Is 1k more really worth $24,000 more

[RicanJoe]

( CONTINUED) than the RED ONE? I'm guessing that EpIc will feature out of this world features to compensate. Things that the RED ONE could not provide due to hardware limitations. What do you guys think, what is EPIC hiding behind its hefty $40,000 price tag?

[Jeff Coatney]

Wouldn't it be cool if Epic had an integrated RED RAY that feeds to a real 4K monitor on set? A 4K tap?

[Fredrik Callinggard]

( CONTINUED) than the RED ONE? The price of EpIc is still to be determined, I believe. Im guessing that EpIc will feature out of this world features to compensate. Things that the RED ONE could not provide due to hardware limitations. What do you guy think, what is EPIC hiding behind its hefty ($40,000 TBD) price?

100fps instead of 60 and a 100MB/s codec on 5K - REDone has a 36MB/s and a 28.

(which theoretically means 200fps+ on 2K)

Fredrik

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

100fps instead of 60 and a 100MB/s codec on 5K - REDone has a 36MB/s and a 28.

(which theoretically means 200fps+ on 2K)
But what about the confirmed RED ONE sensor upgrade when Epic ships? Isn't it possible we'll get, say, 110fps at 100MB/s?

The value of Epic depends heavily on what the R1 sensor upgrade entails.

[Peter McCully]

But what about the confirmed RED ONE sensor upgrade when Epic ships? Isn't it possible we'll get, say, 110fps at 100MB/s?

The value of Epic depends heavily on what the R1 sensor upgrade entails.

Also the issue of the rolling shutter. Has this been cracked in the Epic?

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Jim says it's a 40% improvement on the Mysterium X.

[Peter Majtan]

Mind you guys - the same specs are announced for $ 3000,- Scarlet as well:

1-120 FPS (180FPS BURST)
UP TO 100 MB/SEC REDCODE RAW AND RGB RECORDING TO DUAL COMPACT FLASH

[Peter Majtan]

Which brings me to another question:

How would the compression affect the footage if both 3K (Scarlet) and 5K (EPIC) can record at up to 100MBps?

I remember when the first 900 series HD-CAM cam out of Sony and I almost puked when I saw the compression artifacts on a still...

I'm sure this (puking) won't be the case with RED, but the point is really good - is really the 1K extra worth the money? Especially considering that most workflow and distribution channels are still catching up to 4K...

Even RED own "distribution/presentation" products announced were 4K...

[Fredrik Callinggard]

But what about the confirmed RED ONE sensor upgrade when Epic ships? Isn't it possible we'll get, say, 110fps at 100MB/s?

The value of Epic depends heavily on what the R1 sensor upgrade entails.

Absolutely but we don't know what the upgrade will cost? Or what restrictions that will be set for it. Something have to make Epic the higher range camera.

Fredrik

[Cüneyt Kaya]

just looking to the specs:
is 1k really worth 20k...

when i look to scarlet, its 3k for 3000....red is 1k more and costs 14500 more.
but the advantage of the one over scarlet is not the 1k, its the PL Mount...so i see immediatly the higher value...

on epic i dont get yet whats the difference...will there be a rawport option?
dont know...it cant be the 1k...but we shouldnt forget that this 1k makes a big difference to the red one if you really want to finish in 4k, involved with heavy vfx...

because reds 4k....is almost 3,2 k when transcoded to a RGB Image...so much less then 4k....

With Epic you really get 4k RGB....
The Chairman of a camera company (was it Arri?dont want to blame him) said something like;

You cant get 4k out of a 4k cam.....which is true...so if you really need the 4k
for heavy Post...then the 20k are worth the difference!?

my conclusion:
red one-----2k finish
epic--------4k finish

makes for me 4x higher quality finish for 2x the price.................EPIC is a Steal!

[Paris Remillard]

Jim says it's a 40% improvement on the Mysterium X.

Are you referring to skew? So what does that mean, a 40% faster readout? I guess that would make sense since the Mysterium X sensor is 100fps at full rez, or 40% faster than the Mysterium at 60fps at full rez.

[Teague Kennedy]

my conclusion:
red one-----2k finish
epic--------4k finish


or ... red one 4k finish 20(or whatever)% softer. (still more sharp than 35mm film)
epic finish at 4k.

Are Ralph Lauren jeans really worth 10 times a pair of Levis? No, but for those who can afford it, they will buy the best. Gives them a fuzzy feeling.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

or ... red one 4k finish 20(or whatever)% softer. (still more sharp than 35mm film)
epic finish at 4k.

Are Ralph Lauren jeans really worth 10 times a pair of Levis? No, but for those who can afford it, they will buy the best. Gives them a fuzzy feeling.

why do you think its 20% softer...?

4k has around x1.5 more resolution then 3,2k...hey i am really interested in your calculation...maybe i am missing something

[Stuart English]

my conclusion:
red one-----2k finish
epic--------4k finish

How about RED-ONE for a 2K or 4K finish....EPIC for a 2K or 4K finish, or when an absolutely pristine 4K image at high frame rates is a must have requirement - such as for Visual FX, advertising applications etc.

RED-ONE images are stunning, (the 4K screening confirms that) but there is still a level of acquisition tool above that, EPIC fulfills that role.

[Alexander Nikishin]

I honestly hope Epic abandons the rolling shutter route.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

absolutely pristine 4K image at high frame rates is a must have requirement - such as for Visual FX, advertising applications etc.


ok so this is a factor i didn`t thought of.....high frame rate 4k shots...

this is one more advantage comparing to the red one...

the red one can not deliver, even after a sensor update....a 4k rgb high frame rate shot...(technical pov)
but visually there is little difference...
ergo its really important for vfx guys...ok hope i got it now

(hey i am just figuering out, you are the tech wizzards)

[Paris Remillard]

I honestly hope Epic abandons the rolling shutter route.

Me too. But if I've understood correctly, fast frame rates wouldn't be possible with a global shutter. At least not as fast as a rolling shutter allows. But I 'd happily accept slower frame rates for no skew or half frame exposures, personally.

[Stuart English]

Me too. But if I've understood correctly, fast frame rates wouldn't be possible with a global shutter

You are correct in your assumption.

[Justin O'Neill]

We have clients who would no question pay a large premium for 1k more in horizontal resolution. The added vertical resolution will be even more important to some.

[conrad gaunt]

( CONTINUED) than the RED ONE? The price of EpIc is still to be determined, I believe. Im guessing that EpIc will feature out of this world features to compensate. Things that the RED ONE could not provide due to hardware limitations. What do you guy think, what is EPIC hiding behind its hefty ($40,000 TBD) price?


It shouldn`t be thought of as just a 1k improvement I bet...

its got a 1.25x increase in horizontal resolution, probably accompanied by another 1.25x increase in vertical resolution, which

= 1.25x1.25 = 1.5625x increase in resolution.

Or put another way , 56.25% more pixels, plus new sensor with less skew, faster fps, possibly more DNR (and available in 4k for Red 1s too apparently!). Other than the benefits of the new sensor, you can bet the exact specks won`t be nailed down for a while either. I`ve already read Jim suggesting that syncing up two cameras for 3D stereo stuff is worth exploring as an idea. Redalchemy is at work.

Also, I notice, the new redcode data rate (100mb etc, is 3x current 27/36mb, roughly) , which allows for twice as much data per pixel available (as 5K sensor will have roughly 1.5x, extra pixels, although that will depend on fps too, er, more math needed).

[Alexander Nikishin]

The DR #'s should be on the rise with Epic as well I'd imagine.

That would be the single most important feature for me in regards to Epic.

Please give us in up wards of 13-14 stops, I'd repay the favor with a testicle or two.

[Craig Ryan]

So in theory would Epic need to be 14 bit to get 14 stops? I don't mean to turn this in the direction of DR discussion, its just that what I've come to understand is that DR is limited to the bits...right?

Also, when do "bits" come into play anyways?

[Bang WOW Bang]

just looking to the specs:
is 1k really worth 20k...

when i look to scarlet, its 3k for 3000....red is 1k more and costs 14500 more.
but the advantage of the one over scarlet is not the 1k, its the PL Mount...so i see immediatly the higher value...

on epic i dont get yet whats the difference...will there be a rawport option?
dont know...it cant be the 1k...but we shouldnt forget that this 1k makes a big difference to the red one if you really want to finish in 4k, involved with heavy vfx...

because reds 4k....is almost 3,2 k when transcoded to a RGB Image...so much less then 4k....

With Epic you really get 4k RGB....
The Chairman of a camera company (was it Arri?dont want to blame him) said something like;

You cant get 4k out of a 4k cam.....which is true...so if you really need the 4k
for heavy Post...then the 20k are worth the difference!?

my conclusion:
red one-----2k finish
epic--------4k finish

makes for me 4x higher quality finish for 2x the price.................EPIC is a Steal!

Guten Tag.

AGree that 4K to 2K = The best 2K images for the Barco 2K screen worldwide.

Will see that 5K to 3K = the best 3K images for the XX brand to come up a 3K projector to support REDCODE 100MB/s soon.

Stewart Chong
HKG

[MiguelOrtega]

on epic i dont get yet whats the difference...will there be a rawport option?
dont know...it cant be the 1k...but we shouldnt forget that this 1k makes a big difference to the red one if you really want to finish in 4k, involved with heavy vfx...

actually i am yet to see vfx done at 4k..(not that it hasnt been done)the difference in render costs for 4k would just be ridiculous... getting stuff to render at 2k is bad enough. ...i only seen 4k used on scans that needed very hard core camera projections

[Ace]

Uhh.. 1K is almost 50% more resolution than 4k.. I know it doesn't sound right, but draw up a 4k image in photoshop, and then overlay it on a 5k area..

[arun]

unbelivable just morethan 1 k with x sensor and price goin to $40,000 oh ma god better and always perfect is redone only i will go for it ....

[Tim Lüdin]

It's not about that 1K resolution.
The stuff that I see in Epic:

Better DR
Better new sensor = less noise
Higher framerates at full 5K or 4K. So no 2K shooting any more = nicer DOF
Lighter and smaller camera.
Less skew.

This is like RED one on stereoids.
You just gotta love it.

[Stephen Gentle]

Uhh.. 1K is almost 50% more resolution than 4k.. I know it doesn't sound right, but draw up a 4k image in photoshop, and then overlay it on a 5k area..

By my calculations it's 5,308,416 pixels (5.3 megapixels) bigger than 4K. That's 1.56 times (or 56%) bigger.

[Gunleik Groven]

The extra pixels would not be why I upgraded, but there are some nice promises in the overall specs. I particularily like the fullframe high fps and lower compression rates. Those two alone, should be worth the upgrade for some.

Add faster sensor reading, possibly higher DR and there will e quite a few REDS coming in for an upgrade.

EWPIC is a very wise and smart move for RED IMHO, each will have to decide wether it suits his/her needs. I don't know yet, but I can definitely see some it fits better than RED.

[Harry Clark]

THE OFFER OF THE TRADE IN IS INCREDIBLE GUYS. THANK YOU.
I would definitely trade in Red One #344 IF Epic overcomes some of the less "pro" limitations (not many in my opinion) of the Red One. BIGGEST issue is the sensor's rolling shutter.
Is is possible to design the sensor to choose a GLOBAL shutter at low frame rates and ROLLING shutter only as necessary?
Or, can we add more processing power to address quadrants of the sensor at the same time and eliminate skew and facilitate the use of strobes with Epic? Skew and strobe sync is a deal-breaker for many projects.
Other suggestions; take them for what they are:
More rugged connectors for AV in-out.
Larger, more rugged knobs to spin vs. the joystick.
I'm not an audio guy, but dedicated knobs for levels would make the boys in the sound dept. happy.
Sleep mode.
Voltage reader in line for the use of ANY battery.
MACHINED PARTS> I WILL pay a premium.
The ability to individually set ANY OUTPUT (EVF, LCD, Preview, 1080) to have menus, info, lines, look-around, false color, whatever. Or to NOT have those things and show the recorded image ONLY.
i-data pins and lens metadata.
I'm sure you guys have already done so, but I hope that you carefully research the costs of making a more "pro", more flexible camera with more processing power before settling on a price. We want you to make money, and we would love to eliminate some compromises.
There is a core group of us willing to pay more for a better product. I promise. Just make sure you can provide a compelling, robust upgrade at the price.
Cheers,
Harry

[Gareth Gerrard]

How did you find out its $40,000 TBD???

[RicanJoe]

How did you find out its $40,000 TBD??? TBD= to be disclosed or announced..the reason I stated this is because I am not sure that a 40k price tag are official words from RED.

[Andrew Benz]

Ted confirms the price on several NAB 2008 youtube videos... also confirmed I believe by the Freshdv video (great job all around to Kendall and Matt for all those videos--great turn around- great information!) and finally I believe it was confirmed by Mike on his infamous podcast here (#3)...

http://www.fxguide.com/redcentre


Hope this helps gentlemen.

[Gareth Gerrard]

Thanks for the clear up! I knew what 'TBD' meant, its just the '$40,000' I was questioning! I was quite shocked when I first read the 'rumoured' price, is all. :-)

[RicanJoe]

Ted confirms the price on several NAB 2008 youtube videos... also confirmed I believe by the Freshdv video (great job all around to Kendall and Matt for all those videos--great turn around- great information!) and finally I believe it was confirmed by Mike on his infamous podcast here (#3)...

http://www.fxguide.com/redcentre


Hope this helps gentlemen..
Ok, thank for clearing that up. Ill edit my posts

[Alex G. Cohn]

I'm sure you'll be paying for more than just increased resolution. I mean Red One and Dalsa Origin have similar "resolutions," yet from what I've heard, the Origin imaging chip costs Dalsa almost as much as the price of an entire Red One body.

[conrad gaunt]

By my calculations it's 5,308,416 pixels (5.3 megapixels) bigger than 4K. That's 1.56 times (or 56%) bigger.

Hey! stop copying my posts, i did the math earlier (with a virtual scientific calculator no less), its more like 56.25% :biggrin:

[Chris Kenny]

A lot of this comes down to an issue I discussed several months back with respect to cine vs. photo lenses. When building just about any sort of non-trivial product, you face diminishing returns in terms of cost/benefit past a certain point. In other words, you reach a point where making a product slightly better is going to cost a lot more.

In a market where there's a pool of high-end customers with deep pockets, though, it can make perfect sense to introduce products that go well beyond what most people would consider the point of diminishing returns. Sure, the Red One is good enough, even for theatrical exhibition. But why not offer customers with deep pockets the absolute best thing you can make? Even if it costs a lot more and is only marginally better, it's not a major expense by their standards and they want to have the best.

There's no conflict between Red wanting to make high-quality digital cinematography available to indies, and Red wanting to make a money-is-no-object camera for the high-end of the market. (Which is still cheaper than all of its serious competitors, incidentally.) In fact, the two will probably compliment each other pretty well. Selling lower end cameras gives Red more units to amortize R&D over. Meanwhile, Red can try new things out at the high-end, where there's less cost sensitivity, and then, as Moore's Law inevitably makes everything cheaper, bring those already battle-tested technologies to its more affordable cameras.

[Jim Stewart]

There's no conflict between Red wanting to make high-quality digital cinematography available to indies, and Red wanting to make a money-is-no-object camera for the high-end of the market.
I wouldn't be so sure.

[Paris Remillard]

THE OFFER OF THE TRADE IN IS INCREDIBLE GUYS. THANK YOU.
I would definitely trade in Red One #344 IF Epic overcomes some of the less "pro" limitations (not many in my opinion) of the Red One. BIGGEST issue is the sensor's rolling shutter.
Is is possible to design the sensor to choose a GLOBAL shutter at low frame rates and ROLLING shutter only as necessary?
Or, can we add more processing power to address quadrants of the sensor at the same time and eliminate skew and facilitate the use of strobes with Epic? Skew and strobe sync is a deal-breaker for many projects.

Cheers,
Harry

I agree that the rolling shutter is the biggest issue. I'm getting stretchy footage from people just being animated when they speak. If they move their face too quickly it stretches and angles. So, I'd pay extra for any of those options. Or even a Standard and Highspeed version of the Epic or Red One (preferably the Red One, because then I could have both versions for the same price as one Epic). Have a standard model with a global shutter that shoots at 24/25fps, and then a highspeed that gives you all of the faster framerates.

[Mark Crabtree]

Strange how perspectives can differ. If we were all the beneficiaries of a Sony 4K camera at $17,500 and at the next years NAB they came out with a more expensive upgaded model we would not feel threatened in any way. We all accept that there are many tiers for cameras. But when Red did this so many of us were upset. I think that for Red to make a reality of the revolution in digital movie making it started with the Red One, Red must expand not only to the lower end of the market, but also the top end. Jim has pledged that all the developement work that went into the Epic will benefit the Red One in the form of upgrades. I, like quite a few other Red owners, feel even more proud of being a part of this Red revolution seeing these amazing new product developments. In regard to our existing Red One cameras we have three choices: 1. Just keep making great movies, no upgrade required. 2. Upgrade to the X sensor for a yet to be determined, but promised by Jim to be fair, fee. 3. Trade for the Epic at full value for our Red Ones.
As for the Scarlet, all of us Red Camera owners/Red users will benefit greatly from having 30 or 40 thousand more users of the Redcode workflow. This will spur intense development of post production solutions, but this will only happen with a camera that most people can afford.
Scarlet is just the first of probably many future 3K models from Red, so there may very well be future product to satisfy almost everyone. When bought I to Jim's dream we all hoped he would kick Sony's ass. With the Red One he did just that, now with Scarlet, Epic and Red Ray he is going to give it to them again.

[Chris Kenny]

I wouldn't be so sure.

Sure, there's always the temptation with this sort of arrangement to deliberately cripple the lower-end product, in order to make the higher-end production more attractive. But in a truly competitive market, this is virtually always a losing proposition. The traditional vendors in this market have gotten away with it for so long only because they all seem to have a sort of unspoken agreement to let each other get away with it. Red doesn't seem to be playing by those rules.

[Stokestack]

The price of EpIc is still to be determined... what is EPIC hiding behind its hefty $40,000 price tag?

How do you reconcile those two statements, in the same paragraph?

Where are these oft-quoted Scarlet and Epic prices coming from? People have adopted them as fact, which isn't really the best strategy.

[Seán_T]

Theres always the possibility that the Red One body at 17.5 is a loss leader or at least priced to make money in volume sales and the new camera is more fairly priced, particularly if its going to be shipping in smaller numbers.

[lordtangent]

I'm sure you'll be paying for more than just increased resolution. I mean Red One and Dalsa Origin have similar "resolutions," yet from what I've heard, the Origin imaging chip costs Dalsa almost as much as the price of an entire Red One body.

And have you seen the output from Dalsas CCD? Completely noiseless. It's pretty insane.

Plus it has full reflex viewing and mechanical shutter not an EVF. The readout of the chip also happens when the shutter is closed. Not rolling shutter artifacts.

It's unfair to both cameras to lump them in together. They are totally different animals.

The Red One is more on the "Value" end of the spectrum, while the Origin is more on the "price is no object" end of the spectrum. It's not to say the Red One can't make pretty pictures, only that you need to be prepared to put up with some of it's now well known shortcomings to get the price break compared to the Dalsa stuff. (Like the rolling shutter!)

Of course the Dalsa isn't perfect either. (Just the sheer rate the data blasts out of their camera being a big issue) But now that Cineform supports their stuff with Cineform RAW, dealing with it in post probably wont be quite as outrageous as it would have been in the past.

[Alex G. Cohn]

And have you seen the output from Dalsas CCD? Completely noiseless. It's pretty insane.

Plus it has full reflex viewing and mechanical shutter not an EVF. The readout of the chip also happens when the shutter is closed. Not rolling shutter artifacts.

It's unfair to both cameras to lump them in together. They are totally different animals.

The Red One is more on the "Value" end of the spectrum, while the Origin is more on the "price is no object" end of the spectrum. It's not to say the Red One can't make pretty pictures, only that you need to be prepared to put up with some of it's now well known shortcomings to get the price break compared to the Dalsa stuff. (Like the rolling shutter!)

Of course the Dalsa isn't perfect either. (Just the sheer rate the data blasts out of their camera being a big issue) But now that Cineform supports their stuff with Cineform RAW, dealing with it in post probably wont be quite as outrageous as it would have been in the past.
I've seen Dalsa footage at 1080p. It was razor sharp, yet remarkably natural looking. The only thing holding Dalsa back is the unfriendliness of the camera body. If Dalsa were to team up with Panavision or Arri, their camera would be unstoppable.

[Häakon]

The only thing holding Dalsa back is the unfriendliness of the camera body.
...and the fact that you can't buy one.

[Alex G. Cohn]

...and the fact that you can't buy one.
That hasn't stopped Panavision.

[Emanuel A.]

Oh my dear goodness ! You speak about Dalsa and Panavision as it could be useful to have RED playing in the same playground...

Did you ever notice what the RED mission statement has been since day one (when I placed my money on this project) ?

[Mark Toia]

Oh my dear goodness ! You speak about Dalsa and Panavision as it could be useful to have RED playing in the same playground...

Did you ever notice what the RED mission statement has been since day one (when I placed my money on this project) ?

I'm with you Emanuel,
I've tested now Arri 21, Dalsa, Viper, F23, F35 and actuall shot a job on the Panovision Genesis.
All of these cameras are only 2k at best, plus you have to drag around a VCR SRHD deck, RED is 4k and feeds to a flash card.

The cheapest one out of this bunch is 150k, RED is 17k.
Images from RED are way cleaner than 35mm already.
I cannot believe they even Rate this other bunch in the same league as RED.
Maybe they haven't shot a RED camera yet. Yes, I'm sure thats what's going on.

Actually if you want to know what is the best Cini DIGI Camera out there in the market place minus the price tag.

PHANTOM HD
2k@ 1000 frames-per-second
35mm depth-of-field in a high-speed digital HD camera.

also a 65mm chipped, 125 pfs giant!
http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=camera_65_new

Red wins over all though, but these things are awesome, minus the price.
If they were to price them selves the same as RED, well there would be a real coke and pepsi war on.

[Alex G. Cohn]

I'm with you Emanuel,
I've tested now Arri 21, Dalsa, Viper, F23, F35 and actuall shot a job on the Panovision Genesis.
All of these cameras are only 2k at best, plus you have to drag around a VCR SRHD deck, RED is 4k and feeds to a flash card.

The cheapest one out of this bunch is 150k, RED is 17k.
Images from RED are way cleaner than 35mm already.
I cannot believe they even Rate this other bunch in the same league as RED.
Maybe they haven't shot a RED camera yet. Yes, I'm sure thats what's going on.

Actually if you want to know what is the best Cini DIGI Camera out there in the market place minus the price tag.

PHANTOM HD
2k@ 1000 frames-per-second
35mm depth-of-field in a high-speed digital HD camera.

also a 65mm chipped, 125 pfs giant!
http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=camera_65_new

Red wins over all though, but these things are awesome, minus the price.
If they were to price them selves the same as RED, well there would be a real coke and pepsi war on.
If you are talking about independent productions, then I agree with you, but the big productions are not all that concerned about the cost of the other cameras. They'd just be renting them anyway.

I've all ready been hammered on this website for trying to play devil's advocate, but RED is still a compromise for the big productions. Resolution is not the end all be all of what the big camera companies were trying to do. If they wanted to have created a 4K camera by now, then they could have.

Dalsa has 4K. It is expensive, but it has none of the rolling shutter issues of RED. As much as I hear people saying that's not that big of a problem, it is an issue that is going to keep the majority of big pros from adopting the camera.

I honestly believe that this is the way it is going to be. RED is inexpensive, but there is a compromise. Indies will use it extensively. When the other camera companies finally create their 4K cameras, they will be expensive, but there won't be any compromise. That is the direction the Hollywood pics will go.


RED has been out for less than a year. It's still a little early to go around declaring a revolution, especially when we haven't even seen the first group of RED features yet. Only time will tell.

[Stuart English]

Resolution is not the end all be all of what the big camera companies were trying to do. If they wanted to have created a 4K camera by now, then they could have.

Dalsa has 4K. It is expensive, but it has none of the rolling shutter issues of RED. As much as I hear people saying that's not that big of a problem, it is an issue that is going to keep the majority of big pros from adopting the camera.

I honestly believe that this is the way it is going to be. RED is inexpensive, but there is a compromise. Indies will use it extensively. When the other camera companies finally create their 4K cameras, they will be expensive, but there won't be any compromise. That is the direction the Hollywood pics will go.

As you might expect I disagree. I suggest a major reason most other camera companies haven't made a 4K camera is that a) there isn't a tape based workflow - so RED invented its own file based one - b) as the resolution goes up there are some major issues such as maximum frame rate / power consumption / image skew to deal with - so RED created its own Mysterium sensor and REDCODE, and c) if you sell 1080p cameras that's what marketing and sales says customers want.

My point is that when (if) all the other guys create a 4K camera there will be compromises, and when Hollywood gets comfortable with our file based workflow they will adopt RED (RED-ONE / EPIC / Scarlet)

As you say, only time will tell, but that's the prediction - we'll see won't we ?

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

A lot of this comes down to an issue I discussed several months back with respect to cine vs. photo lenses. When building just about any sort of non-trivial product, you face diminishing returns in terms of cost/benefit past a certain point. In other words, you reach a point where making a product slightly better is going to cost a lot more.

In a market where there's a pool of high-end customers with deep pockets, though, it can make perfect sense to introduce products that go well beyond what most people would consider the point of diminishing returns. Sure, the Red One is good enough, even for theatrical exhibition. But why not offer customers with deep pockets the absolute best thing you can make? Even if it costs a lot more and is only marginally better, it's not a major expense by their standards and they want to have the best.

There's no conflict between Red wanting to make high-quality digital cinematography available to indies, and Red wanting to make a money-is-no-object camera for the high-end of the market. (Which is still cheaper than all of its serious competitors, incidentally.) In fact, the two will probably compliment each other pretty well. Selling lower end cameras gives Red more units to amortize R&D over. Meanwhile, Red can try new things out at the high-end, where there's less cost sensitivity, and then, as Moore's Law inevitably makes everything cheaper, bring those already battle-tested technologies to its more affordable cameras.

Chris you say things that make a lot of sense.

That's a nice explanation.

[Alex G. Cohn]

As you might expect I disagree. I suggest a major reason most other camera companies haven't made a 4K camera is that a) there isn't a tape based workflow - so RED invented its own file based one - b) as the resolution goes up there are some major issues such as maximum frame rate / power consumption / image skew to deal with - so RED created its own Mysterium sensor and REDCODE, and c) if you sell 1080p cameras that's what marketing and sales says customers want.

My point is that when (if) all the other guys create a 4K camera there will be compromises, and when Hollywood gets comfortable with our file based workflow they will adopt RED (RED-ONE / EPIC / Scarlet)

As you say, only time will tell, but that's the prediction - we'll see won't we ?
Workflow is a part of the problem, but it isn't "the" problem.

Digital still doesn't do everything that film does (this goes way beyond resolution,) and until it does, the industry is going to stick with film. Yes, Red and Dalsa might have more apparent "resolution" than film, but the images still don't have the same latitude.

Dalsa's camera doesn't compromise fast moving subjects the way the Red One does, and I have a feeling that that was one of the main reasons James Bond went with Dalsa. The main compromise with Dalsa is the current camera's usability. That and I think it is only 250 ASA, and still limited to 60fps.

[Steve Sanacore]

How could Soderbergh shoot two feature films with the RED if it has so many compromises? The film clips at the Shot on Red movie at the NAB booth were beautiful, so how bad can the problems be?

Just wondering.

[Gunleik Groven]

He couldn't.

But I guess/hope RED trearted him really well...

[Alex G. Cohn]

How could Soderbergh shoot two feature films with the RED if it has so many compromises? The film clips at the Shot on Red movie at the NAB booth were beautiful, so how bad can the problems be?

Just wondering.
Well, they're not going to show problem clips at NAB, are they? Compromise is a relative term.

HDV is an enormous compromise, yet some people have been able to make great looking stuff using HDV cameras. You don't, however, see them shooting the next Indiana Jones on it.

Soderbergh is not the best example to use of "Hollywood" switching over to digital. He's happy to shoot on DV25.

[Gunleik Groven]

I think you may be mixing him with david lynch...

[Florian Stadler]

As we're all speculating here, here's a thought:

If you want to have a sensor that can do a global shutter, what you need is 2 identical sensors on a single silicon waver, one half being shielded from receiving light. At the shutter reset, the info from the light receiving part of the sensor is duplicated on the non light receiving part of the sensor and the info is read out in rolling shutter fashion from the non-light receiving one. Aside from the global shutter capability you will also gain Dynamic Range by processing the image this way.

The larger the sensor, the harder to manufacture.

IF Epic has a global shutter, it will have a sensor TWICE the size and at least twice the manufacturing cost for the sensor. Hence the higher price tag. This small but important step in image quality gain will be worth it to many people, including me.

And Big T you obviously haven't tested the Dalsa Origin since it is truly a 4K camera of the highest quality and records uncompressed RAW 4K Bayer data to an S2 or a Codex and NOT a deck as you falsely claim. Educate yourself before you make false statements please :angry03: .

[Alex G. Cohn]

I think you may be mixing him with david lynch...
Why, because Lynch has done it more recently than Soderbergh?

Throughout his entire career, Soderbergh has been an experimenter, whether that's shooting "Full Frontal" on DV or releasing "Bubble" day-and-date. He likes to rock the boat.

[reality]

If you want to have a sensor that can do a global shutter, what you need is 2 identical sensors on a single silicon waver, one half being shielded from receiving light. At the shutter reset, the info from the light receiving part of the sensor is duplicated on the non light receiving part of the sensor and the info is read out in rolling shutter fashion from the non-light receiving one. Aside from the global shutter capability you will also gain Dynamic Range by processing the image this way.

The larger the sensor, the harder to manufacture.

IF Epic has a global shutter, it will have a sensor TWICE the size and at least twice the manufacturing cost for the sensor. Hence the higher price tag. This small but important step in image quality gain will be worth it to many people, including me.

And Big T you obviously haven't tested the Dalsa Origin since it is truly a 4K camera of the highest quality and records uncompressed RAW 4K Bayer data to an S2 or a Codex and NOT a deck as you falsely claim. Educate yourself before you make false statements please :angry03: .


florian, what you're talking about is a frame transfer ccd. it does not by it's nature have any more dynamic range than other technologies. it does have advantages over interline ccds but its not necessarily an ideal technology either. it can't do high frame rates and requires a physical shutter.

[Mark Toia]

If you are talking about independent productions, then I agree with you, but the big productions are not all that concerned about the cost of the other cameras. They'd just be renting them anyway.

I've all ready been hammered on this website for trying to play devil's advocate, but RED is still a compromise for the big productions. Resolution is not the end all be all of what the big camera companies were trying to do. If they wanted to have created a 4K camera by now, then they could have.

Dalsa has 4K. It is expensive, but it has none of the rolling shutter issues of RED. As much as I hear people saying that's not that big of a problem, it is an issue that is going to keep the majority of big pros from adopting the camera.

I honestly believe that this is the way it is going to be. RED is inexpensive, but there is a compromise. Indies will use it extensively. When the other camera companies finally create their 4K cameras, they will be expensive, but there won't be any compromise. That is the direction the Hollywood pics will go.


RED has been out for less than a year. It's still a little early to go around declaring a revolution, especially when we haven't even seen the first group of RED features yet. Only time will tell.

Yes I stand corrected, Dalsa is 4k, and yes the pictures are outstanding and not once did I say the others were'nt either. The pictures out of all of these top end cameras are amazingly good, this is not the argument.
But please don't push down the RED ONE when you have obviously never shot it back to back yet. Or even shot RED to be even commenting.
It's images are equally as good for 5th the price of the others
This is the point Im making.

You obviously don't own one yet. If you did I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.
Or you have purchased a Dalsa and are trying to justify it to yourself. Or a Dalsa REP and you are only on this forum to discredit the competition, (I think this is more close to the truth)
What ever your beef is with RED is unfounded.

What compromise in resolution are you talking about?, if it's this silly slew argument, I'm still looking for it. We shoot nothing other than fast action, if there is a slewed shot in there, it must be over a frame or two. nothing worth even talking about.

I've seen back to back with Dalsa and Genisis Arri21, F35 and film 50d you are completely wrong about RED
Obviously you didn't go to the 4k screening at NAB. I sat with the WARNER people in the theatre. They were shocked by how good the actual screened quality really was as was I.

I can't hang a Genisis or a dalsa off a R rig...too heavy. they are way to bloody big!, Also be to scared to put those big beasts on any crazy situation. The tech's worry about them already, let alone not being albe to get your hands on a spare one if there was a problem.
Still good cameras none he less.

I'm doing a stunt shot next friday with 7 RED's covering it, and 2 arri 435's. (reason why is we ran out of RED's)
My savings on cameras go to bigger production values not to massive rents. Studio is very very happy.

Oh and the studios are more budget conscience than they have ever been. I know because we are connected to a few.
Fact is RED is best BANG FOR BUCK digi cine camera in the market place. (may not be the best image) i believe that goes to the Phantom 65 and perhaps your Dalsa.

BUT RED wins on points sorry.

Moving on.

[Alex G. Cohn]

Yes I stand corrected, Dalsa is 4k, and yes the pictures are outstanding and not once did I say the others were'nt either. The pictures out of all of these top end cameras are amazingly good, this is not the argument.
But please don't push down the RED ONE when you have obviously never shot it back to back yet. Or even shot RED to be even commenting.
It's images are equally as good for 5th the price of the others
This is the point Im making.

You obviously don't own one yet. If you did I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.
Or you have purchased a Dalsa and are trying to justify it to yourself. Or a Dalsa REP and you are only on this forum to discredit the competition, (I think this is more close to the truth)
What ever your beef is with RED is unfounded.

What compromise in resolution are you talking about?, if it's this silly slew argument, I'm still looking for it. We shoot nothing other than fast action, if there is a slewed shot in there, it must be over a frame or two. nothing worth even talking about.

I've seen back to back with Dalsa and Genisis Arri21, F35 and film 50d you are completely wrong about RED
Obviously you didn't go to the 4k screening at NAB. I sat with the WARNER people in the theatre. They were shocked by how good the actual screened quality really was as was I.

I can't hang a Genisis or a dalsa off a R rig...too heavy. they are way to bloody big!, Also be to scared to put those big beasts on any crazy situation. The tech's worry about them already, let alone not being albe to get your hands on a spare one if there was a problem.
Still good cameras none he less.

I'm doing a stunt shot next friday with 7 RED's covering it, and 2 arri 435's. (reason why is we ran out of RED's)
My savings on cameras go to bigger production values not to massive rents. Studio is very very happy.

Oh and the studios are more budget conscience than they have ever been. I know because we are connected to a few.
Fact is RED is best BANG FOR BUCK digi cine camera in the market place. (may not be the best image) i believe that goes to the Phantom 65 and perhaps your Dalsa.

BUT RED wins on points sorry.

Moving on.
I don't have a beef with RED. I just think it's a little early to be praising it as a revolution. I believe in the revolution; I just don't think it's the RED ONE. It could very well be the EPIC, but we have to wait and see. If so, I think RED has pulled a little bit of a bait-and-switch on everybody.

This is the problem with this forum. Anybody who expresses even the slightest doubt is berated as a "Dalsa rep." I feel like Trotsky in here, among the crazies of the Russian Revolution.

I'm not sure why you think I said that the resolution of RED was a compromise. RED has resolution, but my point all along has been that resolution is not everything.

[Stuart English]

I don't have a beef with RED. I just think it's a little early to be praising it as a revolution. I believe in the revolution; I just don't think it's the RED ONE. It could very well be the EPIC, but we have to wait and see. If so, I think RED has pulled a little bit of a bait-and-switch on everybody.

Its fine to debate the relative merits of professional cameras, but lets skip the crap about "other manufacturers could have made a 4K camera if they chose to" and a RED "bait-and-switch" - which is presumably based on the fact that we are extending the product line with EPIC and / or we will offer a future RED-ONE upgrade option?

Did you actually SEE the 4K demo clips in the RED theatre at NAB? And did you see the color grading of film demo in the Sony booth on the same 4K SXRD projector? If you did, would you please tell me what you think the compromise is, and what this RED bait-and-switch is in your mind? Would love to hear your opinion on that. :red_bandana:

[Alex G. Cohn]

Its fine to debate the relative merits of professional cameras, but lets skip the crap about "other manufacturers could have made a 4K camera if they chose to" and a RED "bait-and-switch" - which is presumably based on the fact that we are extending the product line with EPIC and / or we will offer a future RED-ONE upgrade option?

Did you actually SEE the 4K demo clips in the RED theatre at NAB? And did you see the color grading of film demo in the Sony booth on the same 4K SXRD projector? If you did, would you please tell me what you think the compromise is, and what this RED bait-and-switch is in your mind? Would love to hear your opinion on that. :red_bandana:
Well, clearly I'm not the only person who sees the RED ONE / EPIC as a bait-and-switch. There are plenty of die-hard believes on this board who are complaining about that, and they have full right to do so. I'm not even going to go into the $500 batteries and all that.

All CMOS chips are a compromise in some way, just as CCDs are a compromise in other ways. RED still does not have the latitude of film, and these skew issues sound like a pretty big deal to me.

For digital to take over the industry, it's got to do everything film does, and it's got to do it better. If I'm a big Hollywood show, I still don't see a reason to switch from film.

I was not at NAB, so I cannot comment on RED's presentation there. I rarely ever pay attention to trade shows, because I know that people are just showing off the good stuff. As I have said several times in this thread, time will tell. I am waiting for the first wave of RED films to be released to pass final judgment on the RED ONE. There are going to be horror stories of some sort, just like there are with any new technology, or any film set for that matter. The question is what those stories are.



And do you honestly believe than Panavision or Sony couldn't have developed a 4K camera if they had actually wanted to devote the resources necessary on such a venture? They didn't see the market for it. You see how difficult it's been managing the data on Dalsa shoots? The support technology isn't where it needs to be right now.

[Mark Toia]

Well, clearly I'm not the only person who sees the RED ONE / EPIC as a bait-and-switch. There are plenty of die-hard believes on this board who are complaining about that, and they have full right to do so. I'm not even going to go into the $500 batteries and all that.

Lets stop this nonsense. Pleeeeeeeaaaaase!

You haven't shot RED on any real shoot scenarios but you comment like you have lived with one for months.
Your a Dalsa REP! or your mates, got one, whatever!, but please stop talking down what you don't know.
This is a pure sign of ignorance.
Before I bought anything I tested everything I could get my hands on. Something I very much doubt you have not done.

For the last time. DALSA, PHATOM, D21, F35 are great cameras.
Ok!

If you think RED is a sham! and a rip off, please get off the forum.
No one needs to hear your doom and gloom stories of a Camera that is a sham. All of us that have one and are working it hard in the field find your claims ridiculous to say the least.

I'm going back to my fictitious RED cameras to see if they haven't turned invisible or have been stolen by guys wearing Oakley sunnies.
But if they are still there in the truck, I'm going to check again to see if the inferior chip thats in it hasn't fallen out of it.

I'm sure there is a DALSA forum you can rag RED out on.

Dalsa REP!

Sheeeesh!!!!!
Give us all a break.

Please don't respond.

[Mark Toia]

Oooh and the forum was setup to help new comers to RED understand the best ways to use the camera.

Also setup for RED to get feedback on the cameras so as to build better models / versions etc for the future.
Like any other company.

The forum is not for Dalsa, Arri, Sony REPS to vent.

[jimhare]

And what bait and switch?!!! If you like the Red One, order it, if not, don't... They aren't suddenly saying if you want what we promised you have to buy Epic, it's a different beast.

If I buy a Canon 350D for $400, I don't suddenly claim Canon is trying to screw me by offering a 1DMIII for $10,000.


I have added up my Red One package and it comes to around $35k including lens, production pack, 3 batteries, 3 drives etc.

No bait about it, no cover up, no sham. It's not like Red are going to come to me after the sale telling me I need to spend more to make it work. Would I like an Epic? Probably but I don't need it and can't afford it. The Red One does what Jim promised it would, reality permitting... They have been open and honest about it.

That's it.

Honestly, I don't see the problem here.

[Alex G. Cohn]

I say that Dalsa doesn't suffer from rolling shutter issues, and suddenly I'm a Dalsa rep? You guys realize that you are actually hurting RED with this attitude. No wonder nobody takes this place seriously; you guys try and chase away anybody who expresses any sliver of a doubt about the MIRACULOUS RED CAMERA THAT GOD HIMSELF DID BESTOW UPON US!

You guys are completely ridiculous.

[Bob Torrance]

Dalsa is a nice camera but until their evolution camera works its not the same thing. Phantom is great at what it does. Sony said a year ago they are building a 4K camera for NAB 2009 (hopefully). 4K is here to stay. Epic is made for the high end. Red has 3 cameras for different markets. Sony has .....ah a bunch. I've seen RED on a very big screen, the F35 on a very big screen, viper, etc. Personally, I like the texture of the Red camera much more. Others may not. The studios are always slow to adopt new things but DP and directors will drive this camera.

my 2cts

[Mark Toia]

I say that Dalsa doesn't suffer from rolling shutter issues, and suddenly I'm a Dalsa rep? You guys realize that you are actually hurting RED with this attitude. No wonder nobody takes this place seriously; you guys try and chase away anybody who expresses any sliver of a doubt about the MIRACULOUS RED CAMERA THAT GOD HIMSELF DID BESTOW UPON US!

You guys are completely ridiculous.

Ditto.:glare:

Like we have been telling you, over an over again.
Please leave this forum if you doubt this cameras possibilities.
We do not care if you sell Dalsa cameras.
You spend your money on that, we will go our way thanks.

it's all good. We wont miss your hard sell of other cameras on this RED forum.

moving on.

thankyou for your input.

[Mark Toia]

Geeez, for 15 posts in total agcohn really got on side with his peers. NOT!

I wonder why people that are not into a product, jump onto that products forums and rubbish it.

We don't jump on a DALSA forum and rubbish Dalsa.?

Baffles me. it really really does.

[Mark L. Pederson]

And do you honestly believe than Panavision or Sony couldn't have developed a 4K camera if they had actually wanted to devote the resources necessary on such a venture? They didn't see the market for it. You see how difficult it's been managing the data on Dalsa shoots? They support technology isn't where it needs to be right now.

LOL!!!

THAT is funny.

So glad they are supporting technology "where it needs to be right now".

Can somebody please give them a clue "where it needs to be right now"?

Oh, never mind ... they have noticed RED.

[Mark Toia]

LOL!!!

THAT is funny.

So glad they are supporting technology "where it needs to be right now".

Can somebody please give them a clue "where it needs to be right now"?

Oh, never mind ... they have noticed RED.


They most certainly have.

[Stuart English]

Well, clearly I'm not the only person who sees the RED ONE / EPIC as a bait-and-switch. There are plenty of die-hard believes on this board who are complaining about that, and they have full right to do so. I'm not even going to go into the $500 batteries and all that.

O.K so now that we have established that you didn't actually see the RED-ONE images on show at NAB, what exactly is your beef about our $450 140Wh battery?

I am not trying to bait anyone, but as a general comment if you want to debate a point, please explain it.

If you just want to hit and run, then you'll get hit back. This is a RED-USER forum, not a RED-MYTH forum.

Follow that rule and we'll be fine, O.K?

[donatello b]

"And do you honestly believe than Panavision or Sony couldn't have developed a 4K camera if they had actually wanted to devote the resources necessary on such a venture? "

let see , panavision was in HUGE debt .. Panavision teamed up with Sony & modified CineAlta's and was hoping to use Sony to develop a cinema style camera ... Sony didn't want to go beyond 2/3" sensor so panavision went out on their own and bought a sensor company to make a 35mm chip but still used Sony for the record to media = well sony is HD ....

now Sony the company that i asked back in 1999, 2000, 2001 why can't they make a 30p camera and their reply was why would anybody want that .. then panasonic came out with a 24p/30p affordable camera and when sony saw there was a market , after some time followed ...

bottom line is NONE of them saw a RED coming ...
NONE of them had the vision Red had ...
all the sony "experts " told them a 4k camera cost of R&D and the small number they would sell wouldn't be worth the $$$$$$$$$ ...
even when Red was at NAB 2006 - sony & others etc were all stating it can't be done today , can't be done at that price, you won't see Red at NAB 2007 ( as in the Red company won't be around) and if it could be done today it wouldn't be Red doing it ...

perhaps sony is saying the same about Red Ray or perhaps calling in their experts to ask "is this possible " ..

[Alex G. Cohn]

If you just want to hit and run, then you'll get hit back. This is a RED-USER forum, not a RED-MYTH forum.

My intention was never to hit anyone. I apologize if that's how I have come off. I came into this thread merely stating that EPIC would probably have more than just increased resolution from the RED, and I pointed out just how more expensive Dalsa is as a point of reference.

Then someone asked if I'd seen Dalsa, and I said that I had, and that even at 1080 it was incredible, and then I got hit by people asking why I was even comparing Dalsa to RED, why I was putting RED down, etc. etc.

It all escalated from there.


Please leave this forum if you doubt this cameras possibilities.

I'm sorry you guys feel that way. I thought this was supposed to be a forum of ideas. What kind of discussion can you have without dissenting opinion? That's a rhetorical question by the way, as I all ready know the answer.

I don't doubt that RED ONE is a fantastic camera. As I mentioned in an earlier post, all "compromise" is a relative term. Would I suggest a RED over any regular HD camera? Hell yeah. Would I suggest a RED over 35mm film, if someone had the means to shoot on film? Hell no.

That has been my point all along. RED is still a compromise when it comes to the quality of film.


LOL!!!

THAT is funny.

So glad they are supporting technology "where it needs to be right now".

Can somebody please give them a clue "where it needs to be right now"?

Oh, never mind ... they have noticed RED.

That was a typo that I have since fixed. I meant to say "The support technology isn't where it's supposed to be right now," not "They support technology isn't where it's supposed to be right now."

[Stuart English]

My intention was never to hit anyone. I apologize if that's how I have come off.

You are welcome to stick around Agcohn. But I'm still interested in what your comment about the "$500 batteries" was all about ?

[10s]

Yes it can be argued that RED has a ways to go to match film, but maybe EPIC will get close, now wouldn't that be nice? I think the RED team is doing great work. They need input that challenges them to reach even higher goals, but at the same time they also need to be congratulated for their achievements. Without the RED team we would be fussing over lesser issues of less capable cameras. It might seem ironic for Jim & team, but just the fact that many here are discussing these issues is a sign of the great progress made. Can't wait to see what EPIC will do to the world.

[Peter Majtan]

RED vs FILM

Film has ONLY two advantages over RED:

A) Dynamic Range (not for long)
B) Archival quality original negative that (when properly stored) will survive 100+ years (there are alternatives that in fact could exceed this)

Everything else speaks for RED (and other high-end digital cinema cameras), especially:

A) Resolution higher then 35 mm film
B) Being able to confirm that You have the shot "in the can" and how it looks like (unlike having to CAREFULLY store unexposed negative on the location, send it to a lab for expensive processing and having to either dump Daily print copy or organize for expensive telecine session before You get to see what is it that You have in the can...)
C) No need to do very expensive 4K scanning to have digital data available for DI post
D) Ability to re-use the recording media
E) Cost of equipment
F)...

... the list could go on and on and on...

It ultimately becomes a personal decision, but if You are just a "little" budget conscious (let's face it - who isn't?), You go digital. Period...

[I Bloom]

And do you honestly believe than Panavision or Sony couldn't have developed a 4K camera if they had actually wanted to devote the resources necessary on such a venture? They didn't see the market for it. You see how difficult it's been managing the data on Dalsa shoots? The support technology isn't where it needs to be right now.

RED doesn't fit the same category as Dalsa though, because Redcode is compressed such that it is as manageable as HD.

I think its clear that Mr. Jannard is creating the market for the material coming from his cameras. He's showing both filmmakers and movie-goers that they can have 4K "everything" with existing technology + a little help from RED. If this reality isn't clear to you, I'd strongly suggest you look a little deeper.

IBloom

[Emanuel A.]

RED vs FILM

Film has ONLY two advantages over RED:

A) Dynamic Range (not for long)
B) Archival quality original negative that (when properly stored) will survive 100+ years (there are alternatives that in fact could exceed this)
On the first one, we can both even agree. But on the 2nd one, are you really sure of such (point) as an advantage?

[Tom Lowe]

Theres always the possibility that the Red One body at 17.5 is a loss leader or at least priced to make money in volume sales and the new camera is more fairly priced, particularly if its going to be shipping in smaller numbers.

I think this is the real story.

Ever since I heard about Epic I have been thinking, "Ah, so Jim is planning to actually make a profit with this one."

My guess (and I could be wrong) is that Epic will be marketed to studios and rental houses, etc, and will actually make a profit for Red, whereas most Red One owners have really gotten a free ride and quite a discount on Red One. Far from being a "bait and switch" it's actually the people who buy Epic that will in part be financing your Red One. ;)

Anyway, Jim is already giving Red One as sensor upgrade next year. Do you think Canon is going to offer a "sensor upgrade" on 1Ds Mark II? No, you have to plop down 7 grand on a Mark III.

[donatello b]

"Theres always the possibility that the Red One body at 17.5 is a loss leader or at least priced to make money in volume sales"

RED (JJ) has stated in the past there is profit in Red one ...
and YES, it is priced at a point where it must sell large #'s ...
if Red had only planned to make 200, the camera would be priced at a much higher price and 25% of us would be renting it, the other 70% would be wishing we could rent it and 5% could afford it ...

Red one could have been priced at 40K and in todays market it would still be conisdered a good DEAL ...

[Emanuel A.]

But it wouldn't be selling so many units as today...

[Tom Lowe]

"Theres always the possibility that the Red One body at 17.5 is a loss leader or at least priced to make money in volume sales"

RED (JJ) has stated in the past there is profit in Red one ...

I don't know if Jim has claimed directly that Red One is profitable. I think he has said "we're profitable" or something like that. I'm not sure I would believe him 100% if he claimed that "Red One is profitable." He's just been too generous and put too much upfront money into Red One. Ask any business man -- that kind of investment takes time to recoup, and my guess is that Epic is part of his plan to be profitable. Being "profitable" within 1-2 years is a remarkable feat for a startup like Red.

Jim is a business man, and Red is his private company, so he doesn't have to report this kind of profit/loss info as far I know.

[Peter Majtan]

On the first one, we can both even agree. But on the 2nd one, are you really sure of such (point) as an advantage?

Well it is the ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION right now: How to sort out long term archival of digital "master negative" (and digital data in general). I did handle personally one of the first original negs and prints of Akira Kurosawa and no matter how bad they were treated - we were able to restore them. You can't say that about digital - not yet anyway...

This also led me to design optical archival system for digital cinematography data (will not work for any other type of digital data) that matches and rivals actual analog film. We have worked on this with ARRI and KODAK, but the concept and design is mine and I only "took advantage" of their current products to fit into my solution. Without them however it would have been very difficult to develop...

Who ever sorts this out for "normal" digital data will become filthily rich (and can start its own camera company :biggrin: )...

[Emanuel A.]

I think this is the real story.

Ever since I heard about Epic I have been thinking, "Ah, so Jim is planning to actually make a profit with this one."

(...)

I don't know if Jim has claimed directly that Red One is profitable. I think he has said "we're profitable" or something like that. (...)RED is profitable today. ~ Jim Jannard in Apr 16 2008

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?s=&showtopic=30371&view=findpost&p=227546

[Emanuel A.]

(...) I'm not sure I would believe him 100% if he claimed that "Red One is profitable." (...)Why not? Do you still believe in the Santa Claus?

[Tom Lowe]

Why not? Do you still believe in the Santa Claus?

Like I said, I could be wrong. But if you look at your own post, Jim says "Red is profitable today." He didn't say "Red One is profitable." His quote could mean anything. And it could be aimed at competitors who are speculating about Red and its profits.

Again I could be wrong, but the math doesn't add up to me for Red One to be profitable at this point. Jim has just been too generous, and set the price very low. Any new business like this has a ton of startup costs. Salaries, R&D, legal, accounting, manfacturing and marketings costs, etc, make it unlikely that a couple thousand sales of Red One would make it "profitable" this early.

I'm not sure why you are stuck on this point, Emanuel.

[Emanuel A.]

I'm not sure why you are stuck on this point, Emanuel.'cause this is 'the secret' of RED: ...'into the hands of many' -- got it?

For the same reasons, we can buy one of these beauties* for US$1,500.00:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000VDCTCI/?tag=kenrockwellcom

The RED ONE introduction follows the same principle of economies of scale.

You wouldn't get it if the RED ONE had been thought like the EPIC will be. That's why the RED ONE will always be a higher milestone than any 1k more resolution.

The concept counts. Jim invented and had guts for the RED ONE. This camera (our proud) is the most sales success (comparing apples to apples) since Henry Ford had launched the model T.

I'm referring to him as cameras' dreamer but also as visionary business man. When he said he wouldn't expect to sell only 1000 units, this should mean something, right? Perhaps, the break-even point...somewhere over the rainbow? For a 35mm cinema (!) camera, can't we infer the 4,000 mark as enough (even if for 17,500.00) ?


*I mean, professional 35mm glass = same glass quality than the pricey similar sisters on the motion picture side.

[Alberto Caprioglio]

hey, we are talking of about 3 megapixels difference, between the two cameras! Isn't even this fact more then enough to make the Epic a higher class product? How could anyone consider it a small improvement?
Cameras have been stuck with PAL/NTSC resolutions for decades, yet they used to come with a new "improved" camera every year.
Come on...
Epic doesn't need anything more than the specs we already know, to be the best camera in the world, and vastly better than Red One.
Given those specs, being worried that Epic could not deliver enough "difference" to justify it... sounds like a nonsense to me. how much are competing cameras in the market, and what do they offer?

[Seán_T]

I'm looking forward to the "How do I post 5K" discussions :)

[Illya Friedman]

Wow, I haven't read this thread in days. I had no idea it had gotten so heated.

For the record, as far as I'm aware I'm the only DALSA employee that ever posts on Reduser. In fact, I think I'm pretty much the only DALSA employee that posts on any Cinematography forum CML/DCS/.com with any regularity.

I don't know what the perception is, but as far as posting on forums... I'm it. And I have to squeeze it in around all my other duties. I think if I didn't do it, it probably wouldn't be done at all. And believe you me, I've wrestled with thoughts of there truly being any benefit to my efforts. If it weren't for the frequent "thank yous" I receive, I probably wouldn't bother. My goal is really just to make sure incorrect information is not perpetuated.

Here's an example from this discussion.


florian, what you're talking about is a frame transfer ccd. it does not by it's nature have any more dynamic range than other technologies. it does have advantages over interline ccds but its not necessarily an ideal technology either. it can't do high frame rates and requires a physical shutter.

Actually Florian is correct. It's sounds to me as if he is referring to a photogate frame transfer sensor, which especially if he is speaking specifically of the Origin II/Evolution sensors, they do have inherently far more dynamic range than any comparable photodiode based CMOS or CCD sensor, interline transfer or otherwise. It's primarily about fill factor. Which as far as I know, we exceed every other manufacturer by a very wide margin.

Although I suppose to be fair I should say that I can't be 100% sure of that; because AFAIK DALSA is the only Digital Cinema camera manufacturer to publically state our fill factor, so I think it's fair to say.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc (http://www.dalsa.com/dc)

[reality]

Actually Florian is correct. It's sounds to me as if he is referring to a photogate frame transfer sensor, which especially if he is speaking specifically of the Origin II/Evolution sensors, they do have inherently far more dynamic range than any comparable photodiode based CMOS or CCD sensor, interline transfer or otherwise. It's primarily about fill factor. Which as far as I know, we exceed every other manufacturer by a very wide margin.
www.dalsa.com/dc (http://www.dalsa.com/dc)


As far as I know the Phantom 4k has a much greater pixel size and fill factor than the origin sensor.

Fill factor only tells you about the maximum number of photons can be collected but it doesn't tell you how efficiently it can transfer the charge (and be less noisy). Both are important for dynamic range. You can have great fill factor but not so great dynamic range. Double the fill factor also
means just 1 stop gain so it's not as great as you're suggesting.

[Illya Friedman]

As far as I know the Phantom 4k has a much greater pixel size and fill factor than the origin sensor.


I didn't realize that information was available. What is the fill factor of the Phantom 65? It is a CMOS sensor. Despite larger pixels I don't think it has a higher fill factor. Are you aware of the actual fill factor of any other digital cinema cameras?



Fill factor only tells you about the maximum number of photons can be collected but it doesn't tell you how efficiently it can transfer the charge (and be less noisy). Both are important for dynamic range. You can have great fill factor but not so great dynamic range. Double the fill factor also
means just 1 stop gain so it's not as great as you're suggesting.

Please consider for just a moment that you are minimizing one of the PRIMARY factors in determining dynamic range of an imaging sensor. Your example cuts both ways, if you can only collect a few photons it really doesn't matter if you can transfer those few photons extremely efficiently.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc (http://www.dalsa.com/dc)

[Stephen Gentle]

hey, we are talking of about 3 megapixels difference, between the two cameras!

I don't think so - as I said earlier "By my calculations it's 5,308,416 pixels (5.3 megapixels) bigger than 4K. That's 1.56 times (or 56%) bigger."

That's a lot of pixels...

[Joe D'Arcy]

Like I said, I could be wrong. But if you look at your own post, Jim says "Red is profitable today." He didn't say "Red One is profitable." His quote could mean anything. And it could be aimed at competitors who are speculating about Red and its profits.

Again I could be wrong, but the math doesn't add up to me for Red One to be profitable at this point.

4000 units at 25K each is projected sales of 100 million dollars. Seems more like profit than loss to me.

[Bing Bailey]

it would be nice if RED solved the archival issue with some kind of optical archival system. they could solve it for the whole industry. they seem to be solving all the other pieces of the puzzle with 4k displays , projectors , red ray players , accessories , its like the final piece

[Bing Bailey]

4082 units :)

[Harry Clark]

Illya,
I for one appreciate your posts. It's good to have more varied voices from the industry here. I wish that a few more CMLers would join too.
The best discussions here are never the ones where 87 people in a row post "Great job Jim!!!" (although I agree with that sentiment) but discussions that evolve, have differing opinions, and a few key players to steer the discussion and keep rudeness in check. We all learn that way.
Cheers,
Harry

[Alberto Caprioglio]

Originally Posted by Tetsuo
hey, we are talking of about 3 megapixels difference, between the two cameras!

I don't think so - as I said earlier "By my calculations it's 5,308,416 pixels (5.3 megapixels) bigger than 4K. That's 1.56 times (or 56%) bigger."

That's a lot of pixels...

Well said, Stephen; I have nothing to add. My point was in the same direction: it is not difficult at all to understand that Epic is another planet in comparison to Red One. This huge amount of pixel is more then enough to make it a camera of higher, different class. If we were supposed to clearly see a big difference between ordinary DV and DVCPRO - as the difference in price suggested - then how could we have difficulty in noticing a 5,3 Megapixel difference?
I feel quite comfortable.

[Chris Newman]

The best prediction I've heard that would justify the price is that it has a beam splitter and two image sensors getting different exposures for greatly increased dynamic range. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging, but of course you can make the tone curve look however you want, not only unrealistic like these examples.)

I don't understand the fuss about rolling shutter. People shooting 35mm (Arri's at least) seem to be able to live with the spinning shutter.

[Darren Orange]

RED is taking over.... Blockbusters are already full fledge using Red One Today. I am sure Red One, Epic and Scarlet will get tons of use for projects that will see the white and silver screens. Here One. I'm sure it has plenty of VFX work to be done also.

GI Joe (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046173/technical)

[Jason Murphy]

I don't understand the fuss about rolling shutter. People shooting 35mm (Arri's at least) seem to be able to live with the spinning shutter.

I think the real issue with a rolling shutter (as opposed to a spinning one on film) isn't shear (though that can be a problem for some VFX work), it's how the image reacts to strobes or elements that occur faster than the shutter can read them out. Obviously, this happened to some extent on film; however, I think the difference is that when this happens on film, the edge of the spinning shutter is blurred by the motion, and the resulting artifact is much more pleasing to the eye than the hard-lined edge that a rolling shutter produces.

Also, a slow or poorly implemented rolling shutter will produce jello-like footage when the camera shakes because the hard line of the rolling shutter is likely to duplicate or displace image lines as the camera jostles (hope that makes sense). This isn't a problem with a spinning shutter. You just get more motion blur.

I think it's somewhat analogous in a way to the problems people have with highlight handling on digital. It's not that film doesn't blow out, because it does; it's that on a digitally acquired image, there is a hard clip on blown out areas, which is visually much less appealing than the roll-off that film has.

Just my two cents.

[Hrvoje Simic]

I'm sorry, but I'm wondering....

what is the best camera in the world, how good is it compared to film, how is Red priced compared to it's competitors, how good is Red compared to Sony, is it that good, is film dead and stuff like that.

If anyone finds any threads about this please let me know, because I haven't seen this being discussed anywhere since '06.

[Cameron 'Cazbonie' Clark]

Is cheeper than a Arri 435 at $ 350,000.00 AUS and no film.
Keep a smile on that face.

[Jason A. Evans]

From my understanding Epic will be around 40,000. Im seeing some people complaining about the price. I think it will probably cover some future upgrades. A company called Aaton is supposedly working on 6K (Penelope 35mm camera that excepts digital mags). Even though Epic is a 5K camera, anyone think Jim is leaving room for a possible upgrade to 6K down the road?

[Peter Majtan]

I don't think so - at least not for a while...

Even EPIC is 5K only due to the Bayered CMOS sensor which "only" gives You (in RED HW) 78% of RGB resolution. That makes EPIC more 4K then 5K. I believe it is really designed as top-of-the-line 4K digital camera...

It's like when HDTVs came out. Many were not true HD (even today). Same for HD cameras - most CCD sensors are still 1440x1080 (not 1920x1080) - but are still called HD cameras...

I just think that the 5K is really confusing lot of people.

Maybe EPIC should be called TRUE-4K (with 5K acquisition) just like the "TRUE-HD" displays are...

[Jason A. Evans]

Thanks Peter for clearing that up

[Fredrik Callinggard]

I think an important aspect for this camera is the re-design. I like RED but for me it's trying to hard to be everything. With Epic I'll get a smaller design which is more compact and more concentrated on giving me what I want. I truly hope they consider all the "mistakes" they made with RED. As for the rez, yes that is very welcome as well :weight_lift:


Fredrik Callinggard

[Peter Majtan]

I truly hope they consider all the "mistakes" they made with RED

I am sure they did, just please make sure You are considering all the things they did RIGHT! Red One will stay forever in the history books as the cam that brought high-end digital cinematography to the independent filmmakers. I bet You there will be one on a permanent display at MOMO one day! :w00t:

[Brook Willard]

I am sure they did...

I think they're headed in the right direction, but they need to be just as open about Epic's development as they were about the RED ONE's... if not more. The benefit is that this time around, there are people with 8+ months of daily experience with the RED ONE in an infinite number of shooting situations. They are the people that RED needs to talk with about the Epic in order to make it the best camera possible... rather than the camera born in the minds of a few.

The next year or so before the camera ships should be very exciting. It's like we get to go back and redo the RED ONE with more experience and a higher technological and budgetary ceiling. I can't wait.

[Robin Balas]

The DR #'s should be on the rise with Epic as well I'd imagine.

That would be the single most important feature for me in regards to Epic.

Please give us in up wards of 13-14 stops, I'd repay the favor with a testicle or two.

I believe you don't have enough testicles to repay an increase from 11 to 14 stops... Imagine a 11 stop sensor as a 11 story building, a 14 stops sensor will not equate to a 14 story building, but a 88 story building. You do see the complexity and costs going from an 11 to a 88 story building, achieving one stop increments in todays high end sensors is huge. 3 stops is like discovering a new continent back in the old days, it did happen but took a long time and quite some effort.


So in theory would Epic need to be 14 bit to get 14 stops? I don't mean to turn this in the direction of DR discussion, its just that what I've come to understand is that DR is limited to the bits...right?

Also, when do "bits" come into play anyways?

If a sensor have 14 bits of useful information the AD should be way more than 14 bits. On high end stills sensors DALSA claims >11 bits of useful info and Camera makers stick a 16 bit AD to that sensor and claims it was beneficial over a 14 bit one. You need more bits than 1 to describe the darkest useful stop, if not it is like a monochrome 1 value stop. Dithering and noise together makes it possible to describe some texture with one value - think about FM rasters in printing. But if RED sticks a 14 bit AD in EPIC do not expect 14 stops of useful DR. Even with a 16 bit one its dodgy as the 16 bit ones are not really putting through 16 bits of useful info when in a package suitable for a RED camera.

The "bits" come in to play when you are to describe your analogue measurements of photons into digital values, i.e. in the A/D device. A/D device resolution and sensor dynamic range are to independent values, a wrongly designed A/D can ruin the signal from a good sensor, but a perfect A/D will not increase the dynamic range from any sensor. It is all in the sensor and the A/D needs to oversample enough to avoid being a limiting factor.

As to if 1K is worth 24k$ - I would say so. When going from 28MPx to 31MPx on a DALSA equipped stills digiback you pay 129.000NOK for the 28MPx one and 239.000NOK for the 31MPx one, however this is not quite fair as the 31MPx is slightly bigger physically as well (10%linear), but the difference is only a small increment in file size and angle of view, for a huge premium. 100k NOK is slightly less than 20K USD. And most stills professionals choose the 31MPx one over the 28MPx one.

MHO.

[Chris Newman]

If a sensor have 14 bits of useful information the AD should be way more than 14 bits.
Another way to think about it is the noise will look more natural if it has several shades, rather than just on/off.

[Bang WOW Bang]

( CONTINUED) than the RED ONE? I'm guessing that EpIc will feature out of this world features to compensate. Things that the RED ONE could not provide due to hardware limitations. What do you guys think, what is EPIC hiding behind its hefty $40,000 price tag?

May I humble to ask you that do yu have any idea of the Advance DSP costs ?

EPIC is 5K , 100MB Datarate in REDcode , 120 FPS , Uncompressed RAW DPX or TiFFs ??? W
Will it worth to cost more than RED one which is just a 28 / 36 MB/s REDCODE based in 4K with " Not smooth " or kind of Storbings only in the frame rate of 24/25/30 recorded in RED DRIVE for a higher REDCODE Datarate and Frame Rate.

Cheers,
STEW.
Founder
REDHKSC

[Filipo]

is it true that we will have 200+ FPS on 2K ?