http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7205338.stm

Above is a link to a news story about Ultra High Definition TV's and the like. What got my interest is around half way down it states

Currently there are only two cameras capable of recording the format.

They are extremely bulky and heavy and are capable of shooting less than 20 minutes of film each day.

To transfer just 18 minutes of video requires some 3.5 terabits of data.

Isn't the RED ONE capable of Ultra High Def? Surely these figures are wrong if that is the case? Or is the RED a different type of UHD. I'm confused.



Also if this should have been in the news section I apologise, but I wasn't really sure. Ta

Just as there are different varieties of HD (as in 720, 1080 etc.) there are also different varieties of UHD. Your link points to NHK's implementation of 8K (7680 x 4320 pixels) while RED is 4K (4520 x 2540 pixels) but yes it's all UHD.

Just as there are different varieties of HD (as in 720, 1080 etc.) there are also different varieties of UHD. Your link points to NHK's implementation of 8K (7680 x 4320 pixels) while RED is 4K (4520 x 2540 pixels) but yes it's all UHD.

Ahh, ok cheers.

That's 33,177,600 pixels, isn't that getting dangerously close to 70mm film resolution, with 35mm weighing in at about 12m. Other than the naturally asymetrical nature of film grain, I think we have a contender as far as resolution goes here. It's quite amazing how fast digital is gaining ground now.

That's 33,177,600 pixels, isn't that getting dangerously close to 70mm film resolution, with 35mm weighing in at about 12m. Other than the naturally asymetrical nature of film grain, I think we have a contender as far as resolution goes here. It's quite amazing how fast digital is gaining ground now.

I often shoot medium format stills on a Hasselblad with a 33MP digital back on it. The pictures are so sharp you can see a person's sole - though, they need a lot of tweaking in post to get the images looking right.