more about the RED camera project

john-beale schrieb am 29.11.2006 um 21:39 Uhr
At first I considered that RED was some kind of joke, for the reasons already mentioned, but there is more to it. It is something of a personal project of Jim Jannard, of OAKLEY fame. Unusually for a billionaire CEO, Jim regularly posts on an online user forum, specifically the DVXUSER boards http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=99 and
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=58

So far, apparently there only one working prototype / sensor testbed. It is not portable and it has not been shown publicly. David Stump, ASC has worked with the prototype and was impressed. You can see one of his comments at www.red.com. David is a well-known name in Hollywood with an impressive list of credits, see eg. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003432/

Red has hosted a few screenings of their testbed 4k footage, using the Sony 4k SXRD projector. Those in attendance had very good things to say about it. If it was a hoax the footage would have to be shot with some other camera- interesting to speculate what that could be. The Red image "look" is different from existing cameras.

Many of us in video production who own digital SLR cameras have daydreamed of being able to shoot motion pictures with DSLR resolution and image quality at 24 fps (or 30 fps, etc). By all accounts, the Red camera does exactly that.

Kommentare

farss schrieb am 29.11.2006 um 21:52 Uhr
Both RED and the SI-2K have been discussed here at some length some time ago.
Yes RED is producing some impressive images but they've still got to get it into the box. That's no trivial task.
The SI-2K is available now and has some very neat features such as look management.
Neither of these cameras will be cheap. All the basic extras such as lenses will double your cost of ownership.
Post costs to do justice to 2K let alone 4K acquisition are also rather scary if you're looking for real time processing and display. The only 4K projection device comes in at $165K. In my opinion you be nuts not to have full res large screen preview working on any of this stuff.
john-beale schrieb am 29.11.2006 um 22:22 Uhr
> All the basic extras such as lenses will double your cost of ownership.
No doubt true for traditional cine lenses, some of which cost as much as a house if you could even buy them (being rental-only)... my impression is that some people are going to try to use still camera lenses (eg. Nikon) with Red. There are issues of course; how you handle focus pulling and lens breathing-- but I don't think they are insurmountable. Seems to me Red is attracting the out-of-the-box-thinking crowd. I don't think all of them see 4k online edits as a requirement, and of course (as far as I know) there is no desktop 4k display available at any price. Just thinking it would be nice if Vegas could handle final output at that resolution.
winrockpost schrieb am 30.11.2006 um 00:55 Uhr
The oakley gut didn' t sell a gazillion sunglasses by making great sunglasses, he knows how to market a product,, for instance.From the Oakley website High Definition optics(HDO)combines patented optics and PLUTONITE® lens ,,

Not saying the cam is a bunch a BS but with the break in and all
hope the red one erector set meets all the hype. It may or may not, but got lots a people talkin about it,,... score for red
SimonW schrieb am 30.11.2006 um 12:43 Uhr
The 4k thing is mostly been taken in the wrong context. At present the main reason to shoot 4k with Red is so that you can get the depth of field characteristics of S35mm film, and then downsample to 1080p/i.

I have no doubts that they will release the camera as planned. My only remaining issues with it are:-

1. The build quality (I'm not all that impressed with Oakley's sunglasses build quality!)
2. The final price.
3. The possible issues of shooting with a windowed single chip bayered sensor at 1080p.
farss schrieb am 30.11.2006 um 20:07 Uhr
Actually the DOF argument is false.
16mm lenses on a 2/3" sensor will produce the same if not shallower DOF.
Why?
Because the S16 lenses are several stops faster than the 35mm lenses.
Apart from being a bit cheaper you also need less light and that can equate to less cost.
Unfortunately you can't do this with 3 CCD broadcast cameras as these lenses only work with film or single CCD / CMOS sensors. That's why there's a number of single sensor 2/3" cameras.

Not that I have an issue with shooting 4K but I can't grasp the logic of having a 4K camera and using a 1080 pipeline. 4K blows 1080 out of the water.
SimonW schrieb am 30.11.2006 um 20:54 Uhr
One reason for shooting 4k is the advantage of oversampling for 1080. Also there is no 4k distribution medium for mortals!
Coursedesign schrieb am 30.11.2006 um 21:00 Uhr
Because the S16 lenses are several stops faster than the 35mm lenses

Several stops???

Which lenses would that be?

Cooke S4 Primes are very common 35mm cine lenses, they're all T2. Let's say that's about f/2.2, so "several stops faster " would start with f/1.2. Sure, this does exist but not so mainstream for cine lenses.

Then there are other issues related to the impact of noise on circles of confusion, which is again in the favor of the larger 35mm sensors when it comes to DOF.
farss schrieb am 30.11.2006 um 21:13 Uhr
That I certainly agree with, although to get the maximum advantage I suspect you'd need a full 4K pipeline and that's not going to be cheap. A Lustre 4K system plus 4K projector plus facilities wouldn't leave you much change out of $500K.
For distro HDCAM SR would seem the way to go, just tape costs are pretty daunting and the decks are not cheap, still way cheaper than anything 4K though. Or are they, HDDs would seem feasible.
I think part of the problem is the industry simply hasn't caught up with the film / tapeless concept yet.
This goes across the whole production spectrum, ASC is still complaining about no standards for DI grading, every house has their own custom LUTs etc. Nothing gives the repeatability of the by now ancient photochemical process and Hazeltine printers. No doubt in the fullness of time all this will change but I don't think it's technical issues holding back the process it's financial.
Film isn't all that expensive in the grand scheme of things, the take up of digital projection is very slow, simply because there isn't the capital to replace all those 35mm projectors and there isn't the capital because the cinemas can't get enough bums on seats.
farss schrieb am 30.11.2006 um 21:23 Uhr
http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/rentals.asp?cat=LENS16

T1.3

About 1/3 the price of Cooke 35mm per day which are T2.0
SimonW schrieb am 01.12.2006 um 08:37 Uhr
Red has its own transfer software that will convert to whatever format is needed. So no need to have a 4k capable pipeline as such.
farss schrieb am 01.12.2006 um 10:49 Uhr
Indeed.
But the way I see it if you want to do anything with that image you'd be better off doing it at 4K and THEN downscaling. You can see this even working with Vegas. Shoot HDV for SD delivery and you'll get a better result doing everything, compositing, graphic etc at source res and then downscaling.

I'm assuming your intent is to shoot 4K and deliver something at lower res that looks like it was a 4K / 35mm source.