RED 4K 3D laser projector = $10K - Page 3

I can't imagine vibrating the screen could be practical; either it would become a giant speaker, or it would take a lot of power to make it move ultrasonically with enough displacement.

Spatial resolution isn't all, but if you lack it it's obvious. Alexa lacks it. Not enough oversampling for top 1080p.
Coming from 4.5K samples though...

I think SSteven is right and it is very unlikely that it is a scanning laser. Also, the higher the scanning rate the lower the resolution you can have.

Even at a measly 100 Hz you would only have 1s/(100hz*8M pixels)=1.25 nanoseconds per pixel (1.25 billionth of a second). I don't think any pixel control can be that fast. For comparison, the fastest a DLP mirror can switch is in 30 microseconds. That's 24 000 times slower than 1.25 nanoseconds. I.e. the response and precision from the control boards have to be that much faster compared to a DLP. I don't know if that's possible or not, but it's straining my credulity.

And remember, 100Hz is probably not even nearly enough to get a solid flicker free image...

3D is being stressed. I wonder how good of a 2D experience it will provide? Nothing ever lives up to the hype but that does not mean that it cannot still be a great product.

You would think that RED will be present at CEDIA this year. Only seven months away.

Based on Red's model, I assume that the lens would be purchased seperately?

Red have their own line of camera lenses already. Red Pro Primes, PL mount, cine lens quality to a lower price than most cine lenses, so lens design is something they are experienced in already; http://www.red.com/products/lenses

The image mhafner posted is one frame from a motion stream shot with Red Pro Prime lens on Epic-X by Jim Jannard.

Yes, Resolution is very important, but it is even worse if a low resolution camera is not even able to resolve its native resolution.

Same lens (Leica) two cameras non sharpened images. Think of what wil happend if you start to sharpen the left image. Then you will understand where lot of artefacts comes from.

Guess which is RED and which is Alexa.



A DP's responsibility is not only to choose the tool for creating "pretty images" for a project, but also to deliver the best image fidelity for the audience.

Today and for some time in the future, that is 4K.

If all DP's continue to shoot projects on 2 Megapixel cameras, then it will be a very long time before we will see any meaningful amount of 4K material.

To push for the highest fidelity is the DP's responsibility, if he choose not to do this by pushing for the use of the best tools he fails the responsibility to the audience.

No 2K or 3K camera is able to resolve the full 2K pixel resolution.

Well no, because RED did not design or make those lenses. Just like they don't design or make their SSD drives. Both are in essence OEM products.

I disagree. Tools for fantastic resolution of information have been available to DP's for many, many decades (one could even say a century, given 70mm goes all the way back to 1897). Throughout film history there has typically been more resolution available to DPs than they had chosen to use (had they chosen a larger film format, or a different camera, or a different film stock, or different lenses, or different camera filters, or lit a scene differently, or processed the film differently, or...)

DPs have been knowingly trading off resolution for other aspects they want out of an image for loooong before digital spec wars appeared. They do it because their PRIME duty and focus is presenting the image the DP and the director want the audience to see...it is not audience-driven as you seem to imply here, as if it is some duty to present the audience with more resolution.

Your comments above have a weird sort of logic inherent. You use the word "highest fidelity." "Highest fidelity" to what? Highest fidelity in terms of pure resolution, ensuring the audience sees as much possible detail of the set, or actor's face, or whatever, makes no sense. They often don't WANT you to see every possible detail with the greatest clarity. Rather they want you to see, selectively, the things the DP and Director want to emphasize, and thereby create a look, mood, individual film-world as dictated by the drama and artistic intent.

Directors like Kubrick and Spielberg have regularly made artistic choices in which they choose certain looks over pure "fidelity" to the details in front of the camera lens. For instance Kubrick and his DP, after many tests, deliberately force developed the film for Eyes Wide Shut, reducing resolution (and losing resolution/detail in brighter areas) to give it that "glowing" warm, spooky look. Was Kubrick's DP's "duty" instead to have delivered higher fidelity, in terms of image resolution, to the audience, which would have changed the look of the film? Or was the DP's duty, rather, to maintain fidelity to exactly the look Kubrick was choosing to employ?

Spielberg has for years deliberately chosen film - and heavily processed film at that in terms of increased grain structure and loosing fidelity in high-lights - over digital cameras, having expressed that digital to him has always looked "too clear," and hence loses the feeling of watching a dream as mediated by an artist. Was Spielberg's DP's duty a fidelity to Spielberg's artistic vision...or instead to the audience (DP thinks: "hmm...Spielberg is choosing not to avail himself of the full resolution possible with digital image, or even film images...I'll just sneak in more resolution and CHANGE the look of the film, because my duty is to some members of an audience who always like to know they are getting the most detail technology allows...")

Sorry, but when it comes to film making, a DP has a duty of "fidelity" to the vision he and the director have decided upon, whether that vision makes for lower ultimate resolution or not. There is no "duty" to the audience to put in or record more detail than the artists/craftsmen want you to see, any more than there was a duty from the Group Of Seven to have painted their landscapes with more detail or fidelity to what they were seeing .

Is the Sony GLV a scanning laser projector, where the laser light is reflected off the GLV chip?

BTW love to have that sort of detail/sharpness on my projection screen like that pic posted mhafner

GLV Tech:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...HGHvC97wIQ_VGw

Interesting Possibilities:

http://www.cypress.com/?rID=34970

From your link it seems it's producing all the vertical pixels simultaneously and then scanning in the horizontal direction only, thus increasing the pixel time two thousand fold compared to my estimate.

If I remember correct Evans & Sutherland bought the GLV Tech from Sony and tried to make a 8K projector for projecting movies.
They had a demo in 2009 but hadn't managed to control the Speckle to a satisfying degree so nothing came of it; http://gizmodo.com/5261740/es-8k-las...-content-in-hd
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archi...t-1148747.html

I am quite certain that the RED projector is not any type of scanning laser projector.

Damn, Rich...bravo! Your description is exactly the reality. The "responsibility" that coolscan speaks of would never be the responsibilty of the DP. But...the decision could be made for him by producers and/or the studio. That is their call. But if they hand the responsibilty to the DP with no limits, he/she will do exactly as you describe above.

I'll tell you a situation where you and coolscan are both right, but you may not know it. As you describe above, DPs regularly have used "tools" to soften the photographed resolution by anything from a line of lenses that are a bit softer, or using filters such as the Tiffen SoftFX. That said, there is a very big difference in how much or what level of softening can be utilized between 35mm and 16mm. The same filter will look very different on the two. You can't get away with as much on 16mm because it will begin to become a mess. The greater native resolution of 35mm allows more techincal, therefore creative, latitude to do such things. The same will be true of digital cinema. DPs will have more latitude to use such tools with a 4K or greater camera than a 2K. Not only is that desirable, it puts the control where it should be.

But the decisions to use filters is not done on the fly. These things are tested in pre-production and discussed. It is logical to ask the question if softening can be added in post. Of course it can, but I can guarantee you that it costs virtually nothing to put a SoftFX #1 on the camera for a closeup campared to having it done in post. That is where the relationship that producers and directors have with their DP pays off. The DP is chosen not only for skill with images, but because he/she has earned their trust.

So, what will the excuse for debate be when all cameras have 4K or better models?

I'd do such effects in post because you can always get back to the original with one click of a mouse button. It's kinda hard to remove that SoftFX #1 in post if the director suddenly decides it was a bad move

Indeed. It is nice to know someone on the forum that does what you do on whom we can call with questions.

What you describe was a big deal on the making of Twister. Jan deBont insisted that we (camera operators) shake the camera (which became a skill set all in its own ). This was a problem because for shots that were to have effects, which was a lot of course, ILM would have to remove the shaking, do their thing, then add shaking back. Jan would not relent.

One night we were continuing work on the sequence where the quaint intersection (drive-in theater, drive-in fast food, motel, and car repair garage) is destroyed by a twister. My camera assistant and I were in a cherry picker to do the shot where the car repair sign is tossed through the roof of the garage. The ILM guys were there and concerned about this shot. I remember producer Ian Bryce coming over to me and discussing it. He finally asked "What are you going to do?" I said I'm gonna shake it. Ian understood that was the peculiar spot we found ourselves in with Jan's powerful personality.

You make it sound like the abandoned 70mm based on artistic choice.
That is far from the fact.
70mm was dropped partly because of cost of film stock, unwillingness by cinema owners to upgrade enough cinemas to 70mm and not willing to pay extra for 70mm releases.

In addition; the directors and DP's wanted more mobility in the way of making movies which the big and heavy 70mm cameras could not afford them. When new lighter 35mm cameras and Super-35mm film was made the fate of 70mm was sealed.

In addition you have all the budget restrictions that hamper almost all movie making.

In the 1960's and early -70's nobody thought all movies would be shot in 70mm, but that most future big budget movies would be shot in 70mm was something people interested in movie making thought was a sure thing.

Don't confuse the abandon of 70mm with lack of desire to make movies with much higher image quality.

I shall not quote your whole post to try to keep it short.

"Highest fidelity" is the definition of the quality of the capture so it does not restrict artistic intent when you in post want to tweak your image.

Take a look again on the Zone charts I posted and you will see that the left image is not only softer than the right image, but also fail to resolve finer details like the right image.

The importance of starting out with a clean image can not be stressed enough.
A badly resolved image with tendency to artifacts and "merging of details" will put severe restrictions on anybody that want the full artistic freedom that a higher quality camera will give.

There is a big difference between tweaking a 2MP image and a 14MP image. The 2MP image will much sooner "fall apart" when you want to tweak it for your artistic intent.

Many people have voiced their "fear" that a 4K image will be too sharp.
The fact is that the opposite is true.
A 4K image will give a more natural sharpness while a low resolution image coupled with electronic sharpening will easily develop artifacts like edge enhancements and halos which we frequently see on Blu-ray.

2K scans and 2K super-35 size sensor cameras doesn't resolve more than about 1.5K, small sensor Pro HD/2K video cameras and Video DSLR's doesn't resolve more than about 1K.
That is the source of most of the material that is released on BD and projected in 2K digital in cinemas.

4K sensor cameras and 4K scans resolve about 3.5K, and 5K cameras about 4.5K.

You can make a 4K image as "bad" as the 2K image, but you can not do the opposite.


I have not in any way implied that image quality is audience driven. If it was left to the audience we might still be watching black&white movies and SD TV.

It is the professionals in the field that have the responsibility to push progress forward in all parts of life.

Digital motion cameras is rapidly developing and I don't believe that you mean that this progress should stop because you think we have reached "far enough."

Digital motion camera technology has been lagging behind Digital Stills cameras and is now just starting to catch up.

If you where hired by a client to shoot a magazine cover or a fashion shoot and showed up with a 2MP Photo camera you would be showed the door.
And that kind of jobs are usually displayed in smaller format than a TV.
At the same time it still is acceptable to shoot movies with 2MP cameras with a purpose to displaying them at large billboard size screens.
And very few seems to think that is strange.

I am very well versed in all the artistic side of "image making", but that is not really what we discuss here.
In today's digital world it is more important than ever for the artist to understand the technology basis of his tools so he can use them to widen his artistic freedom.

Excellent post.

All possibilities for artistic and creative freedom exist when you start with a native capture that's as transparent as possible to the source. You're free to alter the image to suit any taste or desire, but you don't have the ability to reverse a decision once you've started with a native capture that's altered from the onset.

One other point to make is that in a world of analog production processes, choices are often made so that a final effect can be arrived at by "compounding" a series of analog decision steps... so starting out with one film stock over an other (deviating from high-fidelity film capture) may better serve the ends of a desired artistic effect by eliminating additional production steps that may have introduced unwanted image compromises. In other words, if a dirctor knows he/she wants a scene to be grainy with blown-out contrast, it makes sense to use film stock that achieves that goal in the camera if he/she is restricted to analogue production choices.

But in a world of digital manipulation, it makes the most sense to start out with the highest fidelity native capture as your source, and then go from there to provide the maximum flexibility and range of choices (including, as you say, a return to the native capture with a click of the mouse). And of course as you so rightly say, cost and distribution issues were the primary drivers behind the industry moving away from large-format high-fidelity image capture towards lower cost media. Often times "artistic choice" is a euphamism for a restircted budget. Very often philosophical discussions about the pursiut of high fidelity manage to ignore practical considerations that motivate most of the real-world decisions taking place.

All you are talking about is resolution. Dynamic range and gamut are just as important if not more so once you have enough resolution.

There is nothing notionally more "transparent" about the RED that produces nice imagery beyond its resolution. A sharp ugly image is still an ugly image. Not once have I ever watched a film shot on RED where I didn't think "yuk" a fair few times.

Just about everything I've watched on Alexa has been characterised by it looking "nice".

I would hypothesise that once you have "enough" resolution the improved dynamic range and gamut are more beneficial than merely improving the res. We see "light" not pixels.

Tiny Furniture looked pretty nice. The look of the film reminded me of some of those older French flicks like Play Time (shot on 70mm). Has a nice pristine-type look to it, but perhaps a bit sterile for some.

How would a Red camera compare to an Arriflex D-21? I understand that this was the camera used to shoot Downton Abbey. Does anyone find the motion artifacts distracting?

The second season was shot with the Alexa, and I thought it looked great. But I've seen plenty of stuff shot on the Red hardware that looks outstanding as well.

But the reports so far have cited improvements in all the other areas you just mention... comparisons with wide-bandwidth analog color photography are even brought to mind. So it seems that resolutions is just one of the many comprehensive image improvements this projection technology brings along... which is what one would expect from a laser-illuminated picture.

coolscan,

First, I want to say I do appreciate your input on these technical threads.

As to your response, I agree with most of what you said, but unfortunately it was mostly beside the point. What I disagreed with was how you expressed the issue previously.


But what you wrote suggested that on the issue of deciding on image resolution, the DP's responsibility was to the audience:

(Bolding mine):

"A DP's responsibility is not only to choose the tool for creating "pretty images" for a project, but also to deliver the best image fidelity for the audience."

"To push for the highest fidelity is the DP's responsibility, if he choose not to do this by pushing for the use of the best tools he fails the responsibility to the audience."

That is still wrong. (Or at least, expressed in a way that is incorrect).
For all the reasons I've given. The DP's responsibility is to get the film to look as the director wishes (often in concert with the DP's vision).

The discussion of what is a prudent practice for capturing images on set (e.g. using highest resolution possible) is not the same issue. That still makes it the DP's responsibility to fulfill the director's vision, in whatever way prudent, NOT to the audience's desire for "ultimate fidelity" in terms of detail capture, as your quotes suggested.

Let's say we have an image in a movie that represents how the director wanted it to look to the audience. It happens to have a deliberately soft look - less detailed than if image detail had been the goal.

Take 3 ways that the detail could have been deliberately reduced:

1. A camera filter was used.
2. A particular camera/lens combo was chosen that wasn't quite as high resolution as another in terms of detail capture, but nonetheless it conveyed the look the director and DP wanted.
3. It was captured by a Red camera, and the detail reduction/softening was applied in post production.

In every case, what the audience sees is the lower resolution image, as intended by the crafstmen. Therefore, there was no "duty" to the audience that the image contain (or be captured with) any particular camera or in any particular detail or "fidelity" to what was in front of the camera. Whether option number 3 happened to be a more prudent path (and for various reasons, sometimes it's not), or whether the DP knew he could get just the softening effect he wanted on set, due to his own experience, the "duty" here is the DP's duty to the director and production, not to the audience's right to some form of higher resolution in an image.

So, as I said, I only took exception to how you expressed a DP's relationship to the audience in terms of image resolution capture. Had you expressed it more about your opinion on what is a more prudent way for film-makers to work in the digital realm, I'd likely have not any reason to object.

Cheers,

One of the big differences between RED and Alexa is resolution and ability to resolve detail.
Alexa is 14 stops of DR, Red One is 13.5 stops, same for Epic plus the additional HDRx which gives Epic 18 stops.

Alexa clips highlights a little later than the RED's, while the RED's hold shadows longer without noise.

So you see, DR is not such an important difference.

RED is also continuously upgrading their software/firmware, so with the new Redcolor/Redgamma 3 very soon to be released you can even improve material that was shot years ago. Also means that dynamic range is improved.
That's one of the beauties of RAW.


Well, you have been haunting every thread on AVS where RED has been discussed and criticised the camera on every opportunity, blaming the camera for every ugly image you have supposedly seen.

The strange thing about it is that the camera gets the blame and not the people behind the camera or the post production.

I have never seen anybody blaming an bad looking movie for the filmstock used or seen any film criticised because it was shot on F35 or the Genesis.

The RED cameras must be the first in history where the fault is blamed on the camera and not by human "errors".

Why you are on this "mission" to discredit RED without ever showing that you have any particular understanding of the matter or examples to demonstrate your claims is to me a puzzle, particularly when you so many times has been shown examples of that with a RED camera you can make the image look any way you please.

If anybody needs proof that you can make images from RED cameras look anything you want to. In this RedForum section are posted new videos daily, everything from test footage, music videos and trailers. A good source for seeing the width image styles of what RED cameras and the people behind them can produce. Forum: SHOT ON RED

For a view of how RED cameras are used in fashion and other print media, this section is good; Forum: DSMC FASHION PHOTOGRAPHY Still meets Motion


Beside the fact that Alexa was released three years after RED One, it is no doubt that it makes good images.

But one have to understand the great and very important difference between these cameras in the way they produce images. I have explained this before, but I see that I have to repeat myself and maybe make it clearer.

Alexa downsamples in camera to a 2K Apple ProRes format with a "readymade" baked in quality courtesy of the Arri engineers.
That is also why it is so big, need a lot of processing power.

To illustrate; DP's that has derived their knowledge and craft from shooting film usually had to keep updated on new film-stock and how it reacted to different light. So for them Alexa becomes just another "film-stock flavour". Not very challenging, doesn't bring them out of their "comfort-zone".
Many DP's have started their profession shooting video cameras, and for them they are on familiar grounds because Alexa behaves very much as a "Video camera on steroids.

To compare Alexa to the DSLR world; It is like shooting 2MP Jpeg with a picture style set by an engineer working for an Japanese camera manufacturer.
Always nice looking but has limited detail and limited possibility to adjust the image afterwards compare to shooting RAW. Jpeg's are created in the camera, RAW is created in post.

RED cameras gives only RAW image data.
The mistake that is frequently done in post with RED RAW is that the RAW gets an average setting and is transcoded to 2K ProRes and the RAW with all its meta data is discarded and not visited again. That means about 80% of the data from the RAW file is discarded.
The result can be "disastrous" when on encounter badly exposed material or the initial RAW decoding was not set correct for the material.

Alexa "develops the film" in camera. RAW "develops the film" in post, as anybody shooting with a DSLR knows.

Shoot RED and Alexa side by side with same lenses and you can make the RED footage look just like Alexa by twaking the RAW. Much harder the other way around because of the ProRes restriction from Alexa.

You can take RED RAW and edit directly in RED's free editing tool RedCine Pro or Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid and most of editor programs without transcoding except Apple Final Cut Pro.
Because so many want to edit in FCP this transcoding is done, often with bad results.

If you absolutely want to edit in FCP, you can make a "edit copy transfer" to ProRes without discarding the RAW files. This workflow type has had a very hard time penetrating the "brains" of the post house people.
You can then when you have done the edit and you come to Color Grading do the grading directly on the RAW files and don't be stuck on an inferior ProRes transcode.
More info on this in the end of the post.

A rant from one experienced RED shooter who usually does his own post work but needed a post house for other reasons and his frustration of their response; http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...l=1#post929720

There are still high charging Post Facilities that still don't understand the importance of always grade the footage on the the RAW files.

Dynamic range and other qualities improves all the time. Besides RED's new Redcolr/Redgamma 3 (which will not be the last one), they have also announced a new sensor upgrade for Epic-X, the Dragon sensor which we might see this year.

But what is "enough" resolution?
I find it strange that people in the film community not immediately want to use cameras with higher resolution when they are available.
In stead we see, like in this and other threads and forums that argue that 2K is "good enough" even if it is less resolution than 35mm film.

Why don't they see the benefit of higher resolution than 2K? 2MP is passè in still photo. Is it the lack of good 4K projectors that making this adoption so slow.

When we know that Sony has installed many thousands of the CineAlta 4K projectors and Barco has installed 3.400 Series-2 projectors in the Cinemark chain, and the 4K projectors installations increase every month the world over; Why do movie makers still want to shoot movies in 2K, a quarter of the resolution of 4K?

Why is the first James Bond film that is shot 100% digital shot in 2K when there will be thousands of 4K projectors that could show the movie in 4K?

When we know that 4K home media delivery is just some few years in the future, why are movies, TV series, nature documentaries still made in 2K when the movie studios out of experience how much they can earn on selling media again and again.

The first digital movie that had a 4K workflow from start to end is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. There will be some more movies this year shot on RED that is going through a proper post production and have all the chance to look great.

Those who want to know more about 4K RAW workflow; MICHAEL CIONI from Hollywood post facility Lightiron that did "..dragon tattoo" has written a good description on how it was done; If you really wanted to make a 4K end-to-end movie, what would that entail?
Long Interview with Cioni and several others about the "...dragon tattoo" workflow; 4K DI on The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

30 minutes youtube video of some of the same in a presentation Michael Cioni did to The L.A. Final Cut Pro User Group; http://youtu.be/Qztrb9arZl4

Would you guys mind taking the camera discussion somewhere else?

This thread and forum are for projectors.

Thanks

Seconded. Mainly because I read $10 4k projector and then read all of two pages that actually had anything to do with the projector itself.

Well we may have to wait till April for more info but anyone in Vegas up for a bit of recon work?

"6PM, Sunday, April 15th

2012 REDUser Party at NAB, Las Vegas.

Powered by Light Iron

You're gonna want to be there."

Coolscan good post and info.The big if to me will Sony be making consumer grade tv in 2yrs.The new head of Sony is saying they are going to make very big and painful cuts.

My money too !!!! I'm ready to buy it yesterday! !!!

Still with a fantastic 2d jvc HD990 (still the BEST 2d machine in the 2k Res. Category, IMHO), wait ,at this point, for to see this RED monster.

I've seen in action the Sony 1000, great!, ( great Res. 4k, great upscaling of 2k and BD contents, great lumens performance even in passive 3D); but too much money for a projector with traditional lamp and too, not Iris free. ...