I think I get The Goal of Red

[dillont]

Mr. Jannard wants to create a camera that every and all videomaker and film maker can use. The same camera can be used to shoot a "low quality" SD production, as well as a high end feature film production, and anything in between.

And because of its modularity, the camera can be outfitted in many different ways with different methods for recording to disk/tape dependent on resolution needed. Modularity in the camera makes it a wise investment for any serious video or film professional - and thus - the camera is going to be marketed as ***the most versatile camera on the planet***.

Just a hunch.

Can't wait to see it. I'm considering my first trip to NAB just so I can meet this Mr. Jannard and see what makes this gentleman tick.

Dillon

[Jannard]

Right on... please call me Jim. See you at NAB.

[Ill Eagle]

Hell, I'd be happy with a $3000 camera that shoots 24p and has a 35mm lens adapter built onto it.........

[dillont]

Honored to make your acquaintence, Jim.

Looking forward to meeting you in person.

Dillon


Right on... please call me Jim. See you at NAB.

[mmm]

Right on... please call me Jim. See you at NAB.

Jim, I know this is looking into the future a bit, but do you plan to let out upgraded models as you see with film cameras? For example the Arri SR, SRII, SRIII. The camera is still recogniseable but just improved rather than a completely new camera.

With a film camera you can easily intercut pretty much any camera using the same filmstock. Do you have plans to keep the secret sensor as the heart of the camera? Not sure if I am making sense.

[Jannard]

We plan on making upgrades to the original camera if possible. Even if we introduce a new body.

Jim

[Policar]

I talked with some guy from Fox and some guys from Pixel Corps at MacWorld (who were demoing a 4:4:4 10 bit F950 Cinealta through FCP). Anyhow, it's pretty clear that people are talking and that there's a huge demand for this product at the ultra-high end. People calling $25,000 way too expensive are crazy and totally ignoring a huge and lucrative market.

I have to be honest, though. If this camera is designed for shooting Hollywood films as well as wedding videos, there will be sacrifices made along the way. Compare an Arri 35mm camera or a Genesis or Viper with an XL1, PD170, or even a DVX100. There are next to no features in common between a "prosumer" video camera and a 35mm film or 4k video camera. Trying to bridge the gap between the two would only water down and convolute the purpose of each. More often than not I've found that these "one-size-fits-all" products fit no one. Then again, the idea of a DP blowing a shot because the "auto white balance" was on strikes me as hilarious. Flexibility is a good thing, but convoluted products that don't know their place in the market aren't. Let's see this thing targeted toward narrative film makers (as well as documentarians) and if a version is made for event videography, it should be a distinct model with a different feature set and method of operation.

I'm not saying you should intentionally ignore a market where there's money to be made, but I think that by trying to appease too many markets, you'll ultimately make a product which is inappropriate for all of them.

I'm not trying to be a snob here and I'm sorry if I'm coming off as one. I'm looking out for the event videographer, too. Do you really want to rack focus as you pan through the audience? Do you want to bring a light meter and measure the key to fill ratio on the groom's face? No. There are multiple markets; if you want to sell to all of them, you'll have to sell multiple cameras. (That said, I love the multi-format 720p/1080p/4k idea. Brilliant.)

[_MR_]

If this camera is designed for shooting Hollywood films as well as wedding videos, there will be sacrifices made along the way. Compare an Arri 35mm camera or a Genesis or Viper with an XL1, PD170, or even a DVX100. There are next to no features in common between a "prosumer" video camera and a 35mm film or 4k video camera. Trying to bridge the gap between the two would only water down and convolute the purpose of each.

Trying to bridge the gap between the consumer and the high-end professional market is a no-win situation. It's just as hard teaching a PD170 user how to use a DVX100 as it is to show them how to use a Digibeta.

If you build it, they will learn.

[J.R. Hudson]

Forget the Hollyowood Professionals

I just want a camera geared towards the true indiependent filmmaker.

Period.

[HDkilledFILM.]

The idea of having one camera for all applications might not seem to be realistic, however if you could choose the features you wanted in your base model based on your individual needs (hint hint, i.e. lens options...) then the idea seems realistic. But lets just come out and say it, the lower res options on the camera arnt the selling point........... 4k is. I don't know of a single kid who is going to be able to afford a 25k camera over a 3k if he's not in the industry.

[Policar]

I agree with you 100% and didn't mean to imply otherwise. But seeing a brief demo of the F950 made me realize that what's right for the "Hollywood professional" is pretty much everything I want, too--only I want it cheaper. If this camera can offer "Hollywood functionality" at a independent price, it will have universal appeal. But if it's bogged down with useless features (what's up with the sensor crop mode?), it's going to appeal to no one. Flexibility's a good thing, but not at the cost of functionality and price.

[Matt Sconce]

I am definitely with John on this one. Someone please build THE perfect camera for independent film makers! It seems like everything has "Almost" every feature we need. Why doesn't a camera put them all into it. So what if it is a 1000 dollars more. man I wish there was that holy grail camera!

[HDkilledFILM.]

I am definitely with John on this one. Someone please build THE perfect camera for independent film makers! It seems like everything has "Almost" every feature we need. Why doesn't a camera put them all into it. So what if it is a 1000 dollars more. man I wish there was that holy grail camera!

If the HVX200 isnt the closest thing to a grail camera I don't know what is, thank you Jan!

[zem]

If the HVX200 isnt the closest thing to a grail camera I don't know what is, thank you Jan!

1/3" chip? close, but no cigar.
++ chris

[HDkilledFILM.]

7,000.00 for a feature film camera. I never thought it would happen.

[joe 1008]

It´s just we are never satisfied. A few years ago something like the HVX would have been SiFi. Within a few years it will be waste and so on. One of the reasons why People make movies is because they are never satisfied - so let´s make them with what we have. We won´t get no satisfaction anyway :evil:

[hawaj]

yea it will be AK 47 for all film and videomakers :)

[melloyello]

hvx200, 1/3" chip and expensive, proprietary hardware, non-interchangeable lens, holy grail? not by a long shot (IMHO the HD-100 is far closer to what i want, as an indie).

Jim, build me a Aaton Xtr prod, with a 4k output from a s35mm chip and i will buy it! the fact that it is PL mount is delicious butter. I already have my eye on a kinor oct-19(easy conversion to PL) mount 25-250 zoom, and a set of anamorphic (2:1) primes. ahh high rez cinemascope for indie's like me. now that is a holy grail.

[melloyello]

what's up with the sensor crop mode, it's going to appeal to no one.

except people who have invested lots of money into c-mount or b4 mount (ENG and 16mm) lenses that are very good quality but don't throw an image circle big enough to cover s35. they will love this feature.

[Jannard]

what if you could use your B4 or 16mm PL mount lenses with a cropped image size?

Jim

[HDkilledFILM.]

Sick! The red camera is going to be sick. As for the complaints about the HVX, I just saw some footage that 5 years ago I would have thought was film. Yeah the no interchangable lens stinks, but how long before a G35 type addapter gets made? two months? Three? the bottom line is: the DVX100 changed the game for SD, the HVX is going to make HD a reality for the independant film maker on a budget, no more HDV dropped frames. I love it.

[joe 1008]

And the next step will be the RED if they get that sensor working at a good price!
I think the modular construction will define the price, I bet this camera comes out as a tiny black box and you decide how far you want to go. If you want to shoot in 720p add photo lenses to the front and an other box to the rear with all that electronic gear needed for compression and some slots for memory cards and you have the low end version. That would be MY RED for now. Add cine primes and a disc array and you will have something quiet different. If they make it in a really modular way you might even get the camera with a cheaper interchangeable low res sensor that can't do 4K: Who the hell needs 4K? I would be glad to get 720 with 35mm DOF! That would beat the HVX for length.

[Draccan]

Forget the Hollyowood Professionals

I just want a camera geared towards the true indiependent filmmaker.

Period.

I am with you John. But I would add that I feel if this camera comes at a decent price (<20K$) and the image quality generally lives up to expectations the chasm between independent/DV filmmaker and Hollywood filmmaker will evaporate and quite possibly gives us a chance to recapture the movie business from blockbusterland...

Imagine everyone able to shoot high quality films? Then the focus will shift to content content content !!! That's the day I am yearning for....

Thanks Jannard for keeping the dream alive :grin:

[GAMERA]

gives us a chance to recapture the movie business from blockbusterland...

please ... what planet do you live on?!?!

[Draccan]

please ... what planet do you live on?!?!

Not the same as yours I suppose... :huh:

[Greg Lowry]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70074-0.html?tw=rss.index

[Draccan]

Yea I read that article... I wonder how much RED can change that...

[Greg Lowry]

Draccan, cameras are a small part of the filmmaking equation. if having a good camera resulted in a good movie, there wouldn't be so many lousy movies. Looking to the RED camera as some sort of magic bullet is just plain silly. (I can't believe it's even necessary to make such a statement.)

[J.R. Hudson]

I don't think Draccan is looking at RED to be some save all but was illustrating the need for a professional tool that rivals the big boy's at an indie price.

But you knew that.

[Greg Lowry]

John, I think our friend Draccan's "enthusiasm" went a bit further than that. But I suppose that's no reason to be so critical. I should try to remember when i wasn't a crusty old man. I used to think silly things too. haha.

[Draccan]

Greg,

Well... I think we semi agree, but RED will take one aspect out of this equation. And you cant deny independent film is on the rise? Would you say Main Stream / Hollywood has not been hurt? I think even a film like Blair With Project scared the poo poo as John would say, out of the film business.

What I see RED and the future in general is that the exclusiveness will evaporate. The studios have two things going for them: Special Effects that are expensive and timeconsuming and Star Power. But the indies will grow and it will hurt the establishment and ticket sales will drop. I hope as a side effect smaller independent cinemas will grow. Screenings of OUR films.

Of course there are tons of stuff that goes into making a good product. But can you really deny a camera like RED would at least give us a fair playing field? Or would you deny it will hurt the pocket book of the big studios?

Everyone seem to be getting their own huge 30+" screen at home which will hurt the cinemas (and indirectly the industry)....

Just my thoughts and I don't think we are really that far apart, though it is always nice with heated discussion...

LLD

[marko5000]

The facts are simple. If your movie looks better than the current crop of DV movies it's another obstacle out of your way and makes it easier for a distributer (or whoever else) to say yes.

All those people willing to take a chance on DV despite the dodgy quality will have a better chance of helping the indie guy if that image looks better.

You can shoot just as good a film on a DVX but less people are going to see it.

[MarcusX]

Just take a look back. It's 1990. What do you need to shoot your movie and take it to the big screen?

a) An expensive 35mm camera you can't afford
b) An editing system you can't afford
c) A 35mm copy you can't afford

But in a few years from now:

a) RED camera
b) Your regular NLE on PC
c) A HD-Disc with Digital Cinema Specification

Interesting times.

[Draccan]

Yea.. and within five years we will have seen our first full feature (Tarnation style) shot entirely on a cell phone.. :)

[roxics]

What I see RED and the future in general is that the exclusiveness will evaporate. The studios have two things going for them: Special Effects that are expensive and timeconsuming and Star Power. But the indies will grow and it will hurt the establishment and ticket sales will drop. I hope as a side effect smaller independent cinemas will grow. Screenings of OUR films.


No. A new camera isn't suddenly going to change an entire industry. And really the most powerful thing Hollywood has on it's side is marketing and distribution. And we know it. Look how many horrible films make millions of dolllars just because they are marketed right and distributed everywhere.

It doesn't matter how good your movie is and what camera you used to shoot it if no one knows it exists and there is no place for them to see it.

Hollywood exists because it works. The most RED is going to do is give us a proper tool to aquire a better image. It's not going to change anything else.

[Greg Lowry]

I think debates about the potential importance of RED fit better into the rapidly evolving digital distribution (non cinema) market. Yes, a few truly indie movies will find meaningful theatrical distribution, but going forward that's not the most exciting, realistic or even rewarding distribution model for low budget, independently-produced content. We're in a transition period. The next ten years will see more changes and opportunity for indies than the previous 50.

In that context, I think there's a very real debate about the necessity of 4K resolution for this market. There are probably 20 other features of greater importance to the indie moviemaker. I reserve judgement until I see the finished product, but right now t's difficult to imagine RED being used on major theatrical features. On the other hand, if it lives up to expectations, I would think that it could become important tool for the independent production community. If I were designing such a camera I'd rather use that big sensor for (up to) 1080p capability with bigger pixels to greatly improve dynamic range and sensitivity. Now THAT'S something that has a direct relationship to production efficiency.

[ericyoung]

If I were designing such a camera I'd rather use that big sensor for (up to) 1080p capability with bigger pixels to greatly improve dynamic range and sensitivity. Now THAT'S something that has a direct relationship to production efficiency.

Interesting!

What other sensor tricks are there?

Foveon achieves greater "latitude" with dual sensors per pixel. With Red, at 2K, would it be possible to use the other 2K to achieve a simliar goal. Eg. Use the 4K pixels in a checkerboard pattern, with half the pixels sampling for less time to capture bright area detail, and then either combining signals in camera, or just output all the frames for post processing. Of course may have trouble with the pixels being spatially offset. If the bright area capture time was adjustable, effectvely would have a user variable latitude!

Just chucking wild ideas around to encourage lateral thinking! :laugh:

[Graeme_Nattress]

Many tricks have been tried for sensors to get better dynamic range by adding extra pixels or dark pixels or stuff like that, and although can work for still images, the interpolation needed would severely compromise motion in a video camera, as well as probably reducing resolution. You can't get more than a pint out of a pint pot, if you get my drift.

However, super-sampling, ie recording 720p or 1080p shrunk down from 4k, does give immense benefits.....

Graeme

[Greg Lowry]

The flexibility of CMOS sensors offers the potential for what amounts to double read-out of each frame to expand dynamic range. Simply described, imagine one pass reading more toward the toe end of the scale and the other the highlights. There is ongoing R&D in this area. It's very early days with respect to what can be accomplished with sensors.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Double readout is effectively what stills photographers do - they take multiple images of the same scene at different amounts of over and under-exposure, and then composite in Photoshop to get the best results.

To try to do this on a moving image would either result, at best, in ghostly trails and at worst, a mess, IMHO. (due to the 1/48 second or so difference in time in the exposures)

Graeme

[Greg Lowry]

Double read-out as applied to video images is not a double (or multiple) exposure and bears no resemblance to the primitive process you describe for still photography except in the ultimate result of extending dynamic range.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Greg, you'll have to explain double readout to me better then. Do you mean doing multiple readouts during the exposure cycle and post-integrating them? You do the readout hopefully before the bucket gets filled and then add together all those buckets? That certainly can be done, but it's not without it's problems either.

Graeme

[Graeme_Nattress]

I read ARRI do a double readout on their D20, halving their max frame rate in the process. Seems that you let some pixels integrate for the full exposure cycle and some for less time, then you combine the info together afterwards. Anyone actually seen this work in practise? Again, I can't see how this is meant to work on moving images due to reduced integration time being equivalent to increased shutter speed, and that produces a strong visual effect on motion.

[Erik Olson]

As just one example, if you read the article on how 24 is testing (and already utilizing to some extent) 1/3" HD cameras within their regular production technique, you would know that the crossover has been underway for some time.

Independent filmmakers have always pushed whatever technology is available to them to find a place at the table, whether it be George Romero with 16mm news cameras or someone here with their DVX.

RED, depending on its price, will simply give content creators another acquisition option.

In the end, it isn't the camera that makes a filmmaker a filmmaker. Story is, and always has been, king. Filmmaking is simply the craft that services the creative. Certainly, the current crop of tools is an equalizer of sorts.

I would also state that RED, Genesis, D20, HVX, DVX and so on have very, very little to do with wresting filmmaking from the majors.

Radically changing existing distribution channels, where content is controlled exclusively by the creator, is the ultimate answer to that question. The music industry has been turned entirely upside-down in less than a decade by free-trade and third-party distribution scenarios - filmmaking isn't far behind.

e

[Policar]

There are some CCDs that have large sensors for the main image and small ones to capture highlight detail. The extended dynamic range is VERY impressive but only in RAW mode. (You get a stop or two at best in JPEG, far more in RAW.)

But it takes like 10 seconds to processes a single frame. IMO, having a higher bit depth A/D and a DSP which crushes the highlights into a smooth knee would be preferable and so much simpler for video.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Fuji do that small and large pixel thing, don't they? Didn't realise it took ages to process in camera though. They also sacrifice resolution to get it.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page18.asp shows the extra dynamic range they can get, along with the 13 second RAW write time. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page21.asp shows the trade off, that the Fugi's 12mp produce an image with lower resolution than Canon's 8mp. Again, my comment is that you don't get more than a pint from a pint pot. You're going to sacrifice resolution, or noise, or temporal resolution to get more dynamic range.

At least super-sampling will lower noise, and that's extending dynamic range at the shadow end of things.

Graeme

[Greg Lowry]

Graeme, the conceptual difficulty you're having (or had) is by confusing the capture/exposure function with the image processing function. The double read-out (clearly not an engineering term) is an image processing function, hence the trade-off in max frame rate. In the embodiment I know about it's still being developed but it's attainable without the introduction of temporal artifacts, and even the max speed compromise is ultimately soluable. I made no claims about immediate availablity but used this as an example of one the things that the flexible architecture of CMOS sensors makes possible. I do suspect that other innovations will negate the need for a double read-out technique.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Greg, perhaps I am getting confused. I've heard a few sensor experts talk about methods of dynamic range enhancement, and I thought the double readout you mentioned sounded like one of those I'd heard mentioned. AFAIK, if the sensor doesn't capture it, there's nothing you can do in post as an image processing function, because when those photosites saturate, any more photons that try to get in don't register and the highlights clip. The only ways to stop that are to do partial readouts to stop the photosites filling up, or to make the microlens smaller so less light is captured or to make the filter darker. All of these methods have been tried with some degrees of success, but I see so many more of them being used in stills cameras, not video cameras. For instance, the Fuji solution I pointed out above certainly works, but looses a lot of resolution, and doesn't help with noise at all, and indeed, has interpolation artifacts. Often what's acceptable in stills is unnaceptable in video due to the temporal dimension.

The only mentions I could find about double readout mentioned differing integration times on pixels, which leads me to believe it is an engineering thing in the sensor and happens during capture / exposure, and also needs some significant horse-power to do the interpolation to get some more dynamic range from this extra information.

Graeme

[Greg Lowry]

Graeme, I misspoke somewhat in saying that it's not a capture function. It's not a matter of double exposure per se, but a combination of capture and signal processing. i'll see if I can dig up some reference to clarify.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Thanks Greg, that would help.

[myfriendimage]

Sick! The red camera is going to be sick. As for the complaints about the HVX, I just saw some footage that 5 years ago I would have thought was film. Yeah the no interchangable lens stinks, but how long before a G35 type addapter gets made? two months? Three? the bottom line is: the DVX100 changed the game for SD, the HVX is going to make HD a reality for the independant film maker on a budget, no more HDV dropped frames. I love it.

for the record if you get a dropped frame using HDV, you are doing something seriously wrong.

[baquajim]

What do you need to shoot your movie and take it to the big screen?



You forgot to mention somebody to pick the movie up and distribute it.

That being said, Red sounds like it is going to be a little out of the price range of the person who would use an HVX. Or in 1990, someone who would use Super 8mm or Super VHS.

Of course, I hope not...

[baquajim]

what if you could use your B4 or 16mm PL mount lenses with a cropped image size?

Jim


I would be very happy. It would be nice to put my Optar Illuminas to use on a video camera.

[govindaBLU]

I am looking very forward to meeting you at NAB, Mr. Jannard

G. Kumar Sharma

[Zig_Zigman]

God only knows what an "indie" filmmaker" is since if you control the distribution it doesn't really matter what it's shot on, and the studios will control distribution of vehicles with STARS for some time to come.

Be that as it may, an "indie" could get by with an HVX with 2/3" chips and interchangeable lenses. This would wipe out most of the criticism of the HVX and come in at about 6k san lens. The lens could then run you 1k to 40k, depending on what you bought....I'd take this in a NY heartbeat.

Your picture is then probably "good enough" for widescreen distribution, should the one in a billion chance hit that you get distribution.

I think 4k is overkill, 2k is even too much if you can't edit it on your home Apple system...If you can edit 4k, you can rent 35mm or anything you want....

For this reason there almost has to be two versions of Red. A low end version for the "indies" of the world (translated as "I make films with my crew of 10 and eff hollywood") and the 4k version which is designed to attack the Sony 950's of the world.

And FCP will be supporting you, Mr. Jannard? ;-)

[Jannard]

It seems to me that 2k, then 4k will be on everyone's roadmap as CPU speed and storage increases. Until then, you can use the RED camera as a high speed 1080p or 720p camera that has 35mm DOF. Record to codec, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4

Jim

[Blaine]

It seems to me that 2k, then 4k will be on everyone's roadmap as CPU speed and storage increases. Until then, you can use the RED camera as a high speed 1080p or 720p camera that has 35mm DOF. Record to codec, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4

Jim
This is just outstanding stuff. I'm wiping the drool off my chin right now.:thumbsup:

[roxics]

It seems to me that 2k, then 4k will be on everyone's roadmap as CPU speed and storage increases. Until then, you can use the RED camera as a high speed 1080p or 720p camera that has 35mm DOF. Record to codec, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4

Jim

I really like this idea, it's definitely forward thinking. But I believe what concerns some people about that idea is that if it's 4K they won't be able to afford it even if they're only doing 1080 at the start with it. Simply because it's more advanced technology that cost more money. But if it can only do 1080 chances are it will be more affordable as we already know 1080 cameras can be produced for under $10,000.

[Jannard]

Can you get a 1080p 60 frame camera with 35mm DOF that doesn't up-rez for under $10K?

Jim

[joe 1008]

What do you mean with up-rez? Pixelshift?? By the way: Don´t you think sooner or later there will emerge a couple of little reddish 1k or 2k cameras out of the digital still camera segment?

[roxics]

Can you get a 1080p 60 frame camera with 35mm DOF that doesn't up-rez for under $10K?

Jim

No. And that's ok. There are different markets. None of us know what market RED is aimed at though? On one hand you're talking high end specs like you plan to take on Arri and Dalsa in a fist fight and on the other you're posting about it on a DVX messageboard ($3500 cameras). So we don't know what to expect as far as price or scalability.

Here's to hoping the RED will have a cheaper HDV cousin or capability for well under $10,000

[Zig_Zigman]

I believe Mr. Jannard just stated that a Red variant will be available for under 10k with 1080p native at 60 frames a second. How will the data be captured?

Is this with or without lens, Mr. J?

I'll be at NAB and I can't wait.

[Gordon JL]

Native 1080p, variable frame rates, with 35mm DOF? Sounds sort of like an HVX with the Andromeda and a DOF Adapter add-on; except all for under 10k... But is that WITH lens?

Now, if there could be an even more stripped down variant; like an HVX (but with 35mm DOF of course) but without the Andromeda-like capabilties... Maybe under 6k; I'd buy that.

[mmm]

Native 1080p, variable frame rates, with 35mm DOF? Sounds sort of like an HVX with the Andromeda and a DOF Adapter add-on; except all for under 10k... But is that WITH lens?

Now, if there could be an even more stripped down variant; like an HVX (but with 35mm DOF of course) but without the Andromeda-like capabilties... Maybe under 6k; I'd buy that.

I think RED will resolve far more resolution than the HVX. It should also have a number of other benefits that come from a larger chip. I'm guessing compromises will have to be made somewhere though.

[MarcusX]

Just because of the MUCH larger sensor you should get a much better contrast range and sensitivity. 1/3" is tiny compared to 35mm. It should outperform any Cinealta or Varicam easily when it comes to picture quality.

Try to get your hands on a Canon 5D DSLR and make some pictures, it's sensor has nearly the same resolution and size as the Red. Then you get an idea what the Red is capable of, theoreticaly.

[Ranger]

With the Red’s image sensor of 4520 x 2540 versus HVX’s 950 x 540 I think it is obvious there is no comparison on image resolution, but let’s be honest, if the Red achieves it stated goals then it will virtually obliterate all but the highest tiered cameras.

But resolution becomes moot if the glass in front of the sensor is not up to the task. This, in my opinion, is where most of ones money will be invested (and potential Achilles Heel to many low budget indies). I can realistically see the Red camera body street for about $10k. Lenses are a different matter. However, a body at that price would be a steal. Overnight, Red would redefine the video market, not only for indies, but professionals also.

Good luck Red.

[taubkin]

What do you mean with up-rez? Pixelshift??

Forget about that! What do you mean with "under 10K" !!!! :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

[myfriendimage]

Built in DOF adapter on a non proffesional camera narrows the feild to much, it wouldnt apeal to broadcasters wanting to shoot 60p.

[Jannard]

Zig... that is not what I said.


I believe Mr. Jannard just stated that a Red variant will be available for under 10k with 1080p native at 60 frames a second. How will the data be captured?

Is this with or without lens, Mr. J?

I'll be at NAB and I can't wait.

[AshG]

I dont understand the obsession on low price. Lets pretend the camera is only $1 and meets all the specs that have been hinted. Great... now you need $60K+ in post gear to actually begin to edit anything. This camera will be revolutionary even if it is $50K which would bring the rental down to something very approachable to almost everyone.

If you look at Jim and his history, he has been associated for high quality forward thinking products... not the price leader but the style leader. I expect the same from RED.



ash =o)

[Zig_Zigman]

There is no obsession on low price. Just an obsession on price.

I see Mr J was just referencing a previous post in talking 10k.

Well...there *are* 1080 cams for under 10k. Way under. But not 10k 60p cams.

Anyway, it just shows there are two markets. Those that want a cam they can *own* that will shoot full 1080 24p will an interchangeable lens, and those that want a 4:4:4: Viper competitor they can rent.

[Haakon]

Lets pretend the camera is only $1 and meets all the specs that have been hinted. Great... now you need $60K+ in post gear to actually begin to edit anything.
The point of RED is that the system will be modular and give you options. If you don't require (or can't handle) 4:4:4 4K footage from the get go, you don't have to invest in it. And if you work in the 1080 realm you certainly don't need $60K+ worth of gear to edit the footage. Given the fact that the camera is promising 35mm DOF and 60p even for 1080 content, there are plenty of reasons to be interested in the camera even if you aren't interested in the "best specs" that the camera can squeeze out. Jim even made mention on a another thread that there's a possibility that the sensor itself can even be replaced and/or upgraded. That means that even down to the core of the imager, you choose the parts that are applicable (and financially reasonable) for your situation.

I know that for whatever reason you're intent on assuming this camera is going to cost $50K+ (as much as others think it's going to be $10K and others still think it might go as high as $100K or more), but besides the fact that everyones' guesses are complete speculation and aren't really productive in the first place, I think that what the system is going to offer are choices, flexibility, and functionality, and it will cost whatever you can afford to outfit your particular RED system with.

[AshG]

I am not intent on anything, I think with all the promised specs it will be $50k or so. Maybe you can purchase a barebones set-up for cheaper but even the tech for modularity isnt cheap. You have to have the bandwidth, connections, etc. etc. all worked out and built into the base unit.

Even after the HUGE price drop, a standard definition sdx900 with a decent lens, viewfinder, etc. is over $20k and that has a smaller 2/3" CCD sensor. I dont expect the base model for RED to be less than arguably the best SD camera around... Even at only 1080p with 60p capability, it is competing with $50K+ cameras... forget the 4K.



ash =o)

[majormorgan]

This RED camera really excites me.

I've been following with the DVX for years and then the HVX turns up and throws that all on its head. So I start thinking I'll be investing in a HVX following on from Panasonic's tradition of excellence with cameras.

Except Jim turns up with his camera capable of 1080, 2k and 4k and it may yet be in my price range.

Holy crap. Given where Jim's from and his background this isn't just two guys in a bedroom with no funding thinking amazing 'what ifs.'

Its got the fantastic raw energy and drive [even after all these years eh Jim !] of two guys in a bedroom, but it also has the serious entrepreneurial spirit with clout that it deserves.

What we have here is a camera that aims to overdeliver right now. With most of us just getting our heads around HD, here's a guy trying to put into the hands of an indie filmmaker a tool that will give the film industry a run for their money. And they are scared of HD let alone digital 2 & 4K. Why stop aiming at just HD when we can all aim higher. Who says everyone needs to progress from SD to HD when we can go to from SD to film res?

Here's the dream I see.

I see a camera that can record at the maximum size [4K] and can downsize on the fly out to a smaller file. This means for a feature I could shoot 4k. Down res to 1080 for manageability. Cut my film in 1080 and then if someone wants me to do a blow up, not only do I have a HD version for TV dsitribution, but I could actually say, ok here is the EDL and here is all the footage in their 4k size, lets do a conform up at a post house with that and hey presto its a bigger delivery that will look even better.

I could shoot 4k for effects enabling more options in terms of blowing up cropping, compositing etc. I then output the shots at HD res and cut it into my picture. And I have the effects shots ready to render out to 4k when that film distributer comes-a-knocking.

I could shoot 2k or 4k for video libraries and immediately have more to offer than HDV, DVCPROHD and HD.

And I can take advantage of it now.

I don't have a lot of money and so I have to think for flexibility in all my purchases. They have to last longer than I need them to.

I already want a HVX with a 35mm converter and then to buy some prime Arri or Cooke glass. When that lot could cost me about £6000-£10,000 and take up a lot of infront of the camera's fixed lense I'm ready to talk alternatives. If there aren't any then I'm with the HVX. But There is and it could be RED.

I want a camera that can I can use for the next 10-20 years. One that grows old and battered like the Arri's you see being used over and over again that are 10-30 years old.

I want to develop with this camera, and as I develop, upgrade it over and over again.

I want to be able to use quality glass - prime lenses to maximise what I can achieve. I want the results of film in an instant. I want flexibility like the HVX in terms of workflow.

And what if you could swap out the CCD later [yourself or at a dealership] for an 8K one then OMG this thing wil run forever. This isn't even needed but if you could upgrade within what you have then everyone else is left for dead.

And the rumors and speculation flying around suggest that this is possible with RED. O.M.F.G

I started this entry with the line 'This RED camera really excites me.' What I should have said is 'This whole venture excites and inspires me.'

The dream I see, is me standing behind a camera with a nice piece of glass bolted onto it, a matte box to die for, directing from behind the camera. I've never been able to recognise the camera I see. What if that camera was a RED. More importantly what if that camera was a 15 year old RED that I never part with. Lets see the camera so I can see if that's in my dream.

For now the HVX is on hold.

Thanks,
Richard
[Majormorgan]

[oneinfiniteloop]

You have some very good points in your post, and it is very much all of our's dream (or at least mine). Liberation from the "system" that holds us in place would be excellent.


I want a camera that can I can use for the next 10-20 years. One that grows old and battered like the Arri's you see being used over and over again that are 10-30 years old.

This quote interested me, though. Considering film cameras/technology is almost a century old, we have to put this in perspective. These Arri's that are "being used over and over again" took 70 years plus to get there. It was developed over time.

Now, look at digital video in cinema. Yeah, it's gaining more ground, but it has not broken through, per se. High end video technology is only 30 or so years old (not an exact number) so it's still young compared to film techology. Also, there are inherent problems with digital video technology that is has to overcome that film never had to deal with.

But, I stay optimistic, I'm not ciritzing you in any way. Hopefully Jim and the RED stay true to Moore's Law and makes this ideal a reality. We are definately standing at a nexus in technology, and that coupled with some artful storytelling and independent spirit has the potential to change the world.

Andrew

[Stephen W]

It's a point that's always interested me 'cause, as majormorgan says, film cameras last (because the technological advances are largely in the film stock so they stay compatible). With the ways electronic technology advances though, I'm not sure a Red camera would still be a viable system in 20 years regardless of how modular it is to start with.

Digital Video in cinema probably won't break through until the Cinemas themselves convert to Digital Projection technology (and there's all sorts of reasons they don't want to). But once that happens, the major market for film stock (distribution) will be gone so Fuji, Kodak et al will stop producing film for us to use, at which point everyone will go digital.

In the meantime, and taking up a point that's been made on several occassions, the quality of the picture matters a helluva lot to me. Essentially what Red does is put the quality of my picture (if shot right) ahead of stuff like Star Wars, making my films a lot more attractive to distributors and not out-of-place in the cinema.

[AshG]

The "system" has nothing to do with cameras or resolution. It is politics and marketing. Even if you made an awesome movie, you have to market it. More affordable cameras are but a small piece of the puzzle. That being said, I am looking forward to this camera...


ash =o)

[Emanuel]

The point of RED is that the system will be modular and give you options. If you don't require (or can't handle) 4:4:4 4K footage from the get go, you don't have to invest in it. And if you work in the 1080 realm you certainly don't need $60K+ worth of gear to edit the footage. Given the fact that the camera is promising 35mm DOF and 60p even for 1080 content, there are plenty of reasons to be interested in the camera even if you aren't interested in the "best specs" that the camera can squeeze out. Jim even made mention on a another thread that there's a possibility that the sensor itself can even be replaced and/or upgraded. That means that even down to the core of the imager, you choose the parts that are applicable (and financially reasonable) for your situation.

I know that for whatever reason you're intent on assuming this camera is going to cost $50K+ (as much as others think it's going to be $10K and others still think it might go as high as $100K or more), but besides the fact that everyones' guesses are complete speculation and aren't really productive in the first place, I think that what the system is going to offer are choices, flexibility, and functionality, and it will cost whatever you can afford to outfit your particular RED system with.Well said my friend. And this it already means a revolution!

[Emanuel]

Jim is not a common business man. As his contemporary Richard Branson (Virgin) made with the (at least) european air flights (and also with his music label -- so that's the example) and Hughes had already done before with the transatlantic flights to everybody, it came the history's time to James Jannard (or thus let me believe 'til next Monday! -- I'm just kidding :) 'cause it's enough to follow his profile to see who is himself as entrepreneur).