, people.
Phil


I've noticed this a great deal while using the HVX200 where if you are shooting a wider subject it gets soft (and the darker you go it gets even softer). Are you saying that this is a property of the sensor? i had assumed it was a lense issue.
  • 0

#20 Keith Mottram

Keith Mottram
  • Sustaining Members
  • 824 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 November 2006 - 07:58 AM

RED has a backlog of over 1000 orders right now. I doubt that ARRI will be able to catch that, maybe with the 416. The Arri D20 anyhow is <20 rental units after 3 years, so they have over 1% marketshare.
However, they won´t take orders for a longer time now.


I dont know what percentage of productions are currently being shot on D20s, but it is a lot more than those being shot on Red cameras and it will remain this way for a significant amount of time. For your information the reason the market is not flooded with cheap Arri cameras is not because of some great conspiracy, but because Arri is making sure their cameras are as close as they can get to being the digital camera that cinematography professionals demand. This is not mass market, but neither is it elitist and Arri builds as many cameras as they can and are demanded for. Basically this is a completely pointless comment. And I'm still waiting for a link for your multi-faceted company Jan.
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

CineLab

Abel Cine

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Opal

Tai Audio