HVX200? Pah! I want one of these! (RED HD CAMERA) [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

Jim Arthurs

12-06-2005, 05:32 AM

I can't believe the fellow at HDforIndies.com bought into this so hard. Looks very fake, or like something I'd do if I wanted to April Fool my friends. Maybe Obin put it up? Just joking Obin.

The website reminds me of a very funny bit from the Simpson's... folks are gathered at their weekly birding group. The moderator asks "Did anyone see a new bird this week?" Every hand goes up. He then asks "Okay, anyone see a new bird that wasn't on TV, in a book, or at the zoo..." all hands go down but one... he concludes "... or in your dreams?". The last hand goes reluctantly down.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

MarcusX

12-06-2005, 05:45 AM

Exif data of the 2540p Picture:
"Canon Canon EOS-1D Mark II 'Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh"

mikkowilson

12-06-2005, 06:15 AM

hmm,.., I might have to put the EOS-1D on my christmas list.. looks like it takes some nice pictures :)

- Mikko

Danilo Del Tufo

12-06-2005, 06:21 AM

It's similar to Drake Camera or Kinetta.
I live in Italy so I don't know, did anybody of this community bought these cameras?
Sometimes it seems that those adverting of these powerful cameras want to stop the enthusiasm of regular cameras as Panasonic Ag-Hvx200, we know people want a powerful cameras like Viper filmstreem or Cinealta at 6000 dollars, we all hope that because now it's only electronics, the price could be take down.
But If I could be themselves I send this advertsing only if I've the camera ready to ship, it's true that 9999 euros don't seems big as 100000 Cinealta, but if one spend 9999 euros for a camera, 2 or 3 months after he can't buy a new camera, so I think those people understand these worries and speculate on them.

We cannot wait for eternity to shot in Hd (or any resolution similar to 35mm film)! We can't waste all the money (If we are not rich people and I'm not as millions of people) to the newest camera coming out two months after Hvx200 for example.
So it's civil responsability make it clear what are the true cost of this electronics, don't speculate on them! If we already could buy a cinealta because the price of this electronics is so high to preserve Hollywood standards and to stop young filmakers, we must protest against this philosophy!
So people that make this project oughta diffuse the real price of this electronics.
I know we have different politics ideology, but money is money, regular people works 12 hours a day to make some dollars or euros, and they have the same rights of famous directors, if their quality product is for 80% debtor to the tecnology that they use and not for mysterious talents.

I hope in a better world,

Danilo Del Tufo

scharky

12-06-2005, 06:44 AM

Exif data of the 2540p Picture:
"Canon Canon EOS-1D Mark II 'Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh"

Yeah, that was the first thing I checked as well, what a bunch of BS

Alex Leith

12-06-2005, 07:18 AM

If you look closely they're not actually claiming the images are from the camera...

"The above frames are to be judged for size comparison only."

They're just showing what size of image the camera could produce.

Justin_Kirch

12-06-2005, 07:35 AM

If a camera had all of that stuff in reality it'd probably be near ATLEAST $200,000.

As I kept reading the specs, I started to laugh louder and louder. There's no way it's real. And if it is then I wonder what the hell they plan on doing to sell it to us.

Laco

12-06-2005, 07:44 AM

Keep smiling tuned another 20 years :-)

MarcusX

12-06-2005, 07:44 AM

I don't think this is real. They claim they're not only developing a camera, but a new codec, lenses ("ultra high definition") and flash storage system. Everything from a unknown company who cannot even do a proper website ("stay tuned!").

And the part about the output options is just stupid: 4:2:2 2540p 60 fps in a 100 Mbps stream max. or even 4:4:4 raw over HD-SDI. That would be about 16 GBit/s of data.

myfriendimage

12-06-2005, 07:53 AM

Probably just took a pic with a rebel or something or nikon and cropped 16:9. There is only a few cameras that shoot UHD right now, none are for the public,

Steve Shovlar

12-06-2005, 08:50 AM

Whilst the site is cobbled together in about 5 minutes, that's not the point. Whether the camera ever gets further than a designers sketch pad is beside the point.

The point is, that there are people ut there, who have an idea and act on it. remember the Italian guys who hacked apart a FX1 and added their own lenses?
remember those people who added a feature onto a DVX so you can take out the raw data rather than go through a compression codec?

If there is a way of doing it, with some sticky back plastic, a couple of middles of toilet rolls and a few paper clips, you can be sure that there is an enthusiastic bunch of guys willing to have a go.

insanityfw

12-06-2005, 08:58 AM

Whether or not this thing is possible now in the future it surely will be, but here is the equation that I currenty care about:

720/24p with variable frame rate= $6,000

that'll do for now. Now, of course I said "for now". :)

TimTyler

12-06-2005, 11:16 AM

> It's similar to Drake Camera or Kinetta.

The Kinetta is real.

Emanuel

12-06-2005, 11:50 AM

Ma dai Danilo! Tu sei un italiano vero! Congratulazioni! Grazie per il tuo pensiero!

pertierr

12-06-2005, 11:52 AM

Whether it comes out or not in the end I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it is real, or at least they are working on it for real. From the specs though, this is competing with the uber-high-end of digital Cinema such as the Panavision Genesis. I predict well into the 6 figures, if if even goes for sale as opposed to just rent.

What continues to amaze me is when they mention how many gazillion pixels it has but not a single word about dynamic range.

Brett Erskine

12-06-2005, 12:17 PM

Yeah I have to say this sound alittle too good to be true. I want it to be but then again so does just about everyone else - which could be why this (fake?) website exists. Their website doesn't go into enough depth for me to put alot of faith in it...yet but one thing that has me thinking is their exclusive web address. As I understand it all of the 3 letter web address have been bought up and if these guys rescently bought this domain name then I probably cost them a fair amount of money which makes be think that they may be serious after all. One thing seems nearly certain from viewing their site - By the time this camera becomes available the HVX200 will be long released and possibly on to its 2nd generation.

Now if this isnt true, oh well...at least its interesting to realise that we are away from moving parts and tape mechanisms. The modular quality of PCs is about to come to the world of camera design. The near future will be very interesting.

"Ah damn my camera has a virus again!" ;-)

Danilo Del Tufo

12-06-2005, 12:38 PM

Grazie Emanuele :) Se non ricordo male abbiamo già avuto il piacere di parlare su dvinfo o sbaglio? Sai la vecchiaia...

Spanbauer

12-06-2005, 12:57 PM

This website is merely a spoof, poking fun at all the cameras that have been announced that we're all waiting for, and none of which have actually shipped.

Jeremy Jacobs

12-06-2005, 01:09 PM

As far as I know, its for real. This is based on me being aware of who is in
charge of the project and his reputation for being a solid businessman.

When we see footage is another question.

Emanuel

12-06-2005, 01:14 PM

Grazie Emanuele :) Se non ricordo male abbiamo già avuto il piacere di parlare su dvinfo o sbaglio? Sai la vecchiaia...:thumbsup:

Jaime Valles

12-06-2005, 01:59 PM

It all seems way too good to be true, but why would anyone do this? A fake website, as a joke? I just don't get it...

As far as I know, its for real. This is based on me being aware of who is in
charge of the project and his reputation for being a solid businessman.

When we see footage is another question.

Sounds great, except you only have 2 posts total. Fishy...

I certainly wish something like this comes out, but I'm not holding my breath.

The Machinist

12-06-2005, 02:13 PM

It all seems way too good to be true, but why would anyone do this? A fake website, as a joke? I just don't get it...

To someone else the chatter on this thread caused by the website may be funny.

Who knows why people do alot of stupid things. Take crop circle hoaxes.

And as for his new member status of only 2 posts it does seem convenient. However not an outright endictment. Maybe if he does know someone in charge of or working on this project they wouldn't mind paying the board a visit and discussing this camera themselves. As opposed to using a hastily constucted suspicious website.

It would be nice if someone developed an uber low-cost camera like this but I won't be holding my breath.

eLeventy

12-06-2005, 02:18 PM

Hasn't anybody noticed that the guy on the right, behind the car, is actually holding a HVX-200 in his hands? :shocked:

Jeremy Jacobs

12-06-2005, 02:26 PM

Sounds great, except you only have 2 posts total. Fishy...

Yes, I have been pretty busy running a company and I usually count on Juan
to provide a general update with what is going on in the forums. But, I thought
I would start to make some posts finally.

Here is a link to my company's site:

http://www.reel-stream.com/

The Machinist

12-06-2005, 02:50 PM

Ahh.

One of the andromeda guys. Welcome aboard. Any chance of getting more verification on this camera from your inside guy?

If not that's cool, knowing what you guys work on lends a little more weight to this rumor.

Gibby

12-06-2005, 04:11 PM

I know the person and company developing this new camera. Believe me, his credentials, and his company's credentials are exceptional. This camera is no rumor or "vaporware". I am under a Non-Disclosure Agreement with my friend and his company, so I cannot, and will not reveal any more than I have said. I'm sure his company will release more info via their web site and press releases at a future time of their choosing.

I'm no stranger to this board. I contribute regularly. Many of you know me. If you don't know me or my background, there is a wealth of info on me available on my web site.

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

The Machinist

12-06-2005, 04:18 PM

Thanks for the confirmation Gibby.

I assume the Non-Disclosure Agreement extends to whatever price bracket "Red" is aiming at with this new camera?

Gibby

12-06-2005, 04:34 PM

Thanks for the confirmation Gibby.

I assume the Non-Disclosure Agreement extends to whatever price bracket "Red" is aiming at with this new camera?

Sorry...the NDA applies to everything. Right now several Internet tech boards have curious posters scratching their heads. I've been following each of those boards with a smile. Everyone's naturally hungry for more info. It will come in due time...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

spieden

12-06-2005, 04:38 PM

The Machinist

12-06-2005, 04:38 PM

"Revenge is a dish best served cold...."

That doesn't really apply here but i'll be waiting for more info on this ponderous camera. Thanks again for the confirmation.

This will be a fun one to watch.

And watch we shall "with envious eyes."

Jeremy Jacobs

12-06-2005, 05:18 PM

I am not under an NDA but I will respect those involved and keep my mouth
quiet. Can't wait to hear more...

Windjammer

12-06-2005, 05:58 PM

*IF* this camera were out today - what computer can process/push that much data? 4520x2540 @ 4:4:4 @ 60 frames a second?????:huh:

Possibily the new 8-core Intel chips set for a 2008 release along with the new holographic data storage technology.:thumbsup:

redindian

12-06-2005, 06:07 PM

I, too, know about the company and am under NDA. I think that the skeptics will be surprised to find out who is behind this project- in a good way.

looks like one of Paul Allen's toys.... :)

very mysterious and exciting!

pertierr

12-06-2005, 06:11 PM

I agree. Given the people behind this, I have no doubt it will be an exceptionally performing product in every aspect. However, it only takes a little bit of rough arithmetic to figure out that this is probably not going to be a miracle system that most of us can afford any more than we can afford our very own CineAlta or Viper setup.

Even if hell froze over and the camera head were sold for an astonishing $50,000, you still need something to handle the 2.5GB a second if this is a straight 4:4:4 10-bit 60fps signal. I'm assuming they have some lossless codec, lets say they have a true breakthrough and the signal is 1GB/sec. Or a single bayer sensor in which case it is ~850MB/sec.

Well into 6 figures territory.

Not to mention that they would make far more money licensing their lossless codec than selling cameras :)

Just my 2c.

spieden

12-06-2005, 06:11 PM

When the processors are ready, at least we won't be waiting on the camera! I'd much prefer the the camera be waiting for the processors than the other way around. Plus, it looks like you can shoot 1080P 4:2:2 HD-SDI also, which is easily handed now. The choices this camera seems to offer allow use now with current hardware and software and is ready for the future. If the camera does as promised, I think that many companies will find a way to make use of it by offering solutions. If they can get 2540P support from FCP (in some reasonable realtime codec) then this is big news.

obin

12-06-2005, 06:28 PM

well a WHOIS shows it's a Redmond WA address....I guess Maybe it is some ex or current Microsoft guys...

My ONLY question is this, will it be under $40,000? if so I will keep waiting and renting the VariCam and working with the reel-stream output...

otherwise the GrassVally is looking better and better everyday...

obin

12-06-2005, 06:31 PM

I REALLY wish red.com was a new company that is taking the dvx + reel-stream + 35mm adapter to the next level, seems that people are not willing to step up and make this happen...it's a shame really....as the 4:4:4 output from the dvx is soooo good...but still no "cine" feel as it's flat as a pancake with the 1/3inch chips.....

spieden

12-06-2005, 06:44 PM

One of the best things I can see about this camera is the full frame 4k sensor size. No need for adaptors for 35mm DOF.

Graeme_Nattress

12-06-2005, 07:01 PM

Gibby, I totally agree. :-)

Graeme

Jaime Valles

12-06-2005, 07:07 PM

Wow. Well, I most certainly stand corrected.

Here's looking forward to a lot more info!

stephenvv

12-06-2005, 07:26 PM

I, too, know about the company and am under NDA. I think that the skeptics will be surprised to find out who is behind this project- in a good way. It seems to me that there are a ton of hurdles that they need to get past to make this work, but the company and people have successfully jumped over some big hurdles in the past. My impression (and I got permission to say) is that the price will be as big a surprise as the specs. They are not doing this project to sell 10 cameras or get them only in rental houses. The amount of planning and thinking going into this is astounding. This is not a typical "garage start up situation". This will be a fun one to watch.

Why the silly "Mysterium" name and goofy overly hyped web design? It makes them look more scam-hype than reality, much like the infamous Go-L (http://www.go-l.com) (their site is actually much calmer than it use be a few years back) which for years promises crazy stuff that you can't actually buy and/or turns out to be just off-the-shelf parts with stratospheric marketing claims.

Under-promise and over deliver tends to deliver better results in my book.

spieden

12-06-2005, 08:09 PM

Looks they are having some fun along the way...

hawaj

12-06-2005, 11:09 PM

Ok, so who the hell it can be? I think that one man can really try to do this:

:evil: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- :evil:

........................................ Mr. GEORGE LUCAS !

:grin: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- :grin:

start bet
:laugh: :beer:

p.s. maybe with a little help of some russian money - red :grin:

comes with sticker LUCAS INSIDE

spieden

12-07-2005, 02:26 AM

Maybe there should be a new RED camera thread since it is so disconnected from the HVX 200. This assumes that the project is real, which it sounds like it is... just a thought.

Steve Shovlar

12-07-2005, 02:34 AM

The domain red.com is worth a small fortune. My guess is around $250,000 -$500,000 alone, with no traffic. Its a top notch domain and extremely valuable real estate. Companies would do battle to capture such a name to sell their wares. You don't put up hoax sites on something that is worth a bundle of cash without it being real. You sell it and buy a yacht, and sail off into the sunset to Barbados.

If these pages were on geocities.com then I would think it a spoof. So I believe there is big money behind this, even if the website has been cobbled together in 5 minutes.

spieden

12-07-2005, 02:38 AM

I don't think anyone thinks the perfect camera has been offered to us yet, so why not keep hope alive that this camera will be a step closer to that ideal? Maybe it will sell for $10K. Who knows. But I, for one, like the idea that someone is out there pushing the envelope to deliver a product that is better than the Japanese Big Three are offering us. Each of us secretly hopes for better. Red is keeping my hopes alive. I will buy a Panasonic HVX 200. But I still wish for more. I hope these guys are the ones to make it.

jazzx

12-07-2005, 04:00 AM

The company info is:

Redcode, Inc. Admin, PO Box 1389, Eastsound, 98253, United States

And it looks like it has web servers in U.S (Savvis 3300 Regency Parkway Cary NC US 27511 (http://toolbar.netcraft.com/netblock?q=LEGACY-6,209.67.0.0,209.67.255.255)) and Hong Kong (Medialogik, Inc. GPO 7628 Central Hong Kong HK HK (http://toolbar.netcraft.com/netblock?q=RSPC-19428-1050002662,65.61.174.128,65.61.174.255)).

Latest web update was 21-Oct-2004, go figure...

MarcusX

12-07-2005, 04:03 AM

The domain is really exclusive but I won't believe it until I see some 2540p 60fps footage.
Its like "Hey, I got a solar powered sportscar with 600 hp. It can swim and has space for 10 people. It will cost 10.000$, but I won't show you! Stay tuned!"

Spartacus

12-07-2005, 07:29 AM

hm,
my first bed also was obin (btw what happened to the DIY camera build using Altasens(?) chips over on dvinfo.net..?), but since he´s also making guesses....
I think the domain issue red.com really is the only hint that this ain´t no hoax (besides all the NDA post from trusted dvxusers), but real sh*t.
When I saw this posted on another forum, I thought red.com? should have surfed by there earlier...(as stated: top level domain...)
And last, the andromeda guys are also under the NDA, well, somewhere on their site i read they won´t mod high end HD cams, cause a dvx simply is cheaper to experiment with - true but all that testing and experimenting that went into the more important part of their package, the recording software sculptorHD, surely is valuable for someone having to handle bitrates like the redcam is going to produce...
What I don´t understand is the hype over this cam on a forum mostly used by "prosumers" or indy filmmakers, guys if you`ll ever DP a movie shot with this RED cam, you´ll be discussing your shots with Lucas, Spielberg or Jackson, I´m for sure...
I´m waiting for 3 things atm: the HVX, the GV Infinity and hopefully a XL2 mod by the andromeda guys...
But hey, the RED is just one more dream to dream and dreaming makes me move...

Sumfun

12-07-2005, 07:50 AM

Even if this camera were real, you wouldn't have any monitors to watch UHD-2540P on. HDTV is only in a small percentage of homes, and most of that is only 720 lines.

But on the other hand, this camera would be great as a 35mm film replacement. The quality is pretty much the same, and you can use the same lenses. I'm sure the projectors would cost a bundle, but movie theaters would get it because it will save money in the long run. It's everything George Lucas wished for, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's behind it.

Steve Shovlar

12-07-2005, 10:54 AM

There's more discussion and thoughts on this camera over at http://www.hdforindies.com

Focus This!

12-07-2005, 11:49 AM

Let's put on our red.com wishfulthinking helmets for a moment and play WHAT IF...

What if: They produce this camera and it costs $25k for the body, $15k-100k for lenses, and the storage system is $15k.
What if: they make a prosumer version for $15k (static lens, HDD storage)
What if: This is just hype?
What if: Paul G. Allen is behind this with design from USA, production in Asia (hence the red.com website, red being "lucky" in Asia)?
What if: It costs $850K for the entire system.

Graeme_Nattress

12-07-2005, 11:55 AM

2540p is overkill for TV, but downsample that to HD rez and the picture will be amazing, and low noise, silky smooth too.... Yum, lovely.

Graeme

Focus This!

12-07-2005, 12:06 PM

In going with the red.com specs, here are some additional ones I'd like to see included:

Cost: $0
Warranty: Lifetime no quibble guarantee...parts and labor.
Storage system: 98 minutes on a credit card sized storage device that costs $87.55 for three.
Still Photos: Emulates a 10 M pixel slr camera
MAKES ME LOOK THINNER!

myfriendimage

12-07-2005, 07:22 PM

You cant hack a camera to capture double the resolution, DV uncompressed yes HD isnt the same way.

pertierr

12-07-2005, 07:30 PM

hawaj

12-07-2005, 08:09 PM

Yes, 1080 CineAlta for shooting SW was not good choice Mr. Lucas. :angry: :cry:

Spartacus

12-08-2005, 05:59 AM

I just want to correct something Spartacus said just for the record. Us Andromeda guys (Reel Stream :) ) are not under NDA with the red.com people. We do not want to divulge any details out of courtesy.

Cheers,
Juan

Messed that up, sorry...
Courtesy in Capitalism - you guys are the last nobleman I guess hehehe

Mr. Blonde

12-10-2005, 02:21 AM

-looks like Jim Jannard of Oakley might be behind the RED camera stuff - the website info leads back to Oakley as the commenters on my prior article pointed out, and over on the CML 2K 4:4:4 list some folks are pointing specific fingers at Jannard. It has been pointed out on CML that if you look at Jim Jannard's personal website, he's clearly into photography and cameras, and the fonts (typefaces) look similar to red.com's as well.
-Got this off of hdforindies.com

Graeme_Nattress

12-10-2005, 07:33 AM

Next the red camera will be wearing sunglasses eh?

Graeme

Policar

12-10-2005, 07:42 AM

Look at these two photos:

From red.com: http://www.red.com/media/SizeComp.jpg

From jimjannard.com: http://www.jimjannard.com/media/Scelzifire.jpg

Practically the same shot, and the first one even has a guy wearing an Oakley's jacket. Plus, the guy is worth over a billion dollars so that's a really good sign. Looks like he randomly decided to invent a magic camera, but at least he has the money to see it happen.... Oh, and he uses a mac which is a good sign!

Steve Shovlar

12-10-2005, 01:25 PM

Yep! The guy behind the Red camera hasa personal wealth of 1.1 Billion dollars, so you can pretty much say the site is for real and this camera could become a reality. But of course far too expensive for me and you!

Gibby

12-10-2005, 02:08 PM

…so you can pretty much say the site is for real and this camera could become a reality.

That’s not news. Four days ago myself and Spieden each informed this forum that we each have personal knowledge that the camera and project are for real, but an NDA kept us from giving further info.

But of course far too expensive for me and you!

Don’t assume that. You might be very surprised by the price, as Spieden has already mentioned.

More info will undoubtedly be released soon…

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

HenryK

12-11-2005, 11:23 AM

If indeed this billionaire is behind this thing, what if he's doing it for the right reasons?

What if he's like most of us, tired of recieving crums from the major manufacturers who hold back technology to maximize their profits?

What if he is truely passionate about the subject but unlike most of us, he CAN make a difference and move the technology forward where it ought to be.

I mean come on... aren't you all tired of the Sony's of the world? In my opinion, they have completely stifled progress... Keeping 24p out of the Z1 because they're afraid of taking sales from their high end 24p cameras.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to have an inventor who puts all the technology available at the time into the product without holding back? A bit like the old days of inventions? Make it the absolute best you can make it.

An inventor who can afford to do it right? And who could also keep it reasonable because he's already made his billion?

I guess all the skepticism on the boards in regards to the RED camera is partly disbeleif. We aren't use to be given everything we want and then some...

I don't know... maybe this RED business will turn out to be a flop or a hoax, but what if it isn't?

If the list of features announced on the site are indeed delivered for a reasonable price range (Waaaay below the Varicams or HDCams of the world... and I pray that it is...) then I think we might be on the brisk of a complete revolution. Why would you want to buy anything else? This could change the future of digital filmmaking...

At least we can keep on dreaming.

Henry

spieden

12-11-2005, 11:33 AM

Henry,

That is exactly the plan... well spoken.

Windjammer

12-11-2005, 09:43 PM

According to the website, ( http://red.com/contact.html ) they're preparing to make an announcement at NAB 2006. Hopefully we'll know more by then.

Jarred Land

12-11-2005, 11:26 PM

definately Jim Jannard oakley BTW.. same company. And if they partner with Microsoft, they arn't pissing off anyone in "our" world.

MarcusX

12-12-2005, 01:07 AM

And if they partner with Microsoft, they arn't pissing off anyone in "our" world.

Wait until you see the first blue screen of death on a camera :)

This sounds pretty interesting, I was confident it's a hoax.

But even if he gives you the camera for 999$, you need a good (expensive) lens an some storage that can handle such a datarate (up to 2 GB/sec).

Jarred Land

12-12-2005, 01:13 AM

Yeah.. but they need a codec and Microsoft is probally the only codec people out there not attached to some sort of camera company.. unless they go REAL.. which would just suck. And I know Oakley has the optics department covered but they need someone to come up with the actual other bits.

4k at 60p might sound like a mile away, but considering Me and Nick's camera can shoot 1000fps at 1920x1080 its really not that big of a deal... Cmos can hit the 12mp no problem... and if our sensor was "current" theoretically we could shoot at 500fps at 4k

MarcusX

12-12-2005, 07:56 AM

What's the problem with the sensors anyway? Why is there no semi-pro 2/3" or full 35mm CCD camera? Too expensive? I thought making small chips is more difficult than making big ones.

Windjammer

12-12-2005, 06:31 PM

Looks like Mr. RED is watching/reading this forum.

http://www.red.com/news.html

Jarred Land

12-12-2005, 07:24 PM

Yes Isaac.. Strange reply indeed but its good to know that they have a finger on the community.

Luis Caffesse

12-12-2005, 07:54 PM

Looks like Mr. RED is watching/reading this forum.
http://www.red.com/news.html

Huh? What makes you say that?
When I hit that link all I get is this:
http://www.pitchproductions.com/pics/red.jpg

bikefilms

12-12-2005, 09:14 PM

What's the problem with the sensors anyway? Why is there no semi-pro 2/3" or full 35mm CCD camera? Too expensive? I thought making small chips is more difficult than making big ones.

4- inch CCD wafers are made for astronomy today. Supply and demad has a lot to do with the prosumer/ pro camera CCD sizes.

-a

Windjammer

12-12-2005, 09:59 PM

Huh? What makes you say that?
When I hit that link all I get is this:

Well, I guess Mr. RED took it down. What he had up was a screen capture of a page from this thread/forum. He said something like (and I can't exactly remember) "We're generating talk. Wait Until NAB 2006". Guess he took it down in a hurry.

Isaac_Brody

12-12-2005, 10:12 PM

Huh? What makes you say that?
When I hit that link all I get is this:

It was a picture of the first page of this thread where people ask if it's a scam. The comment above the picture was a little antagonistic. At least they're around and reading this thread. Hopefully they'll make their presence known and contribute here with some information.

Luis Caffesse

12-12-2005, 10:14 PM

Well, I guess Mr. RED took it down. What he had up was a screen capture of a page from this thread/forum. He said something like (and I can't exactly remember) "We're generating talk. Wait Until NAB 2006". Guess he took it down in a hurry.

Haha.
Nice.

Sorry I missed it.

bikefilms

12-12-2005, 11:34 PM

I hope these guys are working on my camera...

-a

Sumfun

12-13-2005, 01:29 AM

Jarred Land

12-13-2005, 01:46 AM

no.. its all good. Mr. Red and DVXuser are very good friends :)

That page was just a little joke.

Policar

12-13-2005, 10:26 PM

Mr. Red? You mean Mr. Jannard, right?

Just how much do you know about this thing?

Luis Caffesse

12-13-2005, 10:29 PM

Just how much do you know about this thing?

Probably less than you think he does but more than he's going to tell us. :thumbsup:

Jarred Land

12-13-2005, 10:33 PM

well said Luis.

Luis Caffesse

12-16-2005, 12:30 PM

The cat is out of the bag.

www.hdforindies.com

Mike Curtis was able to have an interview w/ Jannard and some of the engineers at Red.
He's got a lot of info up on his site now.

Graeme_Nattress

12-17-2005, 08:11 AM

This is the most exciting camera news in, like, forever. Go for it Jim!

Graeme

Gibby

12-17-2005, 10:26 AM

There's a great thread going on DV Info Net about the Red camera, including personal input by Jim Jannard.

Link: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56185

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

Graeme_Nattress

12-17-2005, 11:02 AM

So, how often does the head of Panasonic, Canon or JVC post on internet forums? Finally someone who listens! Go Jim!

Graeme

Luis Caffesse

12-17-2005, 11:04 AM

So, how often does the head of Panasonic, Canon or JVC post on internet forums? Finally someone who listens! Go Jim!

Graeme

I'm with you Graeme.
Let's hope that the resources he has at his disposal will keep this from turning into another 'Kinetta' waiting game.

John_Moore

12-17-2005, 11:57 AM

Hmm.

I wonder if this is something similar to the adromeda, but hacked into a digital SLR or something of that nature?

Policar

12-17-2005, 12:36 PM

I doubt a projected headed by one of the richest 250 people in the world would be a hacked at SLR. This is going to be something on a much more impressive level, although I bet it will use similar technology to dSRLs and the arri d20.

John_Moore

12-17-2005, 02:48 PM

Yeah, very good point. I came to this conclusion after reading through the rest of the thread. Now I realize that a 500,000 dollar domain and hacking into a digital still camera don't mix.

:D

D_and_G

12-17-2005, 02:50 PM

Very exciting news. I also love the red style forum Jared. :beer:

Coming from an entrepreneurial background, I think the spririt of overturning orthodoxies is a great thing. Good luck guys. It surely is a brave new world.

Cheers.

thisiswells

12-17-2005, 04:44 PM

I can only imagine how expensive that domain name must have been!

:Edit:
This naturally recalls the scene in Citizen Kane when Kane is informed by his business manager that he lost a million dollars on his newspaper that year. His reply, of course, was that he planned on losing a million dollars the next year. And, the year after that. At that rate, he could afford to publish his newspaper for another 50 years and still not go broke. That made him happy.

That's what Red reminds me of.

Jannard

12-17-2005, 05:19 PM

That's not camera building... that's Funny Car racing!

thisiswells

12-17-2005, 05:43 PM

Better hurry and get this camera to market...

I heard a rumor that Luxottica is working on a Super35 camera prototype as well!
It's being developed under codename, "Bulgari"

:)

Luis Caffesse

12-17-2005, 05:53 PM

Better hurry and get this camera to market...

I heard a rumor that Luxottica is working on a Super35 camera prototype as well!
It's being developed under codename, "Bulgari"

:)

Word is that Ray Ban is also working on their own HD camera, code named the 'BluBlocker.' Apparently it shoots over 100fps and has built in UV and ND filters.
They say it'll make the RED look like the fischer price pixelcam.

(Hey, Jim said they thrived on skeptisism....just trying to give him some fuel)
:beer:

Now GO RED GO!!

Jarred Land

12-17-2005, 07:00 PM

Word is that Ray Ban is also working on their own HD camera, code named the 'BluBlocker.' Apparently it shoots over 100fps and has built in UV and ND filters.
They say it'll make the RED look like the fischer price pixelcam.

yeah Luis.. your right, and they even have a hi-def video showing the new BluBlocker camera in action.

Check out the latitude:

http://www.blublocker.com/aux/videopop/tv_spot.mov

avery

12-18-2005, 11:27 PM

i dont get this whole thing, they custom make cameras? or something....

hcook5150

12-19-2005, 08:00 AM

Luis Caffesse

12-19-2005, 08:41 AM

Yeah, those pictures were taken with a Canon Mark 2. If you open the image on Photoshop, and look at the Metadata, you'll see all the information about the image (when it was taken, the time, and the camera used).

It's very clear at the top of the page, no big secret there:
"Please note that the footage below was not shot with the Mysterium sensor."

And again at the bottom:
"The above frames are to be judged for size comparisons only."

People keep mentioning that the pictures were taken with the Canon Mark 2, as if that means something.
Like it says on the site, the pictures are only there to show you relative frame sizes.
What camera took those pictures seems irrelevant.

I suppose people might get confused and think that those pictures were taken with the RED,
but it clearly states at the top of the page that that is not the case.

themanwhoknows

12-19-2005, 02:54 PM

wait, are there any actual pictures of the camera yet, or have they not even finished it??

Luis Caffesse

12-19-2005, 02:57 PM

wait, are there any actual pictures of the camera yet, or have they not even finished it??

Finished it?
I don't even know if they've really started it.

Terry_Lasater

12-20-2005, 12:22 AM

Luis - are you jockeying for position as Jim's new bestest friend? lol j/k :)

Luis Caffesse

12-20-2005, 12:23 AM

New? We go way back.
:beer:

Am I being a bit too supportive Terry?
I guess I'm just getting swept up in the Howard Hughes-like vibe of it all.
It's like the 'Spruce Goose' for the little guy.
:grin:

Terry_Lasater

12-20-2005, 12:30 AM

No, Luis... you keep on keepin' on. I dig your enthusiasm. :thumbsup:

We're all excited about the potential of this camera. :)

Glenn_Gipson

12-20-2005, 08:32 AM

I seriously DOUBT this camera is gonna be in the same price range as the HVX200. This is gonna be a big boy toy.

Andrew M

12-20-2005, 03:11 PM

I seriously DOUBT this camera is gonna be in the same price range as the HVX200. This is gonna be a big boy toy.

I agree with you on the basis that no, the red camera will probably not be the same EXACT price as the HVX but I am fairly confident that the price WILL be resonable - why else would they aspire to do this if the price will be cost prohibitive? - There are already cameras out there that have some or most of the propsosed functions of the Red Cam - the problem is affordibility. And that's what I think the good people at Red (ie Jim) are aspiring to do - make an affordable wonder cam.

StMad

12-20-2005, 09:24 PM

While it's hard to see this cam being affordable for most, we also aren't seeing overt cautionary talk (pricewise) from Mr Jannard. He's clearly making an enthusiast's camera - his appearance on these forums speaks clearly enough to that. The sense I'm getting is that although it won't be cheap, this is the market he's targeting. I'm also thinking it's time to start saving...

proximity

12-22-2005, 01:10 AM

I agree. Poorly designed site, not very professional information or anything. Have anyone actually spoken to this company and had at least one of their plans comfirmed?

CVB

09-02-2006, 04:27 AM

I was putting through the threads and came across this one... OMG. Never judge a product by the website alone... Just read through from the beginning for some good laughs.

Jaime Valles

09-02-2006, 09:47 AM

I was putting through the threads and came across this one... OMG. Never judge a product by the website alone... Just read through from the beginning for some good laughs.

Absolutely hillarious! Everyone (myself included) thought it a hoax at first. Then we moved on to "it'll cost well into six figures". If we had only known then what we know now... Let alone what they'll announce at IBC!

I love that we're part of the revolution! Thanks team RED!

identity

09-05-2006, 05:29 AM

LOL! Reading those threads was hilarious! NOW WE KNOW THE TRUTH!

Steve Shovlar

09-05-2006, 08:55 AM

Yep I remember posting this thread nearly a year ago to howls of derission. How times have changed, and in a remarkably short period of time. A year ago nobody had heard of Red. Now its the hottest topic out there( relatively speaking) and the buzz will just get louder and louder, especially from next week when the world will see the first ever images from Red at IBC.

I am seriously contemplating jumping on a plane and hopping over to Amsterdam for a couple of days to catch this event. A cheap flight and hotel, plus rather interesting nightlife as well as seeing the footage has to be worth it.

OK Ryanair here I come!