Red Updates

[Shawn Bannon]

because of the engineering delay are there any new updates to the camera?
Are the specs still changing? I read on this forum that the REDRAM will probably be larger. Any point in still wishing for 60 fps recording in 4k without being tethered?

Also is Red making a wireless focus controller? And does the Red Camera have a depth of field calculator built into it?

[Chris Kenny]

And does the Red Camera have a depth of field calculator built into it?

Given that Red's lenses have /i support, that would be pretty easy to do, and a handy feature.

[Unwounded]

Speaking of changing red specs, I have a question. I ran into a shooter the other day who was at the cinegear thing last week and he said that with the new, less noisey board the camera is now rated at something like 200 ASA. I remember reading at some point the red was supposed to be or aiming to be like a 3-400 ASA. Does anyone know anything about this?
While I'm at it, I was wondering if anyone has compiled a list of all the features that Red team members have said the camera will have that are not listed on the website, that they have given out piece meal in different threads? After months of following the posts, the lines between fact and rumor are starting to blend in my memory.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Speaking of changing red specs, I have a question. I ran into a shooter the other day who was at the cinegear thing last week and he said that with the new, less noisey board the camera is now rated at something like 200 ASA. I remember reading at some point the red was supposed to be or aiming to be like a 3-400 ASA. Does anyone know anything about this?

Sounds like a bunch of bunk... Originally one of the prototypes was estimated (by David Stump, I believe) about 300ASA or so... We have no further information than that and probably won't until the camera ships.


While I'm at it, I was wondering if anyone has compiled a list of all the features that Red team members have said the camera will have that are not listed on the website

Not that I'm aware of...

[Unwounded]

Yeah, I kinda suspected he was talking out of his rear end. thanks.

[Alexander Nikishin]

I ran into a shooter the other day who was at the cinegear thing last week and he said that with the new, less noisey board the camera is now rated at something like 200 ASA. I remember reading at some point the red was supposed to be or aiming to be like a 3-400 ASA.


Well, it's not far off from 200 ASA, RED confirmed the protos to be at 250 ASA, so you can bet on 250 and hope for something faster.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Sorry, man ignoramus hastam :wacko:
Which is better? 200ASA or 400ASA?
I understand that 400ASA means faster film stock but with larger grain. what does it mean for the camera to be rated 200ASA? Is it referring to the amount of digital noise?

[Brook Willard]

The "native" speed of a sensor is the speed at which it has the best signal to noise ratio [or the lowest visible amount of noise]. I think.

I vaguely remember hearing that Mysterium falls around EI250. That doesn't mean that it can't go faster. The camera will definitely be capable of shooting at higher sensitivity. Whether that's attained by boosting gain or something else is beyond me... but I'm sure Graeme's discussed it in the past.

[Alexander Nikishin]

I'm sure Graeme's discussed it in the past.

Actually, I've never heard him directly refer to the method that will be used to boost asa. But I do vaguely remember him stating that this will be an option.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Thanks Brook.

Yeah I have read something about this in the past. I think that the jury was still out on whether it would be better to film with gain, or boost the levels in post. (I seem to remember Jim actually posting about it (I think he thought gain was pointless, and that you should boost the levels in post)).

I'll wait to get shot down for that one!! lol:clown2:

[J. Bernard Vallon]

The "native" speed of a sensor is the speed at which it has the best signal to noise ratio [or the lowest visible amount of noise]. I think.

Thats about right. You find a digital camera's 'native' ISO by doing an exposure test and finding out the limit of its dynamic range. You find the blow-out point, which is maximum white, and the noise floor, which is maximum black. Lets say they are 11.3 stops apart (lets just say). Half way in between is your native ISO. 5.65 stops above you and bellow you.

I would assume that having a 'lower noise' board would lower your noise floor, and move your native ISO down, from 250 to 400 or so.

I could be wrong.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

So a native iso of 400 is better than a native iso of 250..?
I'll be filming docos in natural light (that usually means very little light:usd: ), so it matters to me. I hope the RED team will be able to supply a lot more information on the red.com site soon. It must be hard work for newbies to search through hundreds of posts on reduser to spec the camera. I guess they haven't locked all these issues down yet...

[Adrian Correia]

but that is 250 ISO with absolutely clean imagery, right? So just adjust the speed...like pushing stock, I can't imagine it will be that obtrusive. Are you reading Gibby? Looks like more things to add to the test! Although this is one of the reasons why I sprung for the Canon K35 lenses (T1.3 and T1.5).

[J. Bernard Vallon]

So a native iso of 400 is better than a native iso of 250..?


its definitely better in low light, and in most cases really, as long as you have ND filters.

[hoko]

I'll be filming docos in natural light (that usually means very little light:usd: ), so it matters to me. I hope the RED team will be able to supply a lot more information on the red.com site soon.

Same for me; does anyone know if the 'gain' system on the Red is comparable to present cameras ie: 0/6/12db (or whatever) adjustable? Is there a quickly accessible switch? If the native is, let's say for safety, ASA200, does that mean we will be able to push to around ASA800? Has there been any comparable tests to Kodak's 500T stocks?

Lenses - I see most of those posting are considering 35mm lenses with good reason - but for most of us who are purely documentary shooters it seems to be a bit of overkill. Has there been any discussion/tests using Super 16 lenses such as the good old standard Canon 8-64 or the wee Zeiss T1.3 primes? I've seen some interesting posts about the RED 2k format possibly coming in under the present Sony 900 quality? (not that anything in the world would drive me towards one) Or did I misinterpret?

So many questions, so little knowledge, alas. But I'm sure a lot of doco shooters are wondering about this. There must be quite a few who have retained their Super 16 Arri or Aaton kits who see RED as a way out of their current dilemma, but who are not prepared to go the whole 4K hog.

thanks.

[Stuart English]

does anyone know if the 'gain' system on the Red is comparable to present cameras ie: 0/6/12db (or whatever) adjustable? .

Yes, there is a Gain adjustment measured in 3dB steps available. That affects the RGB recordings, video outputs and EVF feed. When recording RAW the value is stored as metadata, so you can use this value for gain in post, or ignore it - your choice.

[JohnF]

Correct me if I'm wrong or I mis-understand this...

How can one boost gain in post using RAW? Traditionally the gain switch referred
to the control of the amplifier that boosted any signal coming from the detector chip - thus boosting what signal(and noise) was recorded on the medium, surely any "Gain boost" in post will just be a matter of level adjustment rather than an actual boost in detector sensitivity? Or put more simply one can not increase what is not there.

JohnF

[Stuart English]

In the same way that you can push a filmstock, you can adjust gain when "developing" RAW into RGB.

The visual result is similar - a brighter image but an increased noise floor.

[Adrian Correia]

In the same way that you can push a filmstock, you can adjust gain when "developing" RAW into RGB.

The visual result is similar - a brighter image but an increased noise floor.

fantastic! I am not that familiar with shooting RAW format....very cool....

[JohnF]

So I can get this clear in my head...(I do a lot of low, low-light shooting!)

With RED we have a fixed sensitivity detector yes/no?

This embeds only what is captured by the exposure (10-12stops latitude) into a RAW frame? (The levels of which get adjusted in post) Not boost detector gain then encode?

So basically we don't push ISO/detector sensivity at all we're just doing basic image manipulation.

Let's say we're really trying to pull some picture info from dark picture/blacks and we "push" the ISO. How much picture info survives being compressed by REDCODE? (Maybe this is a question for Gabby's test on #8!)

I'm just trying to figure out the signal path!

JohnF

[hoko]

This embeds only what is captured by the exposure (10-12stops latitude) into a RAW frame? (The levels of which get adjusted in post) Not boost detector gain then encode?

So basically we don't push ISO/detector sensivity at all we're just doing basic image manipulation.

JohnF

roughly yes, as I understand it. Someone said, think of this system more in tune with a still camera and it's ability to shoot Raw files. If you shoot raw for stills, you do all the manipulation in the post with Adobe or whatever. I'm very much an amateur on Digital Stills but the general agreement with a semi-professional camera like the Nikon D200 seems to be you shoot as flat as possible and then manipulate later because with Raw you've got so much more latitude. Certainly that extends to contrast, saturation etc. I would think the Red post with Raw might even have noise reduction abilities in the same fashion as working with Stills apps? Of course, all these processes come with compromises in image quality, not matter what format you shoot.

[S. Um]

With RED we have a fixed sensitivity detector yes/no?


JohnF

Every camera has a fixed sensitivity detector. You add gain to the output of the detector by amplifying the signal. Red simply takes the output of the detector (RAW) and adds the gain in software instead of in the camera.

[Adrian Correia]

Let's say we're really trying to pull some picture info from dark picture/blacks and we "push" the ISO. How much picture info survives being compressed by REDCODE? (Maybe this is a question for Gabby's test on #8!)

I'm just trying to figure out the signal path!

JohnF

Yes Gibby - please make this part of the tests...comparing the in camera gain controls to post work on the Raw files!

[JohnF]

Every camera has a fixed sensitivity detector. You add gain to the output of the detector by amplifying the signal. Red simply takes the output of the detector (RAW) and adds the gain in software instead of in the camera.

Of this I am aware. What is interesting me is the issue that when using REDCODE RAW we are adding gain post compression.

Hopefully this won't be a problem - only testing will show.

So many questions to ask and tests I want to run on this camera...

JohnF

[Stuart English]

If you record REDCODE RGB then any Gain selected is applied prior to compression i.e its already affecting the RGB image the camera records. If you record REDCODE RAW, then Gain is just stored as metadata, and it is then used (or not, as its your choice) in the conversion of 12 bit RAW to 10 bit or 8 bit RGB / 4:2:2 in post production.

[Emanuel A.]

If you record REDCODE RGB then any Gain selected is applied prior to compression i.e its already affecting the RGB image the camera records. If you record REDCODE RAW, then Gain is just stored as metadata, and it is then used (or not, as its your choice) in the conversion of 12 bit RAW to 10 bit or 8 bit RGB / 4:2:2 in post production.What can we ask more?... REDCODE RAW ROCKS