DSMC == FF35

[Chad Clemans]

When I hear the phrase "Digital Stills and Motion Camera" (DSMC), I usually think of stills as being Full Frame 35mm Film, and I usually think of motion-pictures as being S35. Since FF35 can envelope S35 and 16mm, B4, etc, I think of DSMC as FF35.

The announcement by Red Digital Cinema to release Scarlet DSMC's in 2/3" and S35 is great, as is the announcement to release Epic S35's -and I'm not criticizing; however, I'm wondering if what really makes "obsolescence obsolete," with respect to a DSMC, is only the FF35.

Although there seems to be pools of manifested interest isolated around each of these smaller sensor sizes, I wonder if what filmmakers want most is an FF35 sized sensor, which could use any of their lenses from FF35 on down to B4, as the base DSMC, with the option to upgrade their base DSMC with a module (ASIC) that would grant them the processing power for higher framerates, datarates, and higher resolution (Epic size it).

From my own studies in ASIC design, I've come to respect anyone up to the task, so if RED has deemed such an idea impractical, then I'm sure they know best. I do however think that if they were to only focus on designing one sensor size, it could save them a lot of effort and money. If it wasn't practical to modularly separate the extra processing power (ASIC), RED could even just sell the Epic FF35 (at the 2/3" price) and allow users to purchase, or even rent (temporarily unlock) extra processing power (via expiring firmware updates), and thereby RED could dominate not only sales of professional cinematography tools (because everyone would buy one [or more]), but control rental in that respect also (because everyone would have bought one and rentals would go through RED without hardware transactions). While some may wince at the idea of giving Epic FF35's away at the price of a 2/3" Scarlet (with the Epic sized framerates, datarates, and resolution locked out), when it comes to research and development, it's often said that the first ASIC cost one-hundred million to make, and the second one cost less than a buck. The latter idea would clearly have its own set of issues (firmware hacks, etc), which is why the former would appear better (Epic Size ASIC Module).

I don't expect this to make any waves over at RED as I'm sure they'll do what they think is best; however, I am interested to hear from Redusers on whether this is what they really want, or if the currently proposed smaller sensor sizes happen to be what they really want, why? The floor is yours-

[Jannard]

When I hear the phrase "Digital Stills and Motion Camera" (DSMC), I usually think of stills as being Full Frame 35mm Film, and I usually think of motion-pictures as being S35. Since FF35 can envelope S35 and 16mm, B4, etc, I think of DSMC as FF35.

The announcement by Red Digital Cinema to release Scarlet DSMC's in 2/3" and S35 is great, as is the announcement to release Epic S35's -and I'm not criticizing; however, I'm wondering if what really makes "obsolescence obsolete," with respect to a DSMC, is only the FF35.

Although there seems to be pools of manifested interest isolated around each of these smaller sensor sizes, I wonder if what filmmakers want most is an FF35 sized sensor, which could use any of their lenses from FF35 on down to B4, as the base DSMC, with the option to upgrade their base DSMC with a module (ASIC) that would grant them the processing power for higher framerates, datarates, and higher resolution (Epic size it).

From my own studies in ASIC design, I've come to respect anyone up to the task, so if RED has deemed such an idea impractical, then I'm sure they know best. I do however think that if they were to only focus on designing one sensor size, it could save them a lot of effort and money. If it wasn't practical to modularly separate the extra processing power (ASIC), RED could even just sell the Epic FF35 (at the 2/3" price) and allow users to purchase, or even rent (temporarily unlock) extra processing power (via expiring firmware updates), and thereby RED could dominate not only sales of professional cinematography tools (because everyone would buy one [or more]), but control rental in that respect also (because everyone would have bought one and rentals would go through RED without hardware transactions). While some may wince at the idea of giving Epic FF35's away at the price of a 2/3" Scarlet (with the Epic sized framerates, datarates, and resolution locked out), when it comes to research and development, it's often said that the first ASIC cost one-hundred million to make, and the second one cost less than a buck. The latter idea would clearly have its own set of issues (firmware hacks, etc), which is why the former would appear better (Epic Size ASIC Module).

I don't expect this to make any waves over at RED as I'm sure they'll do what they think is best; however, I am interested to hear from Redusers on whether this is what they really want, or if the currently proposed smaller sensor sizes happen to be what they really want, why? The floor is yours-

Chad... you are missing a huge point. Sensors go up in price exponentially as the size increases. I don't think anyone wants to pay for anymore than they need.

Jim

[Stephen Gentle]

Although there seems to be pools of manifested interest isolated around each of these smaller sensor sizes, I wonder if what filmmakers want most is an FF35 sized sensor, which could use any of their lenses from FF35 on down to B4, as the base DSMC...

I think that the smaller sensors will be the most popular, since they have such high frame rates and resolution (120fps at 3K 2/3") for their relatively tiny prices.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

When I hear the phrase "Digital Stills and Motion Camera" (DSMC), I usually think of stills as being Full Frame 35mm Film, and I usually think of motion-pictures as being S35. Since FF35 can envelope S35 and 16mm, B4, etc, I think of DSMC as FF35.

I don't know the smaller sensor sizes have become pretty popular in the stills world as well. (APS-C, 4/3rds etc)

[Chad Clemans]

Chad... you are missing a huge point. Sensors go up in price exponentially as the size increases. Jim

I still may be missing it, because I would have thought:

when it comes to research and development, it's often said that the first ASIC cost one-hundred million to make, and the second one cost less than a buck.

but it sounds like the manufacturing cost of the larger sensor sizes is hefty as well (beyond just the design and lab setup), despite the savings in time, effort, and money from only producing one sensor size (aside from 645 and 617). I suppose economies of scale would become a bigger factor in reducing those costs, however,

because everyone would buy one [or more]

but maybe not enough to make it profitable on RED's end. As to this:

I don't think anyone wants to pay for anymore than they need. Jim

I wouldn't know where to draw the line in the sand on what anyone needs, as we are all hopefully progressing in our projects, and whatever profits were reduced for RED upfront [by only making FF35 sensors and selling them cheap as base DSMC's] would seem to be recouped ten-fold as users purchased and/or rented higher fps, resolution, and datarates. If the higher framerates, resolution, and datarates were enabled through a hardware module, it would prevent owners from having to sell their "brain" to upgrade and make "obsolescence obsolete." Or... as to renting, I can just imagine being on set and "everything changes" and you immediately wished you could shoot 350 fps for an unplanned slow-motion shot, so you purchase a day's worth of juice through Red.com, download the expiring firmware upgrade that unlocks it, and within ten minutes RED just enabled you to make "obsolescence obsolete."

Its your camera though and I doubt anyone could do it better, so I'm not complaining nor criticizing; thanks for the clarification.

[Daniel Browning]

I still may be missing it

The difference in cost between 2/3" and FF35 is easily three full orders of magnitude.

That's like the difference in cost between a bicycle and a luxury sedan. It's insurmountable.

(Personally, I detest the "lock out features with firmware" idea.)

[Shane Nassiri]

I think your ideas are interesting in terms of an alternative business model, but what happens if someone hacks the firmware and can enable additional features and distributes it on the Internet? I'm sure there would be plenty of peeps not prone to paying $1,000s for enabling new features when they could download a hack for free.

[Erik Bien]

I'm no expert, but as I understand it CMOS chips begin life as round blank silicon 'wafers' just like CPUs. Only a few of the largest sensors can fit on a single wafer, so it's likely RED take up as much of the remaining space as possible with smaller chips to minimize waste.

[Andrew Walker]

I think your ideas are interesting in terms of an alternative business model, but what happens if someone hacks the firmware and can enable additional features and distributes it on the Internet? I'm sure there would be plenty of peeps not prone to paying $1,000s for enabling new features when they could download a hack for free.

RED is the one hacking their own software to push the cameras as far as they can go and giving us those new features for free. See this is the difference between RED and everybody else. I'm sure Canon is trying to figure out a way to charge people for the new firmware on the 5D2.

[David Rasberry]

I'm no expert, but as I understand it CMOS chips begin life as round blank silicon 'wafers' just like CPUs. Only a few of the largest sensors can fit on a single wafer, so it's likely RED take up as much of the remaining space as possible with smaller chips to minimize waste.

Yield is a problem with large sensors. If a wafer makes only 1 ff35 sensor but can make 12 2/3" sensors and there is a flaw in the wafer, you could still get 11 2/3" sensors out of it, for ff35 it is junk.