PDA

View Full Version : Red camera, Obsolescence Obsolete, or Obsolescence overboard?



James Gardiner
12-05-2008, 05:04 PM
This is a post from my blog, but I wanted to post it here to get feed back from some RED users.

Please no "religious" responses. Educated, example driven comments appreciated.

Thanks,
James

POST follows.


The Red Digital Cinema tag line is “The Red Camera Makes Obsolescence Obsolete.”

As a DCI digital cinema expert and past owner of a Film and TV production studio and facility, unfortunately, this comment is a little miss-leading.

Let me explain why.

I am involved in the installation of DCI projectors within Australia. As such, I am well informed of technical roadmaps and installation numbers. Currently the DCI equipment being installed is 2k, general projecting SCOPE as 2048×858 and FLAT (1.85) as 1998×1080. The DMD, or DLP chips are 2048×1080 in total.

At the current rate, we will not see large penetration of DCI in all cinemas, especially in non-US cinemas, for quite some time to come. Even in the US the change over is not near 50%.

Current roadmap for 4k DLP support? Not even being talked about yet.

Life span of a DLP projector. Expected 10years, however, Cinemas are use to 40 years lifespan on a traditional projector, so expect them to run them into the ground, 15-20 years.

I would expect the world to be fully DCI in about 5-10 years.

If we add all these time frames up, etc. Don’t expect to see 4K cinema for 20 years. Maybe more.

Now lets look at who can tell the difference between 2k and 4k. From many people I have spoken to, even trained pros have a hard time telling the difference is at a reasonable distance from the screen. Sure, if in the front row it is much easier. In general, however, it is expected that the general cinema goer, 99% would not tell the difference.

As a cinema owner, can you justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just to keep 1% a little happier?

What I am trying to point out here is that 2k is pretty much it. Doing production in more then 2k is a good way to simply spend more money on Post with no real way to get it onto a cinema screen for a very long time to come.

RED1 queasy 4K bayer as opposed to real 4k (when you say 4k you mean 4k of resolution. 4k baye, DLPr is not 4k resolution.) the RED1, in a 2k workflow is most likely the best bang for $$$ camera currently available.

RED cry the “Obsolescence Obsolete” tag line, but this is more hype then reality of what is involved in real production.

Cost, destination format, qualified workflow. This is what you as a producer should be excited about. Not how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

SideNOTE: Over sampling or more then 2k aquisition is very useful for certain post requirements. Mainly CGI, but in general, it has no bearking to the final result in a 2k workflow.

Jason Ing
12-05-2008, 05:20 PM
I would expect the world to be fully DCI in about 5-10 years.

If we add all these time frames up, etc. Don’t expect to see 4K cinema for 20 years. Maybe more.


I'm no expert in this. But I think your predictions (and anyone else) are suspect in today's technology (especially if you're talking in decades). Just 2-3 years ago (less?), people didn't believe a camera like Red could exist. You and even the most expert of experts can't see what may be just around the corner or developing in a secret labratory that will be a game changer.

If you want to have a serious discussion without religion, then discuss all factors and give them fair consideration without subjective criticism.

You mention 2k vs 4k, dancing angels, etc. etc. But what about dnr, color fidelity, etc.? Viewers will see that difference.

You seem critical of OO, but I don't get your point. What does OO have to do with production? OO has more to do with the users of the camera. I like a modular system that I can use the majority of parts for a long time or upgrade at a smaller cost then buying an entire camera again. I like the fact that I'll be able to trade in my R1 or upgrade to a better sensor. That's "OO" to me. Maybe it has something to do with production like you said (I don't see it, but okay, I'll keep an open mind).

And as far as hype, overboard, etc. What about it? All companies market and advertise. How many claims by Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. sounded great but didn't pan out?

So far Red has delivered after all the "overboard hype".

David Mullen ASC
12-05-2008, 06:37 PM
The point of the post seems to be that 4K is not necessary for cinema applications.

Just remember that the RED ONE is a 4K RAW Bayer camera, and 4K Bayer is not the same thing as 4K resolution.

Personally, I think that if 2K RGB is the final goal for cinema presentation... you need to start out with 3K to 4K minimum if shooting RAW with a single-sensor Bayer-filtered camera.

But while I think shooting in 4K RAW mode is necessary for cinema applications, whether one needs to finish to a 4K RGB master versus a 2K RGB master, I can see the arguments both ways. Although I just did some quick tests of RED material finished to 4K and 2K for film-out, and I preferred the look of the 4K version. It wasn't really a question of sharpness, for some reason, the 4K version seemed "fuller" and more "well-rounded" in how detail fell-off in the shadows and highlights. Hard to explain and even the post house didn't really have an answer. But it was close, the 2K vs. 4K film-out.

I think the original post is confusing two issues -- whether 4K RGB will become a standard for cinema presentation and mastering, and the fact that the RED ONE is a 4K RAW camera, as if you don't need to shoot in 4K mode for a 2K presentation. When you're trying to generate three colors from a single sensor with a Bayer filter, you need to have more pixels in the original sensor than you need in the final RGB files. It solves a number of problems, aliasing one of them. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing

Albert Armes
12-05-2008, 06:46 PM
This forum has been a great source of information for me. From what I was reading, it doesn't matter what kind of sensor you're using, if it's a bayer sensor or a 3 chip, that to get 2k resolution without aliasing, you need to have more than 2k. Is that the case? If so, red is going in the right direction by going for higher and higher resolutions.

Tom Lowe
12-05-2008, 07:30 PM
Trying to judge future technology trends based on a linear view of the last 10 or 20 or 50 years is flawed. Technology adoption is taking place in most cases at an exponential rate. The CPU you buy this year will be 1/2 the speed of the CPU you buy 11 months from now.

It took 25 years for landline phones to be adopted nationwide. It took 5 years for cell phones. 1080p overtook DVD as the "gold standard" in only a couple of years. 4K is next.

Häakon
12-05-2008, 08:19 PM
I think David hit the nail on the head, but I'd take it one step further than that. And that is that while you probably want a 4K (Bayer) sensor to properly *resolve* for a 2K finish, that is without taking any oversampling into the equation. Myself and countless others have pointed out many times over that the larger the acquisition format, the better the delivery result will be. Of course there is a law of diminishing returns involved and thus there is a point where too big truly is too much, but we haven't gotten there (as it relates to digital cinema) yet. In the simplest of analogies, it's the same reason you would want an 8MP digital still camera rather than a 1MP one - even if your finished image is just a 1MP image for the internet. My personal feeling is that for an absolutely pristine 2K/1080p finish, you probably want to be aiming around the 6K range for acquisition with a Bayer sensor. And of course there are many, many other variables in the mix besides resolution (but that is what we are discussing here). So while the original poster is probably very right in his deductions that 4K digital cinema is a long way off being a norm as far as projection is concerned, in no way is RED's approach overkill, exorbitant, or baffling. In fact, by the time 4K projection is a commonplace reality, you'd better hope that there's an 8 or 9K camera out there with which to acquire your content. Be thankful that RED is already laying out the blueprints, because without them it would be another 20 years.

NateWeaver
12-05-2008, 08:25 PM
As long as pixel sizes are not so small were taking backwards steps in latitude and noise, then I'll take the oversampling that 4k/5k/6k provides.

James, it's about oversampling, not delivering 4k.

Häakon
12-05-2008, 08:38 PM
As long as pixel sizes are not so small were taking backwards steps in latitude and noise, then I'll take the oversampling that 4k/5k/6k provides.
...and that is precisely the reason that bigger sensors are necessary to go hand-in-hand with the larger resolution requirements. :-) I'm glad someone else gets it!

The problem with larger sensors, of course, is that you get into a whole different category of "non standard" lenses, which many people are extremely hesitant to accept. "What we have now has worked for 100 years" or whatever. It takes time to break tradition. But it won't be until we get cameras that bust through the s35 sensor size and current resolutions that we have now that there will be any merit to the "film replacement" argument. What RED is doing with the 645, for example, I think is light years beyond what any other company is offering and if I had the money, that is the camera I would snatch up in a heartbeat.

Craig Ryan
12-05-2008, 08:45 PM
Hi James,

Welcome to the forums!

I think if you spend a bit more time around the forum, even run a few searches you may notice that a lot of these sentiments about the adoption of technology, and RED's role and place in the digital transition has been talked about in depth many times.

You make some good points about 2k VS 4k, and coming from someone who is directly involved in the DCI, they are well taken. It's true that in the traditional cinema layout, most aren't going to see the difference. A 2k image is generally agreed upon here as a standard for 35mm cinema.

I personally don't see the majority of 35mm theaters as optimized for higher resolution. More resolution in most cases means a larger screen, otherwise you would need to be craning your neck back in the first few rows to even notice the difference. This is why I don't see 4k becoming a standard soon enough for 35mm theaters. It just doesn't seem to have enough of a benefit in most set ups. (there are exceptions...the AMCs around here have pretty large screens..I recall the screen I saw Star Wars Episode III on was massive...now THAT could use 4k projection..)

Also, RED's "Obsolescence Obsolete" is taken out of context here a bit...I don't believe their intention is to describe anything below 4k as obsolete...it's merely referring to their customer relations philosophy of not needing to buy an entire new camera package every 2 years for one small change.

androbot2084
12-05-2008, 09:47 PM
Also let's not forget that by the beginning of the next decade 2010 you will see the introduction of the 4K television which will be fueled by the simple fact that since conventional HD televisions are mainstream and dirt cheap something will have to be introduced as the high end alternative. And yes of course you will have to sit closer to it in order to see the difference but the difference will be there. At first regular HD content will be upconverted to match the native resolution capabilities of the 4K display and eventually consumers will have access to native 4K content.

Joseph Ward
12-05-2008, 10:29 PM
Are there any test and observations of RedOne Full Sensor Usage(4.5K) to 4K final presentation, 4K digital projection vs 4K film out?

conrad gaunt
12-05-2008, 11:02 PM
The point of the post seems to be that 4K is not necessary for cinema applications.

Just remember that the RED ONE is a 4K RAW Bayer camera, and 4K Bayer is not the same thing as 4K resolution.

Personally, I think that if 2K RGB is the final goal for cinema presentation... you need to start out with 3K to 4K minimum if shooting RAW with a single-sensor Bayer-filtered camera.

But while I think shooting in 4K RAW mode is necessary for cinema applications, whether one needs to finish to a 4K RGB master versus a 2K RGB master, I can see the arguments both ways. Although I just did some quick tests of RED material finished to 4K and 2K for film-out, and I preferred the look of the 4K version. It wasn't really a question of sharpness, for some reason, the 4K version seemed "fuller" and more "well-rounded" in how detail fell-off in the shadows and highlights. Hard to explain and even the post house didn't really have an answer. But it was close, the 2K vs. 4K film-out.

I think the original post is confusing two issues -- whether 4K RGB will become a standard for cinema presentation and mastering, and the fact that the RED ONE is a 4K RAW camera, as if you don't need to shoot in 4K mode for a 2K presentation. When you're trying to generate three colors from a single sensor with a Bayer filter, you need to have more pixels in the original sensor than you need in the final RGB files. It solves a number of problems, aliasing one of them. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing


I totally agree about the spatial over sampling being necessary to get to 2k from a bayer sensor.
I've even written my own floating point downsampler, which I would describe as a pixel phasing filter with gaussian weighting.
Anyway, 4k bayer -> 2k RGB = 4:8:4 (with green/lum being oversampled)=nice!
1:1 into a bayer always feels a little hollow to me.

An Epic X 5k bayer would surely downsample to 4k rgb well, especially since it 2.25 times the photosites approx.

Dan Hudgins
12-05-2008, 11:04 PM
I preferred the look of the 4K version. It wasn't really a question of sharpness, for some reason, the 4K version seemed "fuller" and more "well-rounded" in how detail fell-off in the shadows and highlights. Hard to explain and even the post house didn't really have an answer.

I have gone into this issue in some of my other posts, but will say here that when you take the 4K frame through the D2A converter in the filmrecorders video board and the 4K frame has enough dithering to let groups of four pixels average on the 35mm film you get about 2 more bits of color depth over using a 2K source frame.

That is one reason my DI system was desigined to work with 4K plus 16bit TIF frames. Uncompressed 4K frames average groups of pixels onto the 35mm film. Even if the film recorder had a 16bit D2A you could get the look of more like 18bits from a 4K file, since the 35mm film cannot resolve 4K in a film recorder at 100% MTF, and your eye averages the out-of-focus image in the theatre, so you do not see the fine noise between adjacent pixels as much as you gain tonal smoothness.

If the source frames were not color corrected uncompressed to 16bit TIF files, or have been "de-noised" through compression, the accurate tonal values have been pushed into some form of banding, so the four pixel groups will not average in as useful way, hence some people seeing an improvement in 4K filmout vs. 2K and others not seeing an improvment, like if you come from an HD tape and such...

Snow R. Shai
12-05-2008, 11:32 PM
First off, since technology advancement could be faster than we think, it is hard to accept a 20 years look into the future, without missing details we do not know about yet, without miscalculations... i do not believe it will take 20 years to get to 4K projection, seems very long... but never say never...
The OO RED is talking about, is definitely more about the modularity of their systems, as some users point out. When tech advancements are made, you can upgrade just parts of your system, without replacing all your gear. Buy a camera now, use it for 10 years, maybe more. Who would think a camera you can buy today, or in a year's time, could last that long? I did not think that is possible, from what other companies have done with their cameras, and how fast all the formats have progressed. I think it is possible now...

GlennChan
12-05-2008, 11:48 PM
Now lets look at who can tell the difference between 2k and 4k.
I don't think many consumers realize that many of the theatres have switched over to digital instead of film projection.

Or as one producer said to me, "don't they just look the same?"

2- Where I think Red will make the most useful advances are:

- Lower noise / higher dynamic range. (Same thing / they go hand in hand.)
- 3D: consumers absolutely notice this.
- IMO, 4K bayer capture for 2K/1080 RGB output is good enough for practical purposes.

Priyesh P.
12-06-2008, 01:55 AM
Also let's not forget that by the beginning of the next decade 2010 you will see the introduction of the 4K television which will be fueled by the simple fact that since conventional HD televisions are mainstream and dirt cheap something will have to be introduced as the high end alternative. And yes of course you will have to sit closer to it in order to see the difference but the difference will be there. At first regular HD content will be upconverted to match the native resolution capabilities of the 4K display and eventually consumers will have access to native 4K content.

Maybe somewhere else, right now here in Germany you can barely find Bluray discs - in addition they`re fucking expensive compared to standard DVDs, nearly 2.5X the price for the same content, just for higher resolution.

Charles Angus
12-06-2008, 03:15 AM
Keep in mind oversampling reduces noise or increases sensitivity...

Antoine Baumann
12-06-2008, 09:06 AM
Also let's not forget that by the beginning of the next decade 2010 you will see the introduction of the 4K television which will be fueled by the simple fact that since conventional HD televisions are mainstream and dirt cheap something will have to be introduced as the high end alternative. And yes of course you will have to sit closer to it in order to see the difference but the difference will be there. At first regular HD content will be upconverted to match the native resolution capabilities of the 4K display and eventually consumers will have access to native 4K content.

Well as said by Priyesch, I don't know where you coming from, but here in Switzerland, you are not going to see any 4K television any time soon. Just as a reference, in 2012 analog herz tv transmission will stop working and everybody will have to get a numeric compatible tv, and that is when I think most swiss tv will finally broadcast HD, as for now there is nearly no swiss tv channel that broadcast anything more than SD.

ciaow,
antoine.

Stephen Williams
12-06-2008, 09:36 AM
and that is when I think most swiss tv will finally broadcast HD, as for now there is nearly no swiss tv channel that broadcast anything more than SD.

ciaow,
antoine.

Hi,

The one HD channel I have seen looks truly awful so there is little point for most viewers.

Stephen

Dylan Macleod, CSC
12-06-2008, 09:47 AM
As far as RED and "4K" are concerned, I think of this like a cameraman. It is a sensor size that matches a depth of field that I am used to working with.

And yes, I prefer the oversampling I get even if I am going to finish 2K, or HD for that matter.

As far as projection goes. Most of the big theaters here is Canada are using Sony 4K projectors. They are projecting mostly 2K because of a lack of content. I believe Hancock was the only film recently released that was actually finished 4K.

As far as 2K DLP projectors go...I saw Quantum of Solace and was disappointed to find out the theater I was going to had a 2K Christie DLP projector. It was a busy screening so we had to sit a third of the way back in a fairly large cinema. It looked awful! I could see jaggedy edges any time a title came up and on static shots I could "see" the pixels on the screen. 2K IS NOT enough. Unless you do not let people sit within 50' of the screen.

J Davis
12-06-2008, 10:07 AM
Technology adoption is taking place in most cases at an exponential rate.


It took 25 years for landline phones to be adopted nationwide. It took 5 years for cell phones. 1080p overtook DVD as the "gold standard" in only a couple of years. 4K is next.
Thank you Tom for summing up concisely.

I don't see the slogan 'Obsolescence Obsolete' as a promise ... I see it as a goal to strive for.
Jim's forum based business model and the fact that RED listens and alters their products on the fly, is proof of their striving. A modular approach is an intelligent way to combat obsolescence – sectioning off parts of the camera so that when they become obsolete they can easily be replaced.

Red camera, Obsolescence Obsolete, or Obsolescence overboard?

2k RGB, 4k RAW ... 9k, 28k, 3D ... it doesn't matter.
What matters is the direction you choose in order to stay on the front line of change.

When considering the exponential rate of technological advances, there may come a time when the speed of such changes hits a 'zero point'. When unrelated individuals invent or discover the same thing separately ... and then are immediately superseded by a third person. For the consumer as well as the inventor and manufacturer, it will be very difficult to keep abreast of change and market direction. Herein lies the necessity of social systems like REDuser and a manufacturer that listens.

'Obsolescence Obsolete' is not something one can say 'I have achieved it' because to do that would be to deny the very nature of change.
I see Jim as an idealist and 'Obsolescence Obsolete' is his holy grail. To quest for this, means to continually be reassessing oneself. The only way to have a chance at being the leader is to choose the hardest path.

David Mullen ASC
12-06-2008, 10:23 AM
It all depends on how one interprets this "obsolescence is obsolete" concept, because it's a bit contradictory, isn't it, that to avoid obsolescence, you have to constantly implement changes and upgrades... if you eventually end up replacing every element in a camera, it becomes, defacto, a new camera... so did you avoid obsolescence, or did you just make it less apparent that the old camera was replaced by a new camera?

I think what Jim is doing is admirable, trying to lessen the pain of constant technology development, but I think some people are taking this notion of "obsolescence is obsolete" too literally, meaning that they only have to make one camera purchase once in their lifetimes, and with just some simple upgrades here and there, practically free of charge, they will always be shooting at the cutting-edge of technology.

Well, that isn't going to happen. Already the RED ONE camera design has taken a radical left-turn with the modular approach of EPIC and Scarlet, a design which does have the advantage now of making upgrades to portions easier to implement. But eventually, you know that the whole system from head-to-toe will probably go through another design re-evaluation to see if the system can be improved.

"Making obsolescence obsolete" is catchy, but a more accurate way of looking at it would be "making obsolescence less painful, dramatic, or obvious by integrating change as a basic design element".

Michael Schrengohst
12-06-2008, 10:39 AM
Hi,

The one HD channel I have seen looks truly awful so there is little point for most viewers.

Stephen

What country are you in?

In the states you cannot get away from HD now.
I have hundreds of HD channels coming in on fiber
and it is a big difference from watching on SD.

J Davis
12-06-2008, 10:47 AM
I think what Jim is doing is admirable, trying to lessen the pain of constant technology development, but I think some people are taking this notion of "obsolescence is obsolete" too literally, meaning that they only have to make one camera purchase once in their lifetimes, and with just some simple upgrades here and there, practically free of charge, they will always be shooting at the cutting-edge of technology.


I think we are in agreement.


But eventually, you know that the whole system from head-to-toe will probably go through another design re-evaluation to see if the system can be improved.

You are right and I can't even begin to guess upon improvements beyond modularity.

As I said in my previous post – self re-assessment is the biggest weapon in the arsenal against obsolescence. Jim's philosophy goes beyond cameras to technology itself.

Sean
12-06-2008, 10:55 AM
Funny, I never interpreted the "obsolescence obsolete" motto as having anything to do with upgrading your camera and parts. Having read the discussions since Red One was only a pixel in Jim Jannard's eye, I remember the motto having much more to do with the fact that the camera shot in 4K--so it was basically providing more resolution than any other camera in that price range and that 4K would be "more resolution" than we'd need since it was essentially the resolution of film. Now the debate will continue as to what the true resolution of the camera is rated to be. But I still don't think there's much doubt that the Red One can still be used to shoot a theatrically released feature film, even a theatrically released "studio" film, for a long time yet. You don't have to buy anew camera to get the "latest" resolution, because you have all the resolution you now need.

Of course then Red comes out with 5K, 6K, 28K...which to me raises more interesting questions about how much resolution finally renders obsolescence obsolete (I'm pretty sure I won't ever need 28K). But the point is I never assumed it meant I would get every new piece of technology for free. Quite the opposite, I was pretty sure that new, better cameras would captivate the marketplace within 12 months of Red One's release. Because that's how it always goes.

J. Eric Camp
12-06-2008, 12:06 PM
"Making obsolescence obsolete" is catchy, but a more accurate way of looking at it would be "making obsolescence less painful, dramatic, or obvious by integrating change as a basic design element".

Thats catchy. And true.

The way I see it. Apple sold me my macbook at full price. Two weeks later the new model suddenly launched for the same price. I got my iphone day one. four months later they dropped the price. Sure i got my 100 gift card which was half of the price drop but Apple (simply as an example of many existing company models) has a habit of not only not taking care of early adopters, but in fact punishing them.

RED has promised to endeavor to never to do this to us.

Jason Murphy
12-06-2008, 12:15 PM
Perhaps instead of simply "Making Obsolescence Obsolete," the motto should be "Making Planned Obsolescence Obsolete." That seems much more in line with what RED is doing here.

Tom Lowe
12-06-2008, 12:31 PM
On a related note, there are rumors now that Nikon will offer a $4,000 sensor and electronics "upgrade path" from the D3 to the $8,000 D3X. As far as I know, this is unheard of with digital stills cameras. If it's true, I think we know who Nikon users can thank.

It might also drive canon to offer upgrades for the 1D and possibly 5D series cameras. Again, if it happens, I think Jim will get some credit.

Getting back to Red, I am profoundly disappointed when I see some of my favorite members here actually arguing publicly that Jim should cripple the Scarlet 35mm line so as not to make their R1s "obsolete." Sadly, it seems that they may have succeeded in getting the 60fps option removed from Scarlet 35mm cameras. :sad: David is right when he points out that some people are taking this obsolescence thing too far. It is now (possibly) degrading the products that Jim is putting out.

J Davis
12-06-2008, 12:46 PM
Sadly, it seems that they may have succeeded in getting the 60fps option removed from Scarlet 35mm cameras. :sad: David is right when he points out that some people are taking this obsolescence thing too far. It is now (possibly) degrading the products that Jim is putting out.

Tom, you have been inhabiting these forums far longer than I and you therefore understand RED much better, but it would seem an 'out of character' thing for Jim (or RED) to deliberately cripple any of their products.

I definitely agree with you though in being disappointed about the arguements some members present, but then again I am not an R1 owner who is in debt over my purchase (This being the only reason I could think of to explain such behaviour).

Getting back to obsolescence – and some further thoughts of mine, I requote

Jim's philosophy goes beyond cameras to technology itself.
RED has already gone beyond cameras by leaving the advertisement for REDRAY on their homepage. This indicates a future move to change the movie going cinema industry (after all they are named RED Digital Cinema).

But the REDRAY product as it stands is not modular and is therefore closer aligned to the R1. I wonder how they will apply 'Obsolescence Obselete' to the REDRAY, which IMO will become obsolete eventually.

Tom Lowe
12-06-2008, 12:54 PM
Tom, you have been inhabiting these forums far longer than I and you therefore understand RED much better, but it would seem an 'out of character' thing for Jim (or RED) to deliberately cripple any of their products.


I want to be clear that I am not accusing Jim of crippling Scarlet. There might be technical issues that caused the removal of 3K@60fps. I have no idea. I make it a habit not to question Jim's motives, ever. But I do find it troubling when some of my favorite people here argue openly that Jim should cripple Scarlet 35mm.

J Davis
12-06-2008, 01:01 PM
I want to be clear that I am not accusing Jim of crippling Scarlet. There might be technical issues that caused the removal of 3K@60fps. I have no idea. I make it a habit not to question Jim's motives, ever. But I do find it troubling when some of my favorite people here argue openly that Jim should cripple Scarlet 35mm.

Gotcha! My bad... I misread you.
BTW - I very much enjoy reading and learning from your posts Tom, as well as you Sean, David, J Eric Camp and everyone else here at RedUser.

Chris Kenny
12-06-2008, 01:34 PM
I mostly interpreted "renders obsolescence obsolete" as something along the lines of "This camera is good enough that you won't be desperately pining for something better starting on the day you unpack it from the box". Because you often are with other gear, particularly a lot of the prosumer gear that Red One adopters upgraded from. Most of the other products available at the Red One's price point or below are badly compromised by one or more of: recording formats that throw out too much information, barely-HD sensors that use tricks like pixel shifting, an inability to produce sufficiently shallow DoF or use real cine lenses without screwing with DoF adaptors, and so on.

The Red One doesn't have any of these deficiencies. In terms of the images it records, if you told me I had to shoot with the Red One for the next five years, I really wouldn't be too broken up about it.

Unfortunately, there are some other things Red didn't nail quite as well as image quality. The on-camera controls aren't great, the mini-ports are annoying, the way batteries mount is less than ideal, the 90 second boot time is a hassle, the inability to feed different looks out to external monitors and on-camera monitors makes things awkward on some sets, there's no option to shoot anything but raw on camera (and apparently no way to support both raw and non-raw shooting in the same firmware build), and the camera could do with being a bit lighter and smaller.

The new cameras appear to address most or all of these points. Whether that makes the Red One "obsolete" (despite the fact that it still records images good enough for anything up through theatrical exhibition) is more a matter of definitions than anything else.

Joseph Ward
12-06-2008, 02:01 PM
I want to be clear that I am not accusing Jim of crippling Scarlet. There might be technical issues that caused the removal of 3K@60fps. I have no idea. I make it a habit not to question Jim's motives, ever. But I do find it troubling when some of my favorite people here argue openly that Jim should cripple Scarlet 35mm.

I am at disbelief of why some of the people here would want to cripple the Scarlets? I would like every camera to have more, with less prices if possible. Only technical difficulties should stop Red or what they think is best for them. That is the Red Revolution!

Tom Lowe
12-06-2008, 02:28 PM
I am at disbelief of why some of the people here would want to cripple the Scarlets? I would like every camera to have more, with less prices if possible. Only technical difficulties should stop Red or what they think is best for them. That is the Red Revolution!

I agree with you 100%! To me, it goes against the whole idea of Red to cripple or limit cameras. That's Sony and Canon's game!

James T Mather
12-06-2008, 03:48 PM
If they give scarlet a monstro sensor plus highspeed for nine grand - why then would you shell out plus 30 grand for an epic?

Leo Ticheli
12-06-2008, 04:35 PM
Unless I've missed something, no one has advocated crippling Scarlet.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

J Davis
12-06-2008, 04:36 PM
Here we go again. This topic has drifted back to 13th responses.
EDIT: oops I mean 3rd responses

Tom Lowe
12-06-2008, 05:50 PM
If they give scarlet a monstro sensor plus highspeed for nine grand - why then would you shell out plus 30 grand for an epic?

Then don't. Buy a Scarlet.

Who are you, Jim Jannard's business advisor?

D'Arcy Foley-Dawson
12-06-2008, 08:04 PM
I'd like to make a couple points.

1)

Hi James, aka the original poster of this thread;

Mate, not to be rude or anything, I would simply suggest you re-read the 'Obsolescence Obsolete' manifesto as originally posted by Jim Jannard. I think you have confused a few different things and arrived at a conclusion that's not really relevant. As David said, OO is more about


"making obsolescence less painful, dramatic, or obvious by integrating change as a basic design element".

...and this has little to do with the fact that the RED can record 4k resolution. As others have pointed out, it is beneficial to have resolutions in excess of what the final distribution requirements are. You've kind of confused a few different things that are not really related.

Having said that, I very much enjoyed reading your comments on the take-up of digital cinema projection in Australia. I am also from Melbourne and have worked as a projectionist, and reading your comments has helped confirm what I already believed about the future of digital projection here. From talking to management and getting to know a bit about the (in)ability of cinemas to spend money on expensive upgrades, I think that, all technological factors aside, cinemas simply cannot justify or afford the expense of switching to full digital, and so will need to be coaxed and coerced into it over many many years.

2)


I make it a habit not to question Jim's motives, ever.

Hi Tom,

With all due respect, I think your above statement is indicative of the 'fanboy' tone of posting that many people are starting to feel contributes too much 'noise' to this forum.

As I have stated, the original poster in my opinion got a few different things confused, and has been adequately corrected. He was however perfectly valid in his questioning of the 'Obsolescence Obsolete' manifesto. If anything he has contributed by prompting people to evaluate what it really means.

If you make a blind assertion such as never questioning Jim Jannard, you are not contributing much to a discussion, and just creating a weird 'fanboy' environment. In such an environment the original poster becomes a 'dissenter' for daring to question Jim's OO principle. Personally I don't want to be in such an environment because it limits my ability to learn and exchange information (and therefore negates the whole point of being here in the first place).

When James T Mather asked


If they give scarlet a monstro sensor plus highspeed for nine grand - why then would you shell out plus 30 grand for an epic?

...you replied


Then don't. Buy a Scarlet.

Who are you, Jim Jannard's business advisor?

Personally I feel this response came across a bit terse and unnecessarily sarcastic. Now, this could be just because we're on an internet messageboard and it's hard to convey the correct tone sometimes, perhaps this is the true value of the inane smilie :biggrin:

Ok, so maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I just feel that James had a perfectly valid point and you responded with un-constructive criticism that, in the absence of some emoticon, borders on a personal attack. The moderators of this forum have been making their intentions very clear on how they would like the standard of discussion on this forum to improve.

This is of course just my humble opinion, and I don't mean to cause any offense. Just perhaps be a bit more considerate with your choice of words.

Tom Lowe
12-06-2008, 08:42 PM
Mather seems to be arguing against putting a Monstro sensor in Scarlet... in which case he is essentially arguing to cripple or degrade Scarlet. To me, that is the unwanted noise -- people asking Jim cripple certain cameras.

BTW, lol, you insult me as a "fanboy" in one breath and then lecture me about manners? :sarcasm:

Tim Wildenhain
12-06-2008, 09:12 PM
Hi, Relatively new here but thought I could add to the conversation here.

It seems that the original poster is trying to compare cinema acquisition obsolesence and cinema projection obsolesence - the 2 are independent of each other, and as such, not really within Red's domain IMHO.

Perhaps this comes from the video line of thinking that everyone needs to acquire, edit, master, deliver at the same resolution. While I'm new to video (about 2-3 years now) I've got well over 15 years in graphic design. Even after 2-3 years in video I still cant wrap my head around that logic other than the fact that processing and storing large resolution video can be cost prohibitive. But from the GD world you really should acquire and edit a minimum of 2x delivery resolution. Depending on the work you really want to be shooting for 5-10x delivery resolution to be abosultely certain that you have the best possible picture at delivery.

To me, the obsolesence is obsolete theme means that Red is striving to prevent a forced upgrade for minimal feature sets. Using Canon as an example. If you started with an XL1 (prosumer) but were frustrated with it's lack of features and picture, along comes the XL1s. This isn't a firmware or sensor upgrade, its a full blown hardware upgrade. Same again when they improve upon it and go to the XL2 - then HD and you would need to jump to the XL-H1, they now have the XL-H1s. So keeping up with the times, you've bought and paid for 5 cameras over the past 10 years - full price for each.

Wheras with the Red's obsolesence obsolete model; they continue to push the sensor (17 builds now/18?) In Canon's world that would have been a minimum of 5 new cameras if not a full 16. Plus, making the sensor upgradeable makes the R1 no longer in threat of obsolecense, even with the new camera lines announced.

As far as the upgrading of the theatrical experience - theatre owners are slow to move with changes; this is more a cost/benefit reason than availability. If it wasnt for subsidsed benefits and rebates from manufacturers it's doubtful that we'd see many 3D projectors in theatres today. 4K may go the same route - but it's market that will determine things not the availability of technology - if that were the case, noone would remember dialup because DSL technology was developed in the 70's. As of now, I think after getting theatres finaly to a digital projection platform; convincing them they'll need to spend another $200,000-$300,000 per projector will send most of them saying "No thanks"

The same thing in the HD tv lineup. If it wasnt for the legislation being passed in '01 or '02 - most stations probably wouldn't be broadcasting in HD. As for over the air; most I'm seeing are just 480P just so they're compliant with the new laws.

James T Mather
12-06-2008, 09:57 PM
Then don't. Buy a Scarlet.

Who are you, Jim Jannard's business advisor?

Don't get personal Tom. This is an open forum and everybody is entitled to their opinion. No, I am not Jim Jannards business advisor but I am someone who has invested fifty grand in their products so far and one-hundred and sixty overall in a Red based system. How many reds have you purchased Tom?

In response to your nasty post. I am in favour of Red limiting options on the lower priced cameras as I shall be potentially out there utilizing their products and don't want a nine grand camera competing for jobs with one that costs forty. Is that okay by you? Maybe you can now stop trying to censor people - sorry if to you it's "unwanted noise".

I am in favour of "crippling" cameras as you so dramatically put it. It's the way companies and a free Market works. More money=better product. I don't want to buy a Ferrari and then find that a fiat offers the same features. Brook hit the nail on the head with his "one fear" post - fully featured scarlets will "devalue" the Epic.

I am not Jim Jannard's business advisor but if he wants me to keep spending money with his company then he had better have more demarcation between his products as regards cost vs. features. I personally am reconsidering spending 40 grand x 2 for Epic brains for just some high speed when I can have more or less the same for nine. So that's one customer he might have lost for the high end camera due to overspeccing Scarlet.

D'Arcy Foley-Dawson
12-06-2008, 10:14 PM
BTW, lol, you insult me as a "fanboy" in one breath and then lecture me about manners? :sarcasm:

actually i was pretty careful to be polite and respectful. 'fanboy' was not meant as an insult but used as a convenient description. it sums up neatly a particular attitude.

Tom Lowe
12-06-2008, 10:38 PM
I am in favour of "crippling" cameras as you so dramatically put it. It's the way companies and a free Market works. More money=better product. I don't want to buy a Ferrari and then find that a fiat offers the same features. Brook hit the nail on the head with his "one fear" post - fully featured scarlets will "devalue" the Epic.

I am not Jim Jannard's business advisor but if he wants me to keep spending money with his company then he had better have more demarcation between his products as regards cost vs. features. I personally am reconsidering spending 40 grand x 2 for Epic brains for just some high speed when I can have more or less the same for nine. So that's one customer he might have lost for the high end camera due to overspeccing Scarlet.

So you are on the record requesting Jim to cripple cameras and not to "overspec" them. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I disagree, and many others will too. That is what Sony and Canon have been doing for decades. When you find yourself asking Red to degrade their products or hold back technology, somehow we have gone down the wrong path, IMO.

I wouldn't worry about Jim's business skills or plans. Let him worry about that. He doesn't need business advice, and he doesn't need to be hounded by people asking him to degrade his cameras.

James T Mather
12-06-2008, 10:39 PM
Or people "hounding" him for high speed - count your own posts.

ps - Curious what you mean by "we" - how much have you invested in Jim's products thus far?

I'm just asking as you seem to have his business needs so close to your heart.

Tom Lowe
12-06-2008, 10:43 PM
Or people "hounding" him for high speed - count your own posts.

3K@60fps were specs Jim came up with and announced, which certain people then tried to convince him to REMOVE from Scarlet specs. You are publicly saying yourself that you want that feature crippled or removed.

Like many people, I simply want Jim to be able to make the best cameras he can make, PERIOD. You have an opposing view.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you. I have said my piece.

James T Mather
12-06-2008, 10:51 PM
Yes Tom I am PUBLICLY saying it. Out Loud. In public. Without pants.

I hope the KGB don't take me away.

Tom, Lets not confuse our terms here - your dramatic language betrays your needs - Jim Jannard is not "CRIPPLING" cameras - they are offering features in line with pricing (like every other company in history). You don't want Jim to make the best camera he can - you want Jim to make the CHEAPEST camera he can because it suits your agenda and budget.

My agenda is different. I want Jim to make the best camera he can and am prepared to pay for it.

Isaac Brody
12-06-2008, 10:57 PM
Alright, everyone calm down. This is getting personal and it's time to either calm down or find another thread to post in. Last warning.

J Davis
12-06-2008, 10:58 PM
Whoa its gettin' hot in here!

Its in the nature of technology to get cheaper. So what if a Scarlet is the new R1 at a cheaper price?
There's nearly a two year gap between their arrival dates. And as mentioned before ... technology is advancing at an exponential rate.
Therefore - adapt.

Your equipment is going to devalue no matter what and devaluation has to be something you factor into any investment. To me, that is the whole point of the modular DSMC. So we can isolate and replace old parts and not the whole shebang. Yes your S35 of FF35 brain will be obsolete one day, one year. Factor it into your business plan and replace it. Same goes with batteries, IO, storage device and everything else.

I think it is a gross misjudgement of RED as company to think that they would try and cripple their own line. I'm not being a fanboy here but use your common sense – it is contra to their buiseness model and their whole modus operandi. Asking for it or hoping for it or talking about it IMO is wasted energy.

Wouldn't it be better to assume that they are trying to deliver the biggest bang for your buck across every different model? and then plan around that?
You figure out what you can afford and stop looking at specs for cameras that you can't afford.

James T Mather
12-06-2008, 11:09 PM
Its a moot argument in any case - Red have said that high frame rates are prohibitive to manufacture anyway.

Where did this term "crippling" come from anyway? It's just emotive blackmail language designed to infer a negative connotation. Features on products are 'in-line' with pricing for a lot of reasons - R&D costs, manufacturing costs, state of the economy etc. Its the way of the world. Red is, after all, a company. Not a charity.

BTW - I suggest we change "crippling" to "hobbling" (like in the movie Misery) - it's even more emotive - As in: "I hope Jim doesn't hobble the camera/my dreams. Jim, what are you doing? Put down the sledgehammer". (this btw - is a joke)



Tom, no hard feelings - we all have our reasons and agendas for seeing things as we do. It will all level out in the end - and Jim/Red might find a way to get back 60fps for ya. If not, check out twixtor plugin for After Effects - I have taken shots from 25fps up to 100fps which look utterly "in camera" due to some pretty good morphing tweening (not great with liquids but works well for everything else). Peace.

J Davis
12-06-2008, 11:15 PM
You figure out what you can afford and stop looking at specs for cameras that you can't afford.

Anyway thats what I'm gonna do, I'm freakin' broke. :biggrin:

Chris Pickle
12-07-2008, 02:45 AM
I think the huge difference in price between the models will already be very difficult to explain to the majority of producers. "yeah, this one does higher frame rates, but it's $21k more, and has the same sensor as the 7k model" "this has a slightly better sensor, but it's $26k more"

I'm not complaining, I'm just being a realist on how many folks will view the line up.

As far as "hobbling", well if, and a big if, Red is simply "leaving a switch turned off" or is leaving out a small inexpensive part, then in my view that would be "hobbling" to protect the product line. Can they do that, sure! They are a company that needs profit, etc. It just never seemed to be in their corporate DNA.

Jim's big message of late, was that frame rates will cost real money. Well, apples to apples, it looks like they cost $21k. (Scarlet S35 to Epic S35)

(BTW - I understand there is probably much more technology needed to drive those frame rates and I'm not suggesting it's as simple as leaving a switch turned off. I think the addition of 72fps at 2k is an excellent compromise for the occasional need)

Cheers,
Chris

James Gardiner
12-07-2008, 04:15 AM
Let me first begin by saying that some of the comments I have from my initial post are gems to read. The inciteful alternative perspectives are very helpful to my.

Some feed back now.
The OO tag line;
I had not read the OO tag line definition. From memory, it was mentioned before the lego vision of the RED product line was made available. As such, the context I had of it by RED promotion online was that, in part, the OO tagline was to represent that you are using such a high resolution, that it is not going to be obsolete for such a long time, it didn't really matter. NOTE: this was only my perception, and I was most likely wrong, just wanted to make it clear were I was coming from. Tho, the new announcemrnt definatly follows this idea.

I would also like to add a point about acquisition. Some have made very good comment that over sampleing is one of the main reasons RED is such a good product. I completely agree, but I am a little more pointy nosed about where and when.
Looking at the 5D for example. It is a 22mega pixel, sampled down to 1920x1080 14bit (Or 12 forget witch) 4:4:4 then squeezed into a bad codec implementation of a ral time H.264 at 8bit 4:2:0.
Putting the export codec aside, looking at the possible lossless 1920x1080 result from both camera.. RED1 (or newer types) and a 5D. Both will be amazing and very equil.
If your final destination is HD, then you have the result you need now without any extra storage or processing.
Going with access to the over sampled source does have some advantages. When is it justified to shoot over sampled?

Looking at the 5D is an example of the future cost of 35mm sensor from manufacturers beyond RED.

If you plan to shoot, grade, put on screen. 1920x1080 is all you need. If you plan to Shoot, reposition or CGI, oversample all the way.

My main concern here is the lack of understanding by a lot of producers. (And the bending of the truth by some production hoses to get people to do 4k. $$$$)

I personally am very excited to see Canon start playing in this playground. Completion or alternative incite will defiantly make RED a better camera.

If Canon does release the 5D sensor in a camera that is a film camera first and stills camera second. (5DmkII is obviously a Still camera first.) RED will defiantly have some competition of part of the proposed new range. (Scarlet region)

Tim Wildenhain
12-07-2008, 04:41 AM
Let me first begin by saying that some of the comments I have from my initial post are gems to read. The inciteful alternative perspectives are very helpful to my.

Some feed back now.
The OO tag line;
I had not read the OO tag line definition. From memory, it was mentioned before the lego vision of the RED product line was made available. As such, the context I had of it by RED promotion online was that, in part, the OO tagline was to represent that you are using such a high resolution, that it is not going to be obsolete for such a long time, it didn't really matter. NOTE: this was only my perception, and I was most likely wrong, just wanted to make it clear were I was coming from. Tho, the new announcemrnt definatly follows this idea.

I would also like to add a point about acquisition. Some have made very good comment that over sampleing is one of the main reasons RED is such a good product. I completely agree, but I am a little more pointy nosed about where and when.
Looking at the 5D for example. It is a 22mega pixel, sampled down to 1920x1080 14bit (Or 12 forget witch) 4:4:4 then squeezed into a bad codec implementation of a ral time H.264 at 8bit 4:2:0.
Putting the export codec aside, looking at the possible lossless 1920x1080 result from both camera.. RED1 (or newer types) and a 5D. Both will be amazing and very equil.
If your final destination is HD, then you have the result you need now without any extra storage or processing.
Going with access to the over sampled source does have some advantages. When is it justified to shoot over sampled?

Looking at the 5D is an example of the future cost of 35mm sensor from manufacturers beyond RED.

If you plan to shoot, grade, put on screen. 1920x1080 is all you need. If you plan to Shoot, reposition or CGI, oversample all the way.

My main concern here is the lack of understanding by a lot of producers. (And the bending of the truth by some production hoses to get people to do 4k. $$$$)

I personally am very excited to see Canon start playing in this playground. Completion or alternative incite will defiantly make RED a better camera.

If Canon does release the 5D sensor in a camera that is a film camera first and stills camera second. (5DmkII is obviously a Still camera first.) RED will defiantly have some competition of part of the proposed new range. (Scarlet region)


First and foremost I have to say thanks for coming back on topic :biggrin:

Second; The 5d sensor doesn't downsample; it's skips rows and just simply doesn't read the full sensor to get the data it's pumping into the 1980x1080 final product - lastly, it's throwing it into a very poor compression that makes it difficult to edit in...correction, editing isn't that bad, it's the color grading that gets to be a pain. So, while I might agree with you that this is fine for SD production only (keeping in mind DVD is still SD) it wont cut it when thrown up to a 2K digital projection.

While the geek in me is extactic about the 5d and what it is doing; the craftsman in me says that this just wont cut it for 90% of the work that's out there. Now, if canon can provide or develop a digital RAW format similar to Redcode or Cineform instead of trying to meet the HDV standard, we'll have a terrific product on our hands, and a competitive marketplace to boot :biggrin:

As for the original context; really I dont see greater than 2k used for standard cinema. IMAX on the otherhand, I think was 6k delivery; so a 9k acquisition is almost required at a minimum. Larger resolution acquisition is mostly for behind the scenes stuff and some specialized projects or even specialized shots that would require it; not because it is required.

In contrast; a movie screen is generally speaking, about the size of your average billboard - a still photographer targeting billboard resolutions will most likely be shooting a film medium format back because digital isn't quite there yet on the larger formats - we're talking resolutions of the proposed larger 64MP of EPIC proportions. The printing format of Billboards doesn't require this; but artifacts at even a 21MP sized image will start to show when blown up to billboard or even building size.

I personally see Red as going in the right direction with the Obsolesence Obsolete theme. It' just that the other video acquisition companies need to start realizing that as well.

David Mullen ASC
12-07-2008, 07:39 AM
If you plan to shoot, grade, put on screen. 1920x1080 is all you need. If you plan to Shoot, reposition or CGI, oversample all the way.

James, you still seem to be missing the point. This is a RAW camera - you need to oversample, it's not a luxury. If you want good 1080P RGB, you need to shoot with a Bayer-filtered sensor that has 70% or so more pixels in order to generate a good 1080P image with a minimal amount of artifacts.

1920 x 1080 is not "all you need" in order to get 1920 x 1080, not with a RAW camera. You need more than 1920 x 1080 if all you want is 1920 x 1080 -- do you get it? If you don't oversample, you can't use as heavy an OLPF to get rid of aliasing because now you are trying to compensate for resolution loss from debayering, so you end up with some ugly artifacts in the final color image.

The only question is whether you would prefer that a 4K or 3K RAW capture be processed into 1080P RGB inside the camera and recorded as 1080P in real time... or done in post later using a possibly better debayering algorithm.

You still seem to be questioning the need to shoot 4K RAW when all you want is an HD image -- if you want a good HD image, then you should at least be shooting 3K RAW. Not to say that you can't get away with 2K or less, but it is not optimal due to debayering artifacts and line resolution.

I'd say that modern 3-CCD 1080P cameras would deliver similar quality to a 3K RAW camera.

Again, your arguments against 4K have to be clarified because you are jumbling up the issues of acquisition resolution, recording resolution, and mastering & release resolution. My suggestion is that you go back through your article and everytime you use the vague term "4K" you change it to be specifically "4K RAW Bayer" to describe camera capture or "4K RGB" to describe some final mastering format, and see if your arguments against the RED shooting 4K RAW mode if you want 1080P still make sense.

Albert Armes
12-07-2008, 08:03 AM
From Jim's quoted 78% figure, to get a measured 1080p, you'd need 1920/0.78 = 2462 pixels across the sensor. Seems that 3k gives you more than what you need and should look really nice. Can't wait to see it myself.

David Mullen ASC
12-07-2008, 08:19 AM
I'm rounding up just to play it safe...

The thing is that with more pixels in the sensor, you can use a better, stronger OLPF to reduce aliasing. Hence why I think the RED has a "smoother" look rather than that sharp edgy look of most HD cameras, many of which seem just as sharp as the RED but not as filmic. RED's "soft but detailed" look is much closer to how 35mm film looks than what many HD cameras deliver.

Albert Armes
12-07-2008, 08:35 AM
Yes David, I like the un-exaggerated detailed images I've seen from red. It looks natural to me. It seems to me more like my eyes see things. Rounding up should give more than enough room to make for a great looking image. As I said, I can't wait.

Tom Lowe
12-07-2008, 09:39 AM
From Jim's quoted 78% figure, to get a measured 1080p, you'd need 1920/0.78 = 2462 pixels across the sensor. Seems that 3k gives you more than what you need and should look really nice. Can't wait to see it myself.

70% is a better number to play it safe, IMO. In low light, you might need an even larger downsampling to make it look clean.

I am just speaking generally. Some cameras are better than others in terms of spatial efficiency.

Alex Coelho
12-07-2008, 09:58 AM
I am in favour of "crippling" cameras as you so dramatically put it. It's the way companies and a free Market works. More money=better product. I don't want to buy a Ferrari and then find that a fiat offers the same features. Brook hit the nail on the head with his "one fear" post - fully featured scarlets will "devalue" the Epic.


Scarlet is not out yet so you can continue to make money off your Red One. Secondly, every camera eventually will lose value as better options come aboard. I dont see any benefit at all to hold back Scarlet.

androbot2084
12-07-2008, 10:11 AM
What I would like to see is pricing which is not based on dollars but rather based on hours. For example let us say that the price of a Red One will cost you 1000 hours based on your hourly wage which could be anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 depending on how much money you make. Of course this would mean that the rich would be subsidizing the poor but I think in the long run this would free up a lot of money for research and development so that everyone would benefit and technology would no longer be crippled because everyone would have equal acess to high end technology. The only thing that would hold you back would be your commitment of how many hours you would dedicate to financing your Red.

Stephen Williams
12-07-2008, 11:44 AM
What I would like to see is pricing which is not based on dollars but rather based on hours. For example let us say that the price of a Red One will cost you 1000 hours based on your hourly wage which could be anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 depending on how much money you make. Of course this would mean that the rich would be subsidizing the poor but I think in the long run this would free up a lot of money for research and development so that everyone would benefit and technology would no longer be crippled because everyone would have equal acess to high end technology. The only thing that would hold you back would be your commitment of how many hours you would dedicate to financing your Red.

Hi,

It would be way cheaper for the high earners to shoot on film! or rent cheaply from a low earner.

Stephen

James Gardiner
12-08-2008, 03:24 AM
James, you still seem to be missing the point. This is a RAW camera - you need to oversample, it's not a luxury. If you want good 1080P RGB, you need to shoot with a Bayer-filtered sensor that has 70% or so more pixels in order to generate a good 1080P image with a minimal amount of artifacts.

1920 x 1080 is not "all you need" in order to get 1920 x 1080, not with a RAW camera. You need more than 1920 x 1080 if all you want is 1920 x 1080 -- do you get it? If you don't oversample, you can't use as heavy an OLPF to get rid of aliasing because now you are trying to compensate for resolution loss from debayering, so you end up with some ugly artifacts in the final color image.

The only question is whether you would prefer that a 4K or 3K RAW capture be processed into 1080P RGB inside the camera and recorded as 1080P in real time... or done in post later using a possibly better debayering algorithm.

You still seem to be questioning the need to shoot 4K RAW when all you want is an HD image -- if you want a good HD image, then you should at least be shooting 3K RAW. Not to say that you can't get away with 2K or less, but it is not optimal due to debayering artifacts and line resolution.

I'd say that modern 3-CCD 1080P cameras would deliver similar quality to a 3K RAW camera.

Again, your arguments against 4K have to be clarified because you are jumbling up the issues of acquisition resolution, recording resolution, and mastering & release resolution. My suggestion is that you go back through your article and everytime you use the vague term "4K" you change it to be specifically "4K RAW Bayer" to describe camera capture or "4K RGB" to describe some final mastering format, and see if your arguments against the RED shooting 4K RAW mode if you want 1080P still make sense.

Firstly, I agree with your NEED to quote 4K as RAW or RGB. As most people who talk to me about RED cameras don;t know what a bayer filter is.. As such, by default, in general I find people expect it to mean 4K-RGB.

In general, however, when some one comes up to me and says, I shot on a RED1 in 4K, it incorrectly implies (To them) that 4K luminance and a 4K workflow. Usually always they go down to 1920.

What I am trying to point out here, and of which you did gloss over, is that, RED1, 5D, and other sensors that sample at very high mega pixel but interpret in real time down sample output to 1920x1080 4:4:4 12bit should look just as good as 4K RAW files. This leads to a codec to store it but that is a matter of preference. However, you have less processing to do and less data to deal with. As such, saves time, and money.

(Note: a comment on this list that says the 5D does not down sample, but drop lines to archive the 1920x1080. Where can I get canon material to back this clame? Please post link.)

Tim Wildenhain
12-08-2008, 04:33 AM
Note: a comment on this list that says the 5D does not down sample, but drop lines to archive the 1920x1080. Where can I get canon material to back this clame? Please post link

Read the following thread: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23082


It's incredibly doubtful that you'll get Canon to announce this on any publicly available format - it's not common for companies to announce "Yeah we added this feature; but the way we got it to work is a cheap parlor trick, good luck getting it to work right for you"

The above thread has some detailed tech info from Graeme and other members on the board that took apart the zone plate shot on a 5D.

Dont get me wrong; The 5D is definately on my wish list; but not for video purposes.

Jason Sinclair
12-08-2008, 05:54 AM
Im one of those people that doesn't get into the finer technicalities but i am finding in real world situations that 4k first color correct into 2k color correct is a very simple, highly versatile system that beats any workflow i have previously worked with, in consideration of the final outcome. There's simply a lot more information to work with and that translates to better renders in color correcting. The tests i have seen with the 5d so far have been less than appealing and i think that is because they were color corrected and the information loss was too great for it to be balanced as much as say a red cam. (see the zacuto tests) I'd love to see more tests of course and will keep an open mind. I think some of the newer hd cams are better used for your argument. I think 4k is perfect for the current situation in my opinion from what i am seeing around me... There's a number of other factors that makes red very appealing most notably it's non proprietary lens use and its "open source" approach to a design process that allows for third parties to come on board. Of course with the close collaboration of it's customers in the design process sets it apart and it's hard not to become a fanboy when the Ceo of a company is asking for your opinion and implements your ideas if they merit well. There is the democratization of ideas and this translates through the hive mind, in sometimes heated debates (as seen here), to take into account many different viewpoints (from projectionists to dop's to post specialists etc.. ) and attains a very nice balance between competing factors. It permits the inclusion that no one person has the total answers to everything, although we all like to think we do...

Albert Armes
12-08-2008, 10:04 AM
It makes sense that skipping lines on the Canon sensor readout is what they're doing. Their fastest camera with a mirror shutter does 10fps. There's no need for them to design a sensor that has a faster fps than 10fps, and with a mirror shutter, skew is not an issue. Designing that sensor to read out at 20fps or 30fps would just be wasteful. Line skipping turns a 10fps sensor into a 30fps sensor for video. That zone plate did look like there was something very much different going on in the vertical direction than the horizontal direction. It all makes sense.

Chris Kenny
12-08-2008, 10:04 AM
What I am trying to point out here, and of which you did gloss over, is that, RED1, 5D, and other sensors that sample at very high mega pixel but interpret in real time down sample output to 1920x1080 4:4:4 12bit should look just as good as 4K RAW files. This leads to a codec to store it but that is a matter of preference. However, you have less processing to do and less data to deal with. As such, saves time, and money.

Sure. If the real-time debayer and downsample performed by a chip using a few watts of power in-camera is as good as the the results of letting an 8-core Mac Pro tower spend 12 seconds processing each second of footage.

Mind you, this isn't totally impossible, because specialized processors can be a lot better at specific tasks than general-purpose ones. But color me skeptical.

Anyway, it looks like Red is planning to offer this option with its new cameras, and maybe even with a special firmware build for the Red One.

Vincent Rice
12-09-2008, 02:47 PM
Digital cinema exhibition will certainly not end up at 2K. One of the reasons that exhibitors are baulking at DCI rollouts is that it is already clear that 2K will not be enough. IF they are going to enter into the various funding schemes and partnerships (or heaven forbid, pay for it themselves) they want the gear to provide a superior-to-home experience for as long as possible. However the present 4K options are a little too costly. A non-Sony-priced 4K projector that could slot into the DCI infrastructure would be of considerable interest... Jim?

5K is therefore likely to be the sweet-spot acquisition resolution for DC using Epic/Scarlet. 5K RAW should produce excellent 4K output.

Of course nothing further is going to happen on the DCI front for a year at least due to the prevailing economics

Vincent Rice
12-09-2008, 02:55 PM
What I am trying to point out here, and of which you did gloss over, is that, RED1, 5D, and other sensors that sample at very high mega pixel but interpret in real time down sample output to 1920x1080 4:4:4 12bit should look just as good as 4K RAW files. This leads to a codec to store it but that is a matter of preference. However, you have less processing to do and less data to deal with. As such, saves time, and money.

... and completely negates one of the great advantages of a RAW workflow... being able to drastically alter exposure and colour balance in post without destroying the image


(Note: a comment on this list that says the 5D does not down sample, but drop lines to archive the 1920x1080. Where can I get canon material to back this clame? Please post link.)

You must realise that Canon are not going make this explicit in any literature.

George Wilcox
12-10-2008, 11:23 PM
2K is not as good as 35mm film, producing pixels on a 50 ft. wide screen that are .3 inches square, 4K is in the zone at .15 inch/pixel, 6K is a little better than the finest resolution 35mm film at .1 inch per pixel. 9K is on par with IMax's 70mm format. While today's digital projectors run $100K, I suspect Jim will change that too, just like he did with the cameras. This could spawn a renaisance of bigger screens, because more resolution on big screens makes for a richer experience (both visually and financially). Our brains can process approx. 1.2 GB/sec. of visual information, so I'm sure your brain will appreciate the better resolution, color depth, etc. more, even if you don't think it will, at least up to 6K. But since you don't process the whole frame when watching a film on a big screen - you process the center of your attention, so 9K and 28K would no doubt be amazing. I'm looking foward to it sooner rather than later for the reasons enumerated by others on this thread.

Bing Bailey
12-11-2008, 12:34 PM
I don't think people should be trading on their ability to afford a certain technology it should be on their talent which will show through whether they use an epic or a scarlet or anything else. people hire james t mathers because he's a great dp not because he has huge pockets and can afford the best gear.

while I'm not targetting you james there are an elite bunch on these boards that want to deny the rest of us access to this type of quality/technology. if they are so damn elite let them compete on their skills not their wallets. I'm glad jim isn't listening to these people. if he did epic would be 300k and he'd only sell 50 of them. if you're the elites of cinema what are you so afraid of. after all the rest of us are just digital cinema peasants.

since the technology in scarlet and epic is going to be very similar RED will amortize the costs in two ways, in the higher prices on epic and with volume on scarlet so he is putting the technology out at an appropriate price on both and people who buy either are contributing. I don't see a difference.

J. Bernard Vallon
12-11-2008, 01:15 PM
Valid point.

I say in the next decade 'who has what gear' won't matter spit. Talent will be king, as it is now. Once canon, nikon, panasonic, red, sony, and whoever else all produce great 4k+ cameras with 13 stops DR with s35 size sensors or bigger, all for under 10 grand, everyone on the street will have great gear, but talent will have a huge premium.

I hope our audiences can tell the difference.

James T Mather
12-11-2008, 01:55 PM
I don't think people should be trading on their ability to afford a certain technology it should be on their talent which will show through whether they use an epic or a scarlet or anything else. people hire james t mathers because he's a great dp not because he has huge pockets and can afford the best gear.

while I'm not targetting you james there are an elite bunch on these boards that want to deny the rest of us access to this type of quality/technology. if they are so damn elite let them compete on their skills not their wallets. I'm glad jim isn't listening to these people. if he did epic would be 300k and he'd only sell 50 of them. if you're the elites of cinema what are you so afraid of. after all the rest of us are just digital cinema peasants. I agree to some extent - but I have found that there are actually very few obstacles to people working in the film business. Anyone with dedication, common sense, reliability and some degree of ability can work in the field IMVHO. Red is the first pro camera I have owned. Prior to owning a Red camera, I was hired purely as a cameraman and the gear separately rented from Panavision. The only kit I brought to a shoot was a light meter. In short - Owning gear hasn't had much to do with the success of any cameraman I know. I know plenty of people with gear which sits on shelves mostly gathering dust.

In my opinion people who were going to make it would make it anyway. Right now anyone can buy a Red package and get some work on novelty value but as word spreads of their work, only people whose work is up to scratch will make it - or be doomed to shooting super-low/no budget work - in which case you will always be busy.

The truth is that very few people think they have no ability/talent. The argument that an elite have been employing "exclusionist" tactics based on equipment is IMVHO not true. Rather some people who haven't earned their stripes over years of shooting and carving out a career path feel that owning the camera is a shortcut into the game.

And who knows - maybe they're right.

James T Mather
12-11-2008, 02:54 PM
Addendum to the "Crippling" conversation.

My concern is that I have invested a tidy sum in Red products - and they have done me well - its a great system. I plan on upgrading both my Red cameras. However, I now have a choice - upgrade to the EPIC X with a s35 sensor but less DR for 28 G's (minus my 17.5k investment) - or get a scarlet with a FF35 extended range sensor for nine grand plus.

I am somewhat (unreasonably, I grant you) perturbed that I have spent quite a lot of money with RED and now face having an inferior sensor as my "reward" package (which I fully realize is very kind of Red and above the call of duty). It has presented us Red One owners with something of a Hobson's choice. Avail of the offer (Lesser sensor) or buy the FF35 Epic and lose out on the extras.

All that concerns me is my reward package is inferior sensor technology to their entry level system. I am not concerned with a different body finish (ie:titanium colour) but the chip itself. My other option is to get the FF35 Epic sensor (with my generous trade in) but then I am committed to buying a few grands worth of extras (I estimate with the modules) in addition to the extra chip cost. Multiply that by 2 cameras and it mounts up a lot.

I am not trying to crush anyone's dreams or "cripple" cameras (to use the emotive language of this debate) - I have invested a lot of money in this, is it not unreasonable to want the best sensor I can get considering I am spending a lot more than nine grand with Red? I don't want my 28k camera having lesser specs than their entry level camera - why is this unreasonable?

If I might cheekily suggest two possible solutions?
SOLUTION A

Allow red one early adopters to get the additional bits 'n pieces with whatever sensor they opt to upgrade to (ie: the Epic x package with whatever brain you opt to get (within reason)- Naturally the costs of each package would be in line with the sensor - ie : the Epic X package, The FF35 X package (at higher trade in cost, naturally) or the 645 X package (at duly increased package cost).

or B

Put a Monstro in the Epic X (all I am referring to is the extended DR - yes I realize this will up the price) - most will only ever use cine lenses so are not looking for FF capability - just the best DR/ASA available at the time.
For all of this griping, I commend Red and Jim Jannard for remaining true to his/their word. Unfortunately for them, it seems you can't please everyone all of the time and we all have our agendas. They make great cameras and I imagine I shall be utilizing their products for a long time to come. The Red One has been, quite simply, a quantum leap in digital photography. Long may they last.

Meryem Ersoz
12-11-2008, 05:13 PM
This is the part of the new specs that are causing the most angst among the existing users...that a $9K camera will have a better sensor, with greater latitude, than a $28K camera is somewhat mystifying.

If you are going to have distinct product lines, with an accompanying price hierarchy, then the price/feature hierarchy should make sense and be easily explained (especially to our clients, to whom we will have to justify the added expense of EPIC, in order to sell EPIC...).

Clearly, from the amount of debate and discussion, the price/feature hierarchy has a lot of people concerned and uncertain.

These are real concerns of real users with real clients. Re-framing the discussion to some BS about crippling cameras is just inflammatory and unconstructive. We're all acknowledging that there is a price/feature hierarchy, but there is some difference of opinion regarding what that should look like.

It doesn't make sense to me to try to sell them on a $28K camera when the $9K sensor is superior - and selling them on frame rates, well, that is simply not a selling point that equates to better quality. It's more like a nice perk...

DRappazzo
12-11-2008, 05:22 PM
I agree to some extent - but I have found that there are actually very few obstacles to people working in the film business. Anyone with dedication, common sense, reliability and some degree of ability can work in the field IMVHO. Red is the first pro camera I have owned. Prior to owning a Red camera, I was hired purely as a cameraman and the gear separately rented from Panavision. The only kit I brought to a shoot was a light meter. In short - Owning gear hasn't had much to do with the success of any cameraman I know. I know plenty of people with gear which sits on shelves mostly gathering dust.

In my opinion people who were going to make it would make it anyway. Right now anyone can buy a Red package and get some work on novelty value but as word spreads of their work, only people whose work is up to scratch will make it - or be doomed to shooting super-low/no budget work - in which case you will always be busy.

The truth is that very few people think they have no ability/talent. The argument that an elite have been employing "exclusionist" tactics based on equipment is IMVHO not true. Rather some people who haven't earned their stripes over years of shooting and carving out a career path feel that owning the camera is a shortcut into the game.

And who knows - maybe they're right.

Great posts, but in my limited experience I have found that not having the ability (i.e. money) to afford to buy your own gear is a huge barrier to breaking into the field. It might not be a shortcut, but it is an advantage for sure. But with Red and others making giant leaps in camera technology, not only in technical specs but in price point, in the future everyone will be shooting high res footage and that is when the truly talented will be separated from the pack.

Until that day I will continue trying to figure out how to make it on based on knowledge, passion and little bit of luck. :unsure:

Tim Wildenhain
12-12-2008, 09:39 PM
I am somewhat (unreasonably, I grant you) perturbed that I have spent quite a lot of money with RED and now face having an inferior sensor as my "reward" package (which I fully realize is very kind of Red and above the call of duty). It has presented us Red One owners with something of a Hobson's choice. Avail of the offer (Lesser sensor) or buy the FF35 Epic and lose out on the extras.


This is the part of the new specs that are causing the most angst among the existing users...that a $9K camera will have a better sensor, with greater latitude, than a $28K camera is somewhat mystifying.

Sorry guys I have to disagree with you. They're introducing 2 new sensor lines. The entry level to the bigger Monstro is the Scarlet. Which may have the same sensor, but will not have the same usability and flexibility that you have come to expect and count on with the R1. You will cripple yourselves with if you choose to "upgrade" from R1 to Scarlet FF35 by going the cheap route. You have options, they've been laid out on the table.

There's 2 steps from R1 to Monstro - with being around in the semiconductor industry long enough, I know that Red in thier engineering wizardry, have decided to give the best compromise which is offering you Epic X which is a 1.5 step upgrade, as opposed to a 1 step upgrade. I wont say anything further at fear of starting yet another fierce argument, but suffice it to say that AMD went this route and NVIDIA went this route as well, both were insanely successful at it. Only difference, is the Epic X wont be available to anyone outside the R1 owners list.

Meryem Ersoz
12-13-2008, 10:29 AM
suffice it to say that AMD went this route and NVIDIA went this route as well, both were insanely successful at it. Only difference, is the Epic X wont be available to anyone outside the R1 owners list.

Since I'm a shooter, not an engineer, I'm not sure that I understand this post at all. In what context was AMD insanely successful? That company appears to be on life support, at the moment. As is Nvidia, although their pipeline has many innovative products that I believe will rescue them over time.

I don't really understand the engineering terminology of 1 step, 2 step, or 1.5 step...

what I do understand is
Monstro = latitude is 13
Mysterium X = latitude is 11

If image quality is your priority, then sensor quality is a priority, and things like more frame rates and other features may be desirable but not essential. So you may be getting more of something you don't really care about (additional frame rates), while receiving less of something you do care about (latitude).

I'm not complaining here. Images from Mysterium are amazing, I'm sure that I will be ridiculously delighted with Mysterium X.

Tim Wildenhain
12-13-2008, 11:11 PM
Since I'm a shooter, not an engineer, I'm not sure that I understand this post at all. In what context was AMD insanely successful? That company appears to be on life support, at the moment. As is Nvidia, although their pipeline has many innovative products that I believe will rescue them over time.

I don't really understand the engineering terminology of 1 step, 2 step, or 1.5 step...

what I do understand is
Monstro = latitude is 13
Mysterium X = latitude is 11

If image quality is your priority, then sensor quality is a priority, and things like more frame rates and other features may be desirable but not essential. So you may be getting more of something you don't really care about (additional frame rates), while receiving less of something you do care about (latitude).

I'm not complaining here. Images from Mysterium are amazing, I'm sure that I will be ridiculously delighted with Mysterium X.

AMD back in 99 came out of bankruptcy with the Athlon and dominated the processor market (became much more popular than Intel) for a long while. I'm not talking current trends in the business world, I'm talking about successful engineering advances. NVIDIA as well, think GeForce 3 era cards. Again, engineering advances.

Epic X is not a Mysterium X sensor, it's a Mysterium X Select sensor, which will be better than Mysterium X. Only the final release will show the difference of how that will appear on screen. I think that the reason the full specs of the Mysterium X sensor haven't been released as of yet, is because I'm not 100% sure that even Red knows exactly what those will be.

Could you enlighten me as to where your latitude specs came from? If they were before the "engineering breakthroughs" you may be getting upset over nothing. I saw nothing since Dec 2nd stating what the DR was of any sensor.

As for the steps. That's not an engineering term, that's just an explaination of the different lines of sensors. To go from R1, one step, would be the S35Epic (comparable size sensor with upgrade) The next step is the FF35 Epic, which is a step above the previous. The Epic X with it's Mysterium X Select sensor is actually a better sensor and will be a middle ground between the Mysterium X and the Monstro lines.

Sorry if I'm being vague.

Irmeli R
12-14-2008, 06:32 AM
***

Meryem Ersoz
12-14-2008, 07:24 AM
Could you enlighten me as to where your latitude specs came from? If they were before the "engineering breakthroughs" you may be getting upset over nothing. I saw nothing since Dec 2nd stating what the DR was of any sensor.



Those were included in the Nov. 13th specs then pulled in the Dec. 2 specs. So you may be right. Or at the very least, back to "we don't know"

But I'm not upset, not by any means, I'll be very excited to upgrade my systems.

I'm just trying to understand the logic of the vision - I'll be making decisions important to my business based on the logic of the vision - and I'll need to be able to explain/justify the various choices to clients. No doubt the roadmap will change yet again over the year. But I don't think that is a reason not to try to get my arms around it right now.