4k or $4k

[roxics]

I don't know about the rest of you but I don't really need 4k resolution, in fact it would just be too much for my poor ol' little athlon machine to handle.

I'd be incredibly happy with a machine that had the following hardware specs


720 - 24p
Super35 sized image sensor
Interchangeable lens mounts (Nikon, PL, Canon)
Rugged cinestyle moduler body (like an Arri or Aaton style)
Decent 1 inch color viewfinder
Inexpensive lithium ion batteries
Record to 2.5 inch or 3.5 inch removable hard drives
Record in various codecs as well as uncompressed


If I could have it for $4 - 6,000 that would be great. Since that's about what I can afford for a camera. I mean really afford, not take out a car loan kind of afford. It also seems reasonable enough to me that a camera like this could be made in that price range. The most expensive part (probably) being the imaging sensor. But then maybe since you wouldn't have to build a complicated tape drive mechanism into the camera that could help save some money.

I've projected my films (originating on miniDV) from a DVD in a movie theater before and it looked fine. Better then I expected. None of the audience complained either. So bumping up to 720p would be a welcome benefit since it's a little better plus workable and affordable.

But I'm a little afraid 4k resolution is going to make this camera cost $20 grand like some people are saying. That is alot of data output on top of a pretty detailed sensor. I'm sure it's possible but is it affordable, affordable next to a DVX100? It doesn't sound like it.

[myfriendimage]

I agree, 95% of people out there have no use for 4k option.

[spencer]

I'm pretty sure Jim has commented to this with something along the lines of "you don't throw the ball to where the receiver is, you throw it to where he's going to be."

Not sure if that's the right analogy, I may have changed the event to football, and he may have used some other thing to describe this, but the point is that even if you don't want 4k right now, it'd be great to have when 4k technology is more standard and available to prosumers.

[myfriendimage]

If nothing can support it but supposedly a 10k editing system with about 5k of computer equipment at the lowest possible pricing, and a 20k camera at the lowest thought of, how is this in any way prosumer. Besides 4k wont come in use for anything besides blowing up to film. This isnt prosumer or consumer, its far from it.

[emmanuel cambier]

Shoot and Edit 4k for 30k worth of equipment !!! I would sign right now loan or not.
This is sooo unexpensive if you think the cinema industry is actually just starting to make DI (digital intermediate) at 4k, used to be in 2k and probably still is in some cases.
I mean you have to compare things with a sens of perspective, compared to a DVX + a low cost DV editing station, I agree 30k is a lot of money.
But if you compare to what it's competing against : 100k or 200k film camera
+ film stock
+ film scanner (many ks)
+ editing hardware and software

you come up with a sum the whole bunch of us couldn't collect even if we all gave to our last penny.

Let's be fair to the RED project please, and compare it to what is out there.
Would you prefere another sub 10k camera with limited possibilities or a 20k absolute killer who could compete with anything out there be it film or digital cinema.
For me it's time to start saving my money.
take care

[zem]

nobody will edit in 4K (nor 2K) in the next few years... actually most feature films are still edited on SD, with a few choosing a compressed HD codec .
but that's not really the main issue, it's easy enough to edit with offline resolution files (think DVCPRO HD). the main issue is in-camera realtime image processing, data throughput, recording storage medium, and post workflow.

it's also about the targeted customer base.. everything costing over 100'000 would be rental only, 20'000 and up would be rental and cooperate gear.. typical prosumer budget is probably up to 10'000, with an affordable diy post-workflow.

everybody keeps pointing out that the camera will be able to do everything, high end and low end... but what seems to get forgotten is that that the low end user wont have use for 4K, while the high end doesnt care if the camera is 50K or 100K, since the most expensive thing is manpower and post-production workflow anyway.

also, it's often mentioned that the red camera is built for the future and you'll never have to upgrade again- which is a very odd thing to me, as the last 10 years have shown that in the digital imaging and computer area, everythig has a very short life span anyway. no matter how hard you try, there will be a better solution for much less money 5 years down the road (anybody bought a digital SLR and a few memory cards 5 years back? - exactly).

so if we can build a camera that does 4K now for 50'000 that nobody (well, hardly anybody) can make use of, why not focus on a 2K camera that is 20'000 (hypotetical figures, but the ratio will stay the same)? and then bring out a 4K camera in five years for 30'000 that has a much improved sensor (dynamic range, low-light, noise etc), better image processing technology, and something that you can actually record all the data on (not to speak of afforable post production, which should be a non-issue by then).

and maybe some people have actually upgraded to a full raster 1080p TV screen by then (today most HD displays use a panel with about half of HD resolution)

++ chris

[roxics]

Let's be fair to the RED project please, and compare it to what is out there.
Would you prefere another sub 10k camera with limited possibilities or a 20k absolute killer who could compete with anything out there be it film or digital cinema.
For me it's time to start saving my money.
take care

I'd prefer another limited sub $10k camera actually. Because I could afford it. It doesn't matter how wonderful it is at $20,000. It doesn't matter if at $15,000 it has the features of a 5 million dollar camera because no matter what I can't afford it so what's the point. I'd rather have a camera at the specs I pointed out for $4-5,000 then a 4k wondercam at $15k-20,000 because it's something I can work with and afford without having to pay off over the next five years.
It cost more to make movies then just the price of the camera. There is sound, lights, expendables, props, locations, gas money, catering, power, ect. All kinds of things that have to come out of ones pocket if you're an indie filmmakers making your own movies like I am.

Obviously if this camera is priced to a market at $20,000 with the features it supposidly is going to have then there are people who will be able to afford it. And that's great. I won't be one of them though. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if the camera wasn't quite so on the high end with it's specs, then it could maybe be more affordable to everyone including myself. It can still be revolutionary without being a 4k camera. The specs I pointed out above are pretty revolutionary if the was a $4-5k camera. Give us a camera like that today and I'm sure more then a few of us would go crazy over it and put it to good use over the next 5 years.

[Graeme_Nattress]

1) a 4k camera gives the best possible quality at 720p and 1080p due to oversampling in the downconvert.

2) 2k is really not much harder than HD to edit. I can edit 2k today on my HD edit suite.

3) For 4k editing you'd probably do an offline / online approach. Main issue is getting a 4k capable monitor! Most DI places are using stonkin big projectors to get 4k.

4) having 4k on the camera means that you have options and choices!

Graeme

[zem]

hey Graeme,

dont want to argue, you've got much more experience than me about all this, but to clarify what i meant:

1) a 4k camera gives the best possible quality at 720p and 1080p due to oversampling in the downconvert.
agreed, the question is how much of a difference from a 2K or 2.5K sensor you'd still be able to see on a HD downconvert. for 720, i guess it's very very very small (if noticable at all) - and for 1080P it probably would still be very small ;)
plus, you'd give up all the benefits of having larger pixels on the sensor.

2) 2k is really not much harder than HD to edit. I can edit 2k today on my HD edit suite.
i usually refer to 2K as in 2048x1556 RGB data.. and if i'm working with that kind of resolution, i'd want to work in or 16bit (or 10bit log, but not for editing). that's 18MB/frame or 440MB/sec. youre lucky if you can edit those on your suite, but i doubt many people here can and probably won't be able to afford it in the next 5 years. slightly compressed HD on the other hand is quite in reach.

3) For 4k editing you'd probably do an offline / online approach. Main issue is getting a 4k capable monitor! Most DI places are using stonkin big projectors to get 4k
very true, athough realtime playback of uncompressed 4K would be another issue... i guess you could always grade in "offline" 2K and then copy the settings over to the 4K sequence.
but more to the point, very very few films finish in 4K resolution, and those usually have a budget of 50mio or more.

most indie films so far have been shot on a DVX ;)
++ chris

[zem]

since i've never had a camera with 10mpixels i decided to see exactly what we're looking at.
so i downloaded a raw file and did a few tests..
since i dont have the bandwith to host such big files, download the original from
http://www.jirvana.com/raw_large/1ds_1ds2_compared/1Ds%20Mark%20II_0172._iso100.CR2
if you're interested:

the it looks something like this (only muuuch bigger ;)
http://www.cmanz.com/misc/redtests/preview-full.jpg


__
the marked part looks like this in full scale:
http://www.cmanz.com/misc/redtests/full-scale_cropped.jpg


___
scaled to 2k you get something like this:
http://www.cmanz.com/misc/redtests/scaled-2k-cropped.jpg


__
and at 1080p this:
http://www.cmanz.com/misc/redtests/1080p-cropped.jpg

__
and lastly 720p:
http://www.cmanz.com/misc/redtests/720p-cropped.jpg



mind you that these are full raster RGB images with very mild compression on
(photoshop, max quality.. lossless png files can be found under the same links with .png extension if sombody cares)
no sharpening or other image manipulations (apart from converting to 8bits) have been done)

hope that helps
++ chris

[Graeme_Nattress]

RED give the comparison the other way around: http://www.red.com/format.html

Either way - stunning definition images!

Graeme

[Anhar Miah]

And if you ever worried about film out....

[Graeme_Nattress]

You've got more then enough rez for perfect film out....

Although, how long will filmout be a goal, when you can project 4k digitally and it will look better than film anway? Anyone see those 4k demos at NAB? Incredible!

Graeme

[Steve Shovlar]

Yes you are right Graeme. In the next few years, think we could be seeing the end of film as a major player.

[Angrius]

So the question still remains unanswered. If this camera is geared towards the common guy then what's the point of that high of resolution right now? Is this a "I have a small dick but I've got a huge ass car!" type of thing? Seriously..Can somebody give us some insight on the near future and how they see it? Jim if you could comment on your future vision and what you see for this type of technology that would be great. Thanks.:)

[Graeme_Nattress]

1) control over DOF
2) better picture quality
3) lastablity

Graeme

[emmanuel cambier]

Right now (I mean soon of course) the Red if you can shoot 4k uncompressed, put you in the same position as if your 35mm film had been scanned (Arriscan or else) and was in DI.
On one hand it's a miracle as long as the Red cost less than a film camera+film stock+arriscan.(i expect it )
On the other hand who can afford to go through finishing a DI (hardware and software)?

Is this a half full or half empty bottle ?

Of course you don't have to shoot 4k in the first place.

But it's only good news

[Haakon]

I can't believe anyone is scoffing their feet at having a 4K solution presented to them at an affordable price. If you don't want it, please don't post here... there's a neat little Sony Z1U forum for you! :thumbsup:

As has been said a billion times, you have the option of shooting 720 or 1080 if you want. As Graeme also pointed out, you can shoot 4K and have the option to downconvert to 720 or 1080. And what that means is a sharper 720/1080 picture, plus the added benefit of being able to recrop your shot in post. So far, there has been nothing written about this camera that I can think of criticizing yet (of course I thought the same of the HVX, too).

Please stop complaining about being given a 4K solution. It's a blessing, not a curse.

[im.thatoneguy]

No, it's a curse. Because I'm going to buy it and then go... well I got this wicked crazy camera that can do 4k... but I can't actually record 4k.

Next thing you know I'm going to be selling kidneys to purchase solid state storage. Working 4 jobs to afford the hard-drives to keep all of my footage for a project at my disposal for editing.

In order to afford lenses to do the 4k justice I'm going to have to pimp myself out to middle-aged business men on street causing all variety of medical maladies.

The stress will cause kidney damage to my remaining kidney then I'll die from my dialysis machine shutting down because my Raid knocked out the power to the block.

This thing is the spawn of Satan. No good can come of it.

[myfriendimage]

No, it's a curse. Because I'm going to buy it and then go... well I got this wicked crazy camera that can do 4k... but I can't actually record 4k.

Next thing you know I'm going to be selling kidneys to purchase solid state storage. Working 4 jobs to afford the hard-drives to keep all of my footage for a project at my disposal for editing.

In order to afford lenses to do the 4k justice I'm going to have to pimp myself out to middle-aged business men on street causing all variety of medical maladies.

The stress will cause kidney damage to my remaining kidney then I'll die from my dialysis machine shutting down because my Raid knocked out the power to the block.

This thing is the spawn of Satan. No good can come of it.

I tottally agree, this isnt consumer its less expensive proffesional.

[roxics]

I can't believe anyone is scoffing their feet at having a 4K solution presented to them at an affordable price.

This thread isn't about scoffing at 4k resolution. It's scoffing at the price that will probably result from it. What's affordable to you may not be affordable to me or everyone else here. The only reason I say that is because this is DVXuser.com and DVX's go for $3500 new. That's pretty far from $15,000 - 20,000+ and a lot of money for people who don't make money off their equipment.
But if they can give us 4k resolution for $4000 I'm all for it. Hell I'd be on it right away. But do you really think they can?

I'm trying to qualify this lower price model by saying that most of us "realistically" don't need 4k resolution because we are used to and set up for DV editing. Sure we'd all love to have it. But do we need it? Does it justify a higher price if we could get the same basic camera for say $10-15,000 less but it only does 720p instead of 4k?

[dudeguy37]

Okay, with all due respect Roxics, this camera (or any above $5,000 in my opinion) ain't made for someone who can't expect to make any money back from it's use. I say we hope for the absolute best RED camera they can deliver, and if it's not a possibility for some individual to own it - whether it's $999 or $250,000 - then it can just be a treat that you rent when needed. The DVX is a beautiful camera, and I love it, but the way the RED is being talked about, you must realize they're in totally different categories. DVX is a prosumer camera that can be used for productions at reasonable levels. The RED however is a full fledged production camera. As much as we want one, and believe me, I want it now, we're just gonna have to wait and see if that'll ever be a realistic possibility. I'm not trying to sound pessimistic or in any way say the RED is bound to fail, but just that it's a very different beast from the DVX.
Peace,

-Harry

[AshG]

I think some of you fail to realize that the better STILL DSLR cams are $5k to $10k without a lens. To think someone could create a video camera with similar specs is just silly. If this cam can do what they hope, it cannot be made for less than a DSLR. High end DSLR + decent lens = $10K


ash =o)

[myfriendimage]

I think some of you fail to realize that the better STILL DSLR cams are $5k to $10k without a lens. To think someone could create a video camera with similar specs is just silly. If this cam can do what they hope, it cannot be made for less than a DSLR. High end DSLR + decent lens = $10K


ash =o)

they have created a 12 megapixel video camera for shooting movies to me transfered onto film. its possible but expensive and impracticle

[roxics]

dudeguy37
Yeah, unfortunately I think you are probably right.

[Haakon]

I think some of you fail to realize that the better STILL DSLR cams are $5k to $10k without a lens. To think someone could create a video camera with similar specs is just silly. If this cam can do what they hope, it cannot be made for less than a DSLR. High end DSLR + decent lens = $10K


ash =o)
I've never got the impression that the lens would be a part of the camera price; no other high-end camera works that way, at least. They're talking about having a PL mount, EOS mounts, Nikon mounts... obviously you're going to pick whatever lens works for you (and that may be a $1,000 lens or a $100,000 lens). It may seem silly to some, but I can easily imagine a lens being used with the camera that costs ten times as much as the body does. That's just where technology has brought us today. It also gives you complete control over customizability, and now you can rent and use good 35mm lenses with a body you actually own. It's not a bad concept.

[joe 1008]

I'm trying to qualify this lower price model by saying that most of us "realistically" don't need 4k resolution because we are used to and set up for DV editing. Sure we'd all love to have it. But do we need it? Does it justify a higher price if we could get the same basic camera for say $10-15,000 less but it only does 720p instead of 4k?

I think basically it will be the same like with the actual HDs: Data is spilling out of them like blood from a cut off head. But already now it´s difficult to capture it, you´ll be limited to the storage you have. Use it in 1080p and you will already have a lot of data depending on the compression. I don´t think it will be that more expensive for producing all that data. But few people will be able to afford the storage.

[joe 1008]

I think some of you fail to realize that the better STILL DSLR cams are $5k to $10k without a lens. To think someone could create a video camera with similar specs is just silly. If this cam can do what they hope, it cannot be made for less than a DSLR. High end DSLR + decent lens = $10K


ash =o)

Things are in movement. Check this:

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos5d/index.html

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/5D/review.html

[Jarred Land]

$4k Price point is just totally unrealistic for the Red.. I imagine the sensor alone will cost that much.

That said.. I dont think its gonna be $100,000. Jim wouldnt be posting here if it was the same price as a small condo... he would be posting over at www.IamRich.com.

I am trying to guess just as much as the next guy, but I see this camera coming in around the SDX900 price. It seems to be a SDX900 but turbocharged in the chip field. No tape drive or heads means alot easier design and lower cost of development, as well as of course actual transport costs. I know the price of a 2 year old 2k progressive CMOS that is capable of these speeds, so given murphy's law i think it may be obtainable.

But who knows.. all i would be willing to bet is that it will not be under $10k.. Unless Red was selling them for a huge loss, but there is no leader to recoupe that risk.

[joe 1008]

Let´s say $9999 + lenses + storage. uhhh... when it´s out I´m afraid I´ve got to wait until it´s affordable. (hello HVX, here we go...) Though: When I only shoot 1080p I might add a Firestore, Canon lenses, m2 follow focus... alltogether $14,000... still expensive... :undecided:huh::( but a fully equipped HVX with 35mm adapter won´t be THAT much cheaper...

[AshG]

I agree with Jarred, no less than an SDX900....


ash =o)