DSMC == FF35

[J. Eric Camp]

You can get everything you want, except the ability to snap your fingers and fix and oversight in camera needs, with the purposed set up. I personally think it is ridiculous to purpose that an item that is projected at a $33k price point be sold for $3k with the idea of firmware rental making up the difference. Notwithstanding that the addition of the firmware lock out protocol would add to the cost of the camera and potentially even the size.

Right now you can buy a Scarlet brain and if you need to jump up to something beyond your brains capabilities you simply rent the brain you need.

Not to mention the fact that firmware unlocks can and would be hacked and David's point about manufacturing.

It's an interesting idea but I feel that it is inherently flawed.

Just me view.

[Chris Pickle]

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.)

Please don't misinterpret my response, but this just doesn't... sound reasonable. I know JJ said the same thing but... again. I don't believe it or maybe it is being over-simplistic or we're talking about different things. If you said it costs way more to get the larger chip to read feaster, then that sounds like a legit dilemma.

Here's my thinking... all point and shoots have very small chips. All DSLRs have very large chips in comparison. Last year's Rebel sells for as little as some point and shoots. How can they sell a camera with what essentially has an S35 sensor for $500.00

Again, this thread is on chip size not chip speed. I know the technology to get the sensor to read high frame rates puts it in another league, but chip size alone seems to be something that has been mastered.

If a Nikkon DSLR shot 24p using a robust codec, the game would be over.

Chris

[David Rasberry]

Please don't misinterpret my response, but this just doesn't... sound reasonable. I know JJ said the same thing but... again. I don't believe it or maybe it is being over-simplistic or we're talking about different things. If you said it costs way more to get the larger chip to read feaster, then that sounds like a legit dilemma.

Here's my thinking... all point and shoots have very small chips. All DSLRs have very large chips in comparison. Last year's Rebel sells for as little as some point and shoots. How can they sell a camera with what essentially has an S35 sensor for $500.00

Again, this thread is on chip size not chip speed. I know the technology to get the sensor to read high frame rates puts it in another league, but chip size alone seems to be something that has been mastered.

If a Nikkon DSLR shot 24p using a robust codec, the game would be over.

Chris

As Jim has said repeatedly, real frame rates cost real money. That $500 Rebel is what a 3fps raw camera? Take that to just 30 fps and you are looking at 10 times the sensor speed and 10 times the processing power. Scale costs to speed and that Rebel would be in the Scarlet S35 price range.
The consumer video features on these cameras skip enough pixels and lines on the chip to lower the resolution to 1080 or 720, so even though you get the DOF of a larger sensor, you are getting much lower resolution, and the moire, aliasing, and pixel blocking artifacts that go along with it, to get processing speed and data rates to a low enough level to work with consumer recording media and a low cost processor of limited power.

To understand just how much processing power is needed, consider that a typical moderately high end current gen graphics workstation in Scarlet S35 price range, something like an 8 core Mac pro fully loaded, can't even play full resolution 4k Red One files at real time speeds.

[Daniel Browning]

Things get even worse when you get above S35.

Sensor cost rises exponentially with area, but that's only up to S35 size (1.6X). That is the largest you can make a sensor with a single reticle. [The reticle is the quartz "master" image of the sensor which the manufacturer uses to focus a lazer onto the much smaller silicon wafer.] The only way to increase size larger than S35 is to stitch multiple reticles together. With a single stitch, normal manufacturing yields drop to less than 25% (!) of normal yields, so imagine how low the yield drops with two stiches.

It took a major breakthrough for Canon to finally get yields high enough that they could do two stitches of three reticles (36x24mm) for only $1,500 more than S35 (5D vs 20D). Three years later, and it's *still* $1,500 more (5D2 vs 50D), and most other manufacturers are around the same price level.

The difference in COGS between S35 and FF35 is still far, far too great relative to the sale price per unit, even for Canon, who sells millions of units per year.

[David Rasberry]

FF35 is a pretty small part of Canon's sales too. Measured in tens of thousands, not millions. Way less than 1%

[Chris Pickle]

As Jim has said repeatedly, real frame rates cost real money. That $500 Rebel is what a 3fps raw camera? Take that to just 30 fps and you are looking at 10 times the sensor speed and 10 times the processing power. Scale costs to speed and that Rebel would be in the Scarlet S35 price range.
The consumer video features on these cameras skip enough pixels and lines on the chip to lower the resolution to 1080 or 720, so even though you get the DOF of a larger sensor, you are getting much lower resolution, and the moire, aliasing, and pixel blocking artifacts that go along with it, to get processing speed and data rates to a low enough level to work with consumer recording media and a low cost processor of limited power.

To understand just how much processing power is needed, consider that a typical moderately high end current gen graphics workstation in Scarlet S35 price range, something like an 8 core Mac pro fully loaded, can't even play full resolution 4k Red One files at real time speeds.

That's why I qualified that I understood that chip speed was another matter. We were talking about chip size, and although I understand that size and speed is inexorably linked, as you wouldn't want a 3fps motion camera, I thought the Chad's questions & thoughts were valid. There is a certain base-line investment amount in R&D regardless of size. It was a good question--as the technology, chip sizes and chip speeds evolve.

I personally am not interested in FF but I often wonder how it will impact single sensor motion cameras in the future.

CHris

[Chad Clemans]

The sensor in the Epic/Scarlet S35 and the R1 upgrade are the same. The RED ONE can only record a certain amount of bits through it's internal pipes however, so it cannot record the full 5k that Epic/Scarlet can.

This is exactly my point!

As it says under the faq on RED.com, "Keep your RED ONE and upgrade your sensor to Mysterium-X for $4500;" therefore, one can only assume that RED can manufacture a Mysterium-X S35 sensor with sufficient read-reset capabilities for EPIC or SCARLET for less than $4500.

This then begs one of the questions I initially posed: why not make a hardware ASIC module for higher fps that could be added onto an already purchased sensor (lets say the SCARLET S35 or Scarlet FF35) so the user can upgrade without the hassle and loss on resale value of selling their brain?

(If RED just doesn't want to because it wasn't in the initial program then that's one thing, but it just seems so compelling, but what do I know...)

[Steven Caesare]

Sensor size (in resolution), speed, and the ASIC processing power(and power draw/heat disappation) to handle the data generated are all related. An increase in effective sensor resolution requires changes in the other areas.

Each item also costs significantly more as you move up the food chain. Including all of the necessary items in the "base model" adds to the size/expense of ALL units sold, when only a small percentage may opt to 'unlock' them, or even WANT the extra weight and bulk in their base model.

Instead, RED has isolated all those interdependant parts into a single module, and called it the Brain. You get to pick and choose your brains accordingly, and keep all your other modules (audio ins, video outs, etc...) that aren't sensor-size dependant.

It's the model that best meets the requirements of both modularity and size/weight/expense, IMO.

-sc

[joakim_hansson]

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

True true but not in professional circles, even the prosumer market are turning away from smaller than "full frame".

In the RED sensor dilemma I would above all preferably see a 2K S35 sensor with monstrous dynamic range. That would be the perfect tool for me and a lot of others I believe, even 4k is overkill for me. Being able to shoot in low light and natural light conditions with the lens stopped down a bit is much more important than lots of pixels to me.
But maybe the 4K+ race will continue, RED is creating a market for it and pushing the other developers - Arri, Sony, p+s etc. to develop their own 2k+ cameras. Rumor has it that Arri has something up their sleeve for ibc 2009, something not in the 150k € pricerange, something with a much more attractive price than D21 as an alternative to red.

And the winner in this technology race?
-We, the present and future customers :)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I've been informed that sensor size not pixel size affects Dynamic Range. In which case 2k would just be lower resolution, not better.