In real world production there is still no completely stable or standard way to even record and store uncompressed 1080 HD. This is still in rough and experimental stages. 4K is nearly 5 times more data. Real world production and post production are currently not ready to deal with that.
Not really: most 1080p cameras are 3-chip cameras, so they're 2 full color megapixels. RED is one Bayer-filtered chip, so it's 11.48 monochrome megapixels. So, the RED camera is only about 85% more data than current 1080p set-ups.
I honestly don't know what bitrates current HD cameras offer though, the RED appears to offer around 10.
It also doesn't look like it can export full 4k, but that isn't unfeasible.
Also, recording 1080 uncompressed HD isn't rough or experimental: you just need a good RAID.
RED has said its codec is made to work natively with Quicktime. Even if RED are using Apple computers how would that be any proof that Apple developing 4K capability? If they are working together it'll be 2K at the most.
Okay so tell me, based on that theory, what application will interface with their codec? As you know, the application QuickTime is not typically used for deploying media content. Something like FCP wraps around QuickTime, and that's how you're able to take advantage of all the codecs. Without QuickTime we would not have FCP.
Not really: most 1080p cameras are 3-chip cameras, so they're 2 full color megapixels. RED is one Bayer-filtered chip, so it's 11.48 monochrome megapixels. So, the RED camera is only about 85% more data than current 1080p set-ups.
1080 HD cameras at most have around 400,000 pixels for each chip which results in 2MP for the entire array. 1/6 of the pixels needed for a 4K sensor.
Quote:
It also doesn't look like it can export full 4k, but that isn't unfeasible.
There has been some argument over this but RED says it is full 4K.
Quote:
Also, recording 1080 uncompressed HD isn't rough or experimental: you just need a good RAID
In real world use its not that simple. For one you are using delicate equipment out in the heat, cold, rain, dust and humidity of nature. This is artistic image capture not simply banal data capture. The cinematographer is creating a desired look to support the tone, mood, and atmosphere of the story. That look is being created electronically and needs to be protected through the recording and storing process until it reaches post production. None of this has been perfected and is still being worked on.
This excerpt is from Harris Savides who shot "Zodiac" on the Thomson Viper 1080P HD camera.
The benchmark for me has always been film, and this was a more challenging way to make a movie. I feel like we're still experiencing digital cinematography in its infancy, and there are a lot of growing pains. We're basically replacing large, cumbersome film cameras and crews with even more complex and cumbersome digital technology, with results that are roughly equal to, and in some cases not as good as film. Someday this technology may lead to a more flexible and streamlined shooting process.
Quote:
Okay so tell me, based on that theory, what application will interface with their codec? As you know, the application QuickTime is not typically used for deploying media content. Something like FCP wraps around QuickTime, and that's how you're able to take advantage of all the codecs. Without QuickTime we would not have FCP.
You are assuming because RED is developing its codec to work with Quicktime means that Apple is designing FCP to work with RED 4K. I'm saying no it does not automatically mean that. Of course RED wants FCP to work with their codec, that does not automatically mean Apple is in alliance with them.
If Apple is working with RED at this point 2K is the most practical and likely. Right now 4K is too much data and too expensive to be worth Apple's effort. Outside of a $100,000 digital projector there is no other way to accurately monitor 4K.
FCP is not only the NLE to use Quicktime. Avid uses Quicktime and Premiere Pro for the Mac will use Quicktime.
1080 HD cameras at most have around 400,000 pixels for each chip which results in 2MP for the entire array. 1/6 of the pixels needed for a 4K sensor.
No, MiniDV cameras like the GL 2 have around 400,000 pixels for each chip.
HD cameras have in excess of 2,073,600 pixels for each chip.
Quote:
In real world use its not that simple. For one you are using delicate equipment out in the heat, cold, rain, dust and humidity of nature. This is artistic image capture not simply banal data capture. The cinematographer is creating a desired look to support the tone, mood, and atmosphere of the story. That look is being created electronically and needs to be protected through the recording and storing process until it reaches post production. None of this has been perfected and is still being worked on.
Digital cameras have a lower dynamic range than film, so more time and care needs to be spent on lighting and exposure. Other than this, none of the other things you mentioned are different than any other film or video shoot.
The problems with HD video, right now, are largely portability problems?you can't really carry your RAID all around with you.
I'm just impressed that Red appears to be going to market with a real product that appears to do most if not all of what they claimed at near the price point they claimed.
I hadn't looked at their web page for a while, but things seem to be pretty solidified. I guess we'll see when someone has a production unit in hand, but my reaction at the moment is pretty much, "Well I'll be damned, they actually pulled it off!"
HD cameras have in excess of 2,073,600 pixels for each chip.
Yep you are right. But its not actually recording all of those pixels the extra pixels allow higher quantization and better dynamic range. After sub-sampling and compression its effectively recording 2MP image.
Quote:
Digital cameras have a lower dynamic range than film, so more time and care needs to be spent on lighting and exposure. Other than this, none of the other things you mentioned are different than any other film or video shoot.
It is different from film. I just showed you a quote from Harris Savides where he says so.
With film you don't need engineers to check camera diagnostics or engineers to monitor the RAID and protect data corruption or failure. Nor do you worry about data backup of your entire movie.
Quote:
The problems with HD video, right now, are largely portability problems—you can't really carry your RAID all around with you.
That is certainly not the only problem. There are several but they are being worked on.
Quote:
"Well I'll be damned, they actually pulled it off!"
I won't say this until they are actually shipping a working camera for $17,500. Right now its all still on paper.
I'm just impressed that Red appears to be going to market with a real product that appears to do most if not all of what they claimed at near the price point they claimed.
I hadn't looked at their web page for a while, but things seem to be pretty solidified. I guess we'll see when someone has a production unit in hand, but my reaction at the moment is pretty much, "Well I'll be damned, they actually pulled it off!"
I'm amazed as well. There's so much vapor in this industry (ie Kinetta.com) that when I heard about Red I was skeptical and even moreso because Jannard had no experience with creating a camera. Well miracle do happen. We'll see in a few weeks if his team has the design chops to develop and market a disruptive technology in this field.
Comments
In real world production there is still no completely stable or standard way to even record and store uncompressed 1080 HD. This is still in rough and experimental stages. 4K is nearly 5 times more data. Real world production and post production are currently not ready to deal with that.
Not really: most 1080p cameras are 3-chip cameras, so they're 2 full color megapixels. RED is one Bayer-filtered chip, so it's 11.48 monochrome megapixels. So, the RED camera is only about 85% more data than current 1080p set-ups.
I honestly don't know what bitrates current HD cameras offer though, the RED appears to offer around 10.
It also doesn't look like it can export full 4k, but that isn't unfeasible.
Also, recording 1080 uncompressed HD isn't rough or experimental: you just need a good RAID.
RED has said its codec is made to work natively with Quicktime. Even if RED are using Apple computers how would that be any proof that Apple developing 4K capability? If they are working together it'll be 2K at the most.
Okay so tell me, based on that theory, what application will interface with their codec? As you know, the application QuickTime is not typically used for deploying media content. Something like FCP wraps around QuickTime, and that's how you're able to take advantage of all the codecs. Without QuickTime we would not have FCP.
Not really: most 1080p cameras are 3-chip cameras, so they're 2 full color megapixels. RED is one Bayer-filtered chip, so it's 11.48 monochrome megapixels. So, the RED camera is only about 85% more data than current 1080p set-ups.
1080 HD cameras at most have around 400,000 pixels for each chip which results in 2MP for the entire array. 1/6 of the pixels needed for a 4K sensor.
It also doesn't look like it can export full 4k, but that isn't unfeasible.
There has been some argument over this but RED says it is full 4K.
Also, recording 1080 uncompressed HD isn't rough or experimental: you just need a good RAID
In real world use its not that simple. For one you are using delicate equipment out in the heat, cold, rain, dust and humidity of nature. This is artistic image capture not simply banal data capture. The cinematographer is creating a desired look to support the tone, mood, and atmosphere of the story. That look is being created electronically and needs to be protected through the recording and storing process until it reaches post production. None of this has been perfected and is still being worked on.
This excerpt is from Harris Savides who shot "Zodiac" on the Thomson Viper 1080P HD camera.
The benchmark for me has always been film, and this was a more challenging way to make a movie. I feel like we're still experiencing digital cinematography in its infancy, and there are a lot of growing pains. We're basically replacing large, cumbersome film cameras and crews with even more complex and cumbersome digital technology, with results that are roughly equal to, and in some cases not as good as film. Someday this technology may lead to a more flexible and streamlined shooting process.
Okay so tell me, based on that theory, what application will interface with their codec? As you know, the application QuickTime is not typically used for deploying media content. Something like FCP wraps around QuickTime, and that's how you're able to take advantage of all the codecs. Without QuickTime we would not have FCP.
You are assuming because RED is developing its codec to work with Quicktime means that Apple is designing FCP to work with RED 4K. I'm saying no it does not automatically mean that. Of course RED wants FCP to work with their codec, that does not automatically mean Apple is in alliance with them.
If Apple is working with RED at this point 2K is the most practical and likely. Right now 4K is too much data and too expensive to be worth Apple's effort. Outside of a $100,000 digital projector there is no other way to accurately monitor 4K.
FCP is not only the NLE to use Quicktime. Avid uses Quicktime and Premiere Pro for the Mac will use Quicktime.
1080 HD cameras at most have around 400,000 pixels for each chip which results in 2MP for the entire array. 1/6 of the pixels needed for a 4K sensor.
No, MiniDV cameras like the GL 2 have around 400,000 pixels for each chip.
HD cameras have in excess of 2,073,600 pixels for each chip.
In real world use its not that simple. For one you are using delicate equipment out in the heat, cold, rain, dust and humidity of nature. This is artistic image capture not simply banal data capture. The cinematographer is creating a desired look to support the tone, mood, and atmosphere of the story. That look is being created electronically and needs to be protected through the recording and storing process until it reaches post production. None of this has been perfected and is still being worked on.
Digital cameras have a lower dynamic range than film, so more time and care needs to be spent on lighting and exposure. Other than this, none of the other things you mentioned are different than any other film or video shoot.
The problems with HD video, right now, are largely portability problems?you can't really carry your RAID all around with you.
This way they can work out all the bugs for when I actually upgrade a year later. I can't wait to buy FCP 6 and Leopard next March!
I hadn't looked at their web page for a while, but things seem to be pretty solidified. I guess we'll see when someone has a production unit in hand, but my reaction at the moment is pretty much, "Well I'll be damned, they actually pulled it off!"
HD cameras have in excess of 2,073,600 pixels for each chip.
Yep you are right. But its not actually recording all of those pixels the extra pixels allow higher quantization and better dynamic range. After sub-sampling and compression its effectively recording 2MP image.
Digital cameras have a lower dynamic range than film, so more time and care needs to be spent on lighting and exposure. Other than this, none of the other things you mentioned are different than any other film or video shoot.
It is different from film. I just showed you a quote from Harris Savides where he says so.
With film you don't need engineers to check camera diagnostics or engineers to monitor the RAID and protect data corruption or failure. Nor do you worry about data backup of your entire movie.
The problems with HD video, right now, are largely portability problems—you can't really carry your RAID all around with you.
That is certainly not the only problem. There are several but they are being worked on.
"Well I'll be damned, they actually pulled it off!"
I won't say this until they are actually shipping a working camera for $17,500. Right now its all still on paper.
I'm just impressed that Red appears to be going to market with a real product that appears to do most if not all of what they claimed at near the price point they claimed.
I hadn't looked at their web page for a while, but things seem to be pretty solidified. I guess we'll see when someone has a production unit in hand, but my reaction at the moment is pretty much, "Well I'll be damned, they actually pulled it off!"
I'm amazed as well. There's so much vapor in this industry (ie Kinetta.com) that when I heard about Red I was skeptical and even moreso because Jannard had no experience with creating a camera. Well miracle do happen. We'll see in a few weeks if his team has the design chops to develop and market a disruptive technology in this field.
Cool, a computer CPU that finally uses octal instead of binary, presumably for faster UNIX file permissions.
....
Or did you man Octo- ?
Zing! Nailed it...!!
Edit: Except for the spelling mistake. Heh.
http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebOb...13.0.1.0.0.0.0
How to save heaps
1. Buy a Mac.
Buy a new MacBook, MacBook Pro, iMac with SuperDrive or Mac Pro.
2. Buy an iPod.
Purchase a qualifying iPod with a qualifying Mac and get $199 back after mail-in rebate.*
3. Submit your rebate.
After you receive your products, download the mail-in rebate form and post it to us at the designated address.
the above link shows a student offer that ends on april 16, so i ass-u-me that maybe there will be new hardware on offer?????
This sounds feasible - a strategy for clearing channels to make way for new Macbooks, Macbook Pros, iMacs, Mac Pros, and iPods?
Scratch that: Not only does it sound feasible, it sounds GREAT!
Home > Software > Final Cut Studio
I'd say that removes all doubt, if there ever was any.
Did anyone else notice the breadcrumbs at the bottom of the page?
Home > Software > Final Cut Studio
I'd say that removes all doubt, if there ever was any.
Final Cut Pro et al is all bundled into Final Cut Studio.