Looking at the date sheet it doesn't look like the RED-ONE will support HD 1080 4.4.4.

Is there any reason why this format has been drop as I see that it can do 4.4.4 in 2k?

I'd really like to be able to work in HD 1080p at 4.4.4 as this would provide a smooth workflow with a fantastic colour grading advantage.

Regards
Rory

2k is only a fraction larger than 1080p, so cropping afterwards might not be that much hassle. It probably doesn't take significantly more to store.

Maybe putting 1080p in the hardware/CODEC wasn't felt worth the extra complexity.

It is strange and they might have just overlooked it but also keep in mind that depending on their def of 2K it is likely the widescreen (So 2048x1080 and not the 4:3 of 2048x1536) which means it practically the same thing as 1080p, Just a little wider, so you can always crop down.

But its werid how HD-SDI becomes dual link (SMPTE 372) at 2k but under everything its single link (SMPTE 292), so it should be capable of processing it.

I think its just a resolution that is overlooked that Jim will probably rectify when he sees this. If not, 2k is the same thing almost.

2k workflow vs HD 1080 is huge.

It would be easier to shoot 4.4.4 in 1920 x 1080 then to have to apply a crop in post from a 2k frame.

I hope its just a typo and that RED-ONE will support HD 1080p at 4.4.4 as it does seem crazy that it can do it for 2k but not for 1080p.

"2k workflow vs HD 1080 is huge."

I dont follow. Its their own CODEC, what is to stop them releasing a crop tool to quite trivially lop off 100 lines from the edges of the stored file format?

what every codec they come up with you would still want to work UnCompressed once you've captured the footage just like current HD workflows.

For their own codec its going to come down to some raw computing horsepower. Wavelet (jpeg2000) is very computer intensive where as raw uncompressed is way more drive intensive.

Still think their 2K is going to be 2048x1080 as is the widescreen normal now so even if you don't use the RED recording options that means that that data rate is goes up a little. @30fps RED 2k = 250MB/s, while HD is 230MB/s (rounding and both are uncompressed 10 bit 4:4:4). So at that level I dont' think 2K adds much to a 4:4:4 HD workflow. Just because RED can do 60fps at 2K doesn't mean you have to shoot at 60FPS. It just means you can. Most people will probably run the camera at 24, 25, or 30 fps, or if available their M/1.001 derivatives.

My point is there need not be a difference as viewed by the user. To use the footage it will start off in the format RED has developed. To use it for anything else, how difficult would it be to have an option that says 'treat 2k as 2k' and 'treat 2k as 1080p' in whatever software/plugins/CODECs they develop to work with it.

If this saves complexity in the camera, and makes no difference to the actual use, I don't see a problem.

the problem I see is the software that supports 2k is very expensive at present.

I use FinalTouch HD Colour Grading and its brilliant, if I had to work with 2k it would cost an extra $20k for the software update.

HD frame size is so similar to 2k and my delivery formats are HD (TV Stations and Arri Laser Film Out).

Going 2k only will mean a substantial expense in software updates and would be frustrating when HD is the deliverable anyways.

Why do you have to go 2k?

Assuming 1080p programs get support from RED, its just as logical to have them accept 2k footage and crop as to have a seperate 1080p format from the camera, it makes no difference.

If 1080p programs do not get support from RED, unlikley, but the alternative, then it makes no difference if the camera produces a 1080p output or not.

Keith,

1080 lines for 2k would be a bit zany for an aspect ratio, 1175ish would be in the right region.

I know it makes a werid aspect ratio but I think thats whats outline in the smpte spec for 2k, though i don't have that document (yet).

I know its been quoted all over the net that 2k is either 2048 x 1080 for widescreen and 2048x1536 for full 2k, but it stilll gets cropped anyway because most stuff is widescreen anyway.

2k is 2048x1152 in the RED camera.

Jim

Hi Jim

Will you guys support HD 1080p 4.4.4?

Thanks
Rory

We could very well be able to support 1080p 4:4:4 and 720p 4:4:4, but until we've totally finalized the codec details, I'm not going to promise it to you.

Graeme

Rory, interesting comment about 2k though - $25k of software to colour correct footage from a $17.5k camera sounds a little out of whack to me. I guess that's what disruptive technology is about though.

Graeme

2k is NOT a pro-consumer or masses format (yet) .. so very few NLE offer it because they are not getting any request. once RED and other 2k cameras hit the street then NLE companys will offer it .. till then no request no reason to add 2k ...note that you can add 2k workflow thru cineform prospect hd to premiere for 3k

also vegas can handle 2k files (i drop in 10 bit 2k files and vegas renders 8 bit - i render out using microcosm codec) but you have to modify the HD template to 2k size.

And FCP announced 2k support at NAB - it's starting to go mainstream now. Won't it be nice when you can choose the resolution you shoot based upon needs, not price?

Graeme

Won't it be nice when you can choose the resolution you shoot based upon needs, not price?

Graeme

No doubt! Bring it on...

And FCP announced 2k support at NAB - it's starting to go mainstream now. Won't it be nice when you can choose the resolution you shoot based upon needs, not price?

Graeme

Final Cut Rocks...Ive used it since its infancy and saw the potential it had against Avid years ago. Legacy, expensive systems die or get cheaper...

peace

dalen

Final Cut Rocks...Ive used it since its infancy and saw the potential it had against Avid years ago. Legacy, expensive systems die or get cheaper...

peace

dalen

I use FCP, too, but since I've been shooting with the JVC HD-100 I've really been disappointed in their lack of support for 720p24. I'm having to edit on Vegas for my current project because they aren't supporting the format. I ended up putting together a PC specifically for this project. I don't know how long I'll keep using it, but I'm in no hurry to go back to FCP now.

A two part answer to this excellent question....

a)
2K in the RED camera is 2048 x 1152, 1080p is 1920 x 1080. The camera could quite easily crop this 2K frame size by 6% and output 1080p 4:4:4 via the dual link HD-SDI outputs either during recording or during playback.

b)
Data rate of 24p 10 bit 1080p 4:2:2 is 995Mbps uncompressed

Data rate of 24p 10 bit 2K 4:4:4 is 1.7Gbps uncompressed
Data rate of 24p 10 bit 1080p 4:4:4 is 1.5Gbps uncompressed

Even after wavelet encoding this should translate to a substantial difference in on-board record capacity and sustainable data write speed requirements.

Its one the main reasons I reccommend that we default the recording of the "HDTV formats" 720p, 1080i and 1080p to 4:2:2 color space, and the "Film" formats - 2K and 4K - to 4:4:4 and/or RAW. Its going to be a lot easier for everyone to get their heads around specific media requiremets for in-field recording if we don't have confusion about whats necessary for "1080p"

The bottom line though - we havn'tdropped 1080p 4:4:4 and we have lots of flexibility to support almost any workflow. What would be nice to know is how many people are currently using 4:4:4 image capture / processing / editing / titling products, and how they are delivering their finished product to the broadcasters or for film out. And what's the accepted delivery format - video tape, data tape, CD, DPX files?

Again, thanks for the feedback

Hi Stuart

I would work in 4.4.4 and deliver in 4.2.2 on to HDCAM, D5 or Digibeta.

I also work in HD and deliver SD all the time. Acquiring in the highest possible format will always proved better end results then if you just acquired in your end delivery format.

HD 1080p 4.4.4 is a growing high end post production standard that rivals 2k film scanning for clients who can't stretch to a 2k Data scan.

Working in 4.4.4 would provide finer control over colour grading and deliver a far better 4.2.2 picture at the end of it.

4.4.4 over HDSDI Dual Link is nice but getting this data recorded to RED-Media would be better.

I use FinalTouchHD Colour Grading software and for me to support 2k I would have to upgrade at the cost of $20,000 which seem crazy when my end delivery is HD.

I guess my other option would be to work at 2k and then do a crop down to HD 1080 size to take into FinalTouchHD, but this would mean a lot to time spent reworking the frame size so it can work with an HD product.

Shooting 2k is attractive but HD 1080 is perfectly fine, as you mentioned the frame size is pretty much the same.

Regards
Rory

While the RED specs are great and I look forward to the camera, I think ver.1 may be overkill, regardless of the codec or compression scheme. I think RED 1 would be a HUGE hiit if it was $10,000 for the body and did 720 and 1080 in all the flavors including 10 bit 4:4:4 at the top end. 99% of the TV and filmmakers out there just don't need anything bigger - the bigger the files, the bigger the pain in the butt posting etc. (I know FCP and Premiere Pro now support 2k - I was an AJA demo artist at NAB last week and showed real-time 2k editing - it's great, but not necessary for anything but film originated material and summer blockbusters)

A bitchen 1080 camera that did everything RED advertises would still make every other 1080 camera on the market including the 950 and the Viper obsolete! 1080 is the world HD standard - it will be decades before broadcasters even think of moving to a higher end format. For viewing purposes, 2k and 4k are only applicable for digital cinema releases and nothing else.

RED 2, on the other hand, could be the 2k/4k camera for high-end features, commercials etc. and would still own the industry at $24,900 for the body. It's really the old school Hollywood DP's that want 2k and 4k because they need a format that will directly compete with 35mm and they have the budgets etc. to handle the total workflow. RED 2 would be the Genesis and Arri D20 killer and allow the masses to compete with ANY format for an "affordable" entry fee.

So to Jim Jannard and crew, consider entering the market with an insane 1080 cam and follow it up with the 4k cam. Keep up the good work.

Lance

The funny thing is with the design of the camera, and the Mysterium chip being full size, the camera is basically a 720p / 1080p camera, with 2k and 4k thrown in for free! It really wouldn't be any cheaper to do a 1080p version, and you actually do need about 40% extra resolution in the chip to get the full resolution you want as it's a single chip bayer pattern sensor. If we'd done a 1080p resolution chip, you'd only get 720p resolution out of it. Although it's more complex than that, as as you get up to the 4k resolution, there's not that much detail going on anyway, so the fact that you theoretically need that 40% or so extra resolution becomes of diminishing importance. You just have to look at the image from a 12mp DSLR to see that, but at 1080p rez, it would put real limits on the image. That's why the Arri is 3k to get a 1080p image.

So, that's the engineering and economic reasons why you get a 4.5k resolution camera for the price of an HD camera. Makes sense when you think about it.

Graeme

Appreciate the info - really looking forward to progress reports in the coming months. I know you're an FCP guy and you guys had a G5 in your NAB office, but hope you don't exclude users of other NLE's etc. (not that I don't like using FCP)

Lance

Lance, you might know me as an FCP guy, but I'm really just a guy. We're going to make the camera work with whatever you want it to work with. It's not an FCP specific camera.

Graeme

".....did 720 and 1080 in all the flavors including 10 bit 4:4:4 "

There is an additional point Ive mentioned before, in that the sensor needs to be 4K or over in order to do 4:4:4 1080p/2k. Releasing a 2K sensor, or a 1080p sensor, not only would it have 40% or so poorer luminance resolution than the format really requires but the colour would only be 4:2:0. This would remove it from competing in the digital cinema market.

One of the key gems in the RED design so far is that a large single chip bayer sensor can be downsampled to compete with 3 chip 1080p 4:4:4 cameras and made a lot cheaper. The extra resolution of 4k and 4.5k modes provides a big bonus, but few people would consider this a true 4k cinima camera and when comparisons are made with other cameras for feature shooting they will probably be done at 1080p or 2k and 4:4:4, so this is where it has to perform.

Decent demosaicing doesn't quite produce results as bad as 4:2:0 chroma, even though it would appear that there is only that amount of chroma data in the array. And because you're interpolating to the same resolution as the array, it doesn't tend to be visibly low rez even though there's a limit when you actually do measure the luma. But yes, that's why you have a sensor with many more pixels than you need and scale. It makes for higher resolution and even lower noise. That said, when you get up to 4k, due to the relatively lower amount of detail up there than at 2k, the differences are less and less obvious between what a full RGB resolution and interpolated bayer would be, as you can see by looking at any high resolution DSLR image.

You can usually count, with a good demosaicing algorithm that the measured resolution will be >70% of the array resolution. This is why Arri uses a 3k chip to do 1080p. However, a 2k array, even with a 70% factor in there, still gets you above the resolution of any even remotely affordable HD camera, so it's not as if it will look bad when you crop the sensor in, rather than scale it.

Graeme

While the RED specs are great and I look forward to the camera, I think ver.1 may be overkill, regardless of the codec or compression scheme. I think RED 1 would be a HUGE hiit if it was $10,000...

It's designed to be a revolution Lance. Not another camera that changes just
something small. Any big production can afford to buy a RED ONE, that's almost
like pocket change. I assume these things are going to be available for rent as
well so anyone can shoot footage with it.

I have no doubt they will sell many products. Sure I would've liked a lower price,
heck I can't even work with the high end workflow at this point in time. But
this thing is build for the future. The whole idea behind it is. Maybe you can't
afford one on January '07, but perhaps you can the next.

In the end it still boils down to an awesome tool that still needs the vision and
the talent behind it.

2007 is going to be an interesting year...

hey Rob

don't be wishing the year away its still 2006 and this year ain't over yet.

I really hope RED support HD 1080p at 4.4.4

Thanks
Rory

Lance, to have a 2k/4k camera with 1080p/i to TV production, for instance, or even 720p it is really revolutionary. If not where would it be the digital revolution face to face with the continuous separate worlds as we know since some decades ago?!... Digitally yet?... After all, revolution yet?...

Go ahead RED! -- with 2k/4k at the same package of the 1080p/i (or 720p to all potential users): it means what RED is as the media convergence is. All the film business must be sure of this new reality. Actually, it is. As the DVD piracy it compels to deal with it.

And two both NLEs compatibility as FCP as PC side, it's the only way to prove it. If I'm not wrong, Mr. Jannard doesn't want to be out of the Mr. Gates' business.

MK

Hey Mathieu!

Is this THE Mathieu Kassovitz?

If not, you're still very welcome here of course :-)

Barend

That would be crazy, Mathieu Kassovitz here on the boards... The guy who got to work with my all time favorite filmmaker Steven Spielberg :-)

Hi all

Well I'm more in the cheap indie class of film production, So I can't see me using the 4:4:4 RAW outputs of the camera as that starts to get a little expesnive and difficult for the shooting I do.

I posted this on antoher forum but currently the cineform codec can encode (using wavelet) 4:4:4 Raw 10 bit 1080p. It can to this to an internal drive and for me this would be a great workflow option with the Red Camera.

A lot of my shorts involve heavy compositing, so If I'm not working with the SDI Raw outputs it seems internal recording would be limited to 4:2:2 using Redcode? is that correct? What currently is the maxium colour space and resolution for onboard recording? If there was a way to get 4:4:4 1080 to an internal Reddrive then I think that's the option I would be shooting with.

It is most likely that internal recording will have a 4:4:4 RGB option (1080p, 720p and 2k).

Graeme

is 2048 x 1152 pixels 10 bits log 4:4:4 RGB .

Therefore 1920 x 1080p at 4:4:4 can be cropped out of that if desired.

4:4:4 RGB uncompressed at 2K and 1080p is also available via HD-SDI

Thats good to know, thanks for the clarification.

Graeme, any support for Prospect HD CineForm codec? I sure would like to buy the camera working with our 2k edit bay !

And BTW, THANK YOU JIM FOR MAKING THIS RIG. Now all I need is money to buy it, not a billion dollars in R&D and years worth of time to make it!


again, thank you.

Codec support is still being worked out. We'll announce details when we're ready.

Graeme

(half crazed ideas included ;):

is 2048 x 1152 pixels 10 bits log 4:4:4 RGB .

Therefore 1920 x 1080p at 4:4:4 can be cropped out of that if desired.

4:4:4 RGB uncompressed at 2K and 1080p is also available via HD-SDI


You will probably find that some high end pro video user, which could be half your potential customers, prefer a straight froward option, even if played back 2K through 1080p output and computer based transmission, as well as straight recoding options that automatically produce a new 1080p clip through tool or NLE. The problem is to set it up so that cameramen can frame it for the clip when filming. Yes I am saying, that high end video professionals, TV stations etc can be picky (or simply don't want to be bothered within off the beaten path options). If I had a network, or network production house, I certainly would be looking at buying a small fleet of these thins to supplement the majority of normal cameras, for productions with major long term repeat resale potential, or to send out for archival footage of significant events). Now, there's an market for you guys, even if you only get less then ten percent of their total camera sales, that is significant.

SHD market hardware out there and coming:

Do you know that SHD large panel displays are already out? With your camera, and Blu-ray disk, their is enough emphasis to push for a SHDTV format. Even if most stations will not carry, for a cable provider, it would be a nice deluxe service, or deluxe video on demand service. Such a standard creates a market for SHD cameras, because it is sometimes useful, or maybe more useful in future.

Cineform SHD:

I did some calculations on using cineform bayer on an SHD frame, you could get descent performance at around 400Mb/s, which is still one modern drive (probably upto 750GB for many hours performance. There are a number of relatively low cost enough processing options that should be able to do it too in the cameras price range. This is serious potential over the 2K option.